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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4 February 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 5 January 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Nomura fails to teach "a difference between a maximum length of the spacer support portions in the first direction and a maximum length of the spacing elements in the first direction is greater than a difference between a maximum width of the spacer support portions in the second direction and a maximum length of the spacing elements in the second direction," as required by amended claim 1 and 16. The examiner disagrees. Nomura teaches that the difference between a maximum length of the spacer support portions in the x direction and a maximum length of the spacing elements in the x direction is greater than a difference between a maximum width of the spacer support portions in the y direction and a maximum length of the spacing elements in the y direction (see Figs. 3, 15). As defined by the claims, the first direction is the direction the spacer support portion extends a greater distance and the second direction is the direction extending a lesser distance. In the Fig. 3 embodiment of Nomura, the x direction is the second direction and the y direction is the first, so this particular embodiment does not teach the claimed subject matter, as applicant notes in the arguments. However, in the Fig. 15 embodiment, the x direction is the first direction and the y direction is the second direction, so this embodiment teaches “a difference between a maximum length of the spacer support portions in the first direction and a maximum length of the spacing elements in the first direction is greater than a difference between a maximum width of the spacer support portions in the second direction and a maximum length of the spacing elements in the second direction” as required by the claims. In paragraph 88, Nomura writes “In the examples shown in FIGS. 12 to 15 as well, the first spacer PS1 is formed in a region which overlaps the contact hole CH3. Therefore, an advantageous effect similar to that of the example shown in FIG. 3 can be obtained”. Accordingly, the benefits previously cited with respect to Fig. 3 that would motivate the combination reasonably apply to Fig. 15, as well.
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 1-2, 10-14, 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2021/0328168 A1) in view of Nomura et al. (US 2019/0196242 A1).
With respect to claim 1: Park teaches “a light emitting diode display (1000+2000), comprising: a first panel (1000) including an emission layer (370) and a pixel definition layer (360) having an opening (365) for a light emitting diode (OLED); and a second panel (2000) positioned on the first panel (see Fig. 1) and including a bank (250+260+270) and a plurality of spacing elements (270a); wherein the bank overlaps the plurality of spacing elements (see Fig. 1) and includes a plurality of spacer support portions (270); and the plurality of spacing elements are disposed on the plurality of spacer support portions (see Fig. 1)”.
Park does not specifically teach “spacer support portions extending longitudinally in a first direction a greater distance than it extends in a second direction intersecting the first direction, the spacer support portions have a first end and a second end opposite the first end, the first and second ends corresponding to farthest distances that the spacer support portions extend in the first direction, andthe spacer support portions are shaped such that the spacing elements may be positioned thereon at any position from the first end to the second end, and a difference between a maximum length of the spacer support portions in the first direction and a maximum length of the spacing elements in the first direction is greater than a difference between a maximum width of the spacer support portions in the second direction and a maximum length of the spacing elements in the second direction”.
However, Nomura teaches a display panel having spacer support portions (part of PS1 on which PS2 is supported) extending longitudinally (see Fig. 15) in a first direction (X) a greater distance (see Fig. 15) than it extends in a second direction (Y) intersecting the first direction (see Fig. 15), the first and second ends corresponding to farthest distances that the spacer support portions extend in the first direction (see Fig. 15), and the spacer support portions are shaped such that the spacing elements (PS1) may be positioned thereon at any position from the first end to the second end (see Fig. 15), anda difference between a maximum length of the spacer support portions in the first direction and a maximum length of the spacing elements in the first direction is greater than a difference between a maximum width of the spacer support portions in the second direction and a maximum length of the spacing elements in the second direction (see Fig. 15)”.
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 of Park with the elongated spacer support portions taught by Nomura in order to maintain the overlap of the spacer support portions and spacing elements even when the spacing elements are displaced (Nomura paragraph 71).
With respect to claim 2: Park in view of Nomura teaches “The light emitting diode display of claim 1 (see above)”.
Park teaches “wherein an adjacent interval between a plurality of spacing elements in the second direction is substantially equal to an integer multiple of the interval between the adjacent pixels in the second direction (see Fig. 3)”.
Park is silent about “the adjacent interval in the first direction does not correspond to an integer multiple of the interval between the adjacent pixels in the first direction”.
However, Nomura teaches “the adjacent interval in the first direction (Y) does not correspond to an integer multiple of the interval between the adjacent pixels in the first direction (see Figs. 10-11; the pixels are in a straight line but the spacing elements are alternately displaced left and right in a zig-zag interval of slightly greater distance than the straight line)”.
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 of Park with the elongated spacer support portions taught by Nomura in order to maintain the overlap of the spacer support portions and spacing elements even when the spacing elements are displaced (Nomura paragraph 71).
With respect to claim 10: Park in view of Nomura teaches “The light emitting diode display of claim 1 (see above)”.
Park teaches “wherein the second panel further comprises an upper capping layer (240b), and the upper capping layer substantially entirely covers the bank and the spacing element (see Fig. 1).
Park does not specifically teach that the upper capping layer comprises one of a silicon nitride (SiNx), a silicon oxide (SiOx) and a silicon oxynitride (SiOxNy).
However, Park describes the upper capping layer as an insulation layer (paragraph 70) that prevents impurities from entering the underlying layers (paragraph 108), and recognizes Silicon Nitride and Silicon Oxide as suitable materials for an insulation later (paragraph 51) and as suitable for blocking the ingress of impurities (paragraph 49).
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 of Park by selecting silicon nitride or silicon oxide as the material for the upper capping layer due to the art recognized suitability of these materials as insulating and protecting layers (Park paragraphs 49, 51).
With respect to claim 11: Park in view of Nomura teaches “The light emitting diode display of claim 1 (see above)”.
Park teaches “wherein the second panel further comprises an upper capping layer (240b)”.
Park does not specifically teach that the upper capping layer comprises one of a silicon nitride (SiNx), a silicon oxide (SiOx) and a silicon oxynitride (SiOxNy).
However, Park describes the upper capping layer as an insulation layer (paragraph 70) that prevents impurities from entering the underlying layers (paragraph 108), and recognizes Silicon Nitride and Silicon Oxide as suitable materials for an insulation later (paragraph 51) and as suitable for blocking the ingress of impurities (paragraph 49).
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 of Park by selecting silicon nitride or silicon oxide as the material for the upper capping layer due to the art recognized suitability of these materials as insulating and protecting layers (Park paragraphs 49, 51).
Park does not specifically teach “the upper capping layer is positioned between the bank and the spacing elements”.
However, Nomura teaches “the upper capping layer (AL1 or AL2) is positioned between the bank and the spacing elements (paragraph 52)”.
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 of Park by positioning the upper capping layer between the bank and spacing elements as an art-recognized alternative to putting the capping layer on the same side (Nomura paragraph 52).
With respect to claim 12: Park in view of Nomura teaches “The light emitting diode display of claim 1 (see above)”.
Park teaches “wherein the bank comprises a partition wall (250) having first opening (where 300b is), a second opening (where 300c is), and a third opening (where 300a is), and the second panel further comprises a first color conversion layer (300b) positioned within the first opening, a second color conversion layer (300c) positioned within the second opening, and a transmission layer (300a) positioned within the third opening”.
With respect to claim 13: Park in view of Nomura teaches “The light emitting diode display of claim 12 (see above)”.
Park teaches “wherein the pixel definition layer comprises a plurality of openings for the light emitting diode (see Fig. 1), and a plurality of openings for the light emitting diode overlap the first opening, the second opening, and the third opening of the partition wall, respectively (see Fig. 1)”.
With respect to claim 14: Park in view of Nomura teaches “The light emitting diode display of claim 13 (see above)”.
Park teaches “wherein the second panel further comprises a first color filter (230b), a second color filter (230c), and a third color filter (230a), the first color filter overlaps the first color conversion layer, the second color filter overlaps the second color conversion layer, and the third color filter overlaps the transmission layer (see Fig. 1), and further comprising a light blocking region (220) where at least two of the color filters overlap the partition wall (see Fig. 1)”.
With respect to claim 16: Park teaches “a color conversion panel (2000) comprising: a plurality of spacing elements (270a), a bank (250+260+270) overlapping the plurality of spacing elements (see Fig. 1), and including a plurality of spacer support portions (270), the bank further including a first opening (where 300b is), a second opening (where 300c is), and a third opening (where 300a is); a first color conversion layer (300b) positioned within the first opening (see Fig. 1); a second color conversion layer (300c) positioned within the second opening (see Fig. 1); and a transmission layer (300a) positioned within the third opening (see Fig. 1), wherein a plurality of spacing elements overlap a portion of a plurality of spacer support portions, respectively (see Fig.1)”.
Park does not specifically teach “spacer support portions extending elongate in a first direction, and a difference between a maximum length of the spacer support portions in the first direction and a maximum length of the spacing elements in the first direction is greater than a difference between a maximum width of the spacer support portions in the second direction and a maximum length of the spacing elements in the second direction”.
However, Nomura teaches a display panel having spacer support portions (PS1) extending elongate (see Fig. 15) in a first direction (Y), and a difference between a maximum length of the spacer support portions in the first direction and a maximum length of the spacing elements in the first direction is greater than a difference between a maximum width of the spacer support portions in the second direction and a maximum length of the spacing elements in the second direction (see Fig. 15)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the panel of Park with the elongated spacer support portions taught by Nomura in order to maintain the overlap of the spacer support portions and spacing elements even when the spacing elements are displaced (Nomura paragraph 71).
With respect to claim 17: Park in view of Nomura teaches “The light emitting diode display of claim 16 (see above)”.
Park does not specifically teach “wherein the plurality of spacing elements comprise spacers having an adjacent interval different in the first direction from an adjacent interval in a second direction generally perpendicular to the first direction”.
However, Nomura teaches “wherein the plurality of spacing elements comprise spacers having an adjacent interval different in the first direction from an adjacent interval in a second direction generally perpendicular to the first direction (see Fig. 11)”.
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 of Park with the elongated spacer support portions taught by Nomura in order to maintain the overlap of the spacer support portions and spacing elements even when the spacing elements are displaced (Nomura paragraph 71).
With respect to claim 18: Park in view of Nomura teaches “the light emitting diode display of claim 16 (see above)”.
Park further teaches “wherein the spacing elements comprise spacers (270a)”.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Nomura as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cok (US 2008/0237612 A1).
With respect to claim 4: Park in view of Nomura and Shim teaches “the light emitting diode display of claim 1 (see above)”.
Park further teaches “wherein the spacing elements comprises spacers having a height (T2) of about 2 µm or more and about 10 µm or less (paragraph 126)
Park does not specifically teach that the spacers have “a diameter of about 10 µm or more and about 30 µm or less”.
However, Cok teaches that the spacers (22) have “a diameter of about 10 µm or more and about 30 µm or less (paragraph 52)”.
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 of Park by forming the spacers to have a diameter in the range taught by Cok in order to optimize the gap between the two panels in view of protecting the LEDs (Cok paragraph 52).
Claims 5, 7-9, 15, 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Nomura and Cok as applied to claims 1, 4, 12-15, 16, and 18 above, and further in view of Park et al. (US 2019/0025634 A1), hereinafter Park II.
With respect to claim 5: Park in view of Nomura and Cok teaches “the light emitting diode display of claim 4 (see above)”.
Park further teaches “wherein the bank comprises a partition wall (250) and the spacer support portion comprises a bottom portion of the partition wall (see Fig. 1), and a margin area of the first direction excluding the spacer (‘B’; see Fig. 7)”.
Park does not teach that the margin area has dimensions of about 14.1 µm or more and about 70.5 µm or less.
However, Park II teaches that the margin area (WT) has dimensions of about 14.1 µm or more and about 70.5 µm or less (paragraph 96).
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to form the back of Park to the dimensions taught by Park II due to the art recognized suitability of a bank of this thickness to perform the function of a partition wall in a display panel (Park II paragraph 96).
With respect to claim 7: Park in view of Nomura and Cok teaches “the light emitting diode display of claim 5 (see above)”.
Park II teaches “wherein a length of the first direction of the bottom portion (Wb) is about 24.1 µm or more and about 90.5 µm or less (paragraph 96)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to form the back of Park to the dimensions taught by Park II due to the art recognized suitability of a bank of this thickness to perform the function of a partition wall in a display panel (Park II paragraph 96).
With respect to claim 8: Park II teaches “wherein the partition wall further comprises an additional margin portion (Wb-WT) positioned around the bottom portion, and the additional margin portion has a width of about 5 µm or more and about 15 µm or less (paragraph 96)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to form the back of Park to the dimensions taught by Park II due to the art recognized suitability of a bank of this thickness and shape to perform the function of a partition wall in a display panel (Park II paragraph 96).
With respect to claim 9: Park in view of Nomura teaches “the light emitting diode display of claim 8 (see above)”.
Park teaches “wherein a planar shape of the additional margin portion is the same as or different than the planar shape of the bottom portion (see Fig. 1)”.
With respect to claim 15: Park in view of Nomura teaches “the light emitting diode display of claim 14 (see above)”.
Park does not specifically teach “wherein the partition wall further comprises a dummy opening, and the dummy opening overlaps the light blocking region”.
However, Park II teaches “wherein the partition wall (120) further comprises a dummy opening (120g), and the dummy opening overlaps the light blocking region (BM)”.
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 of Park with the dummy opening of Park II in order to prevent light leakage between pixels (Park II paragraph 112).
With respect to claim 19: Park in view of Nomura teaches “The color conversion panel of claim 18 (see above)”.
Park further teaches “wherein the bank comprises a partition wall (250) and the spacer support portions comprise a plurality of bottom portions of the partition wall (see Fig. 1), and further including a plurality of additional margin portions positioned around each of the plurality of bottom portions (260+270), each of a plurality of spacers has a height (T2) of about 2 µm or more and about 10 µm or less (paragraph 126)”.
Park does not specifically teach that the spacers has a diameter of about 10 µm or more and about 30 µm or less.
However, Nomura teaches that the spacers have a diameter (L2X, L2Y), and further teach that this diameter is necessary to accommodate displacement of the substrates, but should be minimized to suppress the lowering of the aperture ratio of the display (paragraph 78).
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the diameter of the spacers as Nomura suggests to be large enough to accommodate displacement of the substrates yet small enough to unnecessarily lower the aperture ratio and thereby achieve the invention as a result of said optimization (Nomura paragraphs 78-79).
Park does not specifically teach “a margin of the first direction excluding the spacer positioned in each of a plurality of the bottom portions is about 14.1 µm or more and about 70.5 µm or less, and each of a plurality of additional margin portions has a width of about 5 µm or more and about 15 µm or less”.
However, Park II teaches “a margin (WT) of the first direction excluding the spacer positioned in each of a plurality of the bottom portions is about 14.1 µm or more and about 70.5 µm or less (paragraph 96), and each of a plurality of additional margin portions (Wb-WT) has a width of about 5 µm or more and about 15 µm or less (paragraph 96)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to form the back of Park to the dimensions taught by Park II due to the art recognized suitability of a bank of this thickness and shape to perform the function of a partition wall in a display panel (Park II paragraph 96).
With respect to claim 20: Park in view of Nomura teaches “The color conversion panel of claim 16 (see above)”.
Park further teaches “further comprising a first color filter (230b), a second color filter (230c), and a third color filter (230a), the first color filter overlaps the first color conversion layer, the second color filter overlaps the second color conversion layer, and the third color filter overlaps the transmission layer (see Fig. 1), a light blocking region (220) where at least two color filters among the first color filter, the second color filter, and the third color filter overlap overlaps the bank (see Fig. 1)”.
Park does not teach “the bank further comprises a dummy opening, and the dummy opening overlaps the light blocking region”.
However, Park II teaches “the bank (120) further comprises a dummy opening (120g), and the dummy opening overlaps the light blocking region (BM)”.
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 of Park with the dummy opening of Park II in order to prevent light leakage between pixels (Park II paragraph 112).
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Nomura as applied to claims 1, 16 above, and further in view of Cok (US 2006/0290271 A1).
With respect to claim 21: Park in view of Nomura teaches “The light emitting diode display of claim 1 (see above)”.
Park does not specifically teach “the maximum length of the spacing elements along in the first direction is equal to the maximum width of the spacing elements in the second direction”.
However, Cok teaches “the maximum length of the spacing elements (22) along in the first direction is equal to the maximum width of the spacing elements in the second direction (paragraph 27; spheres have the same maximum width and length, by definition)”.
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 of Park by selecting the spherical spacer shape taught by Cok in order to provide advantages in deposition (Cok paragraph 27).
With respect to claim 22: Park in view of Nomura teaches “The light emitting diode display of claim 1 (see above)”.
Park does not specifically teach “the maximum length of the spacing elements along in the first direction is equal to the maximum width of the spacing elements in the second direction”.
However, Cok teaches “the maximum length of the spacing elements (22) along in the first direction is equal to the maximum width of the spacing elements in the second direction (paragraph 27; spheres have the same maximum width and length, by definition)”.
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 of Park by selecting the spherical spacer shape taught by Cok in order to provide advantages in deposition (Cok paragraph 27).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cok (US 20080237612 A1), which teaches a display device having spacers.
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