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 .
Status of the Application
1. Acknowledgement is made of the amendment received on 8/10/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
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 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.
2. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2016/0351093) in view of Sim et al. (US 2021/0332256).
Re claim 1, Kim teaches, under BRI, Figs. 2 & 8, [0056, 0105, 0116, 0118], a display device comprising:
-electrodes (e.g., in pixels RP along sides of DA & electrodes e.g., SE, DE, GE, E1, E2 shown in Fig. 8) spaced from each other in a display area (DA);
-light emitting elements (OLEDs in center RPs) between the electrodes;
-test electrodes (TVP1, TVP2) spaced from each other in a test area (NDA); and
-a test transistor (TT1) electrically connected to the electrodes (in pixels) and the test electrodes (TVP1, TVP2).
PNG
media_image1.png
555
509
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kim does not each the electrodes spaced from each other in plan view; and the light emitting elements between the electrodes in plan view.
Sim teaches, Figs. 2-3, [0059], the electrodes (21, 22) spaced from each other in plan view; and the light emitting elements (30) between the electrodes in plan view.
As taught by Sim, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize & modify the above teaching into Kim to obtain the electrodes spaced from each other in plan view; and the light emitting elements between the electrodes in plan view as claimed, because it aids in achieving desired display device with improved product liability. Further, it has been held that that rearranging part of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Sim in combination with Kim due to above reason.
Re claim 2, Kim does not explicitly teach the electrodes and the test electrodes comprise a same conductive layer.
Sim teaches, Fig. 3, the electrodes (consider 21 in Q2-Q2’) and the test electrodes (consider 21 in Q1-Q1’) comprise a same conductive layer.
As taught by Sim, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize & modify the above teaching to obtain the electrodes and the test electrodes comprise a same conductive layer as claimed, because it aids in achieving cost effective & reducing process steps.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Sim in combination with Kim due to above reason.
Re claim 3, Kim teaches, Figs. 2 & 8, the electrodes (consider SE, DE, Fig. 8) and the test electrodes (TVP1, 2) extend in same direction (vertical direction).
Re claim 4, Kim teaches, Fig. 2, [0061] a first transistor electrode of the test transistor (TT1) is in contact with the test electrodes (TVP1, 2), and wherein a second transistor electrode of the test transistor (TT1) is in contact with the electrodes (in pixel RP).
Re claim 5, Kim teaches, Fig. 2, [0054], a test line (between TVP & TT1 or crack sensing line CD1) connected to the test transistor (TT1).
Re claim 6, Kim teaches, Fig. 2, [0053], signal lines (S1-Sn) connected to the electrodes (in pixels).
Re claim 7, Kim teaches, Figs. 2 & 8, the test line (CD1) and the signal line (S1) are electrically separated from each other (via IL layers).
Re claim 8, Kim teaches, Fig. 2, a test pad (TP1) connected to the test line (CD1 or line between TVP1 & TT1) (via NDA area).
Re claim 9, Kim teaches, under BRI, Fig. 8, [0113], connection electrodes (TL1, 2) on the light-emitting elements (OLED) to be in contact with the light-emitting elements (OLED) (via EN layer).
Re claim 13, Kim teaches, Figs. 2 & 8, a conductive pattern (e.g., S/D of IT1, IT2 or conductive lines) between the electrodes (in pixels RP) and the test electrodes (TVP1, 2) (in vertical/horizontal direction).
Re claim 14, Kim does not explicitly teach the electrodes and the test electrodes comprise a same conductive layer.
Sim teaches, Fig. 3, the electrodes (consider 21 in Q2-Q2’) and the test electrodes (consider 21 in Q1-Q1’) comprise a same conductive layer.
As taught by Sim, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize & modify the above teaching to obtain the electrodes and the test electrodes comprise a same conductive layer as claimed, because it aids in achieving cost effective & reducing process steps.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Sim in combination with Kim due to above reason.
Re claim 15, in combination cited above, Sim teaches, Fig. 3, the conductive pattern (portion of CNE1 in PAS1) is on the electrodes (21, 21) and/or the test electrodes.
Re claim 16, Kim teaches, Fig. 2, one end of the conductive pattern (e.g., conductive line) is in contact with the electrodes (in pixels RP), and another end of the conductive pattern is in contact with the test electrodes (TPV1).
Re claim 17, in combination cited above, Sim teaches, Fig. 3, the electrodes (21, 22) include an open portion (exposed by PAS1) overlapping the conductive pattern (portion of CNE1, 2 in PAS1).
Re claim 18, in combination cited above, Sim teaches, Fig. 3, the test electrodes (CNE1, 2) include an open portion (V portion above OP) overlapping the conductive pattern (of CNE1, 2 in OP).
Re claim 19, in combination cited above, Sim teaches the conductive pattern comprises a material (e.g., Al) [0112] is different from that of the at least one of electrodes (21, 22, e.g., Cu) [0091] or the test electrodes, and wherein the electrodes (21, 22) and the test electrodes (portions of CNE1, 2) are spaced from each other.
Re claim 20, Kim teaches, Figs. 2 & 8, an electronic device comprising the display device (see claim 1 above).
Re claim 10, Kim teaches, under BRI, Figs. 2 & 8, [0056, 0100, 0105, 0113, 0116, 0118], a display device comprising:
-a first electrode and a second electrode (E1, E2 or SE, GE) spaced from each other in a display area (DA);
-light-emitting elements (EL of OLEDs or OLEDs in array, Fig. 2) between the first and second electrodes (E1, E2); and
-a first test electrode and a second test electrode (CD1, CD2, TL1, TL2 of sensing lines/touch lines) spaced from each other in a test area (above OLED),
wherein the first electrode (E1) at least partially overlaps the first test electrode (TL2), and
wherein the second electrode (E2) at least partially overlaps the second test electrode (TL1).
PNG
media_image2.png
692
730
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kim does not each the electrodes spaced from each other in plan view; and the light emitting elements between the electrodes in plan view.
Sim teaches, Figs. 2-3, [0059], the electrodes (21, 22) spaced from each other in plan view; and the light emitting elements (30) between the electrodes in plan view.
As taught by Sim, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize & modify the above teaching into Kim to obtain the electrodes spaced from each other in plan view; and the light emitting elements between the electrodes in plan view as claimed, because it aids in achieving desired display device with improved product liability. Further, it has been held that that rearranging part of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Sim in combination with Kim due to above reason.
Re claim 11, Kim teaches, Fig. 8, the first electrode (E1 or SE) and the first test electrode (TL1) comprise different conductive layers (at different levels).
Re claim 12, in combination cited above, Sim teaches, Fig. 3, wherein the first electrode (21) is in contact with the first test electrode (CNE1) through a contact hole (in PAS1).
3. Claims 1, 10 and 20 are, alternatively, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sim et al. (US 2021/0332256) in view of Kim et al. (US 2016/0351093).
Re claims 1 & 20, Sim teaches, under BRI, Figs. 1-3, [0052, 0059, 0093], an electronic device & a display device comprising:
-electrodes (21, 22) spaced from each other in plan view in a display area (DPA);
-light-emitting elements (30) between the electrodes (21, 22) in plan view;
-test (*) electrodes (CNE1, 2) spaced from each other in a test area (above 30); and
-a test (*) transistor (T1) electrically connected to the electrodes (21, 22) and the test electrodes (CNE1, 2) (within pixel).
Note: “test” = labeling or intended use.
PNG
media_image3.png
466
868
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Sim does not explicitly teach (*) test electrodes & test transistor.
Kim teaches the use of test electrodes (TVP1, 2) & a test transistor (TT1) [0061].
As taught by Kim, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize & modify the above teaching to obtain test electrodes & test transistor as claimed, because it aids in easily detecting cracks and preventing deterioration of the display device.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Kim in combination with Sim due to above reason.
Re claim 10, Sim teaches, under BRI, Figs. 1-3, [0052, 0059, 0093], a display device comprising:
-a first electrode and a second electrode (21, 22) spaced from each other in plan view in a display area (DPA);
-light-emitting elements (30) between the first and second electrodes (21, 22) in plan view; and
-a first test (*) electrode and a second test (*) electrode (CNE1, 2 as contact electrodes) spaced from each other in a test area (above 30),
wherein the first electrode (21) at least partially overlaps the first test (*) electrode (CNE1), and
wherein the second electrode (22) at least partially overlaps the second test (*) electrode (CNE2).
Note: “test” = labeling or intended use.
PNG
media_image3.png
466
868
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Sim does not explicitly teach (*) first & second test electrodes.
Kim teaches the use of first & second test electrodes (TVP1, 2) [0061].
As taught by Kim, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize & modify the above teaching to obtain first & second test electrodes as claimed, because it aids in easily detecting cracks and preventing deterioration of the display device.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Kim in combination with Sim due to above reason.
4. Claims 1, 10 and 20 are, alternatively, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2021/0288104) in view of Kim et al. (US 2016/0351093).
Re claims 1 & 20, Yang teaches, under BRI, Figs. 1-9, [0105, 0123, 0124], an electronic device & a display device comprising:
-electrodes (ELT1, 2) spaced from each other in plan view in a display area (DA);
-light-emitting elements (LD) between the electrodes (ELT1, 2) in plan view;
-test (*) electrodes (CNE1, 2) spaced from each other in a test area (above LD); and
-a test (*) transistor (T1) electrically connected to the electrodes (ELT1, 2) and the test electrodes (CNE1, 2) (within pixel).
Note: “test” = labeling or intended use.
PNG
media_image4.png
442
810
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Yang does not explicitly teach (*) test electrodes & test transistor.
Kim teaches the use of test electrodes (TVP1, 2) & a test transistor (TT1) [0061].
As taught by Kim, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize & modify the above teaching to obtain test electrodes & test transistor as claimed, because it aids in easily detecting cracks and preventing deterioration of the display device.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Kim in combination with Yang due to above reason.
Re claim 10, Yang teaches, under BRI, Figs. 1-9, [0105, 0123, 0124], a display device comprising:
-a first electrode and a second electrode (ELT1, 2) spaced from each other in plan view in a display area (DA);
-light-emitting elements (LD) between the first and second electrodes (ELT1, 2) in plan view; and
-a first test (*) electrode and a second test (*) electrode (CNE1, 2) spaced from each other in a test area (above LD),
wherein the first electrode (ELT1) at least partially overlaps the first test (*) electrode (CNE1), and
wherein the second electrode (ELT2) at least partially overlaps the second test (*) electrode (CNE2).
Note: “test” = labeling or intended use.
PNG
media_image4.png
442
810
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Yang does not explicitly teach (*) first & second test electrodes.
Kim teaches the use of first & second test electrodes (TVP1, 2) [0061].
As taught by Kim, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize & modify the above teaching to obtain first & second test electrodes as claimed, because it aids in easily detecting cracks and preventing deterioration of the display device.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Kim in combination with Sim due to above reason.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Response to arguments on newly added limitations are responded to in the above rejection.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kim et al. (US 2018/0175009, Fig. 18) discloses a light emitting device including light emitting element(s) connecting to transistors on a substrate.
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 DUY T.V. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7431. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7AM-4PM, alternative Friday off.
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, EVA MONTALVO can be reached at (571) 270-3829. 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.
/DUY T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818 9/3/26
Prosecution Insights