CTNF 18/601,177 CTNF 86656 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. DETAILED ACTION Currently, claims 1-20 are pending and examined below. Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) The information disclosure statement submitted on 03/11/2024 ("03-11-24 IDS") is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the 03-11-24 IDS is being considered by the examiner. Specification 06-11 AIA 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. 06-11-01 AIA The following title is suggested: DISPLAY DEVICE HAVING SEPARATOR ON TOP SURFACE OF PIXEL DEFINING LAYER AND METHOD F MANUFACTURING THE SAME Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 1 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1, 3, 7, 11, 13, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Pub. No. US 2022/0208906 A1 to Myung et al. ("Myung") . Figs. 4 and 5 of Myung have been provided to support the rejection below: PNG media_image1.png 539 443 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 306 334 media_image2.png Greyscale Regarding independent claim 1 , Myung teaches a display device (see Figs. 4 and 5; see also Fig. 3) comprising: a substrate 100 including a sub-pixel PX (see Figs. 3 and 4); a first pixel electrode 310 (para [0078] - “first electrode 310”) disposed on the substrate 100; a pixel defining layer 410 (para [0084] - “a hydrophilic first bank 410”) disposed on the first pixel electrode 310, the pixel defining layer 410 defining a first opening exposing the first pixel electrode 310; a separator 420, 430 (para [0084] - “a second bank 420 and a third bank 430”) disposed on a top surface of the pixel defining layer 410, the separator 420, 430 including: a first layer 420 disposed on the pixel defining layer 410; and a second layer 430 disposed on the first layer 420, the second layer 430 defining a second opening exposing the first layer 420; an organic light-emitting part 302, 320, 303 (para [0103] - “In one aspect, before and/or after the emission layer 320 is formed, each of solutions for forming at least one functional layer, for example, the hole injection layer 301, the hole transport layer 302, and the electron transport layer 303, may be sequentially laminated through application and drying processes.”) disposed on the pixel defining layer 410 and the separator 420, 430, the organic light-emitting part 302, 320, 303 including a plurality of light generation layers 302, 320, 303 (see Figs. 3 and 4); and a second pixel electrode 330 (para [0126] - “a second electrode 330”) disposed on the organic light-emitting part 302, 320, 303. Regarding claim 3 , Myung teaches at least a portion of the second pixel electrode 330 that is disposed in the second opening. Regarding claim 7 , Myung teaches a reflective electrode 110 (para [0071] - “a light blocking layer 110…may protect the light emitting element from the external light.” A light blocking layer is reasonably capable of reflecting light as it protects the light emitting element from the external light.) of the sub-pixel, which is disposed between the substrate 100 and the first pixel electrode 310. Regarding independent claim 11 , Myung teaches a display device (see Fig. 8; see also Figs. 3-5) comprising: a substrate 100 including a sub-pixel PX (see Figs. 3 and 4); a first pixel electrode 310 (para [0078] - “first electrode 310”) disposed on the substrate 100; a pixel defining layer 610 (para [0084] - “first bank 610”) disposed on the first pixel electrode 310, the pixel defining layer 610 defining a first opening exposing the first pixel electrode 310; a separator 620, 640, 630 (para [0132] - “In this aspect, a hole H is surrounded by the second bank 620, the third bank 630, and the fourth bank 640.”) disposed on a top surface of the pixel defining layer 610, the separator 620, 640, 630 including: a first pattern 620 disposed on the pixel defining layer 610 and a second pattern 640 disposed on the first pattern 620, the second pattern 640 defining a second opening exposing the first pattern 620; a first film 630 covering the first pattern 620 and the second pattern 640; an organic light-emitting part 302, 320, 303 (para [0103] - “In one aspect, before and/or after the emission layer 320 is formed, each of solutions for forming at least one functional layer, for example, the hole injection layer 301, the hole transport layer 302, and the electron transport layer 303, may be sequentially laminated through application and drying processes.”) disposed on the pixel defining layer 410 and the separator 620, 640, 630, the organic light-emitting part 302, 320, 303 including a plurality of light generation layers 302, 320, 303 (see Figs. 3 and 4); and a second pixel electrode 330 (para [0126] - “a second electrode 330”) disposed on the organic light-emitting part 302, 320, 303. Regarding claim 13 , Myung teaches at least a portion of the second pixel electrode 330 that is disposed in the second opening. Regarding independent claim 19 , Myung teaches a method of manufacturing a display device (see Fig. 4; see also Fig. 3), the method comprising: forming a first pixel electrode 310 (para [0078] - “first electrode 310”) of a sub-pixel PX (see Figs. 3 and 4) on a substrate 100; forming a pixel defining layer 410 (para [0084] - “a hydrophilic first bank 410”) defining a first opening exposing the first pixel electrode 310; forming a first layer 420 (para [0084] - “a second bank 420”) on a top surface of the pixel defining layer 410; forming, on the first layer 420, a second layer 430 (para [0084] - “a third bank 430”) defining a second opening exposing the first layer 420; forming an organic light-emitting part 302, 320, 303 (para [0103] - “In one aspect, before and/or after the emission layer 320 is formed, each of solutions for forming at least one functional layer, for example, the hole injection layer 301, the hole transport layer 302, and the electron transport layer 303, may be sequentially laminated through application and drying processes.”) disposed on the first layer 420 and the second layer 430, the organic light-emitting part 302, 320, 303 including a plurality of light generation layers 302, 320, 303 (see Figs. 3 and 4); and forming a second pixel electrode 330 (para [0126] - “a second electrode 330”) on the organic light-emitting part 302, 320, 303, wherein a height of the second layer 430 is in proportion to a height of the organic light-emitting part 302, 320, 303 (see Figs. 4 and 5). Regarding claim 20 , Myung teaches the forming the second layer 430 defining the second opening includes: forming an inorganic layer 510 on the first layer 420 (see Fig. 6F); and defining the second opening by etching and removing a portion of the inorganic layer 420 (para [0121] - “Thereafter, as illustrated in (a) and (b) of FIG. 6G, the buffer layer 510 remaining on the display panel 50 is removed to complete the formation of the first bank 410, the second bank 420, and the third bank 430.”) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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 of this title, 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myung . Regarding claim 9 , Myung teaches a general condition of a height of the second layer in a third direction being greater than a width of the second opening, but does not specify the height being about 400 nanometers and the width being about 135 nanometers or less. According to Section 2144.05 of the MPEP, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller , 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Here, Myung teaches the general condition of the height of the second layer being greater than the width of the second opening. Unless the Applicant can show that the claimed specific condition of the height being about 400 nanometers and the width being about 135 nanometers produces unexpected results that are different in kind and not different in degree over said general condition as taught by Myung, claim 9 would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, because it would not be inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. The burden shifts to the Applicant to show that the claimed range provides unexpected result that is difference in kind and not difference in degree. See In re Aller , 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Moreover, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc ., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Court held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (see MPEP 2144.04). Since the only difference between the claimed display device and the display device taught by Myung is a relative dimension of the height being about 400 nanometers and the width being about 135 nanometers or less, the Court would be more likely than not hold that the claimed display device is not patentably distinct from the display device taught by Myung. Also, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art modify the display device such that the height is about 400 nanometers and the width being about 135 nanometers with reasonable expectation of providing a display device that is small as possible as the one of ordinary skill in the semiconductor art is incentivized to make adjustments to size to fit an intended purpose of making device smaller as market forces demand that the device scale down with Moore's Law . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myung and further in view of Pub. No. US 2022/0208905 A1 to Kim (“Kim”) . Regarding claim 10 , Myung does not teach an encapsulation layer disposed on the second pixel electrode or a color filter layer including first to third color filters disposed on the encapsulation layer while being spaced apart from each other in a first direction. Kim teaches an encapsulation layer 400 (para [0066] - “a thin-film encapsulation layer 400”) disposed on a second pixel electrode 330 (para [0111] - “opposite electrode 330”) and a color filter layer CF1, CF2, CF3 including first to third color filters (para [0166] - “First, second, and third color filters CF1, CF2, and CF3”) disposed on the encapsulation layer 400 while being spaced apart from each other in a first direction. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the encapsulation layer and the color filter layer taught by Kim with the display device taught by Myung, because “all the claimed elements were know in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc ., 550 U.S. 538, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007); Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc ., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co ., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atlantic & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equip. Corp ., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950).” (quoting Section 2143.02 of the MPEP) . Allowable Subject Matter 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 2 is objected to for depending on a rejected base claim 1, but would be allowable if it is rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim 1 or the base claim 1 is amended to include all of the limitations of claim 2. Claim 4 is objected to for depending on a rejected base claim 1 and the intervening claim 3, but would be allowable if it is rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim 1 and the intervening claim 3 or the base claim 1 is amended to include all of the limitations of claim 4 and the intervening claim 3. Claim 5 is objected to for depending on a rejected base claim 1, but would be allowable if it is rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim 1 or the base claim 1 is amended to include all of the limitations of claim 5. Claim 6 is allowable , because it depends from the allowable claim 5. Claim 8 is objected to for depending on a rejected base claim 1 and the intervening claim 7, but would be allowable if it is rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim 1 and the intervening claim 7 or the base claim 1 is amended to include all of the limitations of claim 8 and the intervening claim 7. Claim 12 is objected to for depending on a rejected base claim 11, but would be allowable if it is rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim 11 or the base claim 11 is amended to include all of the limitations of claim 12. Claims 13-18 are allowable , because they depend from the allowable claim 12 . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : Pub. No. US 2024/0057394 A1 to Sakuma et al. Pub. No. US 2023/0209902 A1 to Jin et al. Pub. No. US 2021/0151528 A1 to Nan et al. Pub. No. US 2016/0254476 A1 to Park Pub. No. US 2013/0234126 A1 to Nakatani Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL JUNG whose telephone number is (408) 918-7554. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 A.M. to 7 P.M. 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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /MICHAEL JUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817 02 May 2026 Application/Control Number: 18/601,177 Page 2 Art Unit: 2817 Application/Control Number: 18/601,177 Page 3 Art Unit: 2817 Application/Control Number: 18/601,177 Page 4 Art Unit: 2817 Application/Control Number: 18/601,177 Page 5 Art Unit: 2817 Application/Control Number: 18/601,177 Page 6 Art Unit: 2817 Application/Control Number: 18/601,177 Page 7 Art Unit: 2817 Application/Control Number: 18/601,177 Page 8 Art Unit: 2817 Application/Control Number: 18/601,177 Page 9 Art Unit: 2817 Application/Control Number: 18/601,177 Page 10 Art Unit: 2817 Application/Control Number: 18/601,177 Page 11 Art Unit: 2817 Application/Control Number: 18/601,177 Page 12 Art Unit: 2817 1 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
Prosecution Insights