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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 24 December 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 24 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Cao does not disclose at least "the trench having a depth less than a thickness of the insulating layer" and "a second metal electrode ... connected to the first metal electrode via a through-hole formed in the insulating layer" as now recited in claim 1. The examiner disagrees. Claim terms are interpreted in light of the specification, and in the specification applicant states “the insulating layer 401 may have a multilayer structure including a first inorganic insulating layer 401a and a second inorganic insulating layer 401b on the first inorganic insulating layer 401a” (paragraph 116). In the specification, the claimed insulating layer comprises a first insulating layer 401a with a trench TC containing a second metal electrode ML2 and a second insulating layer 401b that the trench does not extend to but which has a through hole TH connecting the second metal electrode in the trench to a first metal electrode ML1 under the second insulating layer (see Fig. 5 of the instant application). The structure in Fig. 3 of Cao is identical; Cao’s insulating layer comprises a first insulating layer 04 with a trench 041 containing a second metal electrode 081 and a second insulating layer 082 that the trench does not extend to but which has a through hole (see Fig. 3) connecting the second metal electrode in the trench to a first metal electrode 083 under the second insulating layer (see Fig. 3).
Applicant argues that Cao does not teach adjacent edges of the first color filter layer and the second color filter layer being disposed in the same trench. The examiner disagrees. While Fig. 15 of Cao does not label the portions of the color filter in the trenches, the accompanying text states that “a portion of the color filter units 061 may fill in the second groove 0430. Since there is an overlapping region between two adjacent color filter units 061, the overlapping region overlaps the black matrix 05 in the first direction X … the second groove 0430 is used to reserve an accommodating space for the color filter overlapping region so as to avoid display non-uniformity caused by the new protrusions” (Cao paragraph 78). Accordingly, Cao states that the color filter material in the grooves is the overlapping region including adjacent color filter units.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cao et al. (US 2021/0226175 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)”.
With respect to claim 18: Cao teaches “the display device of claim 16 (see above), further comprising a light blocking material layer (5) disposed on an interface where the edge of the first color filter layer meets an edge of the second color filter layer (see Fig. 15)”.
With respect to claim 19: Cao teaches “the display device of claim 18 (see above), further 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 teaches “the display device of claim 19 (see above), 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)”.
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 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).
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 (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)”.
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).
With respect to claim 2: Cao in view of Guo 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.
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.
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
/ABDULMAJEED AZIZ/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875