DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/21/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-11 and 13-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (US. Pub: 2021/0043705 A1~hereinafter “Lim”) of record in view of Kim (EP: 3496177) of record.
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Lim discloses (in at least figs. 4, 5 and 9H) an organic light emitting diode display device, comprising: a substrate (111) having first and second subpixels (P1, P2); an interlayer insulating layer (115; [0053]) on the substrate and having a trench (T; [0053]) between the first and second subpixels; a first electrode (120) disposed on the interlayer insulating layer in each of the first and second subpixels (see at least fig. 4); a bank layer (125) covering an edge portion of the first electrode (120) and exposing a central portion of the first electrode (see fig. 4); an emitting layer (130) and a second electrode (140) sequentially disposed on the bank layer (125) and the first electrode (120) exposed through the bank layer (125); and a passivation layer (150) disposed on the second electrode; the emitting layer includes a first stack (130a; 131a, 132a, 133a; [0073]-[0074]) on the first electrode (120), a charge generating layer (131b, 132b, and 133b fig. 4; CGL; 130b; see fig. 5; [0073]-[0075]) on the first stack (130a; [0085]-[0086]), and a second stack (130c; [0085]-[0086]) on the charge generating layer (see figs. 4 and 5); and the charge generating layer (131b, 132b, and 133b fig. 4) covers a side surface of the first stack (see fig. 4), and the second electrode (140) covers a side surface of the second stack (see fig. 4) such that the side surface of the first stack and the side surface of the second stack are spaced apart from the passivation layer (see fig. 4).
Lim does not expressly disclose the passivation layer wrapping the emitting layer and the second electrode, wherein the passivation layer contacts a sidewall of the trench, a side of the emitting layer, a side surface of the electrode, and a top surface of the second electrode.
Kim discloses a display device (title; at least fig. 7) comprised of, in part, a passivation layer (271; abstract; fig. 7) disposed on the second electrode (263), and wrapped the light-emitting layer (262) and the second electrode (263), wherein the passivation layer (271) contacts a side wall of the trench (EH1), a side of the emitting layer (262), a side surface of the electrode (263), and a top surface of the second electrode (263) in order to prevent oxygen and/or moisture from penetrating into the light-emitting element layer ([0097]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the organic light emitting diode display device of Lim with the passivation layer teaching of Kim for the benefit of preventing oxygen and/or moisture from penetrating into the light-emitting element layer.
Regarding claim 2, Kim discloses (at least fig. 7) the passivation layer (TFE1) extends to cover a top surface and a side surface of the emitting layer (172) and the second electrode (173) and contacts a sidewall of the trench (see fig. 10).
Regarding claim 4, Lim discloses (in at least fig. 4) the charge generating layer (131b, 132b) and the second electrode (140) at the trench are insulated from each other.
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Lim discloses (in at least fig. 9) an oxidation portion having an insulation property disposed at an approaching portion of the charge generating layer and the second electrode and disposed over the trench ([0186]; i.e. as the insulating layer is heated, it is understood that an oxidation portion is disposed at an approaching portion of the charge generating layer and the second electrode and disposed over the trench).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Lim as modified by Kim does not expressly disclose a thickness of each of the first stack, the charge generating layer, the second electrode at the trench is smaller than a thickness of each of the first stack, the charge generating layer, the second stack and the second electrode at other portion except for the trench.
However, Lim discloses ([0092]) “the charge generating layer 130b has high resistance as its thickness becomes thin in the trench T. Lim further discloses (in at least [0073]) “A width of the trench T may be designed considering a thickness of each of first stacks 131a, 132a, and 133a, charge generating layers 131b, 132b, and 133b and second stacks 131c, 132c, and 133c of the light emitting layer 130 and the second electrode 140.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to consider forming a thickness of each of the first stack of Lim, the charge generating layer, the second electrode at the trench is smaller than a thickness of each of the first stack, the charge generating layer, the second stack and the second electrode at other portion except for the trench, since it has been held that a mere change in the size of a component is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claims 7-5, 16 and 17, Lim as modified by Kim does not expressly disclose a width of the trench is equal to or greater than 0.6 times of a thickness of the emitting layer; and a width of the trench is equal to or smaller than 1.0 μm.
However, Lim discloses (in at least [0078]) “an optimal width of the trench T may be varied depending on a thickness of each of the second electrode 140, the first stacks 131a, 132a, and 133a of the light emitting layer 130, the charge generating layers 131b, 132b, and 133b and the second stacks 131c, 132c, and 133c.” Lim further discloses ([0073]) “A width of the trench T may be designed considering a thickness of each of first stacks 131a, 132a, and 133a, charge generating layers 131b, 132b, and 133b and second stacks 131c, 132c, and 133c of the light emitting layer 130 and the second electrode 140.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to consider forming the width of the trench of Lim equal to or greater than 0.6 times of a thickness of the emitting layer and equal to or smaller than 1.0 μm, since it has been held that a mere change in the size of a component is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claims 9 and 18, the combination of Lim and Kim discloses (in at least fig. 4 Lim; fig. 7 Kim) a thin film transistor (TFT) between the substrate (111) and the interlayer insulating layer (115) in each of the first and second subpixels, and the thin film transistor connected to the first electrode (120); and first, second and third encapsulating layers (271, 272, 273) sequentially disposed on the passivation layer (150).
Regarding claim 11, Lim discloses (in at least fig. 4) the passivation layer (150) is formed through an atomic layer deposition method ([0138]).
Regarding claim 13, Lim discloses (in at least fig. 4) the charge generating layer (131b, 132b) and the second electrode (140) at the trench (T) are insulated from each other.
Regarding claim 19, Lim discloses (in at least fig. 4) the charge generating layer (131b, 132b) contacts a sidewall of the trench (T) and a side surface of the first stack (130a) and the passivation layer (150) contacts a top surface of the second electrode (140).
Lim does not expressly disclose the passivation layer contacts the sidewall of the trench, a side surface of the charge generating layer, a side surface of the second electrode, and a top surface of the second electrode.
However, Lim discloses (in at least fig. 4) a second passivation layer (160) contacts the sidewall of the trench (T), a side surface of the second electrode (140).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to consider forming the two passivation layers of Lim as one, wherein it contacts the sidewall of the trench, a side surface of the charge generating layer, a side surface of the second electrode, and a top surface of the second electrode in order to reduce the manufacturing steps. Also, it has been held that making an old device portable or movable without producing any new an unexpected result involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 20, Lim discloses (in at least figs. 4 and 9) the oxidation portion includes a first oxidation portion which is an oxide of the charge generating layer (131b, 132b) and a second oxidation portion which is an oxide of the second electrode ([0186]; i.e. it is understood this is happened when the insulating layer is heated).
Regarding claim 21, Kim discloses (in at least fig. 7) the passivation layer (271) on the sidewall of the trench in the first subpixel (see fig. 7) and the passivation layer (271) on the sidewall of the trench in the second subpixel are spaced apart from each other (see fig. 7).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1-2, 4-11 and 13-21 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that there must have been some teaching in the prior art to suggest to one skilled in the art that claimed invention would have been obvious.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivation to use the passivation layer teaching of Kim in the device of Lim can be found in Kim ([0097]). Therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant further argues that the combination of Lim and Kim fails to disclose the newly amended limitations.
In response to that argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted in the office action, the combination of Lim and Kim clearly discloses the claimed amendments. Therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELMITO BREVAL whose telephone number is (571)270-3099. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th~ 7:30-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James R. Greece can be reached at 571-272-3711. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
ELMITO BREVAL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2875
/ELMITO BREVAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights