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
Restriction/Election
Applicant’s election of Claims 1-16, without traverse, in the reply filed on 2/11/2026 is acknowledged.
Specification Objection
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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-AlA 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 and 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kamiyama (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2019/0221623).
Regarding Claim 1
FIG. 1 of Kamiyama discloses a display device comprising: a first pixel including a first emission area (1B) which emits light having a first color (B) in a third direction; a second pixel including a second emission area (1G) which emits light having a second color (G) different from the first color; a first partition wall (141) in which a first opening overlapping the first emission area in a plan view is defined (FIG. 2); a second partition wall (142/14b) in which a second opening overlapping the second emission area in the plan view is defined; and a first layer (22) covering the first partition wall and the second partition wall, wherein the first partition wall is provided with a first height in the third direction, and the second partition wall is provided with a second height different from the first height.
Regarding Claim 12
FIG. 1 of Kamiyama discloses a third pixel (B) including a third emission area which emits, in the third direction, light having a third color (blue) different from the first color (red) or the second color (green); and a third partition wall in which a third opening overlapping the third emission area in the plan view is defined, wherein the light of the first color includes red light, the light of the second color includes green light, and the light of the third color includes blue light, and wherein the third partition wall is provided with a third height different from the first height.
Claims 1 and 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takahashi (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2019/0363146).
Regarding Claim 1
FIG. 1 of Takahashi discloses a display device comprising: a first pixel including a first emission area (3R) which emits light having a first color (R) in a third direction; a second pixel including a second emission area (3G) which emits light having a second color (G) different from the first color; a first partition wall (BK1b/BK1a) in which a first opening overlapping the first emission area in a plan view is defined; a second partition wall (BK1a) in which a second opening overlapping the second emission area in the plan view is defined; and a first layer (31) covering the first partition wall and the second partition wall, wherein the first partition wall is provided with a first height in the third direction, and the second partition wall is provided with a second height different from the first height.
Regarding Claim 12
FIG. 1 of Takahashi discloses a third pixel (3B) including a third emission area which emits, in the third direction, light having a third color (blue) different from the first color (red) or the second color (green); and a third partition wall in which a third opening overlapping the third emission area in the plan view is defined, wherein the light of the first color includes red light, the light of the second color includes green light, and the light of the third color includes blue light, and wherein the third partition wall is provided with a third height different from the first height.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 12 and 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2019/0189713), in view of Chen (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2019/0237524).
Regarding Claim 1
FIG. 1 of Kondo discloses a display device comprising: a first pixel including a first emission area (1R) which emits light having a first color (R) in a third direction; a second pixel including a second emission area (1G) which emits light having a second color (G) different from the first color; a first partition wall (141/143) in which a first opening (14aR) overlapping the first emission area in a plan view is defined (FIG. 2); a second partition wall (141/142) in which a second opening (14aG) overlapping the second emission area in the plan view is defined, wherein the first partition wall is provided with a first height in the third direction, and the second partition wall is provided with a second height different from the first height.
Kondo is silent with respect to “a first layer covering the first partition wall and the second partition wall”.
FIG. 9 of Chen discloses a similar display device, comprising a first layer (160) covering the first partition wall and the second partition wall, wherein the first partition wall is provided with a first height (h1) in the third direction, and the second partition wall is provided with a second height (h2) different from the first height [0090].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kondo, as taught by Chen. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Kondo in the above manner for purpose of preventing intrusion of moisture or impurities ([0052] of Chen).
Regarding Claim 2
FIG. 9 of Chen discloses the light of the first color includes red light, wherein the light of the second color includes green light or blue light, and wherein the first height of the first partition wall is greater than the second height of the second partition wall.
Regarding Claim 12
FIG. 1 of Kondo discloses a third pixel (B) including a third emission area which emits, in the third direction, light having a third color (blue) different from the first color (red) or the second color (green); and a third partition wall in which a third opening overlapping the third emission area in the plan view is defined, wherein the light of the first color includes red light, the light of the second color includes green light, and the light of the third color includes blue light, and wherein the third partition wall is provided with a third height different from the first height.
Regarding Claim 13
FIG. 9 of Chen discloses the first height, the second height, and the third height are different from each other.
Claims 1, 3 and 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2021/0104586), in view of Xiao (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2023/0082085).
Regarding Claim 1
FIG. 3 of Baek discloses a display device comprising: a first pixel including a first emission area (PA1) which emits light having a first color (red) in a third direction; a second pixel (PA2) including a second emission area which emits light having a second color (green) different from the first color; a first partition wall (BM surrounding L2) in which a first opening overlapping the first emission area in a plan view is defined (FIG. 2); a second partition wall (BM surrounding L3) in which a second opening overlapping the second emission area in the plan view is defined, and a first layer (181-183) covering the first partition wall and the second partition wall, wherein the first partition wall is provided with a first height in the third direction, and the second partition wall is provided with a second height.
Baek is silent with respect to the second height different from the first height.
FIG. 5 of Xiao discloses a similar display device, wherein the second height d2 is different from the first height d1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Baek, as taught by Xiao. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Baek in the above manner for purpose of improving visually uneven brightness and the visual effect ([0048] of Xiao).
Regarding Claim 3
The recitation “a ratio of the first height of the first partition wall and the second height of the second partition wall is about 1:0.3” is related to the visual effect, as evidenced by [0048] of Xiao. Therefore, said ratio is considered to be a result effective variable. The claim to a specific ratio therefore constitutes an optimization of ranges. In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the parameters as claimed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 8
FIG. 3 of Baek discloses each of the first pixel and the second pixel comprises: a light-emitting element (ED1/ED2); a transistor (T1/T2) configured to control current of the light-emitting element; and a first inorganic layer (171) covering the light-emitting element, wherein the light-emitting element comprises: a first electrode (AE); an emission layer (OL) disposed on the first electrode; and a second electrode (CE) disposed on the emission layer; the first partition wall and the second partition wall are disposed on the first inorganic layer.
Claims 1, 5 and 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai (EP 3282310), in view of Chen (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2019/0237524).
Regarding Claim 1
FIG. 8 of Cai discloses a display device comprising: a first pixel (PX1) including a first emission area (140) which emits light having a first color (red) in a third direction; a second pixel (PX2) including a second emission area which emits light having a second color (green) different from the first color; a first partition wall (130 surrounding 140) in which a first opening overlapping the first emission area in a plan view is defined; a second partition wall (139 surrounding 150) in which a second opening overlapping the second emission area in the plan view is defined, and a first layer (110) covering the first partition wall and the second partition wall, wherein the first partition wall is provided with a first height in the third direction, and the second partition wall is provided with a second height.
Cai is silent with respect to the second height different from the first height.
FIG. 9 of Chen discloses a similar display device, comprising a first layer (160) covering the first partition wall and the second partition wall, wherein the first partition wall is provided with a first height (h1) in the third direction, and the second partition wall is provided with a second height (h2) different from the first height [0090].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Cai, as taught by Chen. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Cai in the above manner for purpose of reducing color variation at large viewing angles and color shift ([0005] of Chen).
Regarding Claim 5
FIG. 8 of Cai discloses a light-blocking component (120) which defines a non-emission area between the first emission area and the second emission area, wherein the first partition wall and the second partition wall are disposed in a same layer as the light-blocking component.
Regarding Claim 8
FIG. 8 of Cai discloses each of the first pixel (PX1) and the second pixel (PX2) comprises: a light-emitting element; a transistor (not shown) configured to control current of the light-emitting element; and a first inorganic layer (170) covering the light-emitting element, wherein the light-emitting element comprises: a first electrode (440); an emission layer (450) disposed on the first electrode; and a second electrode (460) disposed on the emission layer; the first partition wall and the second partition wall (130) are disposed on the first inorganic layer.
Claim 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamiyama, in view of Jinta (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2015/0115251).
Regarding Claim 4
Kamiyama discloses Claim 1.
Kamiyama is silent with respect to “each of the first partition wall and the second partition wall includes a first refractive index, and wherein the first layer includes a second refractive index higher than the first refractive index”.
FIG. 27 of Jinta discloses a similar display device, wherein each of the first partition wall and the second partition wall (15) includes a first refractive index (n2), and wherein the first layer (18) includes a second refractive index (n1) higher than the first refractive index [0182].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kamiyama, as taught by Jinta. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Kamiyama in the above manner for purpose of improving light extraction efficiency (Para. 182 of Jinta).
Claim 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamiyama, in view of Kim (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2018/0033847).
Regarding Claim 5
Kamiyama discloses Claim 1.
Kamiyama is silent with respect to “a light-blocking component which defines a non-emission area between the first emission area and the second emission area, wherein the first partition wall and the second partition wall are disposed in a same layer as the light-blocking component”.
FIG. 6 of Kim discloses a similar display device, comprising a light-blocking component (301) which defines a non-emission area between the first emission area and the second emission area, wherein the first partition wall and the second partition wall (302) are disposed in a same layer as the light-blocking component.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kamiyama, as taught by Kim. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Kamiyama in the above manner for purpose of improving light extraction efficiency (Para. 182 of Kim).
Claims 5-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi, in view of Gao (WO 2024065284, machine-translation provided)
Regarding Claim 5
Takahashi discloses Claim 1.
Takahashi is silent with respect to “a light-blocking component which defines a non-emission area between the first emission area and the second emission area, wherein the first partition wall and the second partition wall are disposed in a same layer as the light-blocking component”.
FIG. 5 of Gao discloses a similar display device, comprising a light-blocking component (212) which defines a non-emission area between the first emission area and the second emission area, wherein the first partition wall and the second partition wall (211) are disposed in a same layer as the light-blocking component.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Takahashi, as taught by Gao. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Takahashi in the above manner for purpose of improving display quality (Abstract of Gao).
Regarding Claim 6
FIG. 2 of Gao discloses in the plan view, a portion of the first partition wall (211) directly contacts a first side of the light-blocking component, and a portion of the second partition wall directly contacts a second side of the light-blocking component (212).
Regarding Claim 7
FIG. 2 of Gao discloses the light-blocking component, the first partition wall, and the second partition wall are integral. The limitation “integrally disposed” is considered to be a process or functional limitation. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985), MPEP 2113. Since Takahashi discloses an identical or substantially identical device, Claim 7 is unpatentable even though the Takahashi product was made by a different process.
Regarding Claim 8
FIG. 1 of Takahashi discloses each of the first pixel (3R) and the second pixel (3G) comprises: a light-emitting element; a transistor configured to control current of the light-emitting element; and a first inorganic layer (31) covering the light-emitting element, wherein the light-emitting element comprises: a first electrode (21); an emission layer (22) disposed on the first electrode; and a second electrode (23) disposed on the emission layer. FIG. 5 of Gao discloses the first partition wall and the second partition wall (211) are disposed on the first inorganic layer (14).
Regarding Claim 9
FIG. 5 of Gao discloses a pixel defining layer disposed between the light-emitting element of the first pixel and the light-emitting element of the second pixel, wherein in the plan view the pixel defining layer overlaps the light-blocking component (FIG. 2).
Regarding Claim 10
FIG. 1 of Takahashi discloses an organic layer (32) directly disposed on the first inorganic layer (31); and a second inorganic layer (33) directly disposed on the organic layer. FIG. 5 of Gao discloses the first partition wall and the second partition wall (211) are disposed on the first inorganic layer (14). the first partition wall and the second partition wall are directly disposed on the second inorganic layer (50).
Claim 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi and Gao, in view of Shin (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2024/0040850).
Regarding Claim 11
Takahashi as modified by Gao discloses Claim 8, further comprising an organic layer (172) directly disposed on the first inorganic layer (171); a second inorganic layer (173) directly disposed on the organic layer; the first partition wall and the second partition wall (BM) are disposed on the first inorganic layer; the first partition wall and the second partition wall are directly disposed on the second inorganic layer.
Takahashi as modified by Gao is silent with respect to “a sensing electrode disposed on the second inorganic layer and overlapping the non-emission area in the plan view”.
FIG. 6 of Shin discloses a similar display device, comprising a sensing electrode (620) disposed on the second inorganic layer (530) and overlapping the non-emission area in the plan view (FIG. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Takahashi, as taught by Shin. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Takahashi in the above manner for purpose of improving image quality and resolution ([0011] of Shin).
Claim 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamiyama, in view of Chae (KR 102291493, machine-translation provided)
Regarding Claim 5
Kamiyama discloses Claim 1.
Kamiyama is silent with respect to “a light-blocking component which defines a non-emission area between the first emission area and the second emission area, wherein the first partition wall and the second partition wall are disposed in a same layer as the light-blocking component”.
FIG. 8 of Chae discloses a similar display device, comprising a light-blocking component (120) which defines a non-emission area between the first emission area and the second emission area, wherein the first partition wall and the second partition wall (130) are disposed in a same layer as the light-blocking component.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kamiyama, as taught by Chae. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Kamiyama in the above manner for purpose of preventing color mixing and improving color reproducibility (text of Chae).
Claim 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi and Gao, in view of Ju (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2020/0243802).
Regarding Claim 11
Takahashi as modified by Gao discloses Claim 8, further comprising an organic layer (172) directly disposed on the first inorganic layer (171); a second inorganic layer (173) directly disposed on the organic layer; the first partition wall and the second partition wall (BM) are disposed on the first inorganic layer; the first partition wall and the second partition wall are directly disposed on the second inorganic layer.
Takahashi as modified by Gao is silent with respect to “a sensing electrode disposed on the second inorganic layer and overlapping the non-emission area in the plan view”.
FIG. 7 of Ju discloses a similar display device, comprising a sensing electrode (BE) disposed on the second inorganic layer (BF2) and overlapping the non-emission area in the plan view (FIG. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Takahashi, as taught by Ju. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Takahashi in the above manner for purpose of reducing reflected light that is visible to the eyes of a user and improving emission efficiency ([0008] of Ju).
Claim 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamiyama, in view of Kim3 (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2017/0349793).
Regarding Claim 14
Kamiyama discloses Claim 12.
Kamiyama is silent with respect to “the third partition wall includes dye capable of absorbing light in a wavelength band ranging from about 380 nanometers to about 430 nanometers”.
FIG. 1 of Kim3 discloses a similar display device, comprising a dye capable of absorbing light in a wavelength band ranging from about 380 nanometers to about 430 nanometers [0006].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kamiyama, as taught by Kim3. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Kamiyama in the above manner for purpose of avoiding intensity deteriorate and improving performance ([0005] of Kim3).
Claims 15 and 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamiyama, in view of Akata (JP 2002304128)
Regarding Claim 15
Kamiyama discloses Claim 1.
Kamiyama is silent with respect to “the first layer includes at least one dye, and wherein a maximum absorption wavelength of the first layer ranges from about 530 nanometers to about 600 nanometers”.
Akata discloses a similar display device, wherein the first layer includes at least one dye, and wherein a maximum absorption wavelength of the first layer ranges from about 530 nanometers to about 600 nanometers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kamiyama, as taught by Akata. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Kamiyama in the above manner for purpose of enhancing contrast and color reproducibility (Advantage of Akata).
Regarding Claim 16
Akata discloses the at least one dye includes at least one of tetraazaporphyrin, porphyrin, oxazine, squarylium, polymethine, triarylmethane, anthraquinone, phtalocyanine, azo, perylene, xanthene, diimmonium, and dipyrromethene (Abstract).
Pertinent Art
Guo (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2015/0029453) discloses a dye capable of absorbing light in a wavelength band ranging from about 380 nanometers to about 430 nanometers.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHENG-BAI ZHU whose telephone number is (571)270-3904. The examiner can normally be reached on 11am – 7pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chad Dicke can be reached on (571)270-7996. 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.
/SHENG-BAI ZHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897