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
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, 2 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takada (US 20090009069 A1) in view of Eida (TW I272866 B)
Regarding claim 1, Takada teaches a display device (at least Fig.1) comprising:
a lower electrode 300; a rib (330,[0040]) having a pixel aperture which overlaps the lower electrode ; a partition 350 comprising a conductive bottom portion 340 ([0040]) provided on the rib, an insulating stem portion (350,[0050]) provided on the bottom portion, and a top portion (cap portions of 350 shown in Fig.9 is considered as the top portion, while the lower portions of 350 in Fig.9 are considered as the stem portions) provided on the stem portion and protruding from a side surface of the stem portion (Fig.9); an organic layer 310 ([0040]) which covers the lower electrode through the pixel aperture and emits light based on application of voltage; and an upper electrode 320 ([0040]) which covers the organic layer and is in contact with the bottom portion, wherein the partition includes: a first portion (left side 350 which is partially shown in Fig.1) in which the bottom portion having a first thickness, the stem portion and the top portion are stacked; and a second portion (right side 350 which is partially shown in Fig.1) wherein the stem portion and the top portion are stacked; but does not teach the bottom portion having a second thickness less than the first thickness.
However, it is well-known in the art to adjust the thicknesses based on the desired resistivity ([0050] of Takada).
Eida teaches the technique of adding metal layers, so the thickness of the conductive electrode is increased, in order to adjust the resistivity, wherein Eida discloses:
when the upper electrode is used as the anode layer, for example, indium tin oxide (IT) can be used. 0), indium zinc oxide (IZ 0 ), indium copper (C u I η ), tin oxide (S η 0 2 ), zinc oxide (ΖηΟ), oxidized chain (Sb2〇3, Sb2〇4, Sb05), oxidation Ming (ai2o3), etc., alone or in combination of two or more. Further, in the present embodiment, in order to reduce the resistance of the upper electrode without impairing the range of transparency, a metal such as platinum, gold, nickel, molybdenum, tungsten, chromium, giant or aluminum may be added alone. Or a combination of two or more types is suitable for the composition of the upper electrode.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the application was filed, to adjust the thicknesses by routine experimentation, from the teachings of Eida, in the device of Takada , in order to adjust the resistivity of the conductive element of the partition.
Regarding claim 2, Takada in view of Eida teaches a display device, wherein the bottom portion comprises a first bottom layer, and a second bottom layer which covers the first bottom layer (considered two metallic layers), the first portion (first partition) includes the first bottom layer and the second bottom layer (both metallic layers), and the second portion (second partition) includes one of the first bottom layer and the second bottom layer (includes one metallic layer only) and does not include the other one (from the combined teachings of Takada in view of Eida, wherein Eida teaches multiple metallic layers can be used based on design in order to achieve the optimized resistivity, see rejection in claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 4, Takada in view of Eida teaches a display device, wherein the first bottom layer and the second bottom layer are thinner than the stem portion (Fig.1,6 and 9 of Takada).
Regarding claim 5, Takada in view of Eida teaches a display device, wherein each of the first bottom layer and the second bottom layer is formed of a metal material (first 2 lines of [0049] of Takada).
Regarding claim 6, Takada in view of Eida teaches a display device, wherein the stem portion is formed of at least one of silicon nitride, silicon oxide and silicon oxynitride ([0051] of Takada).
Regarding claim 7, Takada in view of Eida teaches a display device, further comprising a sealing layer which continuously covers the partition and a thin film including the organic layer and the upper electrode (401 in [0075] of Takada).
Claims 9 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takada (US 20090009069 A1) in view of Ma (WO 2021147851 A1)
Regarding claim 9, Takada teaches a display device (at least Fig.1) display device comprising: a lower electrode; a rib having a pixel aperture which overlaps the lower electrode; a partition comprising a conductive bottom portion provided on the rib, an insulating stem portion provided on the bottom portion, and a top portion provided on the stem portion and protruding from a side surface of the stem portion; an organic layer which covers the lower electrode through the pixel aperture and emits light based on application of voltage;
and an upper electrode which covers the organic layer and is in contact with the bottom portion (see rejection of claim 1 above wherein the citations of rejection in claim 1 apply).
Takada does not teach the partition includes: a first portion in which the bottom portion, the stem portion and the top portion are stacked; and a second portion in which the stem portion and the top portion are stacked, and the bottom portion is not provided under the stem portion.
Ma teaches a display device wherein , on some of the bottom surfaces of the pixel defining layer PDL, a conductor Y is disposed and on other pixel defining layers the conductive layer is not disposed, such that a first portion (middle pixel defining layer in Fig.5) and a second portion (right sided pixel defining layer of Ma in Fig.5) in which the bottom portion (conductive layer) is not provided under the pixel defining layer.
Therefore, from the teachings on conductive layer being disposed on one pixel defining layer, and not disposed in the other of the pixel defining layer in Ma, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the application was filed, to use the same technique for the bottom portion of Takada’s partition, such that a first portion in which the bottom portion, the stem portion and the top portion are stacked; and a second portion in which the stem portion and the top portion are stacked, and the bottom portion is not provided under the stem portion in order to facilitate detecting faults (disclosed throughout Ma; In view of this, the present application provides a display panel and a display device, which solves the technical problem of detecting cracks on the edge of the through hole at the stage of the display panel module).
Regarding claim 11, Takada in view of Ma teaches a display device, wherein the first bottom layer and the second bottom layer are thinner than the stem portion (Fig.1,6 and 9 of Takada).
Regarding claim 12, Takada in view of Ma teaches a display device, wherein the bottom portion is formed of a metal material (first 2 lines of [0049] of Takada).
Regarding claim 13, Takada in view of Ma teaches a display device, wherein the stem portion is formed of at least one of silicon nitride, silicon oxide and silicon oxynitride ([0051] of Takada).
Regarding claim 14, Takada in view of Ma teaches a display device, further comprising a sealing layer which continuously covers the partition and a thin film including the organic layer and the upper electrode (401 in [0075] of Takada).
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takada (US 20090009069 A1) in view of Obata (US 20100090203 A1)
Regarding claim 16, Takada teaches a display device (at least Fig.1) comprising: a lower electrode; a rib having a pixel aperture which overlaps the lower electrode; a partition comprising a conductive bottom portion provided on the rib, an insulating stem portion provided on the bottom portion, and a top portion provided on the stem portion and protruding from a side surface of the stem portion; an organic layer which covers the lower electrode through the pixel aperture and emits light based on application of voltage; and an upper electrode 320 which covers the organic layer and is in contact with the bottom portion 340 (see rejection of claim 1 above wherein the citations of rejection in claim 1 apply).
Takada does not teach: the rib, the bottom portion, the stem portion and the top portion have translucency.
Obata teaches transparent partitions between light emitting layers ([0114]-[0115]) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the application was filed, to use transmissive material for the partition between light emitting layers of Takada, in order to advantageously prevent substantial reduction of the opening rate ([0115] of Obata).
Regarding claim 17, Takada in view of Obata teaches a display device, wherein the bottom portion is formed of ITO ([0127],[0129],[0172],[0177] in Obata, from teachings of Obata, wherein it is a design choice to select element that are transparent or opaque in order to optimize opening rate, see rejection in claim 16 above).
Regarding claim 18, Takada in view of Obata teaches a display device, wherein the stem portion is formed of at least one of silicon nitride, silicon oxide and silicon oxynitride ([0051] of Takada).
Regarding claim 19, Takada in view of Obata teaches a display device, further comprising a sealing layer which continuously covers the partition and a thin film including the organic layer and the upper electrode (401 in [0075] of Takada).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takada (US 20090009069 A1) in view of Eida (TW I272866 B) and Obata (US 20100090203 A1)
Regarding claim 3, Takada in view of Eida teaches some of the electrodes as transparent ([0013],[0015],[0043]-[0047],[0072]-[0074] in Takada) but does not teach the one of the first bottom layer and the second bottom layer, the rib, the stem portion and the top portion have translucency, and the other one of the first bottom layer and the second bottom layer has light-shielding properties.
Obata teaches transparent partitions between light emitting layers ([0114]-[0115]) therefore based on the design choice, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the application was filed, to use transmissive material such that the one of the first bottom layer and the second bottom layer, the rib, the stem portion and the top portion have translucency, whereas as
shielding of the other one of the first bottom layer and the second bottom layer, based on design choice, cost and other manufacturing factors, in order to optimize prevention of reduced opening rates ([0115] of Obata).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takada (US 20090009069 A1) in view of Eida (TW I272866 B) and further in view of Jung (US 20240179979 A1)
Regarding claim 8, Takada in view of Eida teaches the invention set forth in claim 7 above, but is silent regarding a cap layer which has a refractive index different from a refractive index of the sealing layer and is provided between the upper electrode and the sealing layer.
Jung teaches a display device wherein a cap layer which has a refractive index different from a refractive index (since the materials are different as they are described differently) of the sealing layer and is provided between the upper electrode and the sealing layer ([0149]) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the application was filed, to use the layers, as disclosed in Jung, in the device of Takada in view of Eida in order to provide robust protection to the display elements.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takada (US 20090009069 A1) in view of Ma (WO 2021147851 A1) and further in view of Obata
Regarding claim 10, Takada in view of Ma teaches some of the electrodes as transparent ([0013], [0015], [0043]- [0047], [0072]- [0074] in Takada) but does not teach the one of the first bottom layer and the second bottom layer, the rib, the stem portion and the top portion have translucency, and the other one of the first bottom layer and the second bottom layer has light-shielding properties.
Obata teaches transparent partitions between light emitting layers ([0114]-[0115]) therefore based on the design choice, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the application was filed, to use transmissive material such that the one of the first bottom layer and the second bottom layer, the rib, the stem portion and the top portion have translucency, whereas as
shielding of the other one of the first bottom layer and the second bottom layer, based on design choice, cost and other manufacturing factors, in order to optimize prevention of reduced opening rates ([0115] of Obata).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takada in view of Ma and further in view of Jung (US 20240179979 A1)
Regarding claim 15, Takada in view of Ma teaches the invention set forth in claim 14 above, but is silent regarding a cap layer which has a refractive index different from a refractive index of the sealing layer and is provided between the upper electrode and the sealing layer.
Jung teaches a display device wherein a cap layer which has a refractive index different from a refractive index (since the materials are different as they are described differently) of the sealing layer and is provided between the upper electrode and the sealing layer ([0149]) and , it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the application was filed, to use the layers, as disclosed in Jung, in the device of Takada in view of Ma in order to provide robust protection to the display elements.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takada in view of Obata and further in view of Jung (US 20240179979 A1)
Regarding claim 20, Takada in view of Obata teaches the invention set forth in claim 14 above, but is silent regarding a cap layer which has a refractive index different from a refractive index of the sealing layer and is provided between the upper electrode and the sealing layer.
Jung teaches a display device wherein a cap layer which has a refractive index different from a refractive index (since the materials are different as they are described differently) of the sealing layer and is provided between the upper electrode and the sealing layer ([0149]) and , it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the application was filed, to use the layers, as disclosed in Jung, in the device of Takada in view of Obata in order to provide robust protection to the display elements.
Other art
WO 2012042566 A1: The thickness of the barrier metal is about 50 nm. Further, when lower resistance of wiring is required, it is preferable to use Cu instead of Al. The resistance can be reduced by increasing the thickness of the second metal film instead of changing the material.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fatima Farokhrooz whose telephone number is (571)-272-6043. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday, 9 am - 5 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s Supervisor, James Greece can be reached on (571) 272-3711.
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.
/Fatima N Farokhrooz/
Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights