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 .
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed December 16, 2025 have been entered and considered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai et al. (CN 111933653 A), in view of Sung et al. (KR 20190093131 A).
Regarding claim 1, Dai et al. teaches:
A display device comprising:
a first electrode [240, paragraph [0099], Fig. 22-23] disposed on a substrate [400, paragraph [0099], Fig. 22-23];
a light blocking layer [50/80, paragraph [0096], [0116-0117], Fig. 23] disposed on the substrate [400, Fig. 23], the light blocking layer [80, Fig. 23] including:
a recessed portion [Corresponds to areas 74, 73, 72, Fig. 23] recessed toward the first electrode [240, Fig. 23]; and holes [Corresponds to light emitting diodes 200, paragraph [0099], Fig. 23] in the recessed portion exposing the first electrode [240, Fig. 23];
light emitting elements [201, 202, 203, paragraph [0099], [0114], Fig. 23] disposed in the holes, each of the light emitting elements [201, 202, 203, Fig. 23] including a first end electrically contacting the first electrode [240, paragraph [0099], Fig. 23];
a second electrode [250, paragraph [0083], [0099], [0118], Fig. 23] disposed on the light blocking layer [50/80, Fig. 23], the second electrode [250, paragraph [0099], Fig. 23] electrically contacting a second end of each of the light emitting elements [201, 202, 203, Fig. 23]; and
a light conversion pattern [70/71, paragraph [0093], [0096], Fig. 21, 23] disposed on a portion of the second electrode [250/26, Fig. 23/21] disposed on the recessed portion of the light blocking layer [80, Fig. 23].
Dai et al does not teach:
wherein the second electrode directly covers a step of the light blocking layer defined by the recessed portion.
Sung et al. teaches:
wherein the second electrode [613, paragraph [0173], Fig. 5] directly covers a step of the light blocking layer [190, paragraph [0168], [0170], Fig. 5] defined by the recessed portion [Corresponds to 900, Fig. 5].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Sung et al. into the teachings of Dai et al. to include wherein the second electrode directly covers a step of the light blocking layer defined by the recessed portion. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Dai et al. in the above manner for the purpose of enhancing performance and efficiency of light-emission, and reducing light leakage.
Regarding claim 2, Dai et al. and Sung et al. teach the display device of claim 1.
Dai et al. further teaches:
The display device of to claim 1, wherein an outer circumferential surface between the first end and the second end of each of the light emitting elements [201, 202, 203, paragraph [0078-0079], [0107-0109], Fig. 23] contacts the light blocking layer [50, Fig. 23].
Regarding claim 3, Dai et al. and Sung et al. teach the display device of claim 1.
Dai et al. further teaches:
wherein the light blocking layer [50, paragraph [0108], Fig. 23] includes a black matrix material.
Regarding claim 4, Dai et al. and Sung et al. teach the display device of claim 1.
Dai et al. further teaches:
wherein the light conversion pattern [70, paragraph [0114], Fig. 23] includes a color conversion layer [71 (72, 73, 74), paragraph [0114], Fig. 23] that converts light of a first color emitted from the light emitting elements [201, 202, 203, paragraph [0114-0115], Fig. 23] into light of a second color.
Regarding claim 13, Dai et al. and Sung et al. teach the display device of claim 1.
Dai et al. further teaches:
wherein the first electrode [240, paragraph [0119], Fig. 22-23] includes a conductive material that reflects light, and the second electrode [250, paragraph [0083], Fig. 22-23] includes a transparent conductive material that transmits light.
Regarding claim 14, Dai et al. and Sung et al. teach the display device of claim 1.
Dai et al. further teaches:
wherein each of the light emitting elements [201, 202, 203, Fig. 23] comprises: a second semiconductor layer [230, paragraph [0099], Fig. 22-23] electrically connected to the first electrode [240, Fig. 22-23]; a first semiconductor layer [210, paragraph [0099], Fig. 22-23] electrically connected to the second electrode [250, Fig. 22-23]; and an active layer [220, paragraph [0099], Fig. 22-23] disposed between the second semiconductor layer [230, Fig. 22-23] and the first semiconductor layer [210, Fig. 22-23].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai et al. (CN 111933653 A), in view of Sung et al. (KR 20190093131 A) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (KR 20200066438 A).
Regarding claim 5, Dai et al. and Sung et al. teach the display device of claim 4.
Dai et al. further teaches:
The light conversion pattern [70, Fig. 22-23].
Dai et al. and Sung et al. do not teach:
the light conversion pattern includes a color filter disposed on the color conversion layer, the color filter transmitting the light of the second color.
Kim et al. teaches:
the light conversion pattern [LCP, paragraph [0303-0305], Fig. 24] includes a color filter [CF, paragraph [0304-0305], Fig. 24] disposed on the color conversion layer [CCL1, CCL2, LSL, paragraph [0305], [0311-0313], Fig. 24], the color filter [CF, paragraph [0305], [0311-0313], Fig. 24] transmitting the light of the second color.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Kim et al. into the teachings of Dai et al. and Sung et al. to include the light conversion pattern includes a color filter disposed on the color conversion layer, the color filter transmitting the light of the second color. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Dai et al. and Sung et al. in the above manner for the purpose of emitting light of a desired color, improving quality and performance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant argues on pages 1-4, Section: Claim Rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. §102, in remarks filed December 16, 2025 that the current prior art of record does not teach the amendment to independent claim 1. Examiner agrees with Applicant, however, after a new line of search and consideration the amended limitation of independent claim 1 can be overcome by newly cited source Sung et al. (KR 20190093131 A).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 5 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant argues on pages 4-6, Section: Claim Rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. §103, in remarks filed December 16, 2025 that claim 5 is dependent on claim 1, and due to the amended limitation of independent claim 1, claim 5 should be in condition for allowance. Examiner disagrees with Applicant because the amended limitation of independent claim 1 can be overcome by newly cited source Sung et al. (KR 20190093131 A).
In summary, the amended limitation of independent claim 1 can be overcome by newly cited source Sung et al. (KR 20190093131 A), and all claims directly or indirectly dependent on independent claim 1 are also rejected for at least the reasons mentioned above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID MICHAEL HELBERG whose telephone number is (571)270-1422. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 8am-5pm 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, Joshua Benitez can be reached at (571)270-1435. 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.
/D.M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2815 01/08/2026
/MONICA D HARRISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815