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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/10/2026 has been entered.
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 2-5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2-5 and 7-8 recites the limitation “the optical layer”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9 is rejected due to its dependency of claim 8.
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, 2, and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2019/0121176) in view of Jang (US 2019/0377119), in view of Kim (US 2020/0266253 A1) in view of Kim (US 2021/0109400 A1).
Lee discloses display device comprising:
pixels (See Fig. 13, PX1, PX2, PX3);
a bank (BM, [0029], Fig. 1) including an opening overlapping each of the pixels in a plan view (Fig. 13);
light emitting elements (940, [0122]) disposed in the pixels;
a plurality of color conversion layers (321a/321b, [0041]) disposed on the light emitting elements (940) in the opening of the bank (BM); and
an optical layer (400b, [0029]) disposed on the plurality of color conversion layer (321a/321b) in the opening of the bank,
wherein the optical layer (400b) includes an organic layer ([0062], [0064]) surrounding voids (H, holes, see Fig. 3, [0059]) of the optical layer (400b), and
Lee does not disclose the optical layer as a plurality, the voids are formed without hollow particles, the plurality of optical layers separated from each other by the bank, the plurality of optical layers has a constant thickness.
Jang discloses a display device with a matrix with voids and no particles. As shown in FIG. 4, the low refractive index layer (20) comprising the matrix MX and the void VD does not have particles ([0053]).
It would have been obvious to modify Lee’s low refractive index optical layer to form the voids without hollow particles, as taught by Jang, in order to simplify manufacture while maintaining low refractive index and light recycling performance.
Lee and Jang do not disclose the optical layer as a plurality, the plurality of optical layers separated from each other by the bank, the plurality of optical layers has a constant thickness.
Kim ‘253 teaches a similar device (Fig. 2) with a plurality of optical layers (351-353) separated from each other by a light-blocking pattern (360) (⁋ [0090]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the teaching of the plurality of optical layers and their separation as taught by Kim’ 253 for the purpose of preventing he light emitted from other organic light-emitting elements from traveling in the side direction to reach the adjacent pixels (⁋ [0090]). One skilled in the art would understand that preventing light crossing from other light-emitting elements would improve the quality of light transmitted out of the device.
Lee, Jang and Kim ‘253 do not disclose the plurality of optical layers has a constant thickness.
Kim ‘400 teaches a similar device (Fig. 2) with a low refractive index layer (170) made to have a uniform thickness (⁋ [0087]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the teaching of the uniform thickness of a low refractive index layer as taught by Kim ‘400 for the purpose of uniformly improving the total brightness of the display device (⁋ [0087]).
Regarding claim 2, Lee in view of Jang, Kim ‘253 and Kim ‘400 discloses the display device of claim 1, wherein the optical layer (400b) has a refractive index of about 1.25 or less (Lee [0056]). Jang also discusses a low refractive index.
It would have been obvious to form Lee’s low-index layer as the void-containing, particle-free structure of Jang to simplify fabrication while maintaining low refractive index behavior.
Regarding claim 4, Lee in view of Jang, Kim ‘253 and Kim ‘400 discloses the display device of claim 1, wherein the voids of the optical layer have different diameters (Lee Fig. 3 or Jang Fig.4).
Regarding claim 5, Lee in view of Jang, Kim ‘253 and Kim ‘400 discloses the display device of claim 1, wherein each of the voids of the optical layer has a diameter in a range of about 2 nm to about 150 nm ([0061]).
Regarding claim 6, Lee in view of Jang, Kim ‘253 and Kim ‘400 discloses the display device of claim 1, wherein:
the pixels include first pixels (PX1), second pixels (PX2), and third pixels (PX3), and
the plurality of optical layers (400b) includes a first optical layer, a second optical layer, and a third optical layer of the first pixels, the second pixels, and the third pixels that are separated from each other (i.e., the optical layers 400b of the first, second and third pixels are separated from each other by bank members BM disposed therebetween).
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2019/0064602) in view of Jang (US 2019/0377119), Kim ‘253 and Kim ‘400
Kim ‘602 discloses display device comprising (Fig. 6):
pixels (Fig. 5, 191, [0130]);
a bank ([0140]) including an opening overlapping each of the pixels in a plan view;
light emitting elements (470, [0143]) disposed in the pixels;
a plurality of color conversion layers (330R/330G/330B, [0034]) disposed on the light emitting elements in the opening of the bank; and
an optical layer (327, [0067]) disposed on the plurality of color conversion layers in the opening of the bank,
wherein the optical layer (327) includes an organic layer surrounding voids of the optical layer (i.e., “the first buffer layer 327 may include the organic material including at least one among hollow silica, a pore derivative (porogen)”, [0070]).
Kim ‘602 does not disclose the optical layer as a plurality, the voids are formed without hollow particles, the plurality of optical layers separated from each other by the bank, the plurality of optical layers has a constant thickness.
Jang discloses a display device with a matrix with voids and no particles. As shown in FIG. 4, the low refractive index layer (20) comprising the matrix MX and the void VD does not have particles ([0053]).
It would have been obvious to modify the porous low refractive index buffer layer of Kim to include voids formed without hollow particles as taught by Jang, in order to maintain a low refractive index and total internal reflection while simplifying the layer structure and improving light recycling efficiency.
Kim ‘602 and Jang do not disclose the optical layer as a plurality, the plurality of optical layers separated from each other by the bank, the plurality of optical layers has a constant thickness.
Kim ‘253 teaches a similar device (Fig. 2) with a plurality of optical layers (351-353) separated from each other by a light-blocking pattern (360) (⁋ [0090]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the teaching of the plurality of optical layers and their separation as taught by Kim’ 253 for the purpose of preventing he light emitted from other organic light-emitting elements from traveling in the side direction to reach the adjacent pixels (⁋ [0090]). One skilled in the art would understand that preventing light crossing from other light-emitting elements would improve the quality of light transmitted out of the device.
Kim ‘602, Jang and Kim ‘253 do not disclose the plurality of optical layers has a constant thickness.
Kim ‘400 teaches a similar device (Fig. 2) with a low refractive index layer (170) made to have a uniform thickness (⁋ [0087]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the teaching of the uniform thickness of a low refractive index layer as taught by Kim ‘400 for the purpose of uniformly improving the total brightness of the display device (⁋ [0087]).
Regarding claim 2, Kim ‘602 in view of Jang, Kim ‘253 and Kim ‘400 discloses the display device of claim 1, wherein the optical layer (327) has a refractive index of about 1.25 or less (Kim ‘602 [0067]). Jang also discusses a low refractive index.
It would have been obvious to form Lee’s low-index layer as the void-containing, particle-free structure of Jang to simplify fabrication while maintaining low refractive index behavior.
Regarding claim 3, Kim ‘402 in view of Jang, Kim ‘253 and Kim ‘400 discloses display device of claim 1, wherein the optical layer (327) has a thickness in a range of about 0.2 µm to about 3.0 µm (Kim, [0074]).
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Jang, Kim ‘253 and Kim ‘400 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee.
Regarding claims 7-8, Kim in view of Jang, Kim ‘253 and Kim ‘400 discloses the display device of claim 1, but does not disclose a first capping layer disposed between the color conversion layer and the optical layer, and a second capping layer overlapping the optical layer in a plan view.
Lee discloses a first capping layer (CL, [0104]) disposed between the color conversion layer (321a/321b, [0114]) and the optical layer (400b, [0137]). Lee also discloses a second capping layer (CL) overlapping the optical layer (400b) in a plan view.
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 in view of Jang, Kim ‘253 and Kim ‘400 by forming the first and second cap layer with the arrangements as set forth above, in order to prevent an increase in the refractive indices of the low refractive layer, as taught by Lee ([0104]).
Regarding claim 9, Kim ’602 in view of Jang, Kim ‘253, Kim ‘400 and Lee discloses the display device of claim 8, wherein Lee’s second capping layer (CL) contacts the first capping layer (CL). Therefore, Kim in view of Jang, Kim ‘253 and Kim ‘400 as modified by Lee’s Fig. 11 from forming the first and second cap layers surrounding top, bottom and side surfaces of each of the color conversion layers, Kim ‘602’s Fig. 6 also discloses the second capping layer contacts the first capping layer on the bank.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Jang, Kim ‘253 and Kim ‘400 as applied to claim 1, further in view of Kim ‘946 (US 2020/0258946).
Kim ‘602 (Fig. 6) in view Jang, Kim ‘253 and Kim ‘400 discloses the light emitting elements (470), but Kim ‘602 does not disclose the light emitting elements each include: a first semiconductor layer; a second semiconductor layer disposed on the first semiconductor layer; and an active layer disposed between the first semiconductor layer and the second semiconductor layer.
However, Kim ‘946 (Figs. 4-5) teaches a display device comprising the light emitting elements (320, [0079]) each include:
a first semiconductor layer (HTL1, [0079]);
a second semiconductor layer (ETL1, [0079]) disposed on the first semiconductor layer; and
an active layer (EL11, light emitting layer, [0079]) disposed between the first semiconductor layer HTL1 and the second semiconductor layer ETL1.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the light emitting elements of Kim ‘602 in view of Jang, Kim ‘253 and Kim ‘400 to each include: a first semiconductor layer, a second semiconductor layer, and an active layer disposed between the first semiconductor layer and the second semiconductor layer in order to form a known OLED that would emit light through excitons formed by holes and electrons in the first and second semiconductor layers.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Jang, Kim ‘253 and Kim ‘400 in view of Kim et al (US 2020/0258946).
Lee (Fig. 13) discloses the light emitting elements (940), but Lee does not disclose the light emitting elements each include: a first semiconductor layer; a second semiconductor layer disposed on the first semiconductor layer; and an active layer disposed between the first semiconductor layer and the second semiconductor layer.
However, Kim ‘946 (Figs. 4-5) teaches a display device comprising the light emitting elements (320, [0079]) each include:
a first semiconductor layer (HTL1, [0079]);
a second semiconductor layer (ETL1, [0079]) disposed on the first semiconductor layer; and
an active layer (EL11, light emitting layer, [0079]) disposed between the first semiconductor layer HTL1 and the second semiconductor layer ETL1.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the light emitting elements of Lee in view of Jang, Kim ‘253 and Kim ‘400 each include: a first semiconductor layer, a second semiconductor layer, and an active layer disposed between the first semiconductor layer and the second semiconductor layer in order to form a known OLED that would emit light through excitons formed by holes and electrons in the first and second semiconductor layers.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARNELL HUNTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1796. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 4:30pm.
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.
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.
/CARNELL HUNTER III/Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/SUE A PURVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
