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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments (Applicant’s Remarks pages 11-12) asserts that the modification of prior art reference US 20090009069 A1 (Takata) in view of US 20190140038 A1 (Lee et al) presented in the Office action mailed 10/29/2025 was improper. Applicant cites passages of Takata which discuss the coverage performance of the film formation method of the electrode 320, and further asserts that it is an intentional design choice of Takata to have electrode 320 cover side surfaces of partition wall 350 rather than an incidental result, and that Takata appears to teach away from the proposed modification in view of Lee which provides “a remaining counter electrode on the separator, wherein the remaining counter electrode does not cover the side surface of the separator”, due to the sputtering conditions of Takata illustrating side surfaces of the partition wall 350 being covered in Takata. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Nether of ¶ [0063 or 0070] of Takata state that forming electrode 320 on side surfaces of partition wall 350 is a feature of particular importance to the function of their device, instead emphasizing that electrode 320 ought to be formed such that it can contact auxiliary wiring 340. The higher coverage performance of electrode 320’s deposition relative to organic layer 310’s deposition allows for this, regardless of whether or not electrode 320 is formed on side surfaces of partition wall 350. There is no indication in the cited passages of Takata that electrode 320 being formed on side surfaces of partition wall 350 is necessary for the connection to auxiliary wiring 340. Further, the disclosure of Lee teaches a configuration wherein their electrode CAT maintains contact with the auxiliary electrode AE, while also further including protective layer PAS2, which protects the OLED structure from external contaminants, which may improve the device’s lifetime (Lee ¶ [0089]). A person of ordinary skill in the art could have found the benefit of including the protective layer while maintaining the electrical contact to the auxiliary electrode a desirable configuration to improve the OLED device’s lifetime.
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).
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.
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. 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 claim 2, Takata in view of Lee 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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).
Cited Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US patents US 12557482 B2 and US 12538664 B2.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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