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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/22/2026 has been entered.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2, & 7-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oota (US 6018167) in view of SHI et al. (US 20150108514).
Regarding claim 1. (Currently Amended) A display device comprising:
a substrate 45 (Fig. 10);
a first electrode and a second electrode 46/47 above the substrate 45, extending in one direction, and spaced apart from each other in another direction (Fig. 10);
a light-emitting element 41 above the first electrode and the second electrode 46/47;
a first connection electrode 53 contacting one end portion of the light-emitting element 41 (Fig. 10);
a second connection electrode 54 contacting another end portion of the light-emitting element 41 (Fig. 10); and
a first insulating layer 52 comprising a material between the light- emitting element 41 and the first and second electrodes 46/47 to entirely separate the light-emitting element 41 from the first and second electrodes 46/47, and overlapping an entirety of the light- emitting element thereabove in a thickness direction (Fig. 10).
Oota fails to specify that a first insulating layer comprising a light-blocking material.
However, Shi suggests that a first insulating layer comprising a light-blocking material (para, 0053 & 0058, a DBR layer is the reflection layer).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of applicant(s) claimed invention was made to provide Oota with a first insulating layer comprising a light-blocking material as taught by Shi in order to improve the luminous efficiency (para. 0053) and also, the claim would have been obvious because a particular know technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
Reclaim 2, Oota & Shi disclose that the first insulating layer contacts top surfaces of the first electrode and the second electrode, and contacts a bottom surface of the light-emitting element (Oota, Fig. 10 in view of Shi’s Fig. 1).
Reclaim 7, Oota & Shi disclose that a first bank pattern above the substrate and the first electrode, and a second bank pattern above the substrate and the second electrode, wherein the first insulating layer overlaps the first bank pattern and the second bank pattern (Fig. 22C, Oota).
Reclaim 8, Oota & Shi disclose that a second insulating layer 21 between the light-emitting element and the first insulating layer, wherein the second insulating layer does not comprise the light-blocking material (Fig. 22C, Oota).
Reclaim 9, Oota & Shi disclose that the second insulating layer 21/22 is in contact with a bottom surface of the light-emitting element and a top surface of the first insulating layer (Fig. 22C. Oota).
Reclaim 10, Oota & Shi disclose that the second insulating layer 22 entirely overlaps the first insulating layer 52 (Fig. 10 & 22C. Oota).
Reclaim 11, Oota & Shi disclose that a light-transmissive layer 22 above the first connection electrode and the second connection electrode, and configured to transmit light emitted from the light-emitting element; an overcoat layer above the light-transmissive layer; and a polarizing plate above the overcoat layer (Fig. 10 & 22C, Oota).
Reclaim 12, Oota & Shi disclose that the light-emitting element comprises a first semiconductor layer comprising a p-type dopant, a second semiconductor layer above the first semiconductor layer and comprising an n-type dopant, and an emissive layer between the first insulating layer and the second insulating layer (Oota’s Fig. 10 in view of Shi’s Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oota (US 6018167) in view of SHI et al. (US 20150108514) and further in view of Kusunoki et al. (US 20210118855).
Reclaim 3, Oota & Shi fail to specify that the light-blocking material comprises a black pigment comprising carbon black.
However, Kusunoki suggests that the light-blocking material comprises a black pigment comprising carbon black (para. 0060, 0175-0176).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of applicant(s) claimed invention was made to provide Oota & Shi with the light-blocking material comprises a black pigment comprising carbon black as taught by Kusunoki in order to enhance light directivity (para. 0108) and also, the claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one know element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Reclaim 4, Oota, Shi, & Kusunoki disclose that the first insulating layer comprises an organic material with the light-blocking material scattered therein (Kusunoki, para. 0060. 0175-0176).
Reclaim 5, Oota , Shi, & Kusunoki disclose that a bank layer 1above the first insulating layer, and separating an emission area from a subsidiary area (Oota, Fig. 22c).
Reclaim 6, Oota , Shi, & Kusunoki disclose that the first insulating layer overlaps an entirety of the first electrode and the second electrode in the emission area (Oota, Fig. 1 & 22C).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-17 & 19-20 are allowed over the prior art.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
After further search and consideration, it is determined that the prior art neither anticipated nor renders obvious the claimed subject matter of the instant application as a whole either taken alone or in combination.
The prior art does not teach or render not obvious “- - a light-blocking layer above the first insulating layer, the first connection electrode, and the second connection electrode, and defining a first opening exposing one or more of the light-emitting elements in an emission area, wherein the first connection electrode physically contacts a portion of the first insulating layer between the one end portions of the light-emitting elements and the light- blocking layer in the another direction.” with combination of other claim limitations in claim 13.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SU C KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-5972. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 to 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, Dale Page can be reached at 571-270-7877. 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.
/SU C KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights