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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s remarks/amendments of claims 1-2, 5 and 10 in the reply filed on May 07th, 2026, are acknowledged. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 3-4, 6-9 and 11-20 have been withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Action on merits of claims 1-2, 5 and 10 as follows.
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.
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (JP 2008/235066, hereinafter as Ito ‘066) in view of Matsushima (US 2015/0171327, hereinafter as Mats ‘327).
Regarding Claim 1, Ito ‘066 teaches a display device comprising:
a substrate (Fig. 1a, (1); [0033]);
a first electrode (2; [0035]) provided on the insulating layer;
a rib (6a/6b; [0036]) provided on the insulating layer, and comprising an opening which overlaps the first electrode (2) (see Fig. 1c), and
a trench which does not overlap the first electrode (see Fig. 1c);
an organic layer (8; [0045]) which includes a light emitting layer and covers the first electrode (2) and the rib (6a/6b);
a filling member (16) provided in the trench (see para. [0054]); and
a second electrode (Fig. 3c, (13); [0052] and [0057]) which covers the organic layer (8), the rib (6a/6b) and the filling member (16) (see Fig. 3c).
wherein the organic layer includes: a first portion which covers the first electrode; a second portion which covers, of the rib, a portion located between the opening and the trench; and a third portion located in the trench and spaced apart from the second portion (see Figs.1e and 1f), and the second electrode (Fig. 3c, (13); [0052] and [0057]) is formed on the organic layer (8) and on an upper surface of the filling member (Fig. 3c, (16); [0054] and [0057]). Examiner considers the insulating material bonding portion (16; [0054]) is the filling member.
Thus, Ito ‘066 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the features: “an insulating layer provided on the substrate”.
Mats ‘327 teaches an insulating layer (Fig. 11, (226); [0069]) provided on the substrate (225; [0069]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ito ‘066 by having an insulating layer provided on the substrate for the purpose of improving the image quality of the organic EL display panel (see para. [0006]-[0007]) as suggested by Mats ‘327.
PNG
media_image1.png
328
474
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figs 11 (Mats ‘327)
PNG
media_image2.png
766
492
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figs 1a-f (Ito ‘066)
PNG
media_image3.png
156
416
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3c (Ito ‘066)
Regarding Claim 2, Ito ‘066 teaches the filling member covers the third portion (see Fig. 1f; para. [0050]).
Regarding Claim 5, Ito ‘066 teaches the trench comprises: an upper portion having a first width; and a lower portion having a second width greater than the first width (see Fig. 1c).
Regarding Claim 10, Ito ‘066 teaches the trench is provided at least between the subpixels which are adjacent to each other in the first direction (see Fig. 2c).
Mats ‘327 teaches a plurality of subpixels (Fig. 2, (14a); [0041]) which are arranged in a first direction and a second direction intersecting with the first direction and each of which includes the first electrode (Fig. 4, (12); [0046]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2, 5 and 10, filed on May 07th, 2026 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
Interviews After Final
Applicants note that an interview after a final rejection is permitted in order to place the application in condition for allowance or to resolve issues prior to appeal. However, prior to the interview, the intended purpose and content of the interview should be presented briefly, preferably in writing. Upon review of the agenda, the Examiner may grant the interview if the examiner is convinced that disposal or clarification for appeal may be accomplished with only nominal further consideration. Interviews merely to restate arguments of record or to discuss new limitations will be denied. See MPEP § 714.13
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Dzung Tran whose telephone number is (571) 270-3911. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8 AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Supervisor Sue Purvis can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DZUNG TRAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights