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 .
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.
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 15 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.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the second layer". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 (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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 9, 15-16, & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bae et al. (US 2020/0176656).
Regarding claim 1, Bae teaches A display device comprising:
a first separation layer [fig. 5, insulating layer LX1, para 129] disposed in an emission area of a substrate [fig. 5, light emitting region PXA, para 140];
a second separation layer [fig. 5, insulating layer LX2, para 129] disposed on the first separation layer (fig. 5, LX1);
an insulating layer [fig. 5, insulating layer L6, para 139] disposed on the second separation layer (fig. 5, LX2);
a first electrode [fig. 5, electrode E1/CNE1/CNEd, para 95] disposed on the insulating layer (fig. 5, L6);
a light emitting structure [fig. 5, light-emitting element ED, para 94] disposed on the first electrode (fig. 5, E1/CNE1/CNEd); and
a second electrode [fig. 5, electrode CNE2, para 94] disposed on the light emitting structure (fig. 5, ED),
wherein the first electrode (fig. 5, E1/CNE1/CNEd) includes a first area on the second separation layer (fig. 5, CNE1) and
a second area (fig. 5, CNEd) electrically separated from the first area (fig. 5, CNE1).
Regarding claim 2, Bae teaches The display device of claim 1,
wherein a width of the second separation layer (fig. 5, LX2) in a first direction [fig. 5, DR1] is greater than a width of the first separation layer (fig. 5, LX1) in the first direction (fig. 5, DR1).
Regarding claim 3, Bae teaches The display device of claim 1,
wherein a width by which the second separation layer (fig. 5, LX2) extends beyond the first separation layer (fig. 5, LX1) is greater than a thickness of the first electrode (fig. 5, CNE1/CNEd; wherein fig. 5 illustrates the width extended beyond the first separation is thicker than the thickness of the first electrode).
Regarding claim 5, Bae teaches The display device of claim 1,
wherein the first electrode (fig. 5, E1/CNE1/CNEd) includes a first electrode layer (fig. 5, CNE1) disposed on the insulating layer (fig. 5, L6) and
a second electrode layer [fig. 5, electrode CPE1, para 123] disposed on the first electrode layer (fig. 5, CNE1).
Regarding claim 6, Bae teaches The display device of claim 5,
wherein the first electrode (fig. 5, E1/CNE1/CNEd) further includes
a third electrode layer [fig. 5, electrode RFE1, para 123] disposed on the second electrode layer (fig. 5, CPE1).
Regarding claim 7, Bae teaches The display device of claim 6,
wherein the first electrode layer (fig. 5, CNE1) and the third electrode layer (fig. 5, RFE1) include the same material [para 123 &128 list the exemplary materials for the connection electrode CNE1 and RFE1 which illustrate the same material can be utilized for both electrode layers].
Regarding claim 9, Bae teaches The display device of claim 1,
wherein the insulating layer (fig. 5, L6) covers the first separation layer (fig. 5, LX1) and the second separation layer. (fig. 5, LX2).
Regarding claim 15, Bae teaches A display device comprising:
a first separation layer [fig. 5, insulating layer LX1, para 129] disposed in an emission area of a substrate [fig. 5, light emitting region PXA, para 140];
a second separation layer [fig. 5, insulating layer LX2, para 129] disposed on the first separation layer (fig. 5, LX1);
an anode electrode [fig. 5, electrode E1/CNE1, para 95] disposed on the second layer [fig. 5, LX2];
a conductive pattern (fig. 5, CNEd) disposed in the same layer (fig. 5, L7) as the first separation layer (fig. 5, LX1),
the conductive pattern (fig. 5, CNEd) being electrically separated from the anode electrode [fig. 5, electrode E1/CNE1, para 95];
a light emitting structure [fig. 5, light-emitting element ED, para 94] disposed on the anode electrode [fig. 5, electrode E1/CNE1, para 95] and the conductive pattern(fig. 5, CNEd); and
a cathode electrode [fig. 5, electrode CNE2, para 94] disposed on the light emitting structure [fig. 5, light-emitting element ED, para 94],
wherein the anode electrode [fig. 5, electrode E1/CNE1, para 95] and the conductive pattern (fig. 5, CNEd) include the same material [para 98 disclose a single deposition process; para 128, discloses conductive exemplary materials].
Regarding claim 16, Bae teaches The display device of claim 15, further comprising
a circuit layer [fig. 5, circuit layer COL, para 109] disposed between the substrate [fig. 5, BL] and the anode electrode [fig. 5, electrode E1/CNE1, para 95].
Regarding claim 20, Bae teaches The display device of claim 15,
wherein the first separation layer [fig. 5, insulating layer LX1, para 129] and the second separation layer [fig. 5, insulating layer LX2, para 129] include an insulating material.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai as applied to claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 15-16, & 20 and further in view of Cai (TWM644905U) [Hereinafter Cai].
