CTNF 18/474,791 CTNF 77888 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claims 1 4 and 17 are ob jected to because of the following informalities: Cl aim 14 recites “wherein thickness of the residual…” in line 1 of the claim. The article “a” should precede “thickness” in the claim—i.e., a thickness. Claim 17 recites “…including driving element…” spanning lines 2-3 of the claim. The article “a” should precede “driving” in the claim—i.e., a driving element . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 10 and 14 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 10 recites the limitation "the oxide including indium" in the first line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9, upon which claim 10 depends, recites the nano layer including at least one of indium-tin-oxide and indium-zinc-oxide. Thus, it is unclear which oxide is being referred to by “the oxide including indium” in the claim. For purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets the recitation as reciting the nano layer including at least one of the materials listed in claim 10. The phrase “far less” in claim 14 is a relative phrase which renders the claim indefinite. The phrase “far less” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claim recitation of the thickness of the residual thin layers being far less than a thickness of the nano-particles is rendered indefinite by use of the phrase “far less” in the claim. For purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets a thickness of a residual thin layer less than that of nano-particles to read on the limitation. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-4, 8, and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1)/(a)(2 ) as being anticipated by Kim (US 2019/0348624) . Regarding independent claim 1 , Kim teaches a light emitting display (Fig. 5B, Element 500B; ¶ [0101]) comprising a substrate (Fig. 5B, Element 110; ¶ [0046]) including a first pixel and a second pixel (¶ [0008]); Fig. 5B shows a single pixel, but a light emitting display is inherently comprised of many pixels ); a buffer layer (Fig. 5B, Element 111; ¶ [0046]) on the substrate; a nano layer (Fig. 5B, Element 560; ¶ [0101]) on the buffer layer; an anode electrode (Fig. 5B, Element 131; ¶ [0046]) on the nano layer; and a reflective layer (Fig. 5B, Elements 540B/124; ¶s [0109], [0053]) between the buffer layer and the anode electrode. Regarding claim 2 , Kim teaches the reflective layer (540B) covering the nano layer, and disposed under the anode electrode (Fig. 5B). Regarding claim 3 , Kim teaches the reflective layer (124) disposed under the nano layer and on the buffer layer (Fig. 5B). Regarding claim 4 , Kim teaches a lower conductive layer (Fig. 5B, Element 122; ¶ [0051]) disposed between the reflective layer and the buffer layer (Fig. 5B). Regarding claim 8 , Kim teaches a third pixel on the substrate, wherein there is no nano layer at the third pixel, since a light emitting display inherently comprises many pixels. Regarding claim 11 , Kim teaches the nano layer including a nano-based layer (¶ [0101]); and nano-particles having protrusion shape formed on the nano-based layer (Fig. 5B). Regarding claim 12 , Kim teaches the nano-based layer and the nano-particles including a same material (Fig. 5B). Regarding claim 13 , Kim teaches the nano layer including a plurality of nano-particles, adjacent nano-particles of the plurality of nano-particles having spaces therebetween (Fig. 5A; spaces between convex portions 550a ); and residual thin layers dispersed in the spaces between the adjacent nano-particles (Fig. 5A). Regarding claim 14 , Kim teaches a thickness of the residual thin layers being far less than a thickness of the nano-particles (Fig. 5A). Regarding claim 15 , Kim teaches the residual thin layers including a same material as the plurality of nano-particles (Fig. 5A; same layer ). Regarding claim 16 , Kim teaches a planarization layer (Fig. 5B, Element 513; ¶ [0100]) under the buffer layer. Regarding claim 17 , Kim teaches a driving layer (Fig. 5B, Element 120; ¶ [0046]) disposed between the planarization layer and the substrate, and including driving element coupled to the anode electrode (Fig. 5B). Regarding claim 18 , Kim teaches a bank (Fig. 5B, Element 116; ¶ [0070]) covering edge portions of the anode electrode, exposing central area of the anode electrode, and defining an emission area; an emission layer (Fig. 5B, Element 132; ¶ [0046]) on the bank and the anode electrode; and a cathode electrode (Fig. 5B, Element 133; ¶ [0046]) on the emission layer . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 5-7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2019/0348624) . Regarding claim 5 , Kim teaches the limitations of claim 4 discussed earlier but fails to exemplify the lower conductive layer comprises a transparent conductive material including indium-tin-oxide. Indium-tin-oxide is a well-known conductive material in the art of display devices. Therefore, it would have been an obvious choice of design to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the display of Kim with the lower conductive layer comprising indium-tin-oxide, since it is obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP § 2144.07). Regarding claim 6 , Kim teaches the limitations of claim 4 discussed earlier but fails to exemplify the lower conductive layer comprising a transparent conductive material including indium-zinc-oxide. Indium-zinc-oxide is a well-known conductive material in the art of display devices. Therefore, it would have been an obvious choice of design to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the display of Kim with the lower conductive layer comprising indium-zinc-oxide, since it is obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP § 2144.07). Regarding claim 7 , Kim teaches the limitations of independent claim 1 discussed earlier but fails to exemplify the nano layer including first nano-particles having a first size; and second nano-particles having a second size smaller than the first size. Kim discloses the nano structures being different (¶s [0101], [0109]). Therefore, it would have been an obvious choice of design to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the light emitting display of Kim with the nano layer including first nano-particles having a first size; and second nano-particles having a second size smaller than the first size, since a change in size would not change the performance of the device (MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A)). Regarding claim 9 , Kim teaches the limitations of independent claim 1 discussed earlier but fails to exemplify the nano layer including at least one of indium-tin-oxide and indium-zinc-oxide. It would have been an obvious choice of design to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the display of Kim with the nano layer including at least one of indium-tin-oxide and indium-zinc-oxide, since it is obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP § 2144.07). Regarding claim 10 , Kim teaches the limitations of claim 9 discussed earlier but fails to exemplify the nano layer including at least one of indium-tin-oxide, indium-zinc-oxide, indium-gallium-oxide and indium-gallium-zinc-tin-oxide. It would have been an obvious choice of design to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the display of Kim with the nano layer including at least one of indium-tin-oxide, indium-zinc-oxide, indium-gallium-oxide and indium-gallium-zinc-tin-oxide, since it is obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP § 2144.07) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Koo (US 2015/0380466) teaches an organic light emitting display device with an overcoating layer including a plurality of protrusions. Oh (US 2013/0146878) teaches an organic light-emitting display apparatus with a buffer layer including nanoparticles. Park (US 2013/0001602) teaches an organic light emitting display apparatus with a buffer layer including nano-particles. Jo (US 2012/0138937) teaches an organic light-emitting display device with light-scattering substrate . Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Quarterman whose telephone number is (571)272-2461. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10am-6pm. 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, James Greece can be reached at (571) 272-3711. 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. /Kevin Quarterman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875 28 March 2026 Application/Control Number: 18/474,791 Page 2 Art Unit: 2875 Application/Control Number: 18/474,791 Page 3 Art Unit: 2875 Application/Control Number: 18/474,791 Page 4 Art Unit: 2875 Application/Control Number: 18/474,791 Page 5 Art Unit: 2875 Application/Control Number: 18/474,791 Page 6 Art Unit: 2875 Application/Control Number: 18/474,791 Page 7 Art Unit: 2875 Application/Control Number: 18/474,791 Page 8 Art Unit: 2875 Application/Control Number: 18/474,791 Page 9 Art Unit: 2875