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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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, 6-7, 9, 11 and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by KO et al. (US 20210057504, hereinafter “KO”, cited on September 23, 2024, IDS).
Regarding claim 1, KO teaches in Fig. 1 (shown below) and related text an organic light emitting diode display device (¶[0032]), comprising:
an integrated circuit (e.g. TFT, Fig. 1 and ¶[0050]);
a first electrode (192, Fig. 1 and ¶[0053]), electrically connected to the integrated circuit (Fig. 1), and having a top surface (191, Fig. 1 and ¶[0053]), a bottom surface (193, Fig. 1 and ¶[0053]), and an inclined surface (Fig. 1) connecting the top surface and the bottom surface (Fig. 1), wherein an angle included between the inclined surface and the bottom surface is from about 45 degrees to about 80 degrees (Fig. 1);
a spacer layer (210, 370, Fig. 1 and ¶[0043]), covering the inclined surface of the first electrode (190, Fig. 1);
an organic material stack layer (350, Fig. 1 and ¶[0043]), disposed on the first electrode (190, Fig. 1); and
a second electrode (270, Fig. 1 and ¶[0043]), disposed on the organic material stack layer (350, Fig. 1) and the spacer layer (210, 370, Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
462
567
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2 (1), KO teaches wherein the second electrode (270, Fig. 1) has an undulating top surface (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3 (1), KO further teaches a blocking layer (191, Fig. 1 and ¶[0053]) disposed on the top surface of the first electrode (192, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6 (1), KO further an insulation layer (180, Fig. 1 and ¶[0051]) disposed on the integrated circuit, and a via plug (81, Fig. 1 and ¶[0055]) disposed in the insulation layer for electrically connecting the integrated circuit and the first electrode (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7 (1), KO teaches wherein an area of the top surface of the first electrode (192, Fig. 1) is less than an area of the bottom surface of the first electrode (192, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, KO teaches in Fig. 1 (shown above) and related text an organic light emitting diode display device (¶[0032]), comprising:
an integrated circuit structure (e.g. TFT, Fig. 1 and ¶[0050]);
a dielectric layer (180, Fig. 1 and ¶[0043]) over the integrated circuit structure (e.g. TFT, Fig. 1);
a via (81, Fig. 1 and ¶[0055]) extending through the dielectric layer (180, Fig. 1) to the integrated circuit structure (e.g. TFT, Fig. 1);
a bottom blocking layer (193, Fig. 1 and ¶[0053]) having a sloped sidewall (Fig. 1);
a first electrode layer (192, Fig. 1 and ¶[0053]) over the bottom blocking layer (193, Fig. 1) and having a sloped sidewall aligned with the sloped sidewall of the bottom blocking layer (Fig. 1);
a top blocking layer (191, Fig. 1 and ¶[0053]) over the first electrode layer, and having a sloped sidewall aligned with the sloped sidewall of the first electrode layer (Fig. 1);
an organic light-emitting stack (350, Fig. 1 and ¶[0043]) on the top blocking layer (191, Fig. 1); and
a second electrode layer (270, Fig. 1 and ¶[0043]) over the organic light-emitting stack (350, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, KO teaches in Fig. 1 (shown above) and related text an organic light emitting diode display device, comprising:
an integrated circuit structure (e.g. TFT, Fig. 1 and ¶[0050]);
a dielectric layer (180, Fig. 1 and ¶[0051]) over the integrated circuit structure (e.g. TFT, Fig. 1);
a via (81, Fig. 1 and ¶[0055]) extending through the dielectric layer (180, Fig. 1) to the integrated circuit structure (e.g. TFT, Fig. 1);
a bottom blocking layer (193, Fig. 1 and ¶[0053]);
a first electrode layer (192, Fig. 1 and ¶[0055]) over the bottom blocking layer (193, Fig. 1 and ¶[0055]);
a top blocking layer (191, Fig. 1 and ¶[0055]) over the first electrode layer (192, Fig. 1), wherein the top blocking layer (191, Fig. 1) has a maximal width smaller than a minimal width of the bottom blocking layer (193, Fig. 1);
an organic light-emitting stack (350, Fig. 1 and ¶[0043]) on the top blocking layer (191, Fig. 1); and
a second electrode (270, Fig. 1 and ¶[0043]) layer over the organic light-emitting stack (350, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15 (11), KO teaches wherein the first electrode layer (192, Fig. 1) has a width decreasing as a distance from the bottom blocking layer (193, Fig. 1) increases (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 16 (11), KO teaches wherein the top blocking layer (191, Fig. 1) has a width decreasing as a distance from the first electrode layer (192, Fig. 1) increases (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 17 (11), KO teaches wherein the bottom blocking layer (193, Fig. 1) has a width decreasing as a distance from the dielectric layer (180, Fig. 1) increases (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 18 (11), KO further teaches a spacer layer (210, 370, Fig. 1 and ¶[0043]) covering a slant sidewall of the first electrode layer (192, Fig. 1).
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.
Claim(s) 4 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KO as applied to claims 3 and 1 above, respectively.
Regarding claim 4 (3), teaching of KO was discussed above in the rejection of claim 3 and further includes wherein a thickness of the blocking layer (191, Fig. 1) is 100 Å or less (¶[0053]), which overlaps the claimed range of from about 30Å to about 200Å. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to adjust the range of KO to the claimed range as a routine skill in the art to discover the optimum and/or workable range (see MPEP § 2144.05 for overlap of ranges).
Regarding claim 8 (1), KO teaches wherein a thickness of the first electrode (192, Fig. 1) is 700 Å to 1000 Å (¶[0053]), which overlaps the claimed range from about 300Å to about 900Å. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to adjust the range of KO to the claimed range as a routine skill in the art to discover the optimum and/or workable range (see MPEP § 2144.05 for overlap of ranges).
Claim(s) 5, 10, 12-14 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KO as applied to claims 3, 9 and 11 above, and further in view of Ukigaya (US 2019/0043934, hereinafter “Ukigaya”, cited on August 8, 2024 IDS).
Regarding claim 5 (3), teaching of KO was discussed above in the rejection of claim 3, and includes the blocking layer (191, Fig. 1) disposed on the top surface of the first electrode (192, Fig. 1). KO, however, does not explicitly teach wherein a thickness of a first portion of the blocking layer (191, Fig. 1) between the spacer layer (210, 370, Fig. 1) and the first electrode (192, Fig. 1) is greater than a thickness of a second portion of the blocking layer between the first electrode (192, Fig. 1) and the organic material stack layer (350, Fig. 1).
Ukigaya, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches in Fig. 3 (shown below) and related text, a top blocking layer (113, Fig. 3 and ¶[0045]), similar to that disclosed by KO, that includes two portions with two different thicknesses, where a first portion of the blocking layer (113, Fig. 3) between a spacer layer (121, Fig. 3) and the first electrode layer (112, Fig. 3) has a greater thickness that a thickness of a second portion of the blocking layer between the first electrode (112, Fig. 3) and an organic material stack (130, Fig. 3 and ¶[0042]) in order to meet specific design and manufacturing requirements for the device (¶[0050]).
PNG
media_image2.png
498
473
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thus, since the prior art teaches all of the claim elements, using such elements would lead to predictable results, and as such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the blocking layer disclosed by KO so that the first portion of the blocking between a spacer layer and the first electrode layer has a greater thickness that a thickness of a second portion of the blocking layer between the first electrode and an organic material stack, as disclosed by Ukigaya, in order to meet specific design and manufacturing requirements for the device.
Regarding claim 10 (9), teaching of KO was discussed above in the rejection of claim 9 and further includes a spacer (210, 370, Fig. 1 and ¶[0043]) over the sloped sidewalls of the top blocking layer (191, Fig. 1 and ¶[0053]), the first electrode layer (192, Fig. 1 and ¶[0053]), and the bottom blocking layer (193, Fig. 1 and ¶[0053]). KO, however, does not explicitly teach that an end surface of the spacer extends vertically from a top surface of the top blocking layer.
Ukigaya, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches in Fig. 3 (shown above) and related text, a spacer (120, Fig. 3 and ¶[0041]), similar to that disclosed by KO, that includes an end surface that extends vertically from a top surface of a top blocking layer (113, Fig. 3 and ¶[0045]) in order to meet specific design and manufacturing requirements for the device.
Thus, since the prior art teaches all of the claim elements, using such elements would lead to predictable results, and as such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the spacer disclosed by KO so that an end surface of the spacer extends vertically from a top surface of the top blocking layer, as disclosed by Ukigaya, in order to meet specific design and manufacturing requirements for the device.
Regarding claim 12 (11), teaching of KO was discussed above in the rejection of claim 11 and includes a teaching of a lower portion of an organic light-emitting stack (350, Fig. 1 and ¶[0043]) being on to of a top blocking layer (191, Fig. 1 and ¶[0053]) KO, however, does not explicitly teach the lower portion of the organic light-emitting stack being embedded in a recessed region of the top blocking layer.
Ukigaya, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches in Fig. 3 (shown above) and related text, a top blocking layer (113, Fig. 3 and ¶[0045]), similar to that disclosed by KO, that includes a recessed region, with an organic light-emitting stack (130, Fig. 3 and ¶[0042]) embedded in the recessed region of the top blocking layer in order to meet specific design and manufacturing requirements for the device (¶[0050]).
Thus, since the prior art teaches all of the claim elements, using such elements would lead to predictable results, and as such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a recessed region disclosed by Ukigaya, in the blocking layer disclosed by KO so that the lower portion of the organic light-emitting stack is embedded in the recessed region, in order to meet specific design and manufacturing requirements for the device.
Regarding claim 13 (11), teaching of KO was discussed above in the rejection of claim 3, and includes the blocking layer (191, Fig. 1) disposed on the top surface of the first electrode (192, Fig. 1). KO, however, does not explicitly teach wherein the top blocking layer has a stepped top surface structure comprising a lower region, an upper region, and a step rise connecting the lower region and the upper region.
Ukigaya, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches in Fig. 3 (shown above) and related text, a top blocking layer (113, Fig. 3 and ¶[0045]) similar to that disclosed by KO, that includes a stepped top surface structure comprising a lower region (e.g. middle portion of 113, Fig. 3), an upper region (e.g. side portion(s) of 113, Fig. 3), and a step rise connecting the lower region and the upper region (Fig. 3) in order to meet specific design and manufacturing requirements for the device (¶[0050]).
Thus, since the prior art teaches all of the claim elements, using such elements would lead to predictable results, and as such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the blocking layer disclosed by KO so that the top surface has the stepped top surface structure comprising a lower region, and upper region, and a step rise connecting the lower region and the upper region, as disclosed by Ukigaya, in order to meet specific design and manufacturing requirements for the device.
Regarding claim 14 (13), the combined teaching of KO and Ukigaya discloses wherein the organic light-emitting stack (KO, 350, Fig. 1 and Ukigaya, 130, Fig. 3) is in contact with the step rise of the stepped top surface structure of the top blocking layer (Ukigaya, 113, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 19 (18), teaching of KO was discussed above in the rejection of claim 18 and includes the spacer layer (210, 370, Fig. 1 and ¶[0043]) covering a slant sidewall of the first electrode layer (192, Fig. 1). KO, however, does not explicitly teach that the spacer layer has an end surface aligned with a step rise of a stepped top surface structure of the top blocking layer.
Ukigaya, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches in Fig. 3 (shown above) and related text, a top blocking layer (113, Fig. 3 and ¶[0045]) that has a stepped top surface structure, and a spacer layer (120, Fig. 3 and ¶[0041]), similar to that disclosed by KO, that includes an end surface that is aligned with a step rise of the stepped top surface structure of the top blocking layer (113, Fig. 3 and ¶[0045]) in order to meet specific design and manufacturing requirements for the device.
Thus, since the prior art teaches all of the claim elements, using such elements would lead to predictable results, and as such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form top blocking layer, disclosed by KO, with the stepped top surface structure and a spacer layer that includes the end surface that is aligned with the step rise of the stepped top surface structure of the top blocking layer, as disclosed by Ukigaya, in order to meet specific design and manufacturing requirements for the device.
Regarding claim 20 (19), the combined teaching of KO and Ukigaya discloses, wherein the end surface of the spacer layer (Ukigaya, 120, Fig. 3) is in contact with the organic light-emitting stack (Ukigaya, 130, Fig. 3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANETA B CIESLEWICZ whose telephone number is 303-297-4232. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM - 2:30 PM.
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, Sue Purvis can be reached at 571-272-1236. 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.
/A.B.C/Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/SUE A PURVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights