DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to amendment filed 3/31/2026.
Claims 1-18 are pending. Claims 3-6, 10-12, and 17-18 have been withdrawn. Claims 1, 7, 9, and 13 have been amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, 7-9, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 reciting “[a] light emitting display device, … wherein edge portions of the auxiliary electrode are melted and connected to the second electrode by passing through the emission layer” lacks clear and adequate written description. There is a lack of clear description in Applicant’s original disclosure on the details of how the melting would result in the edge portions of the auxiliary electrode to be “connected to the second electrode by passing through the emission layer”. This aspect of the claimed invention has not been described with sufficient particularity. The issues of adequate written description may arise when an aspect of the claimed invention has not been described with sufficient particularity such that one skilled in the art would recognize that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Claim 13 reciting “[a] light emitting display device, … wherein an edge portion of the auxiliary electrode not overlapping with the auxiliary line is melted and connected to the second electrode by passing through the second insulating layer and the emission layer” lacks clear and adequate written description for reasons similar to claim 1 as detailed above.
Other claims are rejected for depending on a rejected claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2, 7-9, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 reciting “[a] light emitting display device, … wherein edge portions of the auxiliary electrode are melted and connected to the second electrode by passing through the emission layer” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how is “melted” intended to structurally limit the device claimed. Are the edge portions required to be in melted state in the device structure? If so, how do the edge portions remain “melted” in the device? Under the interpretation that “melted” is directed to a product by process limitation, it is unclear how would the process differentiate the claimed display device from a display device where the edge portions of the auxiliary electrode are connected to the second electrode. It is further unclear how does the process of melting the edge portions of the auxiliary electrode results in the connection to the second electrode by passing through the emission layer. According to Applicant’s disclosure, the auxiliary electrode and the second electrode are separated by the passivation layer PAS and the emission layer EL as deposited. It is unclear how does “melting” of the edge portions of the auxiliary electrode alone, without any modifications to the interposing passivation layer PAS and emission layer EL, result in the edge portions of the auxiliary electrode to be “connected to the second electrode by passing through the emission layer”.
Claim 13 reciting “[a] light emitting display device, … wherein an edge portion of the auxiliary electrode not overlapping with the auxiliary line is melted and connected to the second electrode by passing through the second insulating layer and the emission layer” renders the claim indefinite for reasons similar to claim 1 as detailed above.
Other claims are rejected for depending on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 7-9 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. US 2019/0207168 A1 (Lee).
PNG
media_image1.png
510
834
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In re claim 1, as best understood, Lee discloses (e.g. FIGs. 1-3) a light emitting display device comprising:
a substrate SUB; and
a plurality of pixels disposed on the substrate (¶ 36, one pixel shown in FIGs. 1-3),
each of the plurality of pixels includes:
a first electrode ANO disposed at one portion of the pixel;
an emission layer OL disposed on the first electrode;
a second electrode CAT disposed on the emission layer;
an auxiliary electrode ACT close to the first electrode ANO in the pixel; and
an auxiliary line AC+LS (¶ 40, AC and LS are integral in same layer, ¶ 41) connecting the auxiliary electrode ACT and overlapping with a portion of the first electrode ANO (portion LS of the auxiliary line AC+LS overlaps with ANO, see FIGs 1-2),
wherein edge portions of the auxiliary electrode (e.g. various portions of ACT along the edge contacting CAT) are connected to the second electrode CAT by passing through the emission layer OL (see FIG. 3, the connection being made in an opening OH by passing through the emission layer OL).
The limitation reciting the edge portions of the auxiliary electrode are “melted”, as best understood, directs to product by process limitation which does not render the device claim structurally distinguishable over the prior art teaching the “edge portions of the auxiliary electrode are connected to the second electrode by passing through the emission layer” as claimed. In regard to the product by process language, since a "product by process" claim is directed to the product per se, no matter how actually made, In re Hirao and Sato et al., 190 USPQ 15 at 17 (CCPA 1976) (footnote 3). “[T]he lack of physical description in a product-by-process claim makes determination of the patentability of the claim more difficult, since in spite of the fact that the claim may recite only process limitations, it is the patentability of the product claimed and not of the recited process steps which must be established. We are therefore of the opinion that when the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either section 102 or section 103 of the statute is eminently fair and acceptable. As a practical matter, the Patent Office is not equipped to manufacture products by the myriad of processes put before it and then obtain prior art products and make physical comparisons therewith.” In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972). See also In re Luck and Gainer, 177 USPQ 523 (CCPA 1973); In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324 (CCPA 1974); and In re Marosi et al., 218 USPQ 289 (CAFC 1983). It is the final product per se which must be determined for patentability in a "product by, all of" claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that an old or obvious product, whether claimed in "product by process" claims or not, is not patentable. Note that Applicant has the burden of proof in such cases, as the above case law makes clear. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based upon the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product is made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In re claim 2, Lee discloses (e.g. FIG. 2) wherein the auxiliary electrode ACT includes:
a line connection part (part of ACT in opening AH) connected to the auxiliary line AC+SL; and
an electrode connection part (part of ACT contacting CAT in opening OH, see FIG. 3) extended from the line connection part (part of ACT in AH) to one side of the auxiliary line AC (connection part is extended to the left side of auxiliary line AC in FIG. 2), and connected to the second electrode CAT.
In re claim 7, Lee discloses (e.g. FIGs. 1-2) further comprising:
first lines AC running to a first direction (longitudinal direction in FIG. 1) on the substrate SUB;
a first insulating layer BUF disposed on the first lines;
second lines SL running to a second direction (lateral direction in FIG. 1) crossing the first direction on the first insulating layer BUF;
a thin film transistor ST,DT connected to one of the first lines AC and one of the second lines SL on the first insulating layer BUF; and
a second insulating layer PAS covering the first lines, the second lines and the thin film transistor,
wherein the first electrode ANO is disposed on the second insulating layer PAS and connected to the thin film transistor ST,DT.
In re claim 8, Lee discloses (e.g. FIGs. 1-2) wherein the auxiliary line AC is one of the first lines,
wherein the auxiliary electrode ACT is formed of a same material on a same layer of one of a gate electrode, a source electrode and a drain electrode (¶ 42), and
wherein the auxiliary electrode ACT is connected to the auxiliary line AC via a contact hole AH penetrating the first insulating layer BUF (see FIG. 2).
In re claim 9, Lee discloses (e.g. FIG. 2) wherein the emission layer OL and the second electrode CAT are commonly disposed over the plurality of the pixels (¶ 39), and
wherein the edge portions of the auxiliary electrode ACT are connected to the second electrode CAT by passing through the second insulating layer PAS and the emission layer OL (see FIG. 3, the connection being made in an opening OH by passing through second insulating layer PAS and the emission layer OL).
The limitation reciting the edge portions of the auxiliary electrode are “melted”, as best understood, directs to product by process limitation which does not render the device claim structurally distinguishable over the prior art teaching the “edge portions of the auxiliary electrode are connected to the second electrode by passing through the second insulating layer and the emission layer” as claimed. In regard to the product by process language, since a "product by process" claim is directed to the product per se, no matter how actually made, In re Hirao and Sato et al., 190 USPQ 15 at 17 (CCPA 1976) (footnote 3). “[T]he lack of physical description in a product-by-process claim makes determination of the patentability of the claim more difficult, since in spite of the fact that the claim may recite only process limitations, it is the patentability of the product claimed and not of the recited process steps which must be established. We are therefore of the opinion that when the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either section 102 or section 103 of the statute is eminently fair and acceptable. As a practical matter, the Patent Office is not equipped to manufacture products by the myriad of processes put before it and then obtain prior art products and make physical comparisons therewith.” In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972). See also In re Luck and Gainer, 177 USPQ 523 (CCPA 1973); In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324 (CCPA 1974); and In re Marosi et al., 218 USPQ 289 (CAFC 1983). It is the final product per se which must be determined for patentability in a "product by, all of" claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that an old or obvious product, whether claimed in "product by process" claims or not, is not patentable. Note that Applicant has the burden of proof in such cases, as the above case law makes clear. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based upon the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product is made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In re claim 13, Lee discloses (e.g. FIGs. 1-3) a light emitting display device comprising:
a substrate SUB;
an auxiliary line AC on the substrate;
a first insulating layer BUF on the auxiliary line;
an auxiliary electrode ACT overlapping with a portion of the auxiliary line AC on the first insulating layer;
a second insulating layer PAS on the auxiliary electrode;
a first electrode ANO disposed on the second insulating layer PAS, the first electrode ANO not overlapping with the auxiliary electrode ACT;
an emission layer OL disposed on the first electrode; and
a second electrode CAT disposed on the emission layer, the second electrode CAT covering the auxiliary line AC and the auxiliary electrode ACT,
wherein an end portion of the auxiliary electrode ACT not overlapping with the auxiliary line AC (left side end of ACT not overlapping AC in FIG. 3) is connected to the second electrode CAT by pasting through the second insulating layer PAS and the emission layer OL (see FIG. 3, the connection being made in an opening OH by passing through the second insulating layer PAS and the emission layer OL).
The limitation reciting the end portion of the auxiliary electrode is “melted”, as best understood, directs to product by process limitation which does not render the device claim structurally distinguishable over the prior art teaching the “end portion of the auxiliary electrode is connected to the second electrode by passing through the second insulating layer and the emission layer” as claimed. In regard to the product by process language, since a "product by process" claim is directed to the product per se, no matter how actually made, In re Hirao and Sato et al., 190 USPQ 15 at 17 (CCPA 1976) (footnote 3). “[T]he lack of physical description in a product-by-process claim makes determination of the patentability of the claim more difficult, since in spite of the fact that the claim may recite only process limitations, it is the patentability of the product claimed and not of the recited process steps which must be established. We are therefore of the opinion that when the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either section 102 or section 103 of the statute is eminently fair and acceptable. As a practical matter, the Patent Office is not equipped to manufacture products by the myriad of processes put before it and then obtain prior art products and make physical comparisons therewith.” In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972). See also In re Luck and Gainer, 177 USPQ 523 (CCPA 1973); In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324 (CCPA 1974); and In re Marosi et al., 218 USPQ 289 (CAFC 1983). It is the final product per se which must be determined for patentability in a "product by, all of" claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that an old or obvious product, whether claimed in "product by process" claims or not, is not patentable. Note that Applicant has the burden of proof in such cases, as the above case law makes clear. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based upon the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product is made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In re claim 14, Lee discloses (e.g. FIGs. 2-3) further comprising a planarization layer OC disposed between the second insulating layer PAS and the first electrode ANO, and not overlapping with the auxiliary electrode ACT (at least a portion of ACT is exposed by OC and is not overlapping with OC).
In re claim 15, Lee discloses (e.g. FIGs. 2-3) further comprising a bank BN covering circumference area of the first electrode ANO on the planarization layer OC, and not overlapping with the auxiliary electrode ACT (at least a portion of ACT is exposed by BN and is not overlapping with BN).
In re claim 16, Lee discloses (e.g. FIG. 2) further comprising a light emitting element OLE including the first electrode ANO exposed by the bank BN, the emission layer OL on the first electrode ANO, and the second electrode CAT on the emission layer OL and the first electrode ANO (¶ 39).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Oh, Applicant argues the second electrode CAT is connected to the auxiliary electrode ACT without passing through the organic emission layer OL (Remark, page 2).
This is not persuasive. Oh’s second electrode CAT and auxiliary electrode ACT are electrically connected through an opening OH that passes through the emission layer OL. Therefore, Oh teaches the auxiliary electrode ACT is connected to the second electrode CAT by passing through the emission layer OL.
Furthermore, the limitation reciting the “melted”, as best understood, directs to product by process limitation which does not render the device claim structurally distinguishable over the prior art teaching the claimed connection between the auxiliary electrode and the second electrode.
In regard to the product by process language, since a "product by process" claim is directed to the product per se, no matter how actually made, In re Hirao and Sato et al., 190 USPQ 15 at 17 (CCPA 1976) (footnote 3). “[T]he lack of physical description in a product-by-process claim makes determination of the patentability of the claim more difficult, since in spite of the fact that the claim may recite only process limitations, it is the patentability of the product claimed and not of the recited process steps which must be established. We are therefore of the opinion that when the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either section 102 or section 103 of the statute is eminently fair and acceptable. As a practical matter, the Patent Office is not equipped to manufacture products by the myriad of processes put before it and then obtain prior art products and make physical comparisons therewith.” In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972). See also In re Luck and Gainer, 177 USPQ 523 (CCPA 1973); In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324 (CCPA 1974); and In re Marosi et al., 218 USPQ 289 (CAFC 1983). It is the final product per se which must be determined for patentability in a "product by, all of" claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that an old or obvious product, whether claimed in "product by process" claims or not, is not patentable. Note that Applicant has the burden of proof in such cases, as the above case law makes clear. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based upon the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product is made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YU CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7881. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9AM-5PM ET.
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, WILLIAM KRAIG can be reached on 5712728660. 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.
/YU CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
YU CHEN
Examiner
Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights