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 newly entered title is accepted by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Since claims 7 and 18 have been canceled and 8-9 and 19-20 amended to no longer depend on them, the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) of those claims have thus been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 10 lines 22-28 and page 11 lines 1-8, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered. Based on Applicant’s amendments, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Kim et al. (US 10446793 B2), as discussed below in the claim rejection section.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 11 lines 9-13 and page 12 lines 1-3, Applicant argues that Tak and Furuie do not teach the effect of minimizing risk of moisture permeation and the risk of damage. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim Objections
Claim 13 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 13 recites “the edge bank”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. It is recommended to change this to “an edge bank”, or otherwise introduce it prior. Appropriate correction is required. For applying art, this was interpreted as “an edge bank”.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 14 is 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 14 recites the limitation “an edge bank, which is any one of the banks”. Since claim 13 recites both “banks protruding in a thickness direction” and “the edge bank”, and claim 14 is seemingly introducing this limitation, it is unclear whether this limitation is referring specifically to the edge bank from claim 13, or if it is a new edge bank, which only needs to be any one of the banks. The claim is therefore rendered indefinite. For applying prior art, this was interpreted as being merely any one of the banks.
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
747
856
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
751
587
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Tak figures 4A & 8 above. Tak figure 22H below.
PNG
media_image3.png
690
870
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
596
1079
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
764
694
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Furuie figures 4 & 5 above. Kim ‘793 figure 8 below
PNG
media_image6.png
566
929
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-4, 6-8, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tak et al. (US 20230041748 A1, hereinafter referred to as "Tak") in view of Furuie (US 20150162386 A1, hereinafter referred to as "Furuie") and Kim et al. (US 10446793 B2), hereinafter referred to as "Kim '793".
In regards to claim 1, Tak discloses A display device comprising: a first layer which is on a first substrate (layer up to CPL1 on substrate SUB in Tak figure 8) comprising a display area (DA in Tak figure 4A) and comprising banks protruding in a thickness direction of the first substrate (BNK in Tak figure 8), a color conversion layer in an area surrounded by the banks (layer including CCL in Tak figure 8), and a color conversion portion that comprises quantum dots (QD in Tak figure 8); a second layer on a second substrate facing the first substrate (SL on BSL is facing the first substrate SUB in Tak figure 8); a filling layer between the first layer and the second layer (FL in Tak figure 8); and an edge bank which is any one of the banks (BNK in Tak figure 22H), wherein the first substrate comprises a non-display area that does not overlap the display area (NDA in Tak figure 4A), and the edge bank surrounds the display area and is in the non-display area (BNK in Tak figure 22H), the banks comprise an active bank in the display area (BNKP1 or BNKP2 in Tak figure 8).
Tak does not disclose a plurality of edge spacers on an edge bank, nor active spacers on the active bank.
In the same field of endeavor of display devices, Furuie teaches a plurality of spacers on a bank (292, which is on pixel definition layer 225 in figure 4. As seen in the plan view of figure 5, there are multiple such spacers along the same pixel boundary) and active spacers on the active bank (291 in Furuie figure 4). Furuie teaches that these spacers control the thickness of the fill layer, and help to prevent color mixing.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Tak with the spacers of Furuie in order to control the thickness of the fill layer, and help to prevent color mixing.
Furuie does not teach that these spacers are on an edge bank that is in the non-display area.
In the same field of endeavor of display devices, Kim ‘793 teaches a display with a spacer on an edge bank (114 on the pixel defining layer 112 in the peripheral area PA in Kim figure 8). Kim also teaches that this prevents generation of a defect due to mask damage during the manufacture of the display (Kim column 14, lines 60-64).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to put the spacers of Furuie on the edge bank like in Kim ‘793 in order to prevent generation of a defect due to mask damage during the manufacture of the display.
Regarding claim 2, Tak in view of Furuie and Kim ‘793 disclose all of the limitations of claim 1.
Furuie further teaches that the edge spacers space the edge bank apart from the second layer (Furuie figure 4. The spacers separate the bottom layer 220 from the top layer 250).
Regarding claim 3, Tak in view of Furuie and Kim ‘793 discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Furuie further teaches that the edge spacers pass through the filling layer to support the second layer (the spacers pass through fill layer 293 in Furuie figure 4).
Regarding claim 6, Tak in view of Furuie and Kim ‘793 discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Furuie teaches that the edge spacers are provided along a first line and a second line spaced apart from the first line (Furuie figure 5. The first 2 spacers 292 form a line, and the next 2 form another line that is spaced from the first line, with both lines being on the same bank). This regular arrangement of the spacers allows for control of the thickness along a larger range of the device, as opposed to just in one area.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place the spacers in a regular arrangement as in Furuie in order to control the thickness of the fill layer across the device.
As applied to the edge spacer as in Kim ‘793, this would result in edge spacers that are provided along a first line on the edge bank and a second line spaced apart from the first line.
Regarding claim 8, Tak in view of Furuie and Kim ‘793 discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. The limitation “wherein the active spacers and the edge spacers are formed at substantially the same time point” is a product-by-process limitation, and determination of patentability is based on the product itself, and is thus not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps (MPEP 2113). Furthermore, Furuie teaches both spacers 291 and 292 being discretely arranged without any other intervening steps, and are thus formed at “substantially the same time point” (Furuie paragraph 0032).
Regarding claim 10, Tak in view of Furuie and Kim ‘793 discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Tak further discloses that the color conversion layer comprises a first insulating layer that caps the color conversion unit (CPL1 in Tak figure 8), the second layer comprises a color filter layer comprising color filters (CF in Tak figure 8) and a second insulating layer that caps the color filters (CPL2 in Tak figure 8), and the filling layer has one surface in contact with the first insulating layer and the other surface in contact with the second insulating layer (FL in Tak figure 8 has 2 separate surfaces in contact with CPL1 and CPL2).
Regarding claim 11 Tak in view of Furuie and Kim ‘793 discloses all of the limitations of claim 10.
Furuie further teaches that the edge spacers are in contact with the second insulating layer and the edge bank (spacers 292 in Furuie figure 4 fully go through fill layer to contact overcoat layer 253 and the bottom support).
Regarding claim 12, Tak in view of Furuie and Kim ‘793 discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Tak further discloses that the first layer further comprises a light-emitting element layer comprising a light-emitting element (LD in Tak figure 8), and the color conversion layer converts a wavelength of light emitted from the light-emitting element (Tak paragraph 0238).
PNG
media_image7.png
588
741
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tak in view of Furuie and Kim ‘793 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 20220069039 A1), hereinafter referred to as "Kim '039".
Regarding claim 5, Tak in view of Furuie and Kim ‘793 discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Neither Tak, Furuie, nor Kim ‘793 explicitly teach that the edge spacers are provided along an outer area of the edge bank.
In the same field of endeavor of display devices, Kim ‘039 teaches that the edge spacers are provided along an outer area of the edge bank (spacers 641 and 642 are on outer area of bank 116 in Kim figure 6B). Furthermore, Kim ‘039 teaches that this allows for minimizing transmission of impacts to the light emitting elements, and improves the durability and reliability of the device (Kim abstract lines 5-9, and paragraph 0082).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the spacers spaced apart to the outer area of the edge bank from Kim ‘039 to the device of Tak, Furie, and Kim ‘793 in order to improve the durability and reliability of the device.
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tak in view of Furuie and Kim ‘793 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhao (US 20240016005 A1), hereinafter referred to as "Zhao".
Regarding claim 9, Tak in view of Furuie and Kim ‘793 discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Neither Tak, Furuie, nor Kim ‘793 teach that the active spacers and the edge spacers comprise an acrylic-based material.
In the same field of endeavor of display devices, Zhao teaches the active spacers and the edge spacers comprise an acrylic-based material (Zhao paragraph 0056). Zhao teaches that this is to have a low refractive index and not affect the display quality for the display.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the spacers out of acrylic-based material in order to have a reduced refractive index and minimize the effect on the display quality.
Claims 13-16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tak in view of Furuie.
Regarding claim 13, Tak discloses A method of manufacturing a display device, the method comprising: forming a first layer on a first substrate (layer up to CPL1 on substrate SUB in Tak figure 8) comprising a display area (DA in Tak figure 4A), wherein the first layer comprises banks protruding in a thickness direction of the first substrate (BNK and BNKP in Tak figure 8) and a color conversion layer in an area surrounded by the bank (layer including CCL in Tak figure 8) and comprising a color conversion portion that comprises quantum dots (QD in Tak figure 8); forming a second layer on a second substrate facing the first substrate (SL on BSL in Tak figure 8); and forming a filling layer between the first layer and the second layer to couple the first layer and the second layer (FL in Tak figure 8), wherein the first substrate comprises a non-display area that does not overlap the display area (NDA in Tak figure 4A), and an edge bank (see claim objection above) surrounds the display area and is in the non-display area (BNK in Tak figure 22H), the banks comprise an active bank in the display area (BNKP1 or BNKP2 in Tak figure 8).
Tak does not disclose forming a plurality of edge spacers on the second layer, nor that active spacers are on the active bank.
Furuie discloses forming a plurality of edge spacers on the second layer (Furuie paragraph 0032. The fill layer is in contact with the second layer, and thus the spacers are also formed on the second layer) and active spacers are on the active bank (291 in Furuie figure 4). Furuie teaches that these spacers control the thickness of the fill layer, and help to prevent color mixing.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the step of adding the spacers of Furuie to the steps making the device of Tak in order to control the thickness of the fill layer, and help to prevent color mixing.
Regarding claim 14, Tak in view of Furuie discloses all of the limitations of claim 13. Tak further discloses an edge bank, which is any one of the banks (any BNK in Tak figure 8).
Furuie further teaches that the edge spacers space an edge bank, which is any one of the banks, (see 112b rejection above) apart from the second layer (Furuie figure 4. The spacers separate the bottom layer 220 from the top layer 250).
Regarding claim 15, Tak in view of Furuie discloses all of the limitations of claim 13.
Furuie further disclose that the edge spacers pass through the filling layer to support the second layer (the spacers pass through fill layer 293 in Furuie figure 4).
Regarding claim 19, Tak in view of Furuie discloses all of the limitations of claim 13.
Furuie teaches the active spacers and the edge spacers are formed at substantially the same time point (Furuie paragraph 0032. Both spacers 291 and 292 are described as being discretely arranged without any other intervening steps). These components are within the same layer, and are between two other layers. As these elements are similar to each other, and there aren’t any other intervening elements in that layer other than the fill, forming them at a substantially different time would cause greater difficulty in the process, as it would be harder to access where they would need to be formed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the spacers at the same time in order to simplify the manufacturing process.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tak in view of Furuie as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Kim ‘039.
Regarding claim 17, Tak in view of Furuie discloses all of the limitations of claim 13. Neither Tak nor Furuie explicitly teach that the edge spacers are provided along an outer area of the edge bank.
Kim teaches that the edge spacers are provided along an outer area of the edge bank (spacers 641 and 642 are on outer area of bank 116 in Kim ‘039 figure 6B). Furthermore, Kim teaches that this allows for minimizing transmission of impacts to the light emitting elements, and improves the durability and reliability of the device (Kim abstract lines 5-9, and paragraph 0082).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the spacers spaced apart to the outer area of the edge bank from Kim to the device of Tak and Furuie in order to improve the durability and reliability of the device.
Claims 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tak in view of Furuie as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Zhao.
Regarding claim 20, Tak in view of Furuie discloses all of the limitations of claim 13. Neither Tak nor Furuie teach that the active spacers and the edge spacers comprise an acrylic-based material.
Zhao teaches the active spacers and the edge spacers comprise an acrylic-based material (Zhao paragraph 0056). Zhao teaches that this is to have a low refractive index and not affect the display quality for the display.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the spacers out of acrylic-based material in order to have a reduced refractive index and minimize the effect on the display quality.
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 DANIEL K ELLIOTT whose telephone number is (571)357-4606. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00 -5:00.
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, Brent Fairbanks can be reached at 408-918-7532. 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.
/DANIEL KURT ELLIOTT/ Examiner, Art Unit 2899
/Brent A. Fairbanks/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights