DETAILED ACTION
This Notice is responsive to communication filed on 10/11/2023.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 1, reading on claims 1-12, and 14 in the reply filed on 3/26/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 13 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/26/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 9, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (US 20200091260).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a display device, comprising:
a substrate Fig. 2A: 110 including a plurality of sub-pixels Fig. 1: R-PA, W-PA, B-PA, G-PA (para. 0048);
an overcoating layer Fig. 2A: 150 disposed on the substrate Fig. 2A: 110, the overcoating layer Fig. 2A: 150 having a protrusion portion Fig. 2A: 150p, a trench Fig. 2B: 152h and a base portion (bottom portion of 150);
an anode Fig. 2A: 310R disposed to correspond to each of the plurality of sub-pixels Fig. 2A: R-PA and to cover the base portion and a part of the protrusion portion (shown in Fig. 2A);
a bank Fig. 2A: 160 disposed on a part of the anode Fig. 2A: 310R;
an organic layer Fig. 2A: 320R disposed on the anode Fig. 2A: 310R and the bank Fig. 2A: 160;
a cathode Fig. 2A: 330R disposed on the organic layer Fig. 2A: 320R; and
a first trench electrode and a second trench electrode disposed on a side surface of the trench (see annotated Fig. 2B below).
PNG
media_image1.png
626
763
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Lee teaches the display device according to claim 1, wherein the organic layer Fig. 2B: 320R/320W and the cathode Fig. 2B: 330R/330W are disposed between the first trench electrode and the second trench electrode in the trench Fig. 2B: 152h, and the first trench electrode and the second trench electrode are in contact with the organic layer Fig. 2A: 320R/320W (shown in Fig. 2B).
Regarding claim 9, Lee teaches the display device according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of sub-pixels Fig. 1: R-PA, W-PA, B-PA, G-PA includes a first sub-pixel Fig. 1: R-PA and a second sub-pixel Fig. 1: W-PA that emit light of different colors (i.e. red, white; para. 0048), respectively and are disposed adjacent to each other (shown in Fig. 1), the first trench electrode is disposed between the first sub-pixel Fig. 1: R-PA and the second sub-pixel Fig. 1: W-PA so as to be adjacent to the first sub-pixel Fig. 1: R-PA, and the second trench electrode is disposed between the first sub-pixel Fig. 1: R-PA and the second sub-pixel Fig. 1: W-PA so as to be adjacent to the second sub-pixel Fig. 1: W-PA (Fig. 2B shows this positioning between the R-EA, NEA, and W-EA portions of the device).
Regarding claim 12, Lee teaches the display device according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of sub-pixels Fig. 1: R-PA, W-PA, B-PA, G-PA includes first to third sub-pixels that emit light of different colors, respectively (para. 0048), the first trench electrode and the second trench electrode are disposed between the first sub-pixel Fig. 1: R-PA and the second sub-pixel Fig. 1: W-PA, a third trench electrode and a fourth trench electrode are disposed between the second sub-pixel Fig. 1: W-PA and the third sub-pixel Fig. 1: B-PA, and a fifth trench electrode and a sixth trench electrode are disposed between the third sub-pixel Fig. 1: B-PA and the first sub-pixel (para. 0073 teaches an overcoat separating hole that separates each pixel region, Fig. 1 shows the placement of the pixel areas adjacent to each other, and Fig. 2B shows the trench and trench electrodes position with respect to each sub-pixel area).
Regarding claim 14, Lee teaches the display device according to claim 12, wherein the first trench electrode and the second trench electrode (annotated above) are made of the same material as the anode Fig. 1: 310R (para. 0076).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20200091260) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nishido et al. (US 20140225140).
Regarding claim 3, Nishido teaches the following claim limitations not disclosed by Lee:
the display device according to claim 2, wherein the first trench electrode (para. 0072, shield electrode) has a lower electric potential than the second trench electrode (para. 0072, higher potential side anode). Para. 0071 teaches a voltage applied to the shield electrode 419 is lower than or equal to the higher potential side anode.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lee with Nishido in order to inhibit flow of leakage current within the light-emitting device (0072).
Regarding claim 4, Nishido teaches the following claim limitations not disclosed by Lee:
the display device according to claim 3, wherein the first trench electrode and the second trench electrode have the same or lower electric potential than the cathode (para. 0071 teaches a voltage applied to the shield electrode 419 is lower than or equal to the cathode 422).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lee with Nishido in order to inhibit flow of leakage current within the light-emitting device (0072).
Regarding claim 7, Lee teaches the display device according to claim 1:
wherein the bank Fig. 2A: 160, the organic layer Fig. 2A: 320R, and the cathode Fig. 2A: 330R are disposed between the first trench electrode and the second trench electrode in the trench (shown in Fig. 2B),
the bank Fig. 2A: 160 is disposed between the first and second trench electrodes and the organic layer Fig. 2A: 320R (shown in Fig. 2B), and
the first trench electrode has a lower electric potential than the second trench electrode.
Nishido teaches the following claim limitations not disclosed by Lee:
the first trench electrode (para. 0072, shield electrode) has a lower electric potential than the second trench electrode (para. 0072, higher potential side anode). Para. 0071 teaches a voltage applied to the shield electrode 419 is lower than or equal to the higher potential side anode.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lee with Nishido in order to inhibit flow of leakage current within the light-emitting device (0072).
Regarding claim 8, Nishido teaches the following claim limitations not disclosed by Lee:
the display device according to claim 7, wherein a voltage equal to or lower than an electric potential of the cathode (i.e. upper electrode) is applied to the first trench electrode and the second trench electrode (i.e. third electrode) (para. 0028-0029).
Regarding claim 10, Nishida teaches the following claim limitations not disclosed by Lee:
the display device according to claim 9:
wherein when the first sub-pixel Fig. 2B: 420b among the first sub-pixel and the second sub-pixel emits light, the first trench electrode has a lower electric potential than the second trench electrode (para. 0071).
Regarding claim 11, Nishida teaches the following claim limitations not disclosed by Lee:
the display device according to claim 9:
wherein when the second sub-pixel among the first sub-pixel and the second sub-pixel emits light, the first trench electrode has a higher electric potential than the second trench electrode (para. 0071).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 6 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NKECHINYERE ESIABA whose telephone number is (571)272-0720. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10am-5pm 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, Kretelia Graham can be reached at (571) 272-5055. 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.
/Nkechinyere Esiaba/Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/Kretelia Graham/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights