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 .
Response to Amendment & Claims Status
The Amendment filed on 7/30/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-18 and 20 are currently pending and being examined. Claims 1, 3, 5-12, 14-16, 18, and 20 have been amended. No claims have been newly cancelled or newly added.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng et al (US 2017/0170373 A1, of record, hereafter Peng).
Re Claim 1, Peng discloses a display device (FIG. 1K; [0058]-[0091]), comprising:
a first inner bank (130, portion left of diode 113A; [0078]) and a second inner bank (130, portion right of diode 113A; [0078]) that are disposed on a substrate (115; [0071]) and spaced apart from each other in a first direction that is parallel to the substrate (115, first direction being across the page, left to right; [0078]), each of the first inner bank (130, portion left of diode 113A) and the second inner bank (130, portion right of diode 113A) extending in a second direction that is parallel to the substrate (115) and perpendicular to the first direction (second direction being into the page; [0078]);
a first electrode (136A; [0084]) disposed on a partial area of the first inner bank (130, portion left of diode 113A; [0084]) and not on the second inner bank (130, portion right of diode 113A; [0084]);
a second electrode (136B; [0084]) covering the second inner bank (130, portion right of diode 113A; [0084]) and not the first inner bank (130, portion left of diode 113A; [0084]), and spaced apart from the first electrode (136A) in the first direction ([0084]); and
a light-emitting element (113A; [0079]) between the first electrode (136A) and the second electrode (136B; [0084]),
wherein, the light-emitting element (113A) extends in a direction (across the page, left to right; [0079]) from a first end portion (see FIG. Y1 below, hereafter E1) to a second end portion (see FIG. Y1 below, hereafter E2) that faces the first end portion (E1; [0079]),
wherein the first end portion (E1) of the light-emitting element (113A) does not overlap the first electrode (136A; [0084]) or the second electrode (136B; [0084]) in a third direction perpendicular to both the first direction and the second direction (third direction being across the page, top to bottom; [0084], see FIG. Y1 below), and
wherein the second end portion (E2) of the light-emitting element (113A) overlaps the second electrode (136B) and does not overlap the first electrode (136A) in the third direction ([0084], see FIG. Y1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
343
521
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Peng’s embodiment as shown in FIG. 1K does not explicitly teach wherein in a plan view, the light-emitting element (113A) extends in a direction (across the page, left to right) from a first end portion (E1) to a second end portion (E2) that faces the first end portion (E1). However, a “plan view” would be formed from looking at the relevant items of FIG. 1K (113A) from above. This new “plan view” look at FIG. 1K would show the aforementioned limitation would be obvious and unpatentable under Peng.
FIG. Y1: Edited version of FIG. 1K of Peng
Re Claim 4, Peng teaches the display device according to Claim 1, while further teaching wherein a separation distance between the first electrode (136A) and the second electrode (136B; [0084]) is greater than a separation distance between the first inner bank (130, portion left of diode 113A) and the second inner bank (130, portion right of diode 113A; [0078]).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng as applied to Claim 1 further in view of Kim et al (US 2017/0365638 A9, of record, hereafter Kim).
Re Claim 2, Peng teaches the device according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose the limitations of the device further comprising:
a first contact electrode in electrical contact with the first electrode (136A) and the first end portion (E1) of the light-emitting element (113A); and
a second contact electrode in electrical contact with the second electrode (136B) and the second end portion (E2) of the light-emitting element (113A).
However, Kim teaches a display device (FIGS. 20B-20C; [0284]-[0314]), comprising:
a first contact electrode (31; [0295]) in electrical contact with the first electrode (39; [0291]) and the first end portion of the light-emitting element (25; [0301]); and
a second contact electrode (33; [0295]) in electrical contact with the second electrode (41; [0291]) and the second end portion of the light-emitting element (29; [0302]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device discussed for Claim 1 with the limitations taught by Kim to use contact electrodes (Kim: 31, 33) to electrically connect the electrodes (Peng: 136A, 136B) to specific portions of the light emitting device (Peng: E1 [specifically 104A portion], E2 [specifically 106A portion]) as taught by Kim ([0301]-[0302]).
Re Claim 3, Peng and Kim teach the device according to Claim 2, while Peng further teaches:
wherein the first end portion of the light-emitting element (25) overlaps the first contact electrode (31) in the third direction (third direction being across the page, top to bottom; [0301]), and
wherein the second end portion of the light-emitting element (29) overlaps the second contact electrode (33) in the third direction (third direction being across the page, top to bottom; [0302]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device discussed for Claim 2 with the limitations taught by Kim to use overlapping contact electrodes (Kim: 31, 33) to electrically connect the electrodes (Peng: 136A, 136B) to specific portions of the light emitting device (Peng: E1 [specifically 104A portion], E2 [specifically 106A portion]) as taught by Kim ([0301]-[0302]).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng as applied to Claim 4 further in view of Mitsuhiro et al (WO 2013/038970 A1, of record, hereafter Mitsuhiro).
Re Claim 5, Peng teaches the device according to Claim 4, but does not explicitly disclose the limitations of the device further comprising wherein:
the first inner bank (130, portion left of diode 113A) includes a first side and a second side that faces the second inner bank (130, portion right of diode 113A), and
wherein the first electrode (136A) covers only the first side of the first inner bank (130, portion left of diode 113A).
However, Mitsuhiro teaches a display device (FIG. 1; pg. 3, paragraph 4 to pg. 5, paragraph 1), comprising wherein:
the first inner bank (15, leftmost portion; pg. 3, paragraph 6) includes a first side (15, leftmost portion, left side) and a second side (15, leftmost portion, right side) that faces the second inner bank (15, rightmost portion; pg. 3, paragraph 6), and
wherein the first electrode (12, leftmost portion; pg. 3, paragraph 5) covers only the first side of the first inner bank (15, leftmost portion, left side; pg. 3, paragraph 6).
Thus, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device discussed for Claim 4 with the limitations taught by Mitsuhiro to have the first electrode (Peng: 136A) cover the specified sides of the first inner bank (Peng: 130, portion left of diode 113A) to ensure connection to specified pixel regions as taught by Mitsuhiro (pg. 3, paragraphs 5).
Re Claim 6, Peng and Mitsuhiro teach the display device according to Claim 5, while Peng further teaches wherein the second electrode (136B) covers a first side of the second inner bank (130, portion right of diode 113A, leftmost side) that faces the first inner bank (130, portion left of diode 113A; [0078]), and a second side of the second inner bank (130, portion right of diode 113A, top side; [0078]).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng as applied to Claim 1 in view of Mitsuhiro.
Re Claim 7, Peng teaches the device according to Claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose the limitations of the device further comprising at least one third inner bank between the first inner bank (130, portion left of diode 113A) and the second inner bank (130, portion right of diode 113A); and at least one third electrode between the first electrode (136A) and the second electrode (136B) on a partial area of the third inner bank.
However, Mitsuhiro teaches a display device (FIG. 1; pg. 3, paragraph 4 to pg. 5, paragraph 1), comprising:
at least one third inner bank (15, center portion; pg. 3, paragraph 6) between the first inner bank (15, leftmost portion; pg. 3, paragraph 6) and the second inner bank (15, rightmost portion; pg. 3, paragraph 6); and
at least one third electrode (12, second leftmost portion, see FIG. Z4 below; pg. 3, paragraph 5) between the first electrode (12, first leftmost portion, see FIG. Z4 below; pg. 3, paragraph 5) and the second electrode (12, fourth leftmost portion, see FIG. Z4 below; pg. 3, paragraph 5) on a partial area of the third inner bank (15, center portion; pg. 3, paragraph 6).
PNG
media_image2.png
335
606
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thus, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device discussed for Claim 1 with the limitations taught by Mitsuhiro to include the third bank to further partition the electrodes into regions as taught by Mitsuhiro (pg. 3, paragraph 6).
FIG. Z4: Edited version of FIG. 1 of Mitsuhiro
Re Claim 8, Peng and Mitsuhiro teach the device according to Claim 7, while Mitsuhiro further teaches wherein:
the third inner bank (15, center portion) includes a first side (15, center portion, left side) facing the first inner bank (15, leftmost portion; pg. 3, paragraph 6) and a second side (15, center portion, right side) facing the second inner bank (15, rightmost portion; pg. 3, paragraph 6), and
wherein the third electrode (12, second leftmost portion) covers only the first side of the third inner bank (15, center portion, left side; pg. 3, paragraphs 5-6).
Thus, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device discussed for Claim 7 with the limitations taught by Mitsuhiro to limit coverage of the third electrode (Mitsuhiro: 12, second leftmost portion) to ensure connection to specified pixel regions as taught by Mitsuhiro (pg. 3, paragraphs 5).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng and Mitsuhiro as applied to Claim 7 further in view of Moon et al (US 2018/0240952 A1, of record, hereafter Moon).
Re Claim 9, Peng and Mitsuhiro teach the device according to Claim 7, but they do not explicitly disclose the limitations of the device further comprising a third contact electrode on the third electrode (Mitsuhiro: 12, second leftmost portion), and having a width that is greater than a width of the third electrode (Mitsuhiro: 12, second leftmost portion).
However, Moon teaches a display device (FIG. 2; [0053]-[0082]), comprising:
a third contact electrode (164; [0055]) on the third electrode (130, portion with ICT11; [0069]),
and having a width (164; [0055], measured in direction parallel to substrate) that is greater than a width of the third electrode (130, portion with ICT11; [0069], measured in direction parallel to substrate).
Thus, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device discussed for Claim 7 with the limitations taught by Moon to include a relative wide third contact electrode (Moon: 164) to connect additional elements to light-emitting devices (Peng: 113A) as taught by Moon ([0055]).
Re Claim 10, Peng, Mitsuhiro, and Moon teach the device according to Claim 9, while Moon further teaches wherein the third contact electrode (164) is in electrical contact with another light-emitting element (126, leftmost portion; [0055]) between the first electrode (130, portion with ECT12) and the third electrode (130, portion with ICT11; [0055]), and with yet another light-emitting element (126, second leftmost portion; [0055]) between the third electrode (130, portion with ICT11) and the second electrode (140, third leftmost portion; [0055]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device discussed for Claim 9 with the limitations taught by Moon to utilize the third contact electrode (Moon: 164) to connect to additional light-emitting devices as taught by Moon ([0055]).
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng as applied to Claim 1 in view of Okabe et al (US 2021/0013297 A1, of record, hereafter Okabe).
Re Claim 11, Peng teaches the device according to Claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose the limitations of the device further comprising a first voltage line on the substrate (115); and a first insulating layer covering the first voltage line, wherein the first inner bank (130, portion left of diode 113A) and the second inner bank (130, portion right of diode 113A) are directly on the first insulating layer.
However, Okabe discloses a display device (FIG. 3; [0022]-[0126]), comprising:
a first voltage line (22M; [0087]) on the substrate (12; [0087]); and
a first insulating layer (20; [0029]) covering the first voltage line (22M; [0087]),
wherein the first inner bank (23, portion on right side of 24; [0033]) and the second inner bank (23, portion on left side of 24; [0033]) are directly on the first insulating layer (20; [0033]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device discussed for Claim 1 with the limitations taught by Okabe to include a voltage line (Okabe: 22M) and an insulating layer (Okabe: 20) to supply the light-emitting element (Peng: 113A) with a source voltage through insulated means as taught by Okabe ([0069]).
Re Claim 12, Peng and Okabe teach the device according to Claim 11, while Okabe further teaches: wherein
at least a partial area of the first voltage line (22M) overlaps the first inner bank (23, portion on right side of 24) in the third direction ([0087], overlapping right side of first inner bank), and
wherein a separation distance between the second electrode (25; [0018]) and the first electrode (22; [0018]) is greater than a separation distance between the second electrode (25) and the first voltage line (22M; [0087], the second electrode 25 is in direct physical contact with the first voltage line 22M, while the first and second electrodes 22, 25, respectively, don’t touch).
Thus, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device discussed for Claim 11 with the limitations taught by Okabe to have the voltage line (Okabe: 22M) closer to the second electrode (Peng: 136B) to supply a specified power level of supply voltage as taught by Okabe ([0087]).
Re Claim 13, Peng and Okabe teach the device according to Claim 12, while Okabe further teaches:
wherein the first inner bank (23, portion on right side of 24) includes:
a first side ([0018], left side of first bank) on which the first electrode (22) is disposed ([0018]); and
a second side ([0018], right side of first bank) on which the first electrode (22) is not disposed and which overlaps the first voltage line in the third direction ([0087]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device discussed for Claim 12 with the limitations taught by Okabe to have the voltage line’s (Okabe: 22M) spatial connection limited to only apply specified voltages to desired elements as taught by Okabe ([0087]).
Re Claim 14, Peng and Okabe teach the device according to Claim 13, while Okabe further teaches:
a second insulating layer (18; [0029]) covering the second side of the first inner bank (23, portion on right side of 24; [0029], covering the entire device above it) and a first side of the second electrode (25, bottom side) that faces the first electrode (22; [0018], covering the entire device it),
wherein the light-emitting element (24) is disposed on the second insulating layer (18; [0033]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device discussed for Claim 12 with the limitations taught by Okabe to include an additional insulating layer (Okabe: 18) to provide additional insulation for surrounding electrical elements as taught by Okabe ([0029]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-18 and 20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Re Claim 15, the prior art cannot anticipate, or render obvious the limitations of: wherein a vertical distance between the second electrode and the third electrode is greater than a vertical distance between the second electrode and the third voltage line, in combination with the additionally claimed features of Claim 15.
In Re Claims 16-18 and 20, they are allowable due to their dependence from Claim 15.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pg. 2, paras. 2-4, filed 7/30/2025, with respect to the rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Peng under 35 U.S.C. 103. This new grounds of rejection newly maps the recited limitations concerning the “first end portion” and “second end portion” of the light-emitting element (Claim 1, lines 11-17) to Peng, and thus, the Applicant’s arguments concerning the amended limitations in relation to Peng are moot (see rejection of Claim 1 above).
Also, to date, no specific arguments against the rejections of Claims 2-14, which depend from Claim 1, have been presented beyond they are allowable due to their dependence from Claim 1. Therefore, the examiner offers no response at this time.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLIN RUSSELL MCCUTCHEON whose telephone number is (703)756-1897. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 12:30-9:30 EST.
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, DREW N RICHARDS can be reached at (571) 272-1736. 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.
/COLIN RUSSELL MCCUTCHEON/Examiner, Art Unit 2892
/NORMAN D RICHARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2892