Notice of 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
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.
The following title is suggested:
“A Display Device Having A Pixel separator Including Layered Sub-structures”.
Claims 1, 4, 8 and 11 are rejected Kumagai (US 2007/0263164 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1: Kumagai teaches (e.g., Figs. 1-5) a display device comprising:
a transistor ([0070]: Tr13) located on a substrate ([0069]: 11);
a first electrode ([0062]: 15) electrically connected to the transistor;
a first functional layer ([0064]: 16a) located on the first electrode;
a light emitting layer ([0005], [0054] and [0064]: EL layer) located on the first functional layer;
a second functional layer ([0064]: 16b) located on the light emitting layer;
a second electrode ([0054] and [0064]: 17) located on the second functional layer;
a pixel defining layer ([0065]: 18x) located on the first electrode; and
a separator ([0065]-[0066]: 18z/18a) located on the pixel defining layer, wherein
the separator comprises:
a first sub-layer ([0065-[0066]: 18z) comprising an insulating material ([0065-[0066]: 18z); and
a second sub-layer ([0065-[0066]: 18a) located on the first sub-layer and including a metal material ([0065]: layer 18a disclosed as bank metal; “the bank metal layer 18a is made of a conductive material and functions as the common voltage line (cathode line) Lc”), and
an end of the second electrode (16b) contacts a side surface of the second sub-layer (18a).
Regarding claim 4: Kumagai teaches the claim limitation of the display device of claim 1, on which this claim depends.
wherein the first sub-layer has a first thickness (thickness of 18z), the second sub-layer has a second thickness (thickness of 18a), and the first thickness (thickness of 18z), is greater than the second thickness (thickness of 18a).
Regarding claim 8: Kumagai teaches the claim limitation of the display device of claim 1, on which this claim depends.
wherein the first sub-layer includes silicon nitride, silicon oxide, silicon nitrate, or an organic insulating material (Kumagai: ([0065]-[0066]: 18z comprises organic insulating material).
Regarding claim 11: Kumagai teaches the claim limitation of the display device of claim 1, on which this claim depends.
wherein the first functional layer ([0064]: 16a), the second functional layer ([0064]: 16b), and the second electrode ([0064]: 17) are electrically disconnected between adjacent light emitting areas ([0053] and [0064]).
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, 9, 12-13, 15-16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumagai (US 2007/0263164 A1) in view of Choung et al. (US 11,348,983 B1).
Regarding claim 2: Kumagai teaches the claim limitation of the display device of claim 1, on which this claim depends.
Kumagai does not expressly teach that the separator further includes a third sub-layer located on the second sub-layer, and a width of the third sub-layer is greater than a width of the second sub-layer.
Choung teaches (e.g., Fig. 1B) a display device comprising a separator further including a third sub-layer (Col. 4, Lines 43-55: 110B) located on a second sub-layer (Col. 4, Lines 43-55: 110C), and a width of the third sub-layer (110B) is greater than a width of the second sub-layer (Col. 5. Lines 37-53: #110C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include in the display device of Kumagai, the separator further including a third sub-layer located on the second sub-layer, and a width of the third sub-layer is greater than a width of the second sub-layer, as taught by Choung, for the benefits of applying greater pressure to the underlaying structure, and thus, increasing the adhesion of the separation stack to the bottom structure, which in turn improve device reliability.
Regarding claim 3: Kumagai and Choung teach the claim limitation of the display device of claim 2, on which this claim depends,
wherein the third sub-layer has a metal material (Choung: Col. 6, Lines 15-19).
Regarding claim 9: Kumagai and Choung teach the claim limitation of the display device of claim 2, on which this claim depends,
wherein the second sub-layer and the third sub-layer include at least one of Mo, W, Ti, Al, and TiN (Choung: Col. 6, Lines 16-19: Titanium, Ti).
Regarding independent claim 12: Kumagai teaches (e.g., Figs. 1-5) a display device comprising:
a transistor ([0070]: Tr13) located on a substrate ([0069]: 11);
a first electrode ([0062]: 15) electrically connected to the transistor;
a first functional layer ([0064]: 16a) located on the first electrode;
a light emitting layer ([0005], [0054] and [0064]: EL layer) located on the first functional layer;
a second functional layer ([0064]: 16b) located on the light emitting layer;
a second electrode ([0054] and [0064]: 17) located on the second functional layer;
a pixel defining layer ([0065]: 18x) located on the first electrode; and
a separator ([0065]-[0066]: 18z/18a) located on the pixel defining layer, wherein
the separator comprises
a first sub-layer ([0065-[0066]: 18z) comprising an insulating material ([0065-[0066]: 18z);
a second sub-layer ([0065-[0066]: 18a) located on the first sub-layer and including a metal material ([0065]: layer 18a disclosed as bank metal; “the bank metal layer 18a is made of a conductive material and functions as the common voltage line (cathode line) Lc”); and
the first sub-layer (18z) has a first thickness (thickness of 18z), the second sub-layer (18a) has a second thickness (thickness of 18a), and the first thickness (thickness of 18z) is greater than the second thickness (thickness 18a).
Kumagai does not expressly teach
a third sub-layer located on the second sub-layer.
Choung teaches (e.g., Fig. 1B) a display device comprising a separator further including a third sub-layer (Col. 4, Lines 43-55: 110B) located on a second sub-layer (Col. 4, Lines 43-55: 110C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include in the display device of Kumagai, the separator further including a third sub-layer located on the second sub-layer, as taught by Choung, for the benefits of applying greater pressure to the underlaying structure, and thus, increasing the adhesion of the separation stack to the bottom structure, which in turn improve device reliability.
Regarding claim 13: Kumagai and Choung teach the claim limitation of the display device of claim 12, on which this claim depends,
and a width of the third sub-layer (Choung: 110B) is greater than a width of the second sub-layer (Choung: Col. 5. Lines 37-53: #110C).
Regarding claim 15: Kumagai and Choung teach the claim limitation of the display device of claim 12, on which this claim depends,
Kumagai does not expressly teach that the first thickness is greater than one-half of a sum of the first thickness and the second thickness, and the second thickness is less than one-half of a sum of the first thickness and the second thickness.
However, Kumagai teaches that the first thickness is about 0.5 to 1.5 .mu.m ([0084]: thickness of 18x); whereas the second thickness of about 0.2 to 0.5 .mu.m ([0085]: thickness of 18a).
Note that the thickness can be selected such that the proportions mee the claim limitation or at least the first thickness and the second thickness cover overlapping ranges.
Applicant is reminded that a prima facie case of obviousness typically exists when the ranges of a claimed composition overlap the ranges disclosed in the prior art or when the ranges of a claimed composition do not overlap but are close enough such that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CA FC 2003).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Kumagai to arrive at: “the first thickness is greater than one-half of a sum of the first thickness and the second thickness, and the second thickness is less than one-half of a sum of the first thickness and the second thickness”, for the benefits of meeting the desired geometry and device structure constraints.
Regarding claim 16: Kumagai and Choung teach the claim limitation of the display device of claim 12, on which this claim depends,
wherein the first functional layer includes a hole injection layer having conductivity (Kumagai: [0005] and [0054]: organic EL).
Regarding claim 18: Kumagai and Choung teach the claim limitation of the display device of claim 12, on which this claim depends.
wherein the first functional layer (Kumagai: [0064]: 16a), the second functional layer (Kumagai: [0064]: 16b), and the second electrode (Kumagai: [0064]: 17) are electrically disconnected between adjacent light emitting areas (Kumagai: [0053] and [0064]).
Regarding claim 19: Kumagai and Choung teach the claim limitation of the display device of claim 12, on which this claim depends, further comprising:
at least two light emitting layers (Kumagai: 16) that overlap in a direction perpendicular to the substrate (Kumagai: 11).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumagai (US 2007/0263164 A1).
Regarding claim 5: Kumagai teaches the claim limitation of the display device of claim 4, on which this claim depends.
Kumagai does not expressly teach that the first thickness is greater than one-half of a sum of the first thickness and the second thickness, and the second thickness is less than one-half of a sum of the first thickness and the second thickness.
However, Kumagai teaches that the first thickness is about 0.5 to 1.5 .mu.m ([0084]: thickness of 18x); whereas the second thickness of about 0.2 to 0.5 .mu.m ([0085]: thickness of 18a).
Note that the thickness can be selected such that the proportions mee the claim limitation or at least the first thickness and the second thickness cover overlapping ranges.
Applicant is reminded that a prima facie case of obviousness typically exists when the ranges of a claimed composition overlap the ranges disclosed in the prior art or when the ranges of a claimed composition do not overlap but are close enough such that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CA FC 2003).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Kumagai to arrive at: “the first thickness is greater than one-half of a sum of the first thickness and the second thickness, and the second thickness is less than one-half of a sum of the first thickness and the second thickness”, for the benefits of meeting the desired geometry and device structure constraints.
Claims 6-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumagai (US 2007/0263164 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2019/0088730 A1).
Regarding claim 6: Kumagai teaches the claim limitation of the display device of claim 4, on which this claim depends.
Kumagai does not expressly teach that an end of the first functional layer contacts a side of the first sub-layer.
Lee teaches (e.g., Fig. 3) a display device comprising a first functional layer ([0062] and [0064]: OL) and a first sub-layer ([0062] and [0062]: BR1);
Lee further teaches that an end of the first functional layer ([0062] and [0064]: OL) contacts a side of the first sub-layer ([0062] and [0062]: BR1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include in the device of Kumagai, the end of the first functional layer contacts a side of the first sub-layer, as taught by Lee, for the benefits of protecting the separation region and the auxiliary electrode area.
Regarding claim 7: Kumagai and Lee teach the claim limitation of the display device of claim 6, on which this claim depends.
wherein the first functional layer includes a conductive hole injection layer (Kumagai: [0005] and [0054]: organic EL).
Regarding claim 10: Kumagai teaches the claim limitation of the display device of claim 1, on which this claim depends.
Kumagai does not expressly teach
that an end of the light emitting layer and an end of the second functional layer contact a side surface of the first sub-layer.
Lee teaches (Fig. 3) a display device comprising an end of a light emitting layer ([0064]: OL includes a light emitting layer, required as a light emitting device; see [0064]: “the organic light emitting layer OL is a layer, in which electrons and holes combine and emit light. the organic light emitting layer OL includes an emission layer EML and may further include one or more of a hole injection layer HIL, a hole transport layer HTL, an electron transport layer ETL, and an electron injection layer EIL. The emission layer EML may include a light emitting material that generates white light”) and an end of a second functional layer ([0064]: OL includes a first functional layer, required as a light emitting device; see [0064]: “the organic light emitting layer OL is a layer, in which electrons and holes combine and emit light. The organic light emitting layer OL includes an emission layer EML and may further include one or more of a hole injection layer HIL, a hole transport layer HTL, an electron transport layer ETL, and an electron injection layer EIL. The emission layer EML may include a light emitting material that generates white light”) contact a side surface of a first sub-layer ([0062] and [0064]: BR1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include in the device of Kumagai, the end of the light emitting layer and the end of the second functional layer contacting a side surface of the first sub-layer, as taught by Lee, because during the manufacturing of the device, the layer stack can be deposited in a single masking level, which reduces the manufacturing process time, and thus, improving manufacturing throughput; in addition, the underlying structure is better protected by the deposited layers on the sub-layers.
Claims 14, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumagai US 20070263164 A1 in view of Choung et al. (US 11,348,983 B1) as applied above and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2019/0088730 A1).
Regarding claim 14: Kumagai and Choung teach the claim limitation of the display device of claim 12, on which this claim depends, wherein an end of the second electrode (Kumagai: 16b) contacts a side surface of the second sub-layer (Kumagai: 18a).
Kumagai does not expressly teach that an end of the first functional layer contacts a side surface of the first sub-layer.
Lee teaches (e.g., Fig. 3) a display device comprising a first functional layer ([0062] and [0064]: OL) and a first sub-layer ([0062] and [0062]: BR1);
Lee further teaches that an end of the first functional layer ([0062] and [0064]: OL) contacts a side of the first sub-layer ([0062] and [0062]: BR1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include in the device of Kumagai, the end of the first functional layer contacts a side of the first sub-layer, as taught by Lee, for the benefits of protecting the separation region and the auxiliary electrode area.
Regarding claim 17: Kumagai and Choung teach the claim limitation of the display device of claim 12, on which this claim depends,
Kumagai does not expressly teach
that ends of the light emitting layer and the second functional layer contact a side surface of the first sub-layer.
Lee teaches (Fig. 3) a display device comprising ends of a light emitting layer and the second functional layer ([0064]: OL includes a light emitting layer, required as a light emitting device; see [0064]: “the organic light emitting layer OL is a layer, in which electrons and holes combine and emit light. the organic light emitting layer OL includes an emission layer EML and may further include one or more of a hole injection layer HIL, a hole transport layer HTL, an electron transport layer ETL, and an electron injection layer EIL. The emission layer EML may include a light emitting material that generates white light”) and an end of a second functional layer ([0064]: OL includes a first functional layer, required as a light emitting device; see [0064]: “the organic light emitting layer OL is a layer, in which electrons and holes combine and emit light. The organic light emitting layer OL includes an emission layer EML and may further include one or more of a hole injection layer HIL, a hole transport layer HTL, an electron transport layer ETL, and an electron injection layer EIL. The emission layer EML may include a light emitting material that generates white light”) contact a side surface of a first sub-layer ([0062] and [0064]: BR1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include in the device of Kumagai, the end of the light emitting layer and the end of the second functional layer contacting a side surface of the first sub-layer, as taught by Lee, because during the manufacturing of the device, the layer stack can be deposited in a single masking level, which reduces the manufacturing process time, and thus, improving manufacturing throughput; in addition, the underlying structure is better protected by the deposited layers on the sub-layers.
Regarding claim 20: Kumagai and Choung teach the claim limitation of the display device of claim 19, on which this claim depends,
wherein the at least two light emitting layers contact a side surface of the first sub-layer.
Lee teaches (Fig. 3) a display device comprising an end of a light emitting layer ([0064]: OL includes a light emitting layer, required as a light emitting device; see [0064]: “the organic light emitting layer OL is a layer, in which electrons and holes combine and emit light. the organic light emitting layer OL includes an emission layer EML and may further include one or more of a hole injection layer HIL, a hole transport layer HTL, an electron transport layer ETL, and an electron injection layer EIL. The emission layer EML may include a light emitting material that generates white light”) and an end of a second functional layer ([0064]: OL includes a first functional layer, required as a light emitting device; see [0064]: “the organic light emitting layer OL is a layer, in which electrons and holes combine and emit light. The organic light emitting layer OL includes an emission layer EML and may further include one or more of a hole injection layer HIL, a hole transport layer HTL, an electron transport layer ETL, and an electron injection layer EIL. The emission layer EML may include a light emitting material that generates white light”) contact a side surface of a first sub-layer ([0062] and [0064]: BR1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include in the device of Kumagai, the end of the light emitting layer and the end of the second functional layer contacting a side surface of the first sub-layer, as taught by Lee, because during the manufacturing of the device, the layer stack can be deposited in a single masking level, which reduces the manufacturing process time, and thus, improving manufacturing throughput; in addition, the underlying structure is better protected by the deposited layers on the sub-layers.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HERVE-LOUIS Y ASSOUMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2606. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 08:30 AM-5:30 PM.
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, DAVIENNE MONBLEAU can be reached at 571-272-1945. 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.
/HERVE-LOUIS Y ASSOUMAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights