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.
This Office Action is in response to Amendments/Remarks filed on June 09, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. As to claim 1, the limitation “a portion of the anode” is recited twice. It is not clear whether they refer to the same portion or different portions along with the recited “another portion”. Further, it is not clear what “on an in” is directed to. Thus, the limitation renders the claims indefinite and clarification is required.
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) 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0373124 A1 to Yang et al. (“Yang”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0087769 A1 to Yamazaki et al. (“Yamazaki”).
As to claim 1, although Yang discloses a display device, comprising: a planarization layer (134) disposed above a substrate (110); a first bank (141) disposed on the planarization layer (134), wherein the first bank (141) is a layer (141) separate from the planarization layer (134); an anode (140) disposed on the planarization layer (134), a portion (into 141) of the anode (140) disposed on a side surface of the first bank (141), wherein a top surface of the first bank (141) is positioned higher than an upper surface of another portion (contacting 150) of the anode (140) disposed on an in contact with the planarization layer (134); a second bank (142, 246) covering a portion of the anode (140) and the first bank (141), the second bank (142, 246) disposed above the first bank (141) and the anode (140); an organic layer (150) which is disposed on the anode (140); a cathode (160) disposed on the organic layer (150) (See Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Fig. 4, ¶ 0050, ¶ 0062, ¶ 0064, ¶ 0068, ¶ 0069, ¶ 0073, ¶ 0102, ¶ 0105, ¶ 0122, ¶ 0126, ¶ 0127) (Notes: the limitation “bank” is interpreted as a layer to define and separate elements adjacent thereof), Yang does not further disclose a doping layer disposed on a top surface and a side portion of the second bank; the organic layer which is disposed on the doping layer; and an encapsulation unit disposed above the cathode. However, Yamazaki does disclose a doping layer (black 118 on 114) disposed on a top surface and a side portion of the second bank (114); the organic layer (119) which is disposed on the doping layer (black 118 on 114); and an encapsulation unit (122, 123) disposed above the cathode (120) (See Fig. 1, Fig. 2, ¶ 0039, ¶ 0129, ¶ 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 Yang to have a doping layer disposed on a top surface and a side portion of the second bank; the organic layer which is disposed on the doping layer; and an encapsulation unit disposed above the cathode because the doping layer and the encapsulation unit further prevent moisture and oxygen from entering to improve the reliability (See ¶ 0132, ¶ 0140).
As to claim 2, Yang further discloses wherein the first bank (141) is configured by a black material and the second bank (142, 246) is configured by a transparent material (246) (See Fig. 4, ¶ 0122, ¶ 0127). As to claim 3, Yang in view of 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 (142, 246/114) to cover the second bank (142, 246/114) (See Yang Fig. 4 and Yamazaki Fig. 2). As to claim 4, Yang in view of 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 Yamazaki Fig. 2, ¶ 0132) (Notes: the limitation “is injected” is a product-by-process limitation). As to claim 5, Yang in view of Yamazaki further discloses wherein the substrate (110) is divided into a first area (140 contacting 150) corresponding to a main emission area and a second area (at 141) other than the first area (140 contacting 150), and the first bank (141), the second bank (142, 246/114), and the doping layer (black 118 on 114) are disposed only in the second area (at 141) (See Yang Fig. 4 and Yamazaki Fig. 2) (Notes: the first and second areas are defined by the elements disposed thereon).
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0373124 A1 to Yang et al. (“Yang”) and 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 teachings of Yang and Yamazaki have been discussed above. As to claim 6, although Yang in view of Yamazaki discloses wherein the organic layer (150) includes: a p-hole injection layer (151) which is disposed in the first area (140 contacting 150) and the second area (at 141); a hole transport layer (152) disposed on the p-hole injection layer (151); an emission layer (153) disposed on the hole transport layer (152) of the first area (140 contacting 150); and an electron transport layer (154) disposed in the first area (140 contacting 150) and the second area (at 141), and the doping layer (black 118 on 114) (See Yang Fig. 2, Fig. 4, ¶ 0073 and Yamazaki Fig. 2), Yang and Yamazaki do not further disclose and wherein the doping layer has a doping concentration higher than the p-hole injection layer. However, Yang in view of Yamazaki and Zhang does disclose and wherein the doping layer (black 118 on 114) has a doping concentration higher (2E19-21 to 1E18) than the p-hole injection layer (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), wherein the first bank (118) is a layer (118) separate from the planarization layer (116); an anode (112, 138) disposed on the planarization layer (116), a portion (112) of the anode (112, 138) disposed on a side surface of the first bank (118), wherein a top surface of the first bank (118) is positioned higher than an upper surface of another portion (138) of the anode (112, 138) disposed on an in contact with the planarization layer (116); a second bank (120) covering a portion of the anode (112, 138) and the first bank (118), the second bank (120) disposed above the first bank (118) and the anode (112, 138); 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, 138); 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. Further, the limitation “planarization” does not specify any particular function, dimensions, shapes, etc., and where exactly the planarization exists. Since layer 116 has a significant portion that is flat, the limitation is considered met. Also, Yang et al. (US 2017/0373124 A1) also teaches a planarization layer 334 that has protrusions 334b in FIG. 7), 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, although Ahn does not further disclose wherein the first bank is configured by a black material and the second bank is configured by a transparent material, 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
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.
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
Prosecution Insights