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 .
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election of Group I, drawn to claims 1-14 without traverse, on 7/14/26, is acknowledged. Claims 15-20 are hereby withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Kim (US 20230217676 A1) and further in view of Sui (CN 112331794 A)
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a display device (at least Fig.2) comprising: a light-emitting element (layers wherein 130 is indicated) disposed on a substrate 100, the light-emitting element including an anode electrode 110, a light-emitting structure 130- disposed on the anode electrode, and a cathode electrode (150) disposed on the light-emitting structure; and a capping layer 170 ([0249]) disposed on the light-emitting element, and the capping layer includes an organic material ([0253]).
Kim does not teach the cathode electrode includes a first cathode electrode and a second cathode electrode disposed on the first cathode electrode, the second cathode electrode includes a transparent conductive material.
Sui teaches a display device wherein the cathode electrode includes a first cathode 11, and a second cathode 12 disposed on the first cathode electrode, the second cathode electrode includes a transparent conductive material (see in Sui: then preparing ITO layer as the second cathode layer on the first cathode layer) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the application was filed, to use the composite cathode layer, as disclosed in Sui, in the device of Kim, in order to improve cathode reliability (Abstract of Sui).
Regarding claim 4, Kim in view of Sui teaches the display device, wherein the first cathode electrode includes silver (Ag), and further includes an additional metal including at least one of magnesium (Mg), aluminum (Al), copper (Cu), calcium (Ca), and barium (Ba). (see in Sui: he first cathode layer 11 is the alloy layer of the low work function metal and Ag AND In one embodiment, the low work function metal is one or more of Cs, Li, K, Na, Yb and Ba).
Regarding claim 5, Kim in view of Sui teaches the display device, wherein the first cathode electrode has a thickness in a range of about 50 Å to about 300 Å. (in Sui: the thickness of the first cathode layer is 2nm to 20nm which is 20 to 200 angstroms).
Regarding claim 6, Kim in view of Sui teaches the display device, wherein the second cathode electrode includes at least one of Indium Zinc Oxide (IZO), Indium Oxide (IO), Tin Oxide (TO), Indium Tin Oxide (ITO), Indium Gallium Zinc Oxide (IGZO), Aluminum Zinc Oxide (AZO), Aluminum Tin Oxide (ATO), Indium Tin Zinc Oxide (ITZO), Zinc Oxide (ZnO), and Tin Oxide (SnO2) (Sui: the second cathode layer is an ITO layer)
Regarding claim 7, Kim in view of Sui teaches the display device, wherein the second cathode electrode has a thickness in a range of about 10 Å to about 900 Å (see in Sui: the thickness of the second cathode layer is 20nm to 200nm; which in angstroms is 200-2000A).
Regarding claim 8, Kim in view of Sui teaches the display device, wherein a lower surface of the second cathode electrode contacts the first cathode electrode, and an upper surface of the second cathode electrode contacts the capping layer (from the combined teachings of Kim in view of Sui, wherein Kim teaches an upper surface of the cathode electrode contacts the capping layer, and whereas Sui teaches the cathode layer has first and second layers).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20230217676 A1) and Sui (CN 112331794 A) and further in view of Lee (CN 103872069 A)
Regarding claim 2, Kim in view of Sui teaches the invention set forth in claim 1 above, but is silent regarding the organic material of the capping layer is an anisotropic material.
Lee teaches an organic and isotropic capping film (covering film 100b can be formed by isotropic anisotropic materials, such as cycloolefin copolymer (COC), cycloolefin polymer (C0P), polycarbonate (PC), polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and polyethylene naphthalate (PEN),[0040]-[0044]) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the application was filed, to use the material as disclosed in Lee in the device of Kim in view of Sui in order to maximize output coupling.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Kim (US 20230217676 A1) and Sui (CN 112331794 A) and further in view of Dai (US 20220293861 A1)
Regarding claim 3, Kim in view of Sui teaches the invention set forth in claim 1 above, but is silent regarding the capping layer has an extinction coefficient of about 2 or more in an ultraviolet region.
Dai teaches a capping layer has a large extinction coefficient in an ultraviolet region ([0008]) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the application was filed, to use the material for the capping layer with an extinction ration of 2 or more, that is a large value, as disclosed in Dai in the device of Kim in view of Sui in order to be beneficial for absorbing harmful light and protecting eyesight.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Kim (US 20230217676 A1) and Sui (CN 112331794 A) and further in view of Hatano (US 20140103385 A1)
Regarding claim 9, Kim in view of Sui teaches the invention set forth in claim 1 above, but is silent regarding the substrate that is a silicon substrate.
Hatano teaches a silicon substrate ([0065]) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the application was filed, to use the substrate material as disclosed in Hatano in the device of Kim in view of Sui in order to achieve an active semiconductor substrate.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Kim (US 20230217676 A1) and further in view of Sui (CN 112331794 A) and further in view of Choi (US 20060204903 A1)
Regarding claim 10, Kim in view of Sui teaches the invention set forth in claim 1 above, but is silent regarding sub-pixels including a first sub-pixel, a second sub-pixel, and a third sub-pixel; and a separator disposed in a boundary area between the sub-pixels, wherein the light-emitting structure is disposed throughout the first sub-pixel, the second sub-pixel, and the third sub-pixel, and at least a portion of the light-emitting structure is cut by the separator.
Choi teaches multiple pixels and a separator disposed in a boundary area between the pixels, wherein the light-emitting structure is disposed throughout the first pixel, the pixel, and the third pixel, and at least a portion of the light-emitting structure is cut by the separator (separator/wall 231b between pixels in Fig.2G,4B and 5B and [0051],[0071]-[0072],[0081],[0081]) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the application was filed, to use a separator between sub-pixels from the teachings of Choi, in the device of Kim in view of Sui in order to reduce cross-talk between pixels/sub-pixels.
Claim 10 is rejected alternately under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Kim (US 20230217676 A1) and further in view of Sui (CN 112331794 A) and further in view of Lan (US 20060220536 A1)
Regarding claim 10, Kim in view of Sui teaches the invention set forth in claim 1 above, but is silent regarding sub-pixels including a first sub-pixel, a second sub-pixel, and a third sub-pixel; and a separator disposed in a boundary area between the sub-pixels, wherein the light-emitting structure is disposed throughout the first sub-pixel, the second sub-pixel, and the third sub-pixel, and at least a portion of the light-emitting structure is cut by the separator.
Lan teaches multiple pixels and a separator disposed in a boundary area between the pixels, wherein the light-emitting structure is disposed throughout the first pixel, the pixel, and the third pixel, and at least a portion of the light-emitting structure is cut by the separator (separator/wall between pixels in Fig.1-4 and 7, insulator 25 and separator 26) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the application was filed, to use a separator between sub-pixels from the teachings of Lan, in the device of Kim in view of Sui in order to reduce cross-talk between pixels/sub-pixels.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Kim (US 20230217676 A1) and further in view of Margulies (US 20250024696 A1)
Regarding claim 11, Kim teaches a display device (at least Fig.2) comprising: a first sub-pixel, a second sub-pixel, and a third sub-pixel ([0056],[0258]); a light-emitting element (wherein 130 is indicated) disposed on a substrate 100, the light-emitting element including: an anode electrode 110, a light-emitting structure130 disposed on the anode electrode, and a cathode electrode 150 disposed on the light-emitting structure; and a capping layer 170 ([0249]) disposed on the light-emitting structure, wherein the capping layer includes: a first capping layer included in the first sub-pixel, a second capping layer included in the second sub-pixel, and a third capping layer included in the third sub-pixel (wherein the capping layer 170 covers all sub-pixels).
Kim does not teach the first capping layer, the second capping layer, and the third capping layer have different refractive indexes.
Margulies teaches different sub-pixels have different refractive index for their corresponding capping layers over them ([0032], [0107],[0108]) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the application was filed, to use different refractive index for the capping layer of each sub-pixel as disclosed in Margulies, in the device of Kim, in order to optimize the coupling for each wavelength corresponding to each different colored sub-pixel.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Kim and Margulies and further in view of Sui
Regarding claim 12, Kim in view of Margulies teaches the capping layer includes an organic material ([0253] in Kim), but is silent regarding the cathode electrode includes a first cathode electrode and a second cathode electrode disposed on the first cathode electrode, the first cathode electrode includes silver (Ag), and further includes an additional metal including at least one of magnesium (Mg), aluminum (Al), copper (Cu), calcium (Ca), and barium (Ba), and the second cathode electrode includes at least one of Indium Zinc Oxide (IZO), Indium Oxide (IO), Tin Oxide (TO), Indium Tin Oxide (ITO), Indium Gallium Zinc Oxide (IGZO), Aluminum Zinc Oxide (AZO), Aluminum Tin Oxide (ATO), Indium Tin Zinc Oxide (ITZO), Zinc Oxide (ZnO), and Tin Oxide (SnO2).
Sui teaches a display device wherein the cathode electrode includes a first cathode 11, and a second cathode 12 disposed on the first cathode electrode, the second cathode electrode includes a transparent conductive material (see in Sui: then preparing ITO layer as the second cathode layer on the first cathode layer); the first cathode electrode includes silver (Ag), and further includes an additional metal including at least one of magnesium (Mg), aluminum (Al), copper (Cu), calcium (Ca), and barium (Ba), and the second cathode electrode includes at least one of Indium Zinc Oxide (IZO), Indium Oxide (IO), Tin Oxide (TO), Indium Tin Oxide (ITO), Indium Gallium Zinc Oxide (IGZO), Aluminum Zinc Oxide (AZO), Aluminum Tin Oxide (ATO), Indium Tin Zinc Oxide (ITZO), Zinc Oxide (ZnO), and Tin Oxide (SnO2) ( (see in Sui: he first cathode layer 11 is the alloy layer of the low work function metal and Ag AND In one embodiment, the low work function metal is one or more of Cs, Li, K, Na, Yb and Ba AND Sui: the second cathode layer is an ITO layer) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the application was filed, to use the composite cathode layer, as disclosed in Sui, in the device of Kim in view of Margulies, in order to improve cathode reliability (Abstract of Sui).
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Kim and Margulies and further in view of Fukuda (US 20230255063 A1)
Regarding claim 13, Kim in view of Margulies teaches the invention set forth in claim 11 above, but is silent regarding a pixel defining layer disposed on the anode electrode; and a sidewall disposed on the pixel defining layer, the sidewall including a first sidewall and a second sidewall disposed on the first sidewall, wherein the second sidewall has a width greater than a width of the first sidewall.
Fukuda teaches a display device wherein a pixel defining layer 5 is disposed on the anode electrode (LE1, LE2, LE3); and a sidewall 61 disposed on the pixel defining layer, the sidewall including a first sidewall 61 and a second sidewall 62 disposed on the first sidewall, wherein the second sidewall has a width greater than a width of the first sidewall ([0073]-[0074]).
PNG
media_image1.png
571
367
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the application was filed, to use the barrier walls between the sub-pixels as disclosed in Fukuda, in the device of Kim in view of Marguilies, in order to avoid crosstalk between the sub-pixels.
Regarding claim 14, Kim in view of Margulies the display device, wherein the light-emitting structure includes a first light-emitting structure included in the first sub-pixel, a second light-emitting structure included in the second sub-pixel, and a third light-emitting structure included in the third sub-pixel (OR1, OR2, OR3, [0035]-[0048]), and at least a portion of the cathode electrode UE1
PNG
media_image2.png
235
193
media_image2.png
Greyscale
is electrically connected to the first sidewall (see in [0054] of Fukuda: Further, the first upper electrode UE1a is in contact with a side surface of the lower portion 61).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fatima Farokhrooz whose telephone number is (571)-272-6043. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday, 9 am - 5 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s Supervisor, James Greece can be reached on (571) 272-3711.
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.
/Fatima N Farokhrooz/
Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights