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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in REPUBLIC OF KOREA on 09/19/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the KR10-2023-0124826 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claims 14-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ko et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,342,404).
Regarding to claim 14, Ko teaches a method for manufacturing a display device, the method comprising:
sequentially providing a preliminary first sub-electrode (Fig. 10, element 193’), a preliminary intermediate layer (Fig. 10, element 192’), a preliminary second sub-electrode (Fig. 10, element 191’), and a preliminary protective layer (Fig. 10, element 210’) on a circuit element layer (Fig. 10, stack 110/130/150);
patterning the preliminary protective layer by removing a portion of the preliminary protective layer (Fig. 11);
forming a first electrode, in which a first sub-electrode, an intermediate layer, and a second sub-electrode are stacked, by etching portions of the preliminary first sub-electrode, the preliminary intermediate layer, and the preliminary second sub-electrode which overlap a region from which the portion of the preliminary protective layer is removed (Figs. 12-13);
providing a preliminary pixel defining film layer on the formed first electrode (Fig. 14, element 370’);
forming a pixel defining film by patterning the preliminary pixel defining film layer, wherein a light-emitting opening is defined in the pixel defining film (Fig. 15); and
forming a protective layer by removing a portion of the preliminary protective layer exposed through the light-emitting opening (Fig. 16), wherein an edge of the protective layer exposed through the light-emitting opening is more recessed toward an inside of the pixel defining film than an edge of the pixel defining film (Fig. 16, edge of the protective layer 210 exposed through the light-emitting opening is more recessed toward an inside of the pixel defining film 370 than an edge of the pixel defining film 370).
Regarding to claim 15, Ko teaches wherein the patterning of the preliminary protective layer by removing a portion of the preliminary protective layer comprises:
forming a photosensitive pattern on the preliminary protective layer (Fig. 11, element PR); and
removing a portion of the preliminary protective layer that does not overlap the photosensitive pattern by wet etching the preliminary protective layer, wherein the wet etching comprises providing an etching solution on the preliminary protective layer (Fig. 11, column 10, lines 10-13).
Regarding to claim 16, Ko teaches wherein the forming of the first electrode comprises dry etching the preliminary first sub-electrode, the preliminary intermediate layer, and the preliminary second sub-electrode in a same process step (Fig. 12; column 10, lines 22-26).
Regarding to claim 17, Ko teaches wherein the forming of the pixel defining film
comprises:
forming a photosensitive pattern on the preliminary pixel defining film layer (Fig. 14, element PR); and
removing the preliminary pixel defining film layer by dry etching the preliminary pixel defining film layer such that an upper surface of the preliminary protective layer non-overlapping the photosensitive pattern is exposed (Fig. 15).
Regarding to claim 18, Ko teaches wherein the forming of the protective layer comprises removing the portion of the preliminary protective layer exposed through the light-emitting opening by wet etching such that an upper surface of the second sub-electrode is exposed, wherein the wet etching comprises providing an etching solution on the preliminary protective layer (Fig. 11, column 10, lines 10-13).
Regarding to claim 20, Ko teaches wherein the preliminary protective layer comprises an amorphous transparent conductive oxide film (column 9, lines 27-28, indium zinc oxide is an amorphous transparent conductive oxide film).
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,342,404) in view of Yamazaki et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,921,858).
Regarding to claim 1, Ko teaches a display device comprising:
a circuit element layer (Fig. 9, stack 110/130/150);
a pixel defining film disposed on the circuit element layer (Fig. 9, element 370), wherein a light emitting opening is defined in the pixel defining film (Fig. 9, element OLED);
a light-emitting element comprising:
a first electrode comprising an upper surface exposed through the light-emitting opening, wherein the first electrode at least partially overlaps the pixel defining film (Fig. 9, element 190);
a second electrode disposed on the first electrode (Fig. 9, element 270); and
a functional layer disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode (Fig. 9, element 350); and
a protective layer disposed between the first electrode overlapping the pixel defining film and the pixel defining film (Fig. 9, element 210),
wherein the first electrode comprises:
a first sub-electrode comprising a reflective metal material (Fig. 9, element 193; column 5, lines 10-11);
a second sub-electrode disposed on the first sub-electrode and comprising a transparent conductive oxide (Fig. 9, element 191; column 5, lines 7-8); and
an intermediate layer disposed directly between the first sub-electrode and the second sub-electrode (Fig. 9, element 192; column 5, lines 6-7).
Ko does not disclose the intermediate layer of the first pixel electrode comprising a tungsten oxide.
Yamazaki discloses tungsten oxide could be used to form pixel electrode (column 18, lines 35-38). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ko in view of Yamazaki to comprise tungsten oxide in the intermediate layer of the first electrode in order to obtain desired level of conductivity and transparency.
Regarding to claim 2, Ko teaches an edge of the protective layer exposed through the light-emitting opening is more recessed toward an inside of the pixel defining film than an edge of an adjacent pixel defining film (Fig. 9).
Regarding to claim 3, Ko teaches the first sub-electrode comprises aluminum or an aluminum alloy (column 5, lines 19-21).
Regarding to claim 4, Ko teaches the second sub-electrode comprises a polycrystalline indium tin oxide (ITO) (column 5, lines 16-17).
Regarding to claim 5, Ko teaches the protective layer is formed of an amorphous transparent conductive oxide film (column 9, lines 27-28, indium zinc oxide is an amorphous transparent conductive oxide film).
Regarding to claim 6, Ko teaches the protective layer comprises at least one of indium gallium zinc oxide (IGZO), indium zinc oxide (IZO), or zinc indium tin oxide (Zn-ITO) (column 9, lines 27-28, indium zinc oxide).
Regarding to claim 7, Ko as modified does not disclose a thickness of the intermediate layer ranges from about 5 A to about 30 A. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure a thickness of the intermediate layer ranges from about 5 A to about 30 A in order to obtain a desired conductivity with a low stress, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,342,404) in view of Park et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,211,578).
Regarding to claim 8, Ko teaches a display device comprising:
light-emitting region (Fig. 9, OLED region)
a base substrate (Fig. 9, element 100);
a circuit element layer disposed on the base substrate (Fig. 9, stack 110/130/150);
a pixel defining film disposed on the circuit element layer (Fig. 9, element 370), wherein light emitting openings defined in the pixel defining film correspond to the light-emitting regions (Fig. 9, element OLED);
a light-emitting element comprising:
a first electrode at least partially overlapping the pixel defining film and disposed on the circuit element layer (Fig. 9, element 190);
a second electrode disposed on the first electrode (Fig. 9, element 270); and
a functional layer disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode (Fig. 9, element 350); and
a protective layer disposed directly between the first electrode and the pixel defining film (Fig. 9, element 210), wherein the protective layer corresponds to the peripheral region and is formed of an amorphous transparent conductive oxide film (column 9, lines 27-28, indium zinc oxide is an amorphous transparent conductive oxide film).
Ko does not disclose light-emitting regions which are non-overlapping on a plane and a peripheral region disposed between the light-emitting regions.
Park discloses light-emitting regions which are non-overlapping on a plane and a peripheral region disposed between the light-emitting regions (Figs. 1-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ko in view of Park to comprise light-emitting regions which are non-overlapping on a plane and a peripheral region disposed between the light-emitting regions in order to obtain an array of pixels.
Regarding to claim 13, Park teaches the base substrate comprises a silicon substrate (column 4, lines 4-5).
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,342,404) and Park et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,211,578), as applied to claim 8 above, further in view of Yamazaki et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,921,858).
Regarding to claim 9, Ko teaches wherein the first electrode comprises:
a first sub-electrode comprising a reflective metal material (Fig. 9, element 193; column 5, lines 10-11);
a second sub-electrode disposed on the first sub-electrode and comprising a transparent conductive oxide (Fig. 9, element 191; column 5, lines 7-8); and
an intermediate layer disposed directly between the first sub-electrode and the second sub-electrode (Fig. 9, element 192; column 5, lines 6-7).
Ko does not disclose the intermediate layer of the first pixel electrode comprising a tungsten oxide.
Yamazaki discloses tungsten oxide could be used to form pixel electrode (column 18, lines 35-38). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ko in view of Yamazaki to comprise tungsten oxide in the intermediate layer of the first electrode in order to obtain desired level of conductivity and transparency.
Regarding to claim 10, Ko teaches the first sub-electrode comprises aluminum or an aluminum alloy (column 5, lines 19-21); and the second sub-electrode comprises a polycrystalline indium tin oxide (ITO) (column 5, lines 16-17).
Regarding to claim 11, Ko as modified does not disclose a thickness of the first sub-electrode ranges from about 600 A to about 1000 A, a thickness of the second sub-electrode ranges from about 20 A to about 100 A, and a thickness of the intermediate layer ranges from about 5 A to about 30 A. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure a thickness of the first sub-electrode ranges from about 600 A to about 1000 A, a thickness of the second sub-electrode ranges from about 20 A to about 100 A, and a thickness of the intermediate layer ranges from about 5 A to about 30 A in order to obtain a desired conductivity with less stress, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding to claim 12, Ko teaches the first electrode, the protective layer, and the pixel defining film overlap each other in the peripheral region; and the protective layer and the pixel defining film do not overlap the first electrode in the light-emitting regions (Fig. 9).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,342,404), as applied to claim 14 above, further in view of Yamazaki et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,921,858).
Regarding to claim 19, Ko teaches wherein the first electrode comprises:
the preliminary first sub-electrode comprises aluminum or an aluminum alloy (Fig. 10, element 193’; column 5, lines 19-21);
a second sub-electrode disposed on the first sub-electrode and comprising a transparent conductive oxide (Fig. 10, element 191’; column 5, lines 7-8); and
an intermediate layer (Fig. 10, element 192’; column 5, lines 6-7).
Ko does not disclose the intermediate layer of the first pixel electrode comprising a tungsten oxide.
Yamazaki discloses tungsten oxide could be used to form pixel electrode (column 18, lines 35-38). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ko in view of Yamazaki to comprise tungsten oxide in the intermediate layer of the first electrode in order to obtain desired level of conductivity and transparency.
Pertinent Art
For the benefits of the Applicant, US-9012897-B2, US-8174175-B2, US-11139343-B2, US-9054206-B2, and US-12120909-B2, are cited on the record as being pertinent to significant disclosure through some but not all claimed features of the defined invention. These references fail to disclose the limitations including “a second sub-electrode disposed on the first sub-electrode and comprising a transparent conductive oxide; and an intermediate layer disposed directly between the first sub-electrode and the second sub-electrode and comprising a tungsten oxide.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VU A VU whose telephone number is (571)270-7467. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00AM - 5:00PM.
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, CHAD M DICKE can be reached at (571) 270-7996. 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.
/VU A VU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights