DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention Group I and Species I (FIGs. 3A-3B) in the reply filed on 6/1/2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant alleges claims 1-17 pertain to the elections made. However, upon further consideration, Examiner note
claim 9 reciting light blocking patterns of different heights pertains to non-elected Species II (FIG. 4A) or Species III (FIG. 4B);
claim 10 reciting third light blocking patterns of a third height pertains to non-elected Species III (FIG. 4B);
claim 11 reciting grooves having depth smaller than distance from upper surface of the second cover layer to upper surface of the first cover layer pertains to non-elected Species IV (FIG. 4C);
claim 12 reciting light blocking patterns having a shape with decreasing width pertains to non-elected Species V (FIG. 4D)
Therefore, claims 9-12 and 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species or invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/1/2026.
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.
Claims 8 and 13 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 8 reciting “the second barrier layer” renders the claim indefinite for lacking antecedent basis. It is unclear if “the second barrier layer” is intended to refer to the previously recited “second barrier wall layer” or to a different feature.
Furthermore, claim 8 reciting “at least a portion of the first cover layer … is exposed through the groove portions” renders the claim indefinite. As previously recited in claim 1, light blocking patterns are disposed in the groove portions. It is unclear how the groove portions that are occupied by the light blocking patterns would expose “at least a portion of the first cover layer”. The first cover layer can only be exposed through the groove portions prior to disposing the light blocking patterns. However, such interpretation would improperly broadens the scope of claim 1 which previously require the device structure to comprise light blocking patterns disposed in the groove portions. It is unclear how does the limitation in claim 8 is intended to further limit claim 1.
Claim 13 reciting “the second electrodes” render the claim indefinite due to improper antecedent basis. Only one “second electrode” has been recited previously. It is unclear what is the plural “second electrodes” intended to refer to.
Other claims are rejected for depending on a rejected claim.
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.
(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.
Claims 1-2, 8, 14, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. US 2018/0006272 (Lee’272).
PNG
media_image1.png
638
1209
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In re claim 1, Lee’272 discloses (e.g. FIGs. 3-5 & 11-13) a display device comprising:
a base layer 101 comprising a light emitting area EA and a non-light-emitting area NEA surrounding the light emitting area EA (see FIG. 3B);
a light emitting element layer EL disposed on the base layer 101 and comprising light emitting elements OLEDs;
a pixel definition layer (lower level portion of PDL, see FIG. 4 annotated above) disposed on the base layer 101 and provided with light emitting openings (e.g. openings occupied by ED1) overlapping the light emitting elements OLED in a plan view;
a barrier wall comprising a first barrier wall layer (mid level portion of PDL, see FIG. 4 annotated above) disposed on the pixel definition layer (lower level portion of PDL) and a second barrier wall layer (upper level portion of PDL, see FIG. 4 annotated above) disposed on the first barrier wall layer (mid level portion of PDL), wherein the barrier wall is provided with barrier wall openings (OP above ED1) overlapping the light emitting openings (opening occupied by ED1) in the plan view;
an encapsulation layer 104,200 covering the light emitting elements OLED; and
a sensor layer TP (see FIG. 12-13, ¶ 183) disposed on the encapsulation layer 104,200, the encapsulation layer 104,200 comprising:
a first cover layer 104 covering the light emitting element layer EL and the barrier wall (mid+upper level portion of PDL);
a second cover layer 201 disposed on the first cover layer 104 and provided with groove portions Ho (FIG. 5A), wherein the groove portions Ho are defined therein by recessing portions of the second cover layer 201 from an upper surface of the second cover layer 201 and spaced apart from each other (no specific “upper surface” claimed that would distinguish over surface of 201 from which grooves Ho are recessed, further the process of recessing the second cover layer to form the groove portions pertains to product by process limitation which does not render the device claimed structurally distinguishable over the prior art);
a third cover layer 202 (or TP-BM1 of TP, see FIG. 13D) disposed on the second cover layer 201; and
light blocking patterns BR (¶ 98) disposed in the groove portions Ho.
In re claim 2, Lee’272 discloses (e.g. FIG. 4) wherein the light blocking patterns BR are arranged in one direction DR1, and each of the light blocking patterns BR has a rectangular shape in a cross-section parallel to the one direction DR1 and substantially perpendicular to a upper surface of the base layer 101.
In re claim 8, in another interpretation, the first cover layer may correspond to a lower portion of 201 (see FIG. 4 annotated below).
PNG
media_image2.png
638
1215
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As such, the first cover layer (lower portion of 201) covers an upper surface of “the second barrier layer” (as best understood, upper level portion of PDL). And the first cover layer (lower portion of 201) is exposed through the groove portions Ho (e.g. having exposed side surfaces before BR is disposed, as best understood) in the non-light emitting area NEA and is in contact with the third cover layer 202.
In a further interpretation, the first cover layer may correspond to an upper portion of 201 and the third cover layer correspond to TP-BM1 of TP (see FIG. 13D annotated below). The first cover layer (upper portion of 201) covers an upper surface of “the second barrier layer” (as best understood, upper level portion of PDL). And the first cover layer (upper portion of 201) is exposed through the groove portions Ho (e.g. having surface exposed in groove Ho before BR is disposed, as best understood) in the non-light emitting area NEA and is in contact with the third cover layer TP-BM1.
PNG
media_image3.png
574
1100
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In re claim 14, Lee’272 discloses (e.g. FIG. 4 & 12 & 13D) wherein the sensor layer TP comprises:
a first sensing insulating layer IL2 or TP-BM2 disposed on the third cover layer 202 (FIG. 4);
a first conductive layer CL2 or CP2 disposed on the first sensing insulating layer;
a second sensing insulating layer IL1 or TP-BM1 disposed on the first sensing insulating layer IL2 or TP-BM1 and covering the first conductive layer CL2 or CP2; and
a second conductive layer CL1 or SP2,CP1 disposed on the second sensing insulating layer IL1 or TP-BM1.
In re claim 16, Lee’272 discloses (e.g. FIG. 4, see annotated above) wherein a side surface of the second barrier wall layer (upper level portion of PDL) protrudes more than the first barrier wall layer (mid level portion of PDL) (upper level portion protrudes more vertically above substrate 101 than the mid level portion), and a protruded portion of the side surface of the second barrier wall layer (upper level portion of PDL) overlaps at least a portion of the light emitting elements OLED in the plan view (OLED covers entire side surfaces of PDL).
In re claim 17, Lee’272 discloses (e.g. FIG. 2) wherein the pixel definition layer (lower level portion of PDL below EL) is disposed between the first electrode ED1 and the first barrier wall layer (mid level portion of PDL above ED1) to prevent the first electrode ED1 from being electrically connected to the first barrier wall layer (mid level portion of PDL is above ED1 and they do not contact electrically or physically).
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.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee’272 as applied to claim 1 above.
In re claim 5, Lee’272 discloses (e.g. FIG. 5A) wherein each of the groove portions Ho has a width d1a about 5 micrometers to about 20 micrometers, and a separation distance d3a between two of the groove portions Ho adjacent to each other is about 30 micrometers to about 150 micrometer (¶ 145). Lee’272 further discloses the dimensions of the grooves can be variously defined according to the positions of the component of the display device to obtain desired visibility angle/direction (¶ 145,156).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the groove width and separation distance to be equal to or greater than 0.1 micrometers and equal to or smaller than 10 micrometers to obtain desired display visibility angle/direction as suggested by Lee’272.
“[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.” See MPEP 2144.05 II. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382; In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
In re claim 6, Lee’272 discloses (e.g. FIGs. 5A-5B) wherein each of the light blocking patterns BR has a width d1a about 5 micrometers to about 20 micrometers, each of the light blocking patterns BR has a height d2a about 100 micrometers to about 500 micrometers (¶ 145), and a separation distance d3a between two of the light blocking patterns BR adjacent to each other is about 30 micrometers to about 150 micrometer (¶ 145). Lee’272 further discloses the dimensions of the grooves can be variously defined according to the positions of the component of the display device to obtain desired visibility angle/direction (¶ 145,156).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the light blocking patterns to have a width equal to or greater than 1 micrometers and equal to or smaller than 1.5 micrometers, a height equal to or greater than 4.5 micrometers and equal to or smaller than 10 micrometers, and a separation distance equal to or greater than 1 micrometers and equal to or smaller than 100 micrometers. Such variation is obvious to obtain desired display visibility angle/direction as suggested by Lee’272.
“[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.” See MPEP 2144.05 II. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382; In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee’272 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. US 2022/0037414 A1 (Kim).
In re claim 3, Lee’272 discloses (FIG. 4) wherein the light blocking patterns BR comprise a resin having a black color that absorbs light (¶ 98). Lee’272 does not explicitly disclose the material is a carbon black or a graphene.
Kim discloses (e.g. FIG. 3) light blocking patterns 270 for absorbing light and is formed of material including a resin and carbon block (¶ 98).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form Lee’272’s light blocking patterns BR to include a carbon black for absorbing light as taught by Kim.
It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
In re claim 4, Lee’272 discloses (FIG. 4) the light blocking patterns BR comprise a resin having a black color that absorbs light (¶ 98). Kim further teaches (e.g. FIG. 3) light blocking patterns 270 having resin and carbon black which is the same material disclosed by Applicant. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the light blocking patterns taught by the prior art having the same material as disclosed by Applicant would exhibit same property. Therefore, it would be obvious that the light blocking patterns taught by prior art having a resin and carbon black would have a dielectric constant that meets the claimed range of equal to or greater than 1 Farad per meter (F/m) and equal to or smaller than 3 F/m.
Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). “[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). >In In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1258, 73 USPQ2d 1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004), the court held that the claimed promoter sequence obtained by sequencing a prior art plasmid that was not previously sequenced was anticipated by the prior art plasmid which necessarily possessed the same DNA sequence as the claimed oligonucleotides. The court stated that “just as the discovery of properties of a known material does not make it novel, the identification and characterization of a prior art material also does not make it novel.”
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee’272 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. US 2022/0037414 A1 (Kim) and .
In re claim 7, Lee’272 discloses the first cover layer 104 blocks moisture and comprises inorganic layer or organic layer (¶ 137-138), the second cover layer 201 comprises glass or plastic (¶ 140), and the third cover layer TP-BM1 of TP (FIG. 13D) comprises metal CP1 (¶ 184).
Lee’272 does not explicitly disclose the first cover layer 104 comprises at least one of silicon nitride, silicon oxynitride, silicon oxide, titanium oxide, and aluminum oxide, the second cover layer 201 comprises at least one of an acrylic resin, an epoxy resin, and a silicon oxycarbide,
Kim discloses (e.g. FIG. 3) a display device comprising an encapsulation layer 130 including inorganic layer 132,136 and organic layer 134 (¶ 63), wherein the inorganic layer 132,136 include silicon nitride, silicon oxide, titanium oxide, and aluminum oxide (¶ 64).
Yueh discloses a display device (e.g. FIG. 2) comprising light blocking patterns 141 disposed in grooves 142a of transparent layer 142, wherein the transparent layer 142 include acrylate resin, epoxy resin (¶ 32).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form Lee’272’s first cover layer 104 using, e.g. silicon nitride, as the inorganic layer as taught by Kim for blocking moisture and protecting underlying OLED. And it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form Lee’272’s second cover layer 201 using, e.g. acrylic resin (a plastic), to obtain the transparent layer for embedding the light blocking patterns as taught by Yueh.
It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee’272 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. US 2021/0134902 (Lee’902).
In re claim 13, Lee’272 discloses (e.g. FIG. 4) wherein each of the light emitting elements OLED comprises:
a first electrode ED1 disposed in a corresponding barrier wall opening among the barrier wall openings (ED1 exposed through OP);
a light emitting layer EL disposed on the first electrode ED1; and
a second electrode ED2 disposed on the light emitting layer EL.
Lee’272 does not explicitly disclose “the second electrodes” ED2 (as best understood) are in contact with the first barrier wall layer, the first barrier wall layer comprises aluminum, and the second barrier wall layer comprises titanium.
Lee’902 discloses (e.g. FIGs. 2-4) a display device comprising
a pixel defining layer 301 disposed on a base layer 100 and provided with light emitting openings overlapping with light emitting elements in a plan view,
a barrier wall 360 comprising a first barrier wall layer (Al layer) disposed on the pixel defining layer 301 and a second barrier wall layer (Ti layer) disposed on the first barrier wall layer (Al layer), wherein the barrier wall is provided with barrier wall openings overlapping with the light emitting openings in the plan view;
each of the light emitting elements comprises:
a first electrode 310 disposed in a corresponding barrier wall opening among the barrier wall openings (openings defined by 360);
a light emitting layer 315,320,325 disposed on the first electrode 310; and
a second electrode 330 disposed on the light emitting layer,
wherein “the second electrodes” 330 are in contact with the first barrier wall layer (in electrical contact with Al layer of 360), the first barrier wall layer comprises aluminum (Al layer, see FIG. 4B), and the second barrier wall layer (Ti layer of 360) comprises titanium (see FIG. 4B).
Lee’902 teaches the providing of metal layers 360 on the pixel defining layer 301 reduces electrical resistance, reduce voltage drop and reduces heat emission (¶ 85).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form Al and Ti metal layers on Lee’272’s pixel defining layer PDL to reduce electrical resistance, voltage drop and heat emission of the display device as taught by Lee’902. The metal stack of Al and Ti layers teaches the claimed first barrier wall layer and second barrier wall layer.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee’272 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ryu et al. US 2023/0200124 A1 (Ryu).
In re claim 15, Lee’272 disclosed the claim invention including a sensor layer TP over the display substrate 100 (see FIGs. 12-13). Lee’272 does not explicitly disclose further comprising:
an optical layer disposed on the sensor layer;
an adhesive layer disposed on the optical layer; and
a window disposed on the adhesive layer,
wherein the optical layer is attached to the window by the adhesive layer.
However, Ryu discloses (e.g. FIG. 12) a display device comprising a sensor layer 500 over the display element layer 200, and further comprising:
an optical layer 730,740 (¶ 119,130-131) disposed on the sensor layer 500 (¶ 85);
an adhesive layer 810 (¶ 138) disposed on the optical layer 730,740; and
a window 820 (¶ 138) disposed on the adhesive layer 810,
wherein the optical layer 730,740 is attached to the window 820 by the adhesive layer 810.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further provide optical layer, adhesive layer, and a window above Lee’272’s sensor layer TP as taught by Ryu to provide additional optical functional elements, such as color filter 730 and light refraction 740 and a window layer 820 for protecting the display surface with an adhesive layer 810 for attachment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YU CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7881. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9AM-5PM ET.
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, WILLIAM KRAIG can be reached on 5712728660. 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.
/YU CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
YU CHEN
Examiner
Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights