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 .
Remarks
The 04/15/2026 amendment of claim 1 has been noted and entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/19/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the application on 06/21/2023. 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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pages 8-12, filed 04/15/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-14 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Lee et al, US 20210391503 A1 (Lee ‘503).
New Grounds of Rejection
New grounds of rejection, prior art reference Lee et al, US 20210391503 A1 (Lee ‘503) appears below.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al, US 20210391503 A1 (Lee ‘503).
Regarding claim 1; Lee ‘503 teaches a display device comprising:
first (Lee ‘503: Annotated Fig (13) shared in this OA: EL4_1), second (EL3_1), third (EL2_1), and fourth (EL1_1) alignment electrodes sequentially arranged while being spaced from each other along a first direction (Y-direction) in a first emission area (First Emission Area);
a bank (BNK) on the first (EL4_1), second (EL3_1), third (EL2_1), and fourth (EL1_1) alignment electrodes, the bank (BNK) comprising first (First Horizontal Bank Extension) and second (Second Horizontal Bank Extension) horizontal extension parts extending in the first direction (Y-direction) and first (First Vertical Bank Extension), second (Second Vertical Bank Extension), and third (Third Vertical Bank Extension) vertical extension parts extending in a second direction (Z-direction) crossing the first direction (Y-direction),
the bank partitioning the first emission area (First Emission Area) and a second emission area (Second Emission Area);
first light emitting (LD3) elements overlapping with the first alignment electrode (EL4_1) and the second alignment electrode (EL3_1);
second light emitting elements (LD2) overlapping with the second alignment electrode (EL3_1) and the third alignment electrode (EL2_1); and
third light emitting elements (LD1) overlapping with the third alignment electrode (EL2_1) and the fourth alignment electrode (EL1_1),
wherein the first alignment electrode (EL4_1) overlaps with the first vertical extension part (First Vertical Bank Extension) and the first emission area (First Emission Area), and
wherein the fourth alignment electrode (EL1_1) overlaps with the first emission area (First Emission Area), the second emission area (Second Emission Area), and the second vertical extension part (Second Vertical Bank Extension).
PNG
media_image1.png
875
1530
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Rejection Note: Italicized claim limitations indicate limitations that are not explicitly disclosed in the primary reference, but disclosed in the secondary reference(s).
Claims 2-3 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al, US 20210391503 A1 (Lee ‘503) in view of Park et al, US 20220181382 A1 (Park).
Regarding claim 2; Lee ‘503 teaches all the limitations of the display device of claim 1.
However, Lee ‘503 does not teach wherein, when the first, second, and third light emitting elements are aligned, the first alignment electrode and the third alignment electrode are configured to receive a first alignment signal, and the second alignment electrode and the fourth alignment electrode are configured to receive a second alignment signal.
Park teaches wherein, when the first (Park: Fig (4A): LD1), second (LD2), and third (LD3) light emitting elements are aligned, the first alignment electrode (ALE1) and the third alignment electrode (ALE3) are configured to receive a first alignment signal, and the second alignment electrode (ALE2) and the fourth alignment electrode (ALE4) are configured to receive a second alignment signal ([0164]: “… the first and third alignment electrodes ALE1 and ALE3 form a pair to receive different alignment signals, and the second and fourth alignment electrodes ALE2 and ALE4 form a pair to receive different alignment signals.”).
Lee ‘503 and Park are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Lee ‘503 by pairing the first and third alignment electrodes together and the second and fourth alignment electrodes together to receive alignment signals to improve the performance of the display device.
Regarding claim 3; Lee ‘503 in view of Park teaches all the limitations of the display device of claim 2.
Lee ‘503 does not teach wherein the first alignment signal is different from the second alignment signal, and wherein a planar shape of the first alignment electrode is identical to a planar shape of the fourth alignment electrode.
Park teaches wherein the first alignment signal is different from the second alignment signal ([0164]: “… the first and third alignment electrodes ALE1 and ALE3 form a pair to receive different alignment signals, and the second and fourth alignment electrodes ALE2 and ALE4 form a pair to receive different alignment signals.”), and wherein a planar shape of the first alignment electrode (ALE1) is identical to a planar shape of the fourth alignment electrode (ALE4).
Lee ‘503 and Park are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Lee ‘503 by pairing the first and third alignment electrodes together and the second and fourth alignment electrodes together to receive alignment signals to improve the performance of the display device.
Regarding claim 13; Lee ‘503 in view of Park teaches the display device of claim 2.
Further, Lee ‘503 teaches further comprising fifth (Lee ‘503: Annotated Fig (13) shared in this OA: EL6), sixth (EL7), and seventh (EL8) alignment electrodes sequentially arranged while being spaced from each other along the first direction (Y-direction) in the second emission area (Second Emission Area), wherein the seventh alignment electrode (EL8) overlaps with the second emission area (Second Emission Area) and the third vertical extension part (Third Vertical Bank Extension).
Regarding claim 14; Lee ‘503 in view of Park teaches all the limitations of the display device of alim 13.
Further, Lee ‘503 teaches wherein, when the first (Lee ‘503: Fig (17): LD1), second (LD2), and third (LD3) light emitting elements are aligned, the sixth alignment electrode (EL6_0) is configured to receive the second alignment signal ([0331]), and the fifth alignment electrode (EL5_0) and the seventh alignment electrode (EL8_0) are configured to receive the first alignment signal ([0331]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 and 6-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 4; Lee ‘503 alone or in combination with other available art does not teach wherein each of the first alignment electrode and the fourth alignment electrode comprises a first branch electrode and a second branch electrode extending in the second direction and overlapping with the bank.
Claim 5 is objected to but otherwise allowable for its dependence on claim 4.
Regarding claim 6; Lee ‘503 alone or in combination with other available art does not teach further comprising a first pixel electrode, a first connection electrode, a second connection electrode, and a second pixel electrode, in each of the first emission area and the second emission area, that are spaced from each other along the first direction.
Claims 7-12 are objected to but otherwise allowable for their dependence on an objected to but otherwise allowable claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Moataz Khalifa whose telephone number is (703)756-1770. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (8:30 am - 5:00).
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, Kretelia Graham can be reached at (571) 272-5055. 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.
/M.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/Kretelia Graham/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights