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 without traverse of Invention group I in the reply filed on 09/15/2026 is acknowledged.
During a telephone conversation with Mr. Jeff Waters on 10/13/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of species 1A, Fig. 5. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action.
Accordingly, claims 12-13, 16-17, 20-22 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) to foreign application KR10-2023-0187508 filed on 12/20/2023. The foreign application is not in English. The certified copy of the foreign priority application KR10-2023-0187508 has been received.
Filing Dates for the Claims — All Claims Not Entitled to Priority Date
To be entitled to the filing date of the foreign priority application KR10-2023-0187508 that is not in English, an English translation of the non-English language foreign application KR10-2023-0187508 and a statement that the translation is accurate in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55 is required to perfect the claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The foreign application must adequately support the claimed subject matter, meaning satisfy the written description and enablement requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a). See MPEP §§ 215 and 216. 37 C.F.R. 1.55(g)(3)(ii)-(iii). To demonstrate compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(a), applicant should point to support for their claimed subject matter in their translations.
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 19 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 19 recites the limitation recites the limitation "the second electrode" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear "the second electrode" refers to the second electrode of the first emission area or the second electrode of the second emission area.
For the purpose of this action, the limitation "the second electrode" will be interpreted and examined as -- the second electrodes--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-6, 14-15, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US Pub. 20180315806) in view of Sung et al. (US Pub. 20230180530).
Regarding claims 1-2, Lee et al. discloses in Fig. 7, Fig. 8, Fig. 14 a display device comprising:
a first electrode [210B or 210C] disposed on a substrate;
a first auxiliary electrode [242 or 243] disposed on the first electrode [210B or 210C], and having a width narrower than the first electrode [210B or 210C][paragraph [0074]-[0075]];
a light emitting layer [223B/220B or 223C/220C] disposed on the first auxiliary electrode [242][paragraph [0083]];
a second electrode [230B or 230C] disposed on the light emitting layer [223B/220B][paragraph [0082]]; and
a pixel defining layer [180] comprising a body portion disposed on a portion of the first electrode [210B or 210C] and the substrate, not on the second electrode [230B or 230C].
Lee et al. fails to disclose
a protrusion portion disposed on the second electrode;
wherein a side of the protrusion portion of the pixel defining layer protrudes more than a side of the body portion toward a center of the second electrode in a plan view.
Sung et al. discloses in Fig. 2, paragraph [0108]-[0112]
a protrusion portion [PT2] disposed on the second electrode [CE];
wherein a side of the protrusion portion [PT2] of the pixel defining layer [PDL] protrudes more than a side of the body portion [PT1 and PT3] toward a center of the second electrode [CE] in a plan view.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Sung et al. into the method of Lee et al. to include a protrusion portion disposed on the second electrode; wherein a side of the protrusion portion of the pixel defining layer protrudes more than a side of the body portion toward a center of the second electrode in a plan view. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Lee et al. in the above manner for the purpose of effectively protecting components of a light-emitting element in a light-emitting region, preventing a defect in an encapsulation layer from being propagated to a neighboring light-emitting region and providing a display device exhibiting excellent reliability properties [paragraph [0105], [0131], [0177] of Sung et al.].
Regarding claim 3, Lee et al. discloses in Fig. 14
wherein the first auxiliary electrode [242] is disposed on a side of the body portion of the pixel defining layer [180].
Regarding claim 4, Lee et al. and Sung et al. fails to disclose
wherein a width of the protrusion portion of the pixel defining layer is 0.1 µm to 1.5 µm.
However, Applicant has not provided criticality of the claimed range. It would have been obvious to modify Lee et al. and Sung et al. to provide wherein a width of the protrusion portion of the pixel defining layer is 0.1 µm to 1.5 µm. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Lee et al. and Sung et al. in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of optimization and routine experimentation to provide sufficient width to effectively cover components of a light-emitting element disposed in an undercut portion [paragraph [0105], [0177] of Sung et al.]. The claimed ranges are merely optimizations, and as such are not patentable over the prior art. "[W]here 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, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382.
Regarding claim 5, Sung et al. discloses in Fig. 2, paragraph [0084], [0094]
a first connection electrode [CE-b] disposed on the body portion [PT1 and PT3] and the protrusion portion [PT2] of the pixel defining layer [PDL], and comprising a same material [ITO] as the first auxiliary electrode [AE];
Regarding claim 6, Sung et al. appears to disclose in Fig. 2
wherein a thickness of the first auxiliary electrode [AE] and a thickness of the first connection electrode [CE-b] are the same.
In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the finite number of predictable solutions for a thickness of the first auxiliary electrode with respect to a thickness of the first connection electrode: a thickness of the first auxiliary electrode and a thickness of the first connection electrode are the same or are different. Absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious to try a thickness of the first auxiliary electrode and a thickness of the first connection electrode are the same to yield a suitable thickness for the first auxiliary electrode.
Regarding claims 14-15, Lee et al. discloses in Fig. 14
wherein the pixel defining layer [180] is a single layer or a multilayer [single layer].
Sung et al. discloses in Fig. 2, paragraph [0095]-0097]
wherein the pixel defining layer [PDL] comprises at least one of silicon nitride, silicon oxynitride, or silicon oxide;
wherein the pixel defining layer is a single layer or a multilayer [multilayer].
Regarding claims 18-19, Lee et al. discloses in Fig. 7, Fig. 8, Fig. 14 a display device comprising:
a substrate comprising a first emission area [EA2] and a second emission area [EA3];
a pixel defining layer [180] comprising a body portion disposed on the substrate;
a first electrode [210B], a first auxiliary electrode [242], a light emitting layer [223B/220B], and a second electrode [230B] sequentially disposed on the substrate in the first emission area [EA2][paragraph [0074]-[0075], [0083]];
a first electrode [210C], a first auxiliary electrode [243], a light emitting layer [223C/220C], and a second electrode [230C] sequentially disposed on the substrate in the second emission area [EA3][paragraph [0074]-[0075], [0083]]; and
a connection electrode [260] disposed on the second electrodes [230B and 230C] and the pixel defining layer [180], wherein the second electrode [230B] of the first emission area and the second electrode [230C] of the second emission area are spaced apart from each other and electrically connected through the connection electrode [260].
Lee et al. fails to disclose
a protrusion portion defining the first emission area and the second emission area but spaced apart from the upper surface of the substrate;
at least a portion of the second electrode of the first emission area and at least a portion of the second electrode of the second emission area are disposed between the substrate and the protrusion portion of the pixel defining layer in a thickness direction of the substrate;
a first connection electrode disposed on the pixel defining layer; and
a second connection electrode disposed on the second electrode and the first connection electrode, wherein the first connection electrode and the second connection electrode comprises different materials from each other.
Sung et al. discloses in Fig. 2, Fig. 3 paragraph [0108]-[0112]
a protrusion portion [PT2] defining the first emission area [PXA-R] and the second emission area [PXA-G] but spaced apart from the upper surface of the substrate;
at least a portion of the second electrode [CE] of the first emission area [PXA-R] and at least a portion of the second electrode [CE] of the second emission area [PXA-G] are disposed between the substrate and the protrusion portion [PT2] of the pixel defining layer [PDL] in a thickness direction of the substrate;
a first connection electrode [CE-b] disposed on the pixel defining layer [PDL]; and
a second connection electrode [AED1] disposed on the second electrodes [CE] and the first connection electrode [CE-b], wherein the first connection electrode [CE-b] and the second connection electrode [AED1] comprises different materials from each other [paragraph [0094], [0124]].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Sung et al. into the method of Lee et al. to include a protrusion portion defining the first emission area and the second emission area but spaced apart from the upper surface of the substrate; at least a portion of the second electrode of the first emission area and at least a portion of the second electrode of the second emission area are disposed between the substrate and the protrusion portion of the pixel defining layer in a thickness direction of the substrate; a first connection electrode disposed on the pixel defining layer; and a second connection electrode disposed on the second electrode and the first connection electrode, wherein the first connection electrode and the second connection electrode comprises different materials from each other. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Lee et al. in the above manner for the purpose of effectively protecting components of a light-emitting element in a light-emitting region, preventing a defect in an encapsulation layer from being propagated to a neighboring light-emitting region and providing a display device exhibiting excellent reliability properties [paragraph [0105], [0128]-[0129], [0131], [0177] of Sung et al.].
Claims 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US Pub. 20180315806) in view of Sung et al. (US Pub. 20230180530) as applied to claim 5 above and further in view of Codama et al. (US Pub. 20020014836) and Fukunaga et al. (US Pub. 20110101852).
Regarding claims 7-8, Lee et al. and Sung et al. fails to disclose
a second auxiliary electrode disposed on the second electrode;
wherein a thickness of the second auxiliary electrode is greater than a thickness of the first auxiliary electrode.
Codama et al. discloses in Fig. 1B, paragraph [0048]-[0051]
a second auxiliary electrode [8] disposed on the second electrode [7].
Fukunaga et al. discloses in Fig. 1, paragraph [0014]-[0017],
a second auxiliary electrode [105] disposed on the second electrode [104]
wherein a thickness of the second auxiliary electrode [105] is greater than a thickness of the first auxiliary electrode [102].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Codama et al. and Fukunaga et al. into the method of Lee et al. and Sung et al. to include a second auxiliary electrode disposed on the second electrode; wherein a thickness of the second auxiliary electrode is greater than a thickness of the first auxiliary electrode. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Lee et al. and Sung et al. in the above manner for the purpose of protecting the second electrode from subsequent process; enabling to cause the organic EL elements to emit light uniformly; enabling to extract light from the side of the cathode thus sharply improving the effect light emitting area of the pixel, and providing a bright and highly reliable light-emitting device [paragraph [0048], [0052] of Codama et al.; paragraph [0009], [0018], [0109]-[0110] of Fukunaga et al.].
Regarding claim 9, Lee et al. discloses in paragraph [0109]
the first connection electrode [260] comprises transparent conductive oxide (TCO).
Sung et al. discloses in Fig. 2, paragraph [0084], [0124]
wherein the first auxiliary electrode [AE], the first connection electrode [AED1], comprise transparent conductive oxide (TCO).
Fukunaga et al. discloses in Fig. 1, paragraph [0011], [0016],
wherein the first auxiliary electrode [102] and the second auxiliary electrode [105] comprise transparent conductive oxide (TCO).
Consequently, the combination of Lee et al., Sung et al. and Fukunaga et al. discloses “wherein the first auxiliary electrode, the first connection electrode, and the second auxiliary electrode comprise transparent conductive oxide (TCO).”
Regarding claim 10, Lee et al. suggests in paragraph [0109]
a second connection electrode disposed on the second electrode and the first connection electrode [Lee discloses “the common opposite electrode 260 may include a layer including at least one of LiF/Ca, LiF/Al” which indicates the connection electrode comprises two layers: a first connection electrode layer is formed of LiF and a second connection electrode layer is formed of Ca or Al].
Sung et al. also suggests in Fig. 2, Fig. 3
a second connection electrode [AED1] disposed on the second electrode [CE] and the first connection electrode [CE-b]
Codama et al. and Fukunaga et al. suggests forming a second auxiliary electrode on the second electrode.
Thus, the combination of Lee et al., Sung et al., Codama et al. and Fukunaga et al. would result to “a second connection electrode disposed on the second auxiliary electrode and the first connection electrode.”
Regarding claim 11, Fukunaga et al. discloses in paragraph [0011], [0016]
wherein the first auxiliary electrode comprises Indium Tin Oxide (ITO);
the second auxiliary electrode comprises Indium Zinc Oxide (IZO).
Sung et al. discloses in Fig. 2, paragraph [0094]
the first connection electrode [CE-b] comprises Indium Tin Oxide (ITO)
Lee et al., Sung et al., Codama et al. and Fukunaga et al. fails to disclose
the second connection electrode comprises Indium Zinc Oxide (IZO), Indium Tin Zinc Oxide (ITZO), Zinc Indium Tin Oxide (ZITO), or Indium Gallium Zinc Oxide (IGZO).
However, Sung et al. discloses the second connection electrode [AED1] comprises a transparent metal oxide.
Indium Zinc Oxide (IZO), Indium Tin Zinc Oxide (ITZO), Zinc Indium Tin Oxide (ZITO), or Indium Gallium Zinc Oxide (IGZO) are known transparent metal oxides and therefore it would have been obvious to select them based on their suitability for use as the transparent metal oxide material of the second connection electrode. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOPHIA T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1686. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am -5:00 pm, Monday-Friday.
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, BRITT D HANLEY can be reached at (571)270-3042. 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.
/SOPHIA T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights