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
The Office acknowledges receipt on 19 December 2025 of Applicants’ amendments in which claims 1, 13, and 16 are amended, claim 15 is cancelled, and claim 21 is newly added.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 19 December 2025 with respect to independent claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants argue in the last paragraph of page 7 through the first paragraph of page 11 that each of Kim, Park, He, and Kim ‘579 does not teach the subject matter newly added to claim 1 whereby: “a content of the first metal particles including the same metal material as the encapsulation substrate decreases as a distance away from the encapsulation substrate increases.” Amended claim 1 is rejected as being obvious over the combined teachings of Kim, Park, He, and Kim ‘579 and recites, in relevant part, “a content of the first metal particles including the same metal material as the encapsulation substrate decreases as a distance away from the encapsulation substrate increases.” Obviousness can be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. MPEP §2143.01. As this principle applies to the present circumstance, Kim teaches in Fig. 3 a surface particle layer (700) surrounding at least a portion of the encapsulation substrate (600), the surface particle layer (700) including metal particles (701b) dispersed at a surface of the encapsulation substrate (600) {¶0074, 0085}. Park provides a teaching and motivation in paragraphs [0033], [0034], and [0043] to modify Kim’s device such that the first particles include a same metal as the encapsulation substrate. He provides a teaching and motivation in Figs. 1 and 2 paragraphs [0076] to modify the combined teachings of Kim and Park such that the metal particles include first metal particles and second metal particles. Accordingly, the teachings identified immediately above are such that Kim’s modified device of Fig. 3 would include first metal particles including the same metal material as the encapsulation substrate within Kim’s surface particle layer (700), which is disposed directly beneath Kim’s encapsulation substrate (600). Kim, alone or in combination with the teachings identified immediately above, does not teach the existence of the first metal particles in Kim’s layer (100), layer (500), or in any layers therebetween. Thus, it follows that, with respect to the combination of teachings discussed above, “a content of the first metal particles including the same metal material as the encapsulation substrate [(600)] decreases as a distance away from the encapsulation substrate [(600)] increases” because: (1) Kim’s surface particle layer (700), which is disposed directly beneath and in contact with the encapsulation substrate (600), has the first metal particles and (2) Kim’s layer(s) {e.g., layer (100)/(110)/(120)/(130)/(140)/ or (500)} that is/(are) farther beneath the encapsulation substrate (600), than is the surface particle layer (700), has/(have) no first metal particles.
Applicants argue in the second paragraph of page 11 that the combined teachings of Kim, Park, He, and Kim ‘579 do not teach the subject matter newly added to claim 1 whereby: “a content of the first metal particles including the same metal material as the encapsulation substrate decreases as a distance away from the encapsulation substrate increases” because such combination would necessarily require “improper hindsight reconstruction.” Any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based on hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. MPEP 2145(X)(A). As this principle applies to the present circumstance, the preceding paragraph explains why the rejection of amended claim 1 takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure. Specifically, e.g., the combined teachings of Kim and Park discussed in the preceding paragraph suffice for teaching the claimed subject matter at issue in this paragraph, without any knowledge gleaned … from applicant’s disclosure.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US20190103583A1) in view of Park et al. (US20160359134A1), He et al. (US20220216124A1), and Kim et al. (US20190103579A1) (“Kim ‘579”).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches in Fig. 3 a display apparatus comprising:
at least one light-emitting device (300) on a device substrate (100) {¶0035, 0053};
an encapsulating element (500) on the device substrate (100), the encapsulating element (500) covering the light-emitting device (300) {¶0066};
an encapsulation substrate (600) on the encapsulating element (500), the encapsulation substrate (600) including a metal (e.g., Al) {¶0073}; and
a surface particle layer (700) surrounding at least a portion of the encapsulation substrate (600), the surface particle layer (700) including metal particles (701b) dispersed at a surface of the encapsulation substrate (600) {¶0074, 0085}.
Kim does not teach the metal particles include first metal particles including a same material as the encapsulation substrate.
Park teaches in paragraph [0033] a metal encapsulant having a metal foil and a metal coating. Park also teaches in paragraph [0034] the metal foil may be made of FeNi alloys, FeCr alloys, or FeCu alloys. Additionally, Park teaches in paragraph [0043] metal particles, within the metal coating, may include a metal selected from the group consisting of aluminum (Al), copper (Cu), silver (Ag), gold (Au), iron (Fe), tin (Sn), zinc (Zn) and nickel (Ni), or an alloy including one or more types of these metal particles. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s display apparatus based on the teachings of Park – such that the first particles include a same metal as the encapsulation substrate – to reduce the number of materials and cost of manufacture. Moreover, Park teaches in paragraph [0033] the metal encapsulant having good heat dissipation properties; accordingly, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kyoung’s display apparatus based on the teachings of Park – such that the first particles include a same metal as the encapsulation substrate – because [t]he selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Kim as modified by Park does not teach the metal particles include first metal particles and second metal particles having a higher thermal conductivity than the first metal particles.
In an analogous, He teaches in Figs. 1 and 2 and paragraph [0076] a surface particle layer having metal particles of different compositions, including both first metal particles (e.g., Cu) and second metal particles (e.g., Ag). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s display apparatus as modified by Park based on the teachings of He – such that the metal particles include first metal particles and second metal particles – because all the claimed elements (e.g., first and second metal particles) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by He) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). A consequence of this modification, presuming the first metal particles are copper and the second metal particles are silver, is that the second metal particles have a higher thermal conductivity than the first metal particles.
Kim as modified by Park and He does not teach the surface particle layer has a thermal conductivity that is higher than a thermal conductivity of the encapsulation substrate.
In an analogous art, Kim ‘579 teaches in Fig. 2 and paragraph [0068] the metal particles 700m dispersed on the outer surface of the encapsulating substrate 600 may have a thermal conductivity higher than the additional compensating layer formed on the encapsulating substrate 600. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s display apparatus as modified by Park and He based on the teachings of Kim ‘579 – such that the surface particle layer has a thermal conductivity that is higher than a thermal conductivity of the encapsulation substrate – so the damage of the light-emitting element … due to the external impact may be prevented … [and] the heat radiation efficiency and the reliability may be improved. Kim ‘579 ¶0068.
Kim as modified by Park, He, and Kim ‘579 does not teach expressly teach that a content of the first metal particles including the same metal material as the encapsulation substrate decreases as a distance away from the encapsulation substrate increases.
However, a consequence of the modification(s) discussed above (specifically, e.g., the modification of Kim’s device based on the teachings of Park) is that that Kim’s modified device of Fig. 3 would include [first] metal particles including the same metal material as the encapsulation substrate within Kim’s surface particle layer (700), which is disposed directly beneath Kim’s encapsulation substrate (600). Kim, alone or in combination with the teachings identified immediately above, does not teach the existence of the first metal particles in Kim’s layer (100), layer (500), or in any layers therebetween. Thus, it follows that, with respect to the combination of teachings discussed above, “a content of the first metal particles including the same metal material as the encapsulation substrate [(600)] decreases as a distance away from the encapsulation substrate [(600)] increases” because: (1) Kim’s surface particle layer (700), which is disposed directly beneath and in contact with Kim’s encapsulation substrate (600), has the first metal particles and (2) Kim’s layer(s) {e.g., layer (100)/(110)/(120)/(130)/(140)/ or (500)} that is/(are) farther beneath the encapsulation substrate (600), than is the surface particle layer (700), has/(have) no first metal particles.
Regarding claim 2, Kim as modified by Park, He, and Kim ‘579 teaches the display apparatus according to claim 1, but Kim does not teach wherein a surface roughness of the surface particle layer is greater than a surface roughness of the encapsulation substrate.
Kim ‘579 teaches in Fig. 2 and paragraph [¶0069] a surface roughness of a surface particle layer (700) is greater than a surface roughness of an encapsulation substrate (600). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s display apparatus as modified by Park, He, and Kim ‘579 based on the further teachings of Kim ‘579 – such that a surface roughness of the surface particle layer is greater than a surface roughness of the encapsulation substrate – so that damage due to a rough surface may be prevented. Kim ‘579 ¶0069. Moreover, the modification similarly would be obvious because all the claimed elements (e.g., surface roughness, surface particle layer, encapsulation layer) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Kim ‘579), with no change in their respective functions (e.g., of providing thermal conductivity, rigidity, and encapsulation), to yield nothing more than predictable results. MPEP ¶2143(I)(A).
Examiner’s Note: “The Examiner is authorized to make a finding of relative dimensions that are, as here, clearly depicted in a drawing.” Ex parte Wright, 091818 USPTAB, 2017-001093 (Patent Trial and Appeal Board Decisions, 2018). A drawing is evaluated on the basis of what it reasonably discloses and suggests to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 914 (CCPA 1979).
Regarding claim 3, Kim as modified by Park, He, and Kim ‘579 teaches the display apparatus according to claim 1, but Kim does not teach wherein the second metal particles have different size from the first metal particles.
He teaches in paragraphs [0025] and [0027] the second metal particles have a different size from the first metal particles. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s display apparatus as modified by Park, He, and Kim ‘579 based on the further teachings of He – such that the second metal particles have a different size from the first metal particles – because all the claimed elements (e.g., first and second metal particles) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by He) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 5, Kim as modified by Park, He, and Kim ‘579 teaches the display apparatus according to claim 1, and Kim further teaches wherein the encapsulating element (500) is in contact with the surface particle layer, and wherein at least a portion of the surface particle layer (700) is disposed outside of the encapsulating element (500) {¶0074}.
Regarding claim 12, Kim as modified by Park, He, and Kim ‘579 teaches the display apparatus according to claim 1, but Kim does not teach wherein the surface particle layer fully surrounds the encapsulation substrate.
Kim ‘579 teaches in Figs. 1 and 2 and paragraph [0068] a metal coating layer 700 may be disposed on an outer surface of the encapsulating substrate 600 …. The metal coating layer 700 may include metal particles 700m dispersed on the outer surface of the encapsulating substrate 600. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s display apparatus as modified by Park, He, and Kim ‘579 based on the further teachings of Kim ‘579 – such that the surface particle layer fully surrounds the encapsulation substrate – to increase the thermal conductivity of the encapsulation substrate. Kim ‘579 ¶0068.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Park, He, and Kim ‘579 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jo et al. (US20150064826A1).
Regarding claim 4, Kim as modified by Park, He, and Kim ‘579 teaches the display apparatus according to claim 1, but Kim does not teach wherein the first metal particles or the second metal particles have an ovoid shape, and remaining metal particles among the first metal particles or the second metal particles have a spherical shape.
In an analogous art, Jo teaches in Fig. 1 and paragraph [0082] that metal nanoparticles come in various diameters, and can have any shape such as a circular or oval. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s display apparatus as modified by Park, He, and Kim ‘579 based on the teachings of Jo – such that the first metal particles or the second metal particles have an ovoid shape, and remaining metal particles among the first metal particles or the second metal particles have a spherical shape – because all the claimed elements (e.g., metal particles of ovoid shape and spherical shape) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Jo), with no change in their respective functions (e.g., of providing thermal conductivity), to yield nothing more than predictable results. MPEP ¶2143(I)(A).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Park, He, and Kim ‘579 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US20170186992A1) and Ao et al. (US20200243795A1).
Regarding claim 6, Kim as modified by Park, He, and Kim ‘579 teaches the display apparatus according to claim 1, and Kim further teaches wherein the encapsulation substrate (500) includes a lower surface facing toward the device substrate (100), an upper surface opposite to the device substrate (100), and a side surface between the lower surface and the upper surface {Fig. 3}.
Kim does not teach wherein the surface particle layer includes a lower particle layer disposed at the lower surface of the encapsulation substrate, an upper particle layer disposed at the upper surface of the encapsulation substrate, and a side particle layer disposed at the side surface of the encapsulation substrate.
In an analogous art, Lee teaches in Fig. 17 and paragraph [0159] a surface layer (RHP-5) includes a lower portion disposed at the lower surface of the encapsulation substrate (BC, PB), an upper portion disposed at the upper surface of the encapsulation substrate (BC, PB), and a side portion disposed at the side surface of the encapsulation substrate (BC, PB). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s display apparatus as modified by Park, He, and Kim ‘579 based on the teachings of Lee – such that a surface layer includes a lower portion disposed at the lower surface of the encapsulation substrate, an upper portion disposed at the upper surface of the encapsulation substrate, and a side portion disposed at the side surface of the encapsulation substrate – to radiate heat from a warm region to a cooler region. Lee ¶0120.
Kim ‘579 teaches in Figs. 1 and 2 and paragraph [0068] a metal coating layer 700 may be disposed on an outer surface of the encapsulating substrate 600 …. The metal coating layer 700 may include metal particles 700m dispersed on the outer surface of the encapsulating substrate 600. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s display apparatus as modified by Park, He, Kim ‘579, and Lee based on the further teachings of Kim ‘579 – such that the surface layer is a particle layer – to increase the thermal conductivity of the surface layer. Kim ‘579 ¶0068.
Kim as modified above does not teach a surface roughness of the lower particle layer is greater than a surface roughness of the upper particle layer.
In an analogous art, Ao teaches in paragraph [0063] that increasing a surface roughness of a heat dissipation layer increases its adhesion force with another component. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s display apparatus as modified by Park, He, Kim ‘579, and Lee based on the teachings of Ao – such that a surface roughness of the lower particle layer is greater than a surface roughness of the upper particle layer – so as to increase the adhesion force between the lower particle layer and the underlying and attached component.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Park, He, Kim ‘579, Lee, and Ao as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Song et al. (US20200035948A1).
Regarding claim 7, Kim as modified by Park, He, Kim ‘579, Lee, and Ao teaches the display apparatus according to claim 6, but Kim does not teach wherein a surface roughness of the side particle layer is different than the surface roughness of the upper particle layer.
In an analogous art, Song teaches in paragraph [0057] increasing surface roughness increases optical extraction efficiency. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s display apparatus as modified by Park, He, Kim ‘579, Lee, and Ao based on the teachings of Song – such that a surface roughness of the side particle layer is different than the surface roughness of the upper particle layer – to increase the optical extraction efficiency in the direction of light travel.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Park, He, Kim ‘579, Lee, and Ao as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Kang et al. (US20200388783A1).
Regarding claim 8, Kim as modified by Park, He, Kim ‘579, Lee, and Ao teaches the display apparatus according to claim 6, but Kim does not teach wherein a thermal conductivity of the upper particle layer is higher than a thermal conductivity of the lower particle layer.
In an analogous art, Kang teaches in paragraph [0183] a heat dissipation member having a high thermal conductivity for efficiently dissipating heat, generated in a pixel layer, to the outside. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s display apparatus as modified by Park, He, Kim ‘579, Lee, and Ao based on the teachings of Kang – such that a thermal conductivity of the upper particle layer is higher than a thermal conductivity of the lower particle layer – for conducting heat generated by the light-emitting device to the high-thermal-conductivity upper particle layer for dissipation to the outside. Lee ¶0120; Kang ¶0183.
Examiner’s Note: Conductivity of materials will naturally direct heat to material having highest thermal conductivity, as explained by Lee. Conduction indicates a phenomenon by which the heat is transferred by the transfer of movement of molecules. That is, the heat is transferred to a low temperature object or portion thereof from a high temperature object or portion thereof without involving the movement of materials. Lee ¶0120.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Park, He, Kim ‘579, Lee, Ao, and Kang as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Mo et al. (US20170222182A1).
Regarding claim 9, Kim as modified by Park, He, Kim ‘579, Lee, Ao, and Kang teaches the display apparatus according to claim 8, but Kim does not teach wherein a thermal conductivity of the side particle layer is different than the thermal conductivity of the upper particle layer.
In an analogous art, Mo teaches in Fig. 14 and paragraph [0083] a plurality of light-emitting devices disposed side-by-side in a row on a substrate and each of the light-emitting devices has an encapsulation layer disposed thereon. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s display apparatus as modified by Park, He, Kim ‘579, Lee, Ao, and Kang based on the teachings of Mo such that multiple rows of light-emitting devices having encapsulation layers thereon are disposed in an array so as to display imagery as produced by different combinations of the light-emitting devices displaying light.
As discussed above with respect to intermediate claim 7, Kang teaches in paragraph [0183] a heat dissipation member having a high thermal conductivity for efficiently dissipating heat, generated in a pixel layer, to the outside. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s display apparatus as modified by Park, He, Kim ‘579, Lee, Ao, Kang, and Mo based on the further teachings of Kang – such that a thermal conductivity of the side particle layer is different than the thermal conductivity of the upper particle layer – for conducting heat generated by the light-emitting device to the high-thermal-conductivity upper particle layer for dissipation to the outside (up and away from the somewhat planar structure of the light-emitting device array) and away from side-ways adjacent light-emitting devices (which are also producing heat). Lee ¶0120; Kang ¶0183.
Examiner’s Note: Conductivity of materials will naturally direct heat to material having highest thermal conductivity, as explained by Lee. Conduction indicates a phenomenon by which the heat is transferred by the transfer of movement of molecules. That is, the heat is transferred to a low temperature object or portion thereof from a high temperature object or portion thereof without involving the movement of materials. Lee ¶0120.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13, 14, and 17-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art does not teach the feature recited in claim 13 whereby “each of the lower particle layer and the upper particle layer includes a first particle layer in contact with the encapsulation substrate and a second particle layer on the first particle layer, and wherein a content of the first particles in the second particle layer is less than a content of the first particles in the first particle layer” in combination with the features of base claim 13. Claims 14 and 17-20 depend from base claim 13.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claim 21 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art does not teach the feature recited in claim 21 whereby “the surface particle layer includes first particle layer and a second particle layer, the first particle layer being between the encapsulation substrate and the second particle layer, and the second particle layer being between the first particle layer and the encapsulating element, wherein each of the first and second particle layers includes the first and second metal particles, and wherein a content of the first metal particles in the first particle layer is greater than a content of the first metal particles in the second particle layer.”
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mok et al. (US20220393139A1) teaches an encapsulation film, a method for manufacturing the same, an organic electronic device comprising the same, and a method for manufacturing the organic electronic device using the same are provided, where the encapsulation film allows forming a structure capable of blocking moisture or oxygen penetrating into an organic electronic device from outside and prevents generation of bright spots in the organic electronic device. But Mok does not teach the above-identified subject matter of claims 13 and 21.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID WARD whose telephone number is (703)756-1382. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30-3:30 EST.
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, Matthew Landau can be reached at (571)-272-1731. 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.
/D.W.W./Examiner, Art Unit 2891
/MATTHEW C LANDAU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2891