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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/25/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) present have been considered but are not persuasive in view of the new ground of rejection hereinafter.
Before proceeding with the rejection of the presented claims, the Office acknowledges that the was statutory error made when rejecting the previously presented claim in the Applicant’s response filed on 09/16/2025. That is, claims 7 and 11-12 should have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 and not under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) –although prior arts were properly applied, the statutory basis were incorrect.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 4-6 are dependent on cancelled claim 3. Claims 5-6 are also rejected in view of their dependency on claim 4. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
For examination purpose, claim 4 will be understood to be dependent on claim 3.
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, 4, 6, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang et al. [US PGPUB 20190019852] (hereinafter Yang).
Regarding claim 1, Yang teaches display device comprising:
a substrate (100, PAra 56) on which a plurality of pixels (SP, Para 56) are arranged (Fig. 3/4);
a first bank (130, Para 58, Fig. 4) which is disposed on the substrate (Fig. 4), extended in row and column directions (3D structure, Fig. 4) and defining a light emitting area (Para 59; wherein light emitting layer 150 is formed within the boundaries of the first bank) of the plurality of pixels (Fig. 4), wherein:
the first bank defines an inner opening (Fig. 4; i.e., portion in bank 130 occupying layers 110/120/150) corresponding to the light emitting area (Fig. 4, Para 59),
the first bank comprises (i) a top portion (see annotated Fig. 4) defining a first width (W1; see annotated Fig. 4) of the inner opening and (ii) a bottom portion (see annotated Fig. 4) defining a second width (W2; see annotated Fig. 4) of the inner opening,
the first width is shorter than the second width such that the top portion creates an overhang extending inward beyond the bottom portion (see annotated Fig. 4), and
the first bank forms a hole (Fig. 4, i.e., region in which material 120 is formed) defined by a space located underneath the overhang between the first width and the second width (Fig. 4);
a second bank (140, Para 58) disposed on the first bank (Fig. 4), extended in the column direction (3D structure, Fig. 4), and separating adjacent pixel columns from each other (Fig. 4);
a third bank (120, Fig. 4; where material 120 is structurally capable of being referred to as a bank) disposed on both sides of the first bank (Fig. 4), wherein the third bank is disposed within the hole (Fig. 4); and
at least one thin film (150, Fig. 4) disposed in the light-emitting area and comprising a central region and an edge region disposed within the hole (see annotated Fig. 4), wherein a first height of a surface of the at least one thin film in the edge region is greater than a second height of a surface of the at least one thin film in the central region (Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
492
884
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4
Regarding claim 4, Yang teaches a display device wherein the third bank comprises one surface (inner surface, Fig. 4; i.e., surface of the third bank contacting the first bank) which faces the top portion and the bottom portion of the first bank (Fig. 4), and another surface which is opposite to the first bank (outer surface, Fig. 4; surface of the third bank contacting layers 110 and 150).
Regarding claim 6, Yang teaches a display device wherein the one surface is disposed in contact with or adjacent to the first bank (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 8, Yang teaches a display device further comprising:
a first electrode (110, Para 56);
a light emitting layer (150, Para 56) formed on the first electrode (Fig. 4); and
a second electrode (160, Para 56) formed on the light emitting layer (Fig. 4),
wherein the light emitting layer has a multilayer thin film structure in which at least one thin film is stacked (Para 65).
Regarding claim 10, Yang teaches a display device wherein an edge region of an uppermost stacked thin film among the at least one thin film is in contact with the second bank (Fig. 4; wherein material 150’s side surface is in contact with bank 140), and a top surface comprising the edge region is formed flat (Fig. 4; in view of the flat sloped sidewall of bank 140).
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang.
Regarding 5, Yang teaches the limitations of claim 4 upon which it depends.
In the embodiment of Fig. 4, Yang does not specifically disclose a display device wherein the another surface has a tapered shape or a concave shape.
Referring to the embodiment of Fig. 5/6A, Yang teaches forming bank 220, wherein the bank is depicted in Fig. 5 to have straight surface, however, in the enlarged figure, Fig. 6A, the bank has a tapered surface.
In view of such teaching by Yang according to the embodiment of Fig. 5/6A, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the another surface of the embodiment of Fig. 4 be at least tapered in order to allow for optimal deposition of material 150 to avoid airgaps.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 and 22 are allowable.
Claims 7, 11, and 21 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter
Claims 12 and 22 are allowed because all prior arts of record and related prior arts not of record either singularly or in combination fail to anticipate or render obvious a display device comprising:
the first bank forms a hole defined by a space located underneath the overhang between the first width and the second width; and
at least one thin film disposed in the light-emitting area and comprising a central region and an edge region disposed within the hole, wherein a first height of a surface of the at least one thin film in the edge region is greater than a second height of a surface of the at least one thin film in the central region. (as claimed in claim 12), in combination with the rest of claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISMAIL A MUSE whose telephone number is (571)272-1470. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM-5:00 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, William Partridge can be reached at (571)270-1402. 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.
/ISMAIL A MUSE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights