Attorney’s Docket Number: 220886/411598-06247
Filing Date: 8/16/2022
Claimed Foreign Priority Date: 12/2/2021 (KR 10-2021-0171161)
Inventors: Kim et al.
Examiner: Marcos D. Pizarro
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action responds to the amendment filed on 6/1/2026.
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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for a 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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after the final rejection in paper no. 9, mailed on 4/1/2026. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/1/2026 has been entered.
Amendment Status
The RCE submission filed on 6/1/2026 as an amendment to the record in reply to the Office action in paper no. 9, has been entered. The present Office action is made with all the suggested amendments being fully considered. Accordingly, pending in this Office action are claims 1 and 4-20.
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (WO 2020/071695) in view of Kozuma (US 2024/0090284) and Endo (US 2014/0183528).
All quotations from Han are taken from its English language counterpart, US 2022/0158099.
Regarding claim 1, Han (see, e.g., fig. 9) shows most aspects of the instant invention including a display device comprising:
A substrate comprising a light-blocking area NPXA surrounding first PXA-R, second PXA-G and third PXA-B light-emitting areas
A driving element CL on the substrate
A light-emitting element OEL on the driving element in each of the first, second, and third light-emitting areas and electrically connected to the driving element
A color-conversion layer CCL comprising first CCP-R and second CCP-G conversion patterns and a transmission pattern CCP-B on the first, second and third light-emitting areas, respectively
A capping layer BFL comprising a Si compound and formed on the color conversion layer CCL
Han (¶0193) teaches that the capping layer includes silicon nitride as a material for the layer but fails to show that the total hydrogen content of the capping layer is about 14.3 at% or less.
Kozuma teaches that silicon nitride can be used as a hydrogen-diffusion barrier to protect devices and specifically describes that a desirable barrier is one from which only a small amount of hydrogen is released. See Kozuma, ¶¶0387–0389. Thus, Kozuma provides a recognized reason for controlling the hydrogen characteristics of a silicon-nitride insulating/protective film.
Endo teaches that a hydrogen content of a nitride insulating film can be deliberately reduced through selection of deposition conditions. In particular, Endo teaches that the hydrogen content in the insulating film can be reduced while dangling bonds in the insulating film are also reduced. See Endo, ¶0192. Endo further teaches formation of a low-hydrogen silicon nitride insulating film and describes deposition conditions for obtaining a silicon nitride film having a low hydrogen content and suppressing entry of impurities such as hydrogen and water. See Endo, ¶¶0197–0198. Endo, therefore, teaches both that hydrogen content is a controllable property of a silicon-nitride film and that reducing the hydrogen content provides recognized film-property benefits, including reduction of dangling bonds.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, in forming Han’s silicon-nitride capping layer, to employ the conditions taught by Endo to reduce the hydrogen content of the silicon-nitride layer. The motivation for doing so would have been provided by Kozuma’s teaching that hydrogen released from an insulating film can diffuse into devices and adversely affect its characteristics, and that a film releasing a small amount of hydrogen is therefore desirable. Endo further provides a known technique for achieving reduced hydrogen content in a silicon-nitride film and identifies additional benefits associated with reducing hydrogen content, including reduction of dangling bonds.
The particular hydrogen-content value recited by the claim, “about 14.3 at% or less,” would have been a result-effective parameter subject to routine optimization once the prior art recognized the desirability of reducing hydrogen in the silicon-nitride film and taught that the hydrogen content could be controlled through deposition conditions. Thus, the teachings of Kozuma and Endo would have led the skilled artisan to optimize the hydrogen content in the direction of lower hydrogen content, including values within the claimed range, using routine experimentation.
In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955), explains that where 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. See also MPEP § 2144.05. Here, Endo recognizes hydrogen content as a controllable property of a silicon-nitride film and that reducing hydrogen reduces dangling bonds, while Kozuma identifies the desirability of reducing hydrogen release to inhibit hydrogen diffusion. Accordingly, selecting deposition conditions that produce a sufficiently low hydrogen content, including a total hydrogen content of about 14.3 at% or less, would have been within the ordinary skill in the art.
Accordingly, the claimed total hydrogen content of about 14.3 at% or less represents the result of applying known deposition techniques to a known silicon-nitride protective layer for the recognized purpose of reducing hydrogen-related effects, and therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 4, Han (¶0193) shows that the Si compound comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of SiNx and SiON.
Regarding claim 5, Han (fig. 9) shows the device further comprises a color filter CF layer on the conversion layer, the filter layer comprising first CF-R, second CF-G and third CF-B color filters overlapping the first and second conversion patterns and the first transmission pattern, respectively.
Regarding claim 6, Han (fig. 9) shows the device further comprises a passivation layer BS on the filter layer CF, the passivation layer comprising at least one of an organic and an inorganic material.
Regarding claim 7, Han (fig. 9) shows that device further comprises a bank layer BK between the first CCP-R and second CCP-G conversion patterns, between the second conversion pattern and the transmission pattern CCP-B, and overlapping the blocking area NPXA.
Regarding claim 8, Han (fig. 9) shows that the capping layer BFL is located along a profile of each of the conversion CCP and bank BK layers.
Regarding claim 9, Kozuma (¶0422) shows the driving element comprises a metal oxide semiconductor and teaches that driving elements comprising metal oxide semiconductors reduce the off-state current of transistors.
Conclusion
Papers related to this application may be submitted directly to Art Unit 2814 by facsimile transmission. Papers should be faxed to Art Unit 2814 via the Art Unit 2814 Fax Center. The faxing of such papers must conform to the notice published in the Official Gazette, 1096 OG 30 (15 November 1989). The Art Unit 2814 Fax Center number is (571) 273-8300. The Art Unit 2814 Fax Center is to be used only for papers related to Art Unit 2814 applications.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marcos D. Pizarro at (571) 272-1716 and between the hours of 9:00 AM to 7:00 PM (Eastern Standard Time) Monday through Thursday or by e-mail via Marcos.Pizarro@uspto.gov. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Wael Fahmy, can be reached on (571) 272-1705.
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.
/Marcos D. Pizarro/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2814
MDP/mdp
September 30, 2026
