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 .
Response to Election/Restrictions
1. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-19 in the reply filed on 7/28/2026 is acknowledged.
Specification
2. 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.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
3. Claims 1-19 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In particular, claim 1 cites “a light emitting layer on the first electrode; a pixel defining layer on the light emitting layer” is not clear. Shown in Figs. 6-7, light emitting element layer (EMLT) including light emitting element (ED) & pixel defining layer (PDL). In both Figures, pixel defining layer (PDL) is in between pixel electrode (PE1-PE3, referred as “PE”) & light emitting layer (EL1-EL3, referred as “EL”), and the PDL is under or below the EL. Also Fig. 8-9, the layer EL formed after the layer PDL. For best understand and examination, the PDL would be considered on PE and below the EL or based on applicable prior arts under BRI.
Claims 2-19 are rejected as being dependent on claim 1.
Applicant is suggested to revise and clarify the claim(s) to avoid any further confusions.
For best understanding and examination purpose, the claim(s) will be best considered based on drawings, disclosure, and/or any applicable prior arts.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
4. Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8-10, 12-15, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2016/0247861).
Re claim 1, Kim teaches, under BRI & best understanding, Fig. 1, [0051, 0063], a display device comprising:
-a substrate (110);
-a first electrode (E1) on the substrate (110);
-a light emitting layer (EL or EML) on the first electrode (E1);
-a pixel defining layer (P) on the light emitting layer (EL or EML) (e.g. parts of P above and under EML); and
-a second electrode (E2) on the light emitting layer (EL or EML),
wherein first and second opposite sides (left & right sides) of the light emitting layer (EL or EML) are located on the pixel defining layer (P), and have straight line shapes that are inclined at an angle with respect to an upper surface (top surface) of the pixel defining layer (P).
PNG
media_image1.png
346
494
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re claim 3, Kim teaches, Fig. 1, wherein a distance between the first side (left side) of the light emitting layer (EL or EML) and the second side (right side) of the light emitting layer (EL or EML) gradually decreases in a direction away (from bottom of P) from the pixel defining layer (P).
Re claim 4, Kim teaches, Fig. 1, a first functional layer (HIL, HTL) between the first electrode (E1) and the light emitting layer (EML).
Re claim 5, Kim teaches, Fig. 1, wherein first and second opposite sides of the first functional layer (HIL, HTL) are located on the pixel defining layer (P), and have straight line shapes inclined at an angle with respect to the upper surface of the pixel defining layer (P).
Re claim 7, Kim teaches, Fig. 1, wherein a distance between the first side (left side) of the first function layer (HIL, HTL) and the second side (right side) of the first functional layer (HIL, HTL) gradually decreases in a direction away (from bottom of P) from the pixel defining layer (P).
Re claim 8, Kim teaches, Fig. 1, wherein the first functional layer (HIL, HTL) comprises: a hole injection layer (HIL) on the first electrode (E1); and a hole transport layer (HTL) on the hole injection layer (HIL).
Re claim 9, Kim teaches, Fig. 1, a second functional layer (EIL and/or ETL) between the light emitting layer (EML) and the second electrode (E2).
Re claim 10, Kim teaches, Fig. 1, wherein first and second opposite sides of the second functional layer (EIL, ETL) are located on the pixel defining layer (P), and wherein the first and second sides of the second function layer (EIL, ETL) have straight line shapes inclined at an angle with respect to the upper surface of the pixel defining layer (P).
Re claim 12, Kim teaches, Fig. 1, wherein a distance between the first side (left side) of the second function layer (EIL, ETL) and the second side (right side) of the functional layer (EIL, ETL) gradually decreases in a direction away (from bottom of P) from the pixel defining layer (P).
Re claim 13, Kim teaches, under BRI, Fig. 1, wherein the second function layer comprises a buffer layer (consider ETL) on the light emitting layer (EML).
Re claim 14, Kim teaches, under BRI, Fig. 1, a common buffer layer (consider EIL) between the second function layer (ETL) and the second electrode (E2).
Re claim 15, Kim teaches, under BRI, Fig. 1, a first functional layer (HIL, HTL) between the first electrode (E1) and the light emitting layer (EML), wherein the common buffer layer (consider EIL) is located on the first and second sides of the light emitting layer (EML), first and second sides of the first functional layer (HIL, HTL), and first and second sides of the second functional layer (ETL) (e.g., EIL formed on ELT, EML, HTL, HIL).
Re claim 18, Kim teaches, [0065], an encapsulation layer (encapsulation substrate) on the second electrode (E2).
Re claim 19, Kim teaches, [0062], wherein the pixel defining layer (P) comprises an inorganic layer (silicon nitride).
5. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2014/0306601, “Kim01”).
Re claim 1, Kim01 teaches, under BRI & best understanding, Fig. 2, [0032], a display device comprising:
-a substrate (110);
-a first electrode (120) on the substrate (110);
-a light emitting layer (160) on the first electrode (120);
-a pixel defining layer (130) on the light emitting layer (160) (e.g. parts of 130 on and under 160); and
-a second electrode (170) on the light emitting layer (160),
wherein first and second opposite sides (left & right sides) of the light emitting layer (160) are located on the pixel defining layer (130), and have straight line shapes that are inclined at an angle with respect to an upper surface (top flat surface) of the pixel defining layer (130).
PNG
media_image2.png
420
449
media_image2.png
Greyscale
6. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2017/0285818, “Kim18”).
Re claim 1, Kim18 teaches, under BRI & best understanding, Fig. 11, [0045, 0077], a display device comprising:
-a substrate (TGS);
-a first electrode (AN) on the substrate (TGS);
-a light emitting layer (EML) on the first electrode (AN);
-a pixel defining layer (PDL) on the light emitting layer (EML) (e.g. on side of EML); and
-a second electrode (CAT) on the light emitting layer (EMT),
wherein first and second opposite sides (left & right sides) of the light emitting layer (EMT) are located on the pixel defining layer (PDL), and have straight line shapes that are inclined at an angle with respect to an upper surface (top flat surface) of the pixel defining layer (PDL).
PNG
media_image3.png
509
621
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
7. Claims 2, 6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2016/0247861).
The teachings of Kim have been discussed above.
Re claims 2, 6 & 11, Kim does not explicitly teach wherein an angle between the upper surface of the pixel defining layer and the first side of the light emitting layer is greater than 60° and smaller than or equal to 90°, and wherein an angle between the upper surface of the pixel defining layer and the second side of the light emitting layer is greater than 60° and smaller than or equal to 90°; and
wherein an angle between the upper surface of the pixel defining layer and the first side of the first/second functional layer is greater than 60° and smaller than or equal to 90°, and wherein an angle between the upper surface of the pixel defining layer and the second side of the first/second functional layer is greater than 60° and smaller than or equal to 90°.
Kim does teach, Figs. 1-3, based on angle between Ps1 & upper surface of P, an angle between the upper surface of the pixel defining layer (P) and the first side of the light emitting layer (EL or EML) is in a range about 60° to 90°, and wherein an angle between the upper surface of the pixel defining layer (P) and the second side of the light emitting layer (EL or EML) is in a range about 60° to 90°; and
an angle between the upper surface of the pixel defining layer (P) and the first side of the first/second functional layer (HIL, HTL; EIL, ETL) is in a range about 60° to 90°, and wherein an angle between the upper surface of the pixel defining layer (P) and the second side of the first/second functional layer (HIL, HTL; EIL, ETL) is in a range about 60° and to 90°.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ & modify the teaching as taught by Kim to obtain angles greater than 60° and smaller than or equal to 90° as claimed, because it aids in achieving desired angle/shape of an inclined side surface of the light emitting layer & functional layers to improve display quality & reduce leakage current. Further, angle between layers is known to affect device properties and would depend on the desired device density and the desired device characteristics. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited angles through routine experimentation to achieve desired characteristics of the formed device.
8. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Kim et al. (KR 20150043889 A, “Kim89”, English translation attached).
The teachings of Kim have been discussed above.
Re claim 16, Kim does not teach an electron transport layer between the common buffer layer and the second electrode.
Kim89, Fig. 5, teaches an electron transport layer (ETL) between the common buffer layer (136) and the second electrode (120).
As taught by Kim89, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize & modify the above teaching to obtain an electron transport layer between the common buffer layer and the second electrode as claimed, because it aids in improving color property & interface characteristic of the formed device.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Kim89 in combination Kim due to above reason.
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claim 17 is 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.
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. AN et al. (US 2019/0276433, Figs. 6-8) discloses display panel with pixel defining layer & inclined emission layer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUY T.V. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7431. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7AM-4PM, alternative Friday off.
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, EVA MONTALVO can be reached at (571) 270-3829. 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.
/DUY T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818 8/5/26
Prosecution Insights