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 Amendment(s)
The Amendment, filed on 6/25/2026, has been entered and acknowledged by the Examiner.
Claim(s) 1-21 are pending in the instant application.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55, which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 10/1/2024. These drawings are considered acceptable by Examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's argument(s) filed on 6/25/2026 have been fully considered but are not found to be persuasive by Examiner.
A. In response to Applicant's arguments that the prior art of record does not disclose the claimed invention, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner maintains that Park et al., in view of Park et al., as combined does indeed teach a display panel (of Fig. 4) comprising a transmission bank (120 [Wingdings font/0xE0] 121, 122, light-transmitting structure, ¶ [0146]) on the light-blocking pattern (BM) and defining a first opening (opening between 121 and 122) exposing at least a portion of the light-blocking pattern (BM), overlapping edges of the light-blocking pattern in order to adequately create separation of adjacent color layers, neighboring pixels, without reducing color emission from each respective pixel (¶ [0006]).
Specifically, the current claim language does not specify which edges of the light-blocking pattern are being overlapped.
For the reasons stated above, the rejection of the claims is deemed proper.
America Invents Act
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.
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 of this title, 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.
1. Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, 10-15, 17-19, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0025634 A1) both as previously cited.
Regarding Claim 1, Park et al., teaches a display device comprising: a substrate (SUB2, substrate, ¶ [0056]-¶ [0069]; see at least Fig. 3A) defining a light-emitting area (Pxa, pixel areas), and a light-blocking area (NPxa, a peripheral area) adjacent to the light-emitting area (Pxa); a light-blocking pattern (BP) at the light-blocking area (NPxa) above the substrate (SUB2); and a reflection pattern (ML) on the light-blocking pattern (BP). Park et al., is silent regarding a transmission bank on the light-blocking pattern.
In the same field of endeavor, Park et al., teaches a display panel (of Fig. 4) comprising a transmission bank (120 [Wingdings font/0xE0] 121, 122, light-transmitting structure, ¶ [0146]) on the light-blocking pattern (BM) and defining a first opening (opening between 121 and 122) exposing at least a portion of the light-blocking pattern (BM), overlapping edges of the light-blocking pattern in order to adequately create separation of adjacent color layers, neighboring pixels, without reducing color emission from each respective pixel (¶ [0006]).
It should be noted that the superimposition of the Park et al., as modified by Park et al., would intrinsically result in the reflection pattern claimed to be above the light-blocking pattern exposed by the first opening and the transmission bank.
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 transmission bank, as disclosed by Park et al., in the device of Park et al., in order to adequately create separation of adjacent color layers, neighboring pixels, without reducing color emission from each respective pixel (¶ [0006]).
Examiner is employing the added transmission bank exclusively to the BP of primary reference, not the BM above BP.
Regarding Claim 2, Park et al., as modified by Park et al., teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the reflection pattern (ML) extends from an upper surface of the light-blocking pattern (BP) to an upper surface of the transmission bank along a side surface of the first opening.
Motivation to combine would be the same as stated above.
Regarding Claim(s) 3, 14, Park et al., teaches the claimed invention (see rejection in the claim above) except for the specific limitation of a thickness of the light-blocking pattern is less than or equal to about 1 μm.
However, Examiner reasonably contemplates that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the a thickness of the light-blocking pattern is less than or equal to about 1 μm, since optimization of workable ranges is considered within the skill of the art as it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would entertain the idea of providing a thickness of the light-blocking pattern is less than or equal to about 1 μm in order to provide a display device that is structurally sound while maintaining a thin display, thereby improving weight, hence increasing marketability.
Regarding Claim(s) 4, 15, Park et al., as modified by Park et al., teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein a width of the light-blocking pattern (BM of ‘634) is greater than or equal to a width of the first opening (opening between 121 and 122 of ‘634).
Motivation to combine would be the same as stated above.
Regarding Claim 6, Park et al., teaches the display device of claim 1, further comprising a color conversion pattern (CCP) at the light-emitting area (Pxa) above the substrate (SUB2).
Regarding Claim 7, Park et al., as modified by Park et al., teaches the display device of claim 6, wherein the transmission bank (120, of ‘634) further defines a second opening (opening adjacent to 121, 122) overlapping the light-emitting area (Pxa), and wherein the color conversion pattern (CCP) is in the second opening (opening adjacent to 121, 122).
Motivation to combine would be the same as stated above.
Regarding Claim 8, Park et al., as modified by Park et al., teaches the display device of claim 7, further comprising a transmission pattern (repetitive pattern of 120) at the light-emitting area (Pxa) above the substrate (SUB2).
Motivation to combine would be the same as stated above.
Regarding Claim 10, Park et al., teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the reflection pattern (ML) comprises metal (ML [Wingdings font/0xE0] metal layer, ¶ [0152]).
Regarding Claim 11, Park et al., teaches the display device of claim 1, further comprising a light-emitting layer (OLED) between the substrate (SUB2) and the light-blocking pattern (BP).
Regarding Claim 12, Park et al., teaches a method of manufacturing a display device (¶ [0056]-¶ [0069]; see at least Fig. 3A), the method comprising: forming a light-blocking pattern (BP) at a light-blocking area (NPxa) on a substrate (SUB2) defining the light-blocking area (NPxa), and a light-emitting area (Pxa) adjacent to the light-blocking area (NPxa); and forming a reflection pattern (ML) above the light-blocking pattern (BP).
Park et al., is silent regarding a transmission bank on the light-blocking pattern.
In the same field of endeavor, Park et al., teaches forming a display panel (of Fig. 4) comprising a transmission bank (120 [Wingdings font/0xE0] 121, 122, light-transmitting structure, ¶ [0146]) above the light-blocking pattern (BM) and defining a first opening (opening between 121 and 122) exposing at least a portion of the light-blocking pattern (BM), overlapping edges of the light-blocking pattern in order to adequately create separation of adjacent color layers, neighboring pixels, without reducing color emission from each respective pixel (¶ [0006]).
It should be noted that the superimposition of the Park et al., as modified by Park et al., would intrinsically result in the reflection pattern claimed to be above the light-blocking pattern exposed by the first opening and the transmission bank.
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 transmission bank, as disclosed by Park et al., in the device of Park et al., in order to adequately create separation of adjacent color layers, neighboring pixels, without reducing color emission from each respective pixel (¶ [0006]).
Examiner is employing the added transmission bank exclusively to the BP of primary reference, not the BM above BP.
Regarding Claim 13, Park et al., as modified by Park et al., teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the reflection pattern (ML) extends from an upper surface of the light-blocking pattern (BP) to an upper surface of the transmission bank along a side surface of the first opening.
Motivation to combine would be the same as stated above.
Regarding Claim 17, Park et al., as modified by Park et al., teaches the method of claim 12, further comprising forming a color conversion pattern (CCP) at the light-emitting area (Pxa) above the substrate (SUB2) after forming the transmission bank (120 of ‘634) and before forming the reflection pattern (ML).
Motivation to combine would be the same as stated above.
Regarding Claim 18, Park et al., as modified by Park et al., teaches the method of claim 17, wherein the transmission bank further defines a second opening (opening adjacent to 121, 122) overlapping the light-emitting area (Pxa), and wherein the color conversion pattern (CCP) is formed in the second opening (opening adjacent to 121, 122).
Motivation to combine would be the same as stated above.
Regarding Claim 19, Park et al., as modified by Park et al., teaches the method of claim 18, further comprising forming a transmission pattern (repetitive pattern of 120) at the light-emitting area (Pxa) above the substrate (SUB2) after forming the reflection pattern (ML).
Motivation to combine would be the same as stated above.
Regarding Claim 21, Park et al., teaches the method of claim 12, further comprising forming a light-emitting layer on the substrate (SUB2) before forming the light-blocking pattern (BP, based on the order in which the elements are displayed in the figures, from bottom to top).
Allowable Subject Matter
A. Claim(s) 5, 16 are objected 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(s) 5, 16 recites inter alia; the width of the light-blocking pattern (BP) is less than or equal to a width of the transmission bank.
The prior art of record (most comprehensive prior art of record to Park et al.,) does not teach or suggest the aforementioned limitation, nor would it be obvious to modify those references to include such limitation.
B. Claim(s) 9 are allowed over the prior art of record.
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art of record (most comprehensive prior art of record to Park et al.,) suggests a display device comprising: a substrate defining a light-emitting area, and a light-blocking area adjacent to the light-emitting area; a light-blocking pattern at the light-blocking area above the substrate; a transmission bank on the light-blocking pattern, defining a first opening exposing at least a portion of the light-blocking pattern.
However, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art the display device comprising the various elements as claimed above in combination with the specific limitation of defining a third opening overlapping the light-emitting area; and a reflection pattern on the light-blocking pattern exposed by the first opening and the transmission bank; and a transmission pattern in the third opening and on the reflection pattern as set forth in Claim 9.
C. Claim 20 is objected 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(s) 20 recite inter alia; the transmission bank further defines a third opening overlapping the light-emitting area, and wherein the transmission pattern is in the third opening and above the reflection pattern.
The prior art of record (most comprehensive prior art of record to Park et al.,) does not teach or suggest the aforementioned limitation, nor would it be obvious to modify those references to include such limitation.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment does not overcome the current prior art of record, therefore:
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner H. Featherly whose telephone number is 571-272-8654. The examiner can normally be reached on M-. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James R. Greece can be reached on 571-272-3711.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-272-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/H. Featherly/
Examiner Featherly
Art Unit 2875 Patent Examiner
/JAMES R GREECE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights