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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 24 June 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 21 May 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-6, 8, 9, 12-16, 19-22 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
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 16, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao et al. (US 2021/0226175 A1) in view of Sakamoto et al. (US 2017/0279084 A1).
With respect to claim 16: Cao teaches “a display device (00) comprising: a plurality of pixel electrodes disposed on a substrate (0311); an emission layer disposed on each of the plurality of pixel electrodes (0312); a counter electrode disposed on the emission layer to correspond to the plurality of pixel electrodes (0313); an insulating layer (04) disposed on the counter electrode (see Figs. 2-31) and including a trench (041) corresponding to an area between the plurality of pixel electrodes (see Figs. 7-12); and a first color filter layer (61) disposed on the insulating layer (see Figs. 2-31) and transmitting light of a first wavelength band (paragraphs 85-86), and a second color filter layer (61) disposed on the insulating layer to be adjacent to the first color filter layer (see Figs. 2-31) and transmitting light of a second wavelength band that is different from the first wavelength band (paragraphs 85-86), adjacent edges of the first color filter layer and the second color filter layer being disposed in the same trench (see Figs. 15-16; paragraph 78)”.
Cao does not teach “a light blocking material layer disposed on an upper surface of the first color filter layer and the second color filter layer at interface where the edge of the first color filter layer meets the edge of the second color filter layer”.
However, Sakamoto teaches “a light blocking material layer (BM) disposed on an upper surface (Fig. 12) of the first color filter layer (CF-R) and the second color filter layer (CF-G) at interface where the edge of the first color filter layer meets the edge of the second color filter layer (see Fig. 12)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Cao by placing the light blocking material layer at the location taught by Sakamoto in order to prevent cross-talk of light emitting layers below the respective color filters (Sakamoto paragraph 58).
With respect to claim 19: Cao in view of Sakamoto teaches “the display device of claim 16 (see above)”.
Cao further teaches “comprising a third color filter layer disposed on the insulating layer to be adjacent to the first color filter layer (unlabeled; see Fig. 15), transmitting light of a third wavelength band that is different from the first wavelength band and the second wavelength band (paragraphs 85-86), and including an edge disposed in the trench (see Figs. 15-16)”.
With respect to claim 20: Cao in view of Sakamoto teaches “the display device of claim 19 (see above)”.
Cao further teaches “wherein the light blocking material layer is disposed on an interface where the edge of the first color filter layer meets an edge of the third color filter layer (see Fig. 15)”.
Claims 1-6, 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao in view of Guo et al. (US 2020/0350512 A1) and Kim et al. (US 2015/0049282 A1).
With respect to claim 1: Cao teaches “a display device (00) comprising: a plurality of pixel electrodes (0311) disposed on a substrate (01); an emission layer disposed (0312) on each of the plurality of pixel electrodes (see Fig. 2); a counter electrode (0313) disposed on the emission layer to correspond to the plurality of pixel electrodes (see Fig. 2); an insulating layer (04+82) disposed on the counter electrode and including a trench (041) corresponding to an area between the plurality of pixel electrodes (see Figs. 3, 7-31), the trench having a depth less than a thickness of the insulating layer in which the trench is formed (see Fig. 3); a light blocking material layer (5) disposed in the trench (see Figs. 3, 7-31); and a color filter layer (06) disposed on the insulating layer (see Figs. 2-31) and selectively transmitting light of a specific wavelength band (paragraphs 85-86); a thin film encapsulation layer (02) disposed between the counter electrode and the insulating layer (see Fig. 2); a first metal electrode (081) disposed on the second encapsulation layer (02) and covered by the insulating layer (see Fig. 3); and a second metal electrode (083) disposed on a lower surface of the trench to be disposed in the trench (see Fig. 3), and connected to the first metal electrode via a through-hole formed in the insulating layer (see Fig. 3) and extending from a bottom of the trench”.
Cao does not specifically teach “including a first inorganic encapsulation layer; a second inorganic encapsulation layer disposed on the first inorganic encapsulation layer; and an organic encapsulation layer disposed between the first inorganic encapsulation layer and the second inorganic encapsulation layer, wherein the second inorganic encapsulation layer and the insulating layer include a same material”.
However, Guo teaches a thin film encapsulation layer including a first inorganic encapsulation layer (402); a second inorganic encapsulation layer (406) disposed on the first inorganic encapsulation layer (see Fig. 2); and an organic encapsulation layer (404) disposed between the first inorganic encapsulation layer and the second inorganic encapsulation layer (see Fig. 2)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Cao with the thin film encapsulation structure and material selection of Guo in order to prevent the entrance of water and air (Guo paragraph 56) and due to the art recognized suitability of the selected materials for that purpose (Guo paragraph 58).
Cao does not specifically teach that the through hole is formed in the insulating layer in which the trench is formed.
However, Kim teaches teach that the through hole (185) is formed in the insulating layer (180b) in which the trench is formed (see Fig. 11).
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Cao by forming the through hole in the same layer in which the trench is formed as taught by Kim due to the art recognized suitability of this configuration to cover defects in the electrodes and through hole (Kim paragraph 68).
With respect to claim 2: Cao in view of Guo and Kim teaches “the display device of claim 1 (see above)”.
Cao further teaches “wherein a thickness of the light blocking material layer and the depth of the trench are same (see Figs. 9-12)”.
With respect to claim 3: Cao in view of Guo and Kim teaches “the display device of claim 1 (see above)”.
Cao further teaches “wherein an upper surface outside the trench and an upper surface of the light blocking material layer form a continuous surface (see Figs. 11, 12, 29)”.
With respect to claim 4: Cao in view of Guo and Kim teaches “the display device of claim 1 (see above)”.
Cao does not specifically teach “wherein the second inorganic encapsulation layer and the insulating layer include a same material”.
However, Guo teaches “wherein the second inorganic encapsulation layer (406) and the insulating layer (504) include a same material (paragraphs 58 and 77)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Cao with the thin film encapsulation structure and material selection of Guo in order to prevent the entrance of water and air (Guo paragraph 56) and due to the art recognized suitability of the selected materials for that purpose (Guo paragraph 58).
With respect to claim 5: Cao in view of Guo and Kim teaches “the display device of claim 4 (see above)”.
Cao doe not specifically teach “wherein a thickness of the insulating layer is greater than a thickness of the second inorganic encapsulation layer”.
However, Guo teaches “wherein a thickness of the insulating layer is greater than a thickness of the second inorganic encapsulation layer (paragraph 159)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Cao with the relatively thicker insulating layer of Guo to ensure that the insulating layer is sufficient to cover up metal electrodes (Guo element 502, Cao element 81) within the layer (Guo paragraph 159). With respect to claim 6: Cao in view of Guo and Kim teaches “the display device of claim 4 (see above)”.
Cao in view of Guo teaches “wherein a depth of the trench (1-2 microns; see Cao paragraph 79) is greater than a thickness of the second inorganic encapsulation layer (0.03-0.5 microns see Guo paragraph 61)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Cao with the relatively thin inorganic encapsulation layer of Guo in order to improve bending performance (Guo paragraph 61).
With respect to claim 8: Cao in view of Guo and Kim teaches “the display device of claim 4 (see above)”.
Cao further teaches “wherein the light blocking material layer covers the second metal electrode (see Fig. 3)”.
With respect to claim 9: Cao in view of Guo and Kim teaches “the display device of claim 1 (see above)”.
Cao further teaches “wherein a depth of the trench (H2 or H4) is about 1.4 μm or more and about 1.5 μm or less (paragraph 79)”.
Claims 12-15, 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao in view of Guo and Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Joo et al. (US 2021/0328172 A1).
With respect to claim 12: Cao in view of Guo and Kim teaches “the display device of claim 1 (see above), further comprising: a pixel defining layer (032) disposed on the substrate (see Fig. 3) and including a plurality of pixel openings (0321) that expose a central portion of each of the plurality of pixel electrodes disposed on the substrate (see Fig. 3)”.
Cao does not specifically teach “a spacer disposed on the pixel defining layer”.
However, Joo teaches “a spacer (CS) disposed on the pixel defining layer (119)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Cao with the spacer of Joo in order to maintain a constant distance between the pixel substrate and the color filter substrate (Joo paragraph 123).
With respect to claim 13: Cao in view of Guo, Kim, and Joo teaches “The display device of claim 12 (see above)”.
Cao does not specifically teach “wherein, when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the substrate, the spacer is aligned with the trench”.
However, Joo teaches “wherein, when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the substrate (100), the spacer is aligned with the trench (trench in layer 610 that CS and BM are located in; see Fig. 5)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Cao with the spacer of Joo in order to maintain a constant distance between the pixel substrate and the color filter substrate (Joo paragraph 123) and to put it in the trench so that it does not get in the way of light emission (Joo paragraph 120).
With respect to claim 14: Cao in view of Guo, Kim, and Joo teaches “The display device of claim 12 (see above)”.
Cao further teaches “wherein, when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the substrate, the trench overlaps the pixel defining layer (see Fig. 2)”.
With respect to claim 15: Cao in view of Guo, Kim, and Joo teaches “The display device of claim 12 (see above)”.
Cao further teaches “wherein, when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the substrate (see Fig. 4), a width of the trench (d1) is less than a distance between the pixel openings (d2)”.
With respect to claim 21: Cao in view of Guo, Kim, and Joo teaches “The display device of claim 12 (see above)”.
Cao further teaches “wherein the color filter layer includes a first color filter layer that transmits light of a first wavelength band, and when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the substrate, an area of a first pixel opening from among the plurality of pixel openings is less than an area of the first color filter layer (see Figs. 3-31)”.
With respect to claim 22: Cao in view of Guo, Kim, and Joo teaches “The display device of claim 21 (see above)”.
Cao further teaches “wherein the light blocking material layer is disposed adjacent to an edge of the first color filter layer (see Figs. 3, 15)”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jo et al. (US 20180182819 A1), which teaches a display device.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL J. LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-5721. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 EST M-F.
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, ABDULMAJEED AZIZ can be reached at (571)270-5046. 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.
/NATHANIEL J LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2875
/EVAN P DZIERZYNSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights