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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-13 in the reply filed on August 08th, 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.03(a)). Non-elected invention of Group II, claims 14-16 have been withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-16 are pending.
Action on merits of claims 1-13 as follows.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 01/24/2024 are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choung (US 2022/0077251, hereinafter as Chou ‘251) in view of Furuta (US 2018/0151830, hereinafter as Furu ‘830).
Regarding Claim 1, Chou ‘251 teaches a display device comprising:
`a lower electrode (Fig. 1A, (104); [0027]);
a rib (Fig. 1A, (126); [0027]) which covers a part of the lower electrode (104) and comprises a pixel aperture overlapping the lower electrode (104);
an upper electrode (Fig. 1A, (114); [0032]) which faces the lower electrode (104); and
an organic layer (Fig. 1A, (112); [0029]) which is provided between the lower electrode (104) and the upper electrode (114) and emits light based on a potential difference between the lower electrode and the upper electrode, wherein the lower electrode (104) includes: a metal layer (see para. [0027]) comprising a first peripheral portion covered with the rib (126), and a first central portion exposed from the rib through the pixel aperture; and
a conductive oxide layer (e.g. ITO, (202); [0033]) comprising a second peripheral portion located on the rib (126) (see Fig. 4J), and
Chou ‘251 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “a second central portion which is in contact with the first central portion through the pixel aperture”.
Furu ‘830 teaches a second central portion (Fig. 6, (152); [0024] and [0033]) which is in contact with the first central portion (32; [0024]) through the pixel aperture.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Chou ‘251 by having a second central portion which is in contact with the first central portion through the pixel aperture in order to suppress occurrence of resolution lowering and/or color mixture of a display device (see para. [0004]) as suggested by Furu ‘830.
Regarding Claim 11, Chou ‘251 teaches a display device comprising:
`a lower electrode (Fig. 1A, (104); [0027]);
a rib (Fig. 1A, (126); [0027]) which covers a part of the lower electrode (104) and comprises a pixel aperture overlapping the lower electrode (104);
an upper electrode (Fig. 1A, (114); [0032]) which faces the lower electrode (104); and
an organic layer (Fig. 1A, (112); [0029]) which is provided between the lower electrode (104) and the upper electrode (114) and emits light based on a potential difference between the lower electrode and the upper electrode, wherein the lower electrode (104) includes: a metal layer (see para. [0027]) comprising a first peripheral portion covered with the rib (126), and a first central portion exposed from the rib through the pixel aperture; and
a conductive oxide layer (e.g. ITO, (202); [0033]) which covers the first central portion,
Chou ‘251 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “a protective layer located between the lower electrode and the rib; and the protective layer covers the first peripheral portion”.
Furu ‘830 teaches a protective layer (Fig. 6, (151a and 151b); [0055]) located between the lower electrode and the rib; and the protective layer covers the first peripheral portion (31; [0055]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Chou ‘251 by having a protective layer located between the lower electrode and the rib; and the protective layer covers the first peripheral portion in order to suppress occurrence of resolution lowering and/or color mixture of a display device (see para. [0004]) as suggested by Furu ‘830.
PNG
media_image1.png
512
734
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figs. 1A and 1B (Chou ‘251)
Regarding Claim 2, Furu ‘830 teaches a protective layer (Fig. 6, (151a and 151b); [0055]) which covers the first peripheral portion (31; [0055]).
Regarding Claim 3, Furu ‘830 teaches the rib (16; [0026]) covers the protective layer (15) (see Fig. 8).
Regarding Claims 4 and 12, Furu ‘830 teaches the protective layer (151a and 151b) is thicker than the conductive oxide layer (152) (see Fig. 6; [0034]).
Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select the protective layer is thicker than the conductive oxide layer on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. (see MPEP 2144.07). In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select the protective layer is thicker than the conductive oxide layer in order to improve the performance of organic light emitting display device.
PNG
media_image2.png
18
19
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 5 and 13, Furu ‘830 teaches the protective layer (151a and 151b) surrounds the first central portion (32) (see Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 6, Furu ‘830 teaches the protective layer is conductive (see para. [0033] and [0055]).
Regarding Claim 7, Chou ‘251 teaches the conductive oxide layer (e.g. ITO, (202); [0033]).
Furu ‘830 teaches the protective layer are formed of metal or a metallic compound (see para. [0033]).
Chou ‘251 and Furu ‘830 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the protective layer are formed of ITO, IZO or IGZO”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select ITO, IZO or IGZO material for the protective layer on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. (see MPEP 2144.07).
A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select ITO, IZO or IGZO material for the protective layer in order to improve the performance of organic light emitting display device.
PNG
media_image2.png
18
19
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 8, Chou ‘251 teaches a conductive partition (110A) provided on the rib (126), wherein the upper electrode (114) is in contact with the partition (110A) (see Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 9, Chou ‘251 teaches a conductive lower portion (110A), and an upper portion (110B) which protrudes from a side surface of the lower portion (110A) (see Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 10, Chou ‘251 and Furu ‘830 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the conductive oxide layer is partly located on the upper portion”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to have the conductive oxide layer is partly located on the upper portion on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. (see MPEP 2144.07). A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have the conductive oxide layer is partly located on the upper portion in order to improve the performance of organic light emitting display device.
PNG
media_image2.png
18
19
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following patents are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to semiconductor devices:
Hishinuma et al. (US 2022/0384749 A1)
Abe (US 2019/0326553 A1)
Takata (US 2009/0009069 A1)
Birnstock et al. (US 2004/0180457 A1)
Codama et al. (US 2002/0014836 A1)
For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DZUNG T TRAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-3911. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8 AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sue Purvis can be reached on (571) 272-1236. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DZUNG TRAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893