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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/28/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 11-17, & 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ohtani (US 6674136).
Regarding claim 1, Ohtani discloses that an electronic device, comprising:
a substrate 100;
a first electrode 122 disposed on the substrate 100;
a first optical adjustment unit 124 & 125 disposed on the first electrode 122, wherein the first optical adjustment unit comprises a metal layer 125 (a transparent conductive film typically ITO) and a first insulation layer 124, and the first insulation layer 124 is disposed between the first electrode 122 and the metal layer 125;
wherein the first electrode 122 comprises a first upper surface away from the substrate 100, and the first optical adjustment unit 124 & 125 has a first opening penetrating the metal layer 125 and the first insulation layer 124 to expose the first upper surface of the first electrode 122; and
a second electrode 128 electrically connected to the first electrode through the first opening of the first optical adjustment unit 124 & 125 (Fig. 1);
wherein a portion of the second electrode 128 is disposed in the first opening (Fig. 1, note: a via portion).
Reclaim 3, Ohtani discloses that the first electrode 122 comprises a first sidewall connecting the first upper surface, and the first upper surface and the first sidewall are covered by the first insulation layer 124 (Fig. 1).
Reclaim 4, Ohtani discloses that the first insulation layer 124 comprises a second upper surface away from the substrate, and a second sidewall connecting the second upper surface, and the second upper surface and the second sidewall of the first insulating layer are covered by the metal layer 125 (Fig. 1).
Reclaim 11, Ohtani discloses that a third electrode and a second optical adjustment unit, the second optical adjustment unit comprises a second insulation layer disposed between the third electrode and the metal layer (more than one pixel and repeating in pixel section 606 in Fig. 6).
Reclaim 12, Ohtani discloses that a passivation layer 238 disposed on the first optical adjustment unit 236 & 237and the second optical adjustment unit (Fig. 1 & 6).
Reclaim 13, Ohtani discloses that a pixel definition layer disposed on the passivation layer and the second electrode, and wherein the pixel definition layer comprises a second opening to expose part of the second electrode (Fig. 15B).
Reclaim 14, Ohtani discloses that a light emitting layer and a fourth electrode, wherein the light emitting layer is disposed between the second electrode and the fourth electrode (Fig. 15B).
Reclaim 15, Ohtani discloses that one of the second electrode and the fourth electrode is an anode, and the other one is a cathode (Fig. 15B).
Reclaim 16, Ohtani discloses that the light emitting layer is disposed in the second opening and disposed on the second electrode, and the fourth electrode is disposed on the light emitting layer (Fig. 15B).
Reclaim 17, Ohtani discloses that an area of the fourth electrode is larger than an area of the second electrode (Fig. 15B).
Reclaim 23, Ohtani discloses that the first electrode is a drain electrode (Fig. 1).
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.
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) 5, 6, 9, 10, & 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohtani (US 6674136).
Reclaim 5, Ohtani fails to specify that a thickness ratio of the first insulation layer to the metal layer is between 2 and 100.
However, notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization.
Before effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a certain thickness ratio of the first insulation layer to the metal layer, because it would have been to obtain a certain thickness ratio of the first insulation layer to the metal layer to achieve less electromagnetic field interferences.
Reclaim 6, Ohtani fails to specify that the thickness ratio of the first insulation layer to the metal layer is between 3 and 50.
However, notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization.
Before effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a certain thickness ratio of the first insulation layer to the metal layer, because it would have been to obtain a certain thickness ratio of the first insulation layer to the metal layer to achieve less electromagnetic field interferences.
Reclaim 9, Ohtani fails to specify that a thickness of the metal layer is between 1 nanometer and 100 nanometers.
However, notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization.
Before effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a certain thickness of a metal layer, because it would have been to obtain a certain thickness of a metal layer to achieve optimize between interference and suitable connectivity.
Reclaim 10, Ohtani fails to specify that a thickness of the first insulation layer is between 10 nanometers and 500 nanometers.
However, notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization.
Before effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a certain thickness of an insulating layer, because it would have been to obtain a certain thickness of an insulating layer to achieve less electromagnetic field interferences.
Reclaim 18, Ohtani fails to specify that a refractive index of the first insulation layer is between a refractive index of the first electrode and a refractive index of the metal layer.
However, notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization.
Before effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a certain refractive index of the first insulation layer, because it would have been to obtain a certain refractive index of the first insulation layer to reduce losing light transmission.
Claim(s) 7 & 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohtani (US 6674136) in view of IKEDA et al. (US 20190189942).
Reclaim 7, Ohtani fails to teach that a material of the metal layer includes titanium, nickel, molybdenum, copper, an alloy thereof, or a combination thereof.
IKEDA suggests that a capacitor electrode can be a material of the metal layer includes titanium, nickel, molybdenum, copper, an alloy thereof, or a combination thereof (para. 0035).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of applicant(s) claimed invention was made to provide Ohtani with a material of the metal layer includes titanium, nickel, molybdenum, copper, an alloy thereof, or a combination thereof as taught by IKEDA in order to enhance variation of materials and also, the claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one know element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Reclaim 21, Ohtani & IKEDA disclose that the first electrode comprises a first metal material, the metal layer comprises a second metal material, and the first metal material and the second metal material are different (Ohtani in view of IKEDA’s para. 0035).
Reclaim 22, Ohtani & IKEDA disclose that the first electrode comprises a first metal material, the metal layer comprises a second metal material, and a refractive index of the first metal material and a refractive index of the second metal material are different (Ohtani in view of IKEDA’s para. 0035).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SU C KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-5972. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 to 5:00.
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, Dale Page can be reached at 571-270-7877. 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.
/SU C KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899
