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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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, 2, 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak (8354980) in view of Lin (20220246674).
Regarding claim 1, Kwak teaches a display device (fig. 3) comprising:
a substrate (100) comprising a light-emitting area and a non-light-emitting area;
a pixel-defining layer (117) at the non-light-emitting area, and defining a first opening (please see the opening between adjacent 117);
a bank layer (118) above the pixel-defining layer, and defining a second opening (please opening between 118);
an auxiliary electrode (210 + 220) above the bank layer, and entirely covering the bank layer (please see fig. 3 which shows 210 being wider than 118 and thus entirely covering 118; 220 completely covers all pixels, as seen in fig. 3);
a first cathode electrode (116c) at the light-emitting area, and contacting the auxiliary electrode.
Kwak teaches a color filter 230, but fails to teach:
a first quantum dot layer above the first cathode electrode
Lin teaches an OLED wherein color filters can be placed atop the pixel, the color filter being composed of QDs, phosphors, etc. (par. 31). It is known in the at that when compared to other color filters, QDs offer increased color purity, an aspect that would enhance the OLED taught in Kwak.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA, at the time of filing, to utilize aforementioned teachings of the prior art(s) in the primary prior art(s) due to aforementioned reason(s).
Regarding claim 2, Kwak teaches a display device of claim 1, wherein the bank layer is entirely surrounded by the pixel-defining layer and the auxiliary electrode (please see fig. 3 which shows 117 and 210 + 220 surrounding 118).
Regarding claim 6, Kwak teaches a display device of claim 1, wherein the first cathode electrode is electrically connected to the auxiliary electrode (210 and 220 are taught to be electrically connected to 116c).
Regarding claim 16, Kwak teaches a display device of claim 1, wherein the first opening is entirely surrounded by the second opening in a plan view (please see fig. 1 and 3).
Claims 1, 3-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (9076993) in view of Lin (20220246674).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a display device (fig. 1A) comprising:
a substrate (110A) comprising a light-emitting area and a non-light-emitting area;
a pixel-defining layer (117a) at the non-light-emitting area, and defining a first opening (please see the opening between adjacent 117a);
a bank layer (180a) above the pixel-defining layer (please see 180a positioned above 117a), and defining a second opening (please opening between 180a);
an auxiliary electrode (160a) above the bank layer, and entirely covering the bank layer (please see fig. 1A);
a first cathode electrode (157a) at the light-emitting area, and contacting the auxiliary electrode.
Kim teaches a color filter 230, but fails to teach:
a first quantum dot layer above the first cathode electrode
Lin teaches an OLED wherein color filters can be placed atop the pixel, the color filter being composed of QDs, phosphors, etc. (par. 31). It is known in the at that when compared to other color filters, QDs offer increased color purity, an aspect that would enhance the OLED taught in Kim.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA, at the time of filing, to utilize aforementioned teachings of the prior art(s) in the primary prior art(s) due to aforementioned reason(s).
Regarding claim 2, Kim teaches a display device of claim 1, wherein the bank layer is entirely surrounded by the pixel-defining layer and the auxiliary electrode (please see fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 3, Kim teaches a display device of claim 2, wherein the bank layer has a reverse tapered shape (please see fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 4, Kim teaches a display device of claim 3, wherein a height of the bank layer in a direction substantially perpendicular to the substrate is greater than a height of the pixel-defining layer (please see fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 5, Kim teaches a display device of claim 4, wherein the bank layer comprises an organic material (Kim teaches 180A being composed of organic material), and wherein the auxiliary electrode comprises a conductive metal (Kim teaches 160A being composed of conductive material).
Regarding claim 7, Kim teaches a display device of claim 1, further comprising: a light-emitting layer between the substrate and the first cathode electrode in a direction substantially perpendicular to the substrate; an organic pattern above the bank layer, comprising a same material as the light-emitting layer, and spaced apart from the light-emitting layer; and an electrode pattern above the organic pattern, comprising a same material as the first cathode electrode, and spaced apart from the first cathode electrode (see 5B-5D).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is 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.
Claim 9 is objected to based on its dependency on claim 8.
Claim 10 is 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.
Claim 11 is objected to based on its dependency on claim 10.
Claim 12 is objected to based on its dependency on claim 11.
Claim 13 is 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.
Claim 14 is objected to based on its dependency on claim 13.
Claim 15 is 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.
Claims 17-20 allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: prior art fails to teach the all of the temporal ordering of states taught in claim 17, such as forming a bank layer having an inverse tapered shape above the pixel-defining layer; forming an auxiliary electrode entirely covering the bank layer; forming a photoresist above the auxiliary electrode; removing a portion of the auxiliary electrode, the pixel-defining layer, and the sacrificial layer; forming a light-emitting layer and a cathode electrode above the anode electrode; forming a first inorganic layer above the cathode electrode; forming a quantum dot layer above the first inorganic layer; and forming a second inorganic layer covering the first inorganic layer and the quantum dot layer.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CALEB E HENRY whose telephone number is (571)270-5370. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri.
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, Eva Montalvo can be reached at (571) 270-3829. 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.
/CALEB E HENRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights