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
This action is responsive to application No. 18417894 filed on 01/19/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO-1449. These IDS has been considered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Election/Restrictions
Applicants’ election without traverse of (Group 1) claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 7/10/2026 is acknowledged.
Allowable subject matter
Claims 7 and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim
(Independent claim 1) but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is an examiner' s statement of reasons for allowance: The closest prior art known to the Examiner is listed on the PTO 892 forms of record. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Choi et al. (US Pat US 2014/0361261 A1).
With respect to dependent claim 7, the cited prior art does not anticipate or make obvious, inter alia, the step of: “the oxide layer comprises: a first oxide layer comprising titanium oxynitride (TiON); and a second oxide layer above the first oxide layer, and comprising titanium oxide (TiOx)”.
Additionally, with respect to dependent claim 9, the cited prior art does not anticipate or make obvious, inter alia, the step of: “an atomic ratio of Cu in the aluminum-copper alloy (Al-Cu alloy) is greater than or equal to about 0.01 at% and less than or equal to about 0.1 at%”.
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 1-4 & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2014/0361261 A1) in view of Okumoto et al. (US 2011/0042703 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1, Choi et al. teach a display device comprising:
a substrate (figs. 2 & 5, element 100 [0038]);
a pixel circuit layer (figs. 2 & 5) above the substrate (figs. 2 & 5), and
comprising at least one thin film transistor (figs. 2 & 5, element TFT [0015]);
and a pixel electrode (figs.2 & 5, elements 111-114 [0057]) above the pixel circuit layer (figs. 2 & 5), and
electrically connected to the thin film transistor (figs. 2 & 5),
wherein the pixel electrode comprises a reflective layer (figs. 2 & 5, element 111, paragraph [0060] discloses first pixel electrode layer made with reflective materials such as silver),
a conductive layer (figs. 2 & 5, element 112, paragraph [0060] discloses second pixel electrode layer made with conductive materials) above the reflective layer (figs. 2 & 5),
and an oxide layer (figs. 2 & 5, element 114 [0057] paragraph [0063] discloses fourth pixel electrode layer made with oxide materials) above the conductive layer (figs. 2 & 5),
Choi et al. do not explicitly teach a ratio of a thickness of the conductive layer and a thickness of the oxide layer is about 1.5:1 to about 2.33:1.
However, Okumoto et al. is a pertinent art which teaches an organic electroluminescence element used for a display device comprises an electrode wherein a ratio of a thickness of the conductive layer (fig. 3, element 122, paragraph [0093] discloses anode metal upper layer comprises conductive materials) and a thickness of the oxide layer (fig. 3, element 13 [0058]) is about 1.5:1 to about 2.33:1 (paragraph [0095] discloses the thickness of the conductive layer is 20 nm or less and paragraph [0064] discloses a thickness of the oxide layer is 0.1 nm to 20, accordingly a ratio of a thickness falls between 1.5:1 to about 2.33:1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display device of Choi et al. to employ a ratio of a thickness of the conductive layer and a thickness of the oxide layer is about 1.5:1 to about 2.33:1 as taught by Okumoto et al. in order to “facilitating optimization of the capacity of top-emission organic EL element” [0092].
Regarding claim 2, Choi et al. as modified by Okumoto et al. teach the display device, wherein the thickness of the conductive layer is greater than or equal to about 20 Å and less than or equal to about 100 Å ([0095] of Okumoto et al.).
Regarding claim 3, Choi et al. as modified by Okumoto et al. teach the display device, wherein the thickness of the oxide layer is less than or equal to about 10 Å ([0064] of Okumoto et al.).
Regarding claim 4, Choi et al. as modified by Okumoto et al. teach the display device, wherein a thickness of the reflective layer (fig. 3, element 121, paragraph [0091] discloses anode metal lower layer comprises reflective material such as silver) is greater than or equal to about 800 Å and less than or equal to about 1,200 Å ([0123] of Okumoto et al.).
Regarding claim 10, Choi et al. as modified by Okumoto et al. teach the display device, wherein the substrate comprises a semiconductor substrate ([0039] of Choi et al.).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2014/0361261 A1) in view of Yamazaki et al. (US 2009/0001375 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Choi et al. teach all the limitations as discussed above.
Choi et al. do not explicitly teach the conductive layer comprises titanium nitride (TiN).
However, Yamazaki et al. is a pertinent art which teaches a display device comprises a pixel electrode (fig. 13B, element 115, paragraph [0145] discloses the pixel electrode 115 is a conducting film and made with conductive materials) comprises titanium nitride (TiN) [0145].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select titanium nitride (TiN) for a pixel electrode layer as shown by Yamazaki et al. [0145], since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the base of its suitability, for its intended use involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2014/0361261 A1) in view of Yamazaki et al. (US 12751135 B2).
Regarding claim 6, Choi et al. teach all the limitations as discussed above.
Choi et al. do not explicitly teach the oxide layer comprises titanium oxynitride (TiON) or titanium oxide (TiOx).
However, Yamazaki et al. is a pertinent art which teaches a display device comprises pixel electrode (fig. 16A, element 111, [column 16 lines 10-25] discloses the pixel electrode 111 is a film having transmitting property and made with oxide materials) comprises titanium oxide (TiOx) [column 16 lines 10-25].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select titanium oxide (TiOx) for a pixel electrode layer as shown by Yamazaki et al. [column 16 lines 10-25], since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the base of its suitability, for its intended use involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2014/0361261 A1) in view of Inoue et al. (US 12575265 B1).
Regarding claim 8, Choi et al. teach all the limitations as discussed above.
Choi et al. do not explicitly teach the reflective layer comprises an aluminum-copper alloy (Al-Cu alloy).
However, Inoue et al. is a pertinent art which teaches a display device comprises a reflective anode (fig. 4, element 42, [column 6 lines 55-60] discloses the reflective anode 42 is made with highly reflective materials) comprises an aluminum-copper alloy (Al-Cu alloy) [column 6 lines 55-60].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select aluminum-copper alloy (Al-Cu alloy) for a pixel electrode layer as shown by Inoue et al. [column 6 lines 55-60], since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the base of its suitability, for its intended use involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Cited Prior Art
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIFUR RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571) 895-1534. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM (Eastern Time). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, GAUTHIER STEVEN B, can be reached on (571) 270-0373. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. 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. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/ARIFUR RAHMAN/
Examiner, Art Unit 2813
/SHAHED AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2813
