DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the amendment received on 07/13/2026.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species B (Figure 10) and Species F (Figure 13) in the reply filed on 09/09/2025 is acknowledged. Claim(s) 6-8 and 14-20 is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a) based upon an application filed in REPUBLIC OF KOREA on 08/09/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/30/2026 has been considered by the examiner and made of record in the application file.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1-2 and 9-13 is/are objected to because of the following informalities where proposed corrections are bolded and underlined:
Claim 1, lines 8-11, “two side surfaces of the color conversion pattern in the opening of the via insulating layer; a second pixel electrode on the color conversion pattern and the via insulating layer and connected to the first pixel electrode” where two instances of the word “later” are believed to be typos with the intention to refer to the via insulating layer.
The balance of claims are objected to at least for their dependencies. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 9, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2021/0104586 A1; Baek et al.; 04/2021; (“Baek”).
Regarding Claim 1. Baek discloses A display device (#100, Figure 3, display panel where Figure 13 is a modification to Figure 3 according to [0217] and considered herein) comprising:
a substrate (#110, Figure 13);
a via insulating layer (#120 and #160, Figure 3, insulating film and pixel defining film which together may be interpreted as a via insulating layer) on the substrate (Figure 3, #120 and #160 are on #110) and that defines an opening (Figure 3, #120 and #160 define an opening overlapping with #AE1’s location)
a color conversion pattern (#130, Figure 13, wavelength conversion pattern) in the opening of the via insulating layer (Figure 13, #130 is in the opening defined by #160 and #120) and comprising scattering particles (#133, Figure 13, scatterers);
a first pixel electrode (#AE11, #AE12, and #MP, Figure 13, first conductive pattern, second conductive pattern, and conductive patterns which together are interpreted as a first electrode “#E1”) under the color conversion pattern (Figure 13, #E1 is at least partially under #130) and that extends to surround at least two side surfaces of the color conversion pattern in the opening of the via insulating layer (Figure 13, #E1, the combination of #AE11, #AE12, and #MP extends to at least partially surround at least two side surfaces, left and right, of #130 in the opening defined by #160 and #120);
a second pixel electrode (#AE13_2, Figure 13, third conductive pattern) on the color conversion pattern and the via insulating layer and connected to the first pixel electrode (Figure 13, #AE13_2 is on #130 and the combination of #120 and #160, where “on” does not require direct contact according to [0037] of the instant application, and is electrically connected to #E1);
a pixel defining layer (#BM, Figure 3, light shielding member which defines pixel regions PA1-3 from non-light outputting areas #PB) on the via insulating layer and the second pixel electrode (Figure 3, #BM is on #160 and #AE13_2 where “on” does not require direct contact according to [0037] of the instant application) and that exposes at least a portion of the second pixel electrode (Figure 3, the openings, #PA1-3, in #BM overlap #AE13 such that they may be interpreted to expose a top surface of #AE13); and
a light emitting layer (#OL, Figure 3, organic layer which may be light emitting according to [0132]) on the second pixel electrode (Figure 3, #OL is on #AE13, Figures 3 and 13).
Regarding Claim 2. Baek discloses The display device of claim 1, wherein the first pixel electrode comprises a first portion (#AE11 and #AE12, Figure 13) under the color conversion pattern (Figure 13, #AE11 and #AE12 are under #130) and a second portion (#MP, Figure 13) that continuously extends from a side surface of the first portion to surround the side surface of the color conversion pattern (Figure 13, #MP extends continuously from a top side surface of #AE12 to surround the side surface of #130), and
the second pixel electrode directly comes into contact with the second portion of the first pixel electrode (Figure 13, #AE13_2 directly comes into contact with #MP).
Regarding Claim 9. Baek discloses The display device of claim 1, wherein the first pixel electrode has a multilayer structure (Figure 13, #E1 comprising the multiple layers of #AE11, #AE12, and #MP), and the second pixel electrode has a single-layer structure (Figure 13, #AE13 is a single layer).
Regarding Claim 13. Baek discloses The display device of claim 1, further comprising a color filter layer (#181, #183, #185, Figure 3, color filters) on the light emitting layer (Figure 3, #181, #183, and #185 are on #OL) and comprising a first color filter (#181, Figure 3), a second color filter (#183, Figure 3), and a third color filter (#185, Figure 3).
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(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0104586 A1; Baek et al.; 04/2021; (“Baek”) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of US 2019/0198592 A1; Zhang et al.; 06/2019; (“Zhang”).
Regarding Claim 10. Baek discloses The display device of claim 9, wherein the first pixel electrode comprises ITO/Ag ([0129], “first . . . conductive patterns may include at least one of indium-tin-oxide (ITO) . . . second conductive pattern may include at least one of silver (Ag)“), and the second pixel electrode comprises ITO ([0129], “third conductive patterns may include at least one of indium-tin-oxide (ITO)”).
Baek does not disclose that the first pixel electrode comprises ITO/Ag/ITO. Baek does not include the second ITO layer on top of the Ag layer.
However, Zhang teaches a light emitting device (Figure 9, OLED structure) comprising a light emitting layer (#17, Figure 9) on a bottom first electrode (#14, Figure 9) wherein the first electrode is made of a multilayer structure comprising ITO/Ag/ITO ([0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider forming the first electrode of Baek as the ITO/Ag/ITO structure of Zhang since the multilayer structure of Zhang “has high light emitting efficiency and electron extraction rate” according to [0041] of Zhang.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0104586 A1; Baek et al.; 04/2021; (“Baek”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2008/0203414 A1; Yen et al.; 08/2008; (“Yen”).
Regarding Claim 11. Baek discloses The display device of claim 1.
Baek does not disclose that an upper surface of the color conversion pattern has a concave cross-sectional shape or a convex cross-sectional shape.
However, Yen teaches a light emitting device (#500, Figure 5) comprising a color conversion pattern (#406, Figure 5, wavelength converting layer) wherein an upper surface of the color conversion pattern has a concave cross-sectional shape or a convex cross-sectional shape (Figure 5 and [0031], “the upper surface of the second wavelength-converting layer 406 may be concave or convex, as depicted in FIG. 5”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider forming the wavelength conversion layer of Baek to have a convex or concave upper surface, as was done by Yen, since “concave or convex surfaces (i.e., a non-uniform thickness) may permit the emitted light from and light traversing a particular wavelength-converting layer to be focused in a higher layer” according to [0031] of Yen.
Regarding Claim 12. Baek in view of Yen discloses The display device of claim 11, wherein the second pixel electrode is along a profile of the upper surface of the color conversion pattern (Baek, Figure 13, #AE13_2 is along a profile of the upper surface of #130).
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 and corresponding remarks, see page 6 of the remarks, filed 07/13/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection of claims 1-5 and 9-13 have been fully considered. The 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection of claims 1-5 and 9-13 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 and corresponding arguments, see pages 6-9 of the remarks, filed 07/13/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, and 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejections of claim 1’s dependent claims, have been fully considered but are not found persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1 is maintained.
Applicant argues that US 2021/0104586 A1; Baek et al.; 04/2021; (“Baek”) does not disclose “the first pixel electrode and the color conversion pattern are in the opening of the via insulating layer” and instead discloses that the first pixel electrode (#AE1) and the wavelength conversion pattern (#130) are in an opening of the pixel-defining film (#160) and are on the insulating film (#120). Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s interpretation that the prior art does not disclose these limitations.
While the cited reference (Baek) may refer to element #160 as a pixel defining film, it is the examiner’s interpretation that this film may also be interpreted as a via insulating layer. [0132] of Baek states that #160 may be made of an insulating material. Furthermore, in Figure 3, #160 is observed to insulate adjacent metal electrodes (#AE1-3) from one another and allow for the transmission of electrical signal between structures above and below #160 through these metal electrodes, similar to the function of a via. For this reason, it is the examiner’s interpretation that #160 may be interpreted as a via insulating layer. Therefore, in Figures 3 and 13, #AE1 and #130s are located in openings in the via insulating film equivalent (#160). Furthermore, Baek also discloses a black matrix (#BM) on an upper portion of the device (see Figure 3) which is shown to define pixel areas (#PA1-3) from the non-light-outputting areas (#PB) such that the black matrix may be interpreted as a pixel defining layer equivalent which is on the via insulating layer and the second pixel electrode (Figure 3, #BM is on #160 and #AE13_2 where “on” does not require direct contact according to [0037] of the instant application). The black matrix is interpreted to expose at least a portion of the second pixel electrode (#AE13, Figures 3 and 13) since the openings, #PA1-3, in #BM overlap #AE13 such that they may expose a top surface of #AE13 to light which may be transmitted through the underlying layers to reach the second electrode since Figures 3 and 5 show how light is emitted from the device and may equivalently pass in the opposing direction into the device.
For these reasons, it is the examiner’s interpretation that Baek does disclose all of the limitations of amended claim 1.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 9, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2021/0104586 A1; Baek et al.; 04/2021; (“Baek”).
Claim(s) 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0104586 A1; Baek et al.; 04/2021; (“Baek”) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of US 2019/0198592 A1; Zhang et al.; 06/2019; (“Zhang”).
Claim(s) 11-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0104586 A1; Baek et al.; 04/2021; (“Baek”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2008/0203414 A1; Yen et al.; 08/2008; (“Yen”).
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 TYLER JAMES WIEGAND whose telephone number is (571)270-0096. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8AM-5PM.
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, CHRISTINE KIM can be reached at (571) 272-8458. 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.
/TYLER J WIEGAND/Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights