DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of the Application
Acknowledgement is made of the amendment received on 02/27/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. Claims 1 and 8 are amended. Claim 10-20 remain withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following reasons:
Re claim 10: delete “Withdrawn” and insert --Original-- (see Response to Election/Restrictions of Non-Final Rejection filed on 11/17/2025 and Claims filed on 02/06/2026).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-2, 6, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moon et al. (KR 2021/0055831, equivalent to US 2022/0393071 as English translation; hereinafter ‘Moon’).
Regarding claim 1, Moon teaches a display device (10_2, FIGS. 19 and 20, [0197]) comprising:
a substrate (110, [0075]);
a via layer (180, [0092]) on the substrate (110);
a first electrode (194_2, [0208]) and a second electrode (193_2. [0208]) on the via layer (180) and spaced apart from each other (194_2 and 193_2 spaced apart from each other);
a first insulating layer (200, [0075]) on the first electrode (194_2) and the second electrode (193_2);
a bank layer (a bank layer including 410_2, 430_2, 440_2, and 420_2, [0197]; hereinafter ‘BL’) on the first insulating layer (200) and having a bank portion (a bank portion of BL forming a relatively thick central portion; hereinafter ‘BLC’) and barrier portions (barrier portions of BL extending outward from the bank portion and having a smaller thickness; hereinafter ‘BLE’) extending from the bank portion (BLC), the bank portion having a greater thickness than the barrier portions (BLC having a greater thickness than BLE);
a second insulating layer (510, [0075]) on the bank layer (BL) and the first insulating layer (200), the second insulating layer overlapping the barrier portions (510 overlapping BLE) and not overlapping the bank portion (510 not overlapping BLC);
light emitting elements (300, [0071]) on the second insulating layer (510) and on the first electrode (194_2) and the second electrode (193_2); and
a first connection electrode (263b_2, [0203]) overlapping a first barrier portion of the barrier portions (263b_2 overlapping a right barrier portion of 430_2(; hereinafter ‘BLE1’)) and not overlapping the bank portion (263b_2 not overlapping the BLC of 430_2) and contacting an end of each light emitting element (263b_2 contacting the end of 300) and a second connection electrode (264a_2, [0203]) overlapping a second barrier portion of the barrier portions (264a_2 overlapping a left barrier portion of 440_2(; hereinafter ‘BLE2’)) and not overlapping the bank portion (264a_2 not overlapping the BLC of 440_2) and contacting another end of the light emitting elements (264a_2 contacting the end of 300).
Regarding claim 2, Moon teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the first insulating layer (200, FIG. 20) is directly on the via layer (180), the first electrode (194_2), and the second electrode (193_2).
Regarding claim 6, Moon teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the first insulating layer (200, FIG. 20) and the second insulating layer (510) contact each other at an area (the contact region between 200 and 510 beneath 300) overlapping the light emitting elements (300).
Regarding claim 8, Moon teaches the display device of claim 1,
wherein the first barrier portions (BLE1, FIG. 20) overlaps the first electrode (BLE1 overlaps 194_2) and the second barrier portion (BLE2) is spaced apart from the first barrier portion (BLE1) and overlaps the second electrode (193_2), and
wherein the bank portion (BLC) extends around a periphery of the first barrier portion (BLE1) and the second barrier portion (BLE2).
Regarding claim 9, Moon teaches the display device of claim 8,
wherein the bank layer (BL, FIG. 20) has a first opening (the opening between 430_2 and 440_2, FIG. 20; hereinafter ‘OP1’) between the first barrier portion (BLE1) and the second barrier portion (BLE2), and
wherein the light emitting elements (300) are in the first opening (OP1).
Regarding claim 10, Moon teaches the display device of claim 9,
wherein the bank layer (BL, FIG. 20) separates an emission area (the region in which 300 is formed; hereinafter ‘EA’) in which the light emitting elements (300) are arranged from a sub-area (the region in which 300 is not formed; hereinafter ‘SA’) spaced apart from the emission area (SA spaced apart from EA),
wherein the bank layer (BL) has a second opening (a left-side opening region adjacent to 410_2; hereinafter ‘OP2’) spaced apart from the first opening (OP2 spaced apart from OP1), and
wherein the first opening (OP1) is in the emission area (EA), and the second opening (OP2) is disposed in the sub-area (SA).
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 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon (KR 2021/0055831) in view of Tang et al. (US 2019/0214444; hereinafter ‘Tang’).
Regarding claim 3, Moon teaches the display device of claim 1, but does not teach the display device wherein a thickness of the first insulating layer is smaller than a thickness of the second insulating layer.
Tang teaches a display device (FIG. 2, [0079]) wherein a thickness of the first insulating layer (203, [0080]) is smaller than a thickness of the second insulating layer (204; the thickness of 203 is smaller than that of 204, [0066]).
Although, Tang discloses that the second insulating layer 204 is positioned below the banker layer 208, it lies beneath the Luminescent material and electrically insulates the electrodes from the light emitting element. Therefore, 204 performs the same functional role as the claimed second insulating layer, and the positional difference relative to the bank layer does not materially affect its function or effect.
As taught by Tang, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize and modify the above teaching into Moon to obtain and achieve the display device wherein a thickness of the first insulating layer is smaller than a thickness of the second insulating layer.as claimed, because the use of two layers in which the second insulating layer is relatively thicker improves the flatness of the planarization structure and solves the difficulty in achieving the required uniformity and thickness of the light-emitting layer formed thereon [0083].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Tang in combination with Moon due to above reason.
Regarding claim 4, Moon in view of Tang teaches the display device of claim 3, but does not explicitly teach the display device wherein the thickness of the first insulating layer is in a range of 30% to 70% of the thickness of the second insulating layer.
Tang, however, teaches the display device wherein the thickness of the first insulating layer (203, FIG. 2, [0066]) is smaller than the thickness of the second insulating layer (204, FIG. 2, ; similar to the claimed invention, FIG. 2).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice bounded by well-known manufacturing constraints and ascertainable by routine experimentation and optimization to choose particular relative thicknesses between the first and second insulating layers, because applicant has not disclosed that, in view of the applied prior art, such relative thicknesses are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. For that matter, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed ratio of the two insulating layer thicknesses serves any specific purpose or yields any distinct result. Moreover, it appears prima facie that the process would possess the same utility using another ratio of the two insulating layer thicknesses. Indeed, it has been held that mere numerical or proportion limitations are prima facie obvious absent a showing that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to try the particular claimed relative thickness relationship between the first and second insulating layers, because a change in the ratio of their thicknesses would have been a known option within the technical grasp of a person of ordinary skill in the art and, "a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007). See also, Pfizer Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1852 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon (KR 2021/0055831) in view of Tang(US 2019/0214444), further in view of Kim et al. (US 2021/0056282; hereinafter ‘Kim’).
Regarding claim 5, Moon in view of Tang teaches the display device of claim 3, but does not teach the display device wherein the thickness of the first insulating layer is in a range of 500 Å to 3000 Å.
Kim teaches a display device (FIG. 4, [0129]) wherein the thickness of the first insulating layer (116, which is positioned on electrode layer, [0145]) is in a range of 500 Å to 3000 Å (116 has a thickness of 1500 to 1800 Å).
As taught by Kim, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize and modify the above teaching into Moon in view of Tang to obtain and achieve the display device wherein the thickness of the first insulating layer is in a range of 500 Å to 3000 Å as claimed, because it has been held that where the criticality of the claimed range is not shown and the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP §2144.05.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Kim in combination with Moon in view of Tang due to above reason.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon (KR 2021/0055831).
Regarding claim 7, Moon teaches the display device of claim 1, but does not teach the display device wherein the first insulating layer and the second insulating layer comprise the same material.
Moon, however, provides that the first insulating layer (200) includes an organic insulating material [0096] and the second insulating layer (510) includes an organic insulating material [0119].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ and modify the teachings of Moon to obtain and achieve the display device wherein the first insulating layer and the second insulating layer comprise the same material as claimed, because the organic insulating material is a well-known material and widely used for insulating and planarizing function in display devices. Further, 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 used a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection. Response to arguments on newly added limitations are responded to in the above rejection.
Applicant submits, in page 10 of Remark, that “the inner banks 410/420/430/440 are separate and spaced apart from the outer bank 450. Accordingly, Moon does not disclose at least "a bank layer ... having a bank portion and barrier portions extending from the bank portion, the bank portion having a greater thickness than the barrier portions" as now recited in claim 1”.
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant’s argument appears directed to the previous rejection prior to amendment. However, the present rejection of amended claim 1 relies on a different characterization of the structures shown in Moon.
Specifically, the present rejection does not rely on outer bank 450 as the claimed bank portion and inner banks 410/420/430/440 as the recited barrier portions. Rather, the rejection relies on the structure of each respective inner bank itself. As illustrated at least in FIG. 20, inner banks 410_2, 430_2, 440_2, and 420_2 each include a relatively thick central raised region and outwardly extending sloped side regions having a smaller thickness. Accordingly, the thick central raised region reasonably corresponds to the claimed bank portion, while the outwardly extending sloped side regions reasonably correspond to the claimed barrier portions extending from the bank portion.
Applicant further submits, in page 11 of Remark, that “the contact electrodes 261/262/263/264 of Moon are illustrated as overlapping the thicker central portions of the respective inner banks 410/420/430/440”.
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
FIG. 20 illustrates that contact electrode 263b_2 overlaps a right barrier portion of inner bank 430_2 and does not overlap the thicker central bank portion of inner bank 430_2. Similarly, contact electrode 264a_2 overlaps a left barrier portion of inner bank 440_2 and does not overlap the thicker central bank portion thereof.
Details included in the above rejection.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIYOUNG OH whose telephone number is (703)756-5687. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8AM-4PM 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, EVA MONTALVO can be reached on (571) 270-3829. 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.
/JIYOUNG OH/Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/DUY T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818 6/8/26
Prosecution Insights