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 remarks/amendments of claims 1-10 in the reply filed on July 29th, 2026, are acknowledged. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 19-20 have been cancelled. New claims 21-22 have been added. Claims 11-20 have been withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-18 and 21-22 are pending.
Action on merits of claims 1-10 and 21-22 as follows.
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.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choung (US 11348983, hereinafter as Chou ‘983) in view of Choung (US 2022/0077252, hereinafter as Chou ‘252).
Regarding Claim 1, Chou ‘983 teaches a display device comprising:
a lower electrode (Fig. 4H, (104); col. 4, lines 56-58);
a rib (Fig. 4H, (126); col. 5, lines 1-2) comprising a pixel aperture (Fig. 4F, (106); col. 5, lines 13-15) which overlaps the lower electrode (104);
a partition (110; col. 5, lines 27-30) which includes a conductive bottom portion (110A; col. 5; lines 65-67) provided on the rib (126), a stem portion (110C; col. 4; lines 53-55) provided on the bottom portion (110A), and a top portion (110B; col. 4; lines 49-54) provided on the stem portion and protruding from a side surface of the stem portion (110C);
an organic layer (112; col. 5; lines 19-20) which covers the lower electrode (104) through the pixel aperture (106) and emits light based on application of voltage;
an upper electrode (114; col. 5; lines 52-53) which covers the organic layer (112) and is in contact with the bottom portion (110A); and
a sealing layer (116; col. 6; lines 66-67) which continuously covers the partition and a thin film including the organic layer and the upper electrode;
the bottom portion (110 A; col. 4, lines 53-55), the stem portion (110 C; col. 4, lines 53-55), and the top portion (110 B; col. 4, lines 53-55) are stacked in a third direction, the top portion includes a lower surface in direct contact with the stem portion, and an upper surface opposing the lower surface and being farther from the bottom portion in the third direction.
Thus, Chou ‘348 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the sealing layer is not in direct contact with the upper surface of the top portion”.
Chou ‘252 teaches the sealing layer (Fig. 1A, (120); [0036]) is not in direct contact with the upper surface of the top portion (110B; [0030]). Examiner considers the global passivation layer (120) is the sealing layer.
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 Chou ‘983 by having the sealing layer is not in direct contact with the upper surface of the top portion in order to provide improved OLED performance (see para. [0004]).
Thus, Chou ‘348 and Chou ‘252 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the bottom portion is formed of a molybdenum-tungsten alloy, a height from a lower surface of the bottom portion to an upper surface of the stem portion is less than or equal to 500nm, a thickness of the sealing layer is less than or equal to 1.5μm, and a thickness of the bottom portion is greater than or equal to 50nm”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to have the bottom portion is formed of a molybdenum-tungsten alloy, a height from a lower surface of the bottom portion to an upper surface of the stem portion is less than or equal to 500nm, a thickness of the sealing layer is less than or equal to 1.5μm, and a thickness of the bottom portion is greater than or equal to 50nm on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. A
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have the bottom portion is formed of a molybdenum-tungsten alloy, a height from a lower surface of the bottom portion to an upper surface of the stem portion is less than or equal to 500nm, a thickness of the sealing layer is less than or equal to 1.5μm, and a thickness of the bottom portion is greater than or equal to 50nm in order to improve the performance of the OLED display device.
The applicant’s claim 1 does not distinguish over Chou ‘348 reference regardless of the functions allegedly performed by the claimed device, because only the device per se is relevant, not the recited function of the light emitting layer emits light based on application of voltage. In reference to the claim language referring to the function of the light emitting layer, intended use and other types of functional language (such as emits light based on application of voltage) must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
PNG
media_image2.png
470
760
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4H (Chou ‘983)
Regarding Claim 2, Chou ‘983 teaches the stem portion (110C; see col. 8, lines 19-25) is formed of aluminum.
Regarding Claim 3, Chou ‘983 and Chou ‘252 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “a width of the bottom portion is equal to a width of the stem portion”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to have a width of the bottom portion is equal to a width of the stem portion on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. A
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have a width of the bottom portion is equal to a width of the stem portion in order to improve the performance of the OLED display device.
Regarding Claim 4, Chou ‘983 teaches the rib (126; col. 5, lines 7-8) is formed of silicon oxynitride (SiON).
Regarding Claim 5, Chou ‘983 teaches the sealing layer (116) is formed of silicon nitride (see col. 6; lines 66-67 and col. 7, lines 1-2).
Regarding Claim 6, Chou ‘983 and Chou ‘252 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the thickness of the bottom portion is less than or equal to 100nm”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to have the thickness of the bottom portion is less than or equal to 100nm on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. A
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have the thickness of the bottom portion is less than or equal to 100nm in order to improve the performance of the OLED display device.
Regarding Claim 21, Chou ‘983 teaches a resin layer (118a; col. 7, lines 25-30) covering the sealing layer (116).
Chou ‘252 teaches a part of the thin film (112/114; [0032]) is arranged on the upper surface of the top portion (110B), and the resin layer (118; [0036]) is in direct contact with the part of the thin film (see Fig. 1B).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou ‘983 and Chou ‘252 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Im (US 2016/0013438, hereinafter as Im ‘438).
Regarding Claim 7, Chou ‘983 and Chou ‘252 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “a first top layer, and a second top layer provided on the first top layer”.
Im ‘438 teaches the top portion (Fig. 5, (225c); [0138]) comprises a first top layer, and a second top layer provided on the first top layer.
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 Chou ‘983 by having a first top layer, and a second top layer provided on the first top layer for the purpose of enhancing luminance uniformity and reliability of the organic light emitting display device (see para. [0044]) as suggested by Im ‘438.
Regarding Claim 8, Im ‘438 teaches the first top layer is formed of titanium, and the second top layer is formed of ITO (see para. [0138]).
Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select titanium for the first top layer and ITO for the second top layer on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select titanium for the first top layer and ITO for the second top layer in order to improve the performance of the OLED display device.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou ‘983 and Chou ‘252 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Inoue (US 2018/0212198, hereinafter as Inou ‘198).
Regarding Claim 9, Chou ‘983 and Chou ‘252 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “an optical adjustment layer which covers the upper electrode, and the optical adjustment layer is formed of a material which is different from the upper electrode and the sealing layer”.
Inou ‘198 teaches an optical adjustment layer (Fig. 7, (21); [0135]) which covers the upper electrode.
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 Chou ‘983 and Chou ‘252 by having an optical adjustment layer which covers the upper electrode for the purpose of protecting the second electrode (see para. [0135]) as suggested by Inou ‘198.
Chou ‘983 and Inou ‘198 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the optical adjustment layer is formed of a material which is different from the upper electrode and the sealing layer”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a material for the optical adjustment layer which is different from the upper electrode and the sealing layer on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select a material for the optical adjustment layer which is different from the upper electrode and the sealing layer in order to improve the performance of the OLED display device.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou ‘983 and Chou ‘252 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim (US 2016/0149155, hereinafter as Kim ‘155).
Regarding Claim 10, Chou ‘983 teaches the upper electrode (114) is in contact with a side surface of the bottom portion (110A) (see Fig. 4H).
Chou ‘983 and Chou ‘252 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the upper electrode is in contact with the side surface of the stem portion”.
Kim ‘155 teaches the upper electrode (Fig. 3, (173); [0035]) is in contact with the side surface of the stem portion (Fig. 3, (341b); [0076]).
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 Chou ‘983 and Chou ‘252 by having the upper electrode is in contact with the side surface of the stem portion for the purpose of providing an organic light-emitting display device with uniform luminance throughout the screen (see para. [0003]) as suggested by Kim ‘155.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou ‘983 and Chou ‘252 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bae (US 2019/0348482, hereinafter as Bae ‘482).
Regarding Claim 22, Chou ‘983 and Chou ‘252 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “a part of the lower electrode overlaps the bottom portion and the stem portion in the third direction”.
Bae ‘482 teaches a part of the lower electrode (Fig. 7, (210); [0052]) overlaps the bottom portion (182; [0055]) and the stem portion (183; [0074]) in the third direction.
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 Chou ‘983 and Chou ‘252 by having a part of the lower electrode overlaps the bottom portion and the stem portion in the third direction in order to provide a high-quality display devices (see para. [0091]) as suggested by Bae ‘482.
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 columns and line numbers 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-10 and 21-22, filed on July 29th, 2026, have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
Interviews After Final
Applicants note that an interview after a final rejection is permitted in order to place the application in condition for allowance or to resolve issues prior to appeal. However, prior to the interview, the intended purpose and content of the interview should be presented briefly, preferably in writing. Upon review of the agenda, the Examiner may grant the interview if the examiner is convinced that disposal or clarification for appeal may be accomplished with only nominal further consideration. Interviews merely to restate arguments of record or to discuss new limitations will be denied. See MPEP § 714.13
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Dzung 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, 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