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 Amendments
Applicant's response of 09/09/2026 has been acknowledged. Claims 1, 3, and 13 have been amended. Claim 12 is canceled. Claim 23 is added. No new matter has been added.
This office action considers claims 1, 3-5, 7-11, 13, 15-17, and 19-23 pending for prosecution and are examined on their merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments of 09/09/2026 with respect to the rejections of claims have
been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are:
In reference to claim 23, the claim requires “a groove is formed by the first inorganic layer, the organic layer forms a protrusion” The structure of a groove and a protrusion is unclear, as a result it is unclear what it means for a groove is formed by the first inorganic layer and the organic layer forms a protrusion, rendering the meaning of claim 23 indefinite.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is that the groove is a gap between microlenses and the protrusion is the ledge between microlenses.
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.
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.
Notes: when present, hyphen separated fields within the hyphens (- -) represent, for example, as (30A - Fig 2B - [0128]) = (element 30A - Figure No. 2B - Paragraph No. [0128]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. The same conventions apply to Column and Sentence, for example (19:14-20) = (column19:sentences 14-20). These conventions are used throughout this document.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan et al. (US 20200335723 A1 – hereinafter Yuan) in view of Sui et al. (US 20230116030 A1 – hereinafter Sui) and Motoyama et al. (US 20210057678 A1 – hereinafter Motoyama)
Regarding independent claim 1, Yuan teaches:
(Currently Amended) An OLED (organic light emitting diode) display
panel ([[0083] – “display panel 1”), comprising:
a substrate (100 – Fig. 1 – [0041] – “substrate 100”);
a driving circuit layer (Fig. 1 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘DCL’)
arranged on one side of the substrate (100);
a light emitting function layer (Fig. 1 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘LEL’)
arranged on one side of the driving circuit layer (DCL) away from the substrate (100); and
PNG
media_image1.png
540
1137
media_image1.png
Greyscale
an encapsulation layer (300 – Fig. 1 – [0041] – “encapsulation layer 300”) arranged on one side of the light emitting function layer (LEL) away from the driving circuit layer (DCL),
wherein the OLED display panel (1) comprises a display area (Fig. 3 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘DA’) and a non-display area (Fig. 3 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘NDA’), wherein the encapsulation layer (300) comprises an organic layer (311 – Fig. 3 – {[0040] – “The materials of the lens layer and the first cover layer are both organic materials”} [0042] – “lenses 311” – therefore 311 is organic), and a second inorganic layer (350 – Fig. 3 – [0053] – “second cover layer 350 is an inorganic material”), the first inorganic layer (330 – Fig. 6 – [0050] – “film encapsulation layer 300 further includes a first inorganic layer 330”) is disposed between the organic layer (311) and the light emitting function layer (LEL – Fig. 3 annotated, see below shows this), the second inorganic layer (350) is disposed on one side of the organic layer (311) away from the first inorganic layer (330), and a size of a thickness of a portion of the first inorganic layer (330) in the display area (DA) is same as that of a thickness of another portion of the first inorganic layer (330) in the non-display area (NDA), and a size of a thickness (Fig. 3 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘L4’) of a portion of the organic layer (311) located in a middle area of the display area (DA) is greater than that of a thickness (Fig. 3 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘L5’) of another portion of the organic layer (311) located in an edge area of the display area (DA – Fig. 3 annotated, shows this),
wherein the display area comprises a light emitting area and a non-light emitting area, a size of a thickness of a portion of the second inorganic layer located in the middle area of the light emitting area is less than a size of a thickness of other portion of the second organic layer located at the edge area of the light emitting area is less than that of a thickness of another portion of the second inorganic layer located in the non-light emitting area,
wherein the display area comprises a plurality of sub-pixels, and as a continuous layer continuously covering the plurality of sub-pixels, the organic layer extends across both the middle area and the edge area of the display area, and
wherein a thickness of the organic layer (311) is consistently decreased ([0042] – “surface of the lens 311 facing away from the organic light emitting element 200 is convex”) from the middle are of the display area (DA) to the edge area of the display area (DA – Fig. 6 shows this).
