, 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. 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. (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. Claims 1 -3, 7, 9-12, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yamazaki (US 2003/0201716 ) . Regarding independent claim 1 , Yamazaki teaches a reflective electrode comprising a first conductive layer including aluminum ( Fig. 2 B, Element 36a ; ¶ [0 128] ); a second conductive layer disposed on the first conductive layer and including titanium nitride ( Fig. 2 , Element 36b ; ¶ [ 0128] ); and a third conductive layer disposed on the second conductive layer and including silver ( Fig. 2B, Element 36c; ¶ [0129] ). Regarding claim 2 , Yamazaki teaches a fourth conductive layer disposed on the third conductive layer and including indium tin oxide ( ¶ [0139] ). Regarding claim 3 , Yamazaki teaches the first conductive layer including an alloy of the aluminum ( ¶ [012 8 ]). Regarding claim 7 , Yamazaki teaches a thickness of the first conductive layer in a range of about 400Å to about 700Å ( ¶ [0129]). Regardin g claim 9 , Yamazaki teaches a thickness of the third conductive layer is in a range of about 200Å to about 500Å ( ¶ [0129]). Regarding independent claim 10 , Yamazaki teaches display device comprising a substrate (Fig. 2B, Element 30; ¶ [0117]); a reflective electrode comprising a first conductive layer including aluminum (Fig. 2B, Element 36a; ¶ [0128]); a second conductive layer disposed on the first conductive layer and including titanium nitride (Fig. 2, Element 36b; ¶ [0128]); a third conductive layer disposed on the second conductive layer and including silver (Fig. 2B, Element 36c; ¶ [0129]); and a light emitting layer (Fig. 2B ; ¶ [0135]) . Regarding claim 11 , Yamazaki teaches a fourth conductive layer disposed on the third conductive layer and including indium tin oxide ( ¶ [0139]). Regarding claim 12 , Yamazaki teaches the first conductive layer including an alloy of the aluminum ( ¶ [0128]). Regarding claim 15 , Yamazaki teaches a thickness of the first conductive layer in a range of about 400Å to about 700Å ( ¶ [0129]). Regarding claim 17 , Yamazaki teaches a thickness of the third conductive layer is in a range of about 200Å to about 500Å ( ¶ [0129]). 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. 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. Claims 4 -5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki (US 2003/0201716) in view of Gotanda (US 2016/0285022) . Regarding claim 4 , Yamazaki teaches the limitations of independent claim 1 discussed earlier but fails to exemplify the third conductive layer includ ing an alloy of the silver and indium. Gotanda teaches a photoelectric conversion element including an electrode comprising an alloy of silver and indium having a low work function ( ¶ [0049]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the reflective electrode of Yamazaki with the third conductive layer including an alloy of the silver and indium, as taught by Gotanda , since it is obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP § 2144.07). Regarding claim 5 , Yamazaki teaches the limitations of independent claim 1 discussed earlier but fails to exemplify the third conductive layer including an alloy of the silver and copper. Gotanda teaches a photoelectric conversion element including an electrode comprising an alloy of silver and copper having a high work function ( ¶ [0052]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the reflective electrode of Yamazaki with the third conductive layer including an alloy of silver and copper, as taught by Gotanda , since it is obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP § 2144.07). Regarding claim 13 , Yamazaki teaches the limitations of independent claim 1 0 discussed earlier but fails to exemplify the third conductive layer including at least one selected from an alloy of the silver and indium and an alloy of the silver and copper . Gotanda teaches a photoelectric conversion element including an electrode comprising at least one selected from an alloy of the silver and indium and an alloy of the silver and copper ( ¶ s [0049] , [0052] ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the reflective electrode of Yamazaki with the third conductive layer including at least one selected from an alloy of the silver and indium and an alloy of the silver and copper , as taught by Gotanda , since it is obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP § 2144.07). Claims 6 , 8, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki (US 2003/0201716) . Regarding claim 6 , Yamazaki teaches the limitations of independent claim 1 discussed earlier but fails to exemplify a thickness of the second conductive layer being thinner than a thickness of each of the first conductive layer and the third conductive layer. Yamazaki discloses a total thickness of the electrodes being set between 100nm and 800nm ( ¶ [0128]), with the conductive layer s having varying thicknesses ( ¶ [0129]). 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 reflective electrode of Yamazaki with a thickness of the second conductive layer being thinner than a thickness of each of the first conductive layer and the third conductive layer, since where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A)). Regarding claim 8 , Yamazaki teaches the limitations of independent claim 1 discussed earlier but fails to exemplify a thickness of the second conductive layer is in a range of about 10Å to about 50Å. Yamazaki discloses a total thickness of the electrodes being set between 100nm and 800nm ( ¶ [0128]), with the conductive layers having varying thicknesses ( ¶ [0129]). 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 reflective electrode of Yamazaki with a thickness of the second conductive layer is in a range of about 10Å to about 50Å, since where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A)). Regarding claim 14 , Yamazaki teaches the limitations of independent claim 10 discussed earlier but fails to exemplify a thickness of the second conductive layer being thinner than a thickness of each of the first conductive layer and the third conductive layer. Yamazaki discloses a total thickness of the electrodes being set between 100nm and 800nm ( ¶ [0128]), with the conductive layers having varying thicknesses ( ¶ [0129]). 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 reflective electrode of Yamazaki with a thickness of the second conductive layer being thinner than a thickness of each of the first conductive layer and the third conductive layer, since where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A)). Regarding claim 16 , Yamazaki teaches the limitations of independent claim 10 discussed earlier but fails to exemplify a thickness of the second conductive layer is in a range of about 10Å to about 50Å. Yamazaki discloses a total thickness of the electrodes being set between 100nm and 800nm ( ¶ [0128]), with the conductive layers having varying thicknesses ( ¶ [0129]). 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 reflective electrode of Yamazaki with a thickness of the second conductive layer is in a range of about 10Å to about 50Å, since where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A)). Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki (US 2003/0201716), hereinafter Yamazaki ‘716, in view of Yamazaki (US 2003/0201447), hereinafter Yamazaki ‘447 . Regarding claim 18 , Yamazaki ‘716 teaches the limitations of independent claim 10 discussed earlier but fails to exemplify the substrate includ ing a base substrate including a silicon wafer which includes a plurality of grooves; and a plurality of pixel circuit parts respectively disposed in the plurality of grooves. Yamazaki ‘447 teaches a display device comprising a base substrate (Fig. 1A, Element 10; ¶ [0068]) including a silicon wafer which includes a plurality of grooves ( ¶ s [0068], [0070]) ; and a plurality of pixel circuit parts (Fig. 1A, Elements 13, 14; ¶ [0067]) respectively disposed in the plurality of grooves . Yamazaki ‘447 discloses the silicon wafer provided for dispersing heat generated by the light emitting element ( ¶ [0108]) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the display device of Yamazaki ‘716 with the substrate structure taught by Yamazaki ‘447 for dispersing heat generated by the light emitting element. Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki (US 2003/0201716) in view of Sun (US 2022/0384747) . Regarding claim 19 , Yamazaki teaches the limitations of independent claim 10 discussed earlier but fails to exemplify a micro lens disposed on the light emitting layer and overlapping the reflective electrode in a plan view. Sun teaches a display device comprising a micro lens (Fig. 2, Element 72; ¶ [0070]) disposed on a light emitting layer and overlapping a reflective electrode in a plan view for enlarging an image displayed by the display regions ( ¶ [0006]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the display device of Yamazaki with the micro lens structure taught by Sun for enlarging an image displayed by the display regions. Regarding claim 20 , Sun teaches a color filter (Fig. 2, Element 52; ¶ [ 0070]) disposed between the light emitting layer and the micro lens, wherein the light emitting layer includes a light emitting material that emits white light ( ¶ [0066]) . Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Watanabe (US 12,033,987) teaches a display device with first through fourth conductive layers. Yoon (US 2011/0220898) teaches a display with pixel electrode including first and second conductive layers. Noda (US 7,851,989) teaches a light emitting device with electrode having high reflectivity. Yamazaki (US 7,579,771) teaches a light emitting device with curved insulator. Sakakura (US 2006/0186804) teaches a device with a buffer and second electrode stacked over a first electrode . Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Kevin Quarterman whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2461 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT James Greece can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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 30 March 2026