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
Applicant's election with traverse of Species I (directed to Fig. 5) claims 1-9 and 12-18 in the reply filed on 28 July 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Figs. 13 and 14 belong to Species I because they are described in the specification as modifications of Fig. 6, and that Figs. 15 and 16 are applicable to both Species I and II and therefore, should not be classified exclusively under Species II.
Upon further consideration, Figs. 13 and 14 are included in the Species I, Group I-D: An embodiment, see for example, Fig. 13 and Group I-E, An embodiment, see for example, Fig. 14 and Figs. 15 and 16 are included in Species I and II.
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 lengthy 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 § 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.
Claims 3 and 5 are 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.
Regarding claim 3, the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are vague and ill-defined as a result of uncertainty in the different boundaries “wherein the partition wall includes: a first partition wall portion which extends in a first direction; and a second partition wall portion which extends in a second direction intersecting the first direction.”. The claim is indefinite because it is not clear if the first partition wall portion and the second partition wall portion is the same as the first portion and the second portion of the partition wall as recited in claim 1. For examination purposes, the examiner will interpret a first partition wall portion and a second partition wall portion to be the same as the first portion and second portion of the partition wall as recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are vague and ill-defined as a result of uncertainty in the different boundaries “wherein a width of an upper portion of the partition wall is greater than a width of a lower portion of the partition wall.”. The claim is indefinite because it is not clear if the upper portion of the partition wall is the first portion or second portion of the partition wall or if the lower portion of the partition wall is the first portion or second portion of the partition wall as recited in claim 1. For examination purposes, the examiner will interpret the upper portion of the partition wall to be the second portion of the partition wall surrounding the first portion of the partition wall and the lower portion of the a partition wall to be the first portion as recited in claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 12, 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. US 11,610,954.
PNG
media_image1.png
408
792
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lin et al. US 11,610,954
Regarding claim 1, Lin et al. in Figs. 1A-1D and col. 4, line 1-col. 9, line 59 disclose a display device comprising: a substrate 102 col. 6, lines 14-35 on which a display area and a non-display area adjacent to the display area are defined;
a first electrode 104 col. 6, lines 45-47 disposed in the display area on the substrate;
a pixel defining layer 126 col. 6, lines 36-47 disposed on the substrate and exposing at least a portion of the first electrode 104;
a partition wall 110 col. 6, line 63-col. 7, line 34 disposed on the pixel defining layer 126, wherein the partition wall 110 includes: a first portion 110A including a metal material col. 6, line 63-col. 7, line 34; and a second portion 110B Figs. 1C-1D surrounding the first portion 110A and including a metal oxide col. 7, lines 24-26;
a light emission layer 112 col. 7, line 35-col. 8, line 3 disposed on the first electrode 104 and the partition wall 112, wherein at least a portion of the light emission layer 112 is cut off by the partition wall 110A Fig. 1B; and
a second electrode 114 col. 8, lines 4-16 disposed on the light emission layer 112 and the partition wall 110.
Although Lin et al. do not expressly disclose the second portion of the partition wall 110B Figs. 1C-1D including a metal oxide col. 7, lines 24-26, the material differences are considered obvious design choices and are not patentable unless obvious or unexpected results are obtained from these changes. It appears that these changes produce no functional differences and therefore would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2144.07
Regarding claim 2, Lin et al. in Figs. 1A-1D and col. 4, line 1-col. 9, line 59 teach the display device of claim 1, wherein the partition wall 110 includes at least one selected from aluminum (Al), hafnium (Hf), zirconium (Zr), tantalum (Ta), and titanium (Ti) col. 7, lines 14-26.
Regarding claim 3, Lin et al. in Figs. 1A-1D and col. 4, line 1-col. 9, line 59 teach the display device of claim 1, wherein the partition wall 110 includes:
a first partition wall portion 110A which extends in a first direction; and
a second partition wall portion 110B which extends in a second direction intersecting the first direction Figs. 1A-1C.
Regarding claim 4, Lin et al. in Figs. 1A-1D and col. 4, line 1-col. 9, line 59 teach the display device of claim 1, wherein the partition wall 110B, Fig. 1C includes a plurality of partition walls 110B and spaced apart from each other but do not expressly teach wherein each of the plurality of partition walls has a wave shape in a plan view.
However, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed “wherein each of the plurality of partition walls has a wave shape in a plan view” is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e. the invention would not work without each of the plurality of partition walls has a wave shape). Also, the Applicant has not shown that “wherein each of the plurality of partition walls has a wave shape in a plan view” produces a result that was new or unexpected enough to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the cited prior art. Instead, paragraph [0178] discloses other possible options such as “Referring to FIG. 16, the partition wall SP may have a wave shape on the display area DA and may include a plurality of partition walls spaced apart from each other. Although the wave shape may include a repeating ‘L’ shape in an embodiment, the disclosure is not limited thereto.”. Therefore, no rationale given that the invention will not function without each of the plurality of partition walls has a wave shape. Thus, the claimed “wherein each of the plurality of partition walls has a wave shape in a plan view” is not critical to the invention.
Examiner would like to note that MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline, where change of shape is a Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale. See 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.).
In view of the above, as there is no persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of “wherein each of the plurality of partition walls has a wave shape in a plan view” is significant; the claimed limitation of “wherein each of the plurality of partition walls has a wave shape in a plan view” is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious as per MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline. Therefore, the claimed limitation of “wherein each of the plurality of partition walls has a wave shape in a plan view” is not patentable over Lin et al.
Regarding claim 5, Lin et al. in Figs. 1A-1D and col. 4, line 1-col. 9, line 59 teach the display device of claim 1, wherein a width of an upper portion 110B of the partition wall 110 is greater than a width of a lower portion of the partition wall 110A.
Regarding claim 6, Lin et al. in Figs. 1A-1D and col. 4, line 1-col. 9, line 59 teach the display device of claim 1, wherein the light emission layer 112 col. 7, line 35-col. 8, line 67 includes: a plurality of organic light emission layers 112 sequentially disposed on the first electrode 104 and the partition wall110A; and a functional layer 150 col. 7, line 35-col. 8, line 67 disposed between the organic light emission layers 112.
Regarding claim 7, Lin et al. in Figs. 1A-1D and col. 4, line 1-col. 9, line 59 teach the display device of claim 6, wherein the light emission layer 112 is entirely cut off by the partition wall 110A Figs. 1A-1B.
Regarding claim 12, Lin et al. in Figs. 1A-1D and col. 4, line 1-col. 9, line 59 teach the display device of claim 1, wherein the second electrode 114 col. 9, lines 1-50 continuously extends in the display area.
Regarding claim 14, Lin et al. in Figs. 1A-1D and col. 4, line 1-col. 9, line 59 teach the display device of claim 1, further comprising: an insulating layer 116 col. 9, lines 22-59 disposed directly on the partition wall 110.
Regarding claim 15, Lin et al. in Figs. 1A-1D and col. 4, line 1-col. 9, line 59 teach the display device of claim 14, wherein the insulating layer 116 col. 9, lines 22-59 includes an inorganic insulating material.
Regarding claim 16, Lin et al. in Figs. 1A-1D and col. 4, line 1-col. 9, line 59 teach the display device of claim 14, wherein the insulating layer 116 col. 9, lines 22-59 has a single layer structure or a multilayer structure.
Regarding claim 17, Lin et al. in Figs. 1A-1D and col. 4, line 1-col. 9, line 59 teach the display device of claim 14, wherein the insulating layer includes at least one selected from silicon oxide (SiOx) and silicon nitride (SiNx).
Regarding claim 18, Lin et al. in Figs. 1A-1D and col. 4, line 1-col. 9, line 59 teach the display device of claim 1, but do not expressly teach wherein the second portion of the partition wall include at least one selected from aluminum oxide (Al2O3), hafnium oxide (HfO2), zirconium oxide (ZrO2), tantalum oxide (Ta2O5) and titanium oxide (TiO2).
Although Lin et al. do not expressly disclose the second portion of the partition wall 110B Figs. 1C-1D and col. 7, lines 24-26 including at least one selected from aluminum oxide (Al2O3), hafnium oxide (HfO2), zirconium oxide (ZrO2), tantalum oxide (Ta2O5) and titanium oxide (TiO2), the material differences are considered obvious design choices and are not patentable unless obvious or unexpected results are obtained from these changes. It appears that these changes produce no functional differences and therefore would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2144.07
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park et al. US 10,784,320.
Regarding claim 13, Lin et al. in Figs. 1A-1D and col. 4, line 1-col. 9, line 59 teach the display device of claim 1, but do not expressly disclose further comprising: a signal line disposed in the non-display area and electrically connected to the partition wall to apply a signal to the partition wall; and a driver disposed in the non-display area, wherein the driver measures a current value of the partition wall based on the signal.
Park et al. Figs. 11 and 12, col. 15, lines 30-40 teach a common ground signal applied to a metal pattern 332 disposed on bank 320 through bank hole 330h which prevents lateral current leakage between sub-pixels.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try the electrical connection of Park et al. in the device of Lin et al., as the court has held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is prima facie obvious. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Lin et al. in view of Park et al. do not expressly teach “wherein the driver measures a current value of the partition wall based on the signal.”
However, the claim limitation “wherein the driver measures a current value of the partition wall based on the signal”, is drawn to a method of use or a device under test. The intended use and other types of functional language must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Casey,152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). In this case, the structure is capable of performing this use.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 9 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art neither anticipates nor renders obvious, in the context of the claims,
Regarding claim 8, the display device of claim 6, wherein, with respect to the substrate, an upper surface of the partition wall is located at a same level as an upper surface of a portion of the light emission layer disposed directly on the first electrode.
Regarding claim 9, the display device of claim 6, wherein the organic light emission layers include: a blue organic light emission layer, a green organic light emission layer, and a red organic light emission layer, which are disposed on the first electrode and the partition wall, and wherein the blue organic light emission layer and the green organic light emission layer are cut off by the partition wall, and the red organic light emission layer continuously extends in the display area.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SONYA D MCCALL-SHEPARD whose telephone number is (571)272-9801. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30 AM-5:00 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, Julio J. Maldonado can be reached at (571)272-1864. 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.
/Sonya McCall-Shepard/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights