Attorney’s Docket Number: 254984/411598-08368
Filing Date: 7/09/2024
Claimed Foreign Priority Date: 1/15/2024 (KR10-2024-0005886)
Inventor: You
Examiner: Thomas McCoy
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action responds to the application filed 7/09/2024.
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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as
subject to 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 a 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.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 15 recites the line “…wherein patterning comprises forming the anode electrode without exposing an upper surface of the reflective layer by the protective layer and the barrier layer.”, which will be interpreted as “…wherein patterning comprises forming the anode electrode without exposing an upper surface of the reflective layer through the protective layer and the barrier layer”.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the forming of the first barrier layer being performed before forming the protective layer must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (US 20210111312 A1) in view of Yao (US 20200194732 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chang (see, e.g., fig. 3) shows most aspects of the instant invention including a display device comprising:
A substrate (e.g., semiconductor substrate 102) on a plane defined by a first direction and a second direction;
A pixel circuit layer (e.g., control circuit 106 + paragraph 30) on the substrate (e.g., semiconductor substrate 102) and including a pixel circuit (e.g., pixel devices in control circuit 106);
A reflective layer (e.g., conductive reflector 126a) on the pixel circuit layer (e.g., control circuit 106 + paragraph 30);
A barrier layer (e.g., first via structure 120a + paragraph 39 “…the first via structure 120a may be or comprise, for example, titanium nitride…”) partially on the reflective layer (e.g., conductive reflector 126a);
A first electrode (e.g., first electrodes 116a-c) includes a portion adjacent to the barrier layer (e.g., first via structure 120a + paragraph 39 “…the first via structure 120a may be or comprise, for example, titanium nitride…”) and overlapping the reflective layer (e.g., conductive reflector 126a) in a plan view;
A light emitting structure (e.g., light-emitting structures 118) electrically connected to the first electrode (e.g., first electrodes 116a-c);
Wherein the first electrode (e.g., first electrodes 116a-c) includes a transparent conductive material (see, e.g., paragraph 38 “Visible light may be able to pass through the first electrode 116a due to a thickness and/or a chemical composition of the first electrode 116a”) including oxide (see, e.g., paragraph 38 “the first electrode 116a may be or comprise, for example, indium tin oxide (ITO)”), and is physically spaced apart (note, e.g., isolation structure 122 between 116a and 126a) from the reflective layer (e.g., conductive reflector 126a).
Chang (see, e.g., fig. 3), however, fails to explicitly show wherein the first electrode is an anode electrode, while it also fails to show a cathode electrode.
Yao (see, e.g., fig. 4), in a similar device to Chang, teaches a first electrode is an anode electrode (e.g., anode 2), and a cathode (e.g., cathode 7) electrically connected to the light-emitting structure (e.g., light-emitting layer 6).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the anode-light emitting layer-cathode configuration of Yao within the pixel regions of Chang, in order to achieve the expected result of providing a full electrical path for light emission surrounding the light-emitting layer within the pixel region. In addition, note that Chang (see, e.g., paragraphs 31 and 38) shows the first electrode is at least substantially close to an anode.
Regarding claim 2, Chang (see, e.g., fig. 3) shows wherein the transparent conductive material (see, e.g., paragraph 38 “Visible light may be able to pass through the first electrode 116a due to a thickness and/or a chemical composition of the first electrode 116a”) includes indium tin oxide (see, e.g., paragraph 38 “the first electrode 116a may be or comprise, for example, indium tin oxide (ITO)”).
Regarding claim 3, Chang (see, e.g., fig. 3) shows wherein the barrier layer (e.g., first via structure 120a + paragraph 39 “…the first via structure 120a may be or comprise, for example, titanium nitride…”) includes titanium nitride (TiN) (e.g., first via structure 120a + paragraph 39 “…the first via structure 120a may be or comprise, for example, titanium nitride…”).
Regarding claim 4, Chang (see, e.g., fig. 3) shows wherein the pixel circuit layer (e.g., control circuit 106 + paragraph 30) further includes a protective layer (e.g., isolation structure 122) covering the reflective layer (e.g., conductive reflector 126a), a lower surface of the barrier layer (e.g., first via structure 120a + paragraph 39 “…the first via structure 120a may be or comprise, for example, titanium nitride…”) contacts an upper surface of the reflective layer (e.g., conductive reflector 126a), a lower surface of the barrier layer (e.g., first via structure 120a + paragraph 39 “…the first via structure 120a may be or comprise, for example, titanium nitride…”) contacts an upper surface of the reflective layer (e.g., conductive reflector 126a), and at least a portion of the barrier layer (e.g., first via structure 120a + paragraph 39 “…the first via structure 120a may be or comprise, for example, titanium nitride…”) is on the protective layer (e.g., isolation structure 122).
Regarding claim 5, Chang (see, e.g., fig. 3) shows wherein a lower surface of the barrier layer (e.g., first via structure 120a + paragraph 39 “…the first via structure 120a may be or comprise, for example, titanium nitride…”) entirely contacts an upper surface of the reflective layer (e.g., conductive reflector 126a).
Regarding claim 6, Chang (see, e.g., fig. 3) shows wherein the pixel circuit layer (e.g., control circuit 106 + paragraph 30) further includes a protective layer (e.g., isolation structure 122) covering the reflective layer (e.g., conductive reflector 126a), the barrier layer (e.g., first via structure 120a + paragraph 39 “…the first via structure 120a may be or comprise, for example, titanium nitride…”) includes a first barrier layer (see, e.g., annotated fig. 1 below) and a second barrier layer (see, e.g., annotated fig. 1 below) on the first barrier layer (see, e.g., annotated fig. 1 below), a lower surface of the first barrier layer (see, e.g., annotated fig. 1 below) entirely contacts an upper surface of the reflective layer (e.g., conductive reflector 126a), and at least a portion of the second barrier layer (see, e.g., annotated fig. 1 below) is on the protective layer (e.g., isolation structure 122).
PNG
media_image1.png
326
452
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Yao further in view of Kim (US 20210074953 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Chang (see, e.g., fig. 3) shows wherein the reflective layer (e.g., conductive reflector 126a) includes a lower reflective layer (e.g., first metal-doped aluminum structure 304a), an upper reflective layer (e.g., non-metal-doped aluminum structures 302a) over the lower reflective layer (e.g., first metal-doped aluminum structure 304a), and the upper reflective layer (e.g., non-metal-doped aluminum structures 302a) includes a metal material (see, e.g., paragraph 42) and is directly adjacent to the barrier layer (e.g., first via structure 120a + paragraph 39 “…the first via structure 120a may be or comprise, for example, titanium nitride…”).
Chang in view of Yao, however, fails to teach an interlayer lower reflective layer on the lower reflective layer.
Kim (see, e.g., fig. 2B), in a similar device to Chang in view of Yao, teaches an interlayer reflective layer (e.g., first intermediate light reflective layer 112) on a lower reflective layer (e.g., first lower light reflective layer 111).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the intermediate light reflective layer of Kim within the reflective setup and on the lower reflective layer of Chang in view of Yao, in order to achieve the expected result of providing and expanding the reflective interface within the pixel region, improving the durability and reflective interface within the device as desired.
Regarding claim 8, Chang (see, e.g., fig. 3) shows a sub-pixel involving a first sub-pixel (e.g., first pixel region 114a) providing light of a first color (e.g., red light, see paragraph 30), a second sub-pixel (e.g., second pixel region 114b) providing light of a second color (e.g., green light, see paragraph 30), and a third sub-pixel (e.g., third pixel region 114c) providing light of a third color (e.g., blue light, see paragraph 30).
While the current embodiment of Chang fails to explicitly show wherein in the first sub-pixel, the reflective layer further includes a step forming layer on the lower reflective layer and covered by the interlayer lower reflective layer, and the barrier layer does not overlap the step forming layer in the plan view, an alternate embodiment of Chang (see, e.g., fig. 5) shows wherein in a first sub-pixel (e.g., first pixel region 114a of fig. 5), a first reflective layer (e.g., first conductive reflector 126a) includes a step forming layer (see, e.g., step geometry of fig. 5 or fig. 9 within the reflective layer) on a lower reflective layer (e.g., metal-doped aluminum structure of fig. 5), and a barrier layer (e.g., via structure 120a of fig. 5) does not overlap the step forming layer (see, e.g., step geometry of fig. 5 or fig. 9 within the reflective layer) in plan view.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the step forming layer of the alternate embodiment of Chang within the device and current embodiment of Chang in view of Yao further in view of Kim, in order to achieve the expected result of shortening the distance between the electrode/light-emitting layer and certain portions of specific interfaces of the reflective layer as desired.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Yao further in view of Song (US 20220059798 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Chang (see, e.g., fig. 3) shows a display area (e.g., aforementioned area within display device 100) and wherein the pixel circuit layer (e.g., control circuit 106 + paragraph 30) includes a protective layer (e.g., isolation structure 122) covering the reflective layer (e.g., conductive reflector 126a).
Chang in view of Yao, however, fails to teach a dam structure in a dam area formed around the display area and including a dam insulating layer, in the dam area, the protective layer includes a dam opening, the dam insulating layer includes a first dam insulating layer, a second dam insulating layer on the first dam insulating layer, and a third dam insulating layer on the second dam insulating layer, and at least a portion of the third dam insulating layer is in the dam opening.
Song (see, e.g., fig. 12), in a similar device to Chang in view of Yao, teaches a dam structure (e.g., first dam DAM1 + second dam DAM2) in a dam area (e.g., non-display area) formed around a display area (e.g., display area DA) and including a dam insulating layer (e.g., first inorganic encapsulation layer 191 + organic encapsulation layer 192 + second inorganic encapsulation layer 193), the dam insulating layer (e.g., first inorganic encapsulation layer 191 + organic encapsulation layer 192 + second inorganic encapsulation layer 193) includes a first dam insulating layer (e.g., first inorganic encapsulation layer 191), a second dam insulating layer (e.g., organic encapsulation layer 192) on the first dam insulating layer (e.g., first inorganic encapsulation layer 191), and a third dam insulating layer (e.g., second inorganic encapsulation layer 193) on the second dam insulating layer (e.g., organic encapsulation layer 192), and at least a portion of the third dam insulating layer (e.g., second inorganic encapsulation layer 193) is in a dam opening (e.g., opening between first dam DAM1 and second dam DAM2).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the dam structure of Song around the display area and adjacent to the protective layer of Chang in view of Yao, in order to achieve the expected result of providing additional space for encapsulation overflow when encapsulating/protecting the light-emitting structures within the display area (see, e.g., paragraph 124 of Song).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Yao further in view of Jung (US 20210399070 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Chang (see, e.g., fig. 3) shows wherein the reflective layer (e.g., conductive reflectors 126a-c) has aluminum (see, e.g., paragraph 32 “…the conductive reflectors 126a-c comprise a non-metal-doped aluminum material…”)
Yao (see, e.g., fig. 4) teaches the anode electrode (e.g., anode 2) comprises aluminum (see, e.g., paragraph 40 “The material of the anode 2 may be one or a mixture of alloy materials selected from Al…”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the aluminum of Yao within the anode electrode of Chang in view of Yao, as aluminum was a well-known conductive material to include within an anode at the time of filing the invention, as taught by Yao.
Chang in view of Yao, however, fails to teach an alignment key on the pixel circuit layer and including a lower alignment key and an upper alignment key, wherein at least a portion of the lower alignment key includes a same material as the reflective layer, and at least a portion of the upper alignment key includes a same material as the anode electrode.
Jung (see, e.g., 8), in a similar device to Chang in view of Yao, teaches an alignment key (e.g., alignment marks AM) including a lower alignment key (e.g., first mark AM1) and an upper alignment key (e.g., second mark AM2), and at least a portion of the lower alignment key (e.g., first mark AM1) includes aluminum (see, e.g., paragraph 95 “In an embodiment, the alignment marks AM may include at least one of…aluminum…”), and at least a portion of the upper alignment key (e.g., second mark AM2) includes aluminum (see, e.g., paragraph 95 “In an embodiment, the alignment marks AM may include at least one of…aluminum…”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the alignment key of Jung within the pixel circuit layer of Chang in view of Yao, in order to achieve the expected result of providing reference features within the display for precise positioning of the different components as desired within the device. Note that the alignment keys include a same material as the reflective layer and the anode electrode, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the aluminum of Jung within the alignment mark of Chang in view of Yao further in view of Jung, as aluminum was a well-known material at the time of filing the invention to include within an alignment mark, as taught by Jung.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Han (US 20220208875 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Chang (see, e.g., fig. 3) shows most aspects of the instant invention, including a method of manufacturing a display device, the method comprising:
Manufacturing a pixel circuit layer (e.g., control circuit 106 + paragraph 30);
Forming a reflective layer (e.g., conductive reflector 126a) on the pixel circuit layer (e.g., control circuit 106 + paragraph 30);
Forming a barrier layer (e.g., first via structure 120a + paragraph 39 “…the first via structure 120a may be or comprise, for example, titanium nitride…”) on the reflective layer (e.g., conductive reflector 126a); and
Forming an electrode (e.g., first electrodes 116a-c) to be adjacent to the barrier layer (e.g., first via structure 120a + paragraph 39 “…the first via structure 120a may be or comprise, for example, titanium nitride…”);
Wherein the electrode (e.g., first electrodes 116a-c) includes a transparent conductive material (see, e.g., paragraph 38 “Visible light may be able to pass through the first electrode 116a due to a thickness and/or a chemical composition of the first electrode 116a”) including oxide (see, e.g., paragraph 38 “the first electrode 116a may be or comprise, for example, indium tin oxide (ITO)”) and is physically spaced apart (note, e.g., isolation structure 122 between 116a and 126a) from the reflective layer (e.g., conductive reflector 126a).
Chang (see, e.g., fig. 3), however, fails to explicitly show this first electrode is a patterned anode electrode.
Han (see, e.g., fig. 2), in a similar device to Chang, teaches patterning (see, e.g., paragraph 43 “…anodes 110 which are patterned per subpixel…”) an electrode (e.g., anode 110).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the patterned electrode of Han within the configuration of Chang, in order to achieve the expected result of providing improved optical transparency and chemical stability within the pixel region, and patterning was a well-known methodology to form an anode electrode at the time of filing the invention, as taught by Han. In addition, note that Chang (see, e.g., paragraphs 31 and 38) shows the first electrode is at least substantially close to an anode.
Regarding claim 14, Chang (see, e.g., fig. 3) shows wherein the transparent conductive material (see, e.g., paragraph 38 “Visible light may be able to pass through the first electrode 116a due to a thickness and/or a chemical composition of the first electrode 116a”) includes indium tin oxide (see, e.g., paragraph 38 “the first electrode 116a may be or comprise, for example, indium tin oxide (ITO)”) and the barrier layer (e.g., first via structure 120a + paragraph 39 “…the first via structure 120a may be or comprise, for example, titanium nitride…”) includes titanium nitride (TiN) (e.g., first via structure 120a + paragraph 39 “…the first via structure 120a may be or comprise, for example, titanium nitride…”).
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Han further in view of Huang (US 20230047606 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Chang (see, e.g., fig. 3) shows forming a protective layer (e.g., isolation structure 122) covering the reflective layer (e.g., conductive reflector 126a) on the pixel circuit layer (e.g., control circuit 106 + paragraph 30).
Chang in view of Han, however, fails to explicitly teach wherein patterning comprises forming the anode electrode without exposing an upper surface of the reflective layer through the protective layer and the barrier layer.
Huang (see, e.g., fig. 5), in a similar device to Chang in view of Han, teaches patterning (e.g., patterning of paragraph 33) an electrode (e.g., second electrodes 43) without exposing an upper surface of a barrier layer (e.g., barrier 32).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the patterning of Huang within the device of Chang in view of Han, in order to achieve the expected result of not interfering or damaging with the barrier layer during formation of the electrode. Note that if the patterning process is such that it doesn’t even expose an upper barrier layer, it wouldn’t expose a reflective layer configured beneath the barrier layer. In addition, note Chang (see, e.g., fig. 3) comprises a protective layer and a barrier layer between the electrode and the reflective, hence there are additional components and space between the electrode and the reflective layer.
Regarding claim 16, the current embodiment of Chang (see, e.g., fig. 3) fails to explicitly show forming the barrier layer is performed after the protective layer.
An alternate embodiment of Chang (see, e.g., figs. 12-14), however, teaches forming a barrier layer (e.g., first via structure 120a + paragraph 38) is performed after a protective layer (e.g., isolation structure 122).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the formation order of the alternate embodiment of Chang within the current embodiment of Chang in view of Han further in view of Huang, in order to achieve the expected result of arranging an isolation structure across the device before providing a clear barrier layer profile within the protective layer, as opposed to implementing a barrier layer before configuring the protective layer profile needing to perfectly abut the barrier profile’s geometry.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Han further in view of Huang and Chen (US 20240373708 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Chang in view of Han further in view of Huang fails to explicitly teach wherein forming the barrier layer is performed before forming the protective layer.
Chen (see, e.g., fig. 4o), in a similar device to Chang in view of Han further in view of Huang teaches forming a barrier layer (e.g., barriers 40) is performed before forming a protective layer (e.g., encapsulation layer 43).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the formation order of Chen within the device of Chang in view of Han further in view of Huang, in order to achieve the expected result of properly providing the desired device interface beneath the protective layer before formation of a uniform protective layer within the pixel region.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Han further in view of Huang and Kim (US 20220310733 A1) (hereinafter Kim2).
Regarding claim 18, Chang in view of Han further in view of Huang fails to teach forming the barrier layer comprises forming a first barrier layer and forming a second barrier layer, forming the first barrier layer is performed before forming the protective layer, and forming the second barrier layer is performed after forming the protective layer.
Kim2 (see, e.g., fig. 14), in a similar device to Chang in view of Han further in view of Huang, teaches forming a first barrier layer (e.g., first barrier layer BAR1) and forming a second barrier layer (e.g., second barrier layer BAR2), forming the first barrier layer (e.g., first barrier layer BAR1) is performed before forming a protective layer (e.g., second organic layer PI2), and forming the second barrier layer (e.g., second barrier layer BAR2) after forming the protective layer (e.g., second organic layer PI2).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the barrier layer formation order of Kim2 within the fabrication sequence of Chang in view of Han further in view of Huang, in order to achieve the expected result of forming a barrier profile before providing a protective layer, before continuing the barrier profile above the protective layer as desired.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Han in view of Kim (US 20240224700 A1)(hereinafter, Kim3).
Regarding claim 20, Chang (see, e.g., fig. 3) in view of Han teaches forming a light emitting structure (e.g., light-emitting structures 118) electrically connected to the anode electrode (e.g., modified first electrodes 116a-c).
Chang in view of Han, however, fails to explicitly teach forming a cathode electrode electrically connected to the light emitting structure, and forming an encapsulation layer covering the cathode layer.
Kim3 (see, e.g., fig. 2), in a similar device to Chang in view of Han, teaches forming a cathode electrode (e.g., cathode electrode 180) electrically connected to a light emitting structure (e.g., emission layer 170), forming an encapsulation layer (e.g., encapsulation layer 190) covering the cathode electrode (e.g., cathode electrode 180).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the cathode electrode and encapsulation layer of Kim3 within the arrangement of Chang in view of Han, in order to provide a full electrical path for light emission surrounding the light-emitting layer within the pixel region, as well providing encapsulation protection within the pixel region to shield the electrodes and light-emitting structure within the device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 and 19 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.
Regarding claim 9: the primary art of record, Chang in view of Yao, neither discloses nor renders obvious the display device further comprises a pixel defining layer covering the anode electrode and including a lower pixel defining layer and an upper pixel defining layer on the lower pixel defining layer, the lower pixel defining layer exposes the anode electrode in an anode exposure area, at least a portion of the lower pixel defining layer is in the opening, and the barrier layer overlaps the lower pixel defining layer and the upper pixel defining layer in the plan view. These features in combination with other elements in the claim are neither disclosed nor suggested by the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 19: the primary art of record, Chang in view of Han further in view of Huang, neither anticipates nor renders obvious patterning a pixel defining layer including a lower pixel defining layer covering the anode electrode and an upper pixel defining layer on the lower pixel defining layer, wherein the protective layer includes an opening overlapping the reflective layer when viewed on a plane, at least a portion of the lower pixel defining layer is provided in the opening.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thomas McCoy at (571) 272-0282 and between the hours of 9:30 AM to 6:30 PM (Eastern Standard Time) Monday through Friday or by e-mail via Thomas.McCoy@uspto.gov. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Wael Fahmy, can be reached on (571) 272-1705.
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.
/THOMAS WILSON MCCOY/ Examiner, Art Unit 2814 /WAEL M FAHMY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2814
Prosecution Insights