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
Applicants’ election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-8, in the reply filed on
6/30/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 9-17 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR
1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking
claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/30/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Lines 1-2: the phrase “as the light is incident the particles.” is missing a word “on”. Correction to “as the light is incident on the particles.” is suggested. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The specification defines uniform distribution as the condition in which “respective distances (e.g., in the x-direction, y-direction, and/or z-direction) between a particle PT and other particles PT adjacent the particle PT are substantially equal.” (See Par [0096] of current application publication). Combined with the specification definition of the term “substantially” as “approximately or actually” an of “about” as within ±30%, 20%, 10%, 5%, (See Pars [0045]-[0046], publication of current application) the metes and bounds of “uniformly distributed” cannot be determined.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C.
119(a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 5/14/2024 has been acknowledged and a signed copy of the PTO-1449 is attached herein.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by LV (US 2021/0265587 A1, hereinafter “LV”).
In regards to claim 1, LV discloses (See, for example, Fig. 2) a display device comprising:
a substrate (111a);
a pixel electrode (“light transmitting anode 111b”, See Par [0040]) disposed on the substrate (111a);
an intermediate layer (“OLED light-transmitting layer 111d”, See Par [0040]) disposed on the pixel electrode (“light transmitting anode 111b”, See Par [0040]); and
a common electrode (“a first cathode 11a…”, See Par [0040]) disposed on the intermediate layer (“OLED light-transmitting layer 111d”, See Par [0040]),
wherein the common electrode (“a first cathode 11a…”, See Par [0040]) comprises a silver (Ag) material doped with a first metal (“ the first cathode includes the aluminum and the silver “, See Par [0011]; “percentage of the aluminum in the first cathode ranges from 2% to 12%. Alternatively, the third volume percentage of the aluminum in the first cathode ranges from 2% to 6%”, See Par [0012]; “when an alloy cathode is evaporated, a small amount of metals with relatively active chemical properties will preferentially diffuse into the defects, thereby making the entire cathode layer stable.”, See Pars [0027], [0030]).
In regards to claim 3, LV discloses (See, for example, Fig. 2) that wherein the first metal comprises at least one material among aluminum (Al) and copper (Cu) (“ the first cathode includes the aluminum and the silver “, See Par [0011]; See also Claim 6).
In regards to claim 4, LV discloses (See, for example, Fig. 2) that wherein a doping concentration of the first metal ranges from about 5% to about 20% (“the third volume percentage of the aluminum in the first cathode 11a is in a range from 2% to 12%.”, See Pars [0050], [0051]).
In regards to claim 5, LV discloses (See, for example, Fig. 2) that wherein a thickness of
the common electrode ranges from about 0.01 μm to about 10 μm (“the first thickness of the
first electrode 11a ranges from 40A-100A”, i.e. 0.004-0.01 µm. And, 0.01µm reads on the
claim ed lower endpoint).
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, and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LV in view of Song et al. (US 2012/0248468 A1, hereinafter “Song”).
In regards to claims 2 and 6, LV discloses (See, for example, Fig. 2) that a capping layer disposed on the common electrode (claim 2); and wherein the common electrode comprises particles in which the silver (Ag) material and the first metal are combined (claim 6).
LV is silent to specifically teach that a capping layer disposed on the common electrode (claim 2); and wherein the common electrode comprises particles in which the silver (Ag) material and the first metal are combined (claim 6).
Song while disclosing a display device teaches (See, for example, Figs. 3A and 4) a capping layer (18) disposed on the common electrode (15); and the common electrode (15+17/19) comprises particles (17/19) in which the silver (Ag) material (See, for example, Par [0075]) and the first metal (See, Par [0075]) are combined.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify LV by Song because when moisture or oxygen in the air partially passes through the organic capping layer and reaches the cathode electrode the rare-earth material contained in the cathode electrode reacts with the moisture or the oxygen before Ag to prevent the oxidation of Ag.
In regards to claim 7, LV discloses that wherein a path of light emitted from the intermediate layer is changed as the light is incident the particles (See, Pars [0056], [0059], and [0063]-[0065], this limitation recites the characteristics of light rather than any structure of the device, and is inherent optical consequence of the particles of claim 6. The identical particles disposed in the identical position in the light path of LV’s first cathode 11a necessarily interact with the emitted light in the identical manner. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990); See also MPEP 2112.01(II)).
In regards to claim 8, LV as modified above discloses (See, for example, Figs. 3A and 4, Song) wherein the particles are uniformly distributed in the common electrode (15, “The rare-earth material 17 may be doped or diffused into the cathode electrode 15 in the process of forming the organic capping layer 18.” See Par [0076]).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERMIAS T WOLDEGEORGIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5350. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8 am - 5 pm E.S.T..
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Britt Hanley can be reached on 571-270-3042. 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.
/ERMIAS T WOLDEGEORGIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights