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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s election, without traverse, of Group I, claims 1-8 in the reply filed on February 13th, 2026 is acknowledged. Non-elected invention, claims 9-27 have been withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-27 are pending.
Action on merits of Group I-A, claims 1-8 as follows.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 21st, 2023 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 11/21/2023 are acceptable.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(f)/ sixth paragraph
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a power line configured to supply a voltage …; as recited in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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.
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.
Claims 1, 5-7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Lee (US 2020/0243627, hereinafter as Lee ‘627).
Regarding Claim 1, Lee ‘627 teaches a display device comprising:
a plurality of sub-pixels (pixel array; see Fig. 1; [0043]);
a power line configured to supply a voltage (not shown; see para. [0045]); and
a plurality of power connection lines (Fig. 3, (AE); [0059]) electrically connecting the plurality of sub-pixels to the power line (see para. [0059]), wherein each of the plurality of sub-pixels includes an anode electrode layer (ANO; [0060]) on a same layer as a corresponding power connection line from the plurality of power connection lines (see Fig. 3), an organic light-emissive layer (OL; [0064]) on the anode electrode layer (ANO), a cathode electrode layer (CAT; [0066]) on the organic light-emissive layer, a passivation layer (PAS2; [0062]) on the cathode electrode layer (CAT), and a structure (BR1; [0062]) on the corresponding power connection line (AE) such that an undercut (Fig. 3, (UC_Annotated)) is formed between the structure and the corresponding power connection line, the cathode electrode layer (CAT) connected to a portion of the corresponding power connection line (AE) corresponding to the undercut, wherein organic light-emissive layers (OL) of adjacent sub-pixels are disconnected from each other (see Fig. 4), cathode electrode layers (CAT) of the adjacent sub-pixels are disconnected from each other, and passivation layers (PAS2) of the adjacent sub-pixels are disconnected from each other (see Fig. 4).
[AltContent: textbox (UC)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
336
485
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 (Lee ‘627_Annotated)
Regarding Claim 5, Lee ‘627 teaches an outermost boundary of the organic light-emissive layer (OL), an outermost boundary of the cathode electrode layer (CAT), and an outermost boundary of the passivation layer (PAS2), wherein the outermost boundary of the organic light-emissive layer (OL) is inset from the outermost boundary of the passivation layer (PAS2), and the outermost boundary of the cathode electrode layer (CAT) is between the outermost boundary of the organic light-emissive layer (OL) and the outermost boundary of the passivation layer (PAS2) (see Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 6, Lee ‘627 teaches each of the plurality of sub-pixels (OLE) is inset from the outermost boundary of the organic light-emissive layer (OL), the outermost boundary of the cathode electrode layer (CAT), and the outermost boundary of the passivation layer (PAS2).
Regarding Claim 7, Lee ‘627 teaches a light-emitting area (see Fig. 3), and the structure (BR1) included in the sub-pixel is in the light-emitting area but non-overlapping with the anode electrode layer (ANO) of the sub-pixel.
Regarding Claim 8, Lee ‘627 teaches the power line is a low-potential voltage line (see para. [0045]) and the voltage is a low-potential voltage that is applied to the cathode electrode (CAT) layer included in each of the plurality of sub-pixels via the plurality of power connection lines (AE) (see para. [0059]).
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 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as applied to Lee ‘627 claim 1 above, and further in view of Seo (US 2021/0296367, hereinafter as Seo ‘367).
Regarding Claim 2, Lee ‘627 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “a plurality of data lines, each data line from the plurality of data lines disposed between a pair of adjacent sub-pixels from the plurality of sub-pixels and is non-overlapping with the cathode electrode layer of each of the pair of adjacent sub-pixels”.
Seo ‘367 teaches a plurality of data lines (Fig. 2, (DL); [0070]), each data line from the plurality of data lines disposed between a pair of adjacent sub-pixels (SP; [0069]) from the plurality of sub-pixels and is non- overlapping with the cathode electrode layer of each of the pair of adjacent sub-pixels (see Fig. 2).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lee ‘627 by having a plurality of data lines, each data line from the plurality of data lines disposed between a pair of adjacent sub-pixels from the plurality of sub-pixels and is non- overlapping with the cathode electrode layer of each of the pair of adjacent sub-pixels for the purpose of providing a method of manufacturing a display device that have improved device characteristics (see para. [0009]) as suggested by Seo ‘367.
Regarding Claim 3, Lee ‘627 teaches the plurality of data lines (D1 to Dm; [0040]) and the plurality of power connection lines (AE; [0059])
Lee ‘627 and Seo ‘367 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the plurality of data lines and the plurality of power connection lines are alternately arranged and are non-overlapping with each other, and extend in a first direction”.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the plurality of data lines and the plurality of power connection lines that can be arranged in any order, the plurality of data lines and the plurality of power connection lines are alternately arranged and are non-overlapping with each other, and extend in a first direction involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to perform the arrangement when this allows a good flow with the other steps in the fabrication process.
Regarding Claim 4, Seo ‘367 teaches the plurality of sub-pixels (SP; [0069]) are arranged in a matrix form along a first direction and a second direction intersecting the first direction (see Fig. 2), wherein each of the plurality of power connection lines (VDDL; [0070]) extends in the first direction and electrically connect the plurality of sub-pixels (SP) arranged in the first direction to the power line (see Fig. 2).
Examiner’s Note
Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. See MPEP 2111, 2123, 2125, 2141.02 VI, and 2182.
Examiner has cited particular paragraph in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following patents are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to semiconductor devices:
Im et al. (US 2016/0013438 A1)
Im et al. (US 2016/0013436 A1)
Lee et al. (US 2013/0099218 A1)
For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DZUNG T TRAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-3911. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8 AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sue Purvis can be reached on (571) 272-1236. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DZUNG TRAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights