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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. 37 CFR 1.72(a); MPEP § 606.01. The pending claims are drawn only to a display device. The title also recites a method of fabrication, which is the withdrawn Group II invention. The following title is suggested: DISPLAY DEVICE WITH A ZINC TCO BANK OVERHANG.
Drawings
The drawings filed March 12, 2024 are accepted.
Claim Interpretation
The claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2111. The specification is used to interpret the meaning of claim terms; limitations from the written description are not imported into the claims. In particular:
The claim recites a first bank layer, a second bank layer, and a third bank layer. Those terms are not limited to the BN1/BN2/BN3 labels or to the aluminum / Zn-TCO / H-ITO stack of the detailed description. A three-layer bank or overhang stack on a pixel defining layer reads on the claim if the spatial and compositional relationships recited in the claim are present. A layer disposed on a bank layer, extending past a side surface of a lower bank layer, and severed from the light-emitting layer and from the common electrode, reads on a bank layer whether or not the reference calls it a bank.
“Protruding from a side surface of the first bank layer” is a geometric relationship. An overhang, tip, or undercut in which an upper layer extends laterally beyond a side surface of a lower layer meets the limitation. The claim does not require the TIP label, the BN1_IN recess nomenclature, or a maskless FMM-free process.
“Transparent conductive oxide (TCO)” includes ITO, IZO, ITZO, IGZO, ZITO, ZTO, and equivalents. “The second bank layer further comprises zinc (Zn)” is met by a TCO that itself contains zinc (IZO, IGZO, ITZO, ZITO, ZTO) and is also met by a TCO plus a separate zinc constituent. The claim does not require a particular atomic-percent range except in claim 3.
Claim 13 does not require TCO or zinc. Thickness relationships in claims 7, 8, 11, 13, and 15 are given their ordinary meaning. Numerical ranges are not read into claim 13 from the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites “a combined visible light transmittance of the second bank layer and the third bank layer is about 85% or more.” It is unclear whether “combined” means (a) the transmittance of the two layers measured in series as a stack, (b) an arithmetic combination of separately measured values, or (c) the transmittance of either layer. The specification discusses transmittance of the second and third bank layers for visible light of about 85% or about 89% ([0133]) without defining the measurement geometry. Claim 5 is indefinite on that ground. For examination the limitation is treated as a stack transmittance of about 85% or more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 103
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 findings required by MPEP § 2143 appear in each 103 section below.
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 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.
A. Prior Art Rejections Based on Primary Reference Jung
Jung et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0121989 A1 (published April 11, 2024; Korean priority October 11, 2022 and December 7, 2022) is prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). Jung names a different inventive entity from Yang et al. Common assignment to Samsung Display Co., Ltd. does not, standing alone, disqualify Jung under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C). MPEP § 2154.02(c).
Claims 1, 7, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of Choung et al., U.S. Patent No. 11,348,983 B1 (issued May 31, 2022; cited on the IDS).
Regarding independent claim 1, Jung teaches a display device comprising:
a first pixel electrode (AE1; FIGS. 4 and 5; ¶ [0118]) disposed on a substrate;
a pixel defining layer (IL1; ¶ [0120]) disposed on the substrate and exposing the first pixel electrode;
a first light emitting layer (EL1; ¶ [0126]) disposed on the first pixel electrode;
a first common electrode (CE1; ¶ [0123]) disposed on the first light emitting layer;
a first bank layer (BNK1; ¶ [0131]) disposed on the pixel defining layer;
a second bank layer (BNK2) disposed on the first bank layer and comprising a side surface protruding from a side surface of the first bank layer (BKS2 protrudes from BKS1; ¶ [0131]); and
a third bank layer (ELP1, CEP1, and CLP1) disposed on the second bank layer and comprising a side surface protruding from the side surface of the first bank layer (these layers are on BNK2 and cover the side of the BNK2 tip, so each extends past BKS1; each is severed from EL1 and from CE1, does not emit, and does not operate as the common electrode; ¶¶ [0137]–[0139]).
PNG
media_image1.png
1277
1458
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Jung, FIG. 4.
Jung does not teach
the second bank layer and the third bank layer each comprise a transparent conductive oxide (TCO), and
the second bank layer further comprises zinc (Zn).
BNK2 comprises titanium (¶ [0132]). CEP1 is the same metal material as CE1, and CE1 is a transparent conductive material (¶¶ [0127], [0138], [0181]). Jung does not identify that material as an oxide, and does not teach zinc in it.
Choung teaches a permanent overhang 110 on a pixel defining layer (FIG. 1A). The base portion 110A of that overhang includes a transparent conductive oxide of indium zinc oxide (IZO) or indium gallium zinc oxide (IGZO). IZO and IGZO comprise zinc. The same base portion may instead be indium tin oxide (ITO), which does not comprise zinc (Choung, FIG. 1A, base portion 110A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form Jung’s second bank layer of IZO or IGZO and Jung’s third bank layer of a transparent conductive oxide, as taught by Choung, for the reasons set out in Findings 1–3.
Rationale (A) — Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Finding 1. Jung and Choung are both directed to an OLED pixel in which a bank or overhang on a pixel defining layer forms a tip so that an evaporated light-emitting layer and common electrode are separated between adjacent emission areas.
Finding 2. Choung teaches that the base portion 110A of the overhang in FIG. 1A may be IZO or IGZO, a transparent conductive oxide that comprises zinc, or ITO, and that this oxide remains as the tip after the light-emitting layer and the cathode are deposited (Choung, FIG. 1A, base portion 110A).
Finding 3. Substituting Choung’s IZO or IGZO, the zinc-containing oxide of base portion 110A, for Jung’s titanium second bank, and a transparent conductive oxide of Choung for the layers on that bank, puts a zinc-containing transparent conductive oxide in the protruding second-bank position and a transparent conductive oxide in the protruding third-bank position.
Regarding dependent claim 7, Jung teaches a thickness of the third bank layer is greater than a thickness of the second bank layer (at least in the side section shown in the enlarged portion of FIG. 4 infra, ELP1 extends over BNK2 and is thicker than BNK2). See Examiner’s Annotated FIG. 4, infra.
Regarding dependent claim 9, Jung teaches the first bank layer comprises metal (BNK1 is aluminum; ¶ [0132]).
Regarding dependent claim 10, Jung teaches the first common electrode is in contact with the first bank layer (CE1 contacts side surface BKS1 of BNK1; ¶ [0123]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jung.
Regarding independent claim 13, Jung teaches the device mapped above for claim 1, including the first bank layer (BNK1), the second bank layer (BNK2) protruding from the first bank layer, and the third bank layer (ELP1, CEP1, and CLP1) disposed on the second bank layer and protruding from the first bank layer (FIG. 4). Jung teaches
a thickness of the first bank layer is greater than a sum of a thickness of the second bank layer and a thickness of the third bank layer (FIG. 4 shows BNK1 thicker than BNK2 together with ELP1, CEP1, and CLP1)1, and
the thickness of the third bank layer is greater than the thickness of the second bank layer (at least in the side section shown in the enlarged portion of FIG. 4, ELP1 extends over BNK2 and is thicker than BNK2).
PNG
media_image2.png
583
1070
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Annotated Jung’s FIG. 4 (enlarged). At least in this side section, ELP1 extends over BNK2 and is thicker than BNK2.
1 In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972) (Drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed). See MPEP 2125.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of Choung et al., U.S. Patent No. 11,348,983 B1 (issued May 31, 2022; cited on the IDS).
Regarding dependent claim 14, Jung teaches the device of claim 13, and teaches the first bank layer comprises an opaque metal (BNK1 is aluminum; ¶ [0132]). Jung does not teach that the second bank layer and the third bank layer each comprise a transparent conductive oxide. Choung teaches that oxide, including the zinc-containing oxide of base portion 110A, as set forth above for claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2–6, 8, 11, 12, 15, and 16 are 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.
Jung teaches the three-bank stack mapped above, including the thicknesses of claim 13. The following limitations are not taught by Jung or by Choung.
Claim 2 recites that the third bank layer further comprises hydrogen. Claim 6 recites that the third bank layer comprises hydrogen and indium tin oxide (ITO). Jung teaches that CEP1 may be a transparent conductive material. Jung does not teach hydrogen in that layer, and does not teach ITO.
Claim 3 recites a ratio of zinc in the second bank layer of about 5 at% to about 50 at%. Choung teaches IZO and IGZO. Neither reference teaches the amount of zinc.
Claim 4 recites that the side surface of the second bank layer and the side surface of the third bank layer are aligned with each other in a plan view. Jung teaches that ELP1 covers side surface BKS2 (¶ [0137]). Coverage of that side is not alignment of the two side surfaces.
Claim 5 recites that the second bank layer and the third bank layer are amorphous, and a combined visible light transmittance of the second bank layer and the third bank layer is about 85% or more. Neither the amorphous limitation nor the transmittance is taught. Claim 5 is also indefinite, as set out above.
Claim 8 recites a sum of a thickness of the second bank layer and a thickness of the third bank layer of about 500 Å to about 1500 Å. Claim 11 recites a thickness of the first bank layer of about 4000 Å to about 7000 Å. Jung teaches that BNK1 is thicker than BNK2 (¶ [0131]). Jung does not teach either range.
Claim 12 recites a first organic pattern disposed on the third bank layer and a first electrode pattern disposed on the first organic pattern, the patterns comprising the same materials as the light emitting layer and the common electrode and spaced apart from them. ELP1 and CEP1 are the third bank layer mapped above. Jung does not teach a further organic pattern on that bank layer, or a further electrode pattern on such an organic pattern.
Claim 15 recites that the thickness of the first bank layer is greater than or equal to about three times the sum of the thickness of the second bank layer and the thickness of the third bank layer. FIG. 4 shows that BNK1 is thicker than that sum. It does not show that BNK1 is about three times the sum. Claim 16 recites the second pixel, the spaced inorganic layers, the part of the third bank layer exposed in the separation space, and the equal second-bank thicknesses. Jung is not applied for those limitations.
Double Patenting
No double-patenting rejection is made in this action. Applicant is advised that related Samsung Display applications directed to bank-tip OLED structures (including, without limitation, U.S. Patent Application Publication Nos. 2024/0121989, 2024/0122031, and 2024/0121992) may raise a nonstatutory double-patenting issue if those applications issue with claims not patentably distinct from claims 1, 7, 9, 10, 13, and 14. The issue will be revisited if and when a conflicting claim set issues.
Conclusion
A shortened statutory period for reply is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication. Extensions of time may be available under 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed after SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN P DULKA whose telephone number is (571)270-7398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm, 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, 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.
27 September 2026
/John P. Dulka/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights