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 Amendment
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Amendment filed on October 02, 2025. Claims 1, 3, 8, 10 and 12 have been amended. No new claims have been added. Claims 2 and 7 have been canceled. Claims 14, 16 and 18-20 have been withdrawn. Currently, claims 1, 3-6, 8-13, 15 and 17 are pending.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 successfully overcomes the 112(b) rejection of claim 1 and dependent claims set forth in the previous Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the color-filters having openings are found persuasive. The 112b rejection of claims 8 and 9 set forth in the previous Office Action has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot as applied to the newly added claim limitations 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.
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 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites, “a first opening” which is indefinite as it is not clear where this first opening is structurally located or how it relates to the other elements of the claimed invention.
Claims 9-11 depend upon claim 8 and do not rectify the problem therefore, they are also rejected.
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, 3-6 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (US 2020/0212113 A1; hereafter Song) in view of Sun et al. (US 2022/0336780 A1; hereafter Sun) and Choi et al. (US 2014/0339509 A1; hereafter Choi).
Regarding claim 1, Song teaches (see e.g., Figure 6) a display apparatus comprising:
a first substrate (see e.g., first base 110, Para [0112], Figure 6) and a second substrate (see e.g., second base 310, Para [0132], Figure 6) overlapping each other (see e.g., as shown in Figure 6 first base 110 and second base 310 overlap each other);
a first light-emitting element arranged between the first substrate and the second substrate and including a first emission area for emitting first light (see e.g., first organic light-emitting diode ED1 arranged between the first base 110 and the second base 310 and includes a first light-emitting area LA1, Para [0124], Figure 6);
a first color filter layer arranged between the first emission area and the second substrate (see e.g., a first color filter 231 arranged between the first light-emitting area LA1 and the second base 310, Para [0144], Figure 6); and
a first quantum dot layer overlapping the first emission area (see e.g., first wavelength conversion pattern 330, may include a first base resin 331 and first wavelength shifters 335 dispersed in the first base resin 331, and may further include first scatterers 333 dispersed in the first base resin 331, overlapping the first light-emitting area LA1. The first wavelength shifters 335 may include quantum dots, Paras [0154], [0159], [0161] –[0163], Figure 6).
Song does not explicitly teach
“a refractive layer arranged between the first light-emitting element and the second substrate, wherein an upper surface of the refractive layer is concave toward the first emission area;”
In a similar field of endeavor Sun teaches
a refractive layer (see e.g., second refractive index layer 24, Para [0038], Figure 2) arranged between the first light-emitting element and the second substrate (see e.g., the second refractive index layer 24 is arranged between the light-emitting device 22 and the second base substrate 29 as shown in Figure 2), wherein an upper surface of the refractive layer is concave toward the first emission area (see e.g., the second refractive index layer 24 has concave surfaces toward the light-emitting devices 22 including the light-emitting layer 223, Paras [0045] – [0046], Figure 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to on skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement Sun’s teachings of a refractive layer arranged between the first light-emitting element and the second substrate, wherein an upper surface of the refractive layer is concave toward the first emission area in the device of Song in order to improve the optical coupling efficiency, improve the overall display brightness of the display panel, and reduce cross color.
Song does not explicitly teach
“a refractive layer including an inorganic material..”
Furthermore, "[i]t is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions." In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929).
In a similar field of endeavor Choi teaches
a refractive layer including an inorganic material (see e.g., first lens sub-layer 410 may include an organic or inorganic material having low refractive index, Para [0065], Figure 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement the teaching of Choi a refractive layer including an inorganic material in the device of Song to achieve a predictable result using known equivalent means.
Regarding claim 3, Song, as modified by Sun and Choi, teaches the limitations of claim 1 as mentioned above. Song does not explicitly teach
“wherein the upper surface of the refractive layer includes one or more concave portions”.
In a similar field of endeavor Sun teaches
wherein the upper surface of the refractive layer includes one or more concave portions (see e.g., the second refractive index layer 24 has concave surfaces toward the light-emitting devices 22 including the light-emitting layer 223 as shown in Figure 2, Para [0054]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to on skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement Sun’s teachings of wherein the upper surface of the refractive layer includes one or more concave portions in the device of Song in order to improve the optical coupling efficiency, improve the overall display brightness of the display panel, and reduce cross color.
Regarding claim 4, Song, as modified by Sun and Choi, teaches the limitations of claim 1 as mentioned above. Song does not explicitly teach
“further comprising a planarization layer arranged between the refractive layer and the second substrate”.
In a similar field of endeavor Sun teaches
further comprising a planarization layer arranged between the refractive layer and the second substrate (see e.g., a lens layer 23 arranged between the second refractive index layer 24 and the second base substrate 29, Para [0034], Figure 2)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to on skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement Sun’s teachings of further comprising a planarization layer arranged between the refractive layer and the second substrate in the device of Song in order to improve the optical coupling efficiency, improve the overall display brightness of the display panel, and reduce cross color.
Regarding claim 5, Song, as modified by Sun and Choi, teaches the limitations of claim 4 as mentioned above. Song does not explicitly teach
“wherein the planarization layer directly contacts the refractive layer”.
In a similar field of endeavor Sun teaches
wherein the planarization layer directly contacts the refractive layer (see e.g., the lens layer 23 directly contacts the second refractive index layer 24 as shown in Figure 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to on skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement Sun’s teachings of wherein the planarization layer directly contacts the refractive layer in the device of Song in order to improve the optical coupling efficiency, improve the overall display brightness of the display panel, and reduce cross color.
Regarding claim 6, Song, as modified by Sun and Choi, teaches the limitations of claim 4 as mentioned above. Song does not explicitly teach
“wherein a refractive index of the planarization layer is greater than a refractive index of the refractive layer”.
In a similar field of endeavor Sun teaches
wherein a refractive index of the planarization layer is greater than a refractive index of the refractive layer (see e.g., a refractive index of the second refractive index layer 24 is smaller than a refractive index of the lens layer 23, Paras [0038], [0047])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to on skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement Sun’s teachings of wherein a refractive index of the planarization layer is greater than a refractive index of the refractive layer in the device of Song in order to improve the optical coupling efficiency, improve the overall display brightness of the display panel, and reduce cross color.
Regarding claim 8, Song, as modified by Sun and Choi, teaches the limitations of claim 1 as mentioned above. Song further teaches
further comprising:
a second light-emitting element arranged between the first substrate and the second substrate and including a second emission area (see e.g., second organic light-emitting diode ED2 arranged between the first base 110 and the second base 310 and includes a second light-emitting area LA2, Para [0124], Figure 6);
a second color filter layer overlapping the second emission area, arranged between the second emission area and the second substrate, and including a second- color-filter opening corresponding to a first opening; and (see e.g., a second color filter 233 overlapping the second light-emitting area LA2 and arranged between the second light-emitting area LA2 and the second base 310, Para [0144], Figure 6; Examiner’s interpretation: the limitation “second color -filter opening corresponding to a first opening”, is not clear since the first opening has not been defined)
a second quantum dot layer arranged between the second emission area and the second color filter layer (see e.g., second wavelength conversion pattern 340, may include a second base resin 341, and second wavelength shifters 345 dispersed in the second base resin 341, and may further include second scatterers 343 dispersed in the second base resin 341, arranged between the second light-emitting area LA2 and the second color filter 233. The first wavelength shifters 345 may include quantum dots, Paras [0169], [0172], Figure 6).
Regarding claim 9, Song, as modified by Sun and Choi, teaches the limitations of claim 8 as mentioned above. Song further teaches
further comprising:
a third light-emitting element arranged between the first substrate and the second substrate and including a third emission area (see e.g., third organic light-emitting diode ED3 arranged between the first base 110 and the second base 310 and includes a third light-emitting area LA3, Para [0124], Figure 6);
a third color filter layer overlapping the third emission area, arranged between the third emission area and the second substrate, and including a third-color-filter opening corresponding to the first opening (see e.g., a third color filter 235 overlapping the third light-emitting area LA3 and arranged between the third light-emitting area LA3 and the second base 310, Para [0133], Figure 6; Examiner’s interpretation: the limitation “third color -filter opening corresponding to the first opening”, is not clear since the first opening has not been defined); and
a light transmission layer arranged between the third emission area and the third color filter layer (see e.g., a light transmission pattern 350, may further include a third base resin 351 and third scatterers 353 dispersed in the third base resin 351, arranged between the third light-emitting area LA3 and the third color filter 235. The third scatterers 353 may be light scattering particles., Paras [0177] – [0178], [0181], Figure 6).
Regarding claim 10, Song, as modified by Sun and Choi, teaches the limitations of claim 9 as mentioned above. Song further teaches
further comprising an opaque-material member (see e.g., anti-color mixing member 370, Para [0185], Figure 6),
wherein the opaque-material member includes a first opening corresponding to the first emission area (see e.g., the anti-color mixing member has a first opening corresponding to the first light-emitting are LA1, Figure 6), includes a second opening corresponding to the second emission area (see e.g., the anti-color mixing member has a second opening corresponding to the second light-emitting are LA2, Figure 6) and includes a third opening corresponding to the third emission area (see e.g., the anti-color mixing member has a third opening corresponding to the third light-emitting are LA3, Figure 6), the first quantum dot layer fills the first opening (see e.g., the first wavelength conversion pattern 330 fills the first opening, Figure 6), the second quantum dot layer fills the second opening (see e.g., the second wavelength conversion pattern 330 fills the second opening, Figure 6), and the light transmission layer fills the third opening (see e.g., the light transmission pattern 350 fills the third opening, Figure 6).
Regarding claim 11, Song, as modified by Sun and Choi, teaches the limitations of claim 9 as mentioned above. Song further teaches
wherein the first light-emitting element, the second light-emitting element, and the third light-emitting element emit light in a same wavelength band (see e.g., The first organic light-emitting diode ED1, the second organic light-emitting diode ED2 and the third organic light-emitting diode ED3 may provide the light of the first color L1, e.g., blue light to the color conversion substrate 30, Para [0124], Figure 6).
Claims 12-13, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (US 2020/0212113 A1; hereafter Song) in view of Sun et al. (US 2022/0336780 A1; hereafter Sun), Choi et al. (US 2014/0339509 A1; hereafter Choi) and further in view of Park et al. (US 2018/0012940 A1; hereafter Park).
Regarding claim 12, Song, as modified by Sun and Choi, teaches the limitations of claim 1 as mentioned above. Song further teaches
further comprising: a first inorganic layer (see e.g., a first encapsulation inorganic layer 171, Para [0126], Figure 6); and an organic layer (see e.g., an encapsulation organic layer 173, Para [0126], Figure 6)
Song does not explicitly teach
“an organic layer arranged between the first inorganic layer and the refractive layer”.
In a similar field of endeavor Park teaches
an organic layer arranged between the first inorganic layer and the refractive layer (see e.g., organic encapsulation layer 320 arranged between the first inorganic layer encapsulation layer 310 and the second lens layer 420, Paras [0045], [0049], Figure 2)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement Park’s teachings of an organic layer arranged between the first inorganic layer and the refractive layer in the device of Song in order to protect the OLEDs from being damaged by the external moisture or oxygen etc.
Regarding claim 13, Song, as modified by Sun, Choi and Park, teaches the limitations of claim 12 as mentioned above. Song further teaches
further comprising a second inorganic layer (see e.g., second encapsulation inorganic layer 175, Para [0126], Figure 6),
Song does not explicitly teach
“wherein the refractive layer is directly arranged on the second inorganic layer”.
In a similar field of endeavor Park teaches
wherein the refractive layer is directly arranged on the second inorganic layer (see e.g., second lens layer 420 is directly arranged on the second inorganic encapsulation layer 330, Paras [0045], [0049], Figure 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement Park’s teachings of wherein the refractive layer is directly arranged on the second inorganic layer in the device of Song in order to protect the OLEDs from being damaged by the external moisture or oxygen etc.
Regarding claim 15, Song, as modified by Sun, Choi and Park, teaches the limitations of claim 12 as mentioned above. Song further teaches
further comprising a filler between the first substrate and the second substrate (see e.g., filler 70 between the first base 110 and the second base 310, Paras [0070] – [0071], Figure 6).
Regarding claim 17, Song, as modified by Sun, Choi and Park, teaches the limitations of claim 15 as mentioned above. Song does not explicitly teach
“wherein the filler is between the refractive layer and the first quantum dot layer”.
In a similar field of endeavor Sun teaches
wherein the filler is between the refractive layer and the first quantum dot layer (see e.g., filling layer 27 and the overlay layer OC are between the second refractive index layer 24 and the filter portions 251. The filter portions 251 include only a scattering particle layer, and the remaining filter portions 251 each include a quantum dot layer mixed with scattering particles, Para [0058], Figure 2)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement Sun’s teachings of wherein the filler is between the refractive layer and the first quantum dot layer in the device of Song to achieve crucial functions related to both the physical structure and optical performance of the display.
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 FAKEHA SEHAR whose telephone number is (571)272-4033. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00 am - 5:00 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, Yara J. Green can be reached on (571) 270-3035. 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.
/FAKEHA SEHAR/ Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/YARA B GREEN/ Supervisor Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
