DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 25 June 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the prior art of record does not teach light emitting portions on the first electrode and comprising a first light emitting portion defining a first sub-pixel area and a second light emitting portion defining a second sub-pixel area, a partition wall, wherein the partition wall comprises a first layer, a second layer on the first layer, and a third layer on the second layer. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Choung teaches first and second sub-pixel areas 108a and 108b, each of which has a light emitting portion 112 on a first electrode 104, and a partition wall 110 between them which, in the cited embodiments, comprises a first layer 110A, second layer 110C, and third layer 110B (see Figs. 1b, 2b).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to new limitations in claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 1-7, 10-15, 17, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choung et al. (US 2023/0013772 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2022/0223665 A1) and Ide et al. (US 2015/0162563 A1).
With respect to claim 1: Choung teaches “a display device (100) comprising: a pixel circuit layer comprising a base layer (102) and a pixel circuit (104); a first electrode on the pixel circuit layer (anodes; see paragraph 23); light emitting portions (112) on the first electrode (see Figs. 1a, 1b) and comprising a first light emitting portion (see Figs. 1a, 1b) defining a first sub-pixel area (108a) and a second light emitting portion (see Figs. 1a, 1b) defining a second sub-pixel area (108b); and a partition wall (110) between the first light emitting portion and the second light emitting portion (see Figs. 1a, 1b), wherein the partition wall (see Figs. 2b, 4h) comprises a first layer (110A), a second layer on the first layer (110C), and a third layer on the second layer (110B), wherein the first layer has a first thickness, the second layer has a second thickness, the third layer has a third thickness (see Figs. 2b, 4h), and the partition wall has a fourth thickness that is a sum of the first thickness to the third thickness (see Figs. 2b, 4h)”.
Choung does not teach “wherein the first thickness and a thickness of the light emitting portion correspond to each other”.
However, Lee teaches “wherein the first thickness (t7) and a thickness of the light emitting portion (t3+t6+t9) correspond to each other (see Fig. 13, paragraph 162)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Choung by corresponding the first thickness and light emitting portion thickness to each other as taught by Lee in order to prevent the occurrence of an emission efficiency deviation of the display device (Lee paragraph 162).
Choung does not teach “wherein the first light emitting portion contacts both a top surface and a side surface of the first layer and a side surface of the second layer”.
However, Ide teaches “wherein the first light emitting portion (32) contacts both a top surface and a side surface (see Fig. 1) of the first layer (4) and a side surface (6) of the second layer (5)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Choung by extending the first light emitting portion to the side surface of the second layer as taught by Ide in order to prevent cracks from occurring (Ide paragraph 59).
With respect to claim 2: Choung in view of Lee and Ide teaches “The display device of claim 1 (see above)”.
Choung does not specifically teach “wherein a difference between the first thickness and the thickness of the light emitting portion is 0.1 μm or less”.
However, Lee teaches “wherein a difference between the first thickness and the thickness of the light emitting portion is 0.1 μm or less (paragraph 162)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Choung by making the first thickness and light emitting portion thickness equal to each other as taught by Lee in order to prevent the occurrence of an emission efficiency deviation of the display device (Lee paragraph 162).
With respect to claim 3: Choung in view of Lee and Ide teaches “the display device of claim 2 (see above)”.
Choung does not specifically teach “wherein the first thickness is more than half of the fourth thickness”.
However, Lee teaches “wherein the first thickness (t7) is more than half (paragraph 159) of the fourth thickness (t7+t8)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Choung by making the first thickness comprise more than half the total thickness as taught by Lee in order to prevent the occurrence of an emission efficiency deviation of the display device (Lee paragraph 162).
With respect to claim 4: Choung in view of Lee and Ide teaches “the display device of claim 2”.
Choung in view of Lee does not explicitly teach “wherein the first thickness is 0.2 μm to 0.3 μm”.
