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 12, 2025 have been entered and considered.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 21, 2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 1, Species 1A, and Claims 1-9, 11-14 and 17-20 in the reply filed on April 15, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 10, and 15-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on April 15, 2025.
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, 3, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang et al. (US 11119354 B2), in view of Osako (US 20130130491 A1), Ozawa (US 6618029 B1), Beak et al. (US 20200135971 A1), Kwon et al. (US 20210320228 A1), and Kwag et al. (KR 20200042997 A).
Regarding claim 1, Liang et al. teaches:
an emission area [211 “light emitting region”, Col. 4, Lines 56-62, Fig. 1-6] including light-emitting elements [23, Col. 4, Lines 63-67 to Col. 5, Lines 1-3, Fig. 1-6];
a line area [212, Col. 4, Lines 56-67 to Col. 5, Lines 1-3, Fig. 1-6] including signal lines [101, Col. 6, Lines 12-18, Fig. 1-6] electrically connected to the light-emitting elements [23, Fig. 1-6];
a transmission area [22, Col. 4, Lines 56-62, Fig. 1-6] disposed at a periphery of the emission area [211] and the line area [212];
Liang et al. does not teach:
a bank disposed in the emission area, and covering the light-emitting elements.
Osako teaches:
a bank [102b, paragraph [0043], Fig. 3] disposed in the emission area, [Display Part Formation Area, Fig. 3] and covering the light-emitting elements [116, paragraph [0043], Fig. 3].
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 Osako into the teachings of Liang et al. to include a bank disposed in the emission area, and covering the light-emitting elements, for the purpose of preventing light from transmitting to adjacent pixels, preventing colors mixing, sealing the display part, and preventing light-emitting layers from coming in contact with outside matter such as moisture, gas or dust.
Liang et al. and Osako do not teach:
a bank disposed in the line area.
Ozawa teaches:
a bank disposed [bank] in the line area [Col. 11, Lines 9-17, Fig. 3-5].
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 Ozawa into the teachings of Liang et al. and Osako to include a bank disposed in the line area, for the purpose of preventing light from transmitting to adjacent pixels, and preventing colors mixing.
Liang et al., Osako, and Ozawa do not teach:
an optical layer disposed in a space surrounded by the bank.
Beak et al. teaches:
an optical layer [250, paragraph [0058-0062], Fig. 3] disposed in a space surrounded by the bank [219, paragraph [0058-0062], Fig. 3]
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 Beak et al. into the teachings of Liang et al., Osako, and Ozawa to include an optical layer disposed in a space surrounded by the bank, for the purpose of improving luminous efficiency.
Liang et al., Osako, Ozawa and Beak et al. do not teach:
An optical layer in the transmission area.
Kwon et al. teaches:
An optical layer in the transmission area [TA, paragraph [0053], Fig. 1-2].
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 Kwon et al. into the teachings of Liang et al., Osako, Ozawa and Beak et al. to include an optical layer in the transmission area, for the purpose of providing the display device with the required light for the display.
Liang et al., Osako, Ozawa, Beak et al. and Kwon do not teach:
wherein the bank includes:
a first overcoat layer; and
a second overcoat layer disposed over, and contacting side surfaces of, the first overcoat layer.
Kwag et al. teaches:
wherein the bank includes:
a first overcoat layer [INS5, paragraph [0180], Fig. 5]; and
a second overcoat layer [OC, paragraph [0181], Fig. 5] disposed over, and contacting side surfaces of, the first overcoat layer [INS5, 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 Kwag et al. into the teachings of Liang et al., Osako, Ozawa, Beak et al. and Kwon to include wherein the bank includes: a first overcoat layer; and a second overcoat layer disposed over, and contacting side surfaces of, the first overcoat layer, for the purpose of mitigating steps, preventing oxygen and moisture from penetrating light emitting elements and preventing corrosion. See also, MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(C) Rearrangement of Parts.
Regarding claim 3, Liang et al., Osako, Ozawa, Beak et al., Kwon et al. and Kwag et al. teach the display device of claim 1.
Liang et al. further teaches:
wherein the emission area [211, Fig. 1-2] further includes a color conversion layer [32, Fig. 2] disposed on the light-emitting elements [23, Fig. 2].
Regarding claim 7, Liang et al., Osako, Ozawa, Beak et al., Kwon et al. and Kwag et al. teach the display device of claim 1.
Liang et al. further teaches:
wherein the emission area [211] further includes:
a first electrode [231, Col. 5, Lines 12-21, Fig. 1-6] electrically connected to first end portions of the light-emitting elements [23]; and
a second electrode [232, Col. 5, Lines 12-21, Fig. 1-6] electrically connected to second end portions of the light-emitting elements [23].
Regarding claim 9, Liang et al., Osako, Ozawa, Beak et al., Kwon et al. and Kwag et al. teach the display device of claim 1.
Liang et al. further teaches:
wherein an area of the transmission area [22, Fig. 1] is greater than at least one of an area of the emission area [211, Fig. 1] or an area of the line area [212, Fig. 1]. [See Fig. 1]
[MPEP 2125 (I) Drawings can be used as Prior Art]
Drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). However, the picture must show all the claimed structural features and how they are put together. Jockmus v. Leviton, 28 F.2d 812 (2d Cir. 1928). The origin of the drawing is immaterial. For instance, drawings in a design patent can anticipate or make obvious the claimed invention as can drawings in utility patents. When the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979). See MPEP § 2121.04 for more information on prior art drawings as "enabled disclosures."
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang et al. (US 11119354 B2), in view of Osako (US 20130130491 A1), Ozawa (US 6618029 B1), Beak et al. (US 20200135971 A1), Kwon et al. (US 20210320228 A1) and Kwag et al. (KR 20200042997 A) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (KR 20190006149 A).
Regarding claim 4, Liang et al., Osako, Ozawa, Beak et al., Kwon et al. and Kwag et al. teach the display device of claim 3.
Liang et al., Osako, Ozawa, Beak et al., Kwon et al. and Kwag et al. do not teach:
wherein the first overcoat layer is disposed over the color conversion layer.
Lee et al. teaches:
wherein the first overcoat layer [350, paragraph [0084], [0088], Fig. 3] is disposed over the color conversion layer [330R, 330G, paragraph [0084], [0088], Fig. 3].
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 Lee et al. into the teachings of Liang et al., Osako, Ozawa, Beak et al., Kwon et al. and Kwag et al. to include wherein the first overcoat layer is disposed over the color conversion layer, for the purpose of protecting features within the device and planarize other layers.
Regarding claim 5, of Liang et al., Osako, Ozawa, Beak et al., Kwon et al., Kwag et al. and Lee et al. teach the display device of claim 4.
Liang et al., Osako, Ozawa, Beak et al., Kwon et al., Kwag et al. and Lee et al. disclose the above claimed subject matter.
However, Liang et al., Osako, Ozawa, Beak et al., Kwon et al. and Kwag et al. do not teach:
wherein the emission area further includes a color filter layer disposed on the color conversion layer.
Lee et al. teaches:
wherein the emission area further includes a color filter [340, paragraph [0080-0082], [0088], Fig. 2-3] layer disposed on the color conversion layer [300, (330R, 330G), paragraph [0080], [0088], Fig. 2-3].
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 Lee et al. into the teachings of Liang et al., Osako, Ozawa, Beak et al., Kwon et al., Kwag et al. and Lee et al. to include the wherein the emission area further includes a color filter layer disposed on the color conversion layer, for the purpose of converting and transmitting light as desired.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang et al. (US 11119354 B2), in view of Osako (US 20130130491 A1), Ozawa (US 6618029 B1), Beak et al. (US 20200135971 A1), Kwon et al. (US 20210320228 A1), Kwag et al. (KR 20200042997 A) and Lee et al. (US 20190011758 A1) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Komatz (KR 19990011210 A).
Regarding claim 6, Liang et al., Osako, Ozawa, Beak et al., Kwon et al., Kwag et al. and Lee et al. teach the display device of claim 5.
Liang et al., Osako, Ozawa, Beak et al., Kwon et al., Kwag et al. and Lee et al. do not teach:
wherein the second overcoat layer is disposed over the color filter layer.
Komatz teaches:
wherein the second overcoat layer [paragraph [0027], Fig. 3a] is disposed over the color filter layer [129, Fig. 3a].
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 Komatz into the teachings of Liang et al., Osako, Ozawa, Beak et al., Kwon et al., Kwag et al. and Lee et al. to include the wherein the second overcoat layer is disposed over the color filter layer, for the purpose of improving surface stability and flatness, creating better connections and improving performance.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang et al. (US 11119354 B2), in view of Osako (US 20130130491 A1), Ozawa (US 6618029 B1), Beak et al. (US 20200135971 A1), Kwon et al. (US 20210320228 A1) and Kwag et al. (KR 20200042997 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kimura et al. (US 20050266763 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Liang et al., Osako, Ozawa, Beak et al., Kwon et al. and Kwag et al. teach the display device of claim 1.
Liang et al., Osako, Ozawa, Beak et al., Kwon et al. and Kwag et al. do not teach:
wherein a difference between a thickness of the bank and a thickness of the optical layer is about 1 µm or less.
Kimura et al. teaches:
wherein a difference between a thickness of the bank [112e, paragraph [0069], Fig. 3] and a thickness of the optical layer [110a2, paragraph [0008, 0068-0069], Fig. 3] is about 1 µm or less.
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 Kimura et al. into the teachings of Liang et al., Osako, Ozawa, Beak et al., Kwon et al. and Kwag et al. to include wherein a difference between a thickness of the bank and a thickness of the optical layer is about 1 µm or less, for the purpose of maintaining a uniform amount of emitted light, improving quality, performance and yield.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang et al. (US 11119354 B2), in view of Nam et al. (US 11024652 B2), Ozawa (US 6618029 B1), Beak et al. (US 20200135971 A1), Osako (US 20130130491 A1) and Kwag et al. (KR 20200042997 A).
Regarding claim 11, Liang et al. teaches:
a first line area [212 (horizontal), Fig. 1] extending in a first direction (horizontal in Fig. 1];
a second line area [212 (vertical), Fig. 1] extending in a second direction [vertical in Fig. 1] intersecting the first direction [horizontal in Fig. 1];
an emission area [211, Fig. 1] electrically connected to the first line area [212 (horizontal)] or the second line area [212 (vertical)], and having a light-emitting element [23, Col. 4, Lines 65-67 to Col. 5, Lines 1-3, Fig. 2] therein;
Liang et al. does not teach:
a first bank disposed in the emission area.
a second bank disposed in the emission area.
Nam et al. teaches:
a first bank [232 (left)] disposed in the emission area [EA, Col. 5, Lines 11-14, Fig. 2-3].
a second bank [232 (right)] disposed in the emission area [EA, Col. 5, Lines 11-14, Fig. 2-3].
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 Nam et al. into the teachings of Liang et al. to include a first bank disposed in the emission area and a second bank disposed in the emission area, for the purpose of preventing light from transmitting to adjacent pixels, and preventing colors mixing.
Liang et al. and Nam et al. do not teach:
a first bank disposed in the first line area;
a second bank disposed in the second line area.
Ozawa teaches:
a first bank [bank] disposed in the first line area [Col. 11, Lines 9-17, Fig. 3-5];
a second bank [bank] disposed in the second line area [Col. 11, Lines 9-17, Fig. 3-5].
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 Ozawa into the teachings of Liang et al. and Nam et al. to include a first bank disposed in the first line area and a second bank disposed in the second line area, for the purpose of preventing light from transmitting to adjacent pixels, and preventing colors mixing.
Liang et al., Nam et al. and Ozawa do not teach:
an optical layer disposed between the first bank and the second bank.
Beak et al. teaches:
an optical layer [250, paragraph [0058-0062], Fig. 3] disposed between the first bank and the second bank [219, paragraph [0058-0062], Fig. 3].
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 Beak et al. into the teachings of Liang et al., Nam et al. and Ozawa to include an optical layer disposed between the first bank and the second bank, for the purpose of improving luminous efficiency.
Liang et al., Nam et al., Ozawa and Beak et al. do not teach:
wherein the first bank and/or the second bank covers the light-emitting element.
Osako teaches:
wherein the first bank and/or the second bank [102b, paragraph [0043], Fig. 3] covers the light-emitting element [116, paragraph [0043], Fig. 3].
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 Osako into the teachings of Liang et al., Nam et al., Ozawa and Beak et al. to include wherein the first bank and/or the second bank covers the light-emitting element, for the purpose of sealing the display part, and preventing light-emitting layers from coming into contact with outside matter such as moisture, gas or dust.
Liang et al., Nam et al., Ozawa, Beak et al. and Osako do not teach:
wherein the bank includes:
a first overcoat layer; and
a second overcoat layer disposed over, and contacting side surfaces of, the first overcoat layer.
Kwag et al. teaches:
wherein the bank includes:
a first overcoat layer [INS5, paragraph [0180], Fig. 5]; and
a second overcoat layer [OC, paragraph [0181], Fig. 5] disposed over, and contacting side surfaces of, the first overcoat layer [INS5, 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 Kwag et al. into the teachings of Liang et al., Nam et al., Ozawa, Beak et al. and Osako to include wherein the bank includes: a first overcoat layer; and a second overcoat layer disposed over, and contacting side surfaces of, the first overcoat layer, for the purpose of mitigating steps, preventing oxygen and moisture from penetrating light emitting elements and preventing corrosion. See also, MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(C) Rearrangement of Parts.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang et al. (US 11119354 B2), in view of Nam et al. (US 11024652 B2), Ozawa (US 6618029 B1), Beak et al. (US 20200135971 A1), Osako (US 20130130491 A1) and Kwag et al. (KR20200042997A) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Kim (US 20170194397 A1), hereby referred to as Kim ‘397.
Regarding claim 12, Liang et al., Nam et al., Ozawa, Beak et al., Osako and Kwag et al. teach the display device of claim 11.
Liang et al., Nam et al., Ozawa, Beak et al., Osako and Kwag et al. do not teach:
wherein the first bank extends in the first direction.
Kim ‘397 teaches:
wherein the first bank [300a, paragraph [0090], Fig. 6] extends in the first direction.
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 ‘397 into the teachings of Liang et al., Nam et al., Ozawa, Beak et al., Osako and Kwag et al. to include wherein the first bank extends in the first direction, for the purpose of protecting features within the device over an extended area.
Regarding claim 13, Liang et al., Nam et al., Ozawa, Beak et al., Osako and Kwag et al. teach the display device of claim 11.
Liang et al., Nam et al., Ozawa, Beak et al., Osako and Kwag et al. do not teach:
wherein the second bank extends in the second direction.
Kim ‘397 teaches:
wherein the second bank [300b, paragraph [0091], Fig. 6] extends in the second direction.
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 ‘397 into the teachings of Liang et al., Nam et al., Ozawa, Beak et al., Osako and Kwag et al. to include wherein the second bank extends in the second direction, for the purpose of protecting features within the device over an extended area.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang et al. (US 11119354 B2), in view of Nam et al. (US 11024652 B2), Ozawa (US 6618029 B1), Beak et al. (US 20200135971 A1), Osako (US 20130130491 A1), and Kwag et al. (KR 20200042997 A) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Yamazaki et al. (US 6759678 B2).
Regarding claim 14, Liang et al., Nam et al., Ozawa, Beak et al., Osako and Kwag et al. teach the display device of claim 11.
Liang et al., Nam et al., Ozawa, Beak et al., Osako and Kwag et al. do not teach:
wherein the first bank and the second bank include a same material.
Yamazaki et al. teaches:
wherein the first bank [169, Col. 20, Lines 61-67 to Col. 21, Lines 1-16] and the second bank [170, Col. 20, Lines 61-67 to Col. 21, Lines 1-16] include a same material.
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 Yamazaki et al. into the teachings of Liang et al., Nam et al., Ozawa, Beak et al., Osako and Kwag et al. to include wherein the first bank and the second bank include a same material, for the purpose of enhancing mechanical properties, improving durability, reducing waste, and making it easier, faster and cheaper to manufacture.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang et al. (US 11119354 B2), in view of Nam et al. (US 11024652 B2), Ozawa (US 6618029 B1), Beak et al. (US 20200135971 A1), Osako (US 20130130491 A1), and Kwag et al. (KR 20200042997 A) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Chiu et al. (US 6614172 B2).
Regarding claim 17, Liang et al., Nam et al., Ozawa, Beak et al., Osako and Kwag et al. teach the display device of claim 11.
Liang et al., Nam et al., Ozawa, Beak et al., Osako and Kwag et al. do not teach:
wherein the optical layer has a refractive index in a range of about 1.1 to about 1.3.
Chiu et al. teaches:
wherein the optical layer [504a, 504b, Col. 6, Lines 29-44, Fig. 5] has a refractive index in a range of about 1.1 to about 1.3.
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 Chiu et al. into the teachings of Liang et al., Nam et al., Ozawa, Beak et al., Osako and Kwag et al. to include wherein the optical layer has a refractive index in a range of about 1.1 to about 1.3, for the purpose of reducing reflection, improving clarity and efficiency, maximize light transmission, improving application range and reducing cost.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang et al. (US 11119354 B2), in view of Nam et al. (US 11024652 B2), Ozawa (US 6618029 B1), Beak et al. (US 20200135971 A1), Osako (US 20130130491 A1), and Kwag et al. (KR 20200042997 A) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 10816852 B2), hereby referred to as Kim ‘852.
Regarding claim 18, Liang et al., Nam et al., Ozawa, Beak et al., Osako and Kwag et al. teach the display device of claim 11.
Liang et al., Nam et al., Ozawa, Beak et al. Osako and Kwag et al. do not teach:
wherein the optical layer includes a hollow particle.
Kim ‘852 teaches:
wherein the optical layer [290, Col. 6, Lines 4-19, Fig. 3] includes a hollow particle [293, Fig. 3].
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 ‘852 into the teachings of Liang et al., Nam et al., Ozawa, Beak et al., Osako, and Kwag et al. to include wherein the optical layer includes a hollow particle, for the purpose of lowering density, increasing stability, increasing thermal insulation, increasing sensitivity, improving operation and performance, and improving light scattering.
Claim 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang et al. (US 11119354 B2), in view of Nam et al. (US 11024652 B2), Ozawa (US 6618029 B1), Beak et al. (US 20200135971 A1), Osako (US 20130130491 A1), and Kwag et al. (KR 20200042997 A) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Bae et al. (US 11024684 B2).
Regarding claim 19, Liang et al., Nam et al., Ozawa, Beak et al., Osako and Kwag et al. teach the display device of claim 11.
Liang et al., Nam et al., Ozawa, Beak et al., Osako and Kwag et al. do not teach:
wherein a width of the first bank in the second direction is greater than a width of the second bank in the first direction.
Bae et al. teaches:
wherein a width of the first bank [272, Col. 8, Lines 4-9, Fig. 6-7] in the second direction is greater than a width of the second bank [274, Col. 8, Lines 4-9, Fig. 6-7] in the first direction.
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 Bae et al. into the teachings of Liang et al., Nam et al., Ozawa, Beak et al., Osako and Kwag et al. to include wherein a width of the first bank in the second direction is greater than a width of the second bank in the first direction, for the purpose of improving efficiency, extending service life, and improve energy handling capabilities.
Regarding claim 20, Liang et al., Nam et al., Ozawa, Beak et al., Osako and Kwag et al. teach the display device of claim 11.
Liang et al., Nam et al., Ozawa, Beak et al., Osako and Kwag et al. do not teach:
wherein a thickness of the first bank is greater than a thickness of the second bank.
Bae et al. teaches:
wherein a thickness of the first bank [272, Fig. 6-7] is greater than a thickness of the second bank [274, Fig. 6-7].
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 Bae et al. into the teachings of Liang et al., Nam et al., Ozawa, Beak et al., Osako and Kwag et al. to include wherein a thickness of the first bank is greater than a thickness of the second bank, for the purpose of lowering material usage, lowering cost, improving efficiency, increasing density, improving flexibility and performance, creating larger displays, and maintaining stability.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claims 1 and 11 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 1-3, Section: 1. Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103, in remarks filed December 12, 2025 that the current prior art of record does not teach the amended limitations of independent claims 1 and 11. Examiner agrees with Applicant, however, after a new line of search and consideration of the prior art, the amended limitations of independent claims 1 and 11 can be overcome by newly cited source Kwag et al. (KR 20200042997 A).
Applicant argues on page 3, Section: 1. Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103, in remarks filed December 12, 2025 that dependent claims 3-10 and 12-20 should be allowable now as well. Examiner disagrees with Applicant due to at least the reasons mentioned above.
Applicant argues on page 3, Section: 1. Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103, in remarks filed December 12, 2025 that current prior art reference Kim ‘397 (US 20170194397 A1) does not teach the limitations of claim 12 and 13. Examiner disagrees with Applicant because claims 12 and 13 state “wherein the first bank extends in the first direction” and “wherein the second bank extends in the second direction”, respectfully. These limitations can be overcome by Kim ’397, paragraphs [0090-0091]. One of ordinary skill in the art and with reference to MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(C) Rearrangement of Parts; would understand that a first bank extending in a first direction, and a second bank extending in a second direction is not new and is a known limitation in the art.
In summary, arguments related to amendments of independent claims 1 and 11 are persuasive but after a new line of search and consideration of the prior art, the amended limitations of independent claims 1 and 11 can be overcome by new cited source Kwag et al. (KR 20200042997 A). All claims directly or indirectly dependent on independent claims 1 and 11 are also rejected for at least the reasons mentioned above. Arguments related to claims 12 and 13 are not persuasive over the current prior art of record.
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 1/29/2026
/MONICA D HARRISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815