Regarding claim 4, Bae teaches The display device of claim 1.
Bae fails to explicitly disclose wherein at least part of the light emitting structure is discontinuous on the second area of the first electrode.
However, Cai teaches wherein at least part of the light emitting structure [fig. 3A, micro light emitting unit 211, “The micro-light-emitting unit 211 usually uses an inorganic light-emitting diode (LED), which is a discontinuous point light source” is discontinuous on the second area the first electrode [fig. 3A, bottom area of electrode 260].
Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the light emitting structure to be discontinuous on the first electrode to prevent electrical shorts and improve pixel isolation.
Claim 11-12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai as applied to claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 15-16, & 20 and further in view of Hong et al. (US 2015/0309374) [Hereinafter Hong].
Regarding claim 11, Bae teaches The display device of claim 1.
Bae fails to explicitly disclose wherein the substrate includes a first sub-pixel and a second sub-pixel that are adjacently positioned, and
wherein the second area of the first electrode is disposed in a boundary area between the first sub-pixel and the second sub-pixel.
However, Hong teaches wherein the substrate [fig. 5, substrate 110, para 61] includes a first sub-pixel [fig. 5, sub pixel area PXa, para 62] and a second sub-pixel [fig. 5, sub pixel area PXb, para 62] that are adjacently positioned [fig. 5], and
wherein the second area [fig. 5, 197] of the first electrode [fig.5, electrode 270/197, para 86], is disposed in a boundary area between the first sub-pixel (fig. 5, PXa) and the second sub-pixel (fig. 5, PXb).
Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an electrode electrically isolated from the primary pixel electrode to act as an electrical shield, support structural robustness, and prevent crosstalk between densely packed sub-pixels.
Regarding claim 12, Bae/Hong teaches The display device of claim 11, wherein the light emitting structure of the first sub-pixel and the light emitting structure of the second sub-pixel are separated from each other on the second area of the first electrode.
Hong specifically teaches first sub-pixel (fig. 5, PXa) and second sub pixel (fig. 5, PXb) separated from each other.
Bae specifically teaches a pixel structure [fig. 5] wherein the light emitting structure (fig. 5, ED) on the second area of the first electrode (fig. 5, CNEd).
Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the sub-pixels as taught by Hong to comprise the light emitting structure on the second area of the first electrode as taught by Bae to optimize visual perception and display efficiency.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai as applied to claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 15-16, & 20 and further in view of Kim et al. (KR 2003/0084233) [Hereinafter Kim].
Regarding claim 14, Bae teaches The display device of claim 1.
Bae fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first separation layer and the second separation layer include a conductive material.
Kim teaches wherein the first separation layer [fig. 12, conductive spacer 614a, para 144] and the second separation layer [fig. 12, conductive spacer 614b, para 144] include a conductive material [para 144].
Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the separation layers to include a conductive material to prevent quenching thereby enhancing the reliability of the device.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai as applied to claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 15-16, & 20 and further in view of Suhm et al. (US 2022/0299562).
Regarding claim 19, Bae teaches The display device of claim 15,
wherein the first separation layer includes an insulating material [fig. 5, insulating layer LX1, para 129].
Bae fails to explicitly disclose the second separation layer includes a conductive material.
However Suhm teaches the second separation layer includes a conductive material [fig. 10A, separation 104, para 138].
Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the respective materials to create an interface with a low force of adhesion as taught by Suhm.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 10, 13, & 18 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:
Regarding claim 8, Bae teaches The display device of claim 1.
The prior art of record fails to explicitly disclose wherein a thickness of the first separation layer is greater than a sum of a thickness of the insulating layer and a thickness of the first electrode.
Thereby claim 8 contains allowable subject in light of the additional limitations recited therein and would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 10, Bae teaches The display device of claim 1.
The prior art of record fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first area of the first electrode is electrically connected to the second separation layer through a contact hole that extends through the insulating layer.
Thereby claim 10 contains allowable subject in light of the additional limitations recited therein and would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 13, Bae/Hong teaches The display device of claim 11.
The prior art of record fails to explicitly disclose wherein the second electrode of the first sub-pixel and the second electrode of the second sub-pixel are connected to each other on the second area of the first electrode.
Thereby claim 13 contains allowable subject in light of the additional limitations recited therein and would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 18, Bae teaches The display device of claim 16,
wherein the anode electrode is electrically connected to the circuit layer through a contact hole .
The prior art of record fails to explicitly disclose that extends through the second layer and the first separation layer.
Thereby claim 18 contains allowable subject in light of the additional limitations recited therein and would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FELIX B ANDREWS whose telephone number is (703)756-1074. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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, William Partridge can be reached at 571-270-1402. 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.
/FELIX B ANDREWS/Examiner, Art Unit 2812
/William B Partridge/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights