Attorney Docket Number: Q308879
Filing Date: 12/04/2023
Claimed Foreign Priority Date: 3/02/2023 (KR10-2023-0027627)
Inventor: Yi
Examiner: Thomas McCoy
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action responds to the election filed 4/15/2026.
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 . In the event the determination of the status of the
application as to 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 a 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.
Election/Restriction
Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.1.42(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 4/15/2026. The applicant indicated that claims 1-13 read on the elected invention. The examiner agrees.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the feature of the third light emitting opening overlapping the first light emitting opening and the second light emitting opening in the first direction must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 7-8 comprise the limitation “…comprising a light emitting pattern disposed in the second light emitting opening”, but this “light emitting pattern” limitation is already recited in another region, per the claim. For the purpose of examination, the second recitation of “a light emitting pattern” will be construed to recite “a second light emitting pattern”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is also objected to because of the following informalities: lines 9-10 comprise the limitation “…comprising a light emitting pattern disposed in the third light emitting opening”, but this “light emitting pattern” limitation is already recited in another region, per the claim. For the purpose of examination, the third recitation of “a light emitting pattern” will be construed to recite “a third light emitting pattern”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 7-8 comprise the limitation “…comprising a light emitting pattern disposed in the second light emitting opening”, but this “light emitting pattern” limitation is already recited in another region, per the claim. For the purpose of examination, the second recitation of “a light emitting pattern” will be construed to recite “a second light emitting pattern”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is also objected to because of the following informalities: lines 9-10 comprise the limitation “…comprising a light emitting pattern disposed in the third light emitting opening”, but this “light emitting pattern” limitation is already recited in another region, per the claim. For the purpose of examination, the third recitation of “a light emitting pattern” will be construed to recite “a third light emitting pattern”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 10 recites the limitation “…the first gap (G1) and the second gap (G2) satisfy the following Equation 1: |G1-G2|…”, which will be interpreted as “…a size of the first gap (G1) and a size of the second gap (G2) satisfy the following Equation 1: |G1-G2|…”.
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 3 and 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “…the third color light has…a wavelength range of the second color light”, but this is contradictory to claim 2, from which it claims, as claim 2 recites the limitation “…first, second, and third color lights [are] different from each other”, hence the wavelength ranges must be different.
For the purposes of examination, claim 3 will be construed to recite “…the third color light has…a smaller wavelength range than the second color light”, per the specification (see, e.g., paragraph 105).
Claim 6 recites the limitation “…wherein the third light emitting opening overlaps the first light emitting opening and the second light emitting opening in the first direction”. All dependent claims must inherit the features of the claims from which they depend. At present, it would be impossible for the presence of the limitation “…wherein the first light emitting opening and the second light emitting opening are spaced apart from the third light emitting opening in a first direction as recited in claim 5, as it’s directly contradictory with dependent claim 6 (the first light emitting opening cannot be simultaneously spaced apart from the third light emitting opening in the first direction while simultaneously being overlapped with the third light emitting opening in the first direction).
For the purposes of examination, claim 6 will be construed to recite “…wherein the spacing between the third light emitting opening and the first light emitting opening and the spacing between the third light emitting opening and the second light emitting opening overlap.”
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 1-7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang (US 20250133910 A1) in view of Yang (US 20240215311 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Jiang (see, e.g., figs. 5-6 or 16) shows most aspects of the instant invention, including a display device comprising:
A circuit layer (e.g., circuit layer 20) disposed on a base layer (e.g., substrate 21 + paragraph 119);
A pixel definition layer (e.g., pixel definition layer 302) disposed on the circuit layer (e.g., circuit layer 20) and provided with a first light emitting opening (e.g., opening K1), a second light emitting opening (e.g., third opening K3), and a third light emitting opening (e.g., opening of sub-pixel P3 that light is emitted through);
A first light emitting element (e.g., pixel P1) disposed on the circuit layer (e.g., circuit layer 20) and comprising a light emitting pattern (e.g., left-side light-emitting pattern 303A, also see paragraph 39) disposed in the first light emitting opening (e.g., third opening K3);
A second light emitting element (e.g., sub-pixel P2) disposed on the circuit layer (e.g., circuit layer 20) and comprising a second light emitting pattern (e.g., right-side light emitting pattern 303A) disposed in the second light emitting opening (e.g., opening K1);
A third light emitting element (e.g., sub-pixel P3, see fig. 5 and paragraphs 97, 162, et cetera) disposed on the circuit layer (e.g., circuit layer 20) and comprising a third light emitting pattern (e.g., other portion of light-emitting pattern 303A, see paragraphs 97 and 130-131) disposed in the third light emitting opening (e.g., opening of sub-pixel P3 that light is emitted through, note that sub-pixel P3 has a substantially similar configuration has P1 and P2 as it’s responsible for emission of the blue light, per paragraphs 96-97 and 130-131);
The pixel definition layer (e.g., pixel definition layer 302) comprises:
A first gap (e.g., gap/distance between third opening K3 and opening of sub-pixel P3, see fig. 5) corresponding to a distance between the first light emitting opening (e.g., third opening K3) and the third light emitting opening (e.g., opening of sub-pixel P3);
A second gap (e.g., gap/distance between opening K1 and third opening K3) corresponding to a distance between the first light emitting opening (e.g., third opening K3) and the second light emitting opening (e.g., opening K1);
A difference between the first gap (e.g., gap/distance between P3 opening and opening K1, see fig. 5 and distance between P1 and P3) and the second gap (e.g., gap/distance between opening K1 and third opening K3) is determined according to a difference (e.g., note the light shielding patterns 401 designate the opening lengths, see fig. 16 or paragraph 246, also note that the figures of 6 and 16 are minor cross-sections of the larger arrangement within fig. 5, also note the light-shielding pattern comprises a blue filter (see, e.g., fig. 259), and that P3 is disclosed as the region responsible for blue light submission, hence the shadow area configuration as shown in fig. 16 above P1 and P2 is true for P3) in size of a shadow area (e.g., light shielding patterns 401 and vertical projections, see annotated fig. 1);
PNG
media_image1.png
150
578
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1
Jiang (see, e.g., fig. 16), however, fails to explicitly show wherein a difference between the first gap and the second gap is determined according to a difference in a deviation of a pixel position accuracy (PPA) of the at least one of the light emitting patterns.
Yang (see, e.g., fig. 7), in a similar device to Jiang, teaches a deviation (see, e.g., paragraph 63 “…is asymmetrical in a second direction…”) within a light emitting pattern (e.g., third sub-electrode layer 155 + second sub-electrode layer 152 + transition layer 153 + first sub-electrode layer 151 + first electrode 150).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the light emitting pattern deviation of Yang within the light emitting pattern of Jiang, in order to achieve the expected result of diversifying or alternating the specific opening/pixel light output location or positioning as intended within the device. Note that the gaps laid out between the shadow areas of Jiang are dependent on the spacing between the light emitting patterns, hence a deviation in the light emitting patterns would determine and affect the gap distance between the sub-pixels.
Regarding claim 2, Jiang (see, e.g., fig. 16) shows wherein the first (e.g., sub-pixel P2), second (e.g., sub-pixel P1), and third light emitting elements (e.g., sub-pixel P3) emit first (see, e.g., paragraph 97 “…the first sub-pixel P1 may emit red light…”), second (see, e.g., paragraph 97 “…the second sub-pixel P2 may emit green light…”), and third color (see, e.g., paragraph 97 “…the third sub-pixel P3 may emit blue light”) lights different from each other.
Regarding claim 3, Jiang (see, e.g., fig. 16) shows wherein the third color light (see, e.g., paragraph 97 “…the third sub-pixel P3 may emit blue light”) has a wavelength range smaller than a wavelength range of the first color light (see, e.g., paragraph 97 “…the first sub-pixel P1 may emit red light…”), and a smaller wavelength range than the second color light (see, e.g., paragraph 97 “…the second sub-pixel P2 may emit green light…”).
Regarding claim 4, Jiang (see, e.g., fig. 16) shows wherein the first color light (see, e.g., paragraph 97 “…the first sub-pixel P1 may emit red light…”), the second color light (see, e.g., paragraph 97 “…the second sub-pixel P1 may emit green light…”), and the third color light (see, e.g., paragraph 97 “…the third sub-pixel P3 may emit blue light”) are respectively red, green, and blue color lights (see, e.g., paragraph 97).
Regarding claim 5, Jiang (see, e.g., figs. 5) shows the first light emitting opening (e.g., third opening K3) and the second light emitting opening (e.g., opening K1) are spaced apart from the third light emitting opening (e.g., opening of sub-pixel P3) in a first direction (e.g., see annotated fig. 2 below), and the first light emitting opening (e.g., third opening K3) is spaced apart from the second light emitting opening (e.g., opening K1) in a second (e.g., see annotated fig. 2 below) direction intersecting the first direction (e.g., see annotated fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
281
444
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2
Regarding claim 6, Jiang (see, e.g., figs. 5-6 or 16) shows wherein the spacing between the third light emitting opening (e.g., opening of sub-pixel P3) and the first light emitting opening (e.g., third opening K3) and the spacing between the third light emitting opening (e.g., opening of sub-pixel P3) and the second light emitting opening (e.g., opening K1) overlap.
Regarding claim 7, Jiang (see, e.g., figs. 5-6 or 16) shows wherein a length in the second direction of the third light emitting opening (e.g., opening of sub-pixel P3) is greater (e.g., see annotated fig. 2 above, noting that the third light emitting opening is displaced farther away than the second sub-pixel from the first sub-pixel) than a length in the second direction of the first light emitting opening (e.g., third opening K3).
Regarding claim 13, Jiang (see, e.g., figs. 5-6 or 16) shows most aspects of the instant invention, including a display device comprising:
A circuit layer (e.g., circuit layer 20) disposed on a base layer (e.g., substrate 21 + paragraph 119);
A pixel definition layer (e.g., pixel definition layer 302) disposed on the circuit layer (e.g., circuit layer 20) and provided with a first light emitting opening (e.g., opening K1), a second light emitting opening (e.g., third opening K3), and a third light emitting opening (e.g., opening of sub-pixel P3 that light is emitted through);
A first light emitting element (e.g., pixel P1) disposed in the first light emitting opening (e.g., third opening K3) and comprising a light emitting pattern (e.g., left-side light-emitting pattern 303A, also see paragraph 39);
A second light emitting element (e.g., sub-pixel P2) disposed in the second light emitting opening (e.g., opening K1) and comprising a second light emitting pattern (e.g., right-side light emitting pattern 303A);
A third light emitting element (e.g., sub-pixel P3, see fig. 5 and paragraphs 97, 162, et cetera) disposed in the third light emitting opening (e.g., opening of sub-pixel P3 that light is emitted through, note that sub-pixel P3 has a substantially similar configuration has P1 and P2 as it’s responsible for emission of the blue light, per paragraphs 96-97 and 130-131) and comprising a third light emitting pattern (e.g., other portion of light-emitting pattern 303A, see paragraphs 97 and 130-131);
the first light emitting opening (e.g., third opening K3) and the third light emitting opening (e.g., opening of sub-pixel P3) are spaced apart from each other with a first gap (e.g., gap/distance between P3 opening and opening K1, see fig. 5 and distance between P1 and P3) in a first direction (e.g., horizontal direction of fig. 16);
the first light emitting opening (e.g., third opening K3) and the second light emitting opening (e.g., opening K1) are spaced apart from each other with a second gap (e.g., gap/distance between opening K1 and third opening K3) in a second direction intersecting the first direction (e.g., horizontal direction);
A difference between the first gap (e.g., gap/distance between P3 opening and opening K1, see fig. 5 and distance between P1 and P3) and the second gap (e.g., gap/distance between opening K1 and third opening K3) is determined according to a difference (e.g., note the light shielding patterns 401 designate the opening lengths, see fig. 16 or paragraph 246, also note that the figures of 6 and 16 are minor cross-sections of the larger arrangement within fig. 5, also note the light-shielding pattern comprises a blue filter (see, e.g., fig. 259), and that P3 is disclosed as the region responsible for blue light submission, hence the shadow area configuration as shown in fig. 16 above P1 and P2 is true for P3) in size of a shadow area (e.g., light shielding patterns 401 and vertical projections, see annotated fig. 1);
Jiang (see, e.g., fig. 16), however, fails to explicitly show wherein a difference between the first gap and the second gap is determined according to a difference in a deviation of a pixel position accuracy (PPA) of the at least one of the light emitting patterns.
Yang (see, e.g., fig. 7), in a similar device to Jiang, teaches a deviation (see, e.g., paragraph 63 “…is asymmetrical in a second direction…”) within a light emitting pattern (e.g., third sub-electrode layer 155 + second sub-electrode layer 152 + transition layer 153 + first sub-electrode layer 151 + first electrode 150).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the light emitting pattern deviation of Yang within the light emitting pattern of Jiang, in order to achieve the expected result of diversifying or alternating the specific opening/pixel light output location or positioning as intended within the device. Note that the gaps laid out between the shadow areas of Jiang are dependent on the spacing between the light emitting patterns, hence a deviation in the light emitting patterns would determine and affect the gap distance between the sub-pixels.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang in view of Yang in view of Osako (US 20220310774 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Jiang (see, e.g., figs. 5-6 and 16) shows the shadow area (e.g., light shielding patterns 401 and vertical projections, see annotated fig. 1) corresponds to a part of areas in which the at least one of the light-emitting patterns (e.g., differing light emitting patterns 303A within the aforementioned light emitting elements) is disposed.
Jiang in view of Yang fails to teach the at least one of the light emitting patterns in the shadow area has a thickness smaller than a thickness of the at least one of the light emitting patterns at a center of at least one of the first, second, and third light emitting openings corresponding to the at least one of the light emitting patterns.
Osako (see, e.g., fig. 4), in a similar device to Jiang in view of Yang, teaches a shadow area (e.g., light shielding layer 33 area, see annotated fig. 3 below) corresponds to a part of areas (see, e.g., paragraph 121, and note the shadow area extends to the boundaries of the light emitting patterns, which does qualify as “part of the area”) in which at least one of a light emitting patterns (e.g., light emitting layers 23) are disposed, and wherein at least one of the light emitting patterns (e.g., light emitting layers 23) in the shadow area (e.g., light shielding layer 33 area, see annotated fig. 3 below) has a thickness smaller than a thickness (e.g., note that the light-emitting pattern thickness at the boundary decreases in thickness and converges to a point, see fig. 4, while the remaining thickness, e.g., the pattern outside of the points near the boundary, is substantially uniform and even) of the at least one of the light emitting patterns (e.g., light emitting layers 23) at a center of at least one of a first, second, and third light emitting openings corresponding to the at least one of the light emitting patterns (e.g., light emitting layers 23).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the thickness and segment configuration of Osako within the device of Jiang in view of Yang, in order to achieve the expected result of limiting the cost of light-emitting pattern material required within the light-shielding areas, as to not waste space or cost of layer manufacturing during fabrication of the device in areas that are ultimately light-shielded regardless, while still providing the thicker and uniform light-emitting patterns in the open areas for light emitting as desired.
PNG
media_image3.png
307
477
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3
Regarding claim 9, Yang (see, e.g., fig. 7 or 11) teaches a difference in position between a center of a light-emitting opening (see, e.g., annotated fig. 4, note that while these specific centers as illustrated are approximate, the opening 141 is explicitly disclosed to be laid out asymmetrically relative to the first electrode 150, see, e.g., paragraph 63) corresponding to the light emitting pattern (e.g., third sub-electrode layer 155 + second sub-electrode layer 152 + transition layer 153 + first sub-electrode layer 151 + first electrode 150) and a center of the light emitting pattern (e.g., third sub-electrode layer 155 + second sub-electrode layer 152 + transition layer 153 + first sub-electrode layer 151 + first electrode 150).
PNG
media_image4.png
317
286
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the opening-pattern center deviation of Yang within the device of Jiang in view of Yang further in view of Osako, in order to achieve the expected result of diversifying or alternating the specific opening/pixel light output location or positioning as intended within the device. In addition, note that the opening has a symmetrical interface (see the circular profile of fig. 7), so any slight asymmetrical deviation with respect to the light emitting pattern as applied earlier would result in this deviation between the centers.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-12 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.
Regarding claim 10: the primary art of record, Jiang in view of Yang further in view of Osako, neither anticipates nor renders obvious wherein a size of the first gap (G1) and a size of the second gap (G2) satisfy the following Equation 1: |G1-G2|=|2 [ (SA1 - SA2) + (PPA1 - PPA2) ] |, wherein SA1 denotes a size in the first direction of the shadow area, SA2 denotes a size in the second direction of the shadow area, PPA1 denotes a difference in position between a center of the at least one of the first, second, and third light emitting openings and a center of the at least one of the light emitting patterns in the first direction, and PPA2 denotes a difference in position between a center of the at least one of the first, second, and third light emitting openings and a center of the at least one of the light emitting patterns in the second direction. These features in combination with other elements in the claim are neither disclosed nor suggested by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should
be directed to Thomas McCoy at (571) 272-0282 and between the hours of 9:30 AM to 6:30 PM
(Eastern Standard Time) Monday through Friday or by e-mail via Thomas.McCoy@uspto.gov. If attempts
to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Wael Fahmy, can be
reached on (571) 272-1705. 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.
/THOMAS WILSON MCCOY/ Examiner, Art Unit 2814
/WAEL M FAHMY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2814
Prosecution Insights