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
Receipt of the Amendment, filed on July 27, 2026, is acknowledged.
Cancellation of claim 2 has been entered.
Claims 1 and 3-15 are pending in the instant application.
Claims 16-20 stand withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & (a)(2) as being anticipated by Lin et al. (US 11,610,954).
Regarding claim 21, Lin discloses a display device comprising: a first pixel electrode (404) and a second pixel electrode (404) spaced apart from each other on a substrate; an inorganic insulating layer (126) disposed on the substrate and including a portion disposed on each of the first pixel electrode (404) and the second pixel electrode (404); residual patterns (110c) disposed between the first pixel electrode (404) and the inorganic insulating layer (126) and between the second pixel electrode (404) and the inorganic insulating layer (126); a bank structure (body structures 110A & 110B) disposed on the inorganic insulating layer (126), wherein a first opening overlapping the first pixel electrode (404) and a second opening overlapping the second pixel electrode (404) are defined through the bank structure (Fig. 4B); a first light emitting layer (112) disposed on the first pixel electrode (404) and a second light emitting layer (112) disposed on the second pixel electrode (404); a first common electrode (114) disposed on the first light emitting layer (112) and a second common electrode (114) disposed on the second light emitting layer (112); and a first encapsulation layer (116) comprising a first inorganic layer (Column 9, lines 56-59) disposed on the first common electrode (114) in the first opening and a second inorganic layer (116) disposed on the second common electrode (114) in the second opening, wherein the bank structure comprises a first bank layer (110A) and a second bank layer (110B) disposed on the first bank layer and comprising a different metal material from the first bank layer (Column 15, lines 24-44), and the second bank layer (110B) comprises tips (109) protruding further toward than the first bank layer from side surfaces of the first bank layer (110A) defining the first opening and the second opening (Fig. 4B).
In regards to “the residual patterns are remaining portions of sacrificial layers disposed on the first pixel electrode and the second pixel electrode before the inorganic insulating layer is formed”, the limitation is considered “product-by-process”. In spite of the fact that a product-by-process claim may recite only process limitations, it is the product and not the recited process that is covered by the claim. Further, patentability of a claim to a product does not rest merely on the difference in the method by which the product is made. Rather, is the product itself which must be new and not obvious. 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). Accordingly, the structure implied by the process steps would be considered for assessing the patentability of product-by-process claims over the prior art (see MPEP 2113).
Moreover, Lin further discloses during the manufacturing process (shown in Figs. 6A-6F) a residual base layer 110C is formed from the sacrificial layer 602C (see Figs. 6D-6E) deposited over the pixel electrodes (404) prior to the deposition of PDL layer 626B, which forms the insulating layer 126. As such, the structural features implied by the claimed process are meet by Lin.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 3-15 are allowed over the prior art of record.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim(s) 1, the references of the Prior Art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations as set forth in claim(s) 1, and specifically comprising the limitation of each of the first inorganic layer and the second inorganic layer does not contact an upper surface of the second bank layer.
Regarding claim(s) 3-4 and 6-15, claims(s) 3-4 and 6-15 is/are allowable for the reasons given in claim(s) 1 because of its/their dependency status from claim(s) 1.
Regarding claim(s) 5, the references of the Prior Art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations as set forth in claim(s) 5, and specifically comprising the limitation of each of the first inorganic layer and the second inorganic layer is spaced apart from lower surfaces of the tips of the second bank layer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that the prior art reference to Lin et al. (US 11,610,954) fails to teach the limitation “wherein the residual patterns are remaining portions of sacrificial layers disposed on the first pixel electrode and the second pixel electrode before the inorganic insulating layer is formed”, as stated in newly submitted claim 21. The examiner disagrees.
The stated limitation is considered as “product-by-process”, as such, the structure implied by the process steps is considered for assessing the patentability of the claim. Lin discloses that during the manufacturing process (shown in Figs. 6A-6F) a residual base layer 110C is formed from the sacrificial layer 602C (see Figs. 6D-6E) deposited over the pixel electrodes (404) prior to the deposition of PDL layer 626B forming the claimed insulating layer 126. As such, the structural features implied by the claimed process are meet by Lin.
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.
Conclusion
The rejections above rely on the references for all the teachings expressed in the text of the references and/or one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably understood or implied from the texts of the references. To emphasize certain aspects of the prior art, only specific portions of the texts have been pointed out. Each reference as a whole should be reviewed in responding to the rejection, since other sections of the same reference and/or various combinations of the cited references may be relied on in future rejections in view of amendments.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mariceli Santiago whose telephone number is (571) 272-2464. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM.
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, James R. Greece, can be reached on (571) 272-3711. 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.
/Mariceli Santiago/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2879
Prosecution Insights