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/Argument
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 10/30/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-8 and 13-18 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 an updated prior art search.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the bank comprising a side surface and a top surface" in the second paragraph. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim; the limitation should recite “the first bank comprising a side surface and a top surface”.
Claims 2-8 and 13-18 are rejected under 112(b) for depending from rejected claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 7-8, 13-15 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bang et al. (US-20180190740-A1 – hereinafter Bang) in view of Kim et al. (US-20200403029-A1 – hereinafter Kim).
Regarding claim 1, Bang teaches a display device (Fig.4; ¶0019) comprising:
a first electrode (Fig.4 261; ¶0063) and a second electrode (Fig.4 263; ¶0063) disposed on a substrate (Fig.4 111; ¶0041);
a first bank (Fig.4 272; ¶0068) disposed on the substrate (111), the first bank (272) protruding in a thickness direction (vertical direction) of the substrate (111), the bank comprising a side surface and a top surface (Fig.4 clearly depicts 272 having said surfaces);
a light emitting element (Fig.4 262; ¶0074) disposed on the first electrode (261) and the second electrode (263);
a reflective electrode (Fig.4 274; ¶0066) disposed on the first bank (272);
a second bank (Fig.4 273; ¶0068) disposed on the first bank (272); and
a color conversion layer (Fig.4 292; ¶0088) disposed in an area surrounded by the second bank (273).
Bang does not teach wherein the reflective electrode is continuously disposed on the side surface and the top surface of the first bank.
Kim teaches a reflective electrode (Fig.7B RFE1; ¶0130 of Kim) disposed on top and side surfaces of a bank (Fig.7B BNK1; ¶0130 of Kim).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the arrangement of the reflective electrode (274 of Bang) and first bank (272 of Bang) of Bang so the reflective electrode (274 of Bang) fully covers the first bank (272 of Bang) as taught by Kim (Fig.7B of Kim) to arrive at the claimed invention. A practitioner would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of redirecting light travelling horizontally so it travels in the emission direction (¶0130 of Kim).
Regarding claim 2, the aforementioned combination of Bang in view of Kim from claim 1 teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the second bank (273 of Bang) is disposed on the top surface of the first bank (272 of Bang) and not disposed on the side surface of the first bank (272 of Bang).
Regarding claim 5, the aforementioned combination of Bang in view of Kim from claim 1 teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the first bank (272 of Bang) has a first width, and the second bank (273 of Bang) has a second width, and the first width is greater than the second width (this is true in Fig.4 of Bang).
Regarding claim 7, the aforementioned combination of Bang in view of Kim from claim 1 teaches the display device of claim 1, further comprising:
an insulating pattern (Fig.4 230 and 280; ¶0059 and ¶0082 of Bang) disposed on the substrate (111 of Bang), the insulating pattern (230 and 280 of Bang) protruding in the thickness direction (vertical direction) of the substrate (111 of Bang), wherein a portion of the reflective electrode (274 of Bang) is disposed on the insulating pattern (230 and 280 of Bang), the insulating pattern (230 and 280 of Bang) includes a first insulating pattern (230 of Bang) and a second insulating pattern (280 of Bang), and the light emitting element (262 of Bang) is disposed between the first insulating pattern (230 of Bang) and the second insulating pattern (280 of Bang).
Regarding claim 8, the aforementioned combination of Bang in view of Kim from claim 7 teaches the display device of claim 7, wherein the first bank (272 of Bang) has a first width, the second bank (273 of Bang) has a second width, the insulating pattern (230 and 280 of Bang) has a third width, the first width is greater than the second width, and the third width is greater than the first width (this is true in Fig.4 of Bang).
Regarding claim 13, the aforementioned combination of Bang in view of Kim from claim 1 teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the light emitting element (262 of Bang) is disposed in an area surrounded by the first bank (272 of Bang).
Regarding claim 14, the aforementioned combination of Bang in view of Kim from claim 1 teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein at least a portion of the reflective electrode (274 of Bang) is disposed between the first bank (272 of Bang) and the second bank (273 of Bang).
Regarding claim 15, the aforementioned combination of Bang in view of Kim from claim 1 teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the color conversion layer (292 of Bang) includes a color conversion particle that converts a color of light (Fig.4 of Bang clearly depicts but does not explicitly label particles within 292, which are a well-known feature of color conversion layers), and a surface (bottom surface) of the second bank (273 of Bang) faces the first bank (272 of Bang) and the reflective electrode (274 of Bang), and another surface (side surface) of the second bank (273 of Bang) is exposed toward the color conversion layer (292 of Bang).
