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 .
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al., KR10-2021-0047104 (cited in this Office Action as its English translation US 2022/038582), in view of Huang et al., US 2015/0212357.
In re Claim 1, Lee discloses a display device (Fig. 4) comprising: a substrate BS comprising a first light emitting area PXA-R, a second light emitting area PXA-G adjacent to the first light emitting area PXA-R, and a non-light emitting area NPXA between the first light emitting area PXA-R and the second light emitting area PXA-G; a via insulating layer (10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60; PDl2; CE1; PDL1) on the substrate BS and defining a trench (wherein CNT-1; CNT-2, CNT-3; OH1, OH2 located), marked as recessed from an upper surface of the via insulating layer (10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60; PDl2; CE1; PDL1) in the non-light emitting area NPXA; a pixel electrode AE1 in the first light emitting area PXA-R and the second light emitting area and on the via insulating layer (10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60; PDl2; CE1; PDL1), a pixel electrode AE1 in the first light emitting area PXA-R and the second light emitting area PXA-G and on the via insulating layer (10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60; PDl2; CE1; PDL1) and a pixel defining layer PDL on the via insulating layer (10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60; PDl2; CE1; PDL1) and the pixel electrode AE1, exposing at least a portion of the pixel electrode AE1, and defining an opening (OHP1) to the trench (wherein CNT-1; CNT-2, CNT-3; OH1, OH2 located).
Lee does not disclose that the pixel electrode AE1 and comprising: a first metal layer comprising at least one of titanium (Ti) or titanium nitride (TiN); a second metal layer on the first metal layer and comprising a metal material; and a third metal layer on the second metal layer and comprising titanium nitride.
A difference between the applicant’s Claim 1 and Lee’s display device is in the specified structure of the pixel electrode.
Huang teaches a pixel electrode 520 comprising: a first metal layer 522 comprising at least one of titanium (Ti) or titanium nitride (TiN); a second metal layer 524 on the first metal layer 522 and comprising a metal material; and a third metal layer 526 on the second metal layer and 524 comprising titanium nitride (Figs. 2; [003-0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to substitute Lee’s pixel electrode with Huang’s pixel electrode, to provide an image with higher brightness as taught by Huang ([0031]).
In re Claim 2, Lee taken with Huang discloses all imitations of Claim 2, including that a first area CE1 overlapping the pixel defining layer PDL1 in a plan view; and a second area TFL1 exposed by the pixel defining layer PDL1, except for that a thickness of a portion of the third metal layer overlapping the second area PXA-RG is thinner than a thickness of a portion of the third metal layer (inside Lee’s AE1 that is substituted by Huang’ pixel electrode with third metal layer 526) overlapping the first area PXA-R. The difference between the Applicant’s Claim 2 and Lee – Huang’s references is in the specified ratio of the thicknesses. It is known in the art that thickness is a result effective variable – because volume depends on it. Due to high level of knowledge and skills of personal capable to operate very sophisticated and expensive equipment in semiconductor technology, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice of one of ordinary skill in the semiconductor art to use thickness of a portion of the third metal layer overlapping the second area PXA-RG is thinner than a thickness of a portion of the third metal layer overlapping the first area PXA-R, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (MPEP2144.04.IV.A).
In re Claim 3, Lee taken with Huang discloses all limitations of Claim 3 except for that the thickness of the portion of the third metal layer (inside Lee’s AE1 being substituted by Huang’s pixel electrode with third metal layer 526) overlapping the second area TFL1 is about 30 Å to about 60 Å. It is known in the art that the thickness is a result effective variable – because the volume depends on it. Due to high level of knowledge and skills of personal capable to operate very sophisticated and expensive equipment in semiconductor technology, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice of one of ordinary skill in the semiconductor art to use the thickness of the third metal layer overlapping the second area TFL1 of about 30 Å to about 60 Å, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (MPEP2144.05.I).
In re Claim 4, Lee taken with Huang discloses the display device of claim 1, wherein the pixel defining layer PDL comprises: a first pixel defining layer PDL1 on the via insulating layer (10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60; PDl2; CE1; PDL1) and the pixel electrode AE1 (Lee: Fig. 4); a second pixel defining layer PDL2 on the first pixel defining layer PDL1; and a third pixel defining layer PDL3 on the second pixel defining layer PDL2 (Lee: Fig. 4).
In re Claim 5, Lee taken with Huang discloses the display device of claim 4, wherein each of the first pixel defining layer PDL1 and the third pixel defining layer PDL3 comprises an inorganic material different from the second pixel defining layer PDL2 (Lee: [9995 -0099]).
In re Claim 6, Lee taken with Huang discloses the display device of claim 5, wherein each of the first pixel defining layer PDL1 and the third pixel defining layer PDL3 comprises silicon nitride (SiNx), and the second pixel defining layer comprises silicon oxide (SiOx) (Lee: [9995 -0099]).
In re Claim 7, Lee taken with Huang discloses the display device of claim 4, wherein the first pixel defining layer PDL1 covers a side surface of the pixel electrode AE1 (Lee: Fig. 4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-11 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.
Reason for indicating allowable subject matter
In re Claim 8: The prior art of record cited by the current office action, alone or in combination, fail to anticipate or render obvious such limitation of claim 8 as: “the side surface of the second pixel defining layer protrudes more in the direction toward the center of the pixel electrode than a side surface of the third pixel defining layer”, in combination with limitations of Claims 1 and 4 on which it depends.
In re Claim 9: The prior art of record cited by the current office action, alone or in combination, fail to anticipate or render obvious such limitation of claim 9 as: “the light emitting layer comprises a charge generation layer disconnected in the non-light emitting area by the trench”, in combination with limitations of Claim 1 on which it depends.
In re Claim 11: The prior art of record cited by the current office action, alone or in combination, fail to anticipate or render obvious such limitation of claim 11 as: “a plurality of pixel circuits each accommodated in the plurality of grooves”, in combination with limitations of Claim 1 on which it depends.
Claims 12-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
In re Claim 12, prior-art fails to disclose a method of manufacturing a display device comprising “removing a portion of each of the preliminary pixel defining layer and the via insulating layer in the non-light emitting area; and forming a pixel defining layer exposing at least a portion of the pixel electrode by removing a portion of the preliminary pixel defining layer.” Therefore, the claimed method differs from prior art methods on this point and there is no evidence it would have been obvious to make this change.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIKOLAY K YUSHIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7885. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (7-7 PST).
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, Yara B. Green can be reached at 5712703075. 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.
/NIKOLAY K YUSHIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights