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
This action is responsive to the application No. 18/430,745 filed on June 16, 2026.
Priority
3. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Specification
4. The title of the invention has been amended as “DISPLAY DEVICE COMPRISING MULTI-LAYERED BANK AND HAVING HIGH LIGHT EXTRACTION EFFICIENCY”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
a. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
b. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
c. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
d. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
9. Claims 1, 12, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2020/0303466 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 2023/0217692 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1, Park et al. teaches a display device (Fig. 4A), comprising:
a substrate (BS base layer, para [0073]-[0074]);
a bank (40 insulating layer, para [0086]) disposed on the substrate (BS) and having a multi-layered structure (stacked structure, para [0086]) having an opening (OP, para [0086]);
a light emitting element (OLED, see Fig. 4A) disposed in the opening (OP) and comprising a pixel electrode (E1, para [0100]), a light emitting layer (EP), and a common electrode (E2, para [0100]);
a thin film encapsulating layer (ECL, para [0073]) disposed on the light emitting element (OLED) and the bank (40);
a micro lens (RL1 considering as the microlens as it functions similarly) disposed on the thin film encapsulating layer (ECL) and overlapping the light emitting element (OLED); and
a light control layer (RL2 considering as the light control layer as it functions similarly) disposed on the thin film encapsulating layer (ECL) and entirely encircling (see Fig. 6A wherein the light-control layer RL2-A encircles the micro lens RL1-A) the micro lens (RL1),
wherein a refractive index (see para [0144]) of the micro lens (RL1) is greater than a refractive index of the light control layer (RL2), wherein the pixel electrode (E1) is disposed in the opening (OP) and extends along an inner surface of the bank (40), and the light emitting layer (EP) extends along the inner surface of the bank (40) on the pixel electrode (E1).
Park et al. is silent to explicitly show in the structure wherein, the bank having a multi-layered structure.
Kim et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 2), the bank (115, para [0063]) having a multi-layered structure (1151 & 1152).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply multi-layers as taught by Kim et al. and modify the bank structure of Park et al., in order to secure boundary between the plurality of subpixels SP1, SP2, and SP3, thus the side light can be converted into the front light to improve the front light efficiency (para [0063]).
Regarding claim 12, Park et al. and Kim et al. teach all of the limitations of claim 1 from which this claim depends.
Park et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 4A), the refractive index of the micro lens (RL1) differs from the refractive index of the light control layer (RL2) by about 0.1 or more and about 0.2 or less (≥0.05, para [0144] which overlaps the claimed range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to select the claimed refractive index within the quoted range to optimize the result effective variable of the microlens/control layer material in order to improve the display performance. In addition, to an ordinary artisan practicing the invention, absent evidence of disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Furthermore, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed dimensions or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen refractive index or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen refractive index is critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ 2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 14, Park et al. and Kim et al. teach all of the limitations of claim 1 from which this claim depends.
Park et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 4A), the micro lens (RL1) usually contains a certain curvature. However, Park et al. is explicitly silent of disclosing wherein the micro lens has the curvature of about 0.12 or more and about 0.2 or less. It would have been obvious to select intended ‘curvature of the microlens’ to be within the quoted range, to enhance light extraction efficiency, significantly increasing brightness and energy efficiency in OLED and MicroLED panels. In addition, to an ordinary artisan practicing the invention, absent evidence of disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed curvature or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen curvature or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen curvature is critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ 2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
10. Claims 2-3, 13, 15, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2020/0303466 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 2023/0217692 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Shim (US 2022/0181399 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Park et al. and Kim et al. teach all of the limitations of claim 1 from which this claim depends.
Kim et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 2), the bank (115) comprises a first bank (1151) comprising a first inner surface covering an end of the first pixel electrode (1141) and defining a first opening (OP1, see the annotated figure below) and a second bank (1152) disposed on the first bank (1151) and comprising a second inner surface defining a second opening (OP2, see the annotated figure below) corresponding to the first opening,
wherein a width (W2) of the second opening (OP2) is wider than a width (W1) of the first opening (OP1).
PNG
media_image1.png
604
828
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Park et al. and Kim et al. are silent to explicitly show wherein, the pixel electrode comprises a first pixel electrode and a second pixel electrode disposed on the first pixel electrode.
Shim teaches wherein (Fig. 2), the pixel electrode (210, para [0070]) comprises a first pixel electrode (211) and a second pixel electrode (213) disposed on the first pixel electrode (211).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply multi-layered pixel electrodes as taught by Kim et al. and modify the structure of Park et al., in order to improve performance by enhancing response speed, increasing aperture ratios, and enabling specialized viewing modes. In addition, these multi-electrode structures improve control over pixel behavior, allowing for faster, brighter, and more efficient displays.
Regarding claim 3, Park et al. and Kim et al. and Shim teach all of the limitations of claim 2 from which this claim depends.
Kim et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 2), a second internal angle (angle 2: see figure below) between an upper surface of the substrate (110) and the second inner surface of the second bank (1152) is equal to a first internal angle (angle 1: see figure below) between the upper surface of the substrate (110) and the first inner surface of the first bank (1151).
PNG
media_image2.png
554
756
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Kim et al. is explicitly silent of disclosing wherein the second internal angle is greater than the first internal angle. It would have been obvious to select intended ‘angle’ to defer between two angles, to improve performance of the display by enhancing response speed. In addition, to an ordinary artisan practicing the invention, absent evidence of disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed angle difference or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen angle difference or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen angle difference is critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ 2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 13, Park et al. and Kim et al. and Shim teach all of the limitations of claim 2 from which this claim depends.
Park et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 4A), a diameter of the micro lens (RL1) is larger than a diameter of the opening (OP).
Regarding claim 15, Park et al. and Kim et al. teach all of the limitations of claim 3 from which this claim depends.
Park et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 4A), the light control layer (RL2) has an inclination angle (see figure below) on a surface in contact with the micro lens (RL1),
wherein the inclination angle (angle 3) is greater than the second internal angle (angle 2).
PNG
media_image3.png
582
867
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Park et al. and Kim et al. and Shim teach all of the limitations of claim 2 from which this claim depends.
Kim et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 2), at least one of the first bank (1151) and the second bank (1152) is formed of a transparent organic material (epoxy resin, para [0063] which is a transparent organic material).
11. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2020/0303466 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 2023/0217692 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Shim (US 2022/0181399 A1) and Choi et al. (US 2018/0097049 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Park et al. and Kim et al. and Shim teach all of the limitations of claim 2 from which this claim depends.
Park et al. and Kim et al. and Shim are silent to explicitly show wherein, at least one of the first bank and the second bank comprises an opaque material that blocks light.
Choi et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 4), at least one of the bank (190, para [0087]) comprises an opaque material (black resin or black bank, para [0087]) that blocks light.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply opaque material as taught by Kim et al. and modify the bank material of Park et al. and Kim et al. and Shim, in order to absorb external light reflected by a gate electrode 130, a source electrode 150, a drain electrode 160, and an anode electrode 180 (para [0087]).
Allowable Subject Matter
12. Claims 18, 19-23 are allowed.
13. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim 18: the prior art of record alone or in combination neither teaches nor makes obvious a display device, comprising:
….
a refractive index of the micro lens is greater than a refractive index of the light control layer,
Claim 19: the prior art of record alone or in combination neither teaches nor makes obvious a display device, comprising:
….
a refractive index of the micro lens is greater than a refractive index of the light control layer and less than or equal to a refractive index of the capping layer;
14. Claim 4 (claims 4-6 depend on the claim 4) and claim 7 (claims 8-10 depend on the claim 7) and claim 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.
Claim 4: the prior art of record alone or in combination neither teaches nor makes obvious a display device, comprising:
Claim 4 recites …. the second pixel electrode comprises:
a first electrode area disposed inside the first opening;
a second electrode area extending from the first electrode area along the first inner surface of the first bank; and
a third electrode area extending from the second electrode area and covering at least a portion of an upper portion of the first bank exposed by the second opening.
Claim 7: the prior art of record alone or in combination neither teaches nor makes obvious a display device, comprising:
Claim 7 recites …. the second pixel electrode comprises:
a first electrode area disposed inside the first opening;
a second electrode area extending from the first electrode area along the first inner surface of the first bank;
a third electrode area extended from the second electrode area and covering an upper portion of the first bank exposed by the second opening; and
a fourth electrode area extending from the third electrode area along the second inner surface of the second bank.
Claim 11: the prior art of record alone or in combination neither teaches nor makes obvious a display device, comprising:
Claim 11 recites …. further comprising:
a capping layer disposed on the bank,
wherein the micro lens and the light control layer are disposed on the capping layer,
wherein the refractive index of the micro lens is less than or equal to a refractive index of the capping layer.
Response to Arguments
15. It has been acknowledged that the applicant has amended claims 1, 10, 18, 23, per the response dated on 06/16/2026.
Applicant’s arguments in pages 10-11 of the remarks with respect to the amended claim 1 “…. a light control layer ...and entirely encircling the micro lens”, which still be met by the previously cited prior art, Park et al. (US 2020/0303466 A1) through Fig. 6A and discloses in the claim 1 above.
Conclusion
16. 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.
17. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIDARUL MAZUMDER whose telephone number is (571)272-8823. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
18. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Partridge can be reached at 571-270-1402. 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.
/DIDARUL A MAZUMDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights