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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers 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 1, 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hiramatsu (US 2018/0351131 A1).
With respect to claim 1: Hiramatsu teaches “a display device (DSP) comprising: a substrate (SUB1); a first electrode on the substrate (RP+PE); a light emitting layer on the first electrode (ORG); and a second electrode on the light emitting layer (CE), wherein the first electrode comprises: a first pattern layer (RP) comprising aluminum (paragraph 46); a second pattern layer (first ITO layer of PE; see paragraph 46) on the first pattern layer (see Fig. 3) and comprising a transparent conductive material (ITO; see paragraph 46); a third pattern layer (Ag layer of PE; see paragraph 46) on the second pattern layer (see Fig. 3) and comprising silver (paragraph 46); and a fourth pattern layer on the third pattern layer (second ITO layer of PE; see paragraph 46) and comprising a transparent conductive material (ITO; see paragraph 46)”.
With respect to claim 11: Hiramatsu teaches “The display device of claim 1 (see above), further comprising a pixel defining film (15) on the first electrode (see Fig. 3)”.
With respect to claim 12: Hiramatsu teaches “the display device of claim 11 (see above), wherein the pixel defining film is on the second pattern layer and overlaps an edge area of the first pattern layer (see Fig. 3)”.
With respect to claim 13: Hiramatsu teaches “The display device of claim 11 (see above), wherein the pixel defining film is on the second pattern layer and the fourth pattern layer and overlaps the edge area of the first pattern layer (see Fig. 3)”.
With respect to claim 14: Hiramatsu teaches “the display device of claim 1 (see above), wherein the transparent conductive material comprises ITO (paragraph 46)”.
With respect to claim 15: Hiramatsu teaches “an optical device (PNL) comprising: a display device (DSP); and an optical path conversion member (SUB2; see paragraph 21) on the display device (see Fig. 1), wherein the display device comprises: a substrate (SUB1); a first electrode on the substrate (RP+PE); a light emitting layer on the first electrode (ORG); and a second electrode on the light emitting layer (CE), wherein the first electrode comprises: a first pattern layer (RP) comprising aluminum (paragraph 46); a second pattern layer (First ITO layer of PE; see paragraph 46) on the first pattern layer (see Fig. 3) and comprising a transparent conductive material (ITO; see paragraph 46); a third pattern layer (Ag layer of PE; see paragraph 46) on the second pattern layer (see Fig. 3) and comprising silver (paragraph 46); and a fourth pattern layer (second ITO layer in PE) on the third pattern layer and comprising a transparent conductive material (paragraph 46)”.
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 2-7, 10, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiramatsu as applied to claims 1, 15 above, and further in view of Im et al. (US 20070257253 A1) and Lee et al. (US 20090200922 A1).
With respect to claim 2: Hiramatsu teaches “The display device of claim 1 (see above)”.
Hiramatsu is silent about “wherein the first pattern layer has a greater thickness than the thickness of the third pattern layer”.
Hiramatsu’s first pattern layer is a reflective plate analogous to reflective metal layer 180a of Im. Im describes said plate as having a thickness of 500-2000 Å in order to have sufficient thickness to have a proper reflective property (Im paragraph 45).
Hiramatsu’s third pattern layer is the Ag layer in a ITO/Ag/ITO electrode structure analogous to layer 193 of electrode 191 of Lee. Lee states that the thickness of the translucent conductive layer 193 determines the width of the emission spectrum (paragraph 84) and describes said layer 193 as having a thickness of about 50-300 Å in a green pixel in order to obtain a sharp green spectrum with a narrow width.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Hiramatsu by forming the first pattern layer to have the thickness of 500-2000 Å as taught by Im in order to have a proper reflective property (Im paragraph 45) and to form the third pattern layer to have the thickness of 50-300 Å as taught by Lee in order to optimize the width of the emission spectrum (Lee paragraph 84).
With respect to claim 3: Hiramatsu in view of Im and Lee teaches “The display device of claim 2 (see above)”.
The combination of Hiramatsu, Im, and Lee teaches “wherein the thickness of the first pattern layer (500-2000 Å; Im paragraph 45) is four times the thickness of the third pattern layer (50-300 Å; Lee paragraph 84)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Hiramatsu by forming the first pattern layer to have the thickness of 500-2000 Å as taught by Im in order to have a proper reflective property (Im paragraph 45) and to form the third pattern layer to have the thickness of 50-300 Å as taught by Lee in order to optimize the width of the emission spectrum (Lee paragraph 84).
With respect to claim 4: Hiramatsu teaches “The display device of claim 1 (see above)”.
Hiramatsu does not specifically teach “wherein the first pattern layer has a thickness in a range of 700 Å to 1000 Å”.
However, Im teaches “wherein the first pattern layer has a thickness in a range of 700 Å to 1000 Å (paragraph 45)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Hiramatsu by forming the first pattern layer to have the thickness of 500-2000 Å as taught by Im in order to have a proper reflective property (Im paragraph 45).
With respect to claim 5: Hiramatsu teaches “The display device of claim 1 (see above)”.
Hiramatsu does not specifically teach “wherein the third pattern layer has a thickness in a range 200 Å to 300 Å”.
However, Lee teaches “wherein the third pattern layer has a thickness in a range 200 Å to 300 Å (paragraph 84)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Hiramatsu by forming the the third pattern layer to have the thickness of 50-300 Å as taught by Lee in order to optimize the width of the emission spectrum (Lee paragraph 84).
With respect to claim 6: Hiramatsu teaches “The display device of claim 1 (see above)”.
Hiramatsu does not specifically teach “wherein the second pattern layer has a thickness equal to or less than 100 Å”.
However, Im teaches “wherein the second pattern layer has a thickness equal to or less than 100 Å (paragraph 46)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Hiramatsu by forming the second pattern layer within the range taught by Im in order to avoid an interference effect (Im paragraph 46)”.
With respect to claim 7: Hiramatsu teaches “The display device of claim 1 (see above)”.
Hiramatsu does not specifically teach “wherein the fourth pattern layer has a thickness equal to or less than 100 Å”.
However, Im’s second pattern layer, which is considered analogous to the fourth pattern layer due to both being ITO layers in an OLED anode, teaches “wherein the fourth pattern layer has a thickness equal to or less than 100 Å (paragraph 46)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Hiramatsu by forming the fourth pattern layer within the range taught by Im in order to avoid an interference effect (Im paragraph 46)”.
With respect to claim 10: Hiramatsu teaches “The display device of claim 1 (see above)”.
Hiramatsu does not specifically teach “wherein the third pattern layer is surrounded by the second pattern layer and the fourth pattern layer”.
However, Lee teaches “wherein the third pattern layer (193) is surrounded by the second pattern layer (192) and the fourth pattern layer (194)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Hiramatsu by surrounding the third pattern layer with the second and fourth pattern layers as taught by Lee in order to improve color reproducibility of the display (Lee paragraph 108).
With respect to claim 16: Hiramatsu teaches “The optical device of claim 15 (see above)”.
Hiramatsu does not specifically teach “wherein the first pattern layer has a greater thickness than the third pattern layer”.
Hiramatsu is silent about “wherein the first pattern layer has a greater thickness than the thickness of the third pattern layer”.
Hiramatsu’s first pattern layer is a reflective plate analogous to reflective metal layer 180a of Im. Im describes said plate as having a thickness of 500-2000 Å in order to have sufficient thickness to have a proper reflective property (Im paragraph 45).
Hiramatsu’s third pattern layer is the Ag layer in a ITO/Ag/ITO electrode structure analogous to layer 193 of electrode 191 of Lee. Lee states that the thickness of the translucent conductive layer 193 determines the width of the emission spectrum (paragraph 84) and describes said layer 193 as having a thickness of about 50-300 Å in a green pixel in order to obtain a sharp green spectrum with a narrow width.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Hiramatsu by forming the first pattern layer to have the thickness of 500-2000 Å as taught by Im in order to have a proper reflective property (Im paragraph 45) and to form the third pattern layer to have the thickness of 50-300 Å as taught by Lee in order to optimize the width of the emission spectrum (Lee paragraph 84).
Claims 8, 9, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiramatsu as applied to claims 1, 15 above, and further in view of Yokoyama (US 2005/0001963 A1).
With respect to claim 8: Hiramatsu teaches “The display device of claim 1 (see above)”.
Hiramatsu does not specifically teach “wherein, in a plan view, the first pattern layer has a greater area than the third pattern layer”.
However, Yokoyama teaches an anode structure for a display device in which layers are disposed to have a forward tapered shape, wherein its width becomes gradually narrow from the flat surface 11A of the lower end face toward an upper end face 14D (see Fig. 2). Applying this instruction to Hiramatsu would result in the lowest layer (the first pattern layer) to be the largest and the subsequent layers to be smaller and smaller.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Hiramatsu by forming the layers to have a forward tapered shape as taught by Yokoyama and thus obtain the instant invention in order to avoid deposition failure (Yokoyama paragraph 56).
With respect to claim 9: Hiramatsu teaches “The display device of claim 1 (see above)”.
Hiramatsu does not specifically teach “wherein, in a plan view, the first pattern layer has a greater area than the second pattern layer or the fourth pattern layer”.
However, Yokoyama teaches an anode structure for a display device in which layers are disposed to have a forward tapered shape, wherein its width becomes gradually narrow from the flat surface 11A of the lower end face toward an upper end face 14D (see Fig. 2). Applying this instruction to Hiramatsu would result in the lowest layer (the first pattern layer) to be the largest and the subsequent layers to be smaller and smaller.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Hiramatsu by forming the layers to have a forward tapered shape as taught by Yokoyama and thus obtain the instant invention in order to avoid deposition failure (Yokoyama paragraph 56).
With respect to claim 17: Hiramatsu teaches “The optical device of claim 15 (see above)”.
Hiramatsu does not specifically teach “wherein, in a plan view, the first pattern layer has a greater area than the third pattern layer”.
However, Yokoyama teaches an anode structure for a display device in which layers are disposed to have a forward tapered shape, wherein its width becomes gradually narrow from the flat surface 11A of the lower end face toward an upper end face 14D (see Fig. 2). Applying this instruction to Hiramatsu would result in the lowest layer (the first pattern layer) to be the largest and the subsequent layers to be smaller and smaller.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the optical device of Hiramatsu by forming the layers to have a forward tapered shape as taught by Yokoyama and thus obtain the instant invention in order to avoid deposition failure (Yokoyama paragraph 56).
With respect to claim 18: Hiramatsu teaches “The optical device of claim 15 (see above)”.
Hiramatsu does not specifically teach “wherein, in a plan view, the first pattern layer has a greater area than the second pattern layer or the fourth pattern layer”.
However, Yokoyama teaches an anode structure for a display device in which layers are disposed to have a forward tapered shape, wherein its width becomes gradually narrow from the flat surface 11A of the lower end face toward an upper end face 14D (see Fig. 2). Applying this instruction to Hiramatsu would result in the lowest layer (the first pattern layer) to be the largest and the subsequent layers to be smaller and smaller.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the optical device of Hiramatsu by forming the layers to have a forward tapered shape as taught by Yokoyama and thus obtain the instant invention in order to avoid deposition failure (Yokoyama paragraph 56).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiramatsu in view of Yoon et al. (US 20200227509 A1).
With respect to claim 19: Hiramatsu teaches “a method of manufacturing a display device (method of making DSP), the method comprising forming a first electrode (RP+PE) on a substrate (SUB1), wherein forming the first electrode comprises: sequentially forming a first material layer (RP) comprising aluminum (paragraph 46), a second material layer (first ITO layer of PE) comprising a transparent conductive material (paragraph 46), a third material layer comprising silver (silver layer of PE; see paragraph 46), and a fourth material layer (second ITO layer of PE) comprising a transparent conductive material (paragraph 46)”.
Hiramatsu does not specifically teach “forming a photoresist pattern on the fourth material layer; forming a fourth pattern layer by wet etching the fourth material layer using the photoresist pattern as a mask; forming a third pattern layer by wet etching the third material layer using the photoresist pattern as a mask; and forming each of the second pattern layer and the first pattern layer by respectively dry etching the second material layer and the first material layer using the photoresist pattern as a mask”.
However, Yoon (see Fig. 3) teaches “forming a photoresist pattern (PR) on the fourth material layer (ITO); forming a fourth pattern layer by wet etching the fourth material layer using the photoresist pattern as a mask (step 14-1); forming a third pattern layer by wet etching the third material layer (Ag) using the photoresist pattern as a mask (step 14-1); and forming each of the second pattern layer (ITO layer mentioned in paragraph 48) and the first pattern layer (Ti) by respectively dry etching the second material layer and the first material layer using the photoresist pattern as a mask (step 14-2)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to make the display device Hiramatsu by using the photoresist, wet etching, and dry etching steps taught by Yoon due to the art recognized suitability of these steps for the purpose of making an anode for an OLED display (Yoon paragraph 83).
With respect to claim 20: Hiramatsu in view of Yoon teaches “The method of claim 19 (see above)”.
Hiramatsu further teaches “forming a pixel defining film (15) on a first electrode comprising the first pattern layer, the second pattern layer, the third pattern layer, and the fourth pattern layer (see Fig. 3); forming a light emitting layer (ORG) on the first electrode and the pixel defining film (see Fig. 3); and forming a second electrode (CE) on the light emitting layer (see Fig. 3)”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ko et al. (US 20210057504 A1), which teaches an OLED display device and manufacturing method thereof.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL J. LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-5721. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 EST M-F.
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, ABDULMAJEED AZIZ can be reached at (571)270-5046. 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.
/NATHANIEL J LEE/ Examiner, Art Unit 2875
/EVAN P DZIERZYNSKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights