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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed August 20, 2026 has been entered. Applicant' s amendment to the Title and to Claim 15 have overcome the objections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed May 26, 2026, and the objections are withdrawn.
Claims 1, 3-12, and 14-23 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-12, and 14-23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 20-21 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 20 recites the limitation "display device of claim 13”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because claim 13 has been canceled.
Because the limitation of claim 13 was added to claim 1, claim 20 will be examined as if depending from claim 1.
Regarding claims 21, note the dependent claims necessarily inherit the indefiniteness of the claims on which they depend
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 14, 18-19 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Baek; Soo-Min et al. (US 2016/0322438; hereinafter SMBaek).
Regarding claim 1, SMBaek discloses a display device comprising:
a substrate (101; Fig 1; ¶ [0038]);
a transistor (TFT; Fig 1; ¶ [0048]) on the substrate;
a first electrode (121; Fig 1; ¶ [0054-57]) connected to the transistor; and
a spacer (partition walls 113 {113a-c}; Fig 1; ¶ [0040-41]) disposed on the first electrode,
a pixel defining layer (112; Fig 1; ¶ [0054-55]) disposed between the first electrode and the spacer, and
an insulating layer (105; Fig 1; ¶ [0053]) between the transistor and the first electrode and comprising a contact hole {unlabeled; between 121 and 131d; Fig 1; ¶ [0056]) within which neither the spacer and the pixel defining layer extend into (as shown in Fig 1, a contact hole extends through 105 and 111, and is separated from the spacer 113 and the pixel defining layer 112 by the first electrode 121; ¶ [0056]),
wherein the spacer overlaps a connection portion (the portion filling the contact hole) between the transistor and the first electrode, the connection portion extending through the contact hole (as shown in Fig 1).
Regarding claim 3, SMBaek discloses the display device of claim 1, wherein the spacer overlaps the contact hole (as shown in Fig 1).
Regarding claim 5, SMBaek discloses the display device of claim 1, wherein the spacer (partition walls 113 {113a-c}; Fig 1) surrounds the first electrode (121; Fig 1) in a plan view (entirely or partially surrounds respective sub-pixels; ¶ [0074]) and overlaps the connection portion between the transistor and the first electrode (as shown in Fig 1).
Regarding claim 14, SMBaek discloses the display device of claim 1, wherein the connection portion (the portion filling the contact hole between 121 and 131d; Fig 1) extends through a contact hole in an insulating layer (105; Fig 1; ¶ [0053]) between the transistor and the first electrode (as applied to claim 1), and wherein a top surface of the pixel defining layer (112; Fig 1) is at a same distance from the substrate in an overlapping area and a non-overlapping area with the contact hole (as shown in Fig 1).
Regarding claim 18, SMBaek discloses the display device of claim 1, further comprising a partition wall disposed on the pixel defining layer. (The wall separating differently colored pixels and comprising the spacer {partition walls 113} and black matrix BM; Fig 1; ¶ [0028,0039]).
Regarding claim 19, SMBaek discloses the display device of claim 18, wherein the partition wall comprises: a lower layer (the spacer {partition walls 113}) on the pixel defining layer; and an upper layer on the lower layer (the black matrix BM).
Regarding claim 23, SMBaek discloses the display device of claim 1, further comprising:
an intermediate layer (122; Fig 1; ¶ [0054]) on the first electrode; and
a second electrode (123; Fig 1; ¶ [0054]) on the intermediate layer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek; Soo-Min et al. (US 2016/0322438; hereinafter SMBaek) in view of Maeda; Norihisa (US 2019/0280239; hereinafter Maeda).
Regarding claim 4, SMBaek discloses the display device of claim 3, but is silent in regard to whether the first electrode is disposed in the contact hole.
In the same field of endeavor, Maeda discloses a display device comprising a similar structure wherein a first electrode (100, formed on the surface of 96 and within 110; Fig 3; ¶ [0034]) is disposed in a contact hole (110; Fig 3; ¶ [0034]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have disposed the first electrode of SMBaek in the contact hole. One would have been motivated to do this to reduce a number of manufacturing steps over using an additional layer to form the connection, and to avoid an additional material interface in the connection between the first electrode and the transistor. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success because of the similar structures including the contact holes of SMBaek and Maeda.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek; Soo-Min et al. (US 2016/0322438; hereinafter SMBaek) in view of Zhang; Panlong (US 20200152720; hereinafter Zhang).
Regarding claim 15, SMBaek discloses the display device of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the pixel defining layer has a trench surrounding the first electrode.
In the same field of endeavor, Zhang discloses a display structure and display panel (¶ [0026-29]; entire document) comprising a pixel defining layer (14; Figs 1,2; ¶ [0043-50]) having a trench (groove 16; 1,2; ¶ [0054-60]) surrounding a sub-pixel electrode (11; Fig 2; ¶ [0057, 0085]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have combined the trench of Zhang with the display device of claim 1 such that the pixel defining layer has a trench surrounding the first electrode. One would have been motivated to do this in order to provide or increase a stress relief function to prevent malfunction from falling impact and/or to improve flexibility of the display (Zhang; ¶ [0055-58]). One would have had a reasonable expectation of success because the similar materials (for example, polyimide) used in the pixel defining layers of Zhang (¶ [0056) and SMBaek (¶ [0055]) in the similar endeavors.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek; Soo-Min et al. (US 2016/0322438; hereinafter SMBaek).
Regarding claim 17, SMBaek discloses the display device of claim 1, but does not in the same embodiment disclose wherein the spacer and the pixel defining layer are integrally formed.
However, SMBaek discloses this in another embodiment (Fig 3; ¶ [0070]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art that the spacer and the pixel defining layer may be integrally formed. One may have been motivated to do this in order to increase an amount of light reflected from the sidewalls of the integrally formed structure, and prevent light emitted from one sub-pixel crossing over to an adjacent subpixel (¶ [0073-74]). One would have had a reasonable expectation of success Baek has disclosed as an alternate embodiment.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek; Soo-Min et al. (US 2016/0322438; hereinafter SMBaek) in view of Xu; Zhengyin et al. (US 2019/0206946; hereinafter Xu).
Regarding claim 20, SMBaek discloses the display device of claim 1, but does not disclose further comprising a heating electrode on the spacer.
In the same field of endeavor, Xu discloses a display device comprising a heating electrode (203; Fig 2; ¶ [0051-54] on a spacer (auxiliary light-emitting layer 205 above bank 202; Fig 3; ¶ [0054]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have combined the heating electrode of Xu with the display device of claim 13, such that the heating electrode is above the spacer of claim 13, since the bank of claim 1 lacks the auxiliary light-emitting layer above the pixel defining layer and has the bank 174 in its place. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success because of the similarity of structures in the similar endeavors.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek; Soo-Min et al. (US 2016/0322438; hereinafter SMBaek) in view of Beak; Jung-Sun et al. (US 2018/0166015; hereinafter Beak).
Regarding claim 22, SMBaek discloses the display device of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the spacer has a black color.
In the same field of endeavor, Beak discloses a display device comprising a bank having a black color (138; Fig 2; ¶ [0052]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use a spacer having a black color in the display device of claim 1. One would have been motivated to do this as a light shield to prevent optical interference between neighboring subpixels (Beak; ¶ [0052]). One would have had a reasonable expectation of success because use of a black material in a bank is well-known in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-12, 16 and 21 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, and if the 112b rejections are resolved (in regard to claim 21).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 6, the prior art of record, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the combination of limitations including “wherein the spacer comprises: a first sub-spacer disposed between the first electrodes of the adjacent rows; and a second sub-spacer disposed between the adjacent first sub-spacers and overlaps the connection portion between the transistor and the first electrode”, along with the additional limitations of Claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, the prior art of record, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the combination of limitations including “wherein the spacer surrounds the trench”, along with the additional limitations of Claims 1 and 15.
Regarding claim 21, the prior art of record, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the combination of limitations including “wherein the heating electrode is disposed in a contact hole extending through the spacer and the pixel defining layer”, along with the additional limitations of Claims 1 and 20.
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 BRAD KNUDSON whose telephone number is (703)756-4582. The examiner can normally be reached Telework 9:30 -18:30 ET; M-F.
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, Eliseo Ramos Feliciano can be reached at 571-272-7925. 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.
/B.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/ELISEO RAMOS FELICIANO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817
