DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to amendment filed 12/05/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-3, 5-9, 13, 15, and 17 have been amended.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following claimed features must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Claim 5 recites “the bank layer is spaced apart from in the first direction from a bank pattern extended in the second direction”. Applicant’s drawings do not show a bank layer that is spaced apart in the first direction DR1 from “a bank pattern extended in the second direction” DR2. E.g. as shown in FIG. 4, the bank layer BNL overlaps bank patterns BP1,BP2. The bank layer BNL is not shown to be spaced apart in the first direction DR1 from any of the bank patterns BP1,BP2. Furthermore, the bank patterns BP1,BP2 are not “extended in the second direction” DR2.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 5 recites “the bank layer is spaced apart from in the first direction from a bank pattern extended in the second direction” lacks adequate support. Applicant shows in FIG. 4, first and second bank patterns BP1,BP2 extended in the first direction DR1 and spaced apart in the second direction DR2. However, no “bank pattern extended in the second direction” DR2 is shown. Furthermore, a bank layer BNL overlaps first and second bank patterns BP1,BP2. The bank layer BNL is not shown to be spaced apart in the first direction DR1 from any of the bank pattern. Therefore, claim 5 recites features that are new and unsupported for by Applicant’s original disclosure.
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 1-14 and 17 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 reciting “the electrode body portion completely covers any one of the first bank pattern and the second bank pattern” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what is intended by “any one of the first bank pattern and the second bank pattern”. Is it suffice for the electrode body portion to completely cover only “one of the first bank pattern and the second bank pattern”? Or does the electrode body portion required to completely cover “all of the first bank pattern and the second bank pattern”. It is unclear if the term “any one” require each of the first bank pattern and the second bank pattern to be separately selected.
Claim 3 reciting “the bank layer has a maximum thickness of about 2 µm or more” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what is the intended scope of “a maximum … of about 2 µm or more”. While the term “maximum” appears to be reciting an upper limit, the open ended range of “2 µm or more” has no upper limit. Therefore, it is unclear what is intended by “a maximum … of about 2 µm or more”.
Claim 5 recites “the bank layer is spaced apart from in the first direction from a bank pattern extended in the second direction” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how is “a bank pattern” related to the “first bank pattern” and “second bank pattern” previously recited in claim 1. Applicant’s disclosure does not clarify.
Claim 13 reciting “a first bank pattern” and “a second bank pattern” render the claim indefinite due to improper antecedent basis. It is unclear if these are intended to be different from the “first bank pattern” and “second bank pattern” recited in independent claim 1.
Claim 17 reciting “the bank layer overlaps the first electrode body portion and the second electrode body portion as much as about 7 µm or more” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what is the intended scope of “as much as about 7 µm or more”. While the term “as much as” appears to be reciting an upper limit, the open ended range of “7 µm or more” has no upper limit. Therefore, it is unclear what is intended by “as much as about 7 µm or more”.
Other claims are rejected for depending on a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1, 3 and 5-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. US 2021/0313498 A1 (Kim).
PNG
media_image1.png
690
1042
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
880
646
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In re claim 1, as best understood, Kim discloses (e.g. FIGs. 4-5 & 26) a display device comprising:
subpixels PX1,PX2,PX3 respectively comprising light-emitting elements 30;
a first electrode 21_4 extended in a first direction DR2;
a second electrode 22_4 spaced apart from the first electrode 21_4 in a second direction DR1 crossing the first direction DR2, and extended in the first direction DR2;
a first bank pattern (pattern portion of BNL1_4 directly under 21_4, see FIGs. 5 and 26 annotated above) extended in the first direction DR2, and overlapped with the first electrode 21_4;
a second bank pattern (pattern portion of BNL1_4 directly under 22_4, see FIGs. 5 and 26 annotated above) spaced apart from the first electrode 21_4, and overlapped with the second electrode 22_4; and
a bank layer BNL2 (layer with opening defining emission area EMA) extended in the second direction DR1, and surrounding the subpixels PX1,PX2,PX3,
wherein at least one of the first electrode 21_4 or the second electrode 22_4 comprises:
an electrode extension portion RE-B,RE-C extended in the first direction DR2; and
an electrode body portion RE-E connected to the electrode extension portion RE-B,RE-C, and having a width that is greater than that of the electrode extension portion (RE-E wider than RE-B,RE-C),
wherein the bank layer BNL2 overlaps the electrode body portion RE-E with a first width (BNL2 overlap RE-E in region outside the emission area EMA, and RE-E has a “first width”), and comprises an organic insulating material (¶ 142), and
wherein the electrode body portion RE-E completely covers “any one of the first bank pattern and the second bank pattern” (the bank patterns corresponding to portions of BNL1_4 directly under respective electrodes 21_4,22_4 are completely covered by the electrode body portions RE-E; see FIG. 26 annotated above).
In re claim 3, as best understood, Kim discloses (e.g. FIG. 5) wherein the bank layer BNL2 has “a maximum thickness of about 2 µm or more”. As best understood, “a maximum thickness of about 2 um or more” is open ended and can be any value ≥ 2 µm. As such, the “maximum thickness” can be any arbitrary large value that is more than the thickness of Kim’s bank layer. E.g. if Kim’s bank layer BNL2 has a thickness of x, the maximum thickness can be y, where y≥ “2 um” and y>x. As such, the thickness of the bank layer BNL2 x is no more than y or no more than “2 µm or more”, thus satisfying “a maximum thickness of about 2 µm or more”.
In re claim 5, as best understood, Kim discloses (e.g. FIG. 26) wherein the bank layer BNL2 is spaced apart in the first direction DR2 from a bank layer (as best understood, another portion of BNL2 in covering a different row of subpixels) extended in the second direction DR1.
In re claim 6, Kim discloses (e.g. FIG. 26) wherein the first electrode 21_4 comprises a first electrode extension portion as the electrode extension portion RE-B,RE-C, and a first electrode body portion as the electrode body portion RE-E,
wherein the second electrode 22_4 comprises a second electrode extension portion RE-B,RE-C extended in the first direction DR2, and a second electrode body portion RE-E connected to the second electrode extension portion RE-B,RE-C, and
wherein the first electrode extension portion (RE-B,RE-C of 21_4) has a shape RE-B that is bent in a diagonal direction inclined toward the second electrode body portion (RE-E of 22_4) from the first direction DR2.
In re claim 7, Kim discloses (e.g. FIG. 26) wherein the second electrode 22_4 comprises a second electrode extension portion as the electrode extension portion RE-B,RE-C, and a second electrode body portion as the electrode body portion RE-E,
wherein the first electrode 21_4 comprises a first electrode extension portion RE-B,RE-C extended in the first direction DR2, and a first electrode body portion RE-E connected to the second electrode extension portion RE-B,RE-C, and
wherein the second electrode extension portion (RE-B,RE-C of 22_4) has a shape RE-B that is bent in a diagonal direction inclined toward the first electrode body portion (RE-E of 21_4) from the first direction DR2.
PNG
media_image3.png
704
819
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In re claim 8, Kim discloses (see FIG. 26 above modified to show plural subpixels) wherein the second electrode 22_4 comprises a first electrode line (22_4 of left subpixel) and a second electrode line (22_4 of right subpixel) spaced apart from each other with the first electrode (21_4 of middle and right subpixels) interposed therebetween, and
wherein the light emitting elements comprise a first light-emitting element (30 of middle subpixel) between the first electrode (including 21_4 of right subpixel and middle subpixel) and the first electrode line (22_4 of left subpixel), and a second light-emitting element (30 of middle or right subpixel) between the first electrode (including 21_4 of right subpixel and middle subpixel) and the second electrode line (22_4 of right subpixel).
In re claim 9, Kim discloses (e.g. FIGs. 5 & 26) further comprising:
a first connection electrode CNE1 on the first electrode 21_4, and in contact with the first light-emitting element 30 (of middle subpixel); and
a second connection electrode CNE2 on the second electrode 22_4, and in contact with the second light-emitting element 30,
wherein the first connection electrode CNE1 or the second connection electrode CNE2 are on the electrode body portion RE-E (of different electrodes)”.
PNG
media_image4.png
720
549
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In re claim 10, “subpixels” can be defined corresponding to the annotated regions in FIG. 26 above. As such, Kim discloses (e.g. FIG. 26) wherein the second electrode 22_4 comprises the electrode body portion RE-E over adjacent ones of the subpixels.
PNG
media_image5.png
704
549
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In re claim 11, Kim discloses (e.g. FIG. 26 see annotated above) wherein a width W1 of the electrode body portion RE-E in the second direction DR1 is greater than a width W2 of the bank layer BNL2 (width between EMA of adjacent subpixels) in the second direction DR1.
In re claim 12, Kim discloses (e.g. FIG. 26) wherein the electrode body portion RE-E overlaps the bank layer BNL2 between the adjacent ones of the subpixels (overlap region between adjacent EMA regions).
In re claim 13, as best understood, Kim discloses (e.g. FIG. 26) further comprising:
“a first bank pattern” (pattern portion of BNL1_4 directly under 21_4) extended in the first direction” DR2, and overlapped with the first electrode 21_4; and
“a second bank pattern” (pattern portion of BNL1_4 directly under 22_4) spaced apart from the first electrode 21_4 in the second direction DR1, extended in the first direction DR2, and overlapped with the second electrode 22_4,
wherein the electrode body portion RE-E overlaps any one of the first bank pattern and the second bank pattern (the bank patterns corresponding to portions of BNL1_4 directly under respective electrodes 21_4,22_4 are covered by the electrode body portions RE-E; see FIG. 26 annotated above), and
wherein the electrode extension portion RE-B,RE-C is spaced apart from the first bank pattern (pattern portion of BNL1_4 directly under 21_4) and the second bank pattern (pattern portion of BNL1_4 directly under 22_4) in plan view (RE-C displaced from BNL1_4 in DR2 direction).
In re claim 14, Kim discloses (e.g. FIGs. 5 & 26) wherein the bank layer BNL2 overlaps the first bank pattern and the second bank pattern (the bank patterns corresponding to portions of BNL1_4 directly under respective electrodes 21_4,22_4 are covered by the bank layer BNL2; see FIG. 5 & 26 annotated above).
In re claim 15, Kim discloses (e.g. FIGs. 4-5 & 26) a display device comprising:
subpixels PX1,PX2,PX3 respectively comprising light-emitting elements 30;
a first electrode 21_4 extended in a first direction DR2;
a second electrode 22_4 spaced apart from the first electrode 21 in a second direction DR1 crossing the first direction DR2, and extended in the first direction DR2;
a first bank pattern (pattern portion of BNL1_4 directly under 21_4, see FIGs. 5 and 26 annotated above) extended in the first direction DR2, and overlapped with the first electrode 21_4;
a second bank pattern (pattern portion of BNL1_4 directly under 22_4, see FIGs. 5 and 26 annotated above) spaced apart from the first electrode 21_4, and overlapped with the second electrode 22_4; and
a bank layer BNL2 (layer with opening defining emission area EMA) extended in the second direction DR1, and surrounding the subpixels PX2,PX2,PX3;
wherein the first electrode 21_4 comprises:
a first electrode extension portion RE-B,RE-C extended in the first direction DR2; and
a first electrode body portion RE-E connected to the first electrode extension portion RE-B,RE-C, and having a width that is greater than that of the first electrode extension portion (RE-E wider than RE-B,RE-C),
wherein the second electrode 22_4 comprises:
a second electrode extension portion RE-B,RE-C extended in the first direction DR2; and
a second electrode body portion RE-E connected to the second electrode extension portion RE-B,RE-C, and having a width that is greater than that of the second electrode extension portion (RE-E wider than RE-B,RE-C), and
wherein the first electrode extension portion (RE-B,RE-C of 21_4) has a shape RE-B that is bent in a diagonal direction inclined toward the second electrode body portion (RE-E of 22_4) from the first direction DR2,
wherein the first electrode body portion (RE-E of 21_4) completely covers the first bank pattern and the second electrode body portion (RE-E of 22_4) completely covers the second bank pattern (the bank patterns corresponding to portions of BNL1_4 directly under respective electrodes 21-4,22_4 are completely covered by the electrode body portions RE-E; see FIG. 26 annotated above).
In re claim 16, Kim disclose (e.g. FIGs. 5 & 26) wherein the bank layer BNL2 overlaps the first electrode body portion RE-E (of 21_4) and the second electrode body portion RE-E (of 22_4).
In re claim 17, as best understood, Kim discloses (e.g. FIG. 26) wherein the bank layer BNL2 overlaps the first electrode body portion RE-E (of 21_4) and the second electrode body portion RE-E (of 22_4) “as much as about 7 µm or more”. As best understood, “as much as about 7 µm or more” is open ended and can be any value ≥ 7um. As such, the most overlap amount between the bank layer and the electrode body portions can be any arbitrary large value that is more than overlap taught by Kim. E.g. if Kim’s bank layer BNL2 and the electrode body portions RE-E overlaps by an amount x, the most overlap amount (i.e. as much as) can be y, where y ≥ 7 µm and y>x. As such, the bank layer BNL2 overlaps the electrode body portions RE-E by x amount, which is no more than y or no more than “7 µm or more”, thus satisfying “as much as about 7 µm or more”.
In re claim 18, Kim discloses (e.g. FIG. 26) wherein a width of the first electrode extension portion RE-B,RE-C (of 21_4) in the second direction DR1 is the same as (same RE-B,RE-C) that of the second electrode extension portion RE-B,RE-C (of 22_4) in the second direction DR2.
In re claim 19, in an alternative interpretation, the electrode body portions include both RE-C and RE-E (FIG. 26). As such, Kim discloses wherein a width of the first electrode body portion in the second direction DR1 (width measured at RE-C of the combined RE-C and RE-E of 21_4) is less than that of the second electrode body portion in the second direction DR1 (width measured at RE-E of the combined RE-C and RE-E of 22_4).
In re claim 20, Kim discloses (e.g. FIGs. 5 & 26) wherein the first electrode extension portion RE-B (21_4) is connected to a conductive layer CDP through a first electrode contact hole CT1,
wherein the second electrode extension portion RE-B (of 22_4) is connected to the conductive layer VL2 through a second electrode contact hole CT2, and
wherein the first electrode contact hole CT1 and the second electrode contact hole CT2 are separated from the bank layer in plan view (“bank layer” corresponds to a portion of BNL2 outside CT1,CT2 in plan view) in plan view.
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claim 1 above.
In re claim 2, Kim discloses (FIG. 26) the electrode body portion RE-E has the first width that is greater the rest of the electrodes (¶ 234-235). Although Kim does not explicitly disclose the first width of the electrode body portion RE-E is “about 7 µm or more”, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the width of the electrode body portion to obtain the desired connection layout as taught by Kim. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See MPEP 2144.05 II. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382; In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shirasaki et al. US 2007/0075638 A1 (Shirasaki).
In re claim 4, Kim discloses (FIG. 5) the bank layer BNL2 defining the emission areas of display pixels is formed of an organic polyimide (¶ 142). Kim does not explicitly disclose the dielectric constant of the bank layer is about 2 to about 4.
However, Shirasaki discloses a display device (FIG. 5) comprising a bank layer 20 for defining light emission areas, wherein the bank layer is formed of polyimide and has a dielectric constant of 2.6-3.4 (¶ 66).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form Kim’s polyimide bank layer BNL2 to have a dielectric constant of 2.6-3.4 teaching the claimed range of about 2 to about 4 as taught by Shirasaki for desired electrical and structural properties.
It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/05/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims rejected over Kim, Applicant argues the bank pattern BNL1_4 is larger than the extension portions RE-E and the RE-E does not completely covers the first bank pattern or the second bank pattern (Remark, pages 8-10).
This is not persuasive.
No specific “first bank pattern” and “second bank pattern” have been claimed that would structurally distinguish over select pattern portions of bank BNL1_4 directly under the electrodes 21_4,22_4. For example, the first bank pattern correspond to only a pattern portion of BNL1_4 directly under 21_4 and the second bank pattern correspond to only a pattern portion of BNL1_4 directly under 22_4. See highlighted regions in FIGs. 5 and 26 annotated above. As such, the bank patterns corresponding to only portions of BNL1_4 directly under respective electrodes 21-4,22_4 are completely covered by the electrode body portions RE-E.
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 YU CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7881. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9AM-5PM ET.
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, WILLIAM KRAIG can be reached at 5712728660. 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.
/YU CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
YU CHEN
Examiner
Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights