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.
Claims 1-20 are pending in the instant application.
Claims 14-20 stand withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tabatake (US 2024/0090272 A1) in view of Liu et al. (US 2022/0102448 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tabatake discloses a display device comprising: a first pixel electrode (LE3) disposed in a first emission area on a substrate; an insulating layer (5) covering an edge of the first pixel electrode (LE3); a first emissive layer (OR3a) disposed on the first pixel electrode and the insulating layer; a first common electrode (UE3a) disposed on the first emissive layer; a bank (6) disposed on the insulating layer (5) and surrounding the first emission area, the bank (6) comprising: a first bank (611) disposed on the insulating layer and in contact with the first common electrode (UE2a, Fig. 3); a second bank (612) disposed on the first bank; a third bank (621) disposed on the second bank; and a fourth bank (622) disposed on the third bank; a first organic pattern (OR3b) surrounding the first emission area and including a same material as a material of the first emissive layer, the first organic pattern (OR3b) being separated from the first emissive layer (OR3a) by a tip (62a, Fig. 4) formed on an inner wall of the bank (6), wherein the first to fourth (611, 612, 621, 622) banks include metal materials (¶[0070]). Tabatake fails to disclose a low-reflection insulating layer disposed on the bank and the first organic pattern on the low-reflection insulating layer.
Liu discloses a display device comprising: a first pixel electrode (200) disposed in a first emission area on a substrate; an insulating layer (300) covering an edge of the first pixel electrode (200); a first emissive layer (600) disposed on the first pixel electrode and the insulating layer; a first common electrode (700) disposed on the first emissive layer; a bank (400) disposed on the insulating layer (300) and surrounding the first emission area: a low-reflection insulating layer (500) disposed on the bank; a first organic pattern (600) surrounding the first emission area on the low-reflection insulating layer (500) and including a same material as a material of the first emissive layer (¶[0032]), wherein the first to fourth banks include metal (¶[0032]), the low reflection layer generates an optical interference cancellation effect, thus the reflectivity of the overall structure of the display panel is reduced by cooperation between the metal bank and the low reflection layer, reducing the occurrence of reflection and glare (¶[0034]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filling of the claimed invention to incorporate the low reflection layer as disclosed by Liu in the display device of Tabatake in order to generate an optical interference cancellation effect, thus the reflectivity of the overall structure of the display panel is reduced by cooperation between the metal bank and the low reflection layer, reducing the occurrence of reflection and glare.
Regarding claim 12, Tabatake discloses a display device further comprising: a second pixel electrode (LE2) disposed in a second emission area on the substrate; a second emissive layer (OR2a) disposed on the second pixel electrode; and a second common electrode (UE2a) disposed on the second emissive layer (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 13, Tabatake discloses a display device wherein the first (UE3a) and second (UE2a) common electrodes are electrically connected with each other through the first bank (first common electrode UE3a and second common electrodes UE2a are in direct contact with the first conductive bank 611, Fig. 5, ¶[0081]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim(s) 2, the references of the Prior Art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations as set forth in claim(s) 2, and specifically comprising the limitation of the first bank includes aluminum, the second bank includes titanium, the third bank includes titanium oxide or aluminum nitride, and the fourth bank includes titanium or titanium nitride.
Regarding claim(s) 3, the references of the Prior Art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations as set forth in claim(s) 3, and specifically comprising the limitation of a thickness of the first bank is greater than a sum of thicknesses of the second to fourth banks.
Regarding claim(s) 4, claims(s) 4 is/are allowable for the reasons given in claim(s) 3 because of its/their dependency status from claim(s) 3.
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 a side surface of the first bank is recessed inward from a side surface of the second bank.
Regarding claim(s) 7-8, claims(s) 7-8 is/are allowable for the reasons given in claim(s) 5 because of its/their dependency status from claim(s) 5.
Regarding claim(s) 6, the references of the Prior Art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations as set forth in claim(s) 6, and specifically comprising the limitation of the low-reflection insulating layer comprises: a first layer disposed on the fourth bank; a second layer disposed on the first layer; and a third layer disposed on the second layer.
Regarding claim(s) 9-11, claims(s) 9-11 is/are allowable for the reasons given in claim(s) 6 because of its/their dependency status from claim(s) 6.
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 of record to Tabatake (US 2024/0090272 A1) in view of Liu et al. (US 2022/0102448 A1) fail to teach "a low-reflection insulating layer disposed on the bank and the first organic pattern on the low-reflection insulating layer” and "a first organic pattern surrounding the first emission area on the low-reflection insulating layer". The examiner disagrees.
Tabatake discloses a conductive bank (6) surrounding the first emission area and having a tip (62a, Fig. 4) formed on an inner wall of the bank, a first organic pattern (OR3b) surrounding the first emission area and including a same material as a material of the first emissive layer over the bank (6). When the organic material for forming the organic layer (OR) is deposited over the entire substrate with the bank (6) disposed therein, the organic layer (OR) is not substantially formed on the side surface of the bank (6), thus, the first organic pattern (OR3b) is separated from the first emissive layer (OR3a) by the tip (see Fig. 3).
Liu discloses a conductive bank (400) surrounding the first emission area, a low-reflection insulating layer (500) disposed on the bank (400), and a first organic pattern (600) surrounding the first emission area and including a same material as a material of the first emissive layer (600) over the bank (400, Fig. 1), when the light emitting layer (600) is formed on the entire surface of the substrate, the light emitting layer (600) is broken in the inwardly retracted structure of the metal layer (400) . The low-reflection layer generates an optical interference cancellation effect, thus the reflectivity of the overall structure of the display panel is reduced by cooperation between the metal bank and the low reflection layer, reducing the occurrence of reflection and glare. Accordingly, the combined teachings of Tabatake in view of Liu teach the limitations of "a low-reflection insulating layer disposed on the bank and the first organic pattern on the low-reflection insulating layer” and "a first organic pattern surrounding the first emission area on the low-reflection insulating layer".
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