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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s elections without traverse of Invention I and Species A (Claims 1-9) in the reply filed on 05/17/2026 are acknowledged.
Upon further examination, the identified species as set forth in the office action filed 03/18/2026, are found to be obvious variants of each other based on the current record. Accordingly, the restriction requirement between species A-B has been withdrawn. Claim 10 is being examined for patentability.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) based upon an application filed in KOREA on 03/30/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/12/2024 and 02/01/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraphs [0011-0012], [0023], [0167], [0169], [0249] and [0257] recite “the separator overlapping the second pixel defining layer and the first pixel defining layer”, which contradict at least Figure 2 and [0021] and [0164] of the specification disclosing the second pixel defining layer not being overlapped with the separator.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, line 2: “the first layer of the separator is a light emitting display device formed narrower…” should read “the first layer of the separator is
Claim 3, line 2: “the first layer of the separator is formed narrower in width than the second layer” recites a same limitation which is previously recited in claim 2, upon which claim 3 depends.
Claims 4-6 are objected at least by virtue of their dependency on claims 2-3.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites:
“an anode connection electrode” in line 5 of claim 1, and
“an anode connecting electrode” in line 12 of claim 1.
The claim makes reference to both an anode connection electrode and anode connecting electrode. It is unclear whether the electrodes are the same or different elements. The specification appears to refer to this as the same element (CE-An), however, the term is used inconsistently in the claim.
Furthermore, the last clause of claim 1 recites “an anode connecting electrode, the second pixel defining layer, and an anode above the light emitting layer” which appears to be an incomplete clause. It is unclear if the anode connecting electrode and the second pixel defining layer are being positioned relative to the anode or if they were erroneously added to the clause. Thus, claim 1 is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for indefiniteness. For the examination’s purpose, examiner has interpreted said limitation to mean “an anode above the light emitting layer” as supported by at least Figure 2.
Additionally, claims 4 and 5 recite the limitation “a first opening divided by the separator overlapping the second pixel defining layer and the first pixel defining layer”. The limitation contradicts at least Figure 2 and [0021] and [0164] of the specification, which disclose the second pixel defining layer not being overlapped with the separator. Thus, claims 4 and 5 are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for indefiniteness. For the examination’s purpose, examiner has interpreted said limitation to mean “a first opening divided by the separator, overlapping the first pixel defining layer, and the second pixel defining layer” as supported by at least Figure 2.
Claims 2-3 and 6-10 are indefinite by virtue of their dependency on claim 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.
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 1-2 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR20150027486A; Heo Joon Young; (hereinafter “Heo”) in view of KR20150067974A; Jin et al.; (hereinafter “Kim”). See attached patent machine translations.
Regarding Claim 1, Heo teaches a light emitting display device ([0001], OLED), comprising:
a substrate (#100, Figure 6);
a driving element layer (#110, driving transistor) on the substrate and including a transistor and a planarization layer (#130) covering the transistor;
a cathode (#132) and an anode connection electrode (#134, Figure 6, electrode #134 connects to anode electrode #170) on the planarization layer;
a separator (#140a-b) on the planarization layer (#130);
a pixel defining layer (#150) including a first pixel defining layer (#150a-c) on the separator (#140a-b) and a second pixel defining layer (#150b) superimposed with a portion of the cathode (#132);
a light emitting layer (#160-162) on top of the cathode (#132); and
an anode connecting electrode (#134), the second pixel defining layer (#150b), and an anode (#170) above the light emitting layer (#160-162).
Heo does not explicitly teach the second pixel defining layer superimposed with a portion of the cathode and a portion of the anode connection electrode, and the separator includes a first layer and a second layer, wherein the second layer protrudes from the first layer of the separator.
However, Kim teaches a comparable display device ([0001], OLED) comprises a second pixel defining layer (#150, Figure 2, bank) superimposed with a portion of the cathode and a portion of the anode connection electrode ([0070] and [0096], anode #147 and cathode #158, connecting to auxiliary electrode #148, overlap bank #150. Alternatively, #147 can be a cathode electrode and #158 can be an anode electrode, as previously disclosed by Heo, [0090-0091], hence, cathode #147 and auxiliary electrode #148, connecting to anode #158, superimpose bank #150, see Figure 2), and the separator (#153, barrier rib) includes a first layer (#153a) and a second layer (#153b), wherein the second layer protrudes from the first layer of the separator (#153b protrudes from #153a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention disclosed by Heo with the teaching of Kim in order to provide a barrier structure with a lower portion having smaller width that increase the contact area between the top electrode and auxiliary/connection electrode and reduce the internal resistance of the top electrode according to Kim, [0082] or [0091].
Regarding Claim 2, Heo in view of Kim teaches the light emitting display device as described in claim 1, wherein Heo further teaches the first layer of the separator is a light emitting display device formed narrower in width than the second layer (see rejection of claim 1, Heo in view of Kim teaches a partition/barrier structure having the top layer protrude from the lower layer).
Regarding Claim 7, Heo in view of Kim teaches the light emitting display device as described in claim 1, wherein Heo further teaches an auxiliary electrode (Figure 6, portion of electrode #170) on the first pixel defining layer (#150a-c) and the separator (#140a-b) overlapping therewith, and formed of a same material as the anode.
Regarding Claim 8, Heo in view of Kim teaches the light emitting display device as described in claim 1, wherein Heo further teaches a first functional layer (#191) between the light emitting layer and the anode, and comprising a hole transport layer ([0106], when electrode #132 is a cathode, hole transporting layer #191 is between emission layer #192 and anode #170); and
a second functional layer (#193) between the light emitting layer (#192) and the cathode (#132) and including an electron transmission layer (electron transporting layer #193).
Regarding Claim 9, Heo in view of Kim teaches the light emitting display device as described in claim 1.
Heo does not explicitly teach the second layer of the separator is an inorganic insulating layer, and the first layer is an organic insulating layer.
However, Kim teaches a second layer of the separator is an inorganic insulating layer, and a first layer is an organic insulating layer ([0181], Figure 7, partition #353 comprises inorganic insulating upper layer #353b and organic insulating lower layer #353a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention disclosed by Heo with the teaching of Kim for reason set forth in rejection of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 10, Heo in view of Kim teaches the light emitting display device as described in claim 1.
Heo does not explicitly teach the second layer of the separator is an inorganic insulating layer, and the first layer is an inorganic insulating layer having an etching rate different from the second layer.
However, Kim teaches a second layer of the separator is an inorganic insulating layer, and a first layer is an inorganic insulating layer having an etching rate different from the second layer ([0018], partition comprises an upper and lower layers of inorganic insulating material having different etching rate).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention disclosed by Heo with the teaching of Kim for reason set forth in rejection of claim 1.
Claim 3-6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heo in view of Kim, and further in view of US20210217829A1; Minghung Hsu; (hereinafter “Hsu”).
Regarding Claim 3, Heo in view of Kim teaches the light emitting display device as described in claim 2, wherein Heo further teaches the first layer of the separator is formed narrower in width than the second layer (see rejection of claim 1).
Heo in view of Kim does not teach the first pixel defining layer has a width narrower than the second layer and the first layer of the separator overlapping the first pixel defining layer.
However, Hsu teaches a comparable display device ([0004], OLED), comprising a first pixel defining layer (#20a, Figure 1, sub-layer of pixel definition layer #20) has a width narrower than the second layer and the first layer of the separator ([0054], layer #20b of insulating material) overlapping the first pixel defining layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention disclosed by Heo in view of Kim with the teaching of Hsu, as it would be a simple substitution of one known element (configuration of Heo) for another (configuration of Kim) to obtain predictable results (formation of pixel definition layer and insulating structure in comparable display devices). See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding Claim 4, Heo in view of Kim and Hsu teaches the light emitting display device as described in claim 3, wherein Heo further teaches the light emitting layer (#160-2, Figure 6 of Heo annotated) is positioned in a first opening (#OP1) divided by the separator (#140a-b) overlapping the second pixel defining layer and the first pixel defining layer (#140a-b overlaps bank #150a-c, see also 112(b) rejection of claim 4 above).
PNG
media_image1.png
700
1245
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5, Heo in view of Kim and Hsu teaches the light emitting display device as described in claim 4, wherein Heo further teaches the anode (#170, Figure 6 of Heo annotated) is connected to the anode connection electrode (#134) through a second opening (#OP2) divided by the separator (#140a-b) overlapping the second pixel defining layer and the first pixel defining layer (#140a-b overlaps bank #150a-c, see also 112(b) rejection of claim 4 above).
Regarding Claim 6, Heo in view of Kim and Hsu teaches the light emitting display device as described in claim 5, wherein Heo further teaches the second pixel defining layer (#150b, Figure 6 of Heo annotated) is between the first opening (#OP1) and the second opening (#OP2).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US20160043341A1 – Figures 2-3
KR20210084877A – Figure 9
US20210351373A1 – Figure 8
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIEN TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6967. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:00 am - 6:00 pm ET.
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, CHRISTINE S KIM can be reached on (571)272-8458. 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.
/TIEN TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2812
/CHRISTINE S. KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights