DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 04/23/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Lin et al. (US 11610954 B1).
Examiner acknowledges the title of the invention has been changed and is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Therefore the specification objection has been withdrawn.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choung et al. (US 2022/0077252 A1; hereinafter “Choung”), in view of Lin et al. (US 11610954 B1; hereinafter “Lin”).
In regard to claim 1, Choung teaches a display device (device includes a plurality of sub-pixels) (paragraph 5) comprising:
a substrate (a substrate 102) (Fig. 1B and paragraph 27);
a pixel electrode (metal layers 104) disposed on the substrate (Fig. 1B and paragraph 27);
a partition layer, disposed on the substrate and defining an opening exposing at least a part of the pixel electrode (a PDL structure 126 and inorganic overhang structures 110 and defines an opening that exposes metal layers 104) (Fig. 1B, Fig. 2 and paragraphs 28 and 30);
a light-emitting layer (an OLED material 112) disposed on the pixel electrode within the opening of the partition layer (the OLED material 112 is shown on the exposed portion of the metal layer 104 in Fig. 1) (Fig. 1 and paragraph 29);
a common electrode (a cathode 114) disposed on the light-emitting layer within the opening of the partition layer (the cathode 114 is shown on top of the OLED material 112 in Fig. 2);
a capping layer (an encapsulation layer 116) disposed on the common electrode and the partition layer, and surrounding a side surface of the opening of the partition layer (the encapsulation layer 116 on the cathode 114 and PDL structure 126 in Fig. 2) (Fig 2 and paragraph 34); and
a color conversion pattern (a plug 122) disposed on the capping layer within the opening of the partition layer (a plug 122 may be a color filter and is disposed on the encapsulation layer 116) (Fig. 1B and paragraph 37), wherein the partition layer includes:
a first metal layer disposed on the substrate (a lower portion 110A is formed of metal-containing material) (Fig. 1B and paragraphs 30-31);
a second metal layer disposed on the first metal layer (an upper portion 110B is formed of metal-containing material) (Fig. 1B and paragraphs 30-31).
However, Choung doesn’t explicitly teach a third metal layer disposed on the second metal layer.
Lin teaches a display device (an organic light-emitting diode (OLED) display) (Fig. 1B and [col. 4, lns.2-3]), wherein a partition layer (overhang structures 110) includes:
a first metal layer disposed on the substrate (a base structure 110C is formed of metal-containing material) (Fig. 1B and [col. 7, lns.14-35]);
a second metal layer disposed on the first metal layer (a body structure 110A is formed of metal material) (Fig. 1B and [col. 7, lns.14-35]); and
a third metal layer disposed on the second metal layer (a top structure 110B of a conductive inorganic material) (Fig. 1B and [col. 7, lns.14-35]).
It would’ve been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Choung with the teachings of Lin to have a third metal layer disposed on the second metal layer as this layout allows for the sub-pixels to employ advanced overhang structures to improve functionality of the display as taught by Lin ([col. 4, lns.4-5]).
In regard to claim 2, Choung teaches wherein the common electrode contacts the partition layer (the cathode 114 is shown contacting the PDL structures 126 in Fig. 2).
In regard to claim 3, Choung teaches wherein the partition layer further includes:
an inorganic layer disposed between the substrate and the first metal layer (the PDL structures 126 includes an inorganic material) (Fig. 1B and paragraph 28).
In regard to claim 4, Choung teaches wherein a side surface of the second metal layer adjacent to the opening protrudes compared to a side surface of the first metal layer adjacent to the opening (the upper portion 110B is shown to be protruding compared to the lower portion 110A in Fig. 2).
In regard to claim 5, Choung teaches the display device of claim 1, further comprising:
a pixel defining layer (the portion of a first capping layer 121 and a second capping layer 123, cathode 114, OLED material 112 disposed on the sidewall 113 of the upper portion 110B) disposed on the partition layer and overlapping with the partition layer (as the layers deposited on the sidewall 113 surround sub-pixels 106, these layers serve as a pixel defining layer) (Fig. 1A and paragraphs 33-36).
In regard to claim 6, Choung teaches wherein the light-emitting layer includes a first light-emitting layer disposed on the pixel electrode within the opening (the OLED material 112 disposed over the metal layer 104 is shown in Fig. 1B), and a second light- emitting layer disposed on the partition layer and overlapping with the partition layer (as shown in Fig. 4D during manufacture, the OLED material 112 is disposed on the upper portion 110B and overlaps the OLED material 112 over the metal layer 104) (Fig. 1B, Fig. 4D and paragraph 48), in which the first light-emitting layer and the second light-emitting layer are spaced apart from each other (the two portions of the OLED material 112 are shown spaced apart in Fig 1B).
In regard to claim 7, Choung teaches wherein the capping layer extends from a first surface of the common electrode (a top surface of the cathode 114) to a first surface of the partition layer along the side surface of the opening of the partition layer (the encapsulation layer 116 is shown extending from the top surface of the cathode 114 to the upper side surface of the inorganic overhang structures 110) (Fig. 1B),
the first surface of the common electrode is opposite to a second surface of the common electrode facing the substrate (the top surface of the cathode 114 is opposite to the bottom surface of the cathode 114 as shown in Fig. 1B), and
the first surface of the partition layer is opposite to a second surface of the partition layer facing the substrate (the upper side surface of the inorganic overhang structures 110 is opposite to the bottom surface of the inorganic overhang structures 110 as shown in Fig. 1B).
In regard to claim 8, Choung teaches wherein the capping layer includes an inorganic material (the encapsulation layer 116 includes the non-conductive inorganic material).
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 SEYON ALI-SIMAH PUNCHBEDDELL whose telephone number is (571)270-0078. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur: 7:30AM-3:30 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, Sue Purvis can be reached at (571) 272-1236. 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.
/SEYON ALI-SIMAH PUNCHBEDDELL/ Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/SUE A PURVIS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights