DETAILED ACTION
This Notice is responsive to communication filed on 12/12/2025.
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
An amendment filed on 12/12/2025 has been acknowledged and entered into the
record.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 9/11/2025, 11/13/2025, and 3/6/26 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (US 9,917,235 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a display device Fig. 5: 4 comprising:
a substrate Fig. 5: 100 including a plurality of pixels Fig. 1: P;
a plurality of transistors Fig. 5: TFT disposed on the substrate Fig. 5: 100;
a passivation layer Fig. 5: 170 overlapping the plurality of transistors Fig. 5: TFT;
a first electrode Fig. 5: 190a and a second electrode Fig. 5: 190b that are disposed on the passivation layer Fig. 5: 170 and spaced apart from each other (shown in Fig. 5);
an insulating layer Fig. 5: 194 disposed on the first electrode Fig. 5: 190a and the second electrode Fig. 5: 190b;
a plurality of light emitting elements Fig. 5: 200 disposed between the first electrode Fig. 5: 190a and the second electrode Fig. 5: 190b on the insulating layer Fig. 5: 194 and electrically connected to the first electrode and the second electrode (via 210a and 210b); and
an insulating reflective layer Fig. 5: 190a/b disposed between the passivation layer Fig. 5: 170 and the plurality of light emitting elements Fig. 5: 200 (col. 11, “the first electrode 190a and the second electrode 190b may be provided as… reflective electrodes,” “reflection layers,” lines 38-40, 46-48).
Regarding claim 2, Kim teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the insulating reflective layer Fig. 5: 190a/b is disposed between the passivation layer Fig. 5: 170 and the insulating layer Fig. 5: 194 (Fig. 5 shows 190a/b are disposed between 170 and 194).
Regarding claim 3, Kim teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein a surface of the insulating reflective layer Fig. 5: 190a/b is in physical contact with the passivation layer Fig. 5: 170, and another surface of the insulating reflective layer Fig. 5: 190a/b is in physical contact with the insulating layer Fig. 5: 194 (Fig. 5 shows 190a/b are in direct contact with both 170 (bottom surface) and 194 (top surface)).
Regarding claim 12, Kim teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the insulating reflective layer Fig. 5: 190a/b includes at least one of a barium sulfate (BaSO4), a lead carbonate (PbCO3), a titanium oxide (TiOx), a silicon oxide (SiOx), a zinc oxide (ZnOx), and an aluminum oxide (AixOy) (col. 11, lines 43-44, “the first electrode 190a and the second electrode 190b may include…ZnO”).
Regarding claim 13, Kim teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the plurality of light emitting elements Fig. 5: 200 include a first light emitting element emitting a first color, a second light emitting element emitting a second color, and a third light emitting element emitting a third color (col. 12, lines 5 -11 teach a plurality of LEDs which an LED may be a red, green, or blue LED).
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 8, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 9,917,235 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2016/0087159 A1), hereafter referred to as Kim 2.
Regarding claim 8, although Kim teaches the substantial features of the claimed invention, Kim fails to explicitly disclose the display device of claim 1, wherein the insulating reflective layer includes a plurality of first layers and second layers having different refractive indexes, and the plurality of first layers and second layers are alternately stacked on each other. However, Kim 2 teaches wherein the insulating reflective layer Fig. 1: 150 includes a plurality of first layers Fig. 1: 152 and second layers Fig. 1: 154 having different refractive indexes (para. 0020 teaches optical thickness of 1st and 2nd layers, formulated from refractive indexes being different), and the plurality of first layers and second layers are alternately stacked on each other (para. 0068). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Kim and Kim 2 for the purpose of obtaining a high level of transmittivity with respect to light remitted from the light emitting structure, and a high level of reflectivity converted by phosphor particles (para 0065).
Regarding claim 9, Kim 2 teaches the display device of claim 8, wherein the plurality of first layers Fig. 1: 152 and second layers Fig. 1: 154 have different thicknesses (para. 0067, lines 6-8).
Regarding claim 11, Kim 2 teaches the display device of claim 8, wherein the insulating reflective layer Fig. 1: 150 includes five or more of the plurality of first layers Fig. 1: 152 and five or more of the plurality of second layers Fig. 1: 154. Para. 0017 teaches the number of plurality of dielectric layers may be 15 or more, while para. 0021 teaches a plurality of first, second and third dielectric layers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, that the first, second, and third dielectric layers would have 5 or more layers.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 9,917,235 B2) and Kim et al. (US 2016/0087159 A1), as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Jeon et al. (US 2017/0125641 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Kim 2 teaches the display device of claim 8, wherein the plurality of first layers Fig. 1: 152 includes a silicon oxide (SiOx), but fails to teach wherein the plurality of second layers Fig. 1: 154 includes a silicon nitride (SiNx). However, Jeon teaches a display device wherein the plurality of second layers Fig. 23: 91a includes a silicon nitride (SiNx). Para. 0101 discloses the insulating reflective layer Fig. 23: 91 can include a DBR (Distributed Bragg Reflector) Fig. 23: 91a, and para. 0107 discloses a combination of a higher refractive index material such as SiN (lines 3-6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Kim, Kim 2 and Jeon for the purpose of reducing light absorption by a metal reflective film (para. 0102).
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 9,917,235 B2) and Kim et al. (US 2016/0087159 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2021/0210546 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Kim teaches the substantial features of the display device of claim 13, including wherein the insulating reflective layer Fig. 5: 190a/b includes a first insulating layer disposed under the first light emitting element, a second insulating reflective layer disposed under the second light element, and a third insulating reflective layer disposed under the third light emitting element (Kim teaches layers 190a/190b are reflective layers in col. 11, lines 38-40, and 46-48; Kim also teaches multiple LEDs in col. 12, lines 5 -11 including at least 3 different light emitting elements, red, blue and green; and Fig. 5 shows that the layers 190a/b are disposed under the light emitting element 200).
But Kim fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first to third insulating reflective layers have different thicknesses.
However, Lee teaches wherein the first Fig. 15. 21r to third Fig. 15: 41r insulating reflective layers have different thicknesses (para. 0142, lines 12-16). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Kim and Lee for the purpose of obtaining high and low refractivity material layers in order to reflect light in a desired wavelength band (para. 0142).
Regarding claim 15, Kim teaches the display device of claim 14, wherein the first color is red, the second color is green, and the third color is blue (col. 12, lines 5 -11 teach a plurality of LEDs which may be a red, green, or blue LED).
Regarding claim 16, although Kim and Lee teach the substantial elements of the display device of claim 1 and claim 15, they fail to teach the display device of claim 15, wherein a thickness of the first insulating reflective layer is thicker than a thickness of the third insulating reflective layer. However, Kim 2 teaches wherein a thickness of the first insulating reflective layer is thicker than a thickness of the third insulating reflective layer (para. 0008, thickness first dielectric layer > thickness of second dielectric layer > thickness of third dielectric layer). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Kim, Lee, and Kim 2 for the purpose of increasing luminous flux of light emitted through a light-emitting surface (para. 0004).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Applicant's argument that the first electrode, mapped to Fig. 5: 190a/b of Kim’s (US 9,917,235 B2) device appear to be conductive elements, and therefore do not fairly equate to the claimed insulating reflective layer, the Examiner respectfully presents that para. 0016 of the Specification of the present application teaches the insulating reflective layer may include a zinc oxide (ZnOx), and Kim teaches the reflective layer Fig. 5: 190a/b in this case includes a Zinc oxide in col.11, lines 43-44. The Office presents the materials used in the present application and submits that they are the same as the materials used in the prior art. Further, it is known in the art that Zinc Oxide in certain states, i.e. pure or crystalline form, can act as an insulator (Sreenivas, K. (2015)). Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 is upheld, and the arguments are found to be non-persuasive.
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 NKECHINYERE ESIABA whose telephone number is (571)272-0720. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10am-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, Kretelia Graham can be reached at (571) 272-5055. 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.
/Nkechinyere Esiaba/Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/Kretelia Graham/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817 March 19, 2026