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 .
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.
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 allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). 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, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 17, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Examiner notes that as of the previous Office Action dated May 12, 2026, in the instant application:
-Claims 1, 2, 4-17, and 21 are pending.
-Claims 3 and 18-20 are cancelled.
-Claims 1, 4, and 5 are amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
PNG
media_image1.png
956
1382
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 1, 2, 4-17, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kimura et al. (U.S. Pub. 2015/0206928), hereinafter Kimura. An annotated version of Kimura Fig. 6 is provided below, hereinafter Fig. 6A. See IDS dated July 17, 2026.
Regarding Claim 1, Kimura teaches a display device ((100); Figs. 1-6 and 6A; Paragraphs [0021] and [0046]) comprising:
-a substrate ((130); Fig. 6A, Paragraph [0043]) including an emission area ((EA) corresponding to emission area of (116); Fig. 6A, Paragraph [0025]) and a non-emission area ((NEA) including portions (NEA1) corresponding to a slanting region (142)/(142b) and (NEA2) corresponding to a periphery region (e.g. flat area of bank (144)); Figs. 2, 3, and 6A, Paragraphs [0030] and [0031]);
-a circuit element (‘drive transistor’ (120); Fig. 3 and 6A, Paragraph [0023]) on the substrate (130);
-a light emitting element ((116); Fig. 6A, Paragraph [0023]) electrically connected to the circuit element (120) and including a first electrode ((132); Fig. 6A, Paragraph [0025]), a light emitting layer ((136); Fig. 6A, Paragraph [0025]), and a second electrode ((138); Fig. 6A, Paragraph [0025]);
-a bank ((144); Fig. 6A, Paragraph [0031]) on the first electrode ((132); Fig. 6A), and defining the emission area (EA) where the first electrode (132) is exposed (i.e. no bank above it), and defining the non-emission area (NEA) where the bank (144) is located;
-a taper pattern ((148); Fig. 6, Paragraph [0046]) on the substrate (130) and interposed between (e.g. vertically) the circuit element (120) and the bank (144) at the non-emission area (NEA),
(Examiner notes that ‘taper’ is understood under broadest reasonable interpretation as given by the adjective definition in Merriam-Webster: “progressively narrowed toward one end.”)
-wherein the bank (144) includes an incline (given by the slope of the surface of (144)) extending from an edge of the emission area (EA) to a predetermined distance into the non-emission area (e.g. the width of (NEA2) to the edge of (NEA1) as denoted on Fig. 6A), the incline of the bank defining a taper area (e.g. (NEA2) on the left), and
-wherein the taper pattern (148) is adjacent to or overlaps the taper area (NEA2).
-wherein the taper pattern (148) is vertically overlapped with the first electrode (132) in a cross-sectional view of the display device (e.g. as in Fig. 6A) and is interposed vertically between the circuit element (120) and the bank (144), and
-wherein the taper pattern (148) encircles the emission area (EA) (As part of slating region (142)/(142b), See Fig. 2)
Regarding Claim 2, Kimura teaches a display device ((100); Figs. 1-6 and 6A; Paragraphs [0021] and [0046]) of Claim 1, wherein:
-the incline of the bank (144) has a predetermined angle of about 15 to 20 degrees relative to the substrate (130) ((θ) ‘is 30 degrees or less’; Fig. 4, Paragraph [0033]- while the disclosure references the slating region (142), the bank (144) necessarily will contain an incline including (θ) and furthermore as it approaches the flat portion (0 degrees) it will decrease such that it necessarily will include between 15 to 20 degrees).
Furthermore, Examiner notes Applicant establishes the angle may be “between 15 and 20 degrees, and any angle in between or even greater.” (Paragraph [0135]) Which precludes criticality of the angle range.
Regarding Claim 9, Kimura teaches a display device ((100); Figs. 1-6 and 6A; Paragraphs [0021] and [0046]) of Claim 1, wherein:
- the taper pattern (148) overlaps the first electrode (132).
Regarding Claim 10, Kimura teaches a display device ((100); Figs. 1-6 and 6A; Paragraphs [0021] and [0046]) of Claim 1, wherein:
-the taper pattern (148) overlaps the taper area (NEA2) (See Fig. 6A).
Regarding Claim 17, Kimura teaches a display device ((100); Figs. 1-6 and 6A; Paragraphs [0021] and [0046]) of Claim 1, wherein:
- the taper pattern (148) is formed on a same layer ((146); Fig. 6A, Paragraph [0030]) as a source-drain electrode ((132e); Fig. 6A) connected to a source electrode or a drain electrode (e.g. (128s); Fig. 6A) constituting the circuit element (120) (See Paragraph [0024] and Fig. 6A).
Regarding Claim 21, Kimura teaches a display device ((100); Figs. 1-6 and 6A; Paragraphs [0021] and [0046]) of Claim 1, wherein:
-an overcoat layer ((140); Fig. 6A, Paragraph [0027]) on the taper pattern (148) and located between the bank (144) and the taper pattern (148) (Specifically (140) is located between the furthest inward edges of (144) and (148), along the lateral), wherein the overcoat layer (140) includes a protrusion (inward protrusion towards the substrate, (IP); Fig. 6A) overlapping the taper pattern (148) (inwards side) and the protrusion of the overcoat layer (IP) overlaps the first electrode (132).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura in view of Choi et al. (U.S. Pub. 2023/0021482), hereinafter Choi.
Regarding Claim 4, Huang teaches a display device ((100); Figs. 1-6 and 6A; Paragraphs [0021] and [0046]) of Claim 1, wherein:
- the taper pattern (148) is annular in shape.
(Examiner notes that ‘annular’ is understood under broadest reasonable interpretation as given by the adjective definition in Merriam-Webster: “of, relating to, or forming a ring” thus, as (148) is found to have formed a ring around the (EA), it is annular)
Kimura does not explicitly disclose:
- the emission area is circular in shape.
Choi teaches a display device ((10); Fig. 5, Paragraph [0053]) comprising an emission area ((EA); Fig. 8, Paragraph [0179]) including an OLED ((OLED’); Fig. 5, Paragraph [0117]), wherein:
- the emission area (EA) is circular in shape (Fig. 8, Paragraph [0179]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Choi into the device of Kimura such that the emission area is circular in shape. This would be due to the fact that doing so would improve light transmittance and reduce refraction (Choi, Paragraph [0094]).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura in view of Huang et al. (U.S. Pub. 2022/0157903), hereinafter Huang.
Regarding Claim 5, Kimura teaches a display device ((100); Figs. 1-6 and 6A; Paragraphs [0021] and [0046]) of Claim 1, but doesn’t further teach:
-the taper pattern includes a plurality of segments that encircle the emission area.
Huang teaches a display device ((100); Figs. 1 and 3; Paragraphs [0074] and [0220]), wherein:
-the taper pattern includes a plurality of segments (individual bumps of (7); Fig. 7, Paragraph [0152]) that encircle the emission area. (EA) (See Fig. 3, Paragraph [0110]- note the line M-M’ given as the direction of the cross-sectional view.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Huang into the device of Kimura such that the taper pattern includes a plurality of segments that encircle the emission area. This would be due to the fact that doing so would improve color separation (Huang, Paragraph [0152]).
Regarding Claim 6, Huang teaches a display device ((100); Figs. 1-6 and 6A; Paragraphs [0021] and [0046]) of Claim 1, wherein:
- the circuit element (120) includes a source electrode and a drain electrode (e.g. (128s) and (128d); Fig. 6A, Paragraph [0024])
Kimura does not explicitly disclose:
-the taper pattern includes a same material as the source electrode or the drain electrode.
Huang teaches a display device ((100); Figs. 1 and 3; Paragraphs [0074] and [0220]), wherein:
-the taper pattern ((7); Fig. 7, Paragraph [0152]) includes a same material as the source electrode or the drain electrode (Paragraph [0148])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Huang into the device of Kimura such that the taper pattern includes a same material as the source electrode or the drain electrode. This would be due to the fact that doing so would increase/maintain production efficiency (Huang, Paragraph [0150]).
Examiner notes in this case, Kimura (148) itself may well utilize a metallic/conducting material as the structural function of (148) is not dependent on insulating material properties (i.e. the slating region is not intended to electrically isolate any elements).
Claims 7, 8, and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura in view of Koo et al. (U.S. Pub. 2021/0391397), hereinafter Koo.
Regarding Claim 7, Kimura teaches a display device ((100); Figs. 1-6 and 6A; Paragraphs [0021] and [0046]) of Claim 1, but doesn’t further comprise:
-a taping spacer on the incline of the bank, and having a different slope from a slope of the incline of the bank.
Koo teaches a display device ((100); Figs. 1 and 2; Paragraphs [0067] and [0078]) comprising a light emitting element ((130); Fig. 4, Paragraph [0097]) and a bank ((114); Fig. 4, Paragraph [0098]) further comprising:
-a taping spacer (‘protrusion’ (140); Fig. 4, Paragraph [0101]) is on the taper area (NEA2) of the bank (114) and has a different slope (e.g. slope of one of the lateral sides) from a slope of the incline of the bank (given by the slope of the surface of (114)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Koo into the device of Kimura such that it further comprises a taping spacer on the incline of the bank, and having a different slope from a slope of the incline of the bank. Furthermore, the incorporation would be done such that the different slope of the taping spacer (Koo, (140)) is greater than (See Fig. 4) the slope of the incline of the bank (Koo, (114)). This would be due to the fact that doing so would suppress lateral leakage current (Koo, Paragraphs [0106] and [0107]).
Regarding Claim 8, Kimura as modified by Koo teaches a display device ((100); Figs. 1-6 and 6A; Paragraphs [0021] and [0046]) of Claim 7, wherein:
- the different slope of the taping spacer (Koo, (140)) is greater than the slope of the incline of the bank (Koo, (114)). (As stated in the incorporation of the teachings of Koo into Kimura above, see also Koo Fig. 4)
Regarding Claim 11, Kimura teaches a display device ((100); Figs. 1-6 and 6A; Paragraphs [0021] and [0046]) of Claim 1, but doesn’t further comprise:
-comprising a spacer on the bank and in the non-emission area.
Koo teaches a display device ((100); Figs. 1 and 2; Paragraphs [0067] and [0078]) comprising a light emitting element ((130); Fig. 4, Paragraph [0097]) and a bank ((114); Fig. 4, Paragraph [0098]) further comprising:
- a spacer (e.g. (360); Fig. 13B, Paragraphs [0145] and [0317]) on the bank (114) and in the non-emission area (NEA).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Koo into the device of Kimura such that it further comprises a spacer on the bank and in the non-emission area. Furthermore, the incorporation would be done such that the spacer (Koo, (360)) has a shape that includes at least one of a dot, a circle, an oval, a polygon, a line and a curve (Koo, e.g. a tapering curve / semi-oval, Fig. 13B). This would be due to the fact that doing so would maintain a predetermined distance from a deposition mask when a light emitting element is formed (during manufacturing) as well as suppress damage caused by a contact (Koo, Paragraph [0317]).
Regarding Claim 12, Kimura as modified by Koo teaches a display device ((100); Figs. 1-6 and 6A; Paragraphs [0021] and [0046]) of Claim 11, wherein:
- the spacer (Koo, (360)) has a shape that includes at least one of a dot, a circle, an oval, a polygon, a line and a curve (As stated in the incorporation of the teachings of Koo into Kimura above, see also Koo Fig. 13B)
Regarding Claim 13, Kimura teaches a display device ((100); Figs. 1-6 and 6A; Paragraphs [0021] and [0046]) of Claim 1, but doesn’t further comprise:
-a taping spacer that is located in the non-emission area and overlapping the taper area.
Koo teaches a display device ((100); Figs. 1 and 2; Paragraphs [0067] and [0078]) comprising a light emitting element ((230) simplified to show only (231); Fig. 19C, Paragraph [0198]) and a bank ((1014); Fig. 19C, Paragraph [0412]) further comprising:
-a taping spacer (‘protrusion’ (1040); Fig. 10A, Paragraph [0101]) that is located in the non-emission area ((NEA) as could be understood in Fig. 4, Paragraph [0098]) and overlapping taper area ((NEA2) as could be understood in Fig. 4, as given by the slope of (1040)) of the bank (1040).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Koo into the device of Kimura such that a taping spacer that is located in the non-emission area and overlapping the taper area. Furthermore, the incorporation would be such the taping spacer (Koo, (1040) has a first portion adjacent to the emission area (Koo, bottom section of the dome shape of (1040), Fig. 19C) and a second portion opposite to the non-emission area (Koo, top section of the dome shape of (1040), Fig. 19C), and wherein a slope of the first portion is larger than a slope of the second portion. Additionally, the first portion and the second portion are portions of a curved surface of the taping spacer (Koo, (1040) – being a dome shape). This would be due to the fact that doing so would suppress lateral leakage current (Koo, Paragraphs [0106] and [0107]).
For clarity, an annotated version of Fig. 19C, hereinafter Fig. 19C-A, is provided below. The bottom lateral section of the dome shape of (1040) is identified as (1040a) and the top lateral section of the dome shape of (1040) is identified as (1040b). Here, it is readily apparent that the slope of (1040a) is larger than the slope of (1040b).
PNG
media_image2.png
614
799
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 14, Kimura as modified by Koo teaches a display device ((100); Figs. 1-6 and 6A; Paragraphs [0021] and [0046]) of Claim 13, wherein:
- the taping spacer (Koo, (1040)) has a first portion (Koo, (1040a), Fig. 19C-A) adjacent to the emission area and a second portion (Koo, (1040b), Fig. 19C-A) opposite to the non-emission area, and wherein a slope of the first portion (1040a) is larger than a slope of the second portion (1040b). (As stated in the incorporation of the teachings of Koo into Kimura above, see also Koo Fig. 19C-A)
Regarding Claim 15, Kimura as modified by Koo teaches a display device ((100); Figs. 1-6 and 6A; Paragraphs [0021] and [0046]) of Claim 14, wherein:
- the first portion (1040a) and the second portion (1040b) are portions of a curved surface of the taping spacer (Koo, (1040) – being a dome shape). (As stated in the incorporation of the teachings of Koo into Kimura above, see also Koo Fig. 19C-A)
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura in view of Shim et al. (U.S. Pub. 2018/0061904), hereinafter Shim.
Regarding Claim 16, Kimura teaches a display device ((100); Figs. 1-6 and 6A; Paragraphs [0021] and [0046]) of Claim 1, upon which it depends, but does not explicitly state:
- the bank is formed of a black material.
Shim teaches a display device comprising banks ((112); Fig. 2, Paragraph [0052]) surrounding an emission area, wherein:
-the bank is formed of a black material (“may be formed of a light-shielding organic material such as black resin.” Paragraph [0057]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Shim into the device of Koo such that the bank is formed of a black material. This would be due to the fact that doing so would give the expected result of increasing pixel resolution by reducing light transmission through the bank (Shim, “transmits almost no exposure light due to the low transmittance of the light-shielding material”, Paragraph [0057]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DMITRI MIHALIOV whose telephone number is (571)270-5220. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays 7:30 - 17:30 US Eastern Time.
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, Davienne Monbleau can be reached at (571) 272-1945. 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.
/DMITRI MIHALIOV/Examiner, Art Unit 2812
/DAVIENNE N MONBLEAU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights