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 election, without traverse, of Group I, Specie 1, claims 1-11 in the reply filed on June 10th, 2026, is acknowledged. Non-elected invention, claims 12-20 have been withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Action on merits of Group I, Species 1, claims 1-11 as follows.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March, 22nd, 2024, has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 03/22/2024 are acceptable.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
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 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Choung (US 2022/0077251, hereinafter as Chou ‘251).
Regarding Claim 1, Chou ‘251 teaches a display device comprising:
a plurality of subpixels (Fig. 1C, (108a and 108b); [0029]) arranged in a first direction and a second direction intersecting with the first direction; and
a partition (Fig. 1A, (110); [0030]) which includes a conductive lower portion (110A; [0030]) and an upper portion (110B; [0030]) protruding from a side surface of the lower portion (110A) and surrounds the subpixels (108a-b), wherein the partition includes: first (110B_left) and second (110B_righ) partitions arranged across an intervening gap in the first direction and extending in the second direction (see Fig. 1A and 1C); and
a plurality of protrusions extending from the first partition (110B_left) toward the second partition (110B_righ) and spaced apart from the second partition (see Fig. 1A).
Regarding Claim 4, Chou ‘251 teaches each of the first subpixels is provided between the two protrusions which are adjacent to each other in the second direction (see Figs. 1A-1C).
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 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou ‘251 as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 2, Chou ‘251 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the features: “each of the protrusions has a distal end portion having a rounded planar shape”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select each of the protrusions has a distal end portion having a rounded planar shape on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have each of the protrusions has a distal end portion having a rounded planar shape in order to improve the performance of the display device.
Regarding Claim 3, Chou ‘251 teaches the subpixels include a plurality of first subpixels arranged in the second direction between the first partition and the second partition (see Figs. 1A-1C),
Chou ‘251 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the features: “each of the protrusions is provided between the first subpixels which are adjacent to each other in the second direction”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select each of the protrusions is provided between the first subpixels which are adjacent to each other in the second direction on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have each of the protrusions is provided between the first subpixels which are adjacent to each other in the second direction in order to improve the performance of the display device.
Claims 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou ‘251 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tanada (US 2012/0223342, hereinafter as Tana ‘342).
Regarding Claim 5, Chou ‘251 teaches each of the subpixels includes: a lower electrode (104; [0027]); an organic layer (112; [0029]) which covers the lower electrode and emits light based on application of voltage; and an upper electrode (114; [0032]) which is in contact with the lower portion (110A) and covers the organic layer (112) (see Fig. 2), and the upper electrode (114) of each of the first subpixels is in contact with the lower portion of the first partition.
Chou ‘251 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the features: “the upper electrode is not in contact with the lower portion of the second partition”.
Tana ‘342 teaches the upper electrode (Fig. 1B, (207); [0058]) is not in contact with the lower portion (211a; [0062]) of the second partition.
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 ‘251 by having the upper electrode is not in contact with the lower portion of the second partition for the purpose of providing a light-emitting device or a lighting device with high reliability (e.g. reduced contact resistance and lower power consumption) /a high manufacturing yield (see para. [0011]-[0012]) as suggested by Tana ‘342.
Regarding Claim 6, Chou ‘251 teaches the partition (110) and the upper electrodes (114) of the subpixels constitute a common electrode which overlaps a display area in which the subpixels are provided, and the common electrode is divided into a first segment including the first partition and a second segment including the second partition by a slit (see Fig. 7L).
Regarding Claim 7, Chou ‘251 and Tana ‘342 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the features: “at least an end of the slit reaches an outer edge of the common electrode”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select at least an end of the slit reaches an outer edge of the common electrode on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have at least an end of the slit reaches an outer edge of the common electrode in order to improve the performance of the display device.
Regarding Claim 8, Chou ‘251 and Tana ‘342 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the features: “a high-resistive portion connecting the first segment and the second segment to each other in a surrounding area around the display area, and having a resistance which is higher than the first segment and the second segment”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a high-resistive portion connecting the first segment and the second segment to each other in a surrounding area around the display area, and having a resistance which is higher than the first segment and the second segment on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have a high-resistive portion connecting the first segment and the second segment to each other in a surrounding area around the display area, and having a resistance which is higher than the first segment and the second segment in order to improve the performance of the display device.
Regarding Claim 9, Chou ‘251 and Tana ‘342 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the features: “the high-resistive portion includes the lower portion and the upper portion and has a meandering shape in plan view”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select the high-resistive portion includes the lower portion and the upper portion and has a meandering shape in plan view on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have the high-resistive portion includes the lower portion and the upper portion and has a meandering shape in plan view in order to improve the performance of the display device.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou ‘251 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lim (US 2019/0181213, hereinafter as Lim ‘213).
Regarding Claim 8, Chou ‘251 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the features: “a plurality of pixel circuits provided in the subpixels, respectively; a plurality of scanning lines which supply a scanning signal to the pixel circuits; and a plurality of signal lines which supply a video signal to the pixel circuits, wherein the first direction corresponds to an extension direction of the scanning lines, and the second direction corresponds to an extension direction of the signal lines”.
Lim ‘213 teaches a plurality of pixel circuits (Fig. 3, (TR); [0053]) provided in the subpixels (P; [0052]), respectively; a plurality of scanning lines (GL; [0036]) which supply a scanning signal to the pixel circuits; and a plurality of signal lines (DL; [0036]) which supply a video signal to the pixel circuits, wherein the first direction corresponds to an extension direction of the scanning lines, and the second direction corresponds to an extension direction of the signal lines (see Fig. 1).
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 ‘251 by a plurality of pixel circuits provided in the subpixels, respectively; a plurality of scanning lines which supply a scanning signal to the pixel circuits; and a plurality of signal lines which supply a video signal to the pixel circuits, wherein the first direction corresponds to an extension direction of the scanning lines, and the second direction corresponds to an extension direction of the signal lines for the purpose of improving a display quality of the display device (see para. [0006]) as suggested by Lim ‘213.
Regarding Claim 11, Lim ‘213 teaches a plurality of pixel circuits (Fig. 3, (TR); [0053]) provided in the subpixels (P; [0052]), respectively; a plurality of scanning lines (GL; [0036]) which supply a video signal to the pixel circuits; wherein the first direction corresponds to an extension direction of the signal lines (DL; [0036]), and the second direction corresponds to an extension direction of the scanning lines (GL; [0036]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following patents are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to semiconductor devices:
Takayama et al. (US 2022/0223669 A1)
Kim et al. (US 2020/0212116 A1)
For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DZUNG T 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, 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