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 without traverse of Invention I, Claims 1 – 14, in the reply filed on 15 June 2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species II, Fig. 9, in the reply filed on 15 June 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 9 & 15 – 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species and/or invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 15 June 2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 10,
Lin. 2 recites the limitation “the second electrode contacts a side of the second electrode”. However, the meaning of this limitation is unclear, rendering the claim indefinite. For the purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as “the second electrode contacts a side of the second layer”.
Examiner’s Note
For the prior art rejections to follow, refer to the original document of LEE as well as the attached machine translation, particularly for the associated paragraph numbers.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 3, 5, 7, & 10 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by LEE (KR 20210038182 A).
Regarding Claim 1,
LEE discloses:
A display device (Fig. 1: 10) comprising:
a display area (Fig. 3: under SUB2) and a non-display area (Fig. 3: not under SUB2);
an external common voltage line (Fig. 3: LM/PE1; Par. 56) formed in the non-display area (not under SUB2);
a common voltage line (Fig. 3 & 4: PE2/EVL/AEA) formed in the display area (Par. 61) and connecting a portion (PE1 of LM/PE1, directly) and another portion (LM of LM/PE1, indirectly) of the external common voltage line (LM/PE1);
a plurality (Fig. 1 & 2: intersections of G & D; Par. 33) of pixels (Fig. 3: EA/TA; Par. 65) positioned in the display area (under SUB2) and including a first electrode (Fig. 3: ANO) and an emission layer (Fig. 3: OL); and
a second electrode (Fig. 3: CAT) positioned on the plurality of pixels (EA/TA),
wherein the common voltage line (AEA of PE2/EVL/AEA) has a multi-layered structure (Fig. 4: AEA) including
a first layer (Fig. 4: AE3), a second layer (Fig. 4: AE2), a third layer (Fig. 4: AE1), and a reinforced layer (Fig. 4: I1/I2),
the reinforce layer (I1/I2) is positioned between the second layer (AE2) and the third layer (AE1),
the first layer (AE3; Par. 97), the second layer (AE2; Par. 91), and the third layer (AE1; Par. 85) include a metal, and
the reinforced layer (I1/I2) includes an inorganic material (I2; Par. 42) or an organic material.
Regarding Claim 2,
LEE discloses:
The display device of claim 1, wherein
the reinforced layer (I1/I2) includes an opening (Fig. 4: AH), and
the second layer (AE2) directly contacts the third layer (AE1) in the opening (AH).
Regarding Claim 3,
LEE discloses:
The display device of claim 1, wherein
the reinforced layer (I2 of I1/I2) includes at least one of a silicon oxide (SiOx), a silicon nitride (SiNx), and a silicon oxynitride (SiOxNy) (Par. 42).
Regarding Claim 5,
LEE discloses:
The display device of claim 1, wherein
a (vertical) thickness of the reinforced layer (I1 of I1/I2) is in a range of about 20 % to about 200 % of a (vertical) thickness of the third layer (AE1).
Note, AE1 and I1 of I1/I2 are shown in Fig. 4 to have approximately the same vertical thickness. This places said thickness of I1 easily within about 20 % to about 200 % of the corresponding thickness of AE1.
Regarding Claim 7,
LEE discloses:
The display device of claim 1, wherein
the second layer (AE2) has an under-cut structure (As seen in Fig. 4), and
a width (Fig. 4: laterally within AH) of the second layer (AE2) is smaller than a width (Fig. 4: laterally) of the third layer (AE1) and a width (Fig. 4: laterally) of the reinforced layer (I1/I2).
Regarding Claim 10,
LEE discloses:
The display device of claim 1, wherein
the second electrode (CAT) contacts (indirectly via AE3) a side of the second layer (AE2).
Regarding Claim 11,
LEE discloses:
The display device of claim 1, wherein
the first layer (AE3; Par. 97) and the third layer (AE1; Par. 85) include a same material (“metal material”), and
the first and third layers (AE3 & AE1) and the second layer (AE2) include different materials.
Note, the materials of AE3 & AE1 and AE2 are formed in different processing steps—Fig. 11b & 5b and 9b, respectively—and occupy different portions of the claimed device. In at least these ways, the materials of AE3 & AE1 and AE2 are different. Therefore, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, AE3 & AE1 and AE2 include different materials.
Regarding Claim 12,
LEE discloses:
The display device of claim 1, wherein
the first layer (AE3) to the third layer (AE1) include different materials.
Note, the materials of AE3 to AE1 are formed in different processing steps—Fig. 11b, 9b, and 5b, respectively—and occupy different portions of the claimed device. In at least these ways, the materials of AE3 to AE1 are different. Therefore, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, AE3 to AE1 include different materials.
Regarding Claim 13,
LEE discloses:
The display device of claim 1, further comprising:
a (Fig. 3: SE) source electrode and a drain electrode (Fig. 3: DE) positioned in the display area (under SUB2),
wherein the common voltage line (PE2/EVL of PE2/EVL/AEA), the source electrode (SE), and the drain electrode (DE) are positioned on a same layer (Fig. 3: IN).
Regarding Claim 14,
LEE discloses:
The display device of claim 1, wherein
the emission layer (OL) and the second electrode (CAT) are sequentially positioned (indirectly) on the third layer (AE1) of the common voltage line (AEA of PE2/EVL/AEA), and
the third layer (AE1) of the common voltage line (AEA of PE2/EVL/AEA) does not directly contact the second electrode (CAT).
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.
Claim(s) 4 & 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE in view of AFFINITO (US 20010015620 A1).
Regarding Claim 4,
LEE discloses:
The display device of claim 1, wherein
the reinforced layer (I1/I2) includes [a buffer layer] (I1, which protects against moisture; Par. 39).
LEE does not disclose:
the reinforced layer (I1/I2) includes polyimide or an acrylic material.
AFFINITO discloses:
the reinforced layer (Fig. 1: 132/134) includes polyimide or an acrylic material (Par. 23).
Based on the foregoing factual findings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of LEE with those of AFFINITO such that the material of the reinforced layer—specifically 132 of 132/134—includes an acrylic material, thereby satisfying the claimed limitations, as the prior art includes each claimed limitation, and said person having ordinary skill could have incorporated the acrylic material of AFFINITO into the corresponding reinforced layer of LEE using known methods, with the modified reinforced layer continuing to perform its known function of protecting the associated OLED from moisture (LEE Par. 39; AFFINITO Par. 26) and predictably producing suitable isolation layers for said OLED. Further, said person having ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success in this endeavor, as they would have known how to execute such a modification. Accordingly, upon considering and weighing all foregoing evidence, the claimed invention is not found to be patentably distinct from that of LEE in view of AFFINITO, consistent with KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). See also MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Regarding Claim 8,
LEE discloses:
The display device of claim 1, wherein
the reinforced layer (I1/I2) includes a first layer (I2) and a second layer (I1),
the first layer (I2) of the reinforced layer (I1/I2) includes an inorganic material (Par. 42), and
the second layer (I1) of the reinforced layer (I1/I2) includes [a buffer layer] (I1, which protects against moisture; Par. 39).
LEE does not disclose:
the second layer (I1) of the reinforced layer (I1/I2) includes an organic material.
AFFINITO discloses:
the reinforced layer (Fig. 1: 132/134) includes a first layer (134) and a second layer (132),
the first layer (134) of the reinforced layer (132/134) includes an inorganic material (Par. 24), and
the second layer (132) of the reinforced layer (132/134) includes an organic material (Par. 23).
Based on the foregoing factual findings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of LEE with those of AFFINITO such that the second layer of the reinforced layer includes an organic material, thereby satisfying the claimed limitations, as the prior art includes each claimed limitation, and said person having ordinary skill could have incorporated the organic material of AFFINITO into the corresponding second layer of LEE using known methods, with the modified second layer continuing to perform its known function of protecting the associated OLED from moisture (LEE Par. 39; AFFINITO Par. 26) and predictably producing suitable isolation layers for said OLED. Further, said person having ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success in this endeavor, as they would have known how to execute such a modification. Accordingly, upon considering and weighing all foregoing evidence, the claimed invention is not found to be patentably distinct from that of LEE in view of AFFINITO, consistent with KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). See also MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE in view of IKEDA (US 20120205678 A1).
Regarding Claim 6,
LEE does not disclose:
The display device of claim 5, wherein
the thickness of the third layer (AE1) is in a range of about 200 Å to about 1000 Å.
IKEDA discloses:
the thickness of the third layer (Fig. 2B: 111) is in a range [from 100 nm to 35,000 nm] (Par. 113).
Based on the foregoing factual findings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of LEE with those of IKEDA such that the thickness of the third layer falls within the claimed range, as IKEDA teaches an analogous third layer, used for the same purpose of providing a common voltage to the top electrode of the associated OLED (LEE Par. 61; IKEDA Par. 13) in a similar invention, having a thickness falling within a range of 100 nm to 35,000 nm. This known range overlaps with the claimed range. Therefore, said person having ordinary skill would have found it obvious to form the corresponding third layer of LEE with a thickness within the claimed range, as IKEDA demonstrates this thickness was suitable for the same purpose and would have been expected to preserve the known function of the third layer as well as produce the predictable result of providing a suitable electrical contact to the top electrode of the associated OLED. Further, said person having ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success in this endeavor, as they would have known how to execute such a modification. Accordingly, upon considering and weighing all foregoing evidence, the claimed invention is not found to be patentably distinct from that of LEE in view of IKEDA, consistent with In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also MPEP § 2144.05(I).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kenneth S. Stephenson whose telephone number is (571)272-6686. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9 A.M. to 5 P.M. (EST)..
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, Julio Maldonado can be reached at (571) 272-1864. 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.
/K.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2898
/JULIO J MALDONADO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights