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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/27/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Application
Acknowledgment has been made to the amendment received on 06/29/2026. Claims 1-6, 8-18 and 20-22 are pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1-6, and 11-18 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al (US20190221779A1) in view of Kim et al (US 20190221778A1) and Park et al (US 20200303466 A1).
Re claim 1 Jang teaches a display substrate (110 fig 10) [0058];
a plurality of display elements provided on the display substrate and configured to emit light (PX fig 2) [0057];
an encapsulation substrate (600 fig 10) [0120] provided on the plurality of display elements to face the display substrate;
a refractive layer (OL3+520, fig 10) [0097] provided on a lower surface of the encapsulation substrate (600, fig 10), the refractive layer comprising a first insulating layer (OL3, fig 10) [0097] having a first refractive index [0115] and a second insulating layer (520, fig 10) [0097] having a second refractive index [0115] greater than the first refractive index [0097][0117], [0136] and [0140]; and
a light blocking layer (510, fig 10) [0112] provided on a lower surface a light blocking layer (510, fig 10) [0112] provided on a lower surface of the refractive layer (OL3+520, fig 10),
wherein the first insulating layer (OL3) and the light blocking layer (510) arranged to correspond to non-emission areas between the plurality of display elements (PX, fig 10), [0112] [0135]-[0141]; and
the second insulating layer (520, fig 10) is arranged to correspond to emission areas of the plurality of display elements (PX, fig 10) [0136] and a width of an upper surface of the second insulating layer (top of 520/521 a within Px, fig 10) is less than a width of a lower surface (bottom of 520, base of lens, fig 10) of the second insulating layer (520).
wherein the light blocking layer (510, fig 10) [0112] comprises an opening (opening between 510 fig 10) [0112] corresponding to the emission area (area of PX, fig 10) [0136].
Jang does not teach the upper surface of the second insulating surface being a flat surface in direct contact with the encapsulation substrate, and wherein the width of the upper surface of the second insulating layer is greater than a width of an emission area corresponding to the second insulating layer.
Kim teaches the upper surface (top of 172c3/14c, fig 3/4) [0086] of the second insulating surface (172c, fig 3/4) [0086] being a flat surface in direct contact with the encapsulation substrate (180, fig 3/4) [0086], and wherein the width of the upper surface (172c3/14c, fig3/4) [0086] of the second insulating layer is greater than a width of an emission area (area of 13/OP3, fig 3/4) [0086] corresponding to the second insulating layer (172c, fig 3/4) [0065].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught Kim into the structure of Jang to include the upper surface of the second insulating surface being a flat surface in direct contact with the encapsulation substrate, and wherein the width of the upper surface of the second insulating layer is greater than a width of an emission area corresponding to the second insulating layer as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Jang based on the teaching of Kim in the above manner for the purpose of improving the optical efficiency of the organic light-emitting display device [0091].
Jang and Kim do not teach a minimum width of the opening of the light blocking layer is greater than the width of the lower surface of the second insulating layer.
Park teaches a minimum width (bottom width of ABM-S, fig 9) [0174] of the opening of the light blocking layer (ABM-S, fig 9) [ 0174] is greater than the width of the lower surface of the second insulating layer (CIOL, fig.9) [0133].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Park into the structure of to include a minimum width of the opening of the light blocking layer is greater than the width of the lower surface of the second insulating layer as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Jang and Kim based on the teaching of Park in the above manner for the purpose of to reduce or prevent lights of different colors from being mixed with each other [0151].
Re claim 2 Jang in view of Kim and Park teach the display apparatus of claim 1,
Jang and Park do not tech an angle at which a side surface of the second insulating layer is inclined with respect to a lower surface of the encapsulation substrate is about 50 to about 60 degrees.
Kim does teach an angle at which a side surface of the second insulating layer is inclined with respect to a lower surface of the encapsulation substrate is at least about 50° to about 60° (see fig 3).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Kim into the structure Jang and Park to include an angle at which a side surface of the second insulating layer is inclined with respect to a lower surface of the encapsulation substrate is about 50° to about 60° as claimed, in order to optimize the performance of the device. Furthermore, it has been held in that the applicant must show that a particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed ranged achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Jang based on the teaching of Kim in the above manner due to the above reason.
Furthermore, it has been held that where then general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, in re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Re claim 3 Jang in view of Kim and Park teach, the display apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first refractive index is about 1.452 to about1.55 (OL3 about 1.5) [Jang 0132], and the second refractive index is about 1.55 to about 1.7 (520 about 1.6) [Jang 0132].
Re claim 4 Jang in view Kim and Park teach, the display apparatus of claim 1, wherein the second insulating layer (520, fig 10) comprises a color filter [Jang 0117].
Re claim 5 Jang in view of Kim and Park teach, the display apparatus of claim 1,
Kim and Park do not teach the second insulating layer comprises a reflection control layer configured to selectively absorb a first wavelength band and a second wavelength band of a visible light band.
Jang does teach second insulating layer (520, fig 10) comprises a reflection control layer configured to selectively absorb a first wavelength band and a second wavelength band of a visible light band red filter which absorb several bands of visible light other than red) [0117].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed the invention to incorporate the teaching as taught by Jang to include the second insulating layer comprises a reflection control layer configured to selectively absorb a first wavelength band and a second wavelength band of a visible light band as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Kim and Park in the above manner for the purpose of improving the front visibility and luminous efficiency of the display device [0133].
Re claim 6 Jang in view of Kim and Park teach the display apparatus of claims 5,
Kim and Park do not explicitly teach the first wavelength band is about 480 nm to about 505 nm, and the second wavelength band is about 585 nm to about 605 nm.
Jang teaches, the high refractive index layer 520 may be a color filter having any color of red, green and blue [0117] (red filter which blocks several visible light other than red, including 480-505 nm and 585-605 nm which are associated with green and blue light). first wavelength band is about 480 nm to about 505 nm, and the second wavelength band is about 585 nm to about 605 nm as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Kim and Park in the above manner for the purpose of to improve the front visibility and luminous efficiency of the display device [0133].
In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also in re Bosch, 205 USPQ 215(CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and in re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Re claim 8 Jang in view of Kim and Park teach, the display apparatus of claim 1, wherein a thickness of the light blocking layer (510, fig 10) less than a thickness of the first insulating layer (OL3, fig 10) [Jang 0132].
Re claim 21 Jang in view of Kim and Park teach the display apparatus of claim 1,
Jang, Kim and Park do not teach a maximum thickness of the first insulating layer is greater than a maximum thickness of the second insulating layer.
Jang different embodiment fig 11 teaches a maximum thickness (central PX of OL3) of the first insulating layer (OL3, fig 11) [0097] is greater than a maximum thickness (corner PX of 520) of the second insulating layer (520, fig 11) [0097].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Jang fig 11 into the structure of Jang, Kim and Park to include a maximum thickness of the first insulating layer is greater than a maximum thickness of the second insulating layer as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Jang, Kim and Park based on the teaching of Jang fig 11 in the above manner for the purpose of improving the front visibility and luminous efficiency of the display device. [0133].
Re claim 11 Jang teaches, a display apparatus comprising:
a display substrate (110, fig 2/ fig 10);
a first display element, a second display element, and a third display element (plurality of display elements PX fig 2/fig 10), which are on the display substrate (110, fig 10, fig 2) and are configured to emit different pieces of light from each other [0062];
an encapsulation substrate (600, fig 10) [0097] provided on the first display element (PX), the second display element, and the third display element to face the display substrate (110, fig 10);
a light blocking layer (510, fig 10) provided below the encapsulation substrate (600, fig 10), the light blocking layer (510, fig 10) comprising openings (convex lens disposed in an opening) corresponding to emission areas of the first display element, the second display element, and the third display element (plurality of PX, fig 2 and fig 10) [0053], and
a refractive layer (OL3/520, fig 10) [0097 provided between the encapsulation substrate (600, fig 10) and the light blocking layer (510), the refractive layer (OL3/520) comprising a first
insulating layer (OL3, fig10) having a first refractive index [0132] and a second insulating layer (520, fig 10) having a second refractive index greater than the first refractive index [0132],
wherein the second insulating layer (520, fig 10) is arranged to correspond to the emission areas of the first display element, the second display element, and the third display element (PX, fig 2 and fig 10), and a width of an upper surface of the second insulating layer (top of 520) is less than a width of a lower surface of the second insulating layer (bottom of 520).
Jang does not teach the upper surface of the second insulating layer being a flat surface in direct contact with the encapsulation substrate and wherein the width of the upper surface of the second insulating layer is greater than a width of an emission area corresponding to the second insulating layer.
Kim teaches the upper surface (14c/172c3, fig 3/4) [0086] of the second insulating layer (172c fig 3/4) [0086] being a flat surface in direct contact with the encapsulation substrate (180, fig 3/4) [0086], and wherein the width of the upper surface (14c/172c3, fig 3/4) [0086] of the second insulating layer is greater than a width of an emission area (13/OP3, fig 3/4) [0086 corresponding to the second insulating layer (172c, fig 3/4) [0086].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught Kim into the structure of Jang to include the upper surface of the second insulating surface being a flat surface in direct contact with the encapsulation substrate, and wherein the width of the upper surface of the second insulating layer is greater than a width of an emission area corresponding to the second insulating layer as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Jang based on the teaching of Kim in the above manner for the purpose of improving the optical efficiency of the organic light- emitting display device [0091].
Jang and Kim do not teach a minimum width the opening of the light blocking layer is greater than the width of the lower surface of the second insulating layer.
Park teaches a minimum width (bottom width of ABM-S, fig 9) [0174] of the opening of the light blocking layer (ABM-S, fig 9) [ 0174] is greater than the width of the lower surface of the second insulating layer (CIOL, fig.9) [0133].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Park into the structure of to include a minimum width of the opening of the light blocking layer is greater than the width of the lower surface of the second insulating layer as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Jang and Kim based on the teaching of Park in the above manner for the purpose of to reduce or prevent lights of different colors from being mixed with each other [0151].
Re claim 12 Jang in view of Kim and Park teach the display apparatus of claim 1,
Jang does not explicitly teach an angle at which a side surface of the second insulating layer is inclined with respect to a lower surface of the encapsulation substrate is about 50° to about 60°.
Kim does teach an angle at which a side surface of the second insulating layer is inclined with respect to a lower surface of the encapsulation substrate is at least about 50° to about 60° (see fig 3).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Kim into the structure Jang and Park to include an angle at which a side surface of the second insulating layer is inclined with respect to a lower surface of the encapsulation substrate is about 50° to about 60° as claimed, in order to optimize the performance of the device. Furthermore, it has been held in that the applicant must show that a particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed ranged achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Jang and Park based on the teaching of Kim in the above manner due to the above reason.
Furthermore, it has been held that where then general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art , in re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Re claim 13 Jang in view of Kim and Park teach, the display apparatus of claim 11, wherein the first refractive index (OL3, fig 10) is about 1.45 to about 1.55 (about 1.5) [0132], and the second refractive index is about 1.55 to about 1.7 (about 1.6) [0132].
Re claim 14 Jang in view of Kim and Park teach, the display apparatus of claim 11, wherein the second insulating (520, fig 10) [Jang 0117] comprises a first color filter, a second color filter, and a third color (520 maybe a color filter having any color of red, green and blue filter) configured to emit different colors from each other [0062] and the first color filter, the second color filter, and the third color filter are arranged to correspond to the first display element, the second display element, and the third display (plurality of Px, fig 2 and fig 10) [Jang 0062]element, respectively.
Re claim 15 Jang in view of Kim and Park teach, the display apparatus of claim 11,
Jang and Kim do not teach the second insulating layer comprises a reflection control layer configured to selectively absorb a first wavelength band and a second wavelength band of a visible light band.
However, Jang does teach second insulating layer (520, fig 10) comprises a reflection control layer configured to selectively absorb a first wavelength band and a second wavelength band of a visible light band (red filter which absorb several bands of visible light other than red) [0117].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed the invention to incorporate the teaching as taught by Jang to include the second insulating layer comprises a reflection control layer configured to selectively absorb a first wavelength band and a second wavelength band of a visible light band as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Jang and Kim in the above manner for the purpose of improving the front visibility and luminous efficiency of the display device [0133].
Re claim 16 Jang in view of Kim and Park teach the display apparatus of claim 11,
Jang, Kim and Park do not explicitly teach the first wavelength band is about 480 nm to about 505 nm, and the second wavelength band is about 585 nm to about 605 nm.
Jang teaches, the high refractive index layer 520 may be a color filter having any color of red, green and blue [0117]. (red filter which blocks several visible light other than red, including 480-5051 and 585-605 nm which are associated with green and blue light).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed the invention to incorporate the teaching as taught by Jang, Kim and Park to include the first wavelength band is about 480 nm to about 505 nm, and the second wavelength band is about 585 nm to about 605 nm as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Jang, Kim and Park in the above manner for the purpose of to improve the front visibility and luminous efficiency of the display device [0133]. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also in re Bosch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and in re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Re claim 17 Jang in view of Kim teach, the display apparatus of claim 15, wherein
the second insulating layer (520, fig 10) is provided equally on the first display element, the second display element, and the third display element. (Plurality of PX, fig 2/ fig 10) [Jang 0062].
Re claim 18 Jang in view of Kim teach the display apparatus of claim 15,
Jang fig 12 and Kim do not teach the second insulating layer extends between the first, second, and third display elements and the light blocking layer.
Jang fig 11 does teach the second insulating layer (520, fig 2/fig 11) [0113] extends between the first, second, and third display elements (plurality of PX, fig 2/ fig 11) and the light blocking layer (510, fig 11) [0113-0114].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed the invention to incorporate the teaching as taught by Jang fig 11 into the structure of Jang, Kim and Park to include the second insulating layer extends between the first, second, and third display elements and the light blocking layer as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Jang, Kim and Park in the above manner for the purpose of improving visibility and luminous efficiency of the display device [Jang, 0133].
Re claim 22 Jang in view of Kim and Park teach the display apparatus of claim 11,
Jang, Kim and Park do not teach a maximum thickness of the first insulating lay er is greater than a maximum thickness of the second insulating layer.
Jang different embodiment fig 11 teaches a maximum thickness (central PX of OL3) of the first insulating layer (OL3, fig 11) [0097] is greater than a maximum thickness (corner PX of 520) of the second insulating layer (520, fig 11) [0097].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Jang fig 11 into the structure of Jang, Kim and Park to include a maximum thickness of the first insulating layer is greater than a maximum thickness of the second insulating layer as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Jang, Kim and Park based on the teaching of Jang fig 11 in the above manner for the purpose of improving the front visibility and luminous efficiency of the display device. [0133].
Claims 9-10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang modified by Kim and Park as applied to claims 1 and 11 further in view of Oh et al (KR 20200083875A).
Re claim 9 Jang in view of Kim and Park teach the display apparatus of claim 1,
Jang, Kim and Park do not teach an upper light blocking layer provided between the encapsulation substrate and the first insulating layer.
Oh teaches an upper light blocking layer (BM1, fig 14) [0109] provided between the encapsulation substrate (130, fig 14) [0080] and the first insulating layer (70b, fig 14) [0076].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed the invention to incorporate the teaching as taught by Oh into the structure of Jang Kim and Park to include an upper light blocking layer provided between the encapsulation substrate and the first insulating layer as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Jang, Kim and Park based on the teaching of Oh in the above manner for the purpose of preventing color mixing between adjacent pixel [0112].
Re claim 10 Jang in view of Kim, Park and Oh teach the display apparatus of claim 9, wherein the upper light blocking layer (BM1, fig 14) [Oh 0112] comprises a first opening (opening of BMIIlb, fig 14) corresponding to the emission area, the light blocking layer (BM1, fig 14) comprises a second opening (opening of BM 1a, fig 14) corresponding
to the emission area, and a width of the first opening is greater than a width of the second opening (BM1b>BM 1a, fig 14) [Oh 0113].
Re claim 20 Jang in view of Kim, Park teaches the display apparatus of claim 11.
Jang, Kim and Park do not teach an upper light blocking layer provided between the encapsulation substrate and the first insulating layer.
Oh teaches an upper light blocking layer (BM1, fig 14) [0109] provided between the encapsulation substrate (130, fig 14) [0080] and the first insulating layer (70b, fig 14) [0076].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed the invention to incorporate the teaching as taught by Oh into the structure of Jang,
Kim and Park to include an upper light blocking layer provided between the encapsulation substrate and the first insulating layer as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Jang, Kim and Park based on the teaching of Oh in the above manner for the purpose of preventing color mixing between adjacent pixel [0112].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-6, 8-18 and 20-22 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure Yamazaki et al (US12058878B2) and Jinbo et al (US20170213872A1) teaches the display apparatus including light-emitting device with insulating layers and light blocking layer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRATIKSHA J LOHAKARE whose telephone number is (571)270-1920. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7.30 am-4.30 pm.
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, EVA MONTALVO can be reached at 571-270-3829. 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.
/PRATIKSHA JAYANT LOHAKARE/ Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/DUY T NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818 8/4/26
Prosecution Insights