CTNF 18/430,671 CTNF 88433 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Election/Restrictions Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/18/2026. Applicant has elected Group II and Species Ai and Bi, corresponding to claims 1-11. Invention Group I and Species Aii and Bii, corresponding to claims 12-20, is withdrawn from further consideration. Specification The specification submitted 2/2/2024 has been accepted by the examiner. Drawings The drawings submitted on 2/2/2024 have been accepted by the examiner. Information Disclosure Statements The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted up to this point have been considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US # 20230371315) in view of Choung (US # 20220077257) . Regarding Claim 1 , Lee US # 20230371315 teaches a display device (Fig. 1A and corresponding text) comprising: a first pixel electrode (104) disposed on a substrate (102) in a first emission area (106A); a second pixel electrode (104, corresponding to sub-pixel line 106B) disposed on the substrate in a second emission area (106B), the first and second pixel electrodes being disposed on a same layer (shown on substrate); an insulating layer (126A) covering edges of an upper surface of each of the first and second pixel electrodes (shown on side surfaces of the electrodes 104); a first light emitting layer (112) disposed on the first pixel electrode and the insulating layer (shown); a first common electrode (114) disposed on the first light emitting layer; a first bank (110A) disposed on the insulating layer; a second bank (110B) disposed on the first bank and including tips (overhand extensions 109A) that protrude from side surfaces of the first bank toward each of the first and second emission areas (shown); a first residual inorganic layer disposed on lower surfaces of the tips of the second bank adjacent to the second emission area (Fig. 4Q does not show this, but [0055] teaches that layers 116, 114, and 112 are etched by ashing, which is a directional removal process and would naturally leave behind a residual part of layer 116 in the shadow of the overhang. This is analogous to the applicant’s process for forming these features.); and a first oxide layer (an oxidized surface/crust, due to the O 2 ashing, would be the natural result of reactive oxygen plasma) covering a lower surface of the first residual inorganic layer PNG media_image1.png 244 465 media_image1.png Greyscale (the natural location for such a oxidizing to occur. This is analogous to the applicant’s process for forming these features.). Although Lee ‘315 discloses much of the claimed invention, it does not explicitly teach the insulating layer covering edges of an upper surface of each of the first- and second-pixel electrodes. Nonetheless the prior art renders such non-explicit feature differences obvious, as explained below. For example, Choung US # 20220077257 is in the same or analogous field, and it teaches display device (see Figs. 1 and corresponding text) comprising an insulating layer (126) covering edges of an upper surface (top surface edges of the anode 104 is covered) of each of the first- and second-pixel electrodes (shown). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that modifying the pixel isolations of Lee with the anode-overlapping pixel defining layers suggested by Choung would be obvious. Specifically, the modification suggested by Choung would be to employ an insulating layer covering edges of an upper surface of each of the first- and second-pixel electrodes. The rationale for this obvious modification is that overlapping PDL confines charge injection to the planar central region of the anode, suppresses edge-field concentration, and improved device reliability (see Choung [0025] and see also Lee [0035] describing such benefits). Regarding Claim 2 , Lee teaches the display device of claim 1, further comprising: a capping layer (described at [0038]) disposed on the first common electrode in the first emission area (described as on the cathode 114); and a first inorganic layer (116 in Fig. 1A; see the final two sentences of [0035]) covering an upper surface of the capping layer of the first emission area ([0035]), the side surfaces of the first bank ([0035]), and lower surfaces and side surfaces of the tips of the second bank ([0035]). Regarding Claim 3 , Lee teaches the display device of claim 2, wherein the first residual inorganic layer and the first inorganic layer include a same material (the residual is from the same material layer). Regarding Claim 4 , Lee teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the first oxide layer is formed by oxidation of a surface of the first residual inorganic layer (the oxidation is presumed as a product-by-process, wherein the process was an ashing process). Regarding Claim 5 , Lee teaches the display device of claim 1, further comprising: a second light emitting layer (112) in sub-pixel line (106B) disposed on the second pixel electrode and the insulating layer (shown); a second common electrode (114) disposed on the second light emitting layer; and a third pixel electrode (104 of 108C) disposed in a third emission area, the first, second, and third pixel electrodes being disposed on a same layer (a 2-dimensional array of pixels is assumed; see Fig. 1C), wherein the second bank includes tips protruding toward the third emission area (each second bank has tips 109A pointing in opposite directions at a pixel). Regarding Claim 6 , Lee teaches the display device of claim 5, wherein the first residual inorganic layer is additionally disposed on the lower surfaces of the tips of the second bank adjacent to the third emission area (layer 116 is blanketed across all banks and pixels, so it would be present under all the tips), and the first oxide layer additionally covers the lower surface of the first residual inorganic layer adjacent to the third emission area (for the same reason, as the residual feature, the oxide layer is also found on each and every underside). Regarding Claim 7 , Lee teaches the display device of claim 6, further comprising: a second residual inorganic layer (portion of 116 under overhang) disposed on a lower surface of the first oxide layer adjacent to the third emission area; and a second oxide layer covering a lower surface of the second residual inorganic layer (layer 116 is blanketed across all banks and pixels, so it would be present under all the tips; the oxide layer is also found on each and every underside). Regarding Claim 8 , Lee teaches the display device of claim 7, further comprising: a capping layer ([0038, 72]) disposed on the second common electrode in the second emission area ([0038, 72]); and a second inorganic layer (116; [0035, 73]) covering an upper surface of the capping layer of the second emission area, the side surfaces of the first bank, lower surfaces and side surfaces of the first oxide layer, and the side surfaces of the tips of the second bank (shown like in Fig. 4O above). Regarding Claim 9 , Lee teaches this for the same essential reasons as explained above for claim 3. Regarding Claim 10 , Lee teaches the display device of claim 7, wherein the second oxide layer is formed by oxidation of a surface of the second residual inorganic layer (this is consistent with the explanations above and with the applicant’s specification). Regarding Claim 11 , although Lee in view of Choung discloses much of the claimed invention, it does not explicitly teach the display device of claim 1, further comprising: a third bank disposed on the second bank; and a fourth bank disposed on the third bank and including tips that protrude from side surfaces of the third bank toward each of the first and second emission areas. Nonetheless the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention renders such non-explicit feature differences obvious, as explained below. For example, Lee itself teaches that the overhang structure is built as a stack of discrete structure layers (401A, 410C, and 410B) and also discloses an alternative 3-layer structure (510A, 510B, 510C) which establishes the number of bank layers is a design variable within the same platform. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recoginize that modifying a two-layer bank structure to a three-layer one by simply repeating the stacking parts would be obvious. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to increase the bank layers from two to three since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co. , 193 USPQ 8. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER A JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9475. The examiner can normally be reached normally working Monday to Friday between 9 am and 6 pm Eastern Time. 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, Brent Fairbanks can be reached on (408) 918-7532. 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. /CHRISTOPHER A JOHNSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899 Application/Control Number: 18/430,671 Page 2 Art Unit: 2899 Application/Control Number: 18/430,671 Page 3 Art Unit: 2899 Application/Control Number: 18/430,671 Page 4 Art Unit: 2899 Application/Control Number: 18/430,671 Page 5 Art Unit: 2899 Application/Control Number: 18/430,671 Page 6 Art Unit: 2899 Application/Control Number: 18/430,671 Page 7 Art Unit: 2899 Application/Control Number: 18/430,671 Page 8 Art Unit: 2899 Application/Control Number: 18/430,671 Page 9 Art Unit: 2899
Prosecution Insights