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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-7, 9, 12, 16, & 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 20190355930).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses that a display device, comprising:
a substrate 11 including a display area DA and a non-display area NDA (Fig. 3B);
a plurality of sub-pixels OD & Px-ABx disposed in the display area (Fig. 3-6B);
at least one transistor TR disposed in the plurality sub-pixels;
an overcoat layer 22 & 31 disposed on the at least one transistor; and
a light emitting diode OD disposed on the overcoat layer 22 & 31, the light emitting diode including: a first electrode E1 electrically connected to the at least one transistor TR (Fig. 3B);
a second electrode E2 facing the first electrode E1; and
an emissive layer EL disposed between the fist electrode E1 and the second electrode E2, at least one trench area E-VSS in the non-display area NDA;
an auxiliary electrode E-VSS in the at least one trench area disposed in the non-display area;
a bank layer 32 disposed on the overcoat layer 21 & 31 and overlapped to a portion of the first electrode in the display area (Fig. 3B);
PNG
media_image1.png
664
516
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the overcoat layer 31, the second electrode E2 and the bank layer extend to the non-display area NDA (Fig. 3B, extend from right to left as non- display area NDA), and wherein at least a portion of the second electrode E2 is electrically connected to the auxiliary electrode E-VSS in at least one trench area disposed in the non-display area (Fig. 3B).
PNG
media_image2.png
521
713
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein at least a portion of the auxiliary electrode E-VSS is disposed between the overcoat layer 22 & 31 and the bank layer 32 (Fig. 3B, a portion of the auxiliary electrode is disposed at least above one of overcoat layer 22 and between one of the overcoat layer and the bank layer 32).
Reclaim 2, Lee discloses that a driving circuit and a power line disposed in the non-display area; wherein the at least one trench area is disposed between the driving circuit and the power line E-VSS (Fig. .3B, para. 0085 & 0117-0119, note: a power source connection pattern).
Reclaim 4, Lee discloses that the display device further comprises a connection line extended in a row direction disposed in the at least one trench area, and wherein the link line is arranged parallel to a gate line in the display area (Fig. 3B).
Reclaim 5, Lee discloses that the connection line is a gate low-potential voltage connection line and electrically connects the driving circuit to the power line, and wherein the power line is a gate low-potential voltage line (Fig. 3B).
Reclaim 6, Lee discloses that the display device further comprises at least one dam DM disposed in the at least one trench area (Fig. 3B).
Reclaim 7, Lee discloses that the overcoat layer and the bank layer DM constitute the at least one dam (Fig. 3B).
Reclaim 9, Lee discloses that the second electrode is electrically connected to the auxiliary electrode among the at least one dam (Fig. 3B).
Reclaim 12, Lee discloses that the bank layer DM is disposed on and at least one side of the overcoat layer 31 (Fig. 3B).
Reclaim 16, Lee discloses that a side of the at least one trench area has a straight line from a plan view (Fig. 3B).
Reclaim 18, Lee discloses that the emissive layer EL comprises an organic luminescent material (Fig. 3B, para. 0105).
Reclaim 19, Lee discloses that the emissive layer comprises inorganic luminescent particles (Fig. 3B, para. 0105).
Reclaim 20, Lee discloses that the gate low-potential voltage line is a multi- layered line structure (Fig. 3B).
Reclaim 21, Lee discloses that the display device further comprises a plurality of dams DM2 disposed in the at least one trench area (Fig. 3B, note: no distinguished from the bank layer, a DM2 can be considered as dams).
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.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20190355930) in view of Jung et al. (US 20210328184).
Reclaim 10, Lee fails to teach that the auxiliary electrode E-VSS comprises a same material as the first electrode in the display area.
However, Jung suggests that the auxiliary electrode 420 comprises a same material as the first electrode in the display area (par. 0070).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of applicant(s) claimed invention was made to provide Lee with the auxiliary electrode comprises a same material as the first electrode in the display area as taught by Jung in order to enhance simplified process by selecting the same material and also, the claim would have been obvious because a particular know technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
Claim(s) 13-15 & 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20190355930) in view of Kong et al. (US 20190165065).
Reclaim 13, Lee fails to teach that the display device further comprises a light shield layer disposed under the at least one transistor.
However, Kong suggests that a light shield layer disposed under the at least one transistor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of applicant(s) claimed invention was made to provide Lee with a light shield layer disposed under the at least one transistor as taught by Kong in order to enhance absorbs or reflects external light (par. 0038) to improve light emission and also, the claim would have been obvious because a particular know technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
Reclaim 14, Lee discloses that the power line comprises a same material as the light shield layer (para. 0038).
Reclaim 15, Lee & Kong discloses that the power line is disposed in a same layer as the light shield layer (Lee. Fig. 3B in view of Kong).
Reclaim 17, Lee & Kong discloses that a side of the at least one trench has a concavo- convex shape from a plan view (Lee. Fig. 3B in view of Kong).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), applicant argues that “Lee does not teach or rendered obvious the claim feature, at least a portion of the auxiliary electrode is disposed between the overcoat layer disposed on the at least one transistor - -.”
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “at least a portion of the auxiliary electrode is disposed between the overcoat layer disposed on the at least one transistor - -”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Furthermore, amendment includes “wherein at least a portion of the auxiliary electrode is disposed between the overcoat layer and the bank layer” filed on 7/2/2026.
In response to applicant's contention, it is respectfully submitted that Lee discloses all the claimed limitation including “wherein at least a portion of the auxiliary electrode is disposed between the overcoat layer and the bank layer” below.
Lee appears to show, see Fig. 3B, the overcoat layer 22 & 31 and the bank layer 32 are cited in modified Fig. 3B.
Also, Lee discloses at least portion of the auxiliary electrode E-VSS is located between a bottom portion of the overcoat layer 22 and a top portion of the bank layer as shown.
PNG
media_image3.png
485
716
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, a term, “between” has no special meaning in the claims because applicant(s) do not define that such meaning entails or define in body of claims.
Therefore, the rejection of claims 1-2, 4-7, 9, 12, 16, & 18-21 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) is deemed proper.
In addition, for the rejection of claims 10, 13-15 & 17, the prima facie case of obviousness has been met and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is deemed proper.
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 SU C KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-5972. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 to 5:00.
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, Dale Page can be reached at 571-270-7877. 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.
/SU C KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights