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
Applicant’s election of Group I, drawn to claims 1-15 without traverse, on 7/16/26 is acknowledged. Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from consideration.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5,6,8-11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko (KR 101035356 B1) in view of Fukuda (US 20230255063 A1) and further in view of Bai (CN 115084192 A)
Regarding claim 1, Ko teaches a display panel (Fig.2f) comprising: a base layer 101; a lower electrode 110 disposed on the base layer; a protection pattern (132,133) disposed on the lower electrode, wherein a lower opening partially exposing an upper surface of the lower electrode is defined in the protection pattern; a pixel-defining film 135 disposed on the base layer to cover at least a portion of the protection pattern, wherein a light-emitting opening corresponding to the lower opening is defined in the pixel-defining film; a light-emitting pattern 140 disposed in the lower opening, the light-emitting opening, and disposed on the lower electrode; and an upper electrode 150 disposed on the light-emitting pattern, wherein the protection pattern includes: a first layer disposed on the lower electrode 132 (see in Ko: the second protection member 132 may include ITO); and a second layer including a transparent conductive oxide and disposed on the first layer 133 (the third protection member 133 may include ITO).
Ko does not teach a conductive partition wall disposed on the pixel-defining film, wherein a partition wall opening corresponding to the light-emitting opening is defined in the conductive partition wall; a light-emitting pattern disposed in the partition wall opening and an upper electrode in contact with an inner surface of the conductive partition wall defining the partition wall opening.
Fukuda teaches a display device (at least Fig.3) wherein a conductive partition wall 61 ([0065]) disposed on the pixel-defining film, wherein a partition wall opening corresponding to the light-emitting opening is defined in the conductive partition wall; a light-emitting pattern OR1a ([0054]) disposed in the partition wall opening and an upper electrode UE1a ([0054]) in contact with an inner surface of the conductive partition wall defining the partition wall opening ([0054]: Further, the first upper electrode UE1a is in contact with a side surface of the lower portion 61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the application was filed, to use the conductive wall, as disclosed in Fukuda, in the device of Ko in order to improve device reliability ([0028] in Fukuda).
Ko in view of Fukuda teaches both the first and second layers as ITO and does not teach a first layer including molybdenum tantalum oxide (MoTaOx).
Bai discloses multiple anode layers that extend in the pixel definition layer (Fig.18-23) wherein Bai discloses a reflective MoTaOx layer such that :
As shown in FIG. 20 and FIG. 21, the low reflective layer 630 may include a molybdenum oxide (MoOx) alloy, such as molybdenum titanium oxide (MoTiOx), molybdenum tantalum oxide (MoTaOx) and molybdenum copper oxide (MoCuOx) and
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the application was filed, to use the material as disclosed in Bai in the device of Ko in view of Fukuda in order to achieve low reflection and improve light output.
Regarding claim 2, Ko in view of Fukuda and Bai teaches a display panel wherein the first layer is in direct contact with the lower electrode, and the second layer is not in contact with the lower electrode (from teachings of Ko in rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Ko in view of Fukuda and Bai teaches the invention set forth in claim 1 above but is silent regarding: wherein the first layer has a less thickness than the second layer (for claim 5) and wherein the first layer has a thickness in a range of about 50 A to about 200 A (for claim 6).
However, the first and second layers are result effective variables wherein Ko in view of Fukuda and Bai explicitly teach:
At this time, by adjusting the thickness of the first transparent conductive layer 121 and the second transparent conductive layer 122, the optical path length can be adjusted for each different subpixel, and through this, the color purity and the light efficiency of the visible light realized in each subpixel. As a result, the image quality characteristic of the organic light emitting diode display 100 is improved.
The first transparent conductive layer 121 and the second transparent conductive layer 122 may include ITO. The thicknesses of the first transparent conductive layer 121 and the second transparent conductive layer 122 may be variously determined for each process.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the application was filed, to use the thickness based on the process and material used, by routine experimentation and simulation, in order to optimize the efficiency and the color purity.
Regarding claim 8, Ko in view of Fukuda and Bai teaches (from teachings of Fukuda) that materials such as ITO, IZO, ZnO or IGZO are well known materials based on the design choice wherein Fukuda discloses in its claim 6 for a conductive material to be:
6. The display device of claim 3, wherein the conductive oxide forming the second layer is ITO, IZO or IGZO and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the application was filed, to interchangeably use IZO, ZnO or IGZO in place of ITO in Ko in view of Fukuda and Li, by routine experimentation in order to reduce the leakage current.
Regarding claim 9, Ko in view of Fukuda and Bai teaches the display device wherein the conductive partition wall comprises a first conductive layer 610 (aluminum with higher conductivity; Fig.4 of Fukuda) disposed on the pixel-defining film and having a first conductivity, and a second conductive layer 622 (ITO with lower conductivity than aluminum) having a second conductivity less than the first conductivity, and disposed on the first conductive layer (from Fukuda: [0115] In each of practical examples 1 to 4, the metal layer 610 is formed of aluminum (Al), and the first layer 621 is formed of silicon oxide (SiO), and the second layer 622 is formed of ITO.
Conductivity Comparison:
Aluminum: ~3.5 × 10⁷ S/m (61 % IACS)
ITO: ~10⁴ S/m (resistivity ~10⁻⁴ Ω·cm)
This means aluminum’s conductivity is roughly 3,500 times higher than ITO’s. ITO’s low conductivity is a trade-off for its high optical transparency in the visible spectrum, which aluminum lacks)
PNG
media_image1.png
340
524
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Ko in view of Fukuda and Bai teaches the display device, wherein the first conductive layer has a first thickness, and the second conductive layer has a second thickness less than the first thickness ([0117] in Fukuda).
Regarding claim 11, Ko in view of Fukuda and Bai teaches a display panel wherein on a plane, a side of the second conductive layer (62 in Fukuda) protrudes further toward a center of the lower electrode than a side of the first conductive layer (61 in Fukuda) is.
Regarding claim 13, Ko in view of Fukuda and Bai teaches a display panel further comprising: a dummy pattern disposed on the conductive partition wall 61 (Fig.3 of Fukuda), wherein the dummy pattern includes a first dummy layer including a same material as a light-emitting material OR1b included in the light-emitting pattern, and a second dummy layer disposed on the first dummy layer and including a same material as a material included in the upper electrode UE1b ([0054]).
Regarding claim 14, Ko in view of Fukuda and Bai teaches a display panel further comprising: a capping pattern (CP1 in [0058] of Fukuda) disposed between the upper electrode and the first inorganic encapsulation film.
Regarding claim 15, Ko in view of Fukuda and Bai teaches a display panel, wherein the partition wall opening (opening between 61 in Fig.3 in Fukuda) has a greater planar area than the light-emitting opening (openings AP3 in Fig.3 of Fukuda).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Ko in view of Fukuda and Bai and further in view of Lin (US 20230263014)
Regarding claim 3, Ko in view of Fukuda and Bai teaches the invention set forth in claim 1 above, but is silent regarding the lower electrode comprises a plurality of layers.
Lin teaches the lower electrode comprises a plurality of layers 404 (Fig.4B, [0058]) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the application was filed, to use the multi-layer configuration for the lower electrode, as disclosed in Lin, in the device of Ko in view of Fukuda and Bai in order to achieve long lasting display devices using multiple anodes layers.
Regarding claim 4, Ko in view of Fukuda, Bai and Lin teaches display panel, wherein the lower electrode has a multi- layered structure of indium tin oxide (ITO)/Ag/indium tin oxide (ITO) ([0058] in Lin, the same reason to combine art as in claim 3 applies).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Ko in view of Fukuda and Bai and further in view of Shin (US 20210226153 A1)
Regarding claim 7, Ko in view of Fukuda and Bai teaches the invention set forth in claim 1 above, but is silent regarding the first layer includes tantalum (Ta) in an amount in a range of about 2 at 0% or greater.
Shin teaches this feature of tantalum (Ta) in an amount in a range of about 2 at 0% or greater in [0162]-[0163] and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the application was filed, to use the % as disclosed in Shin, in the device of Ko in view of Fukuda and Bai in order to achieve reliability in the manufacturing steps.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Ko in view of Fukuda and Bai and further in view of Yang (US 20240414964 A1)
Regarding claim 12, Ko in view of Fukuda and Bai teaches the invention set forth in claim 1 above, but is silent regarding a first inorganic encapsulation film disposed on the upper electrode and the conductive partition wall; an organic encapsulation film disposed on the first inorganic encapsulation film; and a second inorganic encapsulation film disposed on the organic encapsulation film.
Yang teaches a display device wherein a first inorganic encapsulation film disposed on the upper electrode and the conductive partition wall; an organic encapsulation film disposed on the first inorganic encapsulation film; and a second inorganic encapsulation film disposed on the organic encapsulation film (EPL1, EPL2 and EPL3 in [0043] and Fig.6) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the application was filed, to use the multi-layer configuration, as disclosed in Yang, in the device of Ko in view of Fukuda and Bai in order to provide robust protection from elements.
Other art
US 20170365219 A1 teaches regarding the reduced leakage current of IGZO for claim: [0055] In FIG. 9B, it can be seen that the input signal IN2 is kept low for a long time, so the third node X23 is kept high for a long time. For this, the ninth transistor T26 and the fourth transistor T27 can be IGZO thin film transistors for reducing the leakage current.
CN 109410758
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fatima Farokhrooz whose telephone number is (571)-272-6043. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday, 9 am - 5 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s Supervisor, James Greece can be reached on (571) 272-3711.
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.
/Fatima N Farokhrooz/
Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights