DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Amendment filed July 23, 2026.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
(1) Regarding claim 1, it is not clear what the limitation “an entire surface of the substrate that faces the transistor” recited on lines 10-11 refers to, because (a) “the substrate” should refer to the SUB 1 in Fig. 4 of current application, and therefore, “an entire surface of the substrate that faces the transistor” should refer to the entire top surface of the SUB1, and (b) however, it is not clear how “the scattering layer” SC shown in Fig. 4 of current application can be “continuously disposed on an entire surface of the substrate that faces the transistor” since (i) “the scattering layer” SC is not directly on the entire surface of the substrate that faces the transistor, (ii) the shape of “the scattering layer” SC is not the same with the top surface of the substrate SUB1, and it is not clear whether Applicants claim that the slanted sidewalls of “the scattering layer” SC, which are the oval regions illustrated below, are also continuously disposed on an entire surface of the substrate that faces the transistor, which is the straight line along the top surface of the SUB1, and (iii) this limitation may also fail to comply with the written description requirement.
PNG
media_image1.png
458
436
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(2) Also regarding claim 1, it is not clear what the claimed first, second and third light emitting area recited on lines 2-3 each refers to, because (a) while the first, second and third light emitting area in themselves may be broadly interpreted, Applicants do not claim a first, second and third light emitting area per se, but rather claim that “a scattering layer including … scatters” on line 8, and “the scatterers are present in different concentrations in the first light emitting area, the second light emitting area, and the third light emitting area” on lines 12-14, (b) therefore, whatever or however the “different concentrations” of the scatterers may suggest, the “different concentrations” may only be determined unambiguously when the claimed first, second and third light emitting area can be unambiguously defined, (c) however, as shown in Fig. 4 of current application, which corresponds to Applicants’ elected embodiment, the first light emitting area LA1, the second light emitting area LA2 and the third light emitting area LA3 do not include the entirety of the scattering layer SC, (d) also, the non-light emitting areas NLA1, NLA2 and NLA3 shown in Fig. 4 of current application can emit light when light emitted from the emission layers EML is reflected by sidewalls of the color filters CF1, CF2 and CF3 as illustrated below, where the sidewalls of the color filters belong to the non-light emitting areas, and
PNG
media_image2.png
472
460
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(e) therefore, it is not clear what the claimed first, second and third light emitting area each refers to, and how they can be unambiguously defined.
(3) Further regarding claim 1, it is not clear what the claimed first, second and third light emitting area recited on lines 2-3 refer to, because (a) it is not clear whether the light emitting areas correspond to any specific mechanism(s) of light emission, which Applicants do not specifically claim in claim 1, since Applicants designated some portions of the color filters CF1, CF2 and CF3 as non-light emitting areas NLA1, NLA2 and NLA3, which does not appear to make sense in that the color filters CF1, CF2 and CF3 cannot completely block light emitted from the emission layers EML, (b) in other words, the non-light emitting areas NLA1, NLA2 and NLA3 shown in Fig. 4 of current application would emit light to a certain extent, (c) if Applicants had meant to claim that the claimed first, second and third light emitting area correspond to the areas where light originally emitted from the underlying emission layers EML and scattered by the scatterers SCa is emitted, then the non-light emitting areas NLA1, NLA2 and NLA3 should also be able to emit or transmit light scattered by the scatterers SCa, (d) if Applicants had meant to claim that the claimed first, second and third light emitting area are where the scatterers are disposed, then it is not clear how the scatterer SCa can be disposed in the non-light-emitting area NLA3 as shown below, which is also claimed by Applicants in claim 5, and
PNG
media_image3.png
472
460
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(e) therefore, it does not appear that there are any good definitions of the claimed first, second and third light emitting area.
(4) Still further regarding claim 1, it is not clear what the limitation “the scattering layer” can be “continuously disposed on an entire surface of the substrate that faces the transistor” recited on lines 8-11 suggests, because it is not clear what the limitation “disposed on an entire surface of the substrate that faces the transistor” suggests since the preposition “on” does not necessarily suggest “directly on”, “in direct contact with” or “in physical contact with”, and therefore, it is not clear whether the limitation cited above suggests that “the scattering layer is continuously disposed” directly “on an entire surface of the substrate that faces the transistor”.
(5) Still further regarding claim 1, it is not clear what the limitation “the scatterers are present in different concentrations in the first light emitting area, the second light emitting area, and the third light emitting area” recited on lines 12-14 suggests, because (a) it is not clear whether the “concentrations” imply (i) number densities of the scatterers in the first, second and third light emitting area, (ii) areal densities of the scatterers in the first, second and third light emitting area when the first, second and third light emitting area are viewed from the top, or (iii) volume densities of the scatterers in the first, second and third light emitting area, (b) it is not clear whether the same number of scatterers of different species in the first, second and third light emitting area also satisfies the limitation cited above since the same number of scatterers of different species in the first, second and third light emitting area can also be said to have “different concentrations” of scatterers as an identical or the same concentration of a scatterer would suggest an identical or the same concentration of a scatterer of an identical or the same species, (c) in addition, as discussed above, it is not clear what the claimed first, second and third light emitting area refer to since the first, second and third light emitting area do not include some portions of the scattering layer SC shown in Fig. 4 of current application, and some portions of the first, second and third light emitting area do not include the scatterers SCa, and (d) in this case, if, for example, a scatterer is disposed in the non-light emitting areas NLA1, NLA2 or NLA3 as illustrated below, it is not clear whether the scatterer should be counted for the claimed “concentrations” or not.
PNG
media_image3.png
472
460
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claims 2-7 depend on claim 1, and therefore, claims 2-7 are also indefinite.
(6) Regarding claim 2, it is not clear what “a first non-light emitting area, a second non-light emitting area, and a third non-light emitting area” refer to, because (a) as discussed above with regard to claim 1, Applicants’ non-light emitting areas are not exactly non-light emitting areas, and (b) therefore, it is not clear how the first, second and third non-light emitting area are unambiguously defined. Claims 3-5 depend on claim 2, and therefore, claims 3-5 are also indefinite.
(7) Regarding claim 3, it is not clear how the scattering layer overlapping the first non-light emitting area, the second non-light emitting area, and the third non-light emitting area can include scatterers at different concentration in the first, second and third non-light emitting area as recited in claim 3, because (a) as discussed above with regard to claim 1, it is not clear what the first, second and third light emitting area refer to, and therefore, as discussed above with regard to claim 2, it is not clear what the first, second and third non-light emitting are refer to, and (b) if the first, second and third non-light emitting area include scatterers as recited in original claim 3 and in claim 5, the first, second and third non-light emitting area would actually be light emitting areas. Claims 4 and 5 depend on claim 3, and therefore, claims 4 and 5 are also indefinite.
(8) Regarding claim 5, as discussed above with regard to claim 3, it is not clear how the claimed non-light emitting areas can include scatterers, because any areas including the scatterers should be light emitting areas rather than non-light emitting areas.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6 and 7, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Park et al. (US 2020/0227485)
Regarding claims 1-3, 6 and 7, Park et al. disclose a display device (Fig. 3), comprising: a substrate (BS1) ([0058]) including a first light emitting area (PXA1) ([0055]), a second light emitting area (PXA2), and a third light emitting area (PXA3); a transistor (one of TR1, TR2 and TR3) disposed on the substrate, because (a) the preposition “on” does not necessarily suggest “directly on”, and (b) Applicants’ transistor is not directly on the substrate SUB2 in Fig. 4 of current application, either; a light emitting element (EL) connected to the transistor; an encapsulation layer (one of EL1, EL2 and EL3) ([0108]) disposed on the light emitting element; a partition wall (BM) ([0058]) disposed on the encapsulation layer, because (a) the preposition “on” does not necessarily suggest “directly on”, and (b) Applicants’ partition wall BK is not directly on the encapsulation layer 400 in Fig. 4 of current application, either; and a scattering layer (composite layer including PL1, TL, WCL1, WCL2 and PL2 (and CF1, CF2 and CF3)) including a polymer resin (BR1, which is part of WCL1, BR2, which is part of WCL2, and BR3, which is part of TL) ([0068]) and scatterers (SC1, SC2 and SC3), the scattering layer disposed on the partition wall, because (a) the transitional phrase “including” does not preclude other elements or layers, (b) Applicants do not specifically claim what the “scattering layer” refers to, what it does, and what it is formed of, and (c) therefore, the composite layer including PL1, TL, WCL1, WCL2 and PL2 (and CF1, CF2 and CF3) can be referred to as a scattering layer since the composite layer includes a plurality of scattering particles SC1, SC2 and SC3, and continuously disposed on an entire surface of the substrate that faces the transistor, because this limitation is indefinite as discussed above under 35 USC 112(b) rejections, wherein the scatterers are present in different concentrations in the first light emitting area (PXA1), the second light emitting area (PXA2), and the third light emitting area (PXA3) ([0068]), because (a) this limitation is indefinite as discussed above under 35 USC 112(b) rejections, and (b) the areas WCL1, WCL2 and TL have different numbers and/or different sizes of the scatterers (claim 1), wherein: the substrate (BS1) further includes a first non-light emitting area (one of NFXA) ([0055]), a second non-light emitting area (another of NFXA), and a third non-light emitting area (yet another NFXA), because this limitation is indefinite as discussed above under 35 USC 112(b) rejections (claim 2), wherein the scattering layer (composite layer including PL1, TL, WCL1, WCL2 and PL2 (and CF1, CF2 and CF3)) overlaps the first non-light emitting area (one of NFXA), the second non-light emitting area (another NFXA), and the third non-light emitting area (yet another NFXA), and includes scatterers (SC1, SC2 and SC3) at different concentrations in the first non-light emitting area, the second non-light emitting area, and the third non-light emitting area, because this limitation is indefinite as discussed above under 35 USC 112(b) rejections (claim 3), wherein: the scattering layer (composite layer including PL1, TL, WCL1, WCL2 and PL2, CF1, CF2 and CF3) covers side surfaces and one surface of the partition wall (BM) and fills an opening of the partition wall (claim 6), further comprising: a color filter (CF1, CF2 or CF3) ([0058]) disposed on the scattering layer (composite layer including PL1, TL, WCL1, WCL2 and PL2), wherein the color filter includes: a first color filter (CF1) overlapping the first light emitting area (PXA1), a second color filter (CF2) overlapping the second light emitting area (PXA2), and a third color filter (CF3) overlapping the third light emitting area (PXA3) (claim 7).
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicants’ arguments traversing the 35 USC 112(b) rejection regarding the definition of the first, second and third light emitting area in the REMARKS are not persuasive, because (a) current application is not a design patent, and MPEP 2111.01 stipulates that it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, (b) Applicants’ arguments appear to be solely based on the labels that Applicants use in the drawings of current application that do not even disclose the sizes or dimensions of the claimed first, second and third light emitting area such as the first, second and third light emitting area being delimited by some structural features or component layers, (c) therefore, the claimed first, second and third light emitting area appear to be arbitrary and do not have anything to do with actual light emitting areas of the claimed display device, (d) it is not clear whether Applicants or one of ordinary skill in the art may be able to decide to change the definition of the first, second and third light emitting area in the future, (e) if an area that emits light in a display device is not a light emitting area as implied in claim 1, it would be indefinite if that area that emits light is labeled as a non-light emitting area as is the case with claim 1, (f) if Applicants cannot argue persuasively that a color filter that should emit light with a converted wavelength is not a light emitting area, it is not clear what the definition of the first, second and third “light emitting” area is, (g) if the claimed first, second and third light emitting area are defined as a respective area inside which the scatters are located, then the rectangular areas illustrated below should be referred to as the first, second and third light emitting area rather than the areas LA1, LA2 and LA3 as Applicants allege to be the claimed first, second and third light area in the REMARKS, and in this case, it does not appear that Applicants actually measured the claimed “concentrations” of the scatterers inside the rectangular areas illustrated below to determine that the concentrations of the scatterers are different in the first, second and third light emitting areas illustrated as rectangular areas below,
PNG
media_image4.png
454
436
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(f) furthermore, if the claimed first, second and third light emitting area are defined as a respective area inside which the scatterers are located, then the arbitrarily shaped areas illustrated below should also be referred to as the first, second and third light emitting area rather than the areas LA1, LA2 and LA3 as Applicants allege to be the first, second and third light emitting area in the REMARKS, and in this case, it does not appear that Applicants actually measured the claimed “concentrations” of the scatters inside the arbitrarily shaped areas illustrated below to determine that the concentrations of the scatterers are different in the first, second and third light emitting areas illustrated as rectangular areas below, and
PNG
media_image5.png
454
436
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(g) finally, it appears that Applicants argue in the REMARKS that the claimed first, second and third light emitting area are associated with the light emitting element underneath each of them, but as the illustration below clearly shows, the alleged first, second and third light emitting areas LA1/LA2/LA3 do not even match the lateral sizes of the light emitting layer or emission layer EML, and therefore, Applicants’ arguments alleging that the claimed first, second and third light emitting area are associated with the claimed light emitting element are not persuasive.
PNG
media_image6.png
538
516
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Applicants’ arguments requesting a broad interpretation of the concentrations of the scatterers in the REMARKS are not persuasive, because if a display device infringes on claim 1 when the concentrations of the scatterers are interpreted in one way, while not infringing on claim 1 when the concentrations of the scatterers are interpreted in another way, it is not clear how the issue cannot be indefinite. If arguendo Applicants’ arguments are correct, then one can manufacture display devices that may read on claim 1 according to one definition of the concentrations of the scatterers, while not reading on claim 1 according to another definition of the concentrations of the scatterers, and then the manufactured display devices would not infringe on claim 1, especially because Applicants did not originally disclose and do not claim that the scatterers are present in all the possible different concentrations in the first, second and third light emitting area.
Applicants’ arguments in the REMARKS traversing the prior art rejection based on the limitation “a scattering layer including a polymer resin and scatterers” recited on line 8 of claim 1 are not persuasive, because (a) the transitional phrase “including” does not preclude elements or materials other than the polymer resin and scatterers, and (b) therefore, as the Examiner has already stated in the Non Final Office Action, the scattering layer can be a composite layer including PL1, TL, WCL1, WCL2 and PL2 (and CF1, CF2 and CF3).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chung et al. (US 2020/0251688)
Huang et al. (US 2015/0048348)
Jung et al. (US 11,041,981)
Park (US 12,660,462)
Kim et al. (US 2021/0126056)
Applicants' amendment necessitated the new ground of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicants are 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY C KIM whose telephone number is (571) 270-1620. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM - 6:00 PM EST.
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, Joshua Benitez can be reached at (571) 270-1435. 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.
/JAY C KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815
/J. K./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815 August 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights