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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in
Korea (KR 10-2022-0103165) on August 18, 2022. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers
required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06/27/2023 is being considered by
the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I and Sub-Species V in the reply filed on 12/30/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 4, 6, 8, 12, 14 and 17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species/Sub-Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/30/2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 recites “the second metal layer is comprises an alloy comprising…..”, which redundantly uses two verbs “is” and “comprises” within the sentence. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7, 9-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo et al. (US 20220209069 A1), in view of Shim et al. (US 20190172884 A1), Oshawa et al. (US 20220220105 A1), and Ho et al. (US 20200161249 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Yoo et al. teaches a display device comprising:
a first electrode RME1 and a second electrode RME2 spaced from the first electrode RME1 (Fig. 5: RME1, RME2, paragraph 0102);
a first insulating layer PAS1 on the first electrode RME1 and the second electrode RME2 (Fig. 5: PAS1, paragraph 0116);
a plurality of light emitting elements ED on the first insulating layer PAS1 and on the first electrode RME1 and the second electrode RME2 (Fig. 5: ED, PAS1, RME1, RME2, paragraph 0116);
a first connection electrode CNE1 on the first electrode RME1 and contacting the plurality of light emitting elements ED (Fig. 5: CNE1, ED, RME1, paragraph 0108);
and a second connection electrode CNE2 on the second electrode RME2 and contacting the plurality of light emitting elements ED (Fig. 5: CNE2, ED, RME2, paragraph 0108),
Yoo et al. fails to teach wherein each of the first electrode and the second electrode comprises a first metal layer and a second metal layer on the first metal layer and comprising a different material from the first metal layer, wherein a thickness of the first metal layer is between 100 Å to 300 Å, and wherein a thickness of each of the first electrode and the second electrode is 2600 Å or less.
However, Shim et al. teaches a display device comprising a first electrode 123b and a second electrode 124b, wherein each of the first electrode 123b and the second electrode 124b comprises a first metal layer 123b’, 124b’ and a second metal layer 123b’’, 124b’’ on the first metal layer 123b’, 124b’ and comprising a different material from the first metal layer 123b’, 124b’ (Fig. 3: 123b, 123b’, 123b’’, 124b, 124b’, 124b’’, paragraph 0093-0095).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined the teachings of Yoo et al. and Shim et al. in order to have each of the first electrode and the second electrode comprise a first metal layer and a second metal layer on the first metal layer and comprising a different material from the first metal layer. Doing so would allow for the combination of the best properties of each metal layer (for example, the electrical conductivity of one metal layer and the optical reflectivity of the other metal layer), without comprising one property over another as in the case of a single metal layer, thereby enhancing design flexibility.
Further, Oshawa et al. teaches a display device comprising a first electrode 901 and a second electrode 903, wherein a thickness of each of the first electrode 901 and the second electrode 903 is 2600 Å or less (Fig. 12: 901, 903, paragraph 0312, 0321).
Note that according to paragraphs 0312 and 0321, the thickness of the first electrode 901 and the second electrode 903 is 700 Å and 2000 Å respectively, which lies within the claimed range. According to MPEP § 2144.05 (I), “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, , it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined the teachings of Yoo et al., Shim et al. and Oshawa et al. in order to have the thickness of each of the first electrode and the second electrode be 2600 Å or less. Doing so would optimize the thickness of the electrodes in order to achieve good electrical conductivity with minimal optical losses.
Furthermore, Ho et al. teaches an electronic device comprising a multi-layer electrode 120, wherein a thickness of the first metal layer 121 is between 100 Å to 300 Å (Fig. 1: 120, 121, paragraph 0026).
Therefore, , it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined the teachings of Yoo et al., Shim et al. and Ho et al. in order to have a thickness of the first metal layer be between 100 Å to 300 Å. Doing so would ensure stable adhesion between the first metal layer and the layers underneath, as recognized by Ho et al. (see paragraph 0026).
Regarding Claim 2, Shim et al. teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the first electrode 123b and the second electrode 124b have a taper angle of 25 degrees or less (see Fig. 3: 123b, 124b).
Note that according to Fig. 3, the taper angle of the first electrode 123b and the second electrode 124b is 90 degrees or less, which overlaps the claimed range. According to MPEP § 2144.05 (I), “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding Claim 3, Shim et al. teaches the display device of claim 2, wherein the first metal layer 123b’, 124b’ and the second metal layer 123b’’, 124b’’ have a same taper angle (see Fig. 3: 123b, 124b).
Regarding Claim 7, Yoo et al. teaches the display device of claim 1, further comprising a second insulating layer PAS2 on the plurality of light emitting elements ED, wherein the first connection electrode CNE1 and the second connection electrode CNE2 are on the second insulating layer PAS2 (Fig. 5: PAS2, paragraph 0130).
Regarding Claim 9, Yoo et al. teaches the display device of claim 7, further comprising a third insulating layer PAS3 on the second insulating layer PAS2 and the second connection electrode CNE2, wherein the first connection electrode CNE1 is on the third insulating layer PAS3 (Fig. 5: PAS3, paragraph 0132, 0133).
Regarding Claim 10, Yoo et al. teaches the display device of claim 1, further comprising:
a first wall BP overlapping the first electrode RME1 and a second wall BP overlapping the second electrode RME2 (Fig. 5: BP, paragraph 0104, 0105);
and a bank layer BNL around an area of the display device in which the plurality of light emitting elements ED are located (Fig. 5: BNL, paragraph 0097),
wherein the plurality of light emitting elements ED is between the first wall BP and the second wall BP (see Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 11, Yoo et al. teaches the display device of claim 10, wherein the first electrode RME1 is on the first wall BP, and the second electrode RME2 is directly on the second wall BP (see Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 13, Yoo et al. teaches the display device of claim 1, comprising:
a first conductive layer BML comprising a bottom metal layer BML, a first voltage wiring VL1 and a second voltage wiring VL2 on a substrate SUB on which the first electrode RME1 and the second electrode RME2 are located (Fig. 5: BML, VL1, VL2, SUB, paragraph 0077);
a buffer layer BL on the first conductive layer BML (Fig. 5: BL, BML, paragraph 0078);
a first active layer ACT 1 and a second active layer ACT 1 on the buffer layer BL;
Note that only the active layer ACT1 of the first transistor T1 is shown in Fig. 5 and the active layer of the second transistor T2 is not shown in Fig. 5 (see also Fig. 12 and paragraph 0183).
a first gate insulating layer GI on the first active layer ACT1 and the second active layer (see Fig. 5: GI, paragraph 0082);
a second conductive layer G1 on the first gate insulating layer GI and comprising a first gate electrode G1 overlapping the first active layer ACT1 and a second gate electrode overlapping the second active layer (Fig. 5: G1, paragraph 0079);
Note that only the gate electrode G1 of the first transistor T1 is shown in Fig. 5 and the gate electrode of the second transistor T2 is not shown in Fig. 5 (see Fig. 12 and paragraph 0183).
a first interlayer insulating layer IL1 on the second conductive layer G1 (Fig. 5: IL1, paragraph 0084);
a third conductive layer CTD, CDP2, CDP1, D1, CTS on the first interlayer insulating layer IL1 and comprising a first conductive pattern CDP1, CDP2 contacting the bottom metal layer BML and the first active layer ACT1, a second conductive pattern CTS contacting the second voltage wiring VL2, and a third conductive pattern D1 contacting the first active layer ACT1 and the first voltage wiring VL1 (Fig. 5: CTD, CDP2, CDP1, D1, CTS, paragraph 0085);
and a via layer VIA on the third conductive layer CTD, CDP2, CDP1, D1, CTS, wherein the first electrode RME1 is on the via layer VIA to contact the first conductive pattern CDP1, CDP2, and wherein the second electrode RME2 is on the via layer VIA to contact the second conductive pattern CTS (Fig. 5: VIA, paragraph 0096).
Note that the conductive patterns CDP1 and CDP2 together are interpreted as the first conductive pattern.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo et al. (US 20220209069 A1), in view of Shim et al. (US 20190172884 A1), Oshawa et al. (US 20220220105 A1), and Ho et al. (US 20200161249 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, further in view of Lee et al. (US 20220254813 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Shim et al. teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the second metal layer 123b’’, 124b’’ is comprises an alloy comprising aluminum (Al) (paragraph 0095), but the combination of Yoo et al. and Shim et al. fails to teach the alloy comprises nickel (Ni), and lanthanum (La) and wherein the first metal layer comprises molybdenum (Mo).
However, Lee et al. teaches a display device, wherein the first metal layer comprises molybdenum (Mo) (paragraph 0109), and the second metal layer is comprises an alloy comprising aluminum (Al), nickel (Ni), and lanthanum (La) (paragraph 0126).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined the teachings of Yoo et al., Shim et al. and Lee et al. in order to have the first metal layer comprise molybdenum (Mo) and the second metal layer comprise an alloy comprising aluminum (Al), nickel (Ni), and lanthanum (La). Doing so would ensure efficient charge injection offered by the Molybdenum layer of the electrode and high reflectance offered by the Ni-Al-La alloy layer of the electrode, as recognized by Lee et al. (paragraph 0126).
Claims 15, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo et al. (US 20220209069 A1), in view of Shim et al. (US 20190172884 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Yoo et al. teaches a display device comprising:
a first electrode RME1 and a second electrode RME2 spaced from the first electrode RME1 (Fig. 5: RME1, RME2, paragraph 0102);
a first wall BP overlapping the first electrode RME1 and a second wall BP overlapping the second electrode RME2 (Fig. 5: BP, paragraph 0104, 0105);
a first insulating layer PAS1 on the first electrode RME1 and the second electrode RME2 (Fig. 5: PAS1, paragraph 0116);
a plurality of light emitting elements ED on the first insulating layer PAS1 and on the first electrode RME1 and the second electrode RME2, the plurality of light emitting elements ED being located between the first wall BP and the second wall BP (Fig. 5: ED, PAS1, RME1, RME2, paragraph 0116);
a first connection electrode CNE1 on the first electrode RME1 and contacting the plurality of light emitting elements ED (Fig. 5: CNE1, ED, RME1, paragraph 0108);
and a second connection electrode CNE2 on the second electrode RME2 and contacting the plurality of light emitting elements ED (Fig. 5: CNE2, ED, RME2, paragraph 0108),
Yoo et al. fails to teach wherein each of the first electrode and the second electrode comprises a first metal layer and a second metal layer on the first metal layer and comprising a different material from the first metal layer, and wherein the first electrode and the second electrode have a taper angle of 25 degrees or less.
However, Shim et al. teaches a display device comprising a first electrode 123b and a second electrode 124b, wherein each of the first electrode 123b and the second electrode 124b comprises a first metal layer 123b’, 124b’ and a second metal layer 123b’’, 124b’’ on the first metal layer 123b’, 124b’ and comprising a different material from the first metal layer 123b’, 124b’ (Fig. 3: 123b, 123b’, 123b’’, 124b, 124b’, 124b’’, paragraph 0093-0095), and wherein the first electrode 123b and the second electrode 124b have a taper angle of 25 degrees or less (see Fig. 3: 123b, 124b).
Note that according to Fig. 3, the taper angle of the first electrode 123b and the second electrode 124b is 90 degrees or less, which overlaps the claimed range. According to MPEP § 2144.05 (I), “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined the teachings of Yoo et al. and Shim et al. in order to come up with the claimed invention. Doing so would allow for the combination of the best properties of each metal layer (for example, the electrical conductivity of one metal layer and the optical reflectivity of the other metal layer), without comprising one property over another as in the case of a single metal layer, thereby enhancing design flexibility.
Regarding Claim 16, Shim et al. teaches the display device of claim 15, wherein the first metal layer 123b’, 124b’ and the second metal layer 123b’’, 124b’’ have a same taper angle (see Fig. 3: 123b, 124b).
Regarding Claim 20, Yoo et al. teaches the display device of claim 15, further comprising: a second insulating layer PAS2 on the plurality of light emitting elements ED; and a third insulating layer PAS3 on the second insulating layer PAS2 and the second connection electrode CNE2, wherein the first connection electrode CNE1 is on the third insulating layer PAS2 (Fig. 5: PAS2, PAS3, paragraphs 0103, 0132, 0133).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo et al. (US 20220209069 A1), in view of Shim et al. (US 20190172884 A1), as applied to Claim 15 above, further in view of Oshawa et al. (US 20220220105 A1), and Ho et al. (US 20200161249 A1).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Yoo et al. and Shim et al. fails to teach the display device of claim 15, wherein a thickness of the first metal layer is between 100 Å to 300 Å, and wherein a thickness of each of the first electrode and the second electrode is 2600 Å or less.
However, Oshawa et al. teaches a display device comprising a first electrode 901 and a second electrode 903, wherein a thickness of each of the first electrode 901 and the second electrode 903 is 2600 Å or less (Fig. 12: 901, 903, paragraph 0312, 0321).
Note that according to paragraphs 0312 and 0321, the thickness of the first electrode 901 and the second electrode 903 is 700 Å and 2000 Å respectively, which lies within the claimed range. According to MPEP § 2144.05 (I), “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, , it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined the teachings of Yoo et al., Shim et al. and Oshawa et al. in order to have the thickness of each of the first electrode and the second electrode be 2600 Å or less. Doing so would optimize the thickness of the electrodes in order to achieve good electrical conductivity with minimal optical losses.
Furthermore, Ho et al. teaches an electronic device comprising a multi-layer electrode 120, wherein a thickness of the first metal layer 121 is between 100 Å to 300 Å (Fig. 1: 120, 121, paragraph 0026).
Therefore, , it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined the teachings of Yoo et al., Shim et al. and Ho et al. in order to have a thickness of the first metal layer be between 100 Å to 300 Å. Doing so would ensure stable adhesion between the first metal layer and the layers underneath, as recognized by Ho et al. (see paragraph 0026).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo et al. (US 20220209069 A1), in view of Shim et al. (US 20190172884 A1), as applied to Claim 15 above, further in view of Lee et al. (US 20220254813 A1).
Regarding Claim 19, Shim et al. teaches the display device of claim 15, wherein the second metal layer 123b’’, 124b’’ comprises an alloy comprising aluminum (Al) (paragraph 0095), but the combination of Yoo et al. and Shim et al. fails to teach the alloy comprises nickel (Ni), and lanthanum (La) and wherein the first metal layer comprises molybdenum (Mo).
However, Lee et al. teaches a display device, wherein the first metal layer comprises molybdenum (Mo) (paragraph 0109), and the second metal layer comprises an alloy comprising aluminum (Al), nickel (Ni), and lanthanum (La) (paragraph 0126).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined the teachings of Yoo et al., Shim et al. and Lee et al. in order to have the first metal layer comprise molybdenum (Mo) and the second metal layer comprise an alloy comprising aluminum (Al), nickel (Ni), and lanthanum (La). Doing so would ensure efficient charge injection offered by the Molybdenum layer of the electrode and high reflectance offered by the Ni-Al-La alloy layer of the electrode, as recognized by Lee et al. (paragraph 0126).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20160197192 A1
US 20180122954 A1
US20040041958 A1
US20200161249 A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAMNA F IQBAL whose telephone number is (571)272-1587. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8.30 am - 5.30 pm EST.
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, Kretelia Graham can be reached at 571-272-5055. 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.
/HAMNA FATHIMA IQBAL/Examiner, Art Unit 2817 03/25/2026
/Kretelia Graham/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817 March 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights