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
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s election, without traverse, of Group I, claims 1-11 in the reply filed on December 16th, 2025 is acknowledged. Non-elected invention of Group II, claims 12-23 have been withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-23 are pending.
Action on merits of Group I, claims 1-11 as follows.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 22nd, 2023 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 09/22/2023 are acceptable.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
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 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.
Claims 1 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Cho (US 2021/0202655, hereinafter as Cho ‘655).
Regarding Claim 1, Cho ‘655 teaches a display apparatus comprising:
a substrate (Fig. 2, (100); [0060]);
a transistor (Fig. 2, (TFT); [0060]) on the substrate (100), the transistor comprising a semiconductor layer (Fig. 2, (ACT); [0062]) and a gate electrode (Fig. 2, (GE); [0066]) overlapping the semiconductor layer (ACT);
an auxiliary wiring (VL; [0069]) on the substrate (100) and comprising a first sub-layer (VL2) and a second sub-layer (VL3) on the first sub-layer, the second sub-layer having a tip protruding from a point at where a bottom surface of the second sub-layer meets a lateral surface of the first sub-layer (an undercut; see Fig. 3; [0070]);
an insulating layer (140; [0060]) on the transistor and having an opening overlapping the auxiliary wiring (VL); and
a light-emitting diode (180; [0060]) comprising a first electrode (181), a second electrode (183), and an intermediate layer (EL), the first electrode (181) being on the insulating layer (140) and electrically connected to the transistor (TFT), the second electrode (183) facing the first electrode (181), and the intermediate layer (EL) being between the first electrode (181) and the second electrode (183), wherein the second electrode (183) directly contacts the lateral surface of the first sub-layer (VL2) (see Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
468
754
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 (Cho ‘655)
Regarding Claim 4, Cho ‘655 teaches a thickness of the first sub-layer (VL2) of the auxiliary wiring is greater than a thickness of the second sub-layer (VL3) of the auxiliary wiring, and wherein the lateral surface of the first sub-layer (VL2) of the auxiliary wiring has an inclined surface tapered upwardly (see Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 5, Cho ‘655 teaches the first sub-layer of the auxiliary wiring comprises at least one selected from copper (Cu), aluminum (Al), and wherein the second sub-layer of the auxiliary wiring comprises at least one selected from titanium (Ti) (see para. [0071]).
Regarding Claim 6, Cho ‘655 teaches a third sub-layer (VL1) opposite the second sub-layer (VL3) with the first sub-layer (VL2) therebetween (see Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 7, Cho ‘655 teaches a driving voltage line (Fig. 1, (DL); [0053]) electrically connected to the semiconductor layer of the transistor (see para. [0068]).
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 2-3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho ‘655 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tanaka (JP 2008/135325, hereinafter Tana ‘325).
Regarding Claim 2, Cho ‘655 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “a first conductive material portion and a second conductive material portion separated from each other by the tip of the second sub-layer of the auxiliary wiring, wherein each of the first conductive material portion and the second conductive material portion comprises a same material as a material of the first electrode of the light-emitting diode”.
Tana ‘325 teaches a first conductive material portion (Fig. 4, (10); [0027]) and a second conductive material portion (2’; [0027]) separated from each other by the tip of the second sub-layer (9; [0027]) of the auxiliary wiring, wherein the second conductive material portion comprises a same material as a material of the first electrode of the light-emitting diode (see para. [0027]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Cho ‘655 by having a first conductive material portion and a second conductive material portion separated from each other by the tip of the second sub-layer of the auxiliary wiring, wherein each of the second conductive material portion comprises a same material as a material of the first electrode of the light-emitting diode for the purpose of providing a high aperture ratio of the top emission organic EL display device (see para. [0019]) as suggested by Tana ‘325.
Cho ‘655 and Tana ‘325 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the first conductive material portion comprises a same material as a material of the first electrode”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a material for the first conductive material portion such that the first conductive material portion comprises a same material as a material of the first electrode on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
PNG
media_image2.png
18
19
media_image2.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have the first conductive material portion such that the first conductive material portion comprises a same material as a material of the first electrode when this improves the performance of the display device.
PNG
media_image3.png
180
294
media_image3.png
Greyscale
180
Fig. 4 (Tana ‘325)
Regarding Claim 3, Tana ‘325 teaches the first conductive material portion (10) is on an upper surface of the auxiliary wiring (8/9), and the second conductive material portion (2’) is adjacent to a lateral surface of the auxiliary wiring (see Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 11, Tana ‘325 teaches an insulating layer (3; [0021]) between the substrate (1) and the auxiliary wiring (8/9), wherein the insulating layer has a first portion overlapping the auxiliary wiring and a second portion not overlapping the auxiliary wiring and adjacent to the first portion, and wherein a thickness of the first portion is greater than a thickness of the second portion (see Fig. 3).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho ‘655 as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Im (US 2017/0170246, hereinafter Im ‘246).
Regarding Claim 8, Cho ‘655 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the electrode or the driving voltage line comprises a same number of sub-layers as a number of sub-layers of the auxiliary wiring”.
Im ‘246 teaches the electrode (Fig. 3, (180); [0040]) comprises a same number of sub-layers as a number of sub-layers of the auxiliary wiring (210; [0040]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Cho ‘655 by having the electrode or the driving voltage line comprises a same number of sub-layers as a number of sub-layers of the auxiliary wiring in order to manufacture at the same time by the same process (see para. [0081]) as suggested by Im ‘246.
Regarding Claim 9, Cho ‘655 and Im ‘246 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “a cross-sectional shape of the electrode or the driving voltage line is different from a cross-sectional shape of the auxiliary wiring”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a cross-sectional shape of the electrode or the driving voltage line is different from a cross-sectional shape of the auxiliary wiring on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
PNG
media_image2.png
18
19
media_image2.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have a cross-sectional shape of the electrode or the driving voltage line is different from a cross-sectional shape of the auxiliary wiring when this improves the performance of the display device.
Regarding Claim 10, Im ‘246 teaches the insulating layer (Fig. 3, (172); [0070]) is on the electrode (180), and wherein a portion of the insulating layer (172) overlaps a lateral surface of the electrode (see Fig. 3).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following patents are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to semiconductor devices:
Liu et al. (US 2022/0037616 A1)
Cho et al. (US 2021/0036073 A1)
Lee et al. (US 2018/0151647 A1)
Im et al. (US 2016/0013436 A1)
Park et al. (US 2014/0312323 A1)
For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DZUNG T TRAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-3911. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8 AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sue Purvis can be reached on (571) 272-1236. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/DZUNG TRAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893