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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 17 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.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 04/01/2026. These drawings has been reviewed and entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek et al. (U.S. 2023/0110227 A1, hereinafter refer to Baek) in view of Bang et al. (U.S. 2018/0366524 A1, hereinafter refer to Bang) and Lee et al. (U.S. 2023/0050385 A1, hereinafter refer to Lee).
Regarding Claim 1: Baek discloses a display device (see Baek, Fig.4 as shown below and ¶ [0002]) comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
443
658
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a substrate (SUB) (see Baek, Fig.4 as shown above);
a first electrode (E1) disposed on the substrate (SUB) (see Baek, Fig.4 as shown above);
a pixel defining layer (IL3) including a pixel opening through which the first electrode (E1) is exposed (see Baek, Fig.4 as shown above);
a second electrode (E2) disposed on the pixel defining layer (IL3) and the first electrode (E1) (see Baek, Fig.4 as shown above);
an encapsulation layer (ENC) covering the second electrode (E2) (see Baek, Fig.4 as shown above);
a color filter (CF) disposed on the encapsulation layer (ENC) (see Baek, Fig.4 as shown above); and
a light blocking component (BM) including a light opening overlapping the color filter (CF) (see Baek, Fig.4 as shown above),
wherein the pixel defining layer (IL3) includes a first portion (see Baek, Fig.4 as shown above),
at least a portion of the first portion overlaps an edge portion of the light blocking component (BM) (see Baek, Fig.4 as shown above).
Baek teaches the first portion includes an inclined region (see Baek, Fig.4 as shown above); however, Baek teaches is silent upon explicitly disclosing wherein the first portion is inclined.
For support see Bang, which teaches wherein the first portion is inclined (see Bang, Fig.10 as shown below and ¶ [0007]).
PNG
media_image2.png
293
588
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Baek and Bang to enable the Baek first portion of pixel defining layer to be inclined as taught by Bang in order to iimprove display quality without emitting light between pixels in a non-uniform manner.
The combination of Baek and Bang is silent upon explicitly disclosing wherein the pixel opening and the light opening have a shape without corner portions in a plan view.
For support see Lee, which teaches wherein the pixel opening (PDL-OP1) and the light opening (310-OP1) have a shape without corner portions in a plan view (see Lee, Figs.7-8 as shown below and ¶ [0258]- ¶ [0259]).
PNG
media_image3.png
575
548
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
497
727
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Baek, Bang, and Lee to enable the pixel opening and the light opening to have a shape without corner portions in a plan view as taught by Lee in order to increase the transmittance of a sensor region.
Regarding Claim 2: Baek as modified teaches a display device as set forth in claim 1 as above. The combination of Baek, Bang, and Lee further teaches wherein a height of the first portion decreases as being farther from the pixel opening (see Baek, Fig.4 as shown above and see Bang, Fig.10 as shown above).
Regarding Claim 3: Baek as modified teaches a display device as set forth in claim 1 as above. The combination of Baek, Bang, and Lee is silent upon explicitly disclosing wherein an inclination of the first portion is in a range of about 10° to about 45°.
However, the combination of Baek and Bang teaches wherein an inclination of the first portion (see Bang, Fig.10 as shown above).
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of making semiconductor devices to determine the workable or optimal value for the an inclination of the first portion through routine experimentation and optimization to obtain optimal or desired device performance because the an inclination of the first portion is a result-effective variable and there is no evidence indicating that it is critical or produces any unexpected results and it has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable within given prior art conditions by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05
Regarding Claim 4: Baek as modified teaches a display device as set forth in claim 1 as above. The combination of Baek, Bang, and Lee further teaches wherein a first portion with a lowest height in the first portion overlaps the light blocking component (BM) (see Baek, Fig.4 as shown above and see Bang, Fig.10 as shown above).
Regarding Claims 5 and 6: Baek as modified teaches a display device as set forth in claim 1 as above. The combination of Baek, Bang, and Lee is silent upon explicitly disclosing wherein a first portion with a lowest height in the first portion is spaced apart from the edge portion of the light blocking component by a horizontal distance of about 1 μm or more (as claimed in claim 5);
wherein a difference in height between a first portion with a lowest height and a second portion with a highest height in the first portion is in a range of about 0.3 μm to about 1 μm (as claimed in claim 6).
However, the combination of Baek and Bang teaches wherein a first portion with a lowest height in the first portion is spaced apart from the edge portion of the light blocking component by a horizontal distance (see Bang, Fig.10 as shown above);
wherein a difference in height between a first portion with a lowest height and a second portion with a highest height in the first portion (see Bang, Fig.10 as shown above).
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of making semiconductor devices to determine the workable or optimal value for the horizontal distance of first portion with a lowest height in the first portion spaced apart from the edge portion of the overlapping area and the difference in height between a first portion with a lowest height and a second portion with a highest height in the first portion through routine experimentation and optimization to obtain optimal or desired device performance because the horizontal distance of first portion with a lowest height in the first portion spaced apart from the edge portion of the overlapping area and difference in height between a first portion with a lowest height and a second portion with a highest height in the first portion is a result-effective variable and there is no evidence indicating that it is critical or produces any unexpected results and it has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable within given prior art conditions by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05
Regarding Claim 7: Baek as modified teaches a display device as set forth in claim 1 as above. The combination of Baek, Bang, and Lee further teaches wherein the pixel defining layer (IL3) further includes a second portion adjacent to the first portion as being farther from the pixel opening (see Baek, Fig.4 as shown above and see Bang, Fig.10 as shown above), and
the second portion is inclined (see Baek, Fig.4 as shown above and see Bang, Fig.10 as shown above).
Regarding Claim 8: Baek as modified teaches a display device as set forth in claim 7 as above. The combination of Baek, Bang, and Lee further teaches wherein a height in the second portion increases as being farther from the pixel opening (see Baek, Fig.4 as shown above and see Bang, Fig.10 as shown above).
Regarding Claim 9: Baek as modified teaches a display device as set forth in claim 7 as above. The combination of Baek, Bang, and Lee further teaches wherein the pixel defining layer (IL3) further includes a third portion adjacent to the second portion as being farther from the pixel opening (see Baek, Fig.4 as shown above and see Bang, Fig.10 as shown above), and
the third portion has a certain height (see Baek, Fig.4 as shown above and see Bang, Fig.10 as shown above).
Regarding Claim 10: Baek as modified teaches a display device as set forth in claim 9 as above. The combination of Baek, Bang, and Lee is silent upon explicitly disclosing wherein the height of the third portion is in a range of about 1.5 μm to about 1.7 μm.
However, the combination of Baek and Bang teaches wherein the height of the third portion (see Bang, Fig.10 as shown above).
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of making semiconductor devices to determine the workable or optimal value for the height of the third portion through routine experimentation and optimization to obtain optimal or desired device performance because the height of the third portion is a result-effective variable and there is no evidence indicating that it is critical or produces any unexpected results and it has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable within given prior art conditions by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05
Regarding Claim 11: Baek as modified teaches a display device as set forth in claim 1 as above. The combination of Baek, Bang, and Lee further teaches wherein the pixel defining layer (IL3) further includes a second portion adjacent to the first portion as being farther from the pixel opening (see Baek, Fig.4 as shown above and see Bang, Fig.10 as shown above), and
the second portion has a certain height (see Baek, Fig.4 as shown above and see Bang, Fig.10 as shown above).
Regarding Claim 12: Baek as modified teaches a display device as set forth in claim 1 as above. The combination of Baek, Bang, and Lee further teaches wherein the pixel defining layer (IL3) further includes a fourth portion adjacent to the first portion in a direction toward the pixel opening (see Baek, Fig.4 as shown above and see Bang, Fig.10 as shown above), and
the fourth portion is inclined (see Baek, Fig.4 as shown above and see Bang, Fig.10 as shown above).
Regarding Claim 13: Baek as modified teaches a display device as set forth in claim 12 as above. The combination of Baek, Bang, and Lee is silent upon explicitly disclosing wherein an inclination of the fourth portion is in a range of about 15° to about 35°.
However, the combination of Baek and Bang teaches wherein an inclination of the fourth portion (see Bang, Fig.10 as shown above).
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of making semiconductor devices to determine the workable or optimal value for the an inclination of the fourth portion through routine experimentation and optimization to obtain optimal or desired device performance because the an inclination of the fourth portion is a result-effective variable and there is no evidence indicating that it is critical or produces any unexpected results and it has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable within given prior art conditions by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05
Regarding Claim 14: Baek as modified teaches a display device as set forth in claim 1 as above. The combination of Baek, Bang, and Lee further teaches wherein the pixel opening has a surface area less than a surface area of the light opening (see Baek, Fig.4 as shown above and see Bang, Fig.10 as shown above), and
the pixel opening (PDL-OP1) and the light opening (310-OP1) have a circular shape in a plan view (see Lee, Figs.7-8 as shown above and ¶ [0258]- ¶ [0259]).
Regarding Claim 15: Baek as modified teaches a display device as set forth in claim 1 as above. The combination of Baek, Bang, and Lee further teaches wherein the pixel opening (see Baek, Fig.4 as shown above) includes:
a first pixel opening defining a first emission area formed to display a first color (see Baek, Fig.4 as shown above),
a second pixel opening defining a second emission area formed to display a second color (see Baek, Fig.4 as shown above), and
a third pixel opening defining a third emission area formed to display a third color (see Baek, Fig.4 as shown above), and
the first portion is included in a portion of the pixel defining layer (IL3) that defines the first pixel opening (see Baek, Fig.4 as shown above).
Regarding Claim 16: Baek as modified teaches a display device as set forth in claim 1 as above. The combination of Baek, Bang, and Lee further teaches wherein the pixel opening (see Baek, Fig.4 as shown above) includes:
a first pixel opening defining a first emission area formed to display a first color (see Baek, Fig.4 as shown above),
a second pixel opening defining a second emission area formed to display a second color (see Baek, Fig.4 as shown above),
a first sub-pixel opening defining a first sub-emission area formed to display a third color (see Baek, Fig.4 as shown above), and
a second sub-pixel opening defining a second sub-emission area formed to display the third color (see Baek, Fig.4 as shown above), and
the first portion is included in a portion of the pixel defining layer (IL3) that defines the first sub-pixel opening (see Baek, Fig.4 as shown above).
Regarding Claim 17: Baek discloses a display device (see Baek, Fig.4 as shown above and ¶ [0002]) comprising:
a substrate (SUB) (see Baek, Fig.4 as shown above);
a first electrode (E1) disposed on the substrate (SUB) (see Baek, Fig.4 as shown above);
a pixel defining layer (IL3) including a pixel opening through which the first electrode (E1) is exposed (see Baek, Fig.4 as shown above);
a second electrode (E2) disposed on the pixel defining layer (IL3) and the first electrode (E1) (see Baek, Fig.4 as shown above);
an encapsulation layer (ENC) covering the second electrode (E2) (see Baek, Fig.4 as shown above);
a first color filter (CF2) disposed on the encapsulation layer (ENC) (see Baek, Fig.4 as shown above); and
a second color filter (CF1) disposed at least partially over the first color filter (CF2) (see Baek, Fig.4 as shown above),
wherein the pixel defining layer (IL3) includes a first portion (see Baek, Fig.4 as shown above),
at least a portion of the first portion overlaps an edge portion of an overlapping area where the first color filter (CF2) and the second color filter (CF1) overlap each other (see Baek, Fig.4 as shown above).
Baek teaches the first portion includes an inclined region (see Baek, Fig.4 as shown above); however, Baek teaches is silent upon explicitly disclosing wherein the first portion is inclined.
For support see Bang, which teaches wherein the first portion is inclined (see Bang, Fig.10 as shown above and ¶ [0007]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Baek and Bang to enable the Baek first portion of pixel defining layer to be inclined as taught by Bang in order to iimprove display quality without emitting light between pixels in a non-uniform manner.
The combination of Baek and Bang is silent upon explicitly disclosing wherein the pixel opening and the light opening have a shape without corner portions in a plan view.
For support see Lee, which teaches wherein the pixel opening (PDL-OP1) and the light opening (310-OP1) have a shape without corner portions in a plan view (see Lee, Figs.7-8 as shown above and ¶ [0258]- ¶ [0259]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Baek, Bang, and Lee to enable the pixel opening and the light opening to have a shape without corner portions in a plan view as taught by Lee in order to increase the transmittance of a sensor region.
Regarding Claim 18: Baek as modified teaches a display device as set forth in claim 17 as above. The combination of Baek, Bang, and Lee further teaches wherein a height of the first portion decreases as being farther from the pixel opening (see Baek, Fig.4 as shown above and see Bang, Fig.10 as shown above), and
the pixel opening (PDL-OP1) and the light opening (310-OP1) have a circular shape in a plan view (see Lee, Figs.7-8 as shown above and ¶ [0258]- ¶ [0259]).
Regarding Claim 19: Baek as modified teaches a display device as set forth in claim 17 as above. The combination of Baek, Bang, and Lee further teaches wherein a first portion with a lowest height in the first portion overlaps the overlapping area (see Baek, Fig.4 as shown above and see Bang, Fig.10 as shown above).
Regarding Claim 20: Baek as modified teaches a display device as set forth in claim 17 as above. The combination of Baek, Bang, and Lee is silent upon explicitly disclosing wherein a first portion with a lowest height in the first portion is spaced apart from the edge portion of the overlapping area by a horizontal distance of about 1 μm or more.
However, the combination of Baek and Bang teaches wherein a first portion with a lowest height in the first portion is spaced apart from the edge portion of the overlapping area by a horizontal distance (see Baek, Fig.4 as shown above and see Bang, Fig.10 as shown above).
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of making semiconductor devices to determine the workable or optimal value for the horizontal distance of first portion with a lowest height in the first portion spaced apart from the edge portion of the overlapping area through routine experimentation and optimization to obtain optimal or desired device performance because the horizontal distance of first portion with a lowest height in the first portion spaced apart from the edge portion of the overlapping area is a result-effective variable and there is no evidence indicating that it is critical or produces any unexpected results and it has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable within given prior art conditions by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BITEW A DINKE whose telephone number is (571)272-0534. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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, Davienne Monbleau can be reached at (571)272-1945. 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.
/BITEW A DINKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights