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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of the certified English translations of the foreign priority documents. Therefore, the foreign priority requests to KR10-20230042857 (filing date of 03/31/2023) and KR10-2023-0039077 (filing date of 03/24/2023) are perfected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on February 28th, 2024, was previously considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawing objection as previously issues has been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments dated July 27th, 2026.
Specification
The specification objection (e.g., title objection) as previously issued has been withdrawn due to Applicant’s title amendment dated July 27th, 2026.
Claim Objections
The claim objection as previously issued has been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment dated July 27th, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The 35 USC § 112(b) rejection as previously issues has been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments dated July 27th, 2026.
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.
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.
Claims 1-5, 11-15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon et al. (US 20190245017 A1; hereinafter referred to as Jeon) in view of Kim, et al. (US 20200212111 A1; hereinafter referred to as Kim) and further in view of Shim, et al. (KR 20220043102 A; hereinafter referred to as Shim).
Regarding Claim 1, Jeon discloses a display panel (display device 100) comprising a display layer (the combination of pixel defining layer 115 and encapsulation layer 160, [0041]) and an optical functional layer (the combination of black matrix 180 and color filter 190, [0041]) on the display layer (Fig. 2), wherein
the display layer includes a pixel electrode (first pixel electrode 131, [0059]), a pixel-defining layer (pixel defining layer 115, [0041], Fig. 2) including a first opening defining an emission area on the pixel electrode (circular first opening C11, [0041], Fig. 2), and an emission layer arranged in the first opening (organic emission layer 141, [0061], Fig. 2),
the optical functional layer includes a black matrix in a first layer that is covering the pixel electrode (black matrix 180, [0042], Fig. 2), the black matrix including a first portion defining a second opening above the first opening ([0042], Fig. 2) and a color filter arranged in the second opening (color filter 190, [0041]). Jeon is silent on the black matrix including an optical split portion that extends across the pixel electrode and is under the first layer.
However, in analogous art, Kim discloses a display panel including a black matrix, wherein the black matrix (black matrix 131) includes an optical split portion (light absorbing portion 11, [0091], Fig. 2; light absorbing portion 11 and the optical split portion of the instant application are both located between two black matrixes, are both surrounded by the color filter in the opening, and both perform the task of reducing external light reflection and would, therefore, be analogous) extending across the pixel electrode that is under the first layer ([0101], Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the display panel as taught by Jeon by introducing the optical split portion as taught by Kim. One would be motivated to combine Kim with Jeon as the light absorbing portion (optical split portion) absorbs external light incident to the subpixel while allowing light that was emitted from the subpixel to be reflected and out of the device; therefore, the dazzling of a user observing the display apparatus from above the color filter layer can be prevented (Kim: [0089]).
The combination of Jeon/Kim fails to further disclose that the optical split portion has a same shape as the first portion of the black matrix when viewed in a cross-section.
However, in analogous art, Shim discloses a display device (Shim: diode display 100, Fig. 1) comprising a black matrix (Shim: black matrix 140, Fig. 1) with an optical split portion (Shim: light absorption pattern 160, Fig. 1), wherein the optical split portion has a same shape as the first portion of the black matrix when viewed in a cross-section (Shim: [0113], Fig. 1; “the black matrix (140) and the external light absorption pattern (160) can be formed of the same material and have the same shape and the same thickness”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the optical split portion of Jeon/Kim such that it had the same shape as the first portion of the black matrix when viewed in a cross-section as disclosed by Shim. One would be motivated to do so because when the optical split portion and the black matrix are of the same shape and thickness, external light reflectance can be reduced (Shim: [0072]).
Regarding Claim 2, Jeon/Kim/Shim discloses the display panel of claim 1, wherein the second opening includes a 2-1st opening and a 2-2nd opening with the optical split portion therebetween (Kim: [0125], Fig. 2; "when one light absorbing part is provided, light can be discharged to the outside through only a side surface of the light absorbing part").
Regarding Claim 3, Jeon/Kim/Shim discloses the display panel of claim 2, wherein the color filter in the 2-1st opening includes a same material as the color filter in the 2-2nd opening (Kim: Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 4, Jeon/Kim/Shim discloses the display panel of claim 2, wherein the first opening partially overlaps the 2-1st opening and the 2-2nd opening (Jeon: Fig 2, Kim: Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 5, Jeon/Kim/Shim discloses the display panel of claim 2, wherein the optical split portion extends across the first opening that is under the first layer (Kim: Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 11, Jeon discloses a display panel comprising a unit pixel area defined in a first direction and a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (Fig. 6A; more specifically, the first direction is horizontally left-to-right, while the second direction is vertically), wherein, in the unit pixel area, a first display element emitting light of a first color and a second display element emitting light of a second color are arranged to be adjacent to each other in the first direction (Fig. 6A; more specifically 141 and 143 are adjacent to each other in a horizontal direction), and a third display element emitting light of a third color is arranged to be adjacent to the first display element and the second display element in the second direction (Jeon: Fig. 6A; more specifically 142 is adjacent to 141 and 143 in a vertical direction), the third display element (pixel 3) includes a third pixel electrode (third pixel electrode 133, [0059], Fig. 2), a pixel-defining layer (pixel defining layer 115) including a first opening defining a third emission area on the third pixel electrode (circular first openings C13, [0041], Fig. 2), and a black matrix in a first layer that is covering the third pixel electrode (black matrix 180, [0042], Fig. 2), the black matrix including a first portion defining a second opening above the first opening (circular second openings C23, [0041], Fig. 2).
Jeon fails to disclose wherein the black matrix includes an optical split portion that extends across the third pixel electrode that is under the first layer.
However, Kim discloses a display element wherein the black matrix includes an optical split portion that extends across the third pixel electrode that is under the first layer (Kim: light absorbing portion 11, [0091, 0101], Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the display element as taught by Jeon by introducing the optical split portion as taught by Kim. One would be motivated to combine Kim with Jeon as the light absorbing portion (optical split portion) absorbs external light incident to the subpixel while allowing light that was emitted from the subpixel to be reflected and out of the device; therefore, the dazzling of a user observing the display apparatus from above the color filter layer can be prevented (Kim: [0089]).
The combination of Jeon/Kim fails to explicitly disclose that the optical split portion has a same height as the first portion of the black matrix.
However, in analogous art, Shim discloses wherein the optical split portion (light absorption pattern 160, Fig. 1) has a same height as the first portion of the black matrix (Shim: [0113], Fig. 1; “the black matrix (140) and the external light absorption pattern (160) can be formed of the same material and have the same shape and the same thickness”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the optical split portion as disclosed by Jeon/Kim such that it has a same height as the first portion of the black matrix as disclosed in Shim. One would be motivated to do so to ensure consistent external light reflectance throughout the display device to improve performance.
Regarding Claim 12, Jeon/Kim/Shim discloses the display panel of claim 11, wherein the second opening includes a 2-1st opening and a 2-2nd opening with the optical split portion therebetween (Kim: [0125], Fig. 2; "when one light absorbing part is provided, light can be discharged to the outside through only a side surface of the light absorbing part").
Regarding Claim 13, Jeon/Kim/Shim discloses the display panel of claim 12, further comprising a color filter selectively transmitting the light of the third color (Jeon: third color filter 193, [0085]),
wherein the color filter is in the 2-1st opening and the 2-2nd opening (Kim: Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 14, Jeon/Kim/Shim discloses the display panel of claim 12, wherein the first opening partially overlaps the 2-1st opening and the 2-2nd opening (Jeon: Fig 2, Kim: Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 15, Jeon/Kim/Shim discloses the display panel of claim 12, wherein the optical split portion extends across the first opening that is under the first layer (Kim: Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 20, Jeon/Kim/Shim discloses the display panel of claim 11, wherein the first color is red (Kim: [0042], “the first subpixel 21 can emit red (R) light”), the second color is green (Kim: [0042], “the second subpixel 22 can emit green (G) light”), and the third color is blue (Kim: [0042], “the third subpixel 23 can emit blue (B) light”).
Claim(s) 6-10 and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon/Kim/Shim as applied to claims 1-5, 11-15, and 20 above, and further in view of Imai (JP 2011034849; hereinafter referred to as Imai).
Regarding Claim 6, Jeon/Kim/Shim discloses the display panel of claim 1, wherein the pixel-defining layer (Jeon: pixel defining layer 115) is in a second layer that is covering the pixel electrode (Jeon: Fig. 2). Jeon and Kim are both silent on the pixel-defining layer including a display split portion that extends across the pixel electrode that is under the second layer, wherein the display split portion divides the first opening into a 1-1st opening and a 1-2nd opening. However, Imai discloses a display panel including a pixel-defining layer, wherein the pixel-defining layer includes a display split portion (dividing layer 120, [0025], Fig. 2) that extends across the pixel electrode ([0025], Fig. 2) that is under the second layer (Fig. 2), wherein the display split portion divides the first opening into a 1-1st opening and a 1-2nd opening (Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the display panel as taught by Jeon/Kim/Shim by introducing the display split portion as taught by Imai. One would be motivated to do so as the display split portion of Imai divides the pixel electrode into a plurality of regions so that, if a short circuit should occur within one region of the electrode due to the introduction of a foreign particle, the other regions will continue to emit light as normal; thus, keeping the product operational should a defect occur while also reducing the costs in repairs as only one region of the pixel electrode will need repaired instead of the entirety of the pixel electrode (Imai: [0055]). Additionally, the display split portion can act as a protective film for the pixel electrode and the elements below the display split portion to further reduce the potential for damage to the device (Imai: [0056]).
Regarding Claim 7, Jeon/Kim/Shim/Imai discloses the display panel of claim 6, wherein the display split portion overlaps the optical split portion (Kim: Fig. 2; the optical split portion of Kim is oriented such that it is centered above the pixel electrode, the display split portion of Imai (Fig. 2) is oriented such that it is centered on the pixel electrode; therefore, the two in combination would overlap with one another).
Regarding Claim 8, Jeon/Kim/Shim/Imai discloses the display panel of claim 6. Jeon/Kim/Imai are silent on the first central width of the display split portion being equal to the second central width of the optical split portion. However, in Kim, the width of the optical split portion [light absorbing portion 11] is discussed when it relates to the optical split portion being made up of two layers, an absorbing portion and a light reflective metal. It is taught in Kim that the most effective embodiment is such that the central width of these two layers, the absorbing potion and light reflective metal, are equal in order to maximize luminescence of the lighting element (which, in the instant application, is one of the added benefits of the display split portion) and to reduce the dazzling effect on the observer of the display apparatus (which, in the instant application, is one of the added benefits of the optical split portion) (Kim: [0096]). If the light reflective metal is of a greater width than the absorbing portion then you risk increasing the dazzling effect on the user. If the light reflective metal is of a lesser width than the absorbing portion, then you risk a decrease in clarity of the lighting element. Similar reasoning could be applied for why the central width of the display split portion is to equal the second central width of the optical portion even if the display split portion and the light reflective metal are not located in similar regions - it is to maximize clarity/resolution of the lighting element and reducing dazzling. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness can be made in light of Kim for the limitation of Claim 8.
Regarding Claim 9, Jeon/Kim/Shim/Imai discloses the display panel of claim 6, wherein the 1-1st opening and the 1-2nd opening have a closed shape (Jeon: [0041], Figs. 4-5).
Regarding Claim 10, Jeon/Kim/Shim/Imai discloses the display panel of claim 9, wherein the 1-1st opening and the 1-2nd opening have a circular or an oval shape (Jeon: [0041], Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 16, Jeon/Kim/Shim/Imai discloses the display panel of claim 11, wherein the pixel-defining layer includes a display split portion in a second layer that is covering the third pixel electrode (Imai: dividing layer 120, [0025], Fig. 2), the display split portion extending across the third pixel electrode (Imai: Fig. 2), and the first opening includes a 1-1st opening and a 1-2nd opening with the display split portion therebetween (Imai: Fig. 2; Jeon: Fig. 2;).
Regarding Claim 17, Jeon/Kim/Shim/Imai discloses the display panel of claim 16, wherein the display split portion overlaps the optical split portion (Kim: Fig. 2; the optical split portion of Kim is oriented such that it is centered above the pixel electrode, the display split portion of Imai (Fig. 2) is oriented such that it is centered on the pixel electrode; therefore, the two in combination would overlap with one another).
Regarding Claim 18, Jeon/Kim/Shim/Imai discloses the display panel of claim 16. Jeon/Kim/Imai are silent on the first central width of the display split portion being equal to the second central width of the optical split portion. However, in Kim, the width of the optical split portion [light absorbing portion 11] is discussed when it relates to the optical split portion being made up of two layers, a light absorbing part 111 and a light reflective metal 101. It is taught in Kim that the most effective embodiment is such that the central width of these two layers, the absorbing potion and light reflective metal, are equal in order to maximize luminescence of the lighting element (which, in the instant application, is one of the added benefits of the display split portion) and to reduce the dazzling effect on the observer of the display apparatus (which, in the instant application, is one of the added benefits of the optical split portion) (Kim: [0096]). If the light reflective metal is of a greater width than the absorbing portion then you risk increasing the dazzling effect on the user (Kim: 0096]). If the light reflective metal is of a lesser width than the absorbing portion, then you risk a decrease in clarity of the lighting element (Kim: 0096]). Similar reasoning could be applied for why the central width of the display split portion is to equal the second central width of the optical portion even if the display split portion and the light reflective metal are not located in similar regions - it is to maximize clarity/resolution of the lighting element and reducing dazzling. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness can be made in light of Kim for the limitation of Claim 18.
Regarding Claim 19, Jeon/Kim/Shim/Imai discloses the display panel of claim 16, wherein the 1-1st opening and the 1-2nd opening have a closed shape (Jeon: Fig. [0041], Figs. 4-5).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-11, filed July 27th, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of Claim(s) 1-5 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Shim. More specifically, Examiner agrees that the amendment to Claim 1 (e.g., “wherein the optical split portion has a same shape as the first portion of the black matrix when viewed in a cross-section”) is not disclosed by the combination of Jeon/Kim. However, as is stated in the above rejection to Claim 1, Shim discloses an optical split portion with a same shape as the first portion of the black matrix when viewed in a cross-section.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-12, filed July 27th, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of Claim(s) 11-15 and 20 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Shim. More specifically, Examiner agrees that the amendment to Claim 11 (e.g., “wherein the optical split portion has a same height as the first portion of the black matrix”) is not disclosed by the combination of Jeon/Kim. However, as is stated in the above rejection to Claim 11, Shim discloses an optical split portion that has a same height as the first portion of the black matrix.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 12, filed July 27th, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of Claim(s) 6-10 and 16-19 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Shim. More specifically, Examiner agrees that Imai also fails to disclose the amendments made to Claims 1 and 11. However, as is stated above, Shim does disclose the limitations added in the amendments made to Claims 1 and 11 and would not interfere with the obviousness reasoning provided for the combination of Jeon/Kim/Shim with Imai.
In the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner respectfully requests that Applicant please consider a telephone interview with the Examiner to discuss proposed claim amendments to overcome the rejection of Claims 1-20 before filing a written response to this Final Office Action. For example, Examiner suggests further defining the relationship between the optical split portion and the display split portion, be it their positional or central width relationship.
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 Noah C. Robertson whose telephone number is (571) 317-0595. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM (Eastern Time Zone).
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, William B Partridge, can be reached at (571) 270-1402. 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.
/Noah C. Robertson/Examiner, Art Unit 2812
/William B Partridge/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights