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 claims 1-17 and 20-37 in the reply filed on 4/6/2026 is acknowledged.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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, 10, 11 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (20200219907), in view of Choi (20090261713)
PNG
media_image1.png
431
652
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a display device comprising:
a substrate including a plurality of sub-pixels (fig. 1 and 9; par. 55);
a driving circuit on the substrate (please see TFT in figure above);
a plurality of lines (171 and 175) electrically connected to the driving circuit;
a plurality of protrusions (PDL) disposed over the plurality of lines;
a plurality of light-emitting elements (322) disposed on the plurality of protrusions;
a conductive layer (321) between at least one protrusion and at least one light-emitting element (please see figure above), and electrically connecting the driving circuit to the at least one light-emitting element (please see figure above); and
a planarization layer (PL);
a pixel electrode (310) electrically connected to the at least one light-emitting element;
a first contact hole (183) formed in the planarization layer and disposed over the at least one light emitting element and exposing a first surface of the at least one light emitting element.
Lee teaches 321 is an HIL or HTL but doesn’t the material that make up 321 and thus does not teach:
a metal layer between at least one protrusion and at least one light-emitting element, and electrically connecting the driving circuit to the at least one light-emitting element
Choi teaches an OLED with HIL and HTL (par. 16 and 18) and teaches the types of materials can be used, namely metal (par. 18 and 19). It is known in the art that using metal for an HIL and HTL allows for a layer with high hole mobility, good stability, and can be deposited by low-cost methods. Using such materials in Lee would afford these benefits.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA, at the time of filing, to utilize aforementioned teachings of the prior art(s) in the primary prior art(s) due to aforementioned reason(s).
Regarding claim 10, Lee, in view of Choi, teaches a display device of claim 1, wherein a second surface of the at least one light emitting element is electrically connected to the driving circuit through the metal layer (please see figure above).
Regarding claim 11, Lee, in view of Choi, teaches a display device of claim 1. Please note that the limitation “the metal layer transmits a high potential voltage or a low potential voltage” is geared toward the intended use of said display device. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed device is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed device from a prior art device” if the prior art device teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 14, Lee, in view of Choi, teaches a display device of claim 1, further comprising a plurality of insulating layers disposed between the driving circuit and the protrusion (please see ILDs in figure above).
Regarding claim 15, Lee, in view of Choi, teaches a display device of claim 14, wherein the plurality of lines are disposed between the protrusion and the plurality of insulating layers (please see figure above).
Regarding claim 16, Lee, in view of Choi, teaches a display device of claim 1, wherein at least one of the plurality of lines are connected to an emission enhancement layer (please see figure above which shows ETL/EIL).
Regarding claim 17, Lee, in view of Choi, teaches a display device of claim 16, wherein the emission enhancement layer is formed in a second contact hole (please see figure above which show ETL/EIL in hole between banks).
Claims 20-22, 33, 34, 36 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (20200219907), in view of Choi (20090261713).
PNG
media_image1.png
431
652
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, Lee teaches a display device comprising:
a substrate including a plurality of sub-pixels (fig. 1 and 9; par. 55);
a first line (171) and a second line (175) disposed in the plurality of sub-pixels on the substrate and separated from each other;
a passivation layer (ILD) covering the first line and the second line;
a light-emitting element (322) on the passivation layer above the first line and the second line; and
a conductive layer (321) between the passivation layer and the light-emitting element and connected to the first line and the second line (please see figure above).
Lee teaches 321 is an HIL or HTL but doesn’t the material that make up 321 and thus does not teach:
a metal layer between at least one protrusion and at least one light-emitting element, and electrically connecting the driving circuit to the at least one light-emitting element
Choi teaches an OLED with HIL and HTL (par. 16 and 18) and teaches the types of materials can be used, namely metal (par. 18 and 19). It is known in the art that using metal for an HIL and HTL allows for a layer with high hole mobility, good stability, and can be deposited by low-cost methods. Using such materials in Lee would afford these benefits.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA, at the time of filing, to utilize aforementioned teachings of the prior art(s) in the primary prior art(s) due to aforementioned reason(s).
Regarding claim 21, Lee, in view of Choi, teaches a display device of claim 20, wherein the metal layer contacts a bottom surface and a side surface of the light-emitting element (please see figure above).
Regarding claim 22, Lee, in view of Choi, teaches a display device of claim 20, wherein the metal layer is connected to the first line and the second line through a contact hole of the passivation layer(please see figure above).
Regarding claim 33, Lee, in view of Choi, teaches a display device of claim 20, wherein the metal layer contacts a bottom surface and a side surface of the light-emitting element (please see figure above).
Regarding claim 34, Lee, in view of Choi, teaches a display device of claim 33, wherein a cross-section of the light-emitting element comprises a shape having a width that increases in a direction from a bottom surface to a top surface (please see above which shows between the banks have an inverted triangle shape).
Regarding claim 36, Lee, in view of Choi, teaches a display device of claim 33, further comprising:
a planarization layer (PL) planarizing upper portions of the first line, the second line, and the light-emitting element, wherein the planarization layer contacts the metal layer disposed on the side surface of the light-emitting element (please see figure above).
Regarding claim 37, Lee, in view of Choi, teaches a display device of claim 1. Please note that the limitation “the metal layer is formed by curing liquid metal or silver paste (Ag paste)” relates to a method of manufacturing a device. It is well settled that “product by process” limitations in claims drawn to structure are directed to the product, per se, no matter how actually made. As such, the language only requires the device structure, which does not distinguish the invention from prior art, who teaches the structure as claimed in claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 3 is objected to based on its dependency on claim 2.
Claim 4 is objected to based on its dependency on claim 2.
.
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 6 is objected to based on its dependency on claim 5.
Claim 7 is objected to based on its dependency on claim 5.
Claim 8 is objected to based on its dependency on claim 5.
Claim 9 is objected to based on its dependency on claim 5.
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 13 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 23 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 24 is objected to based on its dependency on claim 23.
Claim 25 is objected to based on its dependency on claim 24.
Claim 26 is objected to based on its dependency on claim 25.
Claim 27 is objected to based on its dependency on claim 24.
Claim 28 is objected to based on its dependency on claim 27.
Claim 29 is objected to based on its dependency on claim 23.
Claim 30 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 31 is objected to based on its dependency on claim 30.
Claim 32 is objected to based on its dependency on claim 30.
Claim 35 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CALEB E HENRY whose telephone number is (571)270-5370. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri.
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, Eva Montalvo can be reached at (571) 270-3829. 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.
/CALEB E HENRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights