DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 05/07/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 103 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Seki (US 2003/0146695 A1).
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 Therefore the specification objection has been withdrawn.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 1-2, 4-7, 9-10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choung et al (US 2022/0077251 A1; hereinafter “Choung”), and further in view of Seki (US 2003/0146695 A1) and Kim et al. (US 2021/0003888 A1; hereinafter “Kim”).
In regard to claim 1, Choung teaches a display device (a device as shown in Fig. 1B) (Fig. 1B and paragraph 5), comprising:
a first pixel electrode (a metal layer 104 in a first sub-pixel 108a as shown in Fig. 1B) and a second pixel electrode (a metal layer 104 in second sub-pixel 108b as shown in Fig. 1B) which are disposed on a substrate (a substrate 102) to be spaced apart from each other (the metal layers 104 are configured to operate as anodes of respective sub-pixels, and are shown spaced apart on the substrate 102 in Fig. 1B) (Fig. 1B, Fig. 1C and paragraphs 27 and 29);
an inorganic insulating layer (a PDL structure 126 formed of inorganic material) disposed on the substrate to partially cover the first pixel electrode and the second pixel electrode (the PDL structure 126 is shown covering the metal layers 104 in Fig. 1B) (Fig. 1B and paragraph 28);
a bank structure disposed on the inorganic insulating layer (an inorganic overhang structures 110 and layers deposited thereon, are disposed on an upper surface 103 of each of the PDL structures 126) (Fig. 1B and paragraph 30), wherein a first opening overlapping the first pixel electrode and a second opening overlapping the second pixel electrode are defined through the bank structure (Each of pixel opening 124A is surrounded by inorganic overhang structures 110 that define each of the sub-pixels 106) (Fig. 1C and paragraph 39);
a first light emitting layer (an OLED material 112 over the first sub-pixel 108a) disposed on the first pixel electrode and a second light emitting layer (an OLED material 112 over the second sub-pixel 108b) disposed on the second pixel electrode (Fig. 1B and paragraph 29); and
a first common electrode (a cathode 114 over the first sub-pixel 108a) disposed on the first light emitting layer (Fig. 1B and paragraph 32), and a second common electrode (a cathode 114 over the second sub-pixel 108b) disposed on the second light emitting layer (Fig. 1B and paragraph 32),
wherein the bank structure includes a first bank layer (a lower portion 110A) and a second bank layer (an upper portion 110B) disposed on the first bank layer (Fig. 1B and paragraphs 30, 33 and 35),
the second bank layer includes tips protruding more than side surfaces of the first bank layer defining the first opening and the second opening (the protrusion of the upper portion 110B is shown in Fig. 1B), and
However, Choung doesn’t explicitly teach the second bank layer includes an organic insulating material different from a material of the first bank layer, and a thickness of the organic insulating material of the second bank layer varies depending on positions thereof, and
the first bank layer includes an aluminum (Al)-nickel (Ni)-lanthanum (La)-copper (Cu) alloy (AlNiLaCu).
Seki teaches a display device (a display apparatus 1) (Fig. 1 and paragraph 79), wherein a second bank layer (an organic bank layer 112b) includes an organic insulating material different from a material of a first bank layer (the organic bank layer 112b is formed of an acrylic resin and an inorganic bank layer 112a is preferably composed of an inorganic material such as SiO2) (Fig. 3 and paragraphs 110-111), and a thickness of the organic insulating material of the second bank layer varies depending on positions thereof (as an upper opening 112d of organic bank layer 112b has an inclined shape, and as shown by the shape of the organic bank layer 112b, the thickness of organic bank layer 112b varies depending on the position) (Fig. 3 and paragraphs 108).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Choung with the teachings of Seki to have the second bank layer includes an organic insulating material different from a material of the first bank layer, and a thickness of the organic insulating material of the second bank layer varies depending on positions thereof since 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 these particular dimensions because applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension (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)). Furthermore, 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 use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Kim teaches a display device (a display device 1) (Fig. 1 and paragraph 77), wherein a first bank layer (a reflective coating layer 132) includes an aluminum (Al)-nickel (Ni)-lanthanum (La)-copper (Cu) alloy (AlNiLaCu) (the reflective coating layer 132 may include a material such as silver, copper, aluminum, nickel, lanthanum or an alloy thereof) (Fig. 6 and paragraph 140).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time to combine the teachings of Choung with the teachings of Kim to have the first bank layer includes an aluminum (Al)-nickel (Ni)-lanthanum (La)-copper (Cu) alloy (AlNiLaCu), since this alloy allows for a reflective surface to minimize light leakage as taught by Kim (paragraph 160).
In regard to claim 2, Choung teaches wherein the first common electrode and the second common electrode are in direct contact with the side surfaces of the first bank layer, respectively (the cathode 114 is shown contacting the side surfaces of the lower portion 110A in Fig. 1B) (Fig. 1B and paragraph 33).
In regard to claim 4, Choung teaches wherein the second bank layer includes a first bank part (the upper portion 110B labeled as FP) positioned around the first opening and a second bank (the upper portion 110B labeled as SP) part positioned around the second opening, and the first bank part has a thickness greater than a thickness of the second bank part (as shown in the annotated Fig. 1B below the upper portion 110B labeled as FP is thicker than the upper portion 110B labeled as SP due to the upper portions trapezoidal shape and the portion labeled as FP is mor inward than the portion labeled SP) (annotated Fig. 1B).
PNG
media_image1.png
378
863
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 5, Choung teaches wherein a tip of the second bank layer (the tip of the upper portion 110B that is labeled as FP) corresponding to the first opening has a thickness greater than a thickness of a tip of the second bank layer (the tip of the upper portion 110B that is labeled as SP) corresponding to the second opening (as shown in the annotated Fig. 1B above the upper portion 110B labeled as FP is thicker than the upper portion 110B labeled as SP due to the upper portions trapezoidal shape and the portion labeled as FP is more inward than the portion labeled SP) (annotated Fig. 1B).
In regard to claim 6, Choung teaches a third pixel electrode disposed to be spaced apart from the second pixel electrode on the substrate (as shown in Fig. 1C a third sub-pixel would be separated from the second pixel in a vertical direction) (Fig. 1C and paragraph 29);
a third light emitting layer disposed on the third pixel electrode (the OLED material 112 in a third sub-pixel) (Fig. 1C and paragraph 29); and
a third common electrode disposed on the third light emitting layer (a cathode 114 would be the third sub-pixel due to having a similar layout as the sub-pixels described above) (paragraph 29),
wherein a third opening overlapping the third pixel electrode is further defined in the bank structure (the inorganic overhang structures 110 further define each sub-pixel 106 of the sub-pixel circuit 100 and contains an opening 124a) (Fig. 1C and paragraphs 30 and 39), and
the second bank layer further includes a third bank part (the upper portion 110B labeled as TP) positioned around the third opening and having a thickness less than a thickness of the second bank part (the upper portion 110B labeled as TP contains less area of the portion of the tip of the upper portion 110B, and therefore would have a smaller thickness than the upper portion 110B labeled as SP due to the trapezoidal shape as shown in annotated Fig. 1B below).
PNG
media_image2.png
385
863
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 7, Choung teaches wherein a thickness difference between the first bank part and the second bank part is substantially the same as a thickness difference between the second bank part and the third bank part (as the bank parts are chosen based on the decreasing thickness of the trapezoidal shape of the upper portion and layers deposited thereon, the examiner takes official notice that the upper portion contains a thickness difference between the first bank part and the second bank part that is substantially the same as a thickness difference between the second bank part and the third bank part).
Furthermore, the instant application states the thickness differences between the first to fourth bank parts BP1, BP2, BP3, and BP4 may not be substantially the same as each other in paragraph 170. Therefore, 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 these particular dimensions because applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure 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).
In regard to claim 9, Choung teaches a first organic pattern disposed on the first bank part and including a same material as the first light emitting layer (the OLED material 112 is disposed on the sidewall 113 of the upper portion 110B) (Fig. 1B and paragraph 33);
a first electrode pattern disposed on the first organic pattern and including a same material as the first common electrode (the cathode 114 is disposed over the OLED material 112 of the PDL structures 126 in each sub-pixel 106) (Fig. 1B and paragraph 33);
a second organic pattern disposed on the second bank part and including a same material as the second light emitting layer (the OLED material 112 is disposed on the sidewall 113 of the upper portion 110B) (Fig. 1B and paragraph 33); and
a second electrode pattern disposed on the second organic pattern and including a same material as the second common electrode (the cathode 114 is disposed over the OLED material 112 of the PDL structures 126 in each sub-pixel 106) (Fig. 1B and paragraph 33).
In regard to claim 10, Choung teaches a first inorganic layer (the encapsulation layer 116 over the first sub-pixel 108a) disposed on the side surfaces of the first bank layer defining the first opening and disposed on the first common electrode and the first electrode pattern (the encapsulation layer 116 is shown on the side surface of the lower portion 110A and also disposed on the metal layer 104 and cathode 114)(Fig. 1B and paragraph 34); and
a second inorganic layer (the encapsulation layer 116 over the second sub-pixel 108b) disposed on the side surfaces of the first bank layer defining the second opening and disposed on the second common electrode and the second electrode pattern (the encapsulation layer 116 is shown on the side surface of the lower portion 110A and also disposed on the metal layer 104 and cathode 114)(Fig. 1B and paragraph 34),
wherein the first inorganic layer and the second inorganic layer are disposed to be spaced apart from each other (the encapsulation layers 116 over the first sub-pixel 108a and the second sub-pixel 108b are shown spaced apart in Fig. 1B), and
portions of the second bank layer do not overlap the first inorganic layer and the second inorganic layer (encapsulation layer 116 does not overlap the upper portion 110B in the opening 124A as shown in Fig. 1B).
In regard to claim 13, Choung teaches a thin film encapsulation layer (an encapsulation layer 116 including a first capping layer 121 and a second capping layer 123 function as the encapsulation layer) disposed on the bank structure (Fig. 1A, Fig. 1B and paragraph 35), wherein the thin film encapsulation layer includes a first encapsulation layer (the first capping layer 121), a second encapsulation layer (the second capping layer 122) disposed on the first encapsulation layer, and a third encapsulation layer disposed on the second encapsulation layer (the first capping layer 121, second capping layer 123 and the encapsulation layer 116 are shown to be deposited sequentially in Fig. 1A).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choung in view of Seki and Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Amano (JP2009211904A).
In regard to claim 11, Choung in view of Seki and Kim don’t explicitly teach wherein the inorganic insulating layer is not in contact with each of upper surfaces of the first pixel electrode and the second pixel electrode, a portion of the first light emitting layer is disposed between the first pixel electrode and the inorganic insulating layer, and a portion of the second light emitting layer is disposed between the second pixel electrode and the inorganic insulating layer.
Amano teaches a display device (an organic light emitting diode display) (Fig. 1 and paragraph 32), wherein an inorganic insulating layer (an inorganic bank layer 34) is not in contact with each of upper surfaces of a first pixel electrode (a pixel electrode 28 of a pixel 2R) and a second pixel electrode (the inorganic bank layer 34 is shown not to be in contact with the pixel electrode 28 due to the inorganic bank layer 32 and a hole injection transport layer 42 within the pixels 2RBG) (Fig. 5 and paragraphs 28, 30, 39),
a portion of a first light emitting layer is disposed between the first pixel electrode and the inorganic insulating layer, and
a portion of the second light emitting layer is disposed between the second pixel electrode and the inorganic insulating layer (a portion of the a hole injection transport layer 42 in the pixels 2RBG are shown to be in an opening 32a) (Fig. 5 and paragraphs 60-63).
It would’ve been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Amano with the teachings of Choung in view of Seki and Kim to have the inorganic insulating layer not in contact with each of upper surfaces of the first pixel electrode and the second pixel electrode, and a portion of the first light emitting layer is disposed between the first pixel electrode and the inorganic insulating layer, and a portion of the second light emitting layer is disposed between the second pixel electrode and the inorganic insulating layer since this aids in maintaining proper layer deposition during device manufacture as taught by Amano (paragraphs 60-65).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choung in view of Seki, Kim and Amano as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Choi et al. (US 2013/0288413 A1; hereinafter "Choi”).
In regard to claim 12, Choung in view of Seki, Kim and Amano don’t explicitly teach residual patterns disposed between the first pixel electrode and the inorganic insulating layer and between the second pixel electrode and the inorganic insulating layer.
Choi teaches a display device (an organic light-emitting display device) (Fig. 1 and paragraph 33), comprising:
residual patterns (protective layers 130) disposed between a first pixel electrode and a inorganic insulating layer and between the second pixel electrode and the inorganic insulating layer (as the pixels within the device have the protective layer 130, between the entire top surface of the pixel electrode 120 and a PDL 140 which is an inorganic insulation layer, the examiner takes official notice that the residual patterns are disposed between a first pixel electrode and second pixel electrode within the device) (Fig. 1 and paragraphs 52 and 57-58).
It would’ve been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Choi with the teachings of Choung in view of Seki, Kim and Amano to have residual patterns disposed between the first pixel electrode and the inorganic insulating layer and between the second pixel electrode and the inorganic insulating layer since this allows for the pixel electrode to be protected during device manufacture as taught by Choi (paragraph 56).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choung in view of Seki and Kim as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 20180095195 A1; hereinafter "Kim195”).
In regard to claim 14, Choung in view of Kim does not explicitly teach a light blocking layer disposed on the third encapsulation layer, wherein a plurality of opening holes overlapping the first and second openings is defined through the light blocking layer; a first color filter disposed on the light blocking layer and overlapping the first opening; and a second color filter disposed on the light blocking layer and overlapping the second opening.
Kim195 teaches teach a display device (a display device 100) (Fig.2 and paragraph 35), further comprising:
a light blocking layer (a black matrix 300) disposed on a third encapsulation layer (the black matrix 300 is shown over a second inorganic film 283 of an encapsulation film 280) (Fig. 5 and paragraphs 45 and 70), wherein a plurality of opening holes overlapping the first and second openings is defined through the light blocking layer (a plurality of holes corresponding to the second and fourth emission areas E2 and E4 are shown in Fig. 5) (Fig. 5 and paragraphs 45-46);
a first color filter (a color filter 292) disposed on the light blocking layer and overlapping the first opening (the color filter 292 is shown over the opening corresponding to the second emission area E2) (Fig. 5 and paragraph 47); and
a second color filter (a color filter 294) disposed on the light blocking layer and overlapping the second opening (the color filter 294 is shown over the opening corresponding to the fourth emission area E4) (Fig. 5 and paragraph 47).
It would’ve been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Choung in view of Kim with the teachings of Kim195 to have a light blocking layer disposed on the third encapsulation layer, wherein a plurality of opening holes overlapping the first and second openings is defined through the light blocking layer; a first color filter disposed on the light blocking layer and overlapping the first opening; and a second color filter disposed on the light blocking layer and overlapping the second opening since this layout prevents wanted color mixing as taught by Kim159 (paragraphs 11 and 51).
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 8 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.
In regard to claim 3, Choung is considered a close prior art of record. However, Choung fails to teach the first bank layer includes metal oxide films formed at side surfaces thereof defining the first opening and the second opening, and the metal oxide films include metal crystals formed at surfaces thereof and including an aluminum (Al)-nickel (Ni)-copper (Cu) alloy. Choung is silent to the regard of an oxide layer formed of aluminum (Al)-nickel (Ni)-copper (Cu).
In regard to claim 8, Choung is considered a close prior art of record. However, Choung fails to teach wherein the second bank layer further includes fourth bank parts disposed between the first bank part, the second bank part, and the third bank part and having a thickness less than the thickness of the third bank part. Choung fails to teach an inner portion of the element mapped as the second bank layer has a smaller thickness in a central portion of the element.
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