DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election claims 1-20 in the reply filed on 06/18/2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/02/2024, 03/08/2024 are filed after the mailing date of the application. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim objection
Amend claims 1 and 11 to fix the grammar error as following:
“an second structure disposed over a first structure” should be changed to --- a second structure disposed over a first structure ---
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 1-3, 7-12, 14, 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Choung et al., U.S. Patent No. 11,456,345.
Regarding claim 1, Choung discloses:
A device comprising (Figs. 1A-1B, 4H):
a substrate 102,
overhang structures 110 disposed over the substrate, each overhang structure having a second structure 110B, disposed over a first structure 110A (further include another portion 110C in Fig. 1B), the second structure 110B having an overhang extension extending laterally past the first structure (the overhang 110B, Fig. 1B), the first structure comprising:
a first sidewall opposing a second sidewall, the first sidewall and the second sidewall connected to each other (sidewalls on side of first structure 110A (and 110C), and
a plurality of sub-pixels 106, each sub-pixel comprising:
an organic light-emitting diode (OLED) material 112, 114, and
a cathode 116 disposed over the OLED material and extending under the overhang extension such that the cathode contacts the first sidewall and the second sidewall of the first structure under the overhang extension (the cathode 116 contacting the sidewalls of the first structure which is the lower supporting portion beneath the overhang, Fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 2, Choung discloses at least two sidewalls connecting a first end of the first sidewall to the first end of the second sidewall, and at least two more sidewalls connecting a second end of the first sidewall to the second end of the second sidewall (Fig. 4H; the overhand structure 110 and cathode 116 conforms around the sidewalls beneath the overhang, the sidewalls connecting together).
Regarding claim 3, Choung discloses wherein a cathode thickness at a midpoint between a cathode endpoint and an OLED endpoint on the first sidewall and the second sidewall is greater than the cathode thickness on the at least two sidewalls (Fig. 4H: cathode 116 is thick along the two long vertical sidewalls while the cathode 116 is thinner at the two sidewalls).
Regarding claims 7, 9, Choung discloses further comprising pixel-defining layer (PDL) structures or pixel isolation structure (PIS) disposed on the substrate and wherein the overhang structures are disposed over the PDL structures (Fig. 1B, layer PDL 126).
Regarding claims 8, 10, Choung discloses wherein the PDL or PIS comprises silicon oxide (lines 1-10, Col. 5).
Regarding claim 11, Choung discloses:
A device comprising (Figs. 1A-1B, 4H):
a substrate 102,
overhang structures 110 disposed over the substrate, each overhang structure having a second structure 110B, disposed over a first structure 110A (further include another portion 110C in Fig. 1B), the second structure 110B having an overhang extension extending laterally past the first structure (the overhang 110B, Fig. 1B), the first structure comprising:
a first sidewall (the left vertical sidewall of 110a/110c) opposing a second sidewall (right vertical sidewall 110a/110c), the first sidewall and the second sidewall connected to each other (sidewalls on side of first structure 110A and 110C), and at least four angled sidewalls, wherein at least two of the four angled sidewalls (the upper left and upper right) connecting a first end of the first sidewall to the first end of the second sidewall and at least two more of the four angled sidewalls (the lower left and lower right) connecting a second end of the first sidewall and a second end of the second sidewall (that cathode 116 extends beneath the overhang and contacts each of these sidewall portions), and
a plurality of sub-pixels 106, each sub-pixel comprising:
an organic light-emitting diode (OLED) material 112, 114, and
a cathode 116 disposed over the OLED material and extending under the overhang extension such that the cathode contacts the first sidewall and the second sidewall of the first structure under the overhang extension (the cathode 116 contacting the sidewalls of the first structure which is the lower supporting portion beneath the overhang, Fig. 1B).
Regarding claims 12, 14, Choung discloses further comprising pixel-defining layer (PDL) structures or pixel isolation structure (PIS) disposed on the substrate and wherein the overhang structures are disposed over the PDL structures (Fig. 1B, layer PDL 126).
Regarding claim 16, Choung discloses depositing the OLED material at a first angle and the cathode at a second angle (it doesn’t specify if the first angle and second angle are the same or different, however, in Fig. 4H, part of cathode layer 116 is at a different angle than the OLED).
Regarding claim 17, Choung discloses wherein the OLED and cathode are deposited as the substrate (lines 20-35, Col. 2, formed as evaporation deposition).
Regarding claim 18, Choung discloses wherein a cathode thickness at a midpoint between a cathode endpoint and an OLED endpoint on the first sidewall and the second sidewall is greater than the cathode thickness on the at least two sidewalls (Fig. 4H: cathode 116 is thick along the two long vertical sidewalls while the cathode 116 is thinner at the two sidewalls).
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 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.
Claims 6, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choung et al., U.S. Patent No. 11,456,345, in view of Kim et al., U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0085342.
Regarding claim 6, Choung fails to disclose a via hole disposed through the sub-pixel. Kim discloses a via hole disposed through the sub-pixels (Fig. 12A, via hole contact plug TT, via hole within the sub-pixel regions PX, AR1, AR2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the OLED device of Choung by incorporating the via hole disclosed by Kim in the sub-pixel, because via holes are conventionally used to provide electrical interconnection between conductive layers within a sub-pixel.
Regarding claim 20, Choung discloses an anode but fails to disclose a via hole disposed through the anode. Kim discloses a via hole disposed through the sub-pixels/ the anode (Fig. 12A, via hole contact plug TT, via hole within the sub-pixel regions PX, AR1, AR2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the OLED device of Choung by incorporating the via hole disclosed by Kim in the anode, because via holes are conventionally used to provide electrical interconnection between conductive layers within a sub-pixel.
Claims 4-5, 13, 15, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choung et al., U.S. Patent No. 11,456,345.
Regarding claims 4-5, 13, 15, 19, Choung fails to disclose the thickness ratio and if the sub-pixels are hexagonal. However, the selection of such parameters such as energy, concentration, temperature, time, molar fraction, depth, thickness, etc., would have been obvious and involve routine optimization which has been held to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. "Normally, it is to be expected that a change in energy, concentration, temperature, time, molar fraction, depth, thickness, etc., or in conbination of the parameters would be an unpatentable modification. Under some circumstances, however, changes such as these may impart patentability to a process if the particular ranges claimed produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely degree from the results of the prior art ... such ranges are termed "critical ranges and the applicant has the burden of proving such criticality.... More particularly, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller 105 USPQ233, 255 (CCPA 1955). See also In re Waite 77 USPQ 586 (CCPA 1948); In re Scherl 70 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1946); In re Irmscher 66 USPQ 314 (CCPA 1945); In re Norman 66 USPQ 308 (CCPA 1945); In re Swenson 56 USPQ 372 (CCPA 1942); In re Sola 25 USPQ 433 (CCPA 1935); In re Dreyfus 24 USPQ 52 (CCPA 1934).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAO P LE whose telephone number is (571)272-1785. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9AM-6PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeff Natalini can be reached on 571-272-2266. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-872-9306.
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).
/THAO P LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights