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 Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 4, delete [od] after “plurality” and insert “of”
. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 10-12, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Yoshinaga et al. (US. Pub: 2012/0223633 A1~hereinafter “Yoshinaga”).
Regarding claim 1, Yoshinaga discloses (in at least fig. 3) a display device, comprising: a plurality of emission areas (see at least fig. 3; [0043]-[0052]); a non-emission area proximate to the plurality emission areas (see fig. 3); a plurality of anode electrodes (14; [0044]) spaced apart from each other, wherein each of the plurality anode electrodes (14) overlaps each of the plurality of emission areas and the non-emission area (see fig. 3); and a plurality of separators (15A; [0051]) respectively disposed on the plurality of anode electrodes (14) and overlapping the non-emission area (see fig. 3).
Regarding claim 2, Yoshinaga discloses (in at least fig. 3) each of the plurality of separators (15A) surrounds at least one surface of each of the plurality of emission areas (see fig. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Yoshinaga discloses (in at least fig. 3) each of the plurality of separators (15A) is proximate to three surfaces of each of the plurality of emission areas (see at least fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4, Yoshinaga discloses (in at least fig. 3) a pixel defining layer (15B) disposed on the plurality of anode electrodes (14) and the plurality of separators (15A) and proximate to a remaining one surface of each of the plurality of emission areas (see fig. 3); a light emitting structure (16; [0052]) disposed on the plurality of anode electrodes (14), the plurality of separators (15A), and the pixel defining layer (15B); and a cathode electrode (17; [0047]) disposed on the light emitting structure.
Regarding claim 10, Yoshinaga discloses (in at least fig. 3) the light emitting structure (16) and/or the cathode electrode is split by the plurality of separators (15A).
Regarding claim 11, Yoshinaga discloses (in at least fig. 3) each of the plurality of separators (15A) surrounds four surfaces of each of the plurality of emission areas (see fig. 3).
Regarding claim 12, Yoshinaga discloses (in at least fig. 3) a pixel defining layer (15B) disposed on the plurality of anode electrodes (14) and the plurality of separators (15A) and surrounding the plurality of separators (15A); a light emitting structure (16) disposed on the plurality of anode electrodes (14), the plurality of separators (15A), and the pixel defining layer (15B); and a cathode electrode (17) disposed on the light emitting structure.
Regarding claim 18, Yoshinaga discloses (in at least fig. 3) the light emitting structure (16) and/or the cathode electrode is split by the plurality of separators (15A).
Regarding claim 19, Yoshinaga discloses (in at least fig. 3) each of the plurality of separators (15A) includes an inorganic material ([0051]).
Regarding claim 20, Yoshinaga discloses (in at least fig. 3) a display device, comprising: an emission area (see fig. 3); a non-emission area (see fig. 3; i.e. the region where items 15A and 15B are formed) proximate to the emission area (see fig. 3); an anode electrode (14) overlapping both the emission area and the non-emission area (see fig. 3); a light-emitting structure (16) disposed on the anode electrode (14) within the emission area (see fig. 3); a separator (15A) disposed on the anode electrode (14) and separating the emission area from the non-emission area (see fig. 3), wherein the separator (15A) has a shape that is wider farther from the anode electrode (14), and wherein the separator (14A) is disposed at a discontinuity of a cathode electrode (17) and/or a light-emitting structure (16).
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-13, 15-16, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US. Pub: 2022/0181410 A1~ hereinafter “Kim”).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses (in at least fig. 1) a display device, comprising: a plurality of emission areas (i.e. A1-A3); a non-emission area (i.e. where items 150 and 160 are formed) proximate to the plurality emission areas (see fig. 1); a plurality of anode electrodes (311) spaced apart from each other, wherein each of the plurality anode electrodes (311) overlaps each of the plurality of emission areas and the non-emission area (see fig. 1); and a plurality of separators (150) respectively disposed on the plurality of anode electrodes (311) and overlapping the non-emission area (see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 2, Kim discloses (in at least fig. 1) each of the plurality of separators (150) surrounds at least one surface of each of the plurality of emission areas (see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Kim discloses (in at least fig. 1) each of the plurality of separators (150) is proximate to three surfaces of each of the plurality of emission areas (see fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, Kim discloses (in at least fig. 1) a pixel defining layer (160) disposed on the plurality of anode electrodes (311) and the plurality of separators (150) and proximate to a remaining one surface of each of the plurality of emission areas (see fig. 1); a light emitting structure ([0095]; [0097]) disposed on the plurality of anode electrodes (311), the plurality of separators (150), and the pixel defining layer (160); and a cathode electrode (305; [0092]) disposed on the light emitting structure.
Regarding claim 5, Kim discloses (in at least fig. 1) each of the plurality of separators (150) has a taper structure.
Regarding claim 8, Kim discloses (in at least fig. 1) each of the plurality of separators (150) has an inverse taper structure that gets thicker farther away from the plurality of anode electrodes (311).
Regarding claim 9, Kim discloses (in at least fig. 1) a thickness of the inverse taper structure is greater than a thickness of the light emitting structure.
Regarding claim 10, Kim discloses (in at least fig. 1) the light emitting structure and/or the cathode electrode (305) is split by the plurality of separators (150).
Regarding claim 11, Kim discloses (in at least fig. 1) each of the plurality of separators (150) surrounds four surfaces of each of the plurality of emission areas.
Regarding claim 12, Kim discloses (in at least fig. 1) a pixel defining layer (160) disposed on the plurality of anode electrodes (311) and the plurality of separators (150) and surrounding the plurality of separators; a light emitting structure (see fig. 1) disposed on the plurality of anode electrodes, the plurality of separators (150), and the pixel defining layer (160); and a cathode electrode (305) disposed on the light emitting structure.
Regarding claim 13, Kim discloses (in at least fig. 1) each of the plurality of separators (150) has a taper structure.
Regarding claim 15, Kim discloses (in at least fig. 1) a thickness of the taper structure is greater than a thickness of the light emitting structure.
Regarding claim 16, Kim discloses (in at least fig. 1) each of the plurality of separators (150) has an inverse taper structure that gets thicker farther away from the plurality of anode electrodes (311).
Regarding claim 18, Kim discloses (in at least fig. 1) the light emitting structure and/or the cathode electrode (305) is split by the plurality of separators (150).
Regarding claim 20, Kim discloses (in at least fig. 1) a display device, comprising: an emission area (i.e. A1-A3 areas); a non-emission area (i.e. where items 150 and 160 are formed) proximate to the emission area; an anode electrode (311) overlapping both the emission area and the non-emission area (see fig. 1); a light-emitting structure ([0063]; fig. 1) disposed on the anode electrode (311) within the emission area; a separator (150) disposed on the anode electrode and separating the emission area from the non-emission area (see fig. 1), wherein the separator (150) has a shape that is wider farther from the anode electrode (311), and wherein the separator (150) is disposed at a discontinuity of a cathode electrode and/or a light-emitting structure.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 6-7, 14, 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US. Pub: 2022/0181410 A1~ hereinafter “Kim”).
Regarding claims 6-7, 14 and 117, Kim does not expressly disclose an angle of the taper structure, with respect to a plane of the plurality of anode electrodes, is at least 50°and a thickness of the taper structure is greater than a thickness of the light emitting structure; and a thickness of the inverse taper structure is greater than a thickness of the light emitting structure.
However, Kim discloses (in at least fig. 1) the taper structure is formed an angle with respect to a plane of the plurality of anode electrodes (311).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited angle and thickness through routine experimentation and optimization. Also, Applicant has not disclosed that the recited angle and thickness are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using the angle and thickness of Kim.
Regarding claim 19, Kim discloses (in at least fig. 1) each of the plurality of separators (150) includes an organic material ([0061]).
Kim does not expressly disclose an inorganic material.
However, it is well-known in the art to form separators including inorganic material as evident by Yoshinaga et al. (US. Pub: 2012/0223633 A1~hereinafter “Yoshinaga”) at least ([0051]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to consider using the inorganic material of Yoshinaga to form the separators of Kim, since it has been held that simple substitution of one known material for another to obtain predictable results is obvious. Furthermore, it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELMITO BREVAL whose telephone number is (571)270-3099. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th~ 7:30-5:30.
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, James R. Greece can be reached at 571-272-3711. 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.
ELMITO BREVAL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2875
/ELMITO BREVAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights