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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 15, 2025 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Species 1, as shown in FIG. 3, was elected.
Amendment filed on December 15, 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 10 and 21 have been cancelled. New claim 22 has been added. Claims 1-9 and 22 are pending.
Action on merits of claims 1-9 and 22 follows.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7-9 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JEON et al. (US. Pub. No. 2011/0121271) of record, with support for the refractive index of the anti-reflection material, particularly silicon oxide: LEE et al. (US. Pub. No. 2015/0123086) RSiO= 1.3 to 1.8; CHO et al. (US. Pub. No. 2014/0070187) RSiO= 1.3 to 3.1; LE (US. Pub. No. 2018/0040847) RSiO= 1.4 to 1.5.
With respect to claim 1, JEON teaches a display device substantially as claimed including:
a base substrate (111);
an emission element (70) disposed on the base substrate (110);
a capping layer (520) disposed on the emission element and having a thickness of about 200 Å to 300 Å, hence overlaps 280 Å to about 360 Å;
an anti-reflection layer (510) disposed on the capping layer (520);
a filling layer (400) disposed on the anti-reflection layer (510) and having a refractive index of about 1.7 or less, hence encompasses 1.3 to about 1.6; and
an encapsulation substrate (210) disposed on the filling layer (400),
wherein a refractive index of the anti-reflection layer (510) is between 1.3 and 1.6. (See FIG. 3).
The claimed thickness of the capping layer and the refractive index of the filling layer do not appear to be critical.
Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed thickness of the capping layer and the refractive index of the filling layer of any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is aid to based upon particular chosen dimension or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimension are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
However, it is well settled that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40 ºC and 80 ºC and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100 ºC and an acid concentration of 10%.); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to form the display device of YEON by adjusting the thickness of the capping layer to increase light efficiency from the emission element.
Regarding the refractive index of the anti-reflection layer (510), since anti-reflection layer, 510 of JEON comprises the same materials, silicon oxide, titanium oxide or the like, as that of the invention, thus, the limitation “a refractive index of the anti-reflection layer (510) is between 1.3 and 1.6” is met. Same material same characteristics.
The refractive index of silicon oxide of 1.3 to 1.6 is also supported by the references to LEE ‘086; CHO ‘187 and LEE ‘847.
With respect to claim 4, the filling layer (400) of JEON includes a transparent material.
With respect to claim 5, the transparent material (400) of JEON includes at least one selected from a group consisting of a silicone-based resin and an acrylic resin.
With respect to claim 7, the display device of JEON further comprises: a sealing member (not shown) disposed between the base substrate (110) and the encapsulation substrate (210) and which couples the base substrate (110) and the encapsulation substrate (210). (See ¶ [0049]).
With respect to claim 8, each of the base substrate (111) and the encapsulation substrate (210) of JEON includes a glass.
With respect to claim 9, the emission element (70) of JEON includes:
a lower electrode (710) disposed on the base substrate (110);
an organic emission layer (720) disposed on the lower electrode (710); and
an upper electrode (730) disposed on the organic emission layer (720).
With respect to claim 22, the filling layer (400) of JEON has a first portion having a first thickness that overlaps the lower electrode (710), a second portion that has a second thickness that does not overlap the lower electrode (710), and a transition portion that extends between the first portion and the second portion,
the second thickness is less than the first thickness,
the transition portion continuously decreases in thickness from the first portion to the second portion, and
the organic emission layer (720) overlapping the second portion. (See FIG. 3).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JEON ‘271 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of MATSUKURA (US. Patent No. 8,884,509) of record.
With respect to claim 2, JEON teaches the display device as described in claim 1 above including the encapsulation substrate disposed on the filling layer.
Thus, JEON is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly disclosing a reflection adjusting layer disposed on the encapsulation substrate.
However, MATSUKURA teaches a display device including: a reflection adjusting layer (9200) disposed on encapsulation substrate (800). (See FIGs. 12A-C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to form the display device of JEON further including the reflection adjusting layer on encapsulation substrate as taught by MATSUKURA to prove a color display.
With respect to claim 3, the anti-reflection layer (520) of JEON includes an inorganic material and, in view of MATSUKURA, the reflection adjusting layer (9200) includes an organic material.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JEON ‘271 as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of OH et al. (US. Pub. No. 2016/0104752) of record.
JEON teaches the display device as described in claim 4 above including the filling layer (400) being transparent material.
Thus, JEON is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly disclosing the filling layer further including additive.
However, OH teaches a display device including: a transparent filling layer (500) further including additive selected from a group consisting of a scatterer, a dye, and an ultraviolet absorber. (See FIG. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to form the filling layer of JEON further including any one selected from the group consisting of a scatterer, a dye, and an ultraviolet absorber as taught by OH to increase visibility even under high ambient illumination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 15, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the anti-reflection layer 510, Applicant argues:
A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the high refractive film 510 of the capping layer of Joen cannot reasonably be considered an anti-reflection layer.
However, contrary to the Applicant assertion, Applicant provides no evidence to support his position.
Note that, in the instant invention FIG. 3, there are two layers being formed between the “emission element” 300 and the “filling layer” 500. The lower layer 230 is called “capping layer” and the upper layer 240 is called “anti-reflection layer”.
Similarly, in JEON’s FIG. 3, there are two layers being formed between the “emission element” 70 and the “filling layer” 400. The lower layer 520 is obviously can be identified as “capping layer” and the upper layer 510 is obvious can be identified as “anti-reflection layer”.
Thus, the limitation “an anti-reflection layer disposed on the capping layer” clearly met.
Applicant argues: Joen does not disclose the high refractive film 510 having any anti- reflection properties.
Note that, the claimed limitation is “anti-reflection layer” not anti-reflection properties. Applicant should have provide the “properties” of the “capping layer” and the “filling layer” to show that these layers do not have “anti-reflection properties.
However, film 510 of JEON is a transparent layer, hence anti-reflection.
Note that, Applicant is his own lexicographer. Applicant can identify any layer(s) to be any “name”. Meanwhile, the claimed limitation is being determined for what it is, not what it is called.
Regarding the thickness of the capping layer, Applicant asserts:
The capping layer 500 of Jeon, which includes both the high refractive film 510 and the low refractive film 520, has a thickness within a range of 1300 - 1500 Å, which is well outside of the claimed thickness of about 280 Å to about 360 Å.
However, Applicant appears to combine the thickness of two layers, 520+510.
Note that, the claimed thickness of “about 280 Å to about 360 Å” is directed to one layer, not two layers.
However, JEON, [0048], explicitly teaches: the low refractive film 520, which is formed under film 510, hence capping layer, “may have a thickness t2 within a range of about 20 nm to 30 nm”. (1 nm = 10 Å), hence 200 Å to about 300 Å, or overlapped the claimed thickness.
Regarding the criticality of the claimed ranges, Applicant asserts:
Applicant respectfully submits that the cited limitations have criticality. As explained in Paragraphs [0026] and [0065] of the published specification, with the capping layer in a range of about 280 A to about 360 A and a filling layer with a refractive index of about 1.3 to about 1.6, "the reflectance of the display device 100 by external light may be reduced," and "the display quality of the display device 100 may be effectively improved."
However, these are the preferable ranges not criticality of the claimed ranges.
Applicant fails to provide any evidence that outside of the claimed ranges the device fail to function.
Moreover, in the device of JEON, the capping layer 520 clearly has an overlapping thickness and the filling layer 400 comprises the same material, thus, same refractive index of about 1.3 to about 1.6.
Thus, the limitations are met.
The rejection of claims 1-9 and new claim 22 are maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANH D MAI whose telephone number is (571)272-1710 (Email: Anh.Mai2@uspto.gov). The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00PM.
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, Sue A Purvis can be reached on 571-272-1236. 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.
/ANH D MAI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893