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 certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 03/05/2024 and 05/06/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: “DISPLAY DEVICE WITH PLURALITY OF BANK STRUCTURES”
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.
Claims 1, 7, 12-15, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fukuda (U.S. PG Pub No US2024/0121994A1).
Regarding claim 1, Fukuda teaches a display device (DSP) fig. 3 [0047] comprising:
a substrate (10) fig. 3 [0035, 0047];
a first electrode (lower LE1) fig. 3 [0044] disposed on (supported by) the substrate (10);
a pixel-defining layer (5) fig. 3 [0049, 0058] (defining pixel boundaries between SP1-3 [0051]) disposed on (supported by) the substrate (10) and defining a first opening (OP1; gap between adjacent 5’s overlapping LE1) (see annotated fig. 3 of Fukuda below) overlapping with the first electrode (lower LE1);
a bank structure (6 comprising 61 and 62) fig. 3 [0062-0063] (partition acting as sloped bank between pixels) disposed on the pixel-defining layer (5) and defining a second opening (OP2; gap between adjacent 6’s overlapping lower LE1) (see annotated fig. 3 of Fukuda below) overlapping with the first opening (OP1), the bank structure (6) comprising:
a first base (61) fig. 3 [0062] disposed on the pixel-defining layer (5) and comprising a conductive material (electrically-conductive metal such as aluminum [0062]), and
a second base (62) fig. 3 [0063] disposed on the first base (61) and comprising a tip (‘tip’) (see annotated fig. 3 of Fukuda below) protruding toward the (center of) first opening (OP1) than a side surface of the first base (61), the second base (62) comprising:
a first bank layer (ITO layer of 62) fig. 3 [0063] (62 may represent a multilayer structure of an ITO and Ti layer [0063]) disposed on the first base (61) and comprising a transparent conductive material (ITO) [0059, 0063]; and
a second bank layer (Ti layer of 62) fig. 3 [0063] disposed on (supported by) the first bank layer (ITO layer of 62) and comprising a conductive material (electrically conductive metal such as Titanium [0063]) different from that of the first bank layer (ITO layer of 62);
a first emissive layer (lower OR1) fig. 3 [0053] disposed on the first electrode (lower LE1) and disposed in the first opening (OP1); and
a second electrode (lower UE1) fig. 3 [0044] disposed on the first emissive layer (lower EL1) and in (direct) contact with the bank structure (6 comprising 61) in the second opening (OP2).
[AltContent: rect][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (OP1)][AltContent: textbox (OP2)][AltContent: rect][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (tip)][AltContent: oval]
PNG
media_image1.png
495
815
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 3 of Fukuda
Regarding claim 7, Fukuda teaches the display device (DSP) fig. 3 [0047] of claim 1. Fukuda also teaches wherein one surface of the first emissive layer (lower OR1) fig. 3 [0053] and one surface of the second electrode (lower UE1) fig. 3 [0044] contact the first base (61) fig. 3 [0062] in the second opening (OP2) (see annotated fig. 3 of Fukuda above),
wherein a contact area of the (sidewall) first emissive layer (lower OR1) in (direct) contact with the first base (61) is smaller than a contact area of the second electrode (lower UE1) in (direct) contact with the first base (61) (see annotated fig. 3-II of Fukuda below; visually apparent, in close-up of fig. 3, that a contact surface area of UE1 and 61 as defined by the boxed region below is longer than a contact surface between OR1 and 61, as defined by the boxed region below).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (OR1)][AltContent: textbox (UE1)][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image2.png
459
385
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 3-II of Fukuda
Regarding claim 12, Fukuda teaches the display device (DSP) fig. 3 [0047] of claim 1. Fukuda also teaches further comprising:
a third electrode (lower LE3) fig. 3 [0044, 0059] spaced apart from the first electrode (lower LE1) fig. 3 [0044, 0059] with the pixel-defining layer (5) fig. 3 [0049, 0058] therebetween;
a second emissive layer (lower OR3) fig. 3 [0052] on the third electrode (lower LE3);
a fourth electrode (lower UE3) fig. 3 [0044, 0059] on the second emissive layer (OR3); and
a thin-film encapsulation layer disposed on the second electrode (lower UE1) fig. 3 [0044], the bank structure (6 comprising 61 and 62) fig. 3 [0062-0063], and the fourth electrode (lower UE3),
wherein the thin-film encapsulation layer (comprising SE1-3 with 14 with 15) fig. 3 [0055-0058]) (layers encapsulate underlying components) comprises a first encapsulation layer (SE1-3);
a second encapsulation layer (14) on the first encapsulation layer (SE1-3); and
a third encapsulation layer (15) on the second encapsulation layer (14),
wherein the first encapsulation layer (SE1-3) further comprises a first inorganic layer (SE1) (may comprise inorganic material such as silicon oxide) [0058] disposed on (supported by) the second electrode (UE3) and the second bank layer (Ti layer of 62) fig. 3 [0063]; and
a second inorganic layer (SE3) fig. 3 [0058] disposed on (supported by) the fourth electrode (lower UE3) and the second bank layer (Ti layer of 62), and wherein the first inorganic layer (SE1) and the second inorganic layer (SE3) are spaced apart from each other (SE1, SE3 horizontally spaced apart).
Regarding claim 13, Fukuda teaches the display device (DSP) fig. 3 [0047] of claim 12. Fukuda also teaches wherein the second bank layer (Ti layer of 62) fig. 3 [0063] and the second encapsulation layer (14) fig. 3 [0058] contact each other (surface of 14 at least in thermal contact with Ti layer of 62 through conductive 62 material) [0063] where the first inorganic layer (SE1) fig. 3 [0058] and the second inorganic layer (SE3) fig. 3 [0058] included in the first encapsulation layer (SE1-3) fig. 3 [0058] are (horizontally) spaced apart from each other.
Regarding claim 14, Fukuda teaches the display device (DSP) fig. 3 [0047] of claim 13. Fukuda also teaches further comprising:
a first organic pattern (upper OR1) fig. 3 [0055] disposed on (supported by) the second bank layer (Ti layer of 62) fig. 3 [0063] of the second base (62) fig. 3 [0063] to surround the first opening (OP1) (see annotated fig. 3 of Fukuda above), and comprising a same material (formed of same initial layer [0117]; blue light emission material [0066]) as a material of the first emissive layer (lower OR1) fig. 3 [0053]; and
a first electrode pattern (upper UE1) fig. 3 [0060] disposed on (supported by) the first organic pattern (upper UE1) and comprising a same material (formed of same initial metal layer [0060, 0111-0112]) as a material of the second electrode (lower UE1) [0060],
wherein the first organic pattern (upper OR1) and the first electrode pattern (upper UE1) overlap with the tip of the second base (62) (see annotated fig. 3 above),
wherein the first emissive layer (lower OR1) and the first organic pattern (upper OR1) fig. 3 [0055] are (vertically) spaced apart from each other, and
wherein the second electrode (lower UE1) fig. 3 [0060] and the first electrode pattern (upper UE1) fig. 3 [0060] are (vertically) spaced apart from each other.
Regarding claim 15, Fukuda teaches the display device (DSP) fig. 3 [0047] of claim 1. Fukuda also teaches further comprising:
a pattern (middle LE1) see fig. 3 [0049, 0058, 0068] (see annotated fig. 5 below for close-up) disposed (diagonally) between the first electrode (lower LE1) fig. 3 [0044] and the pixel-defining layer (5) fig. 3 [0049, 0058],
wherein the pattern (middle LE) overlaps with the tip (‘tip’) of the second base (62) fig. 3 [0063] and the second opening (OP2; gap defined between adjacent 61’s) (see annotated fig. 3 of Fukuda above), and
wherein the pattern (middle LE) is surrounded by (collective combination of) the first emissive layer (lower OR1) fig. 3 [0053], the pixel-defining layer (5) fig. 3 [0049, 0058] and the first electrode (lower LE).
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: oval][AltContent: textbox (Tip)][AltContent: oval][AltContent: textbox (Diagonal line from lower LE1 to 5 crossing middle LE )][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Middle LE1)]
PNG
media_image3.png
755
842
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 5 of Fukuda
Regarding claim 17, Fukuda teaches a display device (DSP) fig. 3 [0047] comprising:
a substrate (10) fig. 3 [0035, 0047];
a first electrode (lower LE1) fig. 3 [0044] disposed on (supported by) the substrate (10);
a pixel-defining layer (5) fig. 3 [0049, 0058] (defining pixel boundaries between SP1-3 [0051]) disposed on (supported by) the substrate (10) and defining a first opening (OP1; gap between adjacent 5’s overlapping LE1) (see annotated fig. 3 of Fukuda below) overlapping with the first electrode (lower LE1);
a bank structure (6 comprising 61 and 62) fig. 3 [0062-0063] (partition acting as sloped bank between pixels) disposed on the pixel-defining layer (5) and defining a second opening (OP2; gap between adjacent 6’s overlapping lower LE1) (see annotated fig. 3 of Fukuda below) overlapping with the first opening (OP1), the bank structure (6) comprising:
a first base (61) fig. 3 [0062] disposed on the pixel-defining layer (5) and comprising a conductive material (electrically-conductive metal such as aluminum [0062]), and
a second base (62) fig. 3 [0063] disposed on the first base (61) and comprising a tip (‘tip’) (see annotated fig. 3 of Fukuda below) protruding toward the (center of) first opening (OP1) than a side surface of the first base (61);
a first emissive layer (lower OR1) fig. 3 [0053] disposed on the first electrode (lower LE1) and disposed in the first opening (OP1);
a second electrode (lower UE1) fig. 3 [0044] disposed on the first emissive layer (lower EL1) and in (direct) contact with the bank structure (6 comprising 61) in the second opening (OP2);
wherein a cavity (gap “G”) [0068-0070] [see annotated fig. 5 below] is defined between a surface of the first electrode (lower LE) and the pixel-defining layer (5) (gap/cavity space defined by 52 protrusion relative to 51) [0068],
wherein the first emissive layer (lower OR1) is further disposed in the cavity (G); and
wherein the cavity (G) overlaps with the second opening (OP2) and the tip (‘tip’) of the second base (62) [see annotated fig. 5 below].
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (OP1)][AltContent: textbox (OP2)][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (tip)][AltContent: oval]
PNG
media_image1.png
495
815
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 3 of Fukuda
[AltContent: rect][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Space in cavity)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Cavity)][AltContent: oval][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: oval][AltContent: textbox (Tip)]
PNG
media_image3.png
755
842
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 5 of Fukuda
Regarding claim 20, Fukuda teaches the display device (DSP) fig. 3 [0047] of claim 17. Fukuda also teaches further comprising:
a space (‘space’ filled by portion of OR1) defined in the cavity (‘G’) [0070] (see annotated fig. 5 above), wherein the space (‘space’) is surrounded by (collectively surrounded by combination of) the first emissive layer (lower OR1) fig. 5 [0053], the pixel-defining layer (5) fig. 5 [0049, 0058] and the first electrode (lower LE1) fig. 3 [0044], and overlaps with the tip (‘tip’) of the bank structure (6 comprising 61 and 62) fig. 3 [0062-0063] and the second opening (OP2).
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.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuda (U.S. PG Pub No US2024/0121994A1), as applied in claim 1 above, in view of Kawata (U.S. PG Pub No US2018/0151761A1).
Regarding claim 2, Fukuda teaches the display device (DSP) fig. 3 [0047] of claim 1. However, Fukuda does not explicitly disclose wherein a thickness of the first bank layer (ITO layer of 62) fig. 3 [0062] in a direction perpendicular to the substrate is greater than a thickness of the second bank layer (Ti layer of 62) fig. 3 [0062] (individual layers and their relative thicknesses not explicitly shown).
Kawata teaches a display device [see fig. 3, 0046] wherein a thickness (between 30-50nm [0053]) of the first bank layer (ITO layer 31) fig. 3 [0048] in a (vertical) direction perpendicular to the substrate (CE) fig. 3 [0047] (acting as substrate) is greater than a thickness (between 20-30nm) [0053] of the second bank layer (Ti-based TiN layer 32) fig. 3 [0050].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have modified the thicknesses of the conductive bank layers in the display of Fukuda to have the thicknesses prescribed by Kawata [0048-0053] in order to desirably optimize the light transfer properties of the first and second bank layer [0048-0053] in the display, as taught by Kawata.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuda (U.S. PG Pub No US2024/0121994A1) modified by Kawata (U.S. PG Pub No US2018/0151761A1), as applied in claim 2 above, and further in view of Lee (U.S. PG Pub No US2014/0225098A1).
Regarding claim 3, Fukuda in view of Kawata teaches the display device (DSP) fig. 3 [0047] of claim 2. However, Fukuda also teaches does not explicitly disclose wherein a refractive index of the first bank layer (ITO layer of 62) fig. 3 [0062] is smaller than a refractive index of the second bank layer (Ti layer of 62) fig. 3 [0062] (refractive indices of ITO and Ti not explicitly disclosed).
Lee teaches an organic electronic device [see fig. 2, 0011-0013] applicable to displays [0071] wherein the second bank layer (Ti-oxide comprising layer 103) fig. 3 [0062] comprises a portion (titanium-oxide particle) [0034] having a refractive index of at least about 2.5 [0034].
Further, Lee discloses that indium tin oxide (ITO) has an art-recognized refractive index of approximately 2.0 [0008 Lee].
Thus, Fukuda in view of Lee teaches the refractive index of the first bank layer (ITO layer of 62 of Fukuda) (assumed to have refractive index of about 2.0 [0008 Lee]) is smaller than a refractive index of the second bank layer (103 comprising Tix-Oy) fig. 2 [0011, 0034 Lee] (assumed to have a refractive index of at least about 2.5 [0034 Lee]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Titanium-based second bank layer of Fukuda to comprise titanium oxide particles [0034], thereby guaranteeing that the second bank layer comprises at least a portion having a refractive index of at least 2.5 [0034 Lee] – which is greater than the refractive index of the ITO first bank layer [0008 Lee] of Fukuda – in order to selectively modulate light scattering properties of the second bank layer [0034 Lee] in order to improve light emitting extraction efficiency [see abstract, 0036, 0072] of the light emitting element incorporated into the display device [0071], as taught by Lee.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuda (U.S. PG Pub No US2024/0121994A1) modified by Kawata (U.S. PG Pub No US2018/0151761A1) and Lee (U.S. PG Pub No US2014/0225098A1), as applied in claim 2 above, and further in view of Yongjae Kim (KR Pub No KR 20220096058 A). *see attached translation of Yongjae Kim for [] citations*
Regarding claim 4, Fukuda in view of Kawata and Lee teaches the display device (DSP) fig. 3 [0047] of claim 3. However, Fukuda does not explicitly disclose wherein an amount of lights reflected by the bank structure (6 comprising 61 and 62) fig. 3 [0062-0063] is reduced by destructive interference between first light incident through the second base (62) fig. 3 [0063] and reflected light reflected from a surface of the first base (61) fig. 3 [0062] toward the outside.
Yongjae Kim teaches a display device [see figs. 1-3A, 0009] wherein amount of lights reflected by the bank structure (comprising 313) fig. 3A [0054, 0065] is reduced by destructive interference between first light (L1b) fig. 3A [0054] incident through the second base (lower layer of 313 multilayer [0054, 0065]) and reflected light (L1a) fig. 3A [0054] reflected from a (top) surface of the first base (upper layer of 313 multilayer) fig. 3A [0054, 0065] toward the outside (destructive interference between L1b and L1a reduces reflectance by external light [0054]).
Therefore, it would been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the bank structure of Fukuda to be configured as the transflective structure [0054, 0065] of Yongjae Kim in order to cause favorable destructive interference [0055] that reduces the reflectance of external light [0055] and thereby improves visibility of the display device [0055], as taught by Yongjae Kim.
Regarding claim 5, Fukuda in view of Kawata, Lee, and Yongjae Kim teaches the display device (DSP) fig. 3 [0047] of claim 4. Fukuda also teaches wherein the second bank layer (Ti layer of 62) fig. 3 [0062] comprises titanium (Ti) [0062].
However, Fukuda does not explicitly disclose and wherein the first bank layer (ITO layer of 62) fig. 3 [0062] comprises indium-zinc-oxide (only indium tin oxide instead [0062]).
Yongjae Kim teaches a display device [see figs. 1-3A, 0009] wherein the first bank layer (comprising upper IZO layer of 312) fig. 3 [0033, 0058] comprises indium-zinc-oxide [0033] (in addition to ITO layer(s) [0033, 0058]).
Therefore, it would been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the bank structure of Fukuda to further include an additional transparent conductive oxide layer of IZO [0033, 0058] in conjunction with the ITO layer [0033, 0058] configured according to the thickness parameters set forth by [0058] of Yongjae Kim in order to – along with other adjacent layers of the bank structure - cause favorable destructive interference [0055] that reduces the reflectance of external light [0055] and thereby improves visibility of the display device [0055], as taught by Yongjae Kim.
Regarding claim 6, Fukuda in view of Kawata, Lee, and Yongjae Kim teaches the display device (DSP) fig. 3 [0047] of claim 4. Fukuda in view of Kawata, Lee, and Yongjae Kim (with reference Kawata) teaches wherein the thickness (between 30-50nm [0053]) of the first bank layer (ITO layer 31) fig. 3 [0048] ranges from 400 angstroms to 500 angstroms (30-50nm = 300-500 angstroms [0053 Kawata], which encompasses the claimed range).
Although Kawata does not specifically disclose that a thickness of the first bank layer (ITO layer 31) fig. 3 [0048] ranges from 400-500 angstroms – [0053] of Kawata discloses ranges of 30-50 nm = 300-500 angstroms for the thickness of the first bank layer 31 formed of ITO, which encompasses the claimed, narrower range. Therefore, in the absence of evidence of criticality for the narrower ranges recited in the claims, one of ordinary skill in the art would consider the recited ranges to be sufficiently within the scope and obvious over the 300-500 angstrom range disclosed by [0053] of Kawata. (See MPEP 2144.05, I).
Fukuda in view of Kawata, Lee, and Yongjae Kim (with reference Yongjae Kim) also teaches and the thickness of the second bank layer (lower layer of 313 multilayer formed of Ti) fig. 3A [0054, 0065] ranges from 100 angstroms to 150 angstroms (may be (40-300)/2 = 20-150 angstroms [0065 Yongjae Kim], which encompasses the claimed range).
Although Yongjae Kim does not specifically disclose that a thickness of the first bank layer (lower Ti layer 31 double layer stack) fig. 3 [0048] ranges from 100-150 angstroms – [0065] of Yongjae Kim discloses ranges of 40-300 angstroms for the thickness of the total stack [0065 Yongjae Kim], which may be composed of two layers [0065], such that the lower titanium layer of the bank could have a thickness of 20-150 angstroms [0065], which encompasses the claimed, narrower range. Therefore, in the absence of evidence of criticality for the narrower ranges recited in the claims, one of ordinary skill in the art would consider the recited ranges to be sufficiently within the scope and obvious over the 20-150 angstrom range disclosed by [0065] of Yongjae Kim. (See MPEP 2144.05, I).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuda (U.S. PG Pub No US2024/0121994A1), as applied in claim 7 above, in view of Fujii (U.S. PG Pub No US2014/0312329A1).
Regarding claim 8, Fukuda teaches the display device (DSP) fig. 3 [0047] of claim 7. Fukuda also teaches wherein the first base (61) fig. 3 [0062] further comprises:
a first base bank layer (aluminum layer of 61 [0062]) disposed on (supported by) the pixel-defining layer (5) fig. 3 [0049]; and
a second base bank layer (AlNd alloy layer of 61 [0062]) disposed on (supported by) the first base bank layer (aluminum layer of 61 [0062]) and comprising a conductive material (comprising Nd in AlNd) [0062] different from that of the first base bank layer (Al-comprising layer of 61) [0062].
[0092]
However, Fukuda does not explicitly disclose a first base bank layer (aluminum layer of 61 [0062]) comprising a same material as a material of the second bank layer (Ti layer of 62) fig. 3 [0063] (Al and Ti different metal elements).
Fujii teaches a display device (10) fig. 4 [0086] disclose a first base bank layer (31 formed of Al-Ti alloy) fig. 4 [0092] comprising a same material (Ti) as a material of the second bank layer (another 31, also formed of Al-Ti alloy) fig. 4 [0092] (see fig. 6 for plurality of 31 layers [0085]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the bank layers of Fukuda to be formed of a metal alloy comprising multiple metals such as Titanium and Aluminum [0092] in order to vary the chemical composition of the bank [0092] so as to selectively enhance the adhesion properties of the bank layers with adjacent components [0112], thereby enhancing structural stability of the display [0113], as taught Fujii.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuda (U.S. PG Pub No US2024/0121994A1) modified by Fujii (U.S. PG Pub No US2014/0312329A1), as applied in claim 8 above, and further in view of Zhao (U.S. PG Pub No US2021/0376293A1).
Regarding claim 9, Fukuda in view of Fujii teaches the display device (DSP) fig. 3 [0047] of claim 8. Fukuda also teaches wherein the first base bank layer (aluminum layer of 61 [0062]) further comprises a first (bottom) surface in (thermal) contact with the pixel-defining layer (5) fig. 3 [0049] (aluminum metal layer of 61 at least in thermal contact with thermally-conductive aluminum oxide material [0058] of 5 comprising 51 and 52), a second (top) surface facing the first (bottom) surface, and a side surface (left sidewall),
wherein the second (top) surface and the side (left sidewall) surface of the first base bank layer (Al-metal layer of 61) are partially in (electrical) [0080] contact with the first emissive layer (lower OR1) fig. 3 [0053] (some degree of electrical connection/contact exists between OR1 and entirety of 61 Al metal material [0080], creating a current path [0080]).
However, Fukuda does not explicitly disclose wherein the first surface of the first base bank layer (aluminum layer of 61 [0062]) covers an entirety of a surface of the pixel-defining layer (5) (underlying pixel defining layer 5 is wider than 61),
wherein the side surface of the first base bank layer (aluminum layer of 61) protrudes toward the first opening than a side surface of the second base bank layer (AlNd alloy layer of 61 [0062]) (Fukuda does not show individual layer of bank structure 61).
Zhao teaches a display device (100) fig. 3 [0029, 0046] wherein the first (bottom) surface of the first base bank layer (8) fig. 2 [0046] covers an entirety of a (top) surface of the pixel-defining layer (6) fig. 3 [0046] (layer 6 partially defines boundaries between 123 pixel openings [0029-0030]),
wherein the side surface of the first base bank layer (8) fig. 3 [0046] protrudes toward the (center of) first opening (123) fig. 3 [0029-0030] than a side surface of the second base bank layer (9) fig. 3 [0046].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the relative widths of the pixel defining layer(s) and bank layers of Fukuda such that the pixel defining layer has a narrower width [0029-0030, 0046] and the lower bank layer protrudes further toward the opening [0029-0030, 0046] in order to selectively enhance aspect ratio [0004] and viewing angle characteristics [0033, 0036] of the display so as to improve light output characteristics and visual enjoyment of display users [0003, 0028], as taught by Zhao.
Regarding claim 10, Fukuda in view of Fujii and Zhao teaches the display device (DSP) fig. 3 [0047] of claim 9. However, Fukuda does not explicitly disclose wherein the first base bank layer (aluminum layer of 61 [0062]) comprises titanium (Ti), and the second base bank layer (AlNd alloy layer of 61 [0062]) comprises copper (Cu) (aluminum-based layers instead; Ti and Cu additives not mentioned [0062]).
Fujii teaches a display device (10) fig. 4 [0086] wherein the first base bank layer (31 formed of Al-Ti-Cu alloy) fig. 4 [0092] comprises titanium (Ti), and the second base bank layer (another 31, also formed of Al-Ti-Cu alloy) fig. 4 [0092] (see fig. 6 for plurality of 31 layers [0085]) comprises copper (Cu).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the bank layers of Fukuda to be formed of a metal alloy comprising multiple metals such as Titanium, Aluminum, and Copper [0092] in order to vary the chemical composition of the bank [0092] so as to selectively enhance the adhesion properties of the bank layers with adjacent components [0112], thereby enhancing structural stability of the display [0113], as taught Fujii.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuda (U.S. PG Pub No US2024/0121994A1) modified by Fujii (U.S. PG Pub No US2014/0312329A1) and Zhao (U.S. PG Pub No US2021/0376293A1), as applied in claim 9 above, and further in view of Deng (U.S. PG Pub No US2024/0155876A1).
Regarding claim 11, Fukuda in view of Fujii and Zhao teaches the display device (DSP) fig. 3 [0047] of claim 9. However, Fukuda does not explicitly disclose wherein a thickness of the second base bank layer (AlNd alloy layer of 61 [0062]) in a direction perpendicular to the substrate (10) fig. 3 [0047] is greater than a thickness of the first base bank layer (aluminum layer of 61 [0062]) in the direction perpendicular to the substrate (10),
wherein the thickness of the first base bank layer (aluminum layer of 61 [0062]) ranges from about 100 angstroms to about 150 angstroms, and
wherein the thickness of the second base bank layer (AlNd alloy layer of 61 [0062]) ranges from about 5,000 angstroms to about 8,000 angstroms (individual layers of 61 [0062] not explicitly shown; thickness characteristics of layers not disclosed).
Deng teaches a display device [see fig. 19, 0264, 0288] wherein a thickness of the second base bank layer (upper, 742 layer of bank partition structure) fig. 19 [0288] in a direction perpendicular to the substrate (110) fig. 19 [0288] is greater than a thickness of the first base bank layer (lower, 741 layer of bank partition structure) fig. 19 [0288] in the direction perpendicular to the substrate (110) (742 may have a thickness of about 200 angstroms [0288] while 741 has a thickness of about 100 angstroms [0288]; see further discussion of ranges below),
wherein the thickness of the first base bank layer (lower, 741 layer of bank partition structure) ranges from about 100 angstroms to about 150 angstroms (100-10000 angstroms, encompassing claimed range; see further discussion of ranges below) [0288], and
wherein the thickness of the second base bank layer (upper, 742 layer of bank partition structure) ranges from about 5,000 angstroms to about 8,000 angstroms (100-10000 angstroms, encompassing claimed range; see further discussion of ranges below) [0288].
Although Deng does not specifically disclose that a thickness of the second base bank layer (742) is greater than a thickness of the first bank layer (741) – [0288] of Deng discloses ranges of 100-10000 angstroms for the thicknesses of the first (741) and second (742) bank layer, and one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to experiment with this thickness range, as well as narrower ranges suggested by Deng [0288], such that the second bank layer 742 is implemented with a thickness greater than the first bank layer 741 of Deng [0288] in order to optimize the thickness ratios of the bank layers relative to the functional layers of the display [0288 Deng]. (See MPEP 2144.05, II).
Further, although Deng does not specifically disclose that a thickness of the second base bank layer (742) is 5000-8000 angstroms and that a thickness of the first bank layer (741) is 100-150 angstroms – [0288] of Deng discloses ranges of 100-10000 angstroms for the thicknesses of the first (741) and second (742) bank layer, which encompasses both of the claimed, narrower ranges. Therefore, in the absence of evidence of criticality for the narrower ranges recited in the claims, one of ordinary skill in the art would consider the recited ranges to be sufficiently within the scope and obvious over the 100-10000 angstrom range disclosed by [0288] of Deng. (See MPEP 2144.05, I).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill to have modified the thicknesses of the partition bank layers of Fukuda to range from 100-10000 angstroms [0288] in order to form the bank structures according to art-recognized suitable size characteristics [0288] while optimizing the size characteristics of the bank layers relative to other functional layers of the display [0288] and providing a sufficient amount of bank material to prevent cross-talk between adjacent pixels [0288], as taught by Deng.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuda (U.S. PG Pub No US2024/0121994A1), as applied in claim 15 above, in view of Yang (U.S. PG Pub No US2016/0141378A1).
Regarding claim 16, Fukuda teaches the display device (DSP) fig. 3 [0047] of claim 15. However, Fukuda does not explicitly disclose wherein the pattern (middle LE1) see fig. 3 [0049, 0058, 0068] comprises aluminum-zinc oxide (“AZO”) doped with aluminum, and a content of aluminum (Al) in the pattern ranges from 2% to 5% (IZO/IGZO instead [0059]; aluminum not mentioned).
Yang teaches a display device (transistor structure applicable to displays [see 0005-0007, 0066, fig. 2]) wherein the pattern (173p/175p) fig. 2 [0062-0067] comprises aluminum-zinc oxide (“AZO”) (instead of IZO [0064]) doped with aluminum [0066], and a content of aluminum (Al) in the pattern ranges from 2% to 5% (may be 2.5-50% mol aluminum, overlapping the claimed range of 2-5 % [0066]).
Although Yang does not specifically disclose that a “a content of aluminum (Al) in the pattern ranges from 2% to 5%” for the AZO barrier pattern(s) 173p/175p – [0066] of Yang discloses that the aluminum content in said layer ranges from 2.5-50 molecular %. These ranges substantially overlap. Therefore, in the absence of evidence of criticality for the narrower ranges recited in the claims, one of ordinary skill in the art would consider the recited ranges to be sufficiently obvious over the teachings of Yang. (See MPEP 2144.05, I).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the IZO layer of Fukuda with an AZO layer having an aluminum content in a range from 2.5 – 50 molecular percent [0062-0066] in order to optimize the diffusion-prevention characteristics [0036, 0062-0066] of the oxide semiconductor layer of the display [0005-0007], thereby minimizing the detrimental effects of unwanted impurities [0032, 0065], as taught by Yang.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuda (U.S. PG Pub No US2024/0121994A1), as applied in claim 17 above, in view of Nishimura (U.S. PG Pub No US2022/0416204A1).
Regarding claim 18, Fukuda the display device (DSP) fig. 3 [0047] of claim 17. Fukuda also teaches further comprising:
wherein the cavity (‘G’) [0070] (see annotated fig. 5 above) is (collectively) surrounded by the first emissive layer (lower OR1) fig. 3 [0053], the pixel-defining layer (5) fig. 3 [0049, 0058] and the first electrode (lower LE1) fig. 3 [0044].
However, Fukuda does not explicitly disclose wherein a pattern and a space are further defined in the cavity (‘G’), and
wherein the space is defined between the pattern and the first emissive layer (lower OR1) fig. 3 [0053] (separate pattern in G not explicitly disclosed).
Nishimura teaches a display device (100) fig. 4 [0009] wherein a pattern (layer 42, disposed pattern-sequence in PX’s) fig. 4 [0042, 0062] and a space (filled by 41) fig. 4 [0042, 0062] are further defined in the cavity (gap defined in 51, 52 – hosting 41, 42) fig. 4 [0070-0071], and wherein the space (filled by 41) is defined (in the space vertically/diagonally) between the pattern (42) and the first emissive layer (OR1/OR2) fig. 4 [0052].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified display device of Fukuda to include the additional patterns in the cavity in order to enhance the density [0062] the organic light emitting material and electrode material stacked beside the display opening [0062, 0070], as taught by Nishimura.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuda (U.S. PG Pub No US2024/0121994A1) modified by Nishimura (U.S. PG Pub No US2022/0416204A1), as applied in claim 18 above, in view of Yang (U.S. PG Pub No US2016/0141378A1).
Regarding claim 19, Fukuda in view of Nishimura teaches the display device (DSP) fig. 3 [0047] of claim 18. However, Fukuda does not explicitly disclose wherein the pattern (middle LE1) see fig. 3 [0049, 0058, 0068] comprises aluminum-zinc oxide (“AZO”) doped with aluminum, and a content of aluminum (Al) in the pattern ranges from 2% to 5% (IZO/IGZO instead [0059]; aluminum not mentioned).
Yang teaches a display device (transistor structure applicable to displays [see 0005-0007, 0066, fig. 2]) wherein the pattern (173p/175p) fig. 2 [0062-0067] comprises aluminum-zinc oxide (“AZO”) (instead of IZO [0064]) doped with aluminum [0066], and a content of aluminum (Al) in the pattern ranges from 2% to 5% (may be 2.5-50% mol aluminum, overlapping the claimed range of 2-5 % [0066]).
Although Yang does not specifically disclose that a “a content of aluminum (Al) in the pattern ranges from 2% to 5%” for the AZO barrier pattern(s) 173p/175p – [0066] of Yang discloses that the aluminum content in said layer ranges from 2.5-50 molecular %. These ranges substantially overlap. Therefore, in the absence of evidence of criticality for the narrower ranges recited in the claims, one of ordinary skill in the art would consider the recited ranges to be sufficiently obvious over the teachings of Yang. (See MPEP 2144.05, I).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the IZO layer of Fukuda with an AZO layer having an aluminum content in a range from 2.5 – 50 molecular percent [0062-0066] in order to optimize the diffusion-prevention characteristics [0036, 0062-0066] of the oxide semiconductor layer of the display [0005-0007], thereby minimizing the detrimental effects of unwanted impurities [0032, 0065], as taught by Yang.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Remaining references made available on the PTO-892 form are considered relevant to the present disclosure because they all feature display devices with bank structures having multiple layers disposed between adjacent pixels.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN AYERS WINTERS whose telephone number is (571)270-3308. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:30 am - 7:00 pm (EST).
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, N. Drew Richards can be reached at (571) 272-1736. 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.
/SEAN AYERS WINTERS/Examiner, Art Unit 2892 06/06/2026
Prosecution Insights