DETAILED ACTION
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 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-19, in the reply filed on 3/23/26 is acknowledged.
Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 3/23/26.
Relevant Art
The prior art made of record are foreign priority documents for Zhang et al., US Publication No. 2025/0194357. These foreign priority documents have an application date earlier than Applicant’s foreign priority date of 4/24/23.
CN 202310356240.4 (Application Date 2023-03-31)
CN 202310369642.8 (Application Date 2023-04-09)
CN 202310369659.3 (Application Date 2023-04-09)
CN 202310392090.2 (Application Date 2023-04-09)
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, 2, 7-10, 14, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al., US Publication No. 2025/0194357.
Zhang teaches:
1. A display device comprising (See fig. 39; e.g. Support for fig. 30 can be found in foreign priority CN 202310392090.2 in figs. 17 and 19; Also see figs. 4 and 13):
a substrate (e.g. bottommost layer 100);
a pixel defining layer (300) on the substrate, the pixel defining layer including:
a bank (340/310/320) comprising a first bank layer (340), a second bank layer (310) and a third bank layer (320), in order from the substrate,
a…pixel defining layer (e.g. topmost layer 100) between the first bank layer and the substrate, and
the bank (340/310/320) together with the inorganic pixel defining layer (e.g. topmost layer 100) defining a light emission opening (e.g. opening above 210); and
a light emitting element (e.g. see 200 LED in figs. 4 and 13) which is on the substrate and in the light emission opening, wherein
each of the first bank layer (340) and the third bank layer (320) has a side surface which defines the light emission opening,
the third bank layer (320) protrudes further than the side surface of the first bank layer (340) to define a tip of the third bank layer which defines the side surface of the third bank layer, and
the side surface of the third bank layer (320) is inclined relative to the substrate and defines an inclined side surface of the third bank layer. See Zhang at para. [0556] – [0558], also see para. [0001] – [0696], figs. 1-55.
Regarding claim 1:
Zhang does not expressly teach the pixel defining layer is “inorganic”.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to form the pixel defining layer of inorganic material, since it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended purpose as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See MPEP § 2144.07, Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose.
Zhang further teaches:
2. The display device of claim 1, wherein
the second bank layer (310) further comprises a side surface which defines the light emission opening (e.g. opening above 210), and
the third bank layer (320) protrudes further than the side surface of the second bank layer (310) to define the tip of the third bank layer, fig. 29.
7. The display device of claim 1, wherein
the light emitting element includes a pixel electrode (210) which is in the light emission opening, a light emitting layer (220) on the pixel electrode, and a common electrode (230) on the light emitting layer,
the second bank layer (310) further comprises a side surface which defines the light emission opening,
the light emitting layer (220) contacts (e.g. through intervening layers) the side surface of the first bank layer (340), and
the common electrode (230) contacts (e.g. through intervening layers) the side surface of the first bank layer (340) and the side surface of the second bank layer (310), figs. 4, 13 and 39.
8. The display device of claim 7, wherein
a contact area defined between the common electrode (230) and the first bank layer (340) is larger than a contact area defined between the light emitting layer (220) and the first bank layer (340), and
a contact portion at which the common electrode (230) and the light emitting layer (220) respectively contact the first bank layer (340) overlaps the tip of the third bank layer (320), fig. 4.
Regarding claim 9:
Zhang further teaches:
9. The display device of claim 8, wherein the first bank layer (340) and the second bank layer (310) are electrically conductive, para. [0352], [0561], [0579],
Zhang does not expressly teach the third bank layer (320) is electrically insulative.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to form the third bank layer is electrically insulative, since it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended purpose as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See MPEP § 2144.07, Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose.
Regarding claim 10:
Zhang does not expressly teach
10. The display device of claim 9, wherein the first bank layer comprises aluminum, the second bank layer comprises molybdenum and the third bank layer comprises silicon nitride.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to form the first bank layer comprises aluminum, the second bank layer comprises molybdenum and the third bank layer comprises silicon nitride, since it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended purpose as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See MPEP § 2144.07, Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose.
Regarding claim 14:
Zhang teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above.
Zhang does not expressly teach a fourth bank layer such that:
“...the fourth bank layer protrude further than the side surfaces of the first bank layer and the second bank layer, to together define a tip of the bank which includes the side surfaces of…the fourth bank layer, and the side surfaces of…the fourth bank layer are inclined relative to the substrate and define inclined side surfaces of…the fourth bank layer…”
Referring to MPEP § 2141, Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103:
“A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S., 82 USPQ2d at 1397. “[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” Office personnel may also take into account “the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.”, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
One of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person or ordinary creativity, can arrive at the claimed limitation of a fourth bank layer by forming Zhang’s integral layer (320) into two, separate bank layers.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the to form “...the fourth bank layer protrude further than the side surfaces of the first bank layer and the second bank layer, to together define a tip of the bank which includes the side surfaces of…the fourth bank layer, and the side surfaces of…the fourth bank layer are inclined relative to the substrate and define inclined side surfaces of…the fourth bank layer…”, since constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04, Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale, V. Making Portable, Integral, Separable, Adjustable or Continuous.
Alternatively, one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person or ordinary creativity, can arrive at the claimed limitation of a fourth bank layer by duplicating Zhang’s integral layer (320) into another, fourth bank layer.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to form “...the fourth bank layer protrude further than the side surfaces of the first bank layer and the second bank layer, to together define a tip of the bank which includes the side surfaces of…the fourth bank layer, and the side surfaces of…the fourth bank layer are inclined relative to the substrate and define inclined side surfaces of…the fourth bank layer…”,since duplication of essential working parts of a device involve only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04, Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale, VI. Reversal, Duplication, or Rearrangement of Parts.
Regarding claim 18:
As set forth above in claim 14, one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person or ordinary creativity, forming Zhang’s integral layer (320) into two, separate bank layers (e.g. upper and lower portions) would obviously form” the inclined surface of the fourth bank layer (e.g. upper portion layer 320) is parallel to the inclined surface of the third bank layer (e.g. lower portion layer of 320), and the inclined side surface of the fourth bank layer (e.g. upper portion layer 320) is aligned with the inclined side surface of the third bank layer (e.g. lower portion layer of 320)”, fig. 39.
Regarding claim 19:
As set forth above in claim 14, one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person or ordinary creativity, forming Zhang’s integral layer (320) into two, separate bank layers (e.g. upper and lower portions) would find it obvious to form “a thickness of the fourth bank layer (e.g. upper portion layer 320) is smaller than a thickness of the third bank layer (e.g. lower portion layer of 320)” since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (proportions) of a component. A change is size (proportions) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04, Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale, IV. Changes in Size, Shape, or Sequence of Adding Ingredients. Also see Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent").
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6, 11-13 and 15-17 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 Michele Fan whose telephone number is 571-270-7401. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 7:30 am to 4 pm.
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, Jeff Natalini, can be reached on (571) 272-2266. 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.
/Michele Fan/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818
20 May 2026
Prosecution Insights