9DETAILED 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
Applicant’s amendment and remarks received 25 June 2026 have been entered and overcome the claim objections and claim rejections under 35 USC § 112 cited in the previous Office Action.
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 1-4, 8, and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim (US 2019/0348624).
Regarding independent claim 1, Kim teaches a light emitting display (Fig. 5B, Element 500B; ¶ [0101]) comprising a substrate (Fig. 5B, Element 110; ¶ [0046]) including a first pixel and a second pixel (¶ [0008]); Fig. 5B shows a single pixel, but a light emitting display is inherently comprised of many pixels); a buffer layer (Fig. 5B, Element 111; ¶ [0046]) on the substrate; a reflective layer (Fig. 5B, Elements 540B/124; ¶s [0109], [0053]) on the buffer layer; a nano layer (Fig. 5B, Element 560; ¶ [0101]) on the reflective layer, the nano layer comprising a plurality of nano-particles; and an anode electrode (Fig. 5B, Element 131; ¶ [0046]) on the nano layer.
Regarding claim 2, Kim teaches the reflective layer (540B) extending under the nano layer, and disposed under the anode electrode (Fig. 5B).
Regarding claim 3, Kim teaches the reflective layer (124) disposed under the nano layer and on the buffer layer (Fig. 5B).
Regarding claim 4, Kim teaches a lower conductive layer (Fig. 5B, Element 122; ¶ [0051]) disposed between the reflective layer and the buffer layer (Fig. 5B).
Regarding claim 8, Kim teaches a third pixel on the substrate, wherein the nano layer is absent from the third pixel, since a light emitting display inherently comprises many pixels.
Regarding claim 11, Kim teaches the nano layer including a nano-based layer (¶ [0101]); and nano-particles having protrusion shape formed on the nano-based layer (Fig. 5B).
Regarding claim 12, Kim teaches the nano-based layer and the nano-particles including a same material (Fig. 5B).
Regarding claim 13, Kim teaches the nano layer including a plurality of nano-particles, adjacent nano-particles of the plurality of nano-particles having spaces therebetween (Fig. 5A; spaces between convex portions 550a); and residual thin layers dispersed in the spaces between the adjacent nano-particles (Fig. 5A).
Regarding claim 14, Kim teaches a thickness of the residual thin layers being far less than a thickness of the nano-particles (Fig. 5A).
Regarding claim 15, Kim teaches the residual thin layers including a same material as the plurality of nano-particles (Fig. 5A; same layer).
Regarding claim 16, Kim teaches a planarization layer (Fig. 5B, Element 513; ¶ [0100]) under the buffer layer.
Regarding claim 17, Kim teaches a driving layer (Fig. 5B, Element 120; ¶ [0046]) disposed between the planarization layer and the substrate, and including driving element coupled to the anode electrode (Fig. 5B).
Regarding claim 18, Kim teaches a bank (Fig. 5B, Element 116; ¶ [0070]) covering edge portions of the anode electrode, exposing central area of the anode electrode, and defining an emission area; an emission layer (Fig. 5B, Element 132; ¶ [0046]) on the bank and the anode electrode; and a cathode electrode (Fig. 5B, Element 133; ¶ [0046]) on the emission layer.
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.
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.
Claims 5-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2019/0348624).
Regarding claim 5, Kim teaches the limitations of claim 4 discussed earlier but fails to exemplify the lower conductive layer comprises a transparent conductive material including indium-tin-oxide. Indium-tin-oxide is a well-known conductive material in the art of display devices.
Therefore, it would have been an obvious choice of design to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the display of Kim with the lower conductive layer comprising indium-tin-oxide, since it is obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding claim 6, Kim teaches the limitations of claim 4 discussed earlier but fails to exemplify the lower conductive layer comprising a transparent conductive material including indium-zinc-oxide. Indium-zinc-oxide is a well-known conductive material in the art of display devices.
Therefore, it would have been an obvious choice of design to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the display of Kim with the lower conductive layer comprising indium-zinc-oxide, since it is obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding claim 7, Kim teaches the limitations of independent claim 1 discussed earlier but fails to exemplify the nano layer including first nano-particles having a first size; and second nano-particles having a second size smaller than the first size. Kim discloses the nano structures being different (¶s [0101], [0109]).
Therefore, it would have been an obvious choice of design to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the light emitting display of Kim with the nano layer including first nano-particles having a first size; and second nano-particles having a second size smaller than the first size, since a change in size would not change the performance of the device (MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A)).
Regarding claim 9, Kim teaches the limitations of independent claim 1 discussed earlier but fails to exemplify the nano layer including an oxide including indium, the oxide comprising one or more of indium-tin-oxide, indium-zinc-oxide, indium-gallium-oxide, and indium-gallium-zinc-tin-oxide.
It would have been an obvious choice of design to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the display of Kim with the nano layer including an oxide including indium, the oxide comprising one or more of indium-tin-oxide, indium-zinc-oxide, indium-gallium-oxide, and indium-gallium-zinc-tin-oxide, since it is obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP § 2144.07).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 25 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument, regards to independent claim 1, that Kim fails to teach the limitations directed to a particular order of the layer stack, the Examiner notes that the does not require a particular order. Applicant notes that the claimed structure requires a layer sequence in which the nano layer is interposed between the reflective layer and the anode electrode. However, independent claim 1 requires the nano layer to be on the reflective layer and the anode to be on the nano layer. This claim language can be interpreted in different ways—e.g., a computer mouse would be considered to be on a desk, even though there’s a mouse pad between the desk and the mouse. In the instant case, using the above interpretation on the claim, Figure 5B of Kim shows the nano layer (560) on the reflective layer (540B) and the anode electrode (131) on the nano layer.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Quarterman whose telephone number is (571)272-2461. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10am-6pm.
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 Greece can be reached at (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.
/Kevin Quarterman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875 11 September 2026
Prosecution Insights