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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12 March 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 12 March 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach "wherein the planarization layer and the bank include a material absorbing external light incident on the planarization layer and the bank, and wherein the planarization layer has an optical density lower than the bank" as recited in amended claim 1. The examiner disagrees. As applicant admits in the next two sentences of his remarks, Jo discloses a bank 270 formed of a light-absorbing material or doped with a light- absorbing agent so as to absorb incident external light and Jeon discloses a planarization layer 185 having a gray or dark color with low luminance, formed by combining a light-absorbing material such as carbon black or titanium oxide with various resin materials having planarization characteristics. Applicant thus does not seem to be contesting that the prior art teaches “wherein the planarization layer and the bank include a material absorbing external light incident on the planarization layer and the bank”.
With respect to “wherein the planarization layer has an optical density lower than the bank”, Yang teaches a planarization layer (334) which doubles as a first bank layer (334b) and a second bank layer (142). Yang explicitly states that the first bank layer (aka the planarization layer) has black pigments (paragraph 231) and that the second bank layer has more black pigments (paragraph 232), which is the same thing as saying the planarization layer has an optical density lower than the bank. This statement remains true even if the planarization layer is fully transparent because a transparent layer would have even less pigment and thus even lower optical density. As Yang explains, the pigment is beneficial from the perspective of improving light shielding (Yang paragraph 117) but comes at a cost of increasing permittivity (Yang paragraph 117); this is why Yang has different optical densities for different layers; in the planarization layer, which is further from the exterior of the device and nearer to the electrical elements, it is more important to prevent leakage current than to absorb external light, while in the bank layer, which is closer to the exterior and has less contact with the electrical elements, a greater amount of pigment can be used (Yang paragraph 119).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 12 depends from claim 11, but claim 11 was cancelled, and claim 12’s dependency was not updated to one of the currently existing claims. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
For purposes of examination, claim 12 will be treated as depending from claim 1.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 7-9, 12-14, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jo et al. (US 2018/0182819 A1) in view of Jeon et al. (US 2010/0052518 A1), Kim (US 2019/0348624 A1), and Yang et al. (US 2017/0373124 A1).
With respect to claim 1: Jo teaches a display apparatus (100) comprising: a substrate (111) including a light emission area (areas of 262 between banks 270) and a non-light emission area (areas of banks 270) surrounding the light emission area (see Fig. 6); a circuit element layer (210) provided on the substrate (see Fig. 6); a passivation layer (240) provided on the circuit element layer (see Fig. 6); a planarization layer (250) provided on the passivation layer (see Fig. 6); a first electrode (261) provided on the planarization layer (see Fig. 6); a bank (270) provided in the non-emission area on the first electrode (see Fig. 6); a light emitting layer (262) provided on the first electrode and the bank (see Fig. 6); and a second electrode (263) provided on the light emitting layer (see Fig. 6), wherein the bank includes a material absorbing external light incident on the bank (paragraph 101).
Jo does not specifically teach that the planarization layer includes a material absorbing external light incident on the planarization layer.
However, Jeon teaches that the planarization layer (185) includes a material absorbing external light incident on the planarization layer (paragraph 84)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display apparatus of Jo by adding light absorbing material to the planarization layer as taught by Jeon in order to further suppress the reflection of external light (Jeon paragraph 84).
Jo does not specifically teach a reflective metal layer between the passivation layer and the planarization layer in the light emission area.
However, Kim teaches a reflective metal layer (140) between the passivation layer (113) and the planarization layer (115) in the light emission area (see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display apparatus of Jo by adding the reflective layer taught by Kim in order to improve light extraction efficiency (Kim paragraph 18).
Jo does not specifically teach “wherein the planarization layer has an optical density lower than the bank”.
However, Yang teaches “wherein the planarization layer (334) has an optical density (paragraphs 175, 144, 117, 122) lower than the bank (142)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the display apparatus of Jo by increasing the optical density of the bank relative to the planarization layer as taught by Yang in order to balance the goals of reducing reflection of external light and reducing leakage current (Yang paragraphs 117-119).
With respect to claim 7: Jo in view of Jeon, Kim, and Yang teaches “the display apparatus of claim 1 (see above)”.
Jo does not specifically teach “wherein the reflective metal layer is located in the light emission area”.
Kim teaches “wherein the reflective metal layer is located in the light emission area (see Fig. 1)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display apparatus of Jo by adding the reflective layer taught by Kim in order to improve light extraction efficiency (Kim paragraph 18).
With respect to claim 8: Jo in view of Jeon, Kim, and Yang teaches “the display apparatus of claim 7 (see above)”.
Jo does not specifically teach “wherein both ends of the reflective metal layer are extended from the light emission area to the non-light emission area”.
Kim teaches “wherein both ends of the reflective metal layer are extended from the light emission area to the non-light emission area (see Fig. 1)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display apparatus of Jo by adding the reflective layer taught by Kim in order to improve light extraction efficiency (Kim paragraph 18).
With respect to claim 9: Jo in view of Jeon, Kim, and Yang teaches “the display apparatus of claim 1 (see above)”.
Jo does not specifically teach “wherein the high-reflective metal layer includes aluminum (Al) or silver (Ag)”.
Kim teaches “wherein the high-reflective metal layer includes aluminum (Al) or silver (Ag) (paragraph 59)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display apparatus of Jo by adding the reflective layer taught by Kim in order to improve light extraction efficiency (Kim paragraph 18).
With respect to claim 12: Jo in view of Jeon, Kim, and Yang teaches “the display apparatus of claim 11 (see above; treated as depending from claim 1 in view of 35 USC 112(d) rejection)”.
Jo does not specifically teach “wherein the optical density of the planarization layer ranges from 0.15 to 0.3”.
Yang teaches a range overlapping “wherein the optical density of the planarization layer ranges from 0.15 to 0.3 (paragraph 185)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the display apparatus of Jo by optimizing the optical density of the planarization layer and thus arrive at the invention in order to reduce leakage current (Yang paragraphs 117-119).
With respect to claim 13: Jo teaches a display apparatus (100) comprising: a substrate (111) including a light emission area (areas of 262 between banks 270) and a non-light emission area (areas of banks 270) surrounding the light emission area (see Fig. 6); a circuit element layer (210) disposed on the substrate (see Fig. 6); a passivation layer (240) disposed on the circuit element layer (see Fig. 6); a planarization layer (250) disposed on the passivation layer (see Fig. 6) and including an organic or inorganic material (paragraph 94) and alleviating a step difference caused by the circuit element layer (paragraph 94); a first electrode (261) disposed on the planarization layer (see Fig. 6); a bank (270) defining the light emission area (see Fig. 6) and disposed in the non-emission area on the first electrode (see Fig. 6); a light emitting layer (262) disposed on the first electrode and the bank (see Fig. 6); and a second electrode (263) disposed on the light emitting layer (see Fig. 6), wherein the bank includes a material to absorb the external light incident on the bank (paragraph 101)”.
Jo does not teach that the planarization layer is a light absorbing planarization layer that includes a light absorbing material absorbing external light incident on the light absorbing layer.
However, Jeon teaches that the planarization layer (185) is a light absorbing planarization layer that includes a light absorbing material absorbing external light incident on the light absorbing layer (paragraph 101).
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display apparatus of Jo by adding light absorbing material to the planarization layer as taught by Jeon in order to further suppress the reflection of external light (Jeon paragraph 84).
Jo does not specifically teach a reflective metal layer between the passivation layer and the planarization layer in the light emission area.
However, Kim teaches a reflective metal layer (140) between the passivation layer (113) and the planarization layer (115) in the light emission area (see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display apparatus of Jo by adding the reflective layer taught by Kim in order to improve light extraction efficiency (Kim paragraph 18).
Jo does not specifically teach “wherein the planarization layer has an optical density lower than the bank”.
However, Yang teaches “wherein the planarization layer (334) has an optical density (paragraphs 175, 144, 117, 122) lower than the bank (142)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the display apparatus of Jo by increasing the optical density of the bank relative to the planarization layer as taught by Yang in order to balance the goals of reducing reflection of external light and reducing leakage current (Yang paragraphs 117-119).
With respect to claim 14: Jo in view of Jeon, Kim, and Yang teaches “The display apparatus of claim 13 (see above)”.
Jo teaches “wherein the bank includes an organic or inorganic material (paragraph 100) and a light absorbing material to absorb the external light incident on the bank (paragraph 101)”.
With respect to claim 17: Jo in view of Jeon, Kim, and Yang teaches “The display apparatus of claim 13 (see above)”.
Jo does not specifically teach “wherein the high-reflective metal layer is located in the light emission area, both ends of the high-reflective metal layer are extended from the light emission area to the non-light emission area”.
Kim teaches “wherein the high-reflective metal layer is located in the light emission area (see Fig. 1), both ends of the high-reflective metal layer are extended from the light emission area to the non-light emission area (see Fig. 1)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display apparatus of Jo by adding the reflective layer taught by Kim in order to improve light extraction efficiency (Kim paragraph 18).
With respect to claim 18: Jo in view of Jeon, Kim, and Yang teaches “The display apparatus of claim 13 (see above)”.
Jo does not specifically teach “wherein the high-reflective metal layer includes aluminum (Al) or silver (Ag)”.
Kim teaches “wherein the high-reflective metal layer includes aluminum (Al) or silver (Ag) (paragraph 59)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display apparatus of Jo by adding the reflective layer taught by Kim in order to improve light extraction efficiency (Kim paragraph 18).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jo in view of Jeon, Kim, and Yang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakamura (US 2012/0098414 A1).
With respect to claim 10: Jo in view of Jeon, Kim, and Yang teaches “The display apparatus of claim 1 (see above)”.
Jo does not specifically teach “further comprising a transparent conductive layer provided on an upper or lower portion of the reflective metal layer”.
However, Nakamura teaches “further comprising a transparent conductive layer (paragraph 130) provided on an upper or lower portion of the reflective metal layer (140)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the display apparatus of Jo by adding a transparent conductive layer between the reflective metal layer and the planarization or passivation layers in order to increase adhesion thereto (Nakamura paragraph 130).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jo in view of Jeon and Kim as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Nakamura.
With respect to claim 19: Jo in view of Jeon and Kim teaches “The display apparatus of claim 13 (see above)”.
Jo does not specifically teach “further comprising a transparent conductive layer provided on an upper or lower portion of the high-reflective metal layer”.
However, Nakamura teaches “further comprising a transparent conductive layer (paragraph 130) provided on an upper or lower portion of the high-reflective metal layer (140)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the display apparatus of Jo by adding a transparent conductive layer between the high-reflective metal layer and the planarization or passivation layers in order to increase adhesion thereto (Nakamura paragraph 130).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Im et al. (US 2007/0257253 A1), which teaches an organic light emitting display.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL J. LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-5721. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 EST M-F.
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, ABDULMAJEED AZIZ can be reached at (571)270-5046. 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.
/NATHANIEL J LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2875
/ABDULMAJEED AZIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875