PNG
media_image2.png
488
1146
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Yuan does not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 1.
However, in an analogous art, Sui teaches
wherein the display area ([0029] – “FIG. 2 is a plan view of a display panel” – hereinafter ‘DA’) comprises a plurality of sub-pixels (SP – Fig. 3A – [0078] – “plurality of subpixels SP”), and as a continuous layer (HRL – Fig. 3A – [0077] – “high refractive index lens layer HRL”) continuously covering the plurality of sub-pixels (SP – Fig. 3A shows this), the organic layer ([0194] – “Examples of materials suitable for forming the high refractive index lens layer include, but are not limited to, thermosetting resin, phenolic resin, polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS), polyethylene naphthalate (PEN), polyimide (PI), polyetherimide (PEI), polyparaphenylene ethylene glycolate (PET), polyphenylene sulfide (PPS), oxides doped with IZO, IGZO, AL.sub.2O.sub.3, organic-inorganic hybrid molecular composite, silsesquioxane-polyurethane and its derivatives, and resin doped with SiNx and SiOxNy”) extends across both the middle area and the edge area of the display area (DA).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the continuous layer structure as taught by Sui into Yuan.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Sui in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result of [0001] – “a method of reducing color breakup of reflection of ambient light in a display panel, a display panel, a display apparatus, and a method of fabricating a display panel.”
Yuan and Sui do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 1.
However, in an analogous art, Motoyama teaches
wherein the display area comprises a light emitting area (Fig. 3 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘LEA’) and a non-light emitting area (Fig. 3 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘NEA’), a size of a thickness (Fig. 3 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘T1’) of a portion of the second inorganic layer (37 – Fig. 3 – [0131] – “sealing resin layer 37 may include, for example, thermosetting adhesives and ultraviolet curable adhesives such as an acrylic-based adhesive, an epoxy-based adhesive, a urethane-based adhesive, a silicone-based adhesive, and a cyanoacrylate-based adhesive” – silicone-based adhesive is interpreted as inorganic) located in the middle area of the light emitting area (LEA) is less than a size of a thickness of other portion of the second organic layer (36 – Fig. 3 – [0130] – “an on-chip microlens 36 including a well-known material” – this is interpreted as an organic layer as the substrates exhibit flexibility – [0078] – “The first substrate or the second substrate may include a silicon semiconductor substrate, a high distortion point glass substrate, a soda-lime glass (Na.sub.2O.CaO.SiO.sub.2) substrate, a borosilicate glass (Na.sub.2O.B.sub.2O.sub.3.SiO.sub.2) substrate, a forsterite (2MgO.SiO.sub.2) substrate, a lead glass (Na.sub.2O.PbO.SiO.sub.2) substrate, various glass substrates having insulating material layers formed on surfaces, a quartz substrate, a quartz substrate having an insulating material layer formed on a surface, and organic polymers (having polymer material forms such as a plastic film, a plastic sheet, and a plastic substrate including a polymer material and exhibiting flexibility)”) located at the edge area of the light emitting area is (LEA) less than that of a thickness (Fig. 3 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘T2’) of another portion of the second inorganic layer (37) located in the non-light emitting area (NEA).
PNG
media_image3.png
665
953
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the continuous layer structure as taught by Motoyama into Yuan and Sui.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Motoyama in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result of [0022] – “Thus, part of the light emitted from the organic layer is reflected on the first electrode layer, and then, is emitted from the light emission element through the organic layer, the second electrode layer, and the planarization layer. As a result, a front light extraction efficiency can be improved. In addition, manufacturing steps are not significantly increased.”
Regarding claim 3, Yuan, as modified by Sui and Motoyama, teaches claim 1 from which claim 3 depends. Yuan further teaches
(Currently Amended) The OLED display panel according to claim 1,
wherein (L5) of a portion of the organic layer (311) located in light emitting area (LEL) is greater than that of a thickness (Fig. 3 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘L6’) of another portion of the organic layer (311) located in the non-light emitting area (NLEL – Fig. 3 annotated shows this).
PNG
media_image4.png
488
1146
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Yuan, as modified by Sui and Motoyama, teaches claim 3 from which claim 4 depends. Yuan further teaches
(Previously Presented) The OLED display panel according to claim 3,
wherein a size of a thickness of a portion of the organic layer (311) located in a middle area (L5) of the light emitting area (LEA) is greater than that of a thickness (L6) of other portion of the organic layer (L5) located at an edge area of the light emitting area (LEA – Fig. 3 annotated, see above, shows this).
Regarding claim 5, Yuan, as modified by Sui and Motoyama, teaches claim 4 from which claim 5 depends. Yuan further teaches
(Previously Presented) The OLED display panel according to claim 4,
wherein the plurality of sub-pixels comprises a red sub-pixel (201 – Fig. 14 – [0081] – “red organic light emitting element 201”), a green sub-pixel (202 – Fig. 14 – [0081] – “green organic light emitting element 203”) and a blue sub-pixel (203 – Fig. 14 – [0081] – “blue organic light emitting element 203”), and wherein a shape of a portion of the organic layer (301 – Fig. 14 – [0081] – “lens 301”) at a corresponding position of the red sub-pixel (201) is different from a shape of other portion of the organic layer (302 – Fig. 14 – [0081] – “lens 302”) at a corresponding position of the green sub-pixel (202), and the shape of the other portion of the organic layer (303 – Fig. 14 – [0081] – “lens 303”) at the corresponding position of the green sub-pixel (202) is different from a shape of another portion of the organic layer at a corresponding position of the blue sub-pixel (203 – Fig. 14 shows this).
Regarding claim 7, Yuan, as modified by Sui and Motoyama, teaches claim 4 from which claim 7 depends. Yuan further teaches
(Previously Presented) The OLED display panel according to claim 4, wherein a surface of the organic layer (311) in contact with the first
inorganic layer (330) is planar (Fig. 3 shows this), on one side of the organic layer (311) in contact with the second inorganic layer (350), and a height (L5) of the portion of the organic layer (311) in the middle area of the light emitting area (LEL) is greater than a height (L6) of the other portion of the organic layer (311) in the edge area of the light emitting area (LEL – Fig. 3 annotated, see below, shows this).
PNG
media_image4.png
488
1146
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Yuan, as modified by Sui and Motoyama, teaches claim 7 from which claim 8 depends. Yuan further teaches
(Previously Presented) The OLED display panel according to claim
7, wherein the edge area of the light emitting area (LEL) comprises a first edge area (Fig. 3 annotated, see above – [0077] – “edge area B” – hereinafter ‘B1’) and a second edge area (Fig. 3 annotated, see above – [0077] – “edge area B” – hereinafter ‘B2’) located on both sides of the middle area (A – Fig. 3 annotated, see above – [0077] – “central area A”) of the light emitting area (LEL), the thickness of the organic layer (311) is consistently decreased from the middle area (A) of the light emitting area (LEL) to the first edge area (B1), and the thickness of the organic layer (311) is consistently decreased from the middle area (A) of the light emitting area (LEL) to the second edge area (B2 – Fig. 3 annotated shows this).
Regarding claim 9, Yuan, as modified by Sui and Motoyama, teaches claim 7 from which claim 9 depends. Yuan further teaches
(Previously Presented) The OLED display panel according to claim 7,
wherein the edge area of the light emitting area (LEL) comprises a third edge area, a fourth edge area, a fifth edge area and a sixth edge area located around the middle area, (311) is consistently decreased from the middle area of the light emitting area (LEL) to the third edge area, the thickness of the organic layer (311) is consistently decreased from the middle area of the light emitting area (LEL) to the fourth edge area, the thickness of the organic layer (311) is consistently decreased from the middle area of the light emitting area (LEL) to the fifth edge area, and the thickness of the organic layer (311) is consistently decreased from the middle area of the light emitting area (LEL) to the sixth edge area (Fig. 3 annotated, see below, shows this).
PNG
media_image5.png
488
1146
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 21, Yuan, as modified by Sui and Motoyama, teaches claim 1 from which claim 21 depends. Yuan further teaches
(Previously Presented) The OLED display panel according to claim 1,
wherein the organic layer (311 – Fig. 3 – {[0040] – “The materials of the lens layer and the first cover layer are both organic materials”} [0042] – “lenses 311” – therefore 311 is organic) covers the non-display area (Fig. 3 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘NDA’).
PNG
media_image4.png
488
1146
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 22, Yuan, as modified by Sui and Motoyama, teaches claim 1 from which claim 22 depends. Yuan further teaches
the display area (DA) and the non-display area (NDA).
Yuan and Motoyama do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 22.
However, in an analogous art, Sui teaches
(Previously Presented) The OLED display panel according to claim 1, wherein
the organic layer (HRL) extends across both the display area and the non-display area.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the organic layer structure as taught by Sui into Yuan and Motoyama.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Sui in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result as stated above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 23, Yuan, as modified by Sui and Motoyama, teaches claim 1 from which claim 23 depends. Yuan further teaches
(New) The OLED display panel according to claim 1, wherein a
surface of the first inorganic layer (350 – Fig. 3 – [0053] – “second cover layer 350 is an inorganic material”) in contact with the organic layer (311 – [0054] – “lens 311 is formed of an organic material”) is a curved surface (Fig. 3 shows this), a groove is formed by the first inorganic layer, the organic layer forms a protrusion, and the organic layer (311) is formed as a curved surface on a side away from the first inorganic layer (350 – Fig. 3 shows this).
Yuan and Motoyama do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 23.
However, in an analogous art, Sui teaches
a groove (Fig. 3A annotated, see below) is formed by the first inorganic layer (LRL – Fig. 3A – [0195] – “Various appropriate material may be used for forming the low refractive index lens layer. Examples of materials suitable for forming the low refractive index lens layer include, but are not limited to, modified epoxy resin, acrylic resin, or resin-doped polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS), polyethylene naphthalate (PEN), polyimide (PI) doped with silver nanowires, polyetherimide (PEI), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyphenylene sulfide (PPS)” – these are interpreted as inorganic since some contain inorganic materials), the organic layer (HRL – Fig. 3A – [0194] – “Examples of materials suitable for forming the high refractive index lens layer include, but are not limited to, thermosetting resin, phenolic resin, polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS), polyethylene” – this is interpreted as organic since they contain organic materials) forms a protrusion (Fig. 3A annotated, see below).
PNG
media_image6.png
686
1097
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the organic layer structure as taught by Sui into Yuan and Motoyama.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Sui in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result as stated above in claim 1.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan in view of Sui, Motoyama, and Ju et al. (US 20180083227 A1 – hereinafter Ju).
Regarding claim 10, Yuan, as modified by Sui and Motoyama, teaches claim 1 from which claim 10 depends. Yuan , Sui, and Motoyama do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 10.
However, in an analogous art, Ju teaches
(Previously Presented) The OLED display panel according to claim 1,
wherein a refractive index of the first inorganic layer (311 – Fig. 3 – [0062] – “at least one inorganic layer 311 and 312 and the at least one organic layer 321”) is less than a refractive index of the organic layer (321 – Fig. 3 – [0062] – “at least one inorganic layer 311 and 312 and the at least one organic layer 321”), and the refractive index of the organic layer (321) is less than a refractive index of the second inorganic layer (312 – [0062] – “at least one inorganic layer 311 and 312 and the at least one organic layer 321 may have a refractive index difference of about 0.06 or less. When the refractive index difference is relatively small, light reflection at an interfacial surface between the at least one inorganic layer 311 and 312 and the at least one organic layer 321 may be reduced or prevented. Accordingly, optical resonance in the OLED display device 101 may be reduced or prevented, and a luminance deviation due to optical resonance may be reduced or prevented” – this describes the desired concept of decreasing refractive indices in the stacked layer to maximize the light transmittance).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the refractive indices of the organic and inorganic layers structure as taught by Ju into Yuan, Sui, and Motoyama.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Ju in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result of “at least one inorganic layer 311 and 312 and the at least one organic layer 321 may have a refractive index difference of about 0.06 or less. When the refractive index difference is relatively small, light reflection at an interfacial surface between the at least one inorganic layer 311 and 312 and the at least one organic layer 321 may be reduced or prevented. Accordingly, optical resonance in the OLED display device 101 may be reduced or prevented, and a luminance deviation due to optical resonance may be reduced or prevented” – this describes the desired concept of decreasing refractive indices in the stacked layer to maximize the light transmittance”). Decreasing the refractive index of the sequentially stacked layers reduces or prevents light ray reflection at the layer interface reducing or preventing optical resonance and increasing the amount of light emitted.
To do so would have merely been to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143 I. D.
Regarding claim 11, Yuan, as modified by Sui, Motoyama, and Ju, teaches claim 10 from which claim 11 depends. Yuan further teaches
(Previously Presented) The OLED display panel according to claim
10, further comprising a protective film (400 – Fig. 5 – [0066] – “touch function layer 400 is formed of an inorganic material, which has a certain water-oxygen blocking effect” – this is a protective film), and the protective film (400) is disposed on one side of the second inorganic layer (340 – Fig. 5 – [0089] – “encapsulation layer 300 further includes a second inorganic layer 340”) away from the organic layer (311), and a size of a thickness of a portion of the protective film (400) in the display area (DA) is same as that of a thickness of the other portion of the protective film in the non-display area (NDA – Fig. 5 annotated, see below, shows this).
PNG
media_image7.png
501
1090
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claims 13, 15-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan in view of Sui, Motoyama, and Ahmed et al. (US 20190326558 A1 – hereinafter Ahmed).
Regarding independent claim 13, Yuan teaches:
(Currently Amended) An OLED (organic light emitting diode) display
device ([0005] – “display device”), comprising an OLED display panel ([[0083] – “display panel 1”) and an electronic component; wherein the OLED display panel (1) comprises:
a substrate (100 – Fig. 1 – [0041] – “substrate 100”);
a driving circuit layer (Fig. 1 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘DCL’)
arranged on one side of the substrate (100);
a light emitting function layer (Fig. 1 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘LEL’)
arranged on one side of the driving circuit layer (DCL) away from the substrate (100); and
PNG
media_image1.png
540
1137
media_image1.png
Greyscale
an encapsulation layer (300 – Fig. 1 – [0041] – “encapsulation layer 300”) arranged on one side of the light emitting function layer (LEL) away from the driving circuit layer (DCL),
wherein the OLED display panel (1) comprises a display area (Fig. 3 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘DA’) and a non-display area (Fig. 3 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘NDA’), wherein the encapsulation layer (300) comprises a first inorganic layer (330 – Fig. 6 – [0050] – “film encapsulation layer 300 further includes a first inorganic layer 330”), an organic layer (311 – Fig. 3 – {[0040] – “The materials of the lens layer and the first cover layer are both organic materials”} [0042] – “lenses 311” – therefore 311 is organic), and a second inorganic layer (350 – Fig. 3 – [0053] – “second cover layer 350 is an inorganic material”), the first inorganic layer (330) is disposed between the organic layer (311) and the light emitting function layer (LEL), the second inorganic layer (350) is disposed on one side of the organic layer (311) away from the first inorganic layer (330), and a size of a thickness of a portion of the first inorganic layer (330) in the display area (DA) is same as that of a thickness of another portion of the first inorganic layer (330) in the non-display area (NDA),
and a size of a thickness (Fig. 3 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘L4’) of a portion of the organic layer (311) located in a middle area of the display area (DA) is greater than that of a thickness (Fig. 3 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘L5’) of a portion of the organic layer (311) located in an edge area of the display area (DA),
wherein the display area comprises a light emitting area and a non-light emitting area, a size of a thickness of a portion of the second inorganic layer located in the middle area of the light emitting area is less than a size of a thickness of other portion of the second organic layer located at the edge area of the light emitting area is less than that of a thickness of another portion of the second inorganic layer located in the non-light emitting area,
wherein the display area comprises a plurality of sub-pixels, and as a continuous layer continuously covering the plurality of sub-pixels, the organic layer extends across both the middle area and the edge area of the display area, and
wherein a thickness of the organic layer (311) is consistently decreased ([0042] – “surface of the lens 311 facing away from the organic light emitting element 200 is convex”) from the middle are of the display area (DA) to the edge area of the display area (DA – Fig. 6 shows this).
PNG
media_image4.png
488
1146
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Yuan does not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 13.
However, in an analogous art, Sui teaches
wherein the display area ([0029] – “FIG. 2 is a plan view of a display panel” – hereinafter ‘DA’) comprises a plurality of sub-pixels (SP – Fig. 3A – [0078] – “plurality of subpixels SP”), and as a continuous layer (HRL – Fig. 3A – [0077] – “high refractive index lens layer HRL”) continuously covering the plurality of sub-pixels (SP – Fig. 3A shows this), the organic layer ([0194] – “Examples of materials suitable for forming the high refractive index lens layer include, but are not limited to, thermosetting resin, phenolic resin, polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS), polyethylene naphthalate (PEN), polyimide (PI), polyetherimide (PEI), polyparaphenylene ethylene glycolate (PET), polyphenylene sulfide (PPS), oxides doped with IZO, IGZO, AL.sub.2O.sub.3, organic-inorganic hybrid molecular composite, silsesquioxane-polyurethane and its derivatives, and resin doped with SiNx and SiOxNy”) extends across both the middle area and the edge area of the display area (DA).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the continuous layer structure as taught by Sui into Yuan.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Sui in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result as stated above in claim 1.
Yuan and Sui do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 1.
However, in an analogous art, Motoyama teaches
wherein the display area comprises a light emitting area (Fig. 3 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘LEA’) and a non-light emitting area (Fig. 3 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘NEA’), a size of a thickness (Fig. 3 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘T1’) of a portion of the second inorganic layer (37 – Fig. 3 – [0131] – “sealing resin layer 37 may include, for example, thermosetting adhesives and ultraviolet curable adhesives such as an acrylic-based adhesive, an epoxy-based adhesive, a urethane-based adhesive, a silicone-based adhesive, and a cyanoacrylate-based adhesive” – silicone-based adhesive is interpreted as inorganic) located in the middle area of the light emitting area (LEA) is less than a size of a thickness of other portion of the second organic layer (36 – Fig. 3 – [0130] – “an on-chip microlens 36 including a well-known material” – this is interpreted as an organic layer as the substrates exhibit flexibility – [0078] – “The first substrate or the second substrate may include a silicon semiconductor substrate, a high distortion point glass substrate, a soda-lime glass (Na.sub.2O.CaO.SiO.sub.2) substrate, a borosilicate glass (Na.sub.2O.B.sub.2O.sub.3.SiO.sub.2) substrate, a forsterite (2MgO.SiO.sub.2) substrate, a lead glass (Na.sub.2O.PbO.SiO.sub.2) substrate, various glass substrates having insulating material layers formed on surfaces, a quartz substrate, a quartz substrate having an insulating material layer formed on a surface, and organic polymers (having polymer material forms such as a plastic film, a plastic sheet, and a plastic substrate including a polymer material and exhibiting flexibility)”) located at the edge area of the light emitting area is (LEA) less than that of a thickness (Fig. 3 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘T2’) of another portion of the second inorganic layer (37) located in the non-light emitting area (NEA).
PNG
media_image3.png
665
953
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the continuous layer structure as taught by Motoyama into Yuan and Sui.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Motoyama in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result as stated above in claim 1.
Yuan, Sui, and Motoyama do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 13.
However, in an analogous art, Ahmed teaches
an electronic component ([0032] – “the OLED layer 120 includes the various electronic components, semiconductor devices, and/or logic elements to control the activation and illumination intensity of each pixels included in the OLED layer 120”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the electronic component as taught by Ahmed into Yuan, Sui, and Motoyama.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Ahmed in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result [0032] – “to control the activation and illumination intensity of each pixels included in the OLED layer 120.”
Regarding claim 15, Yuan, as modified by Sui, Motoyama, and Ahmed, teaches claim 13 from which claim 15 depends. Yuan further teaches
(Previously Presented) The OLED display device according to claim
13, wherein the display area (DA) comprises a light emitting area (Fig. 3 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘LEA’) and a non-light emitting area (Fig. 3 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘NLEA’), and a size of a thickness (L5) of a portion of the organic layer (311) located in light emitting area (LEL) is greater than that of a thickness (Fig. 3 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘L6’) of another portion of the organic layer (311) located in the non-light emitting area (NLEL – Fig. 3 annotated shows this).
PNG
media_image4.png
488
1146
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Yuan, as modified by Sui, Motoyama, and Ahmed, teaches claim 15 from which claim 16 depends. Yuan further teaches
(Previously Presented) The OLED display device according to claim
15, wherein a size of a thickness of a portion of the organic layer (311) located in a middle area (L5) of the light emitting area (LEA) is greater than that of a thickness (L6) of other portion of the organic layer (L5) located at an edge area of the light emitting area (LEA – Fig. 3 annotated, see above, shows this).
Regarding claim 17, Yuan, as modified by Sui, Motoyama, and Ahmed, teaches claim 16 from which claim 17 depends. Yuan further teaches
(Previously Presented) The OLED display device according to claim
16, wherein the plurality of sub-pixels comprises a red sub-pixel (201 – Fig. 14 – [0081] – “red organic light emitting element 201”), a green sub-pixel (202 – Fig. 14 – [0081] – “green organic light emitting element 203”) and a blue sub-pixel (203 – Fig. 14 – [0081] – “blue organic light emitting element 203”), wherein a shape of a portion of the organic layer (301 – Fig. 14 – [0081] – “lens 301”) at a corresponding position of the red sub-pixel (201) is different from a shape of other portion of the organic layer (302 – Fig. 14 – [0081] – “lens 302”) at a corresponding position of the green sub-pixel (202), and the shape of the other portion of the organic layer (303 – Fig. 14 – [0081] – “lens 303”) at the corresponding position of the green sub-pixel (202) is different from a shape of another portion of the organic layer at a corresponding position of the blue sub-pixel (203 – Fig. 14 shows this).
Regarding claim 19, Yuan, as modified by Sui, Motoyama, and Ahmed, teaches claim 16 from which claim 19 depends. Yuan further teaches
(Previously Presented) The OLED display device according to claim 16, wherein a surface of the organic layer (311) in contact with the first
inorganic layer (330) is planar (Fig. 3 shows this), on one side of the organic layer (311) in contact with the second inorganic layer (350), and a height (L5) of the portion of the organic layer (311) in the middle area of the light emitting area (LEL) is greater than a height (L6) of the other portion of the organic layer (311) in the edge area of the light emitting area (LEL – Fig. 3 annotated, see below, shows this).
PNG
media_image4.png
488
1146
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, Yuan, as modified by Sui, Motoyama, and Ahmed, teaches claim 19 from which claim 20 depends. Yuan further teaches
(Previously Presented) The OLED display device according to claim
19, wherein the edge area of the light emitting area (LEL) comprises a first edge area (Fig. 3 annotated, see above – [0077] – “edge area B” – hereinafter ‘B1’) and a second edge area (Fig. 3 annotated, see above – [0077] – “edge area B” – hereinafter ‘B2’) located on both sides of the middle area (A – Fig. 3 annotated, see above – [0077] – “central area A”) of the light emitting area (LEL), the thickness of the organic layer (311) is consistently decreased from the middle area (A) of the light emitting area (LEL) to the first edge area (B1), and the thickness of the organic layer (311) is consistently decreased from the middle area (A) of the light emitting area (LEL) to the second edge area (B2 – Fig. 3 annotated shows this).
Pertinent Art
For the benefits of the Applicant, US 20230172001 A1 is cited on the record as being pertinent to significant disclosure through some but not all claimed features of the defined invention. This reference fail to disclose “an encapsulation layer.”
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 GARY ABEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-0246. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm (Eastern).
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, CHAD M DICKE can be reached at (571) 270-7996. 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 ttps://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.
/GRA/
Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/JACOB Y CHOI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
