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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 20 March 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Office acknowledges receipt on 20 March 2026 of Applicants’ amendment in which claim 1 is amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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.
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) 1 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon et al. (US20220238608A1) in view of Lee et al. (US20190157361A1).
Regarding claim 1, Moon teaches in Figs. 7 and 8a display apparatus comprising:
a first pixel electrode (210R), a second pixel electrode (210B), and a third pixel electrode (210G) spaced apart from each other on a substrate (100) {¶0064, 0080};
a pixel-defining layer (215) including a first opening (OP-EA[R]), a second opening (OP-EA[B]), and a third opening (OP-EA[G]), wherein the first opening (OP-EA[R]) exposes a central portion of the first pixel electrode (210R), the second opening (OP-EA[B]) exposes a central portion of the second pixel electrode (210B), and the third opening (OP-EA[G]) exposes a central portion of the third pixel electrode (210G) {¶0081};
a first lower emission layer (222ra) disposed on the first pixel electrode (210R) and configured to emit red light {¶0132};
a first upper emission layer (222rb) disposed on the first lower emission layer (222ra) and configured to emit red light {¶0132};
a second lower emission layer (222ba) disposed on the second pixel electrode (210B) and configured to emit blue light {¶0132};
a second upper emission layer (222bb) disposed on the second lower emission layer (222ba) and configured to emit blue light {¶0132};
a third lower emission layer (222ga) disposed on the third pixel electrode (210G) and configured to emit green light {¶0132};
a third upper emission layer (222gb) disposed on the third lower emission layer (222ga) and configured to emit green light {¶0132};
a first common layer (221) disposed between the first pixel electrode (210R) and the first lower emission layer (222ra), between the second pixel electrode (210B) and the second lower emission layer (222ba), and between the third pixel electrode (210G) and the third lower emission layer (222ga), and further disposed on the first pixel electrode (210R), the second pixel electrode (210B), and the third pixel electrode (210G) {¶0080}; and
an opposite electrode (230) disposed on the first upper emission layer (222rb), the second upper emission layer (222bb), and the third upper emission layer (222gb) {¶0080}.
Moon does not teach wherein
an area of the second opening from which blue light is emitted is less than an area of the third opening from which green light is emitted; and
a first distance between the first opening and the second opening is greater than a second distance between the first opening and the third opening.
In an analogous art, Lee teaches in Figs. 1 and 2 and paragraph [0122] an area of a second opening (OB) from which blue light is emitted is less than an area of a third opening (OG) from which green light is emitted; and a first distance between a first opening (OR) and the second opening (OB) is greater than a second distance between the first opening (OR) and the third opening (OG). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Moon’s display apparatus based on the teachings of Lee, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, so: (1) a rate of variation in the luminance lifetime per unit area of the plurality of sub pixels may be within 1% and/or (2) a color change of the organic light emitting display device due to differences in luminance lifetimes of the sub pixels may be minimized. Lee ¶0119. Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., area, red, green, and blue light openings, distance) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Lee) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Regarding claim 20, Moon teaches the display apparatus of claim 1, further comprising:
a charge generation layer (224) disposed between the first lower emission layer (222ra) and the first upper emission layer (222rb), between the second lower emission layer (222ba) and the second upper emission layer (222bb), and between the third lower emission layer (222ga) and the third upper emission layer (222gb) {¶0134};
a second common layer (ETL) disposed between the first lower emission layer (222ra) and the charge generation layer (224), between the second lower emission layer (222ba) and the charge generation layer (224), and between the third lower emission layer (222ga) and the charge generation layer (224) {¶0106};
a third common layer (HTL) disposed between the charge generation layer (224) and the first upper emission layer (222rb), between the charge generation layer (224) and the second upper emission layer (222bb), and between the charge generation layer (224) and the third upper emission layer (222gb) {¶0105, 0134}; and
a fourth common layer (223) disposed between the first upper emission layer (222rb) and the opposite electrode (230), between the second upper emission layer (222bb) and the opposite electrode (230), and between the third upper emission layer (222gb) and the opposite electrode (230) {¶0080}.
Claim(s) 2-8 and 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon in view of Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park et al. (US20180190731A1).
Regarding claim 2, Moon as modified by Lee teaches the display apparatus of claim 1, but Moon does not teach further comprising:
at least one separator disposed on the pixel-defining layer, the at least one separator disposed between:
the first opening and the second opening, or
the second opening and the third opening in a direction perpendicular to the substrate {unselected alternative}.
In an analogous art, Park teaches in Fig. 3 and paragraphs [0062] and [0072] at least one separator (151) disposed on a pixel-defining layer (150), the at least one separator (151) disposed between a first opening and a second opening (openings in PDL on opposite sides of 151). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Moon’s display apparatus as modified by Lee based on the teachings of Park – to include at least one separator disposed on the pixel-defining layer, the at least one separator disposed between the first opening and the second opening – to prevent[] lateral current leakage. Park ¶0075.
Regarding claim 3, Moon as modified by Lee and Park teaches the display apparatus of claim 2, but Moon does not teach wherein
the at least one separator includes a plurality of separators, and
the plurality of separators are spaced apart from each other in the direction perpendicular to the substrate.
Park teaches in Fig. 2 that the at least one separator (151) includes a plurality of separators (151), and the plurality of separators (151) are spaced apart from each other in the direction perpendicular to a substrate (100) {i.e., spaced apart in the same manner as in the instant application; e.g., see the instant Fig. 7}. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Moon’s display apparatus as modified by Lee and Park based on the further teachings of Park – such that the at least one separator includes a plurality of separators, and the plurality of separators are spaced apart from each other in the direction perpendicular to the substrate – to prevent[] lateral current leakage. Park ¶0075.
Regarding claim 4, Moon as modified by Lee and Park teaches the display apparatus of claim 2, but Moon does not teach wherein the at least one separator includes a reverse-tapered slope surface.
Park teaches in Fig. 3 and paragraph [0062] at least one separator (151) includes a reverse-tapered slope surface. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Moon’s display apparatus as modified by Lee and Park based on the further teachings of Park – such that the at least one separator includes a reverse-tapered slope surface – so the organic stack … is cut off at the lateral portion of the negatively tapered structure {¶0069} and prevents lateral current leakage. Park ¶0075.
Regarding claim 5, Moon as modified by Lee and Park teaches the display apparatus of claim 2, but Moon does not teach wherein the at least one separator extends along a side of the second opening.
Park teaches in Fig. 2 and paragraph [0066] at least one separator (151) extends along a side of a second opening (e.g., opening for B-EML). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Moon’s display apparatus as modified by Lee and Park based on the further teachings of Park – such that the at least one separator extends along a side of the second opening – so the organic stack … is cut off at the lateral portion of the negatively tapered structure {¶0069} and prevents lateral current leakage. Park ¶0075.
Regarding claim 6, Moon as modified by Lee and Park teaches the display apparatus of claim 2, but Moon does not teach wherein a portion of at least one separator is disposed between a second opening and a third opening in the direction perpendicular to the substrate.
Park teaches in Fig. 2 and paragraph [0066] a portion of at least one separator (151) is disposed between a second opening (e.g., opening for B-EML) and a third opening (e.g., opening for G-EML) in a direction perpendicular to a substrate (100). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Moon’s display apparatus as modified by Lee and Park based on the further teachings of Park – such that a portion of at least one separator is disposed between a second opening and a third opening in the direction perpendicular to the substrate – so the organic stack … is cut off at the lateral portion of the negatively tapered structure {¶0069} and prevents lateral current leakage. Park ¶0075.
Regarding claim 7, Moon as modified by Lee and Park teaches the display apparatus of claim 2, but Moon does not teach further comprising:
a (1-1)st remaining common layer disposed on the at least one separator; and
a first remaining opposite electrode disposed on the (1-1)st remaining common layer.
Park teaches in Fig. 3 and paragraphs [0069] and [0072] a (1-1)st remaining common layer (e.g., HTL and/or/HIL of 115) disposed on at least one separator (151); and a first remaining opposite electrode (120) disposed on the (1-1)st remaining common layer (e.g., HTL and/or/HIL of 115). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Moon’s display apparatus as modified by Lee and Park based on the further teachings of Park – such that a (1-1)st remaining common layer is disposed on the at least one separator; and a first remaining opposite electrode is disposed on the (1-1)st remaining common layer – so the organic stack … is cut off at the lateral portion of the negatively tapered structure {¶0069} and prevents lateral current leakage. Park ¶0075.
Regarding claim 8, Moon as modified by Lee and Park teaches the display apparatus of claim 7, but Moon does not teach wherein
the (1-1)st remaining common layer and the first common layer include a same material, and
the first remaining opposite electrode and the opposite electrode include a same material.
Park teaches in Fig. 3 and paragraphs [0069] and [0072] a (1-1)st remaining common layer (e.g., HTL and/or/HIL of 115 on 151) and a first common layer (e.g., HTL and/or/HIL of 115 not on 151) include a same material, and a first remaining opposite electrode (120 on 151) and an opposite electrode (120 not on 120) include a same material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Moon’s display apparatus as modified by Lee and Park based on the further teachings of Park – such that the (1-1)st remaining common layer and the first common layer include a same material, and the first remaining opposite electrode and the opposite electrode include a same material – so the organic stack … is cut off at the lateral portion of the negatively tapered structure {¶0069} and prevents lateral current leakage. Park ¶0075.
Regarding claim 14, Moon as modified by Lee teaches the display apparatus of claim 1, but Moon does not teach further comprising:
a spacer structure disposed on the pixel-defining layer, the spacer structure disposed between:
the first opening and the second opening, or
the second opening and the third opening in a direction perpendicular to the substrate {unselected alternative};
wherein the spacer structure includes a plurality of sub-spacers.
Park teaches in Fig. 3 and paragraphs [0062] and [0072] a spacer structure (451) disposed on a pixel-defining layer (150), the spacer structure (451) disposed between: a first opening and a second opening (openings in PDL on opposite sides of 451). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Moon’s display apparatus as modified by Lee based on the teachings of Park – to include a spacer structure disposed on the pixel-defining layer, the spacer structure disposed between: the first opening and the second opening – to prevent[] lateral current leakage. Park ¶0075.
Park further teaches in Fig. 7 and paragraph [0096] a spacer structure (451) includes a plurality of sub-spacers (451a, 451b). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Moon’s display apparatus as modified by Lee and Park based on the further teachings of Park – such that the spacer structure includes a plurality of sub-spacers – to prevent lateral current leakage. Park ¶0097.
Regarding claim 15, Moon as modified by Lee and Park teaches the display apparatus of claim 14, but Moon does not teach wherein the plurality of sub-spacers are spaced apart from each other in the direction perpendicular to the substrate.
Park further teaches in Fig. 7 and paragraph [0096] a plurality of sub-spacers (451a, 451b) are spaced apart from each other in a direction perpendicular to a substrate (100). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Moon’s display apparatus as modified by Lee and Park based on the further teachings of Park – such that the plurality of sub-spacers are spaced apart from each other in the direction perpendicular to the substrate – to prevent lateral current leakage. Park ¶0097.
Regarding claim 16, Moon as modified by Lee and Park teaches the display apparatus of claim 14, but Moon does not teach wherein the plurality of sub-spacers include reverse-tapered slope surfaces.
Park further teaches in Fig. 7 and paragraph [0097] a plurality of sub-spacers (451a, 451b) include reverse-tapered slope surfaces. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Moon’s display apparatus as modified by Lee and Park based on the further teachings of Park – such that the plurality of sub-spacers include reverse-tapered slope surfaces – to prevent lateral current leakage. Park ¶0097.
Regarding claim 17, Moon as modified by Lee and Park teaches the display apparatus of claim 16, but Moon does not teach further comprising:
a (1-2)nd remaining common layer disposed on the spacer structure; and
a second remaining opposite electrode disposed on the (1-2)nd remaining common layer.
Park teaches in Fig. 3 and paragraphs [0069] and [0072] a (1-2)nd remaining common layer (e.g., ETL of 115) disposed on a spacer structure (151); and a second remaining opposite electrode (120) disposed on the (1-2)nd remaining common layer (e.g., ETL of 115). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Moon’s display apparatus as modified by Lee and Park based on the further teachings of Park – such that a (1-2)nd remaining common layer is disposed on the spacer structure; and a second remaining opposite electrode is disposed on the (1-2)nd remaining common layer – so the organic stack … is cut off at the lateral portion of the negatively tapered structure {¶0069} and prevents lateral current leakage. Park ¶0075.
Regarding claim 18, Moon as modified by Lee and Park teaches the display apparatus of claim 17, but Moon does not teach wherein
the (1-2)nd remaining common layer and the first common layer include a same material, and
the second remaining opposite electrode and the opposite electrode include a same material.
Park teaches in Fig. 3 and paragraphs [0069] and [0072] a (1-2)nd remaining common layer (e.g., ETL of 115 on 151) and a first common layer (e.g., ETL of 115 not on 151) include a same material, and a second remaining opposite electrode (120 on 151) and an opposite electrode (120 not on 120) include a same material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Moon’s display apparatus as modified by Lee and Park based on the further teachings of Park – such that the (1-2)nd remaining common layer and the first common layer include a same material, and the second remaining opposite electrode and the opposite electrode include a same material – so the organic stack … is cut off at the lateral portion of the negatively tapered structure {¶0069} and prevents lateral current leakage. Park ¶0075.
Claim(s) 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon in view of Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Heo (US20190103450A1).
Regarding claim 9, Moon as modified by Lee teaches the display apparatus of claim 1, but Moon does not teach further comprising:
at least one pixel-defining layer groove disposed in an upper surface of the pixel-defining layer, the at least one pixel-defining layer groove disposed between the first opening and the second opening, or between the second opening and the third opening in a direction perpendicular to the substrate.
In an analogous art, Heo teaches in Figs. 6 and 8 and paragraphs [0067] and [0077] at least one pixel-defining layer groove (BG) disposed in an upper surface of a pixel-defining layer (BN), the at least one pixel-defining layer groove (BG) disposed between a first opening (e.g., opening of top leftmost PXL) and a second opening (e.g., opening of PXL laterally adjacent top leftmost PXL), or between the second opening (e.g., opening of PXL laterally adjacent top leftmost PXL) and a third opening (e.g., opening of PXL below PXL that is laterally adjacent top leftmost PXL) in a direction perpendicular to a substrate (SUB). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Moon’s display apparatus as modified by Lee based on the teachings of Heo – such that at least one pixel-defining layer groove is disposed in an upper surface of the pixel-defining layer, the at least one pixel-defining layer groove disposed between the first opening and the second opening, or between the second opening and the third opening in a direction perpendicular to the substrate – to effectively block the leakage current, so that it is possible to prevent a problem that color gamut is remarkably lowered as light is emitted from a pixel for which light emission is not required. Heo ¶0068.
Regarding claim 10, Moon as modified by Lee and Heo teaches the display apparatus of claim 9, but Moon does not teach wherein
the at least one pixel-defining layer groove includes a plurality of pixel-defining layer grooves, and
the plurality of pixel-defining layer grooves are spaced apart from each other in the direction perpendicular to the substrate.
Heo teaches in Figs. 6 and 8 and paragraphs [0067] and [0077] at least one pixel-defining layer groove (BG) includes a plurality of pixel-defining layer grooves (BG), and the plurality of pixel-defining layer grooves (BG) are spaced apart from each other in a direction perpendicular to a substrate (SUB). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Moon’s display apparatus as modified by Lee and Heo based on the further teachings of Heo – such that the at least one pixel-defining layer groove includes a plurality of pixel-defining layer grooves, and the plurality of pixel-defining layer grooves are spaced apart from each other in the direction perpendicular to the substrate – to effectively block the leakage current, so that it is possible to prevent a problem that color gamut is remarkably lowered as light is emitted from a pixel for which light emission is not required. Heo ¶0068.
Regarding claim 11, Moon as modified by Lee and Heo teaches the display apparatus of claim 9, but Moon does not teach wherein the at least one pixel-defining layer groove includes a forward-tapered slope surface.
Heo teaches in Fig. 6 at least one pixel-defining layer groove (BG) includes a forward-tapered slope surface. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Moon’s display apparatus as modified by Lee and Heo based on the further teachings of Heo – such that the at least one pixel-defining layer groove includes a forward-tapered slope surface – to effectively block the leakage current, so that it is possible to prevent a problem that color gamut is remarkably lowered as light is emitted from a pixel for which light emission is not required. Heo ¶0068.
Regarding claim 12, Moon as modified by Lee and Heo teaches the display apparatus of claim 9, but Moon does not teach wherein the at least one pixel-defining layer groove extends along a side of the second opening.
Heo teaches in Fig. 8 and paragraph [0079] at least one pixel-defining layer groove (BG) extends along a side of a second opening (e.g., opening of PXL laterally adjacent top leftmost PXL). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Moon’s display apparatus as modified by Lee and Heo based on the further teachings of Heo – such that the at least one pixel-defining layer groove extends along a side of the second opening – to effectively block the leakage current, so that it is possible to prevent a problem that color gamut is remarkably lowered as light is emitted from a pixel for which light emission is not required. Heo ¶0068.
Regarding claim 13, Moon as modified by Lee and Heo teaches the display apparatus of claim 12, but Moon does not teach wherein a portion of the at least one pixel-defining layer groove is disposed between the second opening and the third opening in the direction perpendicular to the substrate.
Heo teaches in Fig. 8 and paragraph [0079] a portion of at least one pixel-defining layer groove (BG) is disposed between the second opening (e.g., opening of PXL laterally adjacent top leftmost PXL) and a third opening (e.g., opening of PXL below PXL that is laterally adjacent top leftmost PXL) in a direction perpendicular to a substrate (SUB). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Moon’s display apparatus as modified by Lee and Heo based on the further teachings of Heo – such that a portion of the at least one pixel-defining layer groove is disposed between the second opening and the third opening in the direction perpendicular to the substrate – to effectively block the leakage current, so that it is possible to prevent a problem that color gamut is remarkably lowered as light is emitted from a pixel for which light emission is not required. Heo ¶0068.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon in view of Lee and Park as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US20170125495A1) (Lee ‘495).
Regarding claim 19, Moon as modified by Lee and Park teaches the display apparatus of claim 14, but Moon does not teach wherein the plurality of sub-spacers include forward-tapered slope surfaces.
In an analogous art, Lee ‘495 teaches in Fig. 7 and paragraph [] a spacer (450) includes forward-tapered slope surfaces {organic layer 550 disposed on 450 has forward-tapered slope surfaces}. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Moon’s display apparatus as modified by Lee and Park based on the teachings of Lee ‘495 – such that Park’s plurality of sub-spacers include forward-tapered slope surfaces – because all the claimed elements (e.g., spacer, forward-tapered slope surfaces) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Lee ‘495), with no change in their respective functions (e.g., of operating as a spacer), to yield nothing more than predictable results. MPEP ¶2143(I)(A).
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shin (US20240040850A1) teaches a display apparatus includes a substrate including emitting portions and a non-emitting portion between the emitting portions, a first subpixel and a second subpixel disposed at the light emitting portions, first electrodes respectively disposed at the first subpixel and the second subpixel and disposed on the substrate, a bank disposed on the first electrodes and disposed at the non-emitting portion and including at least one protrusion protruded on an upper surface of the bank, a light emitting element layer disposed on the first electrodes of the emitting portions and the non-emitting portion and the bank, and including a plurality of light emitting units and a charge generation layer between the plurality of light emitting units, and a second electrode disposed on the light emitting element layer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID WARD whose telephone number is (703)756-1382. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30-3:30 EST.
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, Matthew Landau can be reached at (571)-272-1731. 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.
/D.W.W./Examiner, Art Unit 2891
/MATTHEW C LANDAU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Prosecution Insights