However, Lee teaches that the fourth thickness ranges from 0.5 μm to1.5 μm (paragraph 25), and Choung and Lee both teach that the first thickness is a fraction of that. In Choung, that fraction is shown to be less than 50% while in Lee that fraction is shown to be greater than 50%. 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); see MPEP 2144.05(I). The "range" disclosed in multiple prior art patents is "a distinction without a difference" from previous range cases which involved a range disclosed in a single patent (Iron Grip Barbell Co., Inc. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 1322, 73 USPQ2d 1225, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see MPEP 2144.05(I)). In the present case the first thickness is deemed to be prima facie obvious due to falling within the range of thicknesses described in Choung and Lee as suitable for the thickness of the first layer of a partition layer of a display device (Choung Figs. 2b, 4h, Lee paragraph 25).
With respect to claim 5: Choung in view of Lee and Ide teaches “The display device of claim 1 (see above)”.
Choung further teaches “wherein the first layer has a first width, the second layer has a second width, and the third layer has a third width, and wherein the first width is greater than the second width (see Fig. 2b)”.
With respect to claim 6: Choung in view of Lee and Ide teaches “The display device of claim 1 (see above)”.
Choung further teaches “wherein at least a portion of the first layer does not overlap the second layer in a plan view (see Fig. 2b)”.
With respect to claim 7: Choung in view of Lee and Ide teaches “The display device of claim 1 (see above)”.
Choung further teaches “wherein the third width corresponds to the first width (paragraph 48; the overhang widths being within about 15% of each other is considered close enough to be reasonably said to ‘correspond’)”.
With respect to claim 10: Choung in view of Lee and Ide teaches “The display device of claim 1 (see above)”.
Choung further teaches “wherein the first layer and the third layer comprise a same metal (paragraph 28), and wherein the second layer comprises a different metal than the first layer and the third layer (paragraph 47)”.
With respect to claim 11: Choung in view of Lee and Ide teaches “The display device of claim 10 (see above)”.
Choung further teaches “wherein the first layer and the third layer comprise titanium (Ti) (paragraph 28), and wherein the second layer comprises molybdenum (Mo) (paragraph 37)”.
With respect to claim 12: Choung in view of Lee and Ide teaches “The display device of claim 1 (see above)”.
Choung further teaches “further comprising a second electrode on the light emitting portions (114), wherein the first electrode is an anode electrode (paragraph 23), wherein the second electrode is a cathode electrode (paragraph 27)”.
Choung does not specifically teach “wherein the second electrode is in contact with at least a portion of the second layer”.
However, Lee teaches “wherein the second electrode (230) is in contact (see Fig. 14) with at least a portion of the second layer (180f)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Choung by making the first thickness and light emitting portion thickness equal to each other, resulting in the second electrode on the light emitting portion being in contact with the second layer on the first layer, as taught by Lee in order to prevent the occurrence of an emission efficiency deviation of the display device (Lee paragraph 162).
With respect to claim 13: Choung teaches “A manufacturing method of a display device (method of making 100), the method comprising: forming a pixel circuit layer comprising a pixel circuit (104) on a base layer (102); patterning a first electrode on the pixel circuit layer (paragraph 23); patterning a partition wall (110) on the pixel circuit layer (see Figs. 1a, 1b); patterning a light emitting portion (112); and patterning a second electrode electrically connected to the light emitting portion (114), wherein the patterning of the light emitting portion comprises patterning a first light emitting portion defining a first sub-pixel area (108a) and a second light emitting portion defining a second sub-pixel area (108b), wherein the patterning of the partition wall comprises depositing a first layer (110a), a second layer on the first layer (110c), and a third layer on the second layer (110b), wherein the first layer has a first thickness, the second layer has a second thickness, and the third layer has a third thickness, wherein the partition wall has a fourth thickness that is a sum of the first thickness to the third thickness (see Figs. 2b, 4h)”.
Choung does not teach “wherein the first thickness and a thickness of the light emitting portion correspond to each other”.
However, Lee teaches “wherein the first thickness (t7) and a thickness of the light emitting portion (t3+t6+t9) correspond to each other (see Fig. 13, paragraph 162)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of making the display device of Choung by corresponding the first thickness and light emitting portion thickness to each other as taught by Lee in order to prevent the occurrence of an emission efficiency deviation of the display device (Lee paragraph 162).
Choung does not teach “wherein the first light emitting portion contacts both a top surface and a side surface of the first layer”.
However, Ide teaches “wherein the first light emitting portion (32) contacts both a top surface and a side surface (see Fig. 1) of the first layer (4)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Choung by extending the first light emitting portion to the side surface of the second layer as taught by Ide in order to prevent cracks from occurring (Ide paragraph 59).
With respect to claim 14: Choung in view of Lee and Ide teaches “The manufacturing method of the display device of claim 13 (see above)”.
Choung does not specifically teach “wherein a difference between the first thickness and the thickness of the light emitting portion is 0.05 μm or less”.
However, Lee teaches “wherein a difference between the first thickness and the thickness of the light emitting portion is 0.05 μm or less (paragraph 162)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Choung by making the first thickness and light emitting portion thickness equal to each other as taught by Lee in order to prevent the occurrence of an emission efficiency deviation of the display device (Lee paragraph 162).
With respect to claim 15: Choung in view of Lee and Ide teaches “The manufacturing method of the display device of claim 13 (see above)”.
Choung does not specifically teach “wherein the first thickness is greater than the second thickness and the third thickness”.
However, Lee teaches “wherein the first thickness (t7) is greater than (paragraph 159) the second thickness and the third thickness (t8)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Choung by making the first thickness comprise more than half the total thickness as taught by Lee in order to prevent the occurrence of an emission efficiency deviation of the display device (Lee paragraph 162).
With respect to claim 17: Choung in view of Lee and Ide teaches “The manufacturing method of the display device of claim 13 (see above)”.
Choung further teaches “wherein the patterning of the partition wall comprises etching the second layer deeper than the first layer and the third layer (see Figs. 2b, 4h)”.
With respect to claim 20: Choung teaches “an electronic device (100) comprising: a pixel circuit layer comprising a base layer (102) and a pixel circuit (104); a first electrode on the pixel circuit layer (anodes; see paragraph 23); light emitting portions (112) on the first electrode (see Figs. 1a, 1b) and comprising a first light emitting portion (see Figs. 1a, 1b) defining a first sub-pixel area (108a) and a second light emitting portion (see Figs. 1a, 1b) defining a second sub-pixel area (108b); and a partition wall (110) between the first light emitting portion and the second light emitting portion (see Figs. 1a, 1b), wherein the partition wall (see Figs. 2b, 4h) comprises a first layer (110A), a second layer on the first layer (110C), and a third layer on the second layer (110B), wherein the first layer has a first thickness, the second layer has a second thickness, the third layer has a third thickness (see Figs. 2b, 4h), and the partition wall has a fourth thickness that is a sum of the first thickness to the third thickness (see Figs. 2b, 4h)”.
Choung does not teach “wherein the first thickness and a thickness of the light emitting portion correspond to each other”.
However, Lee teaches “wherein the first thickness (t7) and a thickness of the light emitting portion (t3+t6+t9) correspond to each other (see Fig. 13, paragraph 162)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Choung by corresponding the first thickness and light emitting portion thickness to each other as taught by Lee in order to prevent the occurrence of an emission efficiency deviation of the display device (Lee paragraph 162).
Choung does not teach “wherein the first light emitting portion contacts both a top surface and a side surface of the first layer and a side surface of the second layer”.
However, Ide teaches “wherein the first light emitting portion (32) contacts both a top surface and a side surface (see Fig. 1) of the first layer (4) and a side surface (6) of the second layer (5)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Choung by extending the first light emitting portion to the side surface of the second layer as taught by Ide in order to prevent cracks from occurring (Ide paragraph 59).
Claims 8, 18, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choung in view of Lee and Ide as applied to claims 1, 5, 13, 17-18 above, and further in view of Choi et al. (US 20200312930 A1).
With respect to claim 8: Choung in view of Lee and Ide teaches “The display device of claim 5 (see above)”.
Choung does not specifically teach “wherein the second width is 0.15 μm to 0.25 μm”.
However, Choi teaches “wherein the second width (width of 76, corresponding to distance between pixels 60) is 0.15 μm to 0.25 μm (paragraph 38)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Choung by selecting a second width within the claimed range as taught by Choi in order to balance the need for high resolution with the need to reduce cross-talk (Choi paragraph 36).
With respect to claim 18: Choung in view of Lee and Ide teaches “The manufacturing method of the display device of claim 13 (see above)”.
Choung further teaches “wherein the third layer forms a protrusion (see Figs. 2b, 4h) having a protruding length (203)”.
Choung does not specifically teach “wherein the protruding length is 0.1 μm to 0.2 μm”.
However, Choi teaches “wherein the protruding length (104) is 0.1 μm to 0.2 μm (paragraph 52)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Choung by selecting a protruding length within the claimed range as taught by Choi in order to control discontinuities in the light emitting portion’s layers (Choi paragraph 51).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choung in view of Lee and Ide as applied to claims 1, 5, 7 above, and further in view of Fukuda (US 20230320172 A1).
With respect to claim 9: Choung in view of Lee teaches “The display device of claim 7 (see above)”.
Choung does not teach “wherein a difference between the third width and the first width is 0.05 μm or less”.
However, Fukuda teaches “wherein a difference (see Fig. 14) between the third width (width of 63) and the first width (width of 623) is 0.05 μm or less (paragraph 129)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Choung by making the first and third widths equal to each other as taught by Fukuda due to the art recognized suitability and equivalence to the case where the third width is greater than the first for the purpose of providing a partition between pixels in a display (Fukuda paragraph 129).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choung in view of Lee as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Kaneta et al. (US 2011/0241027 A1).
With respect to claim 16: Choung in view of Lee teaches “The manufacturing method of the display device of claim 13 (see above)”.
Choung does not specifically teach “wherein the thickness of the light emitting portion is 0.2 μm to 0.3 μm”.
However, Kaneta teaches “wherein the thickness of the light emitting portion is 0.2 μm to 0.3 μm (paragraph 44)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Choung by making the light emitting portions in the thickness range taught by Kaneta due to the art recognized suitability of light emitting portions of the claimed thickness as pixels in an organic light emitting display (Kaneta paragraphs 44-45).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choung in view of Lee and Ide as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Hellmich (US 2022/0246411 A1).
With respect to claim 19: Choung in view of Lee and Ide teaches “The manufacturing method of the display device of claim 13 (see above)”.
Choung further teaches “further comprising: patterning the second electrode (114) on the light emitting portion (see Fig. 1a, 1b), wherein the patterning of the light emitting portion comprises depositing the light emitting portion (Fig. 3 step 305) by using an evaporator (paragraph 41)”.
Choung does not specifically teach “wherein the patterning of the second electrode comprises depositing the second electrode by using a rotary sputter”.
However, Hellmich teaches “wherein the patterning of the second electrode (paragraph 18) comprises depositing the second electrode by using a rotary sputter (100)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Choung by making the electrodes of the display using the rotary sputter apparatus taught by Hellmich due to the art recognized suitability of said sputtering apparatus for the purpose of forming electrodes in a display (Hellmich paragraph 18).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL J. LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-5721. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 EST M-F.
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, ABDULMAJEED AZIZ can be reached at (571)270-5046. 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.
/NATHANIEL J LEE/ Examiner, Art Unit 2875
/EVAN P DZIERZYNSKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights