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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 01/08/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 to clarify the dummy electrodes being disposed on the dummy partition walls is acknowledged. The 112 rejection of claim 1 is withdrawn.
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.
Claim(s) 1 - 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210183826 A1 hereinafter Chang.
For claim 1, Chang teaches a display device comprising: electrodes (fig. 5 numeral CNT1 and CNT2) disposed in a display area (fig. 5 numeral AA) and spaced apart from each other; light emitting elements disposed between the electrodes (fig. 5 numeral LD1); conductive lines (Par. [0229]; conductive line is disposed on the insulating layer INS in figure 5) disposed in a non-display area (insulating layer is shown to run through the non-display area DA in figure 5 and the conductive lines run on the insulating layer; Par. [0229]; fig. 2A and 2B show voltage lines VDD and VSS running through the device and coupled to the driving voltage line DVL as described in Par. [0229]) and electrically connected to the electrodes (Par. [0236]; Par. [0250]); and dummy pixels disposed on the conductive lines (fig. 5 numeral DA shows a dummy pixel disposed on the insulating layer INS including the conductive line), wherein the dummy pixels comprise: dummy partition walls spaced apart from each other (fig. 9 numeral DBNK1 and DBNK2), and dummy electrode disposed on the dummy partition walls and spaced apart from each other (fig. 9 numeral DCNT1 and DCNT2). Change does not explicitly state that the dummy electrodes overlap the conductive lines.
Change does teach that multiple conductive lines run through the passivation layer PSV of the device (Par. [0236 – 0238]) and that the dummy electrodes can be placed on the passivation layer (Par. [0245]). Further, Chang teaches that a conductive line (DVL) is provided in the interlayer insulating layer (Par. [0229]) and that the insulating layers overlap the dummy areas and dummy electrodes (fig. 9 numeral INS, INC, and DCNT1 and DCNT2; Par. [0243 - 0245]). Chang also teaches that the conductive line placement is not limited, and may be moved (Par. [0229]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the immediate invention that the dummy electrodes and conductive lines in Chang overlap in some embodiments, as such modification would involve a mere change in configuration. It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Change teaches the placement of the conductive lines are not limited, and that the conductive lines and dummy electrodes are placed on the same layers and run throughout the device (Par. [0229], [0243 -0245]; fig. 5 numeral INS). Figures 2A and 2B show voltage lines VDD and VSS running through the device and coupled to the driving voltage line DVL. Figure 5 numeral DA shows a dummy pixel disposed on the insulating layer INS including the conductive line.
For claim 2, Change teach all of claim 1. Change also teaches the electrodes and the dummy electrodes are disposed on a same layer (fig. 5 and fig. 9 show the electrodes CNT1 and CNT2 and the dummy electrodes DCNT1 and DCNT2 on the same layer INS).
For claim 3, Change teaches all of claim 1. Change also teaches the electrodes comprise a first electrode adjacent to the first ends of the light emitting elements (fig. 5 numeral CNT1), and a second electrode adjacent to the second ends of the light emitting elements (fig. 5 numeral CNT2).
For claim 4, Change teaches all of claim 3. Change also teaches the conductive lines comprise a first conductive line electrically connected to the first electrode (Par. [0234 - 0236]), and a second conductive line electrically connected to the second electrode (Par. [0234 - 0236]).
For claim 5, Change teaches all of claim 1. Change also teaches partition walls overlapping the electrodes in plan view (fig. 6 numeral BNK1 and BNK2).
For claim 6, Change teaches all of claim 5. Change also teaches the partition walls and the dummy partition walls are disposed on a same layer (fig. 5 and fig. 9 show partition walls BNK1 and BNK2 and the dummy partition walls DBNK1 and DBNK2 are both disposed on the substrate SUB).
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments focus on the prior art of record (Chang) does not teach the dummy electrodes overlapping the conductive lines as claimed in the amended claim 1. This is not persuasive as Change teaches the placement of the conductive lines in the device is variable and that the conductive lines and the dummy electrodes are placed and are located in the same layers (see rejection above). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the immediate invention that the conductive lines and the dummy electrodes in Change would overlap in some parts of the device, as such modification would involve a mere change in configuration. It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Claim 1 as amended does not require a specific location where the elements overlap, and allows for the elements to overlap in either the display area or non-display areas of the device.
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 JACOB T NELSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1031. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
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, Joshua Benitez can be reached at 571-270-1435. 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.
/J.T.N./Examiner, Art Unit 2815
/MONICA D HARRISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815
Prosecution Insights