Regarding claim 18, the aforementioned combination of Bang in view of Kim from claim 1 teaches an electronic device comprising the display device of claim 1 (Fig.4 of Bang is an electronic device).
Claim(s) 1 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bang in view of Kim. This is an alternative interpretation of Bang.
Regarding claim 1, Bang teaches a display device (Fig.4; ¶0019) comprising:
a first electrode (Fig.4 261; ¶0063) and a second electrode (Fig.4 263; ¶0063) disposed on a substrate (Fig.4 111; ¶0041);
a first bank (Fig.4 272; ¶0068) disposed on the substrate (111), the first bank (272) protruding in a thickness direction (vertical direction) of the substrate (111), the bank comprising a side surface and a top surface (Fig.4 clearly depicts 272 having said surfaces);
a light emitting element (Fig.4 262; ¶0074) disposed on the first electrode (261) and the second electrode (263);
a reflective electrode (Fig.4 274; ¶0066) disposed on the first bank (272);
a second bank (Fig.4 280; ¶0082) disposed on the first bank (272); and
a color conversion layer (Fig.4 292; ¶0088) disposed in an area surrounded by the second bank (273).
Bang does not teach wherein the reflective electrode is continuously disposed on the side surface and the top surface of the first bank.
Kim teaches a reflective electrode (Fig.7B RFE1; ¶0130 of Kim) disposed on top and side surfaces of a bank (Fig.7B BNK1; ¶0130 of Kim).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the arrangement of the reflective electrode (274 of Bang) and first bank (272 of Bang) of Bang so the reflective electrode (274 of Bang) fully covers the first bank (272 of Bang) as taught by Kim (Fig.7B of Kim) to arrive at the claimed invention. A practitioner would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of redirecting light travelling horizontally so it travels in the emission direction (¶0130 of Kim).
Regarding claim 16, the aforementioned combination of Bang in view of Kim from claim 1 teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the color conversion layer (292 of Bang) contacts the second bank (280 of Bang).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bang in view of Kim.
Regarding claim 6, the aforementioned combination of Bang in view of Kim from claim 5 teaches the display device of claim 5.
Bang does not explicitly teach wherein a difference between the first width and the second width is about 3 μm or less.
However, it would have been obvious to form the difference between the first width and the second width within the claimed range, since it has been held by the Federal circuit 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. (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)).
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bang in view of Kim, and further in view of Tamaki (US-20220209085-A1).
Regarding claim 3, the aforementioned combination of Bang in view of Kim from claim 1 teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the first bank (272 of Bang) has a first height, and the second bank (273 of Bang) has a second height.
Bang does not teach wherein the first height is greater than the second height.
Tamaki teaches a display device having a first bank (Fig.5 3; ¶0023 of Tamaki) with a first height and a second bank (Fig.5 4; ¶0033 of Tamaki) with a second height, wherein the first height is greater than the second height.
It would be obvious for a practitioner of ordinary skill to design the first bank (272 of Bang) and second bank (273 of Bang) so the first bank has a greater height than the second bank because this difference is a matter of design choice.
Regarding claim 4, the aforementioned combination of Bang in view of Kim, and further in view of Tamaki from claim 3 teaches the display device of claim 3.
The aforementioned combination does not explicitly teach wherein the second height is about 0.3 times or less than the first height.
However, it would have been obvious to form the difference between the first height and the second height within the claimed range, since it has been held by the Federal circuit 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. (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)).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bang in view of Kim, and further in view of Lee at al. (US-20180211979-A1 – hereinafter Lee).
Regarding claim 17, the aforementioned combination of Bang in view of Kim from claim 1 teaches the display device of claim 1.
The aforementioned combination does not teach the device further comprising:
a color filter layer disposed on the color conversion layer, the color filter layer selectively transmits light.
Lee teaches a color filter (Fig.1 322; ¶0103 of Lee) disposed on a color conversion layer (Fig.1 340; ¶0103 of Lee).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the floor filter layer of Lee (322 of Lee) to the device taught by Bang in view of Kim (Fig.4 of Bang) to arrive at the claimed invention. A practitioner of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of blocking any blue light generated by the LED and not converted by the color conversion layer (292 of Bang) from being emitted (¶0103 of Lee)
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 THADDEUS J KOLB whose telephone number is (571)272-0276. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano can be reached at (571) 272-7925. 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.
/T.J.K./ Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/ELISEO RAMOS FELICIANO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights