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
Receipt of the Amendment, filed on May 26, 2026, is acknowledged.
Claims 1-20 are pending in the instant application.
The indicated allowability of claims 8-9, 11, 14, 19-20 is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference(s) to Kim et al. (US 2021/0313498 A1) in view of Hsieh (US 2019/0392751 A1). Rejections based on the newly cited reference(s) follow.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitations “the fifth layer of the metal layer is in direct contact with the third layer of the first electrode” in claim 8, “the fourth layer of the metal layer is in direct contact with the third layer of the first electrode” in claim 9, and “the fifth layer of the metal layer is in direct contact with the first layer of the first electrode” in claim 11 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 8, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for “the metal layer is in direct contact with the third layer of the first pad electrode”, does not reasonably provide enablement for the metal layer being in direct contact with a first or third layer of the first electrode. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
Claims 8, 9 and 11 require the first electrode being in electrical contact with a metal layer through a contact hole penetrating the insulating layer, and the metal layer, having a multi-layer structure, being in direct contact with a first or third layer of the first electrode. Applicant’s disclosure at ¶[00123] and further shown in Fig. 3A describes the first electrode ELT1 being in electrical contact with the source electrode SE (i.e., a metal layer) through a first contact hole CNT1 penetrating the via layer VIA (i.e., insulating layer). The specification does not describe the feature of a metal layer multilayer structure in direct contact with the first electrode. It is noticed that the disclosed first electrode ELT1 (shown in Fig. 3A) and the first electrode pad (ELTP, shown in Figs. 6, 8, 11A-12C) are considered two individual and distinct components within the disclosed invention, the first electrode ELT1 is located within the display area DA and the first electrode pad ELTP is located within the pad area PDA. Accordingly, the specification fails to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains to make the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
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 8, 9, 11 and 19-20 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.
Regarding claims 8 and 11, the recitation “the metal layer has a multi-layer structure including a fourth layer and a fifth layer disposed on the fourth layer” raises the issue of ambiguity, it is unclear which first, second, third layers are part of the metal layer multi-layer structure, and their arrangement within the multilayer, since the recitation of the fourth and fifth layers implies the presence of first, second and third layers as part of the multi-layer structure.
Regarding claim 9, the recitation “the metal layer has a multi-layer structure including a fourth layer and a sixth layer disposed under the fourth layer” raises the issue of ambiguity, it is unclear which first, second, third and fifth layers are part of the metal layer multi-layer structure, and their arrangement within the multilayer, since the recitation of the fourth and sixth layers implies the presence of first, second, third and fifth layers as part of the multi-layer structure.
Regarding claim 19, the recitation “the metal layer has a multi-layer structure including a fourth layer and a fifth layer disposed on the fourth layer” raises the issue of ambiguity, it is unclear which first, second, third and fifth layers are part of the metal layer multi-layer structure, and their arrangement within the multilayer, since the recitation of the fourth and sixth layers implies the presence of first, second, third and fifth layers as part of the multi-layer structure.
Regarding claim 20, the recitation “the metal layer has a multi-layer structure including a fourth layer and a sixth layer disposed under the fourth layer” raises the issue of ambiguity, it is unclear which first, second, third and fifth layers are part of the metal layer multi-layer structure, and their arrangement within the multilayer, since the recitation of the fourth and sixth layers implies the presence of first, second, third and fifth layers as part of the multi-layer structure.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 10 and 12-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2021/0313498 A1, of record) in view of Hsieh (US 2019/0392751 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a display device (Fig. 5), comprising: a first electrode (21) and a second electrode (22) that are disposed on a substrate (11) and spaced apart from each other; a light emitting element (30) disposed between the first electrode (21) and the second electrode (22); a first pixel electrode (CNE1) disposed on the first electrode (21), the first pixel electrode (CNE1) being electrically connected to a first end portion of the light emitting element (30) and the first electrode (21); and a second pixel electrode (CNE2) disposed on the second electrode (22), the second pixel electrode (CNE2) being electrically connected to a second end portion of the light emitting element (30), wherein each of the first electrode (21) and the second electrode (22) has a multi-layer structure including a first layer and a second layer disposed on the first layer (¶[0133]), the first layer includes a metal reflecting light (¶[0133], i.e., Ag), and the second layer includes a transparent conductive material (¶[0133], i.e., ITO, IZO, ITZO). Kim fails to state the transparent conductive material includes tungsten oxide.
Hsieh discloses a display device comprising a first electrode (317) disposed on a substrate (21), a light emitting element (LU) disposed on the first electrode (21); a first pixel electrode electrically connected to the light emitting element (LU), wherein the first electrode is made of a transparent conductive material or metal material, the transparent conductive oxide material including indium tungsten oxide (IWO) (¶[0030]). One skilled in the art would have reasonably contemplate the selection of indium tungsten oxide from the transparent conductive known materials disclosed by Hsieh in order to provide a material having optical transmissivity and electrical conductivity, as an obvious matter of design engineering. It is considered within the capabilities of one skilled in the art the selection of a material based on its known suitability for an intended application as an obvious matter of design engineering. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time of effective filling of the claimed invention to incorporate a tungsten oxide material as disclosed by Hsieh in the display device of Kim in order to provide a material having optical transmissivity and electrical conductivity, since the selection of known materials for a known purpose is within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 2, Kim discloses a display device wherein the first pixel electrode (CNE1) includes at least one of indium tin oxide (ITO), indium zinc oxide (IZO), zinc oxide (ZnOx), and indium gallium zinc oxide (IGZO) (¶[0152]), and the first pixel electrode (CNE1) is in direct contact with the second layer of the first electrode (21, Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 3, Kim discloses a display device wherein the first layer does not include any alloy (¶[0133], i.e., Ag), but fails to state wherein the first layer includes aluminum. Hsieh discloses a display device wherein the first layer includes aluminum. One skilled in the art would have reasonably contemplate the selection of aluminum from the known metallic materials disclosed by Hsieh in order to provide a conductive reflective material, as an obvious matter of design engineering. It is considered within the capabilities of one skilled in the art the selection of a material based on its known suitability for an intended application as an obvious matter of design engineering. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time of effective filling of the claimed invention to incorporate an aluminum material as disclosed by Hsieh in the display device of Kim in order to provide a conductive reflective material, since the selection of known materials for a known purpose is within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 4, Kim fails to disclose wherein the second layer has a thickness in a range of about 50 Å to about 300 Å. One skilled in the art would have reasonably contemplate optimizing the thickness of the second layer within the claimed ranges in order to optimize the reflectivity of the second layer, as an obvious matter of design engineering. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the second layer having a thickness in a range of about 50 Å to about 300 Å, since optimization of workable ranges is considered within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 5, Kim fails to disclose wherein the first layer has a thickness in a range of about 500 Å to about 2000 Å. One skilled in the art would have reasonably contemplate optimizing the thickness of the first layer within the claimed ranges in order to optimize the transmissivity of the first layer, as an obvious matter of design engineering. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the first layer having a thickness in a range of about 500 Å to about 2000 Å, since optimization of workable ranges is considered within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 6, Kim discloses a display device wherein each of the first electrode and the second electrode further includes a third layer disposed under the first layer (¶[0133]), and the third layer and the first layer include a same material (¶[0133], i.e., ITO, IZO, ITZO).
Regarding claim 7, Kim discloses a display device further comprising: an insulating layer (19) disposed under the first electrode (21) and the second electrode (22); and a metal layer (CDP) disposed between the substrate (11) and the insulating layer (19), wherein the first electrode (21) is in electrical contact with the metal layer (CDP) through a contact hole (CT1) penetrating the insulating layer (19).
Regarding claim 10, Kim discloses a display device further comprising: an insulating layer (19) disposed under the first electrode (21) and the second electrode (22); and a metal layer (CDP) disposed between the substrate (11) and the insulating layer (19), wherein the first electrode (21) is in electrical contact with the metal layer (CDP) through a contact hole (CT1) penetrating the insulating layer (19).
Regarding claim 12, Kim fails to exemplify a color conversion layer disposed above the light emitting element, the color conversion layer converting a wavelength of light incident from the light emitting element.
Hsieh further discloses a display device further comprising a color conversion layer (45) disposed above the light emitting element, the color conversion layer converting a wavelength of light incident from the light emitting element (¶[0033]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filling of the claimed invention to incorporate the color conversion layer disclosed by Hsieh in the display device of Kim in order to convert a wavelength of light incident from the light emitting element.
Regarding claim 13, Kim discloses a display device, comprising: a pixel (PX) disposed in a display area (DPA); a pad (PDA) disposed in a non-display area located at a side of the display area, wherein the pad includes: a first pad electrode (PAD_R) disposed on a metal layer (WPD); and a second pad electrode (PAD_C) disposed on the first pad electrode, the first pad electrode (PAD_R) has a multi-layer structure including a first layer and a second layer disposed on the first layer (¶s[0133, 0199], first pad electrode is formed of the same material of first electrode 21), the first layer includes a metal reflecting light (¶[0133]), and the second layer includes a transparent conductive material (¶[0133], i.e., ITO, IZO, ITZO). Kim fails to state the transparent conductive material includes tungsten oxide.
Hsieh discloses a display device comprising a first electrode (317) disposed on a substrate (21), a light emitting element (LU) disposed on the first electrode (21); a first pixel electrode electrically connected to the light emitting element (LU), wherein the first electrode is made of a transparent conductive material or metal material, the transparent conductive oxide material including indium tungsten oxide (IWO) (¶[0030]). One skilled in the art would have reasonably contemplate the selection of indium tungsten oxide from the transparent conductive known materials disclosed by Hsieh in order to provide a material having optical transmissivity and electrical conductivity, as an obvious matter of design engineering. It is considered within the capabilities of one skilled in the art the selection of a material based on its known suitability for an intended application as an obvious matter of design engineering. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time of effective filling of the claimed invention to incorporate a tungsten oxide material as disclosed by Hsieh in the display device of Kim in order to provide a material having optical transmissivity and electrical conductivity, since the selection of known materials for a known purpose is within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 14, Kim discloses a display device wherein the second pad electrode (PAD_C) includes at least one of indium tin oxide (ITO), indium zinc oxide (IZO), zinc oxide (ZnOx), and indium gallium zinc oxide (IGZO) (¶s[0152,0208], second electrode pad electrode is formed of the same material as first pixel electrode CNE1), and the second pad electrode (PAD_C) is in direct contact with the second layer of the first electrode (PAD_R, Fig. 19).
Regarding claim 15, Kim discloses a display device wherein the first layer does not include any alloy (¶[0133], i.e., Ag), but fails to state wherein the first layer includes aluminum. Hsieh discloses a display device wherein the first layer includes aluminum. One skilled in the art would have reasonably contemplate the selection of aluminum from the known metallic materials disclosed by Hsieh in order to provide a conductive reflective material, as an obvious matter of design engineering. It is considered within the capabilities of one skilled in the art the selection of a material based on its known suitability for an intended application as an obvious matter of design engineering. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time of effective filling of the claimed invention to incorporate an aluminum material as disclosed by Hsieh in the display device of Kim in order to provide a conductive reflective material, since the selection of known materials for a known purpose is within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 16, Kim fails to disclose wherein the second layer has a thickness in a range of about 50 Å to about 300 Å. One skilled in the art would have reasonably contemplate optimizing the thickness of the second layer within the claimed ranges in order to optimize the reflectivity of the second layer, as an obvious matter of design engineering. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the second layer having a thickness in a range of about 50 Å to about 300 Å, since optimization of workable ranges is considered within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 17, Kim fails to disclose wherein the first layer has a thickness in a range of about 500 Å to about 2000 Å. One skilled in the art would have reasonably contemplate optimizing the thickness of the first layer within the claimed ranges in order to optimize the transmissivity of the first layer, as an obvious matter of design engineering. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the first layer having a thickness in a range of about 500 Å to about 2000 Å, since optimization of workable ranges is considered within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 18, Kim discloses a display device wherein the first pad electrode further includes a third layer located under the first layer (¶[0133]), and the third layer and the first layer include a same material (¶[0133], i.e., ITO, IZO, ITZO).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed May 26, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-7, 10, 12-13 and 15-18 under Kim et al. (US 2021/0313498) in view of Mishima (US 2021/0202877) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kim et al. (US 2021/0313498 A1) in view of Hsieh (US 2019/0392751 A1).
Conclusion
The rejections above rely on the references for all the teachings expressed in the text of the references and/or one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably understood or implied from the texts of the references. To emphasize certain aspects of the prior art, only specific portions of the texts have been pointed out. Each reference as a whole should be reviewed in responding to the rejection, since other sections of the same reference and/or various combinations of the cited references may be relied on in future rejections in view of amendments.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mariceli Santiago whose telephone number is (571) 272-2464. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM.
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 R. Greece, can be reached on (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.
/Mariceli Santiago/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2879
Prosecution Insights