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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim(s) 1 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ishida (US Patent No. 12690367).
Regarding claim 1, Ishida teaches a display panel comprising: a base layer including a light emitting area and a non-light emitting area being adjacent to the light emitting area; a light emitting element including a first electrode disposed in the light emitting area, a second electrode disposed on the first electrode, and a light emission pattern disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode; and a partition wall including a lower layer disposed in the non-light emitting area and an upper layer disposed on the lower layer, wherein the second electrode contacts a side surface of the lower layer (Figs. 3-5 point to a display device DSP comprising a substrate 10 (base layer), a first pixel aperture AP1 (light emitting area), a first subpixel SP1 (light emitting element), a first lower electrode LE1 (first electrode), a first upper electrode UE1 (second electrode), a first organic layer OR1 (light emission pattern), and an adjacent area (non-light emitting area) including a partition 6 made up of a lower portion 61 (lower layer) and an upper portion 62 (upper layer).), and wherein the lower layer includes layers containing different metals (Col. 6, lines 50-59 point to the lower portion 61 (lower layer) comprising a multilayer structure consisting of an aluminum layer, an aluminum alloy layer, and a thin film formed of a metal material different from aluminum and an aluminum alloy.).
Regarding claim 14, Ishida wherein a side surface of the upper layer protrudes in a direction facing the light emitting area further than the side surface of the lower layer (Figs. 3-5 point to the lower portion 61 (lower layer) and the upper portion 62 (upper layer).).
Regarding claim 15, Ishida teaches a pixel definition layer disposed on the base layer, and by which an opening exposing at least a portion of the first electrode is defined, wherein the pixel definition layer includes an inorganic material, and wherein the lower layer is disposed on the pixel definition layer (Figs. 3-5 point to a rib 5.).
Regarding claim 16, Ishida teaches wherein a partition wall opening overlapping the opening is defined by the partition wall (Fig. 3 points to a gap (partition wall opening) between two partitions 6.).
Regarding claim 17, Ishida teaches an encapsulation layer including a lower inorganic layer covering the light emitting element and the partition wall, an upper inorganic layer disposed on the lower inorganic layer, and an organic layer disposed between the lower inorganic layer and the upper inorganic layer and disposed in the partition wall opening (Fig. 3 points to a first sealing layer SE1 (lower inorganic layer), a resin layer 13 (organic layer), and a sealing layer 14 (upper inorganic layer).).
Regarding claim 18, Ishida teaches a dummy pattern disposed on the upper layer, and including a same material as at least one of the light emission pattern or the second electrode, wherein the dummy pattern is covered by the lower inorganic layer (Fig. 3 points to a portion of the first organic layer OR1 (dummy pattern) that is positioned between the upper portion 62 (upper layer) and the first sealing layer SE1 (lower inorganic layer).).
Regarding claim 19, Ishida teaches wherein a dummy recess exposing an upper surface of the upper layer is defined by the dummy pattern, and wherein the organic layer contacts the upper surface of the upper layer (Fig. 3 points to a second partition 6y (dummy recess).).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 2-3 and 6- 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishida (US Patent No. 12690367) in further view of Tang (PGPub No. 20210327980).
Regarding claim 2, Tang teaches wherein the lower layer includes: a first layer, a second layer, a third layer, a fourth layer, and a fifth layer, which are laminated sequentially (Fig. 5 and [0071] point to a manufacturing method of a display substrate comprising the formation of partition layers (lower layer) via a partition material layer made of an aluminum-molybdenum-aluminum laminate (first layer; second layer; third layer). It is considered obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art would duplicate the laminate structure to form an additional molybdenum layer (fourth layer) and aluminum layer (fifth layer) in order to improve the properties/characteristics of the existing laminate structure. Additionally, the court has held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).), wherein contact resistances of the second layer and the fourth layer to the upper layer are lower than contact resistances of the first layer, the third layer, and the fifth layer to the upper layer (It is well known in the art that aluminum (the first layer, the third layer, and the fifth layer) generally has a higher contact resistance than molybdenum (the second layer and the fourth layer).). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ishida and Tang, such that the lower layer comprises a five-layer structure of varying contact resistances in order to create a good isolation effect that separates adjacent pixel regions.
Regarding claim 3, Tang teaches wherein the first layer, the third layer, and the fifth layer each include aluminum, and wherein the second layer and the fourth layer each include any one of molybdenum and a molybdenum alloy (Fig. 5 and [0071] point to a manufacturing method of a display substrate comprising the formation of a partition material layer made of an aluminum-molybdenum-aluminum laminate (first layer; second layer; third layer). It is considered obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art would duplicate the laminate structure to form an additional molybdenum layer (fourth layer) and aluminum layer (fifth layer) in order to improve the properties/characteristics of the existing laminate structure. Additionally, the court has held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ishida and Tang, such that the first, third, and fifth layers each include aluminum and the second and fourth layers each include molybdenum in order to create a good isolation effect that separates adjacent pixel regions.
Regarding claim 6, Ishida teaches wherein a thickness of the lower layer is 5000 angstroms (Å) to 10000 Å, and wherein a thickness of the upper layer is 1000 Å to 2000 Å (Figs. 4-5 and Col. 8, lines 19-22 point to the lower portion 61 (lower layer) and the upper portion 62 (upper layer) of the partition 6 having a total height H that is greater than or equal to 1.0 μm/10000 Å. Figs. 4-5 further point to the lower portion 61 (lower layer) having a height/thickness that is visibly more than half of the total partition height H and the upper portion 62 (upper layer) having a height/thickness that is significantly smaller than that of the lower portion 61. In light of this, it is considered obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art would form the lower portion 61 (lower layer) and the upper portion 62 (upper layer) such that the height/thickness of each portion would overlap or lie within the ranges of the claimed invention. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).).
Regarding claim 7, Ishida in combination with Tang teaches wherein thicknesses of the first layer, the third layer, and the fifth layer are each 1000 Å to 3000 Å, and wherein thicknesses of the second layer and the fourth layer are each 500 Å to 1500 Å (Figs. 4-5 and Col. 8, lines 19-22 of Ishida point to the partition 6 having a total height H that is greater than or equal to 1.0 μm/10000 Å and a lower portion 61 (first-fifth layers) of said partition 6 having a height/thickness that is visibly more than half of the total partition height H. Fig. 5 and [0071] of Tang point to a partition material layer made of an aluminum-molybdenum-aluminum laminate (first-fifth layers; see also claim 2). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the contact resistance requirement previously discussed in claim 2 (upon which claim 7 depends) in combination with the height requirement of Ishida to be a result effective variable affecting the height/thickness of each of the first-fifth layers. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Ishida and Tang to have the heights/thicknesses of each of the first-fifth layers within the respective claimed ranges in order to create a partition structure that best utilizes the conductivity of aluminum and the stiffness/stability of molybdenum, and since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(B) and 2143. Furthermore, it has also been held that the applicant must show that a particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936, (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that the law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some dimensional limitation or other variable within the claims, patentability cannot be found. The instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ishida and Tang, such that the aluminum-based first, third, and fifth layers and the molybdenum-based second and fourth layers each have thickness that falls under the respective ranges claimed in order to create a partition wall that is best optimized to reduce optical and electrical crosstalk.
Regarding claim 8, Ishida teaches wherein the upper layer includes titanium (Col. 6, lines 60-67 point to the upper portion 62 (upper layer) comprising a single-layer structure of a metal material such as titanium.).
Regarding claim 9, Tang teaches wherein side surfaces of the first to fifth layers are aligned with each other (Figs. 5 & 9 and [0067] point to the partition layers 12 (first to fifth layers), which are formed by patterning the partition material layer.). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ishida and Tang, such that the side surfaces of the first to fifth layers are aligned with each other in order to create a partition with a uniform isolation effect.
Regarding claim 10, Ishida in combination with Tang teaches wherein side surfaces of the second layer and the fourth layer each protrude further in a direction facing the light emitting area than the first layer, the third layer, and the fifth layer (Figs. 4-5 of Ishida point to the upper electrode UE1 in contact with the lower portion 61 (first-fifth layers). Fig. 5 and [0071] of Tang point to a manufacturing method of a display substrate comprising the formation of a partition material layer made of an aluminum-molybdenum (second layer; fourth layer)-aluminum laminate. In light of this, it is considered obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art would form the upper electrode such that it was in contact with the molybdenum layer(s) of the laminate rather than the aluminum layer(s) in order to create a more stable electrical contact that uses the molybdenum as a diffusion barrier which would prevent aluminum atoms from migrating into adjacent materials. Furthermore, it is also considered obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art would extend these contactable molybdenum layers (second layer; fourth layer) such that they protrude away from the core of the overall structure in order to avoid any accidental contact with the adjacent aluminum layers (first layer; third layer; fifth layer).). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ishida and Tang, such that the side surfaces of the second layer and the fourth layer each protrude further in a direction facing the light emitting area than the first layer, the third layer, and the fifth layer in order to establish an electrode interface that is sufficiently isolated from the aluminum layers of the partition wall.
Regarding claim 11, Ishida in combination with Tang teaches wherein the second electrode contacts the second layer and exposes the fourth layer (Figs. 4-5 of Ishida point to the upper electrode UE1 (second electrode) in contact with the lower portion 61. Fig. 5 and [0071] of Tang point to a manufacturing method of a display substrate comprising the formation of a partition material layer made of an aluminum-molybdenum (second layer; fourth layer)-aluminum laminate. In light of this, it is considered obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art would form the upper/second electrode such that it was in contact with the molybdenum layer(s) of the laminate rather than the aluminum layer(s) in order to create a more stable electrical contact that uses the molybdenum as a diffusion barrier which would prevent aluminum atoms from migrating into adjacent materials.). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ishida and Tang, such that the second electrode contacts the second layer and exposes the fourth layer in order to create a stable electrical contact between the second electrode and partition wall while still leaving available space for the partition wall to establish contact with other component(s) via the fourth layer.
Regarding claim 12, Ishida in combination with Tang teaches wherein the second electrode is spaced apart from the second layer and contacts the fourth layer (Figs. 4-5 of Ishida point to the upper electrode UE1 (second electrode) in contact with the lower portion 61. Fig. 5 and [0071] of Tang point to a manufacturing method of a display substrate comprising the formation of a partition material layer made of an aluminum-molybdenum (second layer; fourth layer)-aluminum laminate. In light of this, it is considered obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art would form the upper/second electrode such that it was in contact with the molybdenum layer(s) of the laminate rather than the aluminum layer(s) in order to create a more stable electrical contact that uses the molybdenum as a diffusion barrier which would prevent aluminum atoms from migrating into adjacent materials.). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ishida and Tang, such that the second electrode contacts the upper fourth layer of the partition wall rather than the second layer in order to better protect the underlying layers by improving electrical isolation.
Regarding claim 13, Ishida in combination with Tang teaches wherein the second electrode contacts the second layer and the fourth layer (Figs. 4-5 of Ishida point to the upper electrode UE1 (second electrode) in contact with the lower portion 61. Fig. 5 and [0071] of Tang point to a manufacturing method of a display substrate comprising the formation of a partition material layer made of an aluminum-molybdenum (second layer; fourth layer)-aluminum laminate. In light of this, it is considered obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art would form the upper/second electrode such that it was in contact with the molybdenum layer(s) of the laminate rather than the aluminum layer(s) in order to create a more stable electrical contact that uses the molybdenum as a diffusion barrier which would prevent aluminum atoms from migrating into adjacent materials.). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ishida and Tang, such that the second electrode contacts both the second and fourth layers of the partition wall in order to improve the stability of the electric contact formed between the second electrode and the partition wall.
Claim(s) 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishida et al. in further view of Mikami (PGPub No. 20060244372).
Regarding claim 4, Mikami teaches wherein the molybdenum alloy includes molybdenum, nickel, and titanium ([0119] points to a partition wall comprising at least one metal selected from Ag, Al, Au, Cu, Fe, Ge, In, K, Mg, Ba, Na, Ni, Pb, Pt, Si, Sn, W, Zn, Cr, Ti, Mo, Ta, stainless steel, and the like, and alloys thereof can be given.). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ishida et al. and Mikami, such that the molybdenum alloy of the previously mentioned second and fourth layers includes molybdenum, nickel, and titanium in order to create a partition wall that can prevent different light components emitted from adjacent pixels from being mixed.
Regarding claim 5, Mikami teaches wherein a content of nickel and titanium is not more than 50% of a total weight of the molybdenum alloy ([0119] points to a partition wall comprising at least one metal selected from Ag, Al, Au, Cu, Fe, Ge, In, K, Mg, Ba, Na, Ni, Pb, Pt, Si, Sn, W, Zn, Cr, Ti, Mo, Ta, stainless steel, and the like, and alloys thereof can be given. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the content ratio of nickel and titanium to molybdenum to be a result effective variable affecting the ability to prevent the mixing of different light components. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Mikami to have the content of nickel and titanium within the claimed range in order to achieve the desired result(s), and since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(B) and 2143. Furthermore, it has also been held that the applicant must show that a particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936, (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that the law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some dimensional limitation or other variable within the claims, patentability cannot be found. The instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ishida et al. and Mikami, such that a content of nickel and titanium is not more than 50% of a total weight of the molybdenum alloy in order to create a partition wall that can prevent different light components emitted from adjacent pixels from being mixed.
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishida in further view of Lee (US Patent No. 8963137).
Regarding claim 20, Ishida teaches a pixel definition layer, by which an opening exposing at least a portion of the first electrode is defined (Fig. 3 of Ishida points to a rib 5 (pixel definition layer) and the first lower electrode LE1 (first electrode).).
Ishida fails to teach a transistor disposed on the base layer; a connecting electrode connecting the transistor and the first electrode; an auxiliary electrode disposed in a same layer as a layer of the connecting electrode; an inter-layer insulation layer covering the connecting electrode and the auxiliary electrode, and on which the first electrode is disposed; and an auxiliary connecting electrode disposed on the inter-layer insulation layer, and connected to the auxiliary electrode through a contact hole defined in the inter-layer insulation layer, wherein the lower layer is disposed on the auxiliary connecting electrode.
Lee teaches a transistor disposed on the base layer; a connecting electrode connecting the transistor and the first electrode; an auxiliary electrode disposed in a same layer as a layer of the connecting electrode; an inter-layer insulation layer covering the connecting electrode and the auxiliary electrode, and on which the first electrode is disposed; and an auxiliary connecting electrode disposed on the inter-layer insulation layer, and connected to the auxiliary electrode through a contact hole defined in the inter-layer insulation layer (Fig. 4 points to an organic electro-luminescence device comprising a substrate 110 (base layer), a semiconductor layer 113, gate insulating layer 114, and gate electrode 115 which together constitute a driving and/or switching transistor, a drain electrode 124 (connecting electrode), an auxiliary electrode 126, a passivation layer 132 (inter-layer insulation layer), an auxiliary electrode 142a (auxiliary connecting electrode), and a contact hole 136b.), wherein the lower layer is disposed on the auxiliary connecting electrode (Id. points to a voltage drop prevention pattern 144b. Fig. 9 further points to an alternative embodiment of said pattern 244b which includes a victim pattern 254 (lower layer).). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ishida and Lee, such that a transistor, connecting electrode, auxiliary electrode, and auxiliary connecting electrode are formed in order to better control each individual pixel in an array by enabling individual current sources as well as low-resistance paths that reduce electrical resistance and keep the voltage uniform.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Patrick L Cullen whose telephone number is (703)756-1221. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30AM - 5PM EST.
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, Dale Page can be reached at (571)270-7877. 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.
/PATRICK CULLEN/ Assistant Examiner, Art Unit 2899 /DALE E PAGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights