DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “a first total reflection layer,” “a second total reflection layer,” “a third total reflection layer,” and “a fourth total reflection layer,” as described in the specification. Specifically, it is noted that the figures show reflection which is less than total at the first and second, e.g. L3 going through 220 in Fig. 14, and does not show any reflection at the third or fourth (nor is it clear how any light would be reflected at the third or fourth if the first and second are “total reflection” layers). Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-8, 12-16, 18-21 and 23 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 23, the limitation “is refracted from the second reflection layer and then reflected from the first reflection layer,” is unclear as to how it is related to “is reflected from the first reflection layer.”
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “the light from the subpixel travelling in the direction other than the upward direction is reflected by the third reflection layer to travel in the upward direction instead of the direction other than the upward direction,” is unclear as to how it is related to “wherein part of light output from the subpixel at an interface between the insulating layer and the planarization layer travelling in a direction other than an upward direction is reflected from the first reflection layer, is reflected from the second reflection layer, or is refracted from the second reflection layer and then reflected from the first reflection layer, to travel in the upward direction instead of the direction other than the upward direction,” recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, the limitation “the light from the subpixel travelling in the direction other than the upward direction is reflected by the fourth reflection layer to travel in the upward direction instead of the direction other than the upward direction,” is unclear as to how it is related to “wherein part of light output from the subpixel at an interface between the insulating layer and the planarization layer travelling in a direction other than an upward direction is reflected from the first reflection layer, is reflected from the second reflection layer, or is refracted from the second reflection layer and then reflected from the first reflection layer, to travel in the upward direction instead of the direction other than the upward direction,” recited in claim 1 and “the light from the subpixel travelling in the direction other than the upward direction is reflected by the third reflection layer to travel in the upward direction instead of the direction other than the upward direction,” recited in claim 13.
Note the dependent claims necessarily inherit the indefiniteness of the claims on which they depend.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 12-16 and 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2020/0210005; herein “Kim”) in view of Cheon et al. (US 2019/0067394; herein “Cheon”).
Regarding claims 1 and 23, Kim discloses in Fig. 5 or 6 and related text an electronic device comprising a display device, the display device comprising:
a subpixel comprising a first electrode (122, see [0033]), a light emitting layer (124, see [0033]), and a second electrode (126, see [0033]);
a pixel defining layer (128, see [0034]) defining the subpixel;
a reflection layer (1922, see [0050]) overlapping the pixel defining layer;
a planarization layer (194, see [0062]) disposed on the reflection layer; and
an insulating layer (158/184, see [0052]/[0056]) disposed between the pixel defining layer and the reflection layer,
wherein the reflection layer is disposed on the insulating layer and the insulating layer is disposed on the pixel defining layer,
wherein the planarization layer (194) is disposed between and separates opposing included surfaces on the reflection layer (e.g. separates 1922 on right of EA and 1922 on left of EA);
wherein a refractive index of the planarization layer (194) is greater than a refractive index of the reflection layer (192, see [0063]).
Kim does not explicitly disclose
a first reflection layer;
a second reflection layer disposed on the first reflection layer;
the planarization layer disposed on the second reflection layer; and
the insulating layer disposed between the pixel defining layer and the first reflection layer, and between the pixel defining layer and the second reflection layer,
wherein the second reflection layers is disposed on the first reflection layer, the first reflection layer is disposed on the insulating layer
wherein a refractive index of the planarization layer is greater than a refractive index of the second reflection layer, and the refractive index of the second reflection layer is greater than a refractive index of the first reflection layer,
wherein part of light output from the subpixel at an interface between the insulating layer and the planarization layer travelling in a direction other than an upward direction is reflected from the first reflection layer, is reflected from the second reflection layer, or is refracted from the second reflection layer and then reflected from the first reflection layer, to travel in the upward direction instead of the direction other than the upward direction.
In the same field of endeavor, Cheon teaches in Fig. 8 or 9 and related text a display device comprising a reflection layer, the reflection layer having
a first reflection layer (72, see [0047]);
a second reflection layer (60, see [0053]) disposed on the first reflection layer;
wherein the second reflection layers is disposed on the first reflection layer,
wherein a refractive index of the second reflection layer is greater than a refractive index of the first reflection layer (see [0053]).
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 device of Kim by having the reflection layer comprise a first reflection layer on a second reflection layer, the refractive index of the second reflection layer being greater than a refractive index of the first reflection layer, as taught by Cheon, in order to achieve an effective reflective structure to reflect light out of the display (see Cheon [0053] at least). The limitations “the planarization layer disposed on the second reflection layer,” “the insulating layer disposed between the pixel defining layer and the first reflection layer, and between the pixel defining layer and the second reflection layer,” and “the first reflection layer is disposed on the insulating layer,” are taught by the structure of Kim in combination with the reflective layer comprising the first reflective layer and the second reflective layer on the first reflective layer. The limitation “a refractive index of the planarization layer is greater than a refractive index of the second reflection layer,” is taught by the planarization layer having a higher refractive index than the reflective layer, as shown by Kim, and the reflecting layer comprising the first and second reflective layers, the second reflective layer having a greater refractive index than the first reflective layer.
The limitation “wherein part of light output from the subpixel at an interface between the insulating layer and the planarization layer travelling in a direction other than an upward direction is reflected from the first reflection layer, is reflected from the second reflection layer, or is refracted from the second reflection layer and then reflected from the first reflection layer, to travel in the upward direction instead of the direction other than the upward direction” is a functional limitation of the apparatus claimed. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431- 32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the combined product of Choi and Cheon has all of the has all of the structural limitations of the claimed invention the device and is therefore understood to function in the same manner. Further, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding claim 2, the combined device shows wherein a maximum thickness of the planarization layer is greater than a maximum thickness of the first reflection layer, and the maximum thickness of the first reflection layer is greater than a maximum thickness of the second reflection layer (Kim: see Fig. 5 or 6; note that the overall thickness of the combined reflection layer 1922 is greater than the maximum thickness of 194).
Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the thickness to be a result effective variable affecting the optical properties of the layers. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Kim to have the thicknesses within the claimed range in order to improve optical characteristics such as reflection, and since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B and 2143. Furthermore, it has also been held that the applicant must show that a particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936, (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that the law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some dimensional limitation or other variable within the claims, patentability cannot be found. The instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.
Regarding claim 3, the combined device shows wherein the first reflection layer does not overlap the subpixel in a plan view (Kim: 1922 does not overlap 120, see Fig. 5 or 6).
Regarding claim 4, the combined device shows an encapsulation layer (Kim: 140, see [0022]) disposed on the second electrode (126) of the subpixel and the pixel defining layer, wherein the first reflection layer is disposed on the encapsulation layer, and the second reflection layer is disposed on a portion of the encapsulation layer that is not covered by the first reflection layer (Cheon: the second reflection layer is in contact with layer below in area not covered by first reflection layer).
Regarding claim 5, the combined device shows a buffer layer (Kim: 148, see [0048]) disposed between the encapsulation layer (140) and the first reflection layer (portion of 1922).
Regarding claim 6, the combined device shows wherein the first reflection layer surrounds the subpixel in a plan view (Kim: see Fig. 5 or 6; see also Cheon [0050]).
Regarding claim 7, the combined device shows a touch electrode (overlapping the pixel defining layer.
Regarding claim 8, the combined device shows wherein the touch electrode (Kim: 152e) does not overlap the first total reflection layer (portion of 1922) in a plan view (e.g. in the instance where leftmost 152e is interpreted as the touch electrode and the rightmost subpixel is the claimed subpixel).
Regarding claim 12, the combined device shows wherein the insulating layer (Kim 158/184) is a touch insulating layer covering the touch electrode, wherein the first reflection layer (portion of 1922) is disposed on the touch insulating layer.
Regarding claim 13, the combined device
a third reflection layer overlapping the pixel defining layer,
wherein the first reflection layer surrounds the subpixel in a plan view, and the thirdthird, see Fig. 8; alternatively where each 1922 of Kim is replaced by the structure shown in Fig. 9 of Cheon).
The limitation “wherein the light from the subpixel travelling in the direction other than the upward direction is reflected by the third reflection layer to travel in the upward direction instead of the direction other than the upward direction” is a functional limitation of the apparatus claimed. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431- 32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the combined product of Choi and Cheon has all of the has all of the structural limitations of the claimed invention the device and is therefore understood to function in the same manner. Further, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding claim 14, the combined device shows
a fourth reflection layer disposed on the third reflection layer,
wherein a refractive index of the fourth reflection layer is greater than a refractive index of the third reflection layer (Cheon: e.g. when a first portion of 60 which surrounds 72R is the second and a second portion of 60 which surrounds 72B is the fourth; alternatively where each 1922 of Kim is replaced by the structure shown in Fig. 9 of Cheon, each 1922 of Kim will have a layer 60, the first being the third reflection layer and the second being the fourth reflection layer).
The limitation “wherein the light from the subpixel travelling in the direction other than the upward direction is reflected by the fourth reflection layer to travel in the upward direction instead of the direction other than the upward direction” is a functional limitation of the apparatus claimed. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431- 32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the combined product of Choi and Cheon has all of the has all of the structural limitations of the claimed invention the device and is therefore understood to function in the same manner. Further, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding claim 15, the combined device shows
an encapsulation layer (Kim: 140, see [0022]) disposed on the second electrode (126) of the subpixel and the pixel defining layer (128),
wherein the first reflection layer and the third reflection layer are disposed on the encapsulation layer, and the second reflection layer is disposed on a portion of the encapsulation layer that is not covered by the first reflection layer and the third reflection layer (Cheon: the second reflection layer is in contact with layer below in area not covered by first reflection layer).
Regarding claim 16, the combined device shows a touch electrode (Kim: 152e) overlapping the pixel defining layer (128), wherein the touch electrode does not overlap the first reflection layer in a thickness direction in a cross sectional view (e.g. in the instance where leftmost 152e is interpreted as the touch electrode and the rightmost subpixel is the claimed subpixel).
Regarding claim 18, the combined device shows wherein the third reflection layer covers the touch electrode (Kim: portion of 1922 covers 152e).
Regarding claim 19, the combined device shows wherein the third reflection layer covers the touch electrode (Kim: portion of 1922 covers 152e).
Regarding claim 20, the combined device shows wherein the insulating layer (Kim: 158/184) is a touch insulating layer covering the touch electrode, wherein the first reflection layer and the third reflection layer are disposed on the touch insulating layer (Kim: portion of first 1922 and second 1922 disposed on 158/184).
Regarding claim 21, the combined device shows wherein one of the inclined surfaces of the first reflection layer (Cheon: 72) is adjacent to the subpixel, and one of the inclined surfaces of the second total reflection layer (Cheon: 60) is disposed on the one of the inclined surfaces of the first reflection layer.
Double Patenting
Applicant is advised that should claim 18 be found allowable, claim 19 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (page 11) that the drawing objections have been overcome by the previous amendments to the claims.
The examiner disagrees. Specifically, the drawings are objected to because any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). The drawing objection is not related to the claim terminology.
Applicant argues (page 12) that the limitations “is refracted from the second reflection layer and then reflected from the first reflection layer,” and “is reflected from the first reflection layer,” are clear because the describe different paths.
In response, the examiner disagrees. Specifically, as the claim is a comprising claim, light which is “refracted from the second reflection layer and then reflected from the first reflection layer” is necessarily “reflected from the first reflection layer.” Light which is “reflected from the first reflection layer” can also comprise any other reflection or refraction steps. Accordingly, it is unclear why the “reflected from the first reflection layer” is repeated.
Applicant argues (page 13-15) that claims 13 and 14 are definite because claim 13 recites a different optical pathway.
In response, the examiner disagrees. Specifically, claim 1 recites “light output from the subpixel,” and specifies that “a part of [the] light output” is either refracted and/or reflected. Claims 13 and 14 recite “the light from the subpixel.” Accordingly it is unclear if claims 13 and 14 is another/different part of the light, all of the light, or another light.
Applicant argues (page 21-22) that the planarization layer as claimed is not taught by Kim because “1922 is a single, continuous structure,” and does not have “inclined reflection layers that are optically or physically separated by a planarization layer.”
In response, the examiner disagrees. Specifically, the claim requires the planarization layer to be between and to separate opposing inclined surfaces. There is no requirement that the reflection layers be a “single, continuous structure,” there is no requirement that the reflection layers themselves be “optically or physically separated by a planarization layer,” and there is no requirement that the reflection layers need to be completely separated. The inclined surfaces of the reflection layers 1922 are indeed separated by planarization layer 194 of Kim in that 194 is disposed between one inclined surface and another.
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 Lauren R Bell whose telephone number is (571)272-7199. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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 at (571) 272-8660. 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.
/LAUREN R BELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896 9/17/2025
Prosecution Insights