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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I and Species I in the reply filed on 05/11/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Examiner would not be unduly burdened if forced to examine the unelected Species II as the Examiner has failed to provide a proper prima facie case for election requirement. This is not found persuasive because as discussed in the restriction requirement mailed 03/10/2026 Species I and II have distinct mutually exclusive features in Species I M1 and M2 are arranged at an interval and in Species II M1 and M2 are part of a single integral structure there is a search burden as the inventions require a different field of search; particularly different keyword searches would be needed for these distinct features. the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention as shown in for example US 20140319479 A1 cited below which teaches the first species but not the second. Examiner noted that non-elected inventions and/or species will be considered for rejoinder if they require all the limitations of an ultimately allowable elected claim
.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: --DISPLAY APPARATUS HAVING AN ISLAND SHAPED METAL LAYER AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME--.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-6 AND 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Park et. Al. (US 20140319479 A1 hereinafter Park).
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches in Figs. 1-2 with associated text a display apparatus comprising: pixel electrodes (E1-E3) disposed on a substrate SU1 (Fig. 2, [0033]), each of the pixel electrodes being spaced apart from each other (Figs. 1-2, [0039]); a pixel-defining layer PDL covering edges of each of the pixel electrodes (Fig. 2, [0038]); metal layers (any one or more of SP1-SP4) (embodiment in which SP1-SP4 is metal [0061]) disposed on the pixel-defining layer, having an island shape, disposed corresponding to spaces between the pixel electrodes, and spaced apart from each other (Figs. 1-2, [0060]-[0061]); and an opposite electrode CE covering the metal layers (Fig. 2, [0064]).
Regarding claim 2, Park teaches the metal layers are arranged at constant interval (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Park teaches each of the metal layers have a same shape in a plan view (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, Park teaches first pixels E2, second pixels E1, and third pixels E3 that emit light of different colors disposed on the substrate ([0067]]), wherein the first pixels and the third pixels are alternately arranged along a first virtual line (horizontal direction of Fig. 1) extending in a first direction (horizontal direction of Fig. 1), the second pixels are arranged along a second virtual line parallel to the first virtual line and adjacent to the first virtual line corresponding to a space between adjacent ones of the first pixels and the third pixels (Fig. 1), the metal layers include first metal layers (SP1 and SP3) and second metal layers (SP2 and SP4), the first metal layers are arranged between adjacent ones of the first pixels and the third pixels on the first virtual line (Fig. 1), and the second metal layers are arranged between the second pixels (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Park teaches the first metal layers and the second metal layers are each arranged at constant interval in the first direction (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Park teaches an interval between the first metal layers and an interval between the second metal layers are same see annotated Fig. below).
PNG
media_image1.png
230
238
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Park teaches the pixel-defining layer includes an opening (OM1-OM3) exposing at least a portion of an upper surface of each of the pixel electrodes, and the display apparatus further comprises an emission layer (OL1-OL3) overlapping the opening in a plan view (Figs. 1-2, [0045], [0047] and [0049]).
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 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 of this title, 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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Kim et. Al. (US 20200328378 A1 hereinafter Kim).
Regarding claim 9, Park teaches the display apparatus of claim 1.
Park does not specify a capping layer and an inorganic encapsulation layer covering the opposite electrode
Kim discloses in Fig. 1 with associated text a display apparatus similar to that of Park comprising a capping layer (701 and or 702) and an inorganic encapsulation layer 703 covering an opposite electrode 503 (Fig. 1, [0061])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a capping and inorganic encapsulation layer as taught by Kim in the display apparatus of Park because according to Kim such a structure may prevent or substantially prevent penetration of moisture to prevent or reduce damage to the first to third passivation layers 501, 502, and 503 described above and an organic light-emitting diode that may be fragile to (e.g., may have deteriorated or degraded performance due to) moisture [0054]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON J GRAY whose telephone number is (571)270-7629. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-4pm.
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, Toledo Fernando can be reached on 5712721867. 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.
/AARON J GRAY/Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights