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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/17/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments (Applicant’s Remarks pages 7-8) that the limitations of amended claim 1 are not taught or obviously suggested by the prior art of record are acknowledged. The new limitations “the separator entirely surrounds each of the first opening and the second opening in the plan view, and the connection electrode entirely surrounds each of the first opening and the second opening in the plan view” were emphasized as not being disclosed by the prior art, specifically US 20090009069 A1 (Takata) and US 20190140038 A1 (Lee et al).
However, further search and consideration have found that Takata suggests that the claimed configuration is known and acceptable (Takata ¶ [0059-0061]), and US 20230240126 A1 (Mimura et al) and US 20190237527 A1 (Lee et al) illustrate elements of the claimed configuration in detail, clearly indicating that the claimed configuration is known in the art.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-13 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent publications US 20090009069 A1 (Takata) in view of US 20190140038 A1 (Lee et al hereinafter Lee), US 20230240126 A1 (Mimura et al hereinafter Mimura), and US 20190237527 A1 (Lee et al hereinafter Lee 2).
Regarding claim 1, Takata discloses a display apparatus (the display apparatus of FIG. 1 ¶ [0029]) comprising: a first pixel electrode (FIG. 1, the labeled pixel electrode 300 in the center of the figure ¶ [0040]) and a second pixel electrode (FIG. 1, a non-labeled pixel electrode on the right edge of the figure; it is stated that a plurality of organic EL devices are in the display apparatus ¶ [0040]) spaced apart from each other on a substrate (FIG. 1, the pixel electrodes are spaced apart and are on substrate 101 ¶ [0040]); a pixel defining layer (FIG. 1, pixel isolation films 330 ¶ [0040]) having a first opening exposing a central portion of the first pixel electrode (FIG. 1, pixel isolation films 330 open up to expose part of pixel electrode 300) and a second opening exposing a central portion of the second pixel electrode (FIG. 1, pixel isolation films 330 open up to expose part of the unlabeled pixel electrode on the right edge of the figure); a separator (FIG. 1, partition wall 350 is located above pixel isolation 330 ¶ [0041]) above the pixel defining layer and, in a plan view, between the first opening and the second opening (FIG. 1, partition wall 350 is located between the openings in pixel isolation films 330), wherein a side surface of the separator includes a reversely tapered inclined surface (FIG. 1, partition wall 350 has an inversely tapered sidewall at each of the sides shown in the cross section, forming “shadows” ¶ [0053]); a connection electrode (FIG. 1, auxiliary wiring 340 is between pixel isolation 330 and partition wall 350 ¶ [0040-0041]) between the pixel defining layer and the separator;
a first intermediate layer (FIG. 1, organic layer 310 located on the labeled pixel electrode 300 ¶ [0040]) on the first pixel electrode; a second intermediate layer (FIG. 1, unlabeled organic layer located on the unlabeled pixel electrode at the right edge of the figure ¶ [0040]) on the second pixel electrode and spaced apart from the first intermediate layer (FIG. 1, the two organic layers are spaced apart); a first counter electrode (FIG. 1, second electrode 320 ¶ [0040]) on the first intermediate layer and electrically connected to the connection electrode (FIG. 1, second electrode 320 is on organic layer 310 and electrically connects to auxiliary wiring 340 ¶ [0041]); and a second counter electrode (FIG. 1, unlabeled second electrode located on the unlabeled organic layer at the right edge of the figure ¶ [0040]) on the second intermediate layer, spaced apart from the first counter electrode, and electrically connected to the connection electrode (FIG. 1, second electrode 320 and the unlabeled second electrode at the right edge of the figure are spaced apart, and the unlabeled second electrode electrically connects to auxiliary wiring 340 ¶ [0041]); and a remaining counter electrode on the separator (FIG. 1, part of second electrode 320 is formed on partition wall 350 ¶ [0070]).
Takata does not further disclose that the remaining counter electrode does not cover the side surface of the separator, the separator entirely surrounds each of the first opening and the second opening in the plan view, and the connection electrode entirely surrounds each of the first opening and the second opening in the plan view.
However, Lee discloses a display apparatus (the display apparatus of FIGS. 4-5 ¶ [0029-0030]) wherein a remaining counter electrode (FIGS. 4-5, a portion of cathode CAT located on barrier BR, which is formed by a sputtering process ¶ [0055, 0098]) does not cover a side surface (FIG. 5, both of the two side surfaces of barrier BR are not covered by cathode CAT; incidentally, they have the same reverse-taper shape as partition wall 350 of Takata FIG. 1) of a separator (FIG. 5, barrier BR ¶ [0095]). Lee further discloses a protective layer (FIGS. 4-5, protective layer PAS2) which is used to protect the OLED against contamination and improve its lifetime (¶ [0089]). Since both Takata and Lee form their counter electrodes via a sputtering process (Takata ¶ [0049] and Lee ¶ [0098]), a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the sputtering conditions of Takata in view of Lee such that the remaining counter electrode does not cover the side surface of the separator, so that a protective material can be deposited fully covering the upper pixel electrodes as shown by Lee.
Takata and Lee both pertain to the field of display devices, placing them in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the sputtering conditions of Takata in view of Lee such that the remaining counter electrode does not cover the side surface of the separator, so that a protective material can be deposited fully covering the upper pixel electrodes as shown by Lee, in order to protect the OLED against contamination and improve its lifetime as was taught by Lee.
Regarding the limitations “the separator entirely surrounds each of the first opening and the second opening in the plan view, and the connection electrode entirely surrounds each of the first opening and the second opening in the plan view”, Takata does not illustrate the plan view of an embodiment where this is the case. Takata does however describe that a non-illustrated embodiment where the partition/separator is formed in a continuous or single partition wall between the pixels is acceptable (¶ [0059]), and suggests that it is possible for partitions to be formed in both X and Y directions (“at least one of” may be inclusive of both ¶ [0061]).
Additionally, Mimura discloses a display device (the device of FIG. 2) which includes a plurality of openings (FIG. 2, apertures AP1/AP2/AP3 ¶ [0037]) and a separator (FIG. 2, partition 6 ¶ [0037-0038]) where the separator entirely surrounds each of the first opening and the second opening in the plan view (FIG. 2, partition 6 surrounds each of apertures AP1/AP2/AP3). Furthermore, Lee 2 discloses a pair of embodiments for display devices (the embodiments of FIGS. 5 and 6) wherein one embodiment illustrates a connection electrode configuration (FIG. 6, auxiliary electrode 130 ¶ [0068]) where the auxiliary electrode is in a plurality of stripe shapes (FIG. 6, ¶ [0102]; this is analogous to the stripe shape configuration illustrated in Takata FIG. 10), and another embodiment where the connection electrode entirely surrounds each of the first opening and the second opening (FIG. 5, auxiliary electrode 130 has a mesh shape that entirely surrounds pixel openings OP1 ¶ [0099-0101]) in the plan view, indicating that the two connection electrode configurations are both known and interchangeable.
Takata, Lee, Mimura, and Lee 2, all pertain to the field of display devices, placing them in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the device of Takata and Lee further in view of Mimura and Lee 2 such that the separator entirely surrounds each of the first opening and the second opening in the plan view, and the connection electrode entirely surrounds each of the first opening and the second opening in the plan view, both because Takata discussed such a configuration as suitable for implementation in their device, and Mimura and Lee 2 together demonstrate that having the separator and connection electrode entirely surround each of the openings in a plan view is an interchangeable alternative known in the art which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious to implement, as was suggested in Takata.
Regarding claim 2, Takata in view of Lee, Mimura, and Lee 2 discloses the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above and Takata further discloses that in the plan view, a width of a portion of the first counter electrode overlapping the connection electrode (FIG. 1, the portion of second electrode 320 that overlaps auxiliary wiring 340) is greater than a width of a portion of the first intermediate layer overlapping the connection electrode (FIG. 1, the portion of organic layer 310 that overlaps auxiliary wiring 340 is less wide than the portion of second electrode 320 that overlaps auxiliary wiring 340).
Regarding claim 3, Takata in view of Lee, Mimura, and Lee 2 discloses the limitations of claim 2 as detailed above and Takata further discloses that the connection electrode is in contact with the first counter electrode (FIG. 1, second electrode 320 contacts auxiliary wiring 340 ¶ [0041]).
Regarding claim 4, Takata in view of Lee, Mimura, and Lee 2 discloses the limitations of claim 3 as detailed above and Takata further discloses that in the plan view, a width of a portion of the second counter electrode (FIG. 1, the portion of unlabeled second electrode that overlaps the right edge of auxiliary wiring 340) overlapping the connection electrode is greater than a width of a portion of the second intermediate layer overlapping the connection electrode (FIG. 1, the portion of unlabeled organic layer that overlaps the right edge of auxiliary wiring 340 is less wide than the portion of unlabeled second electrode that overlaps the right edge of auxiliary wiring 340).
Regarding claim 5, Takata in view of Lee, Mimura, and Lee 2 discloses the limitations of claim 4 as detailed above and Takata further discloses that the connection electrode is in contact with the second counter electrode (FIG. 1, unlabeled second electrode contacts right edge of auxiliary wiring 340 ¶ [0041]).
Regarding claim 6, Takata in view of Lee, Mimura, and Lee 2 discloses the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above and Takata further discloses a remaining counter electrode on the separator (FIG. 1, part of second electrode 320 is formed on partition wall 350 ¶ [0070]).
Regarding claim 7, Takata in view of Lee, Mimura, and Lee 2 discloses the limitations of claim 6 as detailed above and Takata further discloses that the first counter electrode, the second counter electrode, and the remaining counter electrode comprise a same material (second electrode 320 is formed across the device by a sputtering process, therefore each of the portions of the second electrode comprise a same material ¶ [0070]).
Regarding claim 8, Takata in view of Lee, Mimura, and Lee 2 discloses the limitations of claim 6 as detailed above and Takata further discloses a remaining intermediate layer (FIG. 1, a portion of organic layer 310 is on partition wall 350, and under second electrode 320 ¶ [0062]) between the separator and the remaining counter electrode.
Regarding claim 9, Takata in view of Lee, Mimura, and Lee 2 discloses the limitations of claim 8 as detailed above and Takata further discloses that the first intermediate layer, the second intermediate layer, and the remaining intermediate layer comprise a same material (organic layer 310 is formed across the device by a vapor deposition method, therefore each of the portions of the organic layer comprise a same material ¶ [0062]).
Regarding claim 10, Takata in view of Lee, Mimura, and Lee 2 discloses the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above and Takata further discloses that the connection electrode comprises a material different from the first pixel electrode and the second pixel electrode (auxiliary wiring 340 is formed of aluminum ¶ [0049] while second electrode 320 is formed of a different material e.g. indium zinc oxide IZO ¶ [0072]).
Regarding claim 11, Takata in view of Lee, Mimura, and Lee 2 discloses the limitations of claim 10 as detailed above and Takata further discloses that the connection electrode comprises a material having a resistance lower than a material included in the first pixel electrode and the second pixel electrode (the aluminum auxiliary wiring has lower resistance than the IZO second electrode, since aluminum is known to have lower resistance than IZO).
Regarding claim 12, Takata in view of Lee, Mimura, and Lee 2 discloses the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above and Takata further discloses that in the plan view, the separator surrounds the first opening (FIG. 1, the first opening of the labeled pixel electrode 300 is surrounded on each side by the labeled partition wall 350 on its right and an unlabeled partition wall on its left) and the second opening (while not illustrated comprehensively, the second opening of the unlabeled pixel electrode on the far right of the view shown in FIG. 1 is surrounded on each side by the labeled partition wall 350 on its left and a non-shown partition wall on its right; the non-shown partition wall is implied when it is stated that a plurality of organic EL devices are in the display apparatus ¶ [0040]).
Regarding claim 13, Takata in view of Lee, Mimura, and Lee 2 discloses the limitations of claim 12 as detailed above and Takata further discloses that wherein, in the plan view, the connection electrode surrounds the first opening (FIG. 1, the first opening of the labeled pixel electrode 300 is surrounded on each side by the labeled auxiliary wiring 340 on its right and an unlabeled auxiliary wiring on its left) and the second opening (while not illustrated comprehensively, the second opening of the unlabeled pixel electrode on the far right of the view shown in FIG. 1 is surrounded on each side by the labeled auxiliary wiring 340 on its left and a non-shown auxiliary wiring on its right; the non-shown auxiliary wiring is implied when it is stated that a plurality of organic EL devices are in the display apparatus ¶ [0040]).
Regarding claim 16, Takata in view of Lee, Mimura, and Lee 2 disclose the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above, and they further disclose that the remaining counter electrode is spaced apart from the first counter electrode and the second counter electrode (Takata FIG. 1, the portion of second electrode 320 located on partition wall 350 is spaced apart from the portions of second electrode 320 deposited at the pixel openings, particularly in view of the modification based on Lee FIG. 5 to ensure no second electrode material is present on the sidewalls of partition wall 350).
Regarding claim 17, Takata in view of Lee, Mimura, and Lee 2 disclose the limitations of claim 16 as detailed above, and they further disclose that the remaining counter electrode is not electrically connected to the first counter electrode and the second counter electrode (Takata FIG. 1, the portion of second electrode 320 located on partition wall 350 is not electrically connected to the portions of second electrode 320 deposited at the pixel openings, particularly in view of the modification based on Lee FIG. 5 to ensure no second electrode material is present on the sidewalls of partition wall 350).
Regarding claim 18, Takata in view of Lee, Mimura, and Lee 2 disclose the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above, and they further disclose a remaining intermediate layer (Takata FIG. 1, a portion of organic layer 310 is on partition wall 350 ¶ [0062]) between the separator and the remaining counter electrode, wherein the remaining intermediate layer does not cover the side surface of the separator (Takata FIG. 1, the portion of organic layer 310 on partition wall 350 does not cover the side surfaces of partition wall 350).
Regarding claim 19, Takata in view of Lee, Mimura, and Lee 2 disclose the limitations of claim 18 as detailed above, and they further disclose that the remaining intermediate layer is spaced apart from the first intermediate layer and the second intermediate layer (Takata FIG. 1, the portion of organic layer 310 on partition wall 350 is spaced apart from the portions of organic layer 310 that are deposited in the pixel openings).
Regarding claim 20, Takata in view of Lee, Mimura, and Lee 2 disclose the limitations of claim 19 as detailed above, and they further disclose that the remaining intermediate layer is not electrically connected to the first intermediate layer and the second intermediate layer (Takata FIG. 1, the portion of organic layer 310 on partition wall 350 is not electrically connected to the portions of organic layer 310 that are deposited in the pixel openings).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD RHETT CHEEK whose telephone number is (571)272-3461. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30am - 5pm, Every other Friday 8:30am - 5pm.
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, Steven Gauthier can be reached at 571-270-0373. 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.
/E.R.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2813
/STEVEN B GAUTHIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights