DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Response to Amendment/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I, Embodiment 1, Fig. 4, and Claims 1-6 in the reply filed on February 13, 2026 is acknowledged. Thus, Claims 7-27 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on February 13, 2026.
Specification
The title of the invention is broad and not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0087769 A1 to Yamazaki et al. (“Yamazaki”). As to claim 1, Yamazaki discloses a display device, comprising: a planarization layer (109) disposed above a substrate (100); a first bank (111 between 112) disposed on the planarization layer (109); an anode (112, 113) disposed on the planarization layer (109), the anode (112, 113) disposed on a side surface of the first bank (111 between 112); a second bank (114) covering a portion of the anode (112, 113) and the first bank (111 between 112), the second bank (114) disposed above the first bank (111 between 112) and the anode (112, 113); a doping layer (black 118 on 114) disposed on a top surface and a side portion of the second bank (114); an organic layer (119) which is disposed on the doping layer (black 118 on 114) and the anode (112, 113); a cathode (120) disposed on the organic layer (119); and an encapsulation unit (122, 123) disposed above the cathode (120) (See Fig. 1, Fig. 2, ¶ 0039, ¶ 0079, ¶ 0117, ¶ 0120, ¶ 0129, ¶ 0131-¶ 0141) (Notes: the limitation “bank” is interpreted as a layer to define and separate elements adjacent thereof). As to claim 3, Yamazaki further discloses wherein the doping layer (black 118 on 114) is disposed on the top surface and the side portion of the second bank (114) to cover the second bank (114) (See Fig. 2). As to claim 4, Yamazaki further discloses wherein the doping layer (black 118 on 114) is a p-doping layer (black 118 on 114) in which a p-type impurity is injected (See Fig. 2, ¶ 0132) (Notes: the limitation “is injected” is a product-by-process limitation). As to claim 5, Yamazaki further discloses wherein the substrate (100) is divided into a first area (at 119 on 117) corresponding to a main emission area and a second area (overlapping 112) other than the first area (at 119 on 117), and the first bank (111 between 112), the second bank (114), and the doping layer (black 118 on 114) are disposed only in the second area (overlapping 112) (See Fig. 1, Fig. 2) (Notes: the first and second areas are defined by the elements disposed thereon).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0087769 A1 to Yamazaki et al. (“Yamazaki”) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of CN 105428476 B to Zhang et al. (“Zhang”). The teaching of Yamazaki has been discussed above. As to claim 6, Yamazaki in view of Zhang further discloses wherein the organic layer (119) includes: a p-hole injection layer (¶ 0039/50) which is disposed in the first area (at 119 on 117) and the second area (overlapping 112); a hole transport layer (¶ 0039) disposed on the p-hole injection layer (¶ 0039/50); an emission layer (¶ 0039) disposed on the hole transport layer (¶ 0039) of the first area (at 119 on 117); and an electron transport layer (¶ 0039) disposed in the first area (at 119 on 117) and the second area (overlapping 112), and wherein the doping layer (black 118 on 114) has a doping concentration higher (2E19-21 to 1E18) than the p-hole injection layer (¶ 0039/50) (See Yamazaki ¶ 0039, ¶ 0132, ¶ 0135, ¶ 0136 and Zhang S05 on Page 6) such that the highly doped doping layer provides a densified barrier and improved optical properties and the p-hole injection layer provides enough hole and improved composite efficiency in the emission layer.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0212144 A1 to Ahn et al. (“Ahn”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0087769 A1 to Yamazaki et al. (“Yamazaki”). As to claim 1, although Ahn discloses a display device, comprising: a planarization layer (116) disposed above a substrate (111); a first bank (118) disposed on the planarization layer (116); an anode (112) disposed on the planarization layer (116), the anode (112) disposed on a side surface of the first bank (118); a second bank (120) covering a portion of the anode (112) and the first bank (118), the second bank (120) disposed above the first bank (118) and the anode (112); a doping layer (131 on 120) disposed on a top surface and a side portion of the second bank (120); an organic layer (142) which is disposed on the doping layer (131 on 120) and the anode (112); a cathode (150) disposed on the organic layer (142) (See Fig. 14, ¶ 0006, ¶ 0020, ¶ 0070, ¶ 0072, ¶ 0073, ¶ 0078, ¶ 0082, ¶ 0132, ¶ 0135) (Notes: the limitation “planarization layer” provides flat surfaces and limitation “bank” is interpreted as a layer to define and separate elements adjacent thereof), Ahn does not further disclose and an encapsulation unit disposed above the cathode. However, Yamazaki does disclose and an encapsulation unit (122, 123) disposed above the cathode (120) (See Fig. 1, Fig. 2, ¶ 0131-¶ 0141). In view of the teaching of Yamazaki, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Ahn to have and an encapsulation unit disposed above the cathode because moisture is prevented from entering to improve the reliability (See ¶ 0140).
As to claim 3, Ahn further discloses wherein the doping layer (131 on 120) is disposed on the top surface and the side portion of the second bank (120) to cover the second bank (120) (See Fig. 14). As to claim 4, Ahn further discloses wherein the doping layer (131 on 120) is a p-doping layer (131 on 120) in which a p-type impurity is injected (See ¶ 0078) (Notes: the limitation “is injected” is a product-by-process limitation).
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0212144 A1 to Ahn et al. (“Ahn”) and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0087769 A1 to Yamazaki et al. (“Yamazaki”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0033848 A1 to Jung et al. (“Jung”). The teachings of Ahn and Yamazaki have been discussed above. As to claim 2, Ahn in view of Jung further discloses wherein the first bank (118/BIL) is configured by a black material and the second bank (120/TPDL) is configured by a transparent material (See Ahn Fig. 14 and Jung Fig. 5, ¶ 0097-¶ 0100) such that external light is absorbed by the black material to prevent the devices below from being visible due to reflection of external light.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7438. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12-6.
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, JOSHUA BENITEZ can be reached at (571) 270-1435. 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.
/DAVID CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815