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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the application No. 18/630,976 filed on July 21, 2026.
Priority
3. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO-1449. These IDS has been considered.
Specification
5. 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 Including Dummy Pixel Electrode and Light Blocking Layer”.
Election/Restrictions
6. Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-7, 10-16, 18-19, 21-25 w.r.t. device species I (Fig. 5) in the reply filed on 07/21/2026 is acknowledged.
7. Claims 8-9, 17, 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected device species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/21/2026.
Claim Objections
8. Claims 4, 18-19 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims should be recited as follows to clarify or interpret the claim languages properly:
4. (Currently Amended) The display device of claim 1, further comprising a light-blocking layer overlapping
18. (Currently Amended) The display device of claim 14, further comprising a light-blocking layer overlapping
19. (Currently Amended) The display device of claim 14, further comprising:
a first color filter overlapping
a second color filter overlapping
Appropriate corrections are needed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
9. 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.
10. 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 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.
(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.
11. Claims 1, 5, 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Park et al. (US 2014/0183479 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1, Park et al. teaches a display device comprising (Fig. 4, para [0049]):
a substrate (310, para [0051]);
a first pixel electrode (351 left-side) and a second pixel electrode (351 right-side) on the substrate (310);
a dummy pixel electrode (360 called auxiliary electrode, para [0050]) between the first pixel electrode (351 left-side) and the second pixel electrode (351 right-side), and configured to receive a dummy voltage (this is a functional limitation/an intended use);
an emissive layer (352/482, para [0050], [0089]) on the first pixel electrode (351 left-side), the second pixel electrode (351 right-side), and the dummy pixel electrode (360); and
a common electrode (353/483, para [0050]) on the emissive layer (352/482),
wherein the first pixel electrode (351 left-side) is configured to receive a pixel voltage different from the dummy voltage (this is a functional limitation/an intended use).
Regarding claim 5, Park et al. teaches wherein (Figs. 2, 4), the dummy pixel electrode (360) has a shape that surrounds each of the first pixel electrode (351 left-side) and the second pixel electrode (351 right-side), and
wherein a portion of the dummy pixel electrode (360) is located between the first pixel electrode (351 left-side) and the second pixel electrode (351 right-side).
Regarding claim 12, Park et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 4), further comprising an insulating film (314) between the substrate (310) and the first pixel electrode (351 left), the second pixel electrode (351 right), and the dummy pixel electrode (360),
wherein the insulating film (314) has a greater thickness between the substrate (310) and the dummy pixel electrode (360) than between the substrate (310) and the first pixel electrode (351 left).
PNG
media_image1.png
422
740
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Park et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 4), further comprising a bank (315, para [0077]) on the first pixel electrode (351 left-side), the second pixel electrode (351 right-side), and the dummy pixel electrode (360).
Regarding claim 14, Park et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 4), the bank (315) has a first emission area (EA left-side), a second emission area (EA right-side), and a dummy emission area (intermediate C) overlapping with the first pixel electrode (351 left-side), the second pixel electrode (351 right-side), and the dummy pixel electrode (360), respectively.
Regarding claim 15, Park et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 4), a size of the dummy emission area (C) is smaller than a size of the first emission area (EA left-side).
Regarding claim 16, Park et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 4), the dummy emission area (C) is located on at least one of an upper side (see Fig. 4), a lower side, a left side, or a right side of the first pixel electrode (351 left-side).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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:
a. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
b. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
c. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
d. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
16. Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2014/0183479 A1) in view of Park et al. (US 2008/0068364 A1).
Regarding independent claim 21, Park et al. teaches a display device comprising (Fig. 4, para [0049]):
a substrate (310, para [0051]);
a first pixel electrode (351 left-side) and a second pixel electrode (351 right-side) on the substrate (310);
a dummy pixel electrode (360 called auxiliary electrode, para [0050]) between the first pixel electrode (351 left-side) and the second pixel electrode (351 right-side);
an emissive layer (352/482, para [0050], [0089]) on the first pixel electrode (351 left-side), the second pixel electrode (351 right-side), and the dummy pixel electrode (360); and
a common electrode (353/483, para [0050]) on the emissive layer (352/482).
Park et al./479 is explicitly silent of disclosing wherein, a light-blocking layer on the dummy pixel electrode.
Park et al./364 teaches wherein (Fig. 1B), a light-blocking layer (220 black matrix, para [0059]) on the dummy pixel electrode (para [0060]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching as taught by Park et al./364, and adding the black matrix on the dummy structure of Park et al./479, in order to reduce or prevent difference of brightness between a first pixel and the other pixels (para [0060]).
Regarding claim 22, Park et al./479 and Park et al./364 teach all of the limitations of claim 21 from which this claim depends.
Park et al./364 teaches wherein (Fig. 1B), the light-blocking layer (220) overlaps with a dummy emission area of the dummy pixel electrode (1900, para [0063]).
Regarding claim 23, Park et al./479 and Park et al./364 teach all of the limitations of claim 21 from which this claim depends.
Park et al./479 teaches wherein (Fig. 4, para [0089]), the first pixel electrode (351 left-side) is configured to receive a pixel voltage (this is a functional limitation/an intended use), and the dummy pixel electrode (360) is configured to receive a dummy voltage different from the pixel voltage (this is a functional limitation/an intended use).
17. Claims 4, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2014/0183479 A1) as applied to claims 1, 14 above, and further in view of Park et al. (US 2008/0068364 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Park et al./479 teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 from which this claim depends.
Park et al./479 is explicitly silent of disclosing wherein, a light-blocking layer overlapping the dummy pixel electrode.
Park et al./364 teaches wherein (Fig. 1B), further comprising a light-blocking layer (220 black matrix, para [0059]) the dummy pixel electrode (para [0060]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching as taught by Park et al./364, and adding the black matrix on the dummy structure of Park et al./479, in order to reduce or prevent difference of brightness between a first pixel and the other pixels (para [0060]).
Regarding claim 18, Park et al./479 teaches all of the limitations of claim 14 from which this claim depends.
Park et al./479 is explicitly silent of disclosing wherein, a light-blocking layer overlapping the dummy pixel electrode.
Park et al./364 teaches wherein (Fig. 1B), further comprising a light-blocking layer (220 black matrix, para [0059]) the dummy pixel electrode (para [0060]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching as taught by Park et al./364, and adding the black matrix on the dummy structure of Park et al./479, in order to reduce or prevent difference of brightness between a first pixel and the other pixels (para [0060]).
18. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2014/0183479 A1) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2018/0166522 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Park et al./479 teaches all of the limitations of claim 14 from which this claim depends.
Park et al./479 is explicitly silent of disclosing wherein, further comprising:
a first color filter overlapping with the first emission area; and
a second color filter overlapping with the second emission area.
Kim et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 5), further comprising:
a first color filter (301, para [0093]) overlapping with the first emission area (EA, para [0059] left); and
a second color filter (302, para [0093]) overlapping with the second emission area (EA, para [0059]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching as taught by Kim et al., and applying the color filter on the pixel emissive areas of Park et al./479, in order to provide respective color, stable color accuracy, and high-resolution capability.
Allowable Subject Matter
19. Claims 2-3, 6-7, 10, 11, 24-25 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.
Claim 2: the prior art of record alone or in combination neither teaches nor makes obvious the display device comprising:
…. wherein the dummy voltage is smaller than the pixel voltage.
Claim 6: the prior art of record alone or in combination neither teaches nor makes obvious the display device comprising:
…. wherein the dummy pixel electrode comprises:
a first extended portion extending in a first direction; and
a second extended portion extending in a second direction crossing the first direction.
Claim 10: the prior art of record alone or in combination neither teaches nor makes obvious the display device comprising:
…. wherein a distance between the dummy pixel electrode and the common electrode is smaller than a distance between the first pixel electrode and the common electrode.
Claim 11: the prior art of record alone or in combination neither teaches nor makes obvious the display device comprising:
…. wherein a thickness of the dummy pixel electrode is greater than a thickness of the first pixel electrode.
Claim 24: the prior art of record alone or in combination neither teaches nor makes obvious the display device comprising:
…. wherein the dummy voltage is smaller than the pixel voltage.
20. The prior arts made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: the prior arts, Park et al. (US 2014/0183479 A1) and Park et al. (US 2008/0068364 A1) disclose the display device that explains in the office action above, however, the prior arts do not depict the elements as claimed in the limitations above, therefore, either by itself or in combination with other arts fail to disclose the above allowable limitations in the section 19.
Examiner’s Note
21. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. See MPEP 2111, 2123, 2125, 2141.02 VI, and 2182.
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns/lines in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
22. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIDARUL MAZUMDER whose telephone number is (571)272-8823. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
23. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Partridge can be reached at 571-270-1402. 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.
/DIDARUL A MAZUMDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights