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 .
Request for Continued Examination
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/09/2025 has been entered.
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s remarks/amendments of claims 12-20 in the reply filed on September 09th, 2025 are acknowledged. Claim 12 has been amended. Claims 1-11 have been withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Action on merits of claims 12-20 as follows.
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.
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 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.
Claims 12, 14-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heo (US 2016/0043341, hereinafter as Heo ‘341) in view of Kim (2019/0198590, hereinafter as Kim ‘590) and further in view of Sim (US 2017/0141169, hereinafter as Sim ‘169).
Regarding Claim 12, Kim ‘590 teaches a display device, comprising:
a substrate (Fig. 7, (110a); [0061]) including a plurality of sub-pixels;
an overcoating layer (118; [0074]) on the substrate and including a base portion and a plurality of protrusions (PM; [0074]);
a first electrode (121; [0076]) corresponding to each of the plurality of sub-pixels and covering the base portion and the plurality of protrusions;
a bank (120; [0077]) on a portion of the first electrode and formed of an inorganic material;
an organic layer (122; [0076]) on the first electrode and the bank; and
a second electrode (123; [0076]) on the organic layer; wherein another part of the plurality of protrusions includes a plurality of second grooves (HM; [0077]) spaced apart from the first groove, wherein a portion of the plurality of second grooves corresponds to an emission area, wherein the first electrode (121), the organic layer (122) and the second electrode (123) are disposed on an upper surface of the base portion overlapping the plurality of second grooves, and wherein the first electrode (121), the bank (120), the organic layer (122) and the second electrode (123) are disposed on a side surface of at least one of the plurality of protrusions (PM), the at least one of the plurality of protrusions being connected to the base portion, and the base portion overlapping the plurality of second grooves.
Thus, Kim ‘590 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the features: “a part of the plurality of protrusions includes a first groove between the plurality of sub-pixels, and wherein an end of the bank is disposed to cover at least a portion of the first groove at an outside of the groove”.
Heo ‘341 teaches a part of the plurality of protrusions ((Fig. 2, (270); [0052]) includes a first groove (e.g. a distance (w2) between the protrusion (270); [0084]) between the plurality of sub-pixels, and wherein an end of the bank (270) is disposed to cover at least a portion of the first groove at an outside of the groove (see Fig. 2; [0084]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kim ‘590 by having a part of the plurality of protrusions includes a first groove between the plurality of sub-pixels, and wherein an end of the bank is disposed to cover at least a portion of the first groove at an outside of the groove for the purpose of improving uniformity in luminance of the entire display (see para. [0015]) as suggested by Heo ‘341.
Thus, Kim ‘590 and Heo ‘341 and are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the features: “a bank formed of an inorganic material; and wherein at least a portion of the upper surface of a base portion overlapping the plurality of second grooves constitutes an emission area”.
Sim ‘169 teaches a bank (Fig. 7H, (17); [0036]) formed of an inorganic material; and wherein at least a portion of the upper surface of a base portion (flat portion (17a); [0037]) overlapping the plurality of second grooves constitutes an emission area (OLED) (see Fig. 7H).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kim ‘590 and Heo ‘341 by having a bank formed of an inorganic material; and wherein at least a portion of the upper surface of a base portion overlapping the plurality of second grooves constitutes an emission area for preventing or reducing gas such as vapor and oxygen from entering the light emitting layer, damage of the vapor and oxygen to the light emitting layer is eliminated, and occurrence of a pixel shrinkage phenomenon is avoided in order to reduce manufacturing costs and simplify manufacturing processes of OLED device (see para. [0150]) as suggested by Sim ‘169.
Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select an inorganic material for the bank material on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. (see Fig. 1, (16); [0040]) of Wang (US 2021/0066417) as evidence). A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select an inorganic material for the bank material in order to greatly improve the performance of the OLED device.
Product by process limitation:
The expression “formed of” is/are taken to be a product by process limitation and is given no patentable weight. A product by process claim directed to the product per se, no matter how actually made, In re Hirao, 190 USPQ 15 at 17 (footnote 3). See In re Fessman, 180 USPQ 324, 326 (CCPA 1974); In re Marosi et al., 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972); In re Pilkington, 411 F.2d 1345, 1348, 162 USPQ 145, 147 (CCPA 1969); Buono v. Yankee Maid Dress Corp., 77 F.2d 274, 279, 26 USPQ 57, 61 (2d. Cir. 1935); and particularly In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985), all of which make it clear that it is the patentability of the final structure of the product “gleaned” from the process steps, which must be determined in a “product by process” claim, and not the patentability of the process. See also MPEP 2113. Moreover, an old and obvious product produced by a new method is not a patentable product, whether claimed in “product by process” claims or not.
Regarding Claim 14, Heo ‘341 teaches the end of the bank (270) covers a side surface of the first electrode (250) (see Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 15, Heo ‘341 teaches the organic layer (260; [0052]) disposed over one side of the first groove and the organic layer (260) disposed over another side of the first groove are spaced apart from each other (see Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 16, Heo ‘341 teaches the organic layer (260) disposed over one side of the groove and the organic layer (262) disposed over another side of the groove are spaced apart from each other (see Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
326
496
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 (Heo ‘341)
PNG
media_image2.png
506
422
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 7H (Sim ‘169)
Regarding Claim 17, Heo ‘341 teaches the organic layer includes an emission layer and a common layer (not shown; e.g. a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer; see para. [0124]), and wherein the display device further comprises: a dummy organic layer (264; [0066]) including at least one layer identical to a layer included in the organic layer, and disposed in the first groove; and a dummy conductive layer (294; [0082]) including a same material as the second electrode (290/292), and disposed to cover the dummy organic layer in the first groove (see Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 18, Heo ‘341 teaches the dummy organic layer (264) and the organic layer (260/262) are spaced apart from each other, and the dummy conductive layer (294) and the second electrode (290/292) are spaced apart from each other (see Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 20, Kim ‘590, Heo ‘341 and Sim ‘169 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the features: “a distance between the bank disposed over one side of the first groove and the bank disposed over another side of the first groove is smaller than a width of the groove”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a distance between the bank disposed over one side of the first groove and the bank disposed over another side of the first groove is smaller than a width of the groove on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
PNG
media_image3.png
18
19
media_image3.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select a distance between the bank disposed over one side of the first groove and the bank disposed over another side of the first groove is smaller than a width of the groove in order to improve the performance of the display device.
Claims 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim ‘590, Heo ‘341 and Sim ‘169, as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Kim (US 2018/0061907, hereinafter as Kim ‘907).
Regarding Claim 13, Kim ‘590, Heo ‘341 and Sim ‘169 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the features: “an end of the first electrode is disposed to cover a portion of the first groove adjacent to an edge at the outside of the first groove”.
Kim ‘907 teaches an end of the first electrode (Fig. 5, (261); [0061) is disposed to cover a portion of the first groove adjacent to an edge at the outside of the first groove (H; [0065]) (see Fig. 2).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kim ‘590, Heo ‘341 and Sim ‘169 by having an end of the first electrode is disposed to cover a portion of the first groove adjacent to an edge at the outside of the first groove in order to prevent an adjacent pixel from being affected by a leakage current (see para. [0009] as suggested by Kim ‘907.
Regarding Claim 19, Heo ‘341 teaches the groove includes an undercut area (Fig. 2, (272); [0068]) exposing a lower surface of the bank (see Fig. 2).
Kim ‘907 teaches an undercut area exposing a lower surface of the first electrode (261) (see Fig. 9B).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following patents are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to semiconductor devices:
Son et al. (US 2021/0183972 A1)
Feng (US 2020/0174602 A1)
Cui et al. (US 2017/0271419 A1)
Shim et al. (US 2017/0033166 A1)
Kim et al (US 2016/0020424 A1)
For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DZUNG T TRAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-3911. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8 AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sue Purvis can be reached on (571) 272-1236. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DZUNG TRAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893