DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/19/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-13 and 15-17 are pending. Claims 1 and 15 have been amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 15-17 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 15 reciting “an inverted trapezoidal shape” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how does an “an inverted trapezoidal shape” differentiate from a non-inverted trapezoidal shape. In geometry, a trapezoid is defined as a quadrilateral having at least one pair of parallel sides. It is unclear what is intended by “inverted”. Even if a narrower definition of a trapezoid is applied to exclusively require only one pair parallel sides such that one of the parallel side is shorter than the other one of the parallel side, the orientation of a trapezoid does not depend on reference direction of where the shorter or longer parallel sides is. E.g. a trapezoid with a shorter parallel side above the longer parallel side is a trapezoidal shape; a trapezoid with a longer parallel side above the shorter parallel side is also a trapezoidal shape. Thus, a trapezoid and an inverted trapezoid would not distinguish over each other. Therefore, it is unclear what does Applicant sought to define by “an inverted trapezoidal shape”.
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 1-5 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Luo et al. US 2023/0337464 A1 (Luo).
PNG
media_image1.png
564
928
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
714
758
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In re claim 1, Luo discloses (e.g. FIG. 3) a display device, comprising:
a substrate including a plurality of sub pixels (RGB subpixels, ¶ 97, FIG. 7);
a first electrode (e.g. “second anode”) on the substrate corresponding to each of the plurality of sub pixels;
a bank (“pixel defining layer”) on the first electrode (“second anode”) and including an opening, the first electrode (“second anode”) exposed through the opening;
a partition (“partition layer”) on the first electrode (“second anode”) in the opening;
a light emitting layer (“organic light emitting layer”) on the first electrode (“second anode”) and on the partition (“partition layer”), the light emitting layer being electrically disconnected from the first electrode at the location of the partition (organic light-emitting material is non continuous due to the structure of partition layer, ¶ 101); and
a second electrode (“cathode layer”) on the light emitting layer,
wherein the first electrode (“second anode”) is a single layer continuously extending under the partition (“partition layer”) from a first side of the partition (a side of “partition layer” into the page of the cross-section shown in FIG. 3, see FIG. 4a annotated above) to a second side of the partition (a side of the “partition layer” out of the page of the cross-section shown in, see FIG. 4a annotated above) opposite to the first side.
In the plan view as shown in FIG. 4a, Luo’s “second anode” continuously extend from a first side at the top of FIG. 4a to a second side at the bottom of FIG. 4a.
In re claim 2, Luo discloses (e.g. FIG. 3) wherein the second electrode (“cathode layer”) is electrically disconnected from the first electrode (“second anode”) by the partition in the opening.
In re claim 3, Luo discloses (e.g. FIG. 3) wherein the light emitting layer and the second electrode disposed at one side (e.g. left side) of the partition are spaced from the light emitting layer and the second electrode disposed at the other side (e.g. right side) of the partition (the organic light emitting layer and the cathode layer being discontinuous across partition).
In re claim 4, Luo discloses (e.g. FIG. 3) wherein each of the plurality of sub pixels includes at least one of an emission area in which the first electrode and the light emitting layer are in direct contact with each other,
wherein some of the plurality of sub pixels include a plurality of emission areas (see FIGs. 3 & 6, ¶ 106,124,127), and
wherein the plurality of emission areas of one of the plurality of sub pixels are separated from each other in the opening by the partition (see FIGs. 3 & 6).
In re claim 5, Luo discloses (e.g. FIG. 3) wherein the first electrode (“second anode”) and the light emitting layer (organic light emitting layer above partition layer) overlapping in an area corresponding to the partition are spaced apart from each other. The portion of organic light emitting layer above the partition layer is spaced apart from the second anode by the partition layer.
In re claim 9, Luo discloses (e.g. FIGs. 3, 6 & 7) wherein the plurality of sub pixels includes a red sub pixel, a green sub pixel, and a blue sub pixel (FIG. 7, ¶ 97), and
wherein the partition is disposed in at least one of the red sub pixel, the green sub pixel, and the blue sub pixel (see FIG. 3, ¶ 106).
In re claim 10, Luo discloses (e.g. FIG. 3) wherein the numbers of emission areas included in each of the red sub pixel, the green sub pixel, and the blue sub pixel are different from each other. No specific “emission areas” have been claimed to distinguish over select ones of the sub-subpixels taught by Luo. E.g. Luo teaches each subpixel include three sub-subpixels (¶ 106, FIG. 6, ¶ 124). In this example, one of the sub-subpixels of the red subpixel teaches the one emission area in the red subpixel, two of the sub-subpixels of the green subpixel teaches the two emission areas in the green subpixel, and three of the sub-subpixels of the blue subpixel teaches the three emission areas in the blue subpixels. As such, “the number of emission areas” included in each subpixels are different.
In re claim 11, Luo discloses (e.g. FIG. 3) wherein the numbers of emission areas included in some of the red sub pixel, the green sub pixel, and the blue sub pixel are the same. No specific “emission areas” have been claimed to distinguish over select ones of the sub-subpixels taught by Luo. E.g. Luo teaches each subpixel include three sub-subpixels (¶ 106, FIG. 6, ¶ 124). In this example, all three of the sub-subpixels of the red subpixel teaches the three emission areas in the red subpixel, and three of the sub-subpixels of the green subpixel teaches the three emission areas in the green subpixel. As such, “the number of emission areas” included in the red subpixel is the same as “the number of emission areas” included in the green subpixel.
In re claim 12, Luo discloses wherein a cross-section of the partition has an inverted trapezoidal shape (FIG. 3, ¶ 101).
In re claim 13, Luo discloses (e.g. FIG. 3 & 4a) wherein, in one of the plurality of sub pixels, the emission areas have different shapes and areas. Partition layer divides subpixels into different areas (¶ 98,108,111). The shape of the sub-subpixels having different area are therefore different in shape as different areas would not have the same exact form and contour.
In re claim 14, Luo discloses (e.g. FIG. 3) wherein the first electrode (“second anode”) is a single electrode.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yoo at al. US 10,008555 B2 (Yoo cited in IDS filed 12/01/2022).
PNG
media_image3.png
658
931
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In re claim 15, as best understood, Yoo discloses (e.g. FIG. 4) a display device, comprising:
a substrate including a plurality of sub pixels (RGB subpixels, FIG. 3);
a first electrode 251 on the substrate corresponding to the plurality of sub pixels;
a bank 255 on the first electrode 251 and including an opening (opening defined by outer walls of the bank 255 corresponding roughly to the outer extent of the first electrode 251), the opening exposing at least a portion of the first electrode 251;
a partition (portion of 255 in above center of electrode 251 between emission parts RE) on the first electrode 251 in the opening;
a light emitting layer 252 on the first electrode 251 and on the partition (portion of 255 above center of 251); and
a second electrode 253 on the light emitting layer 252,
wherein the first electrode 251 extends under an entirety of the partition (portion of 255 above center of 251), and
wherein a cross-section of the partition (portion of 255 above center of 251) has “an inverted trapezoidal shape” (as best understood).
No specific orientation of the device is claimed. In the event an “inverted trapezoidal shape” is intended to narrowly define a trapezoid as having a longer parallel side oriented up and a shorter parallel side oriented down, the device shown in Yoo’s FIG. 4 can be flipped upside down, thus teaching the “partition” having “an inverted trapezoidal shape” with a longer parallel side above a shorter parallel side.
Alternatively, a trapezoid is geometrically defined to be a quadrilateral having at least one pair of parallel sides, thus a trapezoid and an inverted trapezoid would not distinguish over each other. The “partition” taught by Yoo’s is equally a trapezoid and an inverted trapezoid.
In re claim 16, Yoo discloses (e.g. FIG. 4) wherein the first electrode 251 is a continuous layer or a single electrode.
In re claim 17, Yoo discloses (e.g. FIG. 4) wherein the bank has an inclined surface surrounding the opening (255 has inclined surface as shown in FIG. 4), and the light emitting layer 252 and the second electrode 253 are on the inclined surface.
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.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Park et al. US 2014/0183479 A1 (Park).
In re claim 6, Luo discloses the claimed invention including the plurality of sub pixels includes a red sub pixel, a green sub pixel, and a blue sub pixel (FIG. 7, ¶ 97), and wherein the partition is disposed in at least one of the red sub pixel, the green sub pixel, and the blue sub pixel (see FIG. 3, ¶ 106).
Luo does not explicitly disclose the plurality of sub pixels also includes a white sub pixel.
However, Park teaches (¶ 42-43) a display device including a plurality of sub pixels for multicolored emission, wherein each pixel include a red sub pixel, a green sub pixel, and a blue sub pixel and further include a white sub pixel for reducing power consumption and improving luminance.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further include white sub pixels in Luo’s display to reduce power consumption and improve luminance as taught by Park.
In re claim 7, Luo further teaches each sub pixel may include three sub-subpixels (¶ 106,124) or even more sub-subpixels (¶ 127). For example, it would be obvious include four sub-subpixels in each subpixels. Furthermore, similar to rejection of claim 10 above, no specific “emission areas” have been claimed to distinguish over select ones of the sub-subpixels taught by Luo. In this example, one of the sub-subpixels of the red subpixel teaches the one emission area in the red subpixel, two of the sub-subpixels of the green subpixel teaches the two emission areas in the green subpixel, three of the sub-subpixels of the blue subpixel teaches the three emission areas in the blue subpixels, and four of the sub-subpixels of the white subpixel (as taught by Park) teaches the four emission areas in the white subpixels. As such, “the number of emission areas” included in each subpixels are different.
In re claim 8, Luo discloses (e.g. FIG. 3) wherein the numbers of emission areas included in some of the red sub pixel, the green sub pixel, the blue sub pixel, and white sub pixel are the same. No specific “emission areas” have been claimed to distinguish over select ones of the sub-subpixels taught by Luo. E.g. Luo teaches each subpixel include three sub-subpixels (¶ 106, FIG. 6, ¶ 124). In this example, all three of the sub-subpixels of the red subpixel teaches the three emission areas in the red subpixel, and three of the sub-subpixels of the green subpixel teaches the three emission areas in the green subpixel. As such, “the number of emission areas” included in the red subpixel is the same as “the number of emission areas” included in the green subpixel.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims rejected over Luo, Applicant argues the first anode on one side of the partition layer and the second anode on the other side of the partition layer are separate and does not teach claimed continuously extending (Remark, page 6).
This is not persuasive. Luo teaches a “partition layer” that extends into and out of the page. In the plan view as shown in FIG. 4a, the “partition layer” filling the spacing has a first side at the top of FIG. 4a and a second side at the bottom of FIG. 4a. The first electrode corresponding to the “second anode” is a single layer and extends continuously the two lateral sides of the “partition layer” in the plan view of FIG. 4a.
PNG
media_image4.png
714
758
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Yoo, Applicant argues the bank has a trapezoidal shape, not an inverted trapezoidal shape (Remark, page 6).
This is not persuasive. Firstly, no specific orientation of the device is claimed. In the event an “inverted trapezoidal shape” is intended to narrowly define a trapezoid as having a longer parallel side oriented up and a shorter parallel side oriented down, the device shown in Yoo’s FIG. 4 can be flipped upside down, thus teaching the “partition” having “an inverted trapezoidal shape” with a longer parallel side above a shorter parallel side.
Furthermore, a trapezoid is geometrically defined to be a quadrilateral having at least one pair of parallel sides. No dimensional orientation is associated with the definition of a trapezoid. Thus, a trapezoid and an “inverted trapezoid”, as best understood, would not distinguish over each other. The “partition” taught by Yoo’s is equally a trapezoid and an inverted trapezoid.
Conclusion
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