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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/19/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgment is made of the amendment filed 01/19/2026, in which: claims 1 and 6 are amended; claims 10-20 stand withdrawn; and the rejection of the claims are traversed. Claims 1-9 are currently pending an Office action on the merits as follows.
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US Publication 20210012706) in view of Ju et al. (US Publication 20180083227) and Jeong (US Publication 20160240589).
Regarding independent claim 1, Yang teaches a display device (fig. 1) comprising:
a substrate (fig. 9, bottom most layer) including a first display area (fig. 1, A1), a second display area (A22), which is surrounded by the first display area and includes a light-transmitting part (paragraph 0029, “a camera may be provided at a position on a back side of the display panel corresponding to the light-transmitting display area A2”), and a third display area (A21), which is disposed between the first display area and the second display area (fig. 1), wherein the light-transmitting part transmits light therethrough (paragraph 0029, “then light beams required for imaging by the camera may reach the camera from a front side of the display panel through the light-transmitting display area A2”);
a first subpixel (fig. 2, 11) including a first thin-film transistor (TFT) (fig. 4, T1’), which is disposed on the first display area of the substrate, and a first light-emitting element (fig. 2, 111), which is disposed on the first TFT and is electrically connected to the first TFT (paragraph 0044);
a second subpixel (21 in A22) including a second TFT (fig. 5, T1 inside 22b), which is disposed on the third display area of the substrate, and a second light-emitting element (fig. 2, 211 in A22), which is disposed on the second display area of the substrate and does not overlap with the second TFT in a plan view (fig. 2, T1 of second driving pixel circuit 22 does not overlap with 211 in A22);
a first transparent conductive layer (31, paragraph 0057) disposed between the second TFT and the second light-emitting element to electrically connect the second TFT and the second light-emitting element (fig. 2).
Yang does not teach a thin-film encapsulation layer including a first encapsulation inorganic layer, which is disposed on the first and second subpixels, an encapsulation organic layer, which is disposed on the first encapsulation inorganic layer, and a second encapsulation inorganic layer, which is disposed on the encapsulation organic layer; and wherein each of the first encapsulation inorganic layer, the encapsulation organic layer, and the second encapsulation inorganic layer has a refractive index of about 1.5 to about 1.7, and the refractive index of the encapsulation organic layer is greater than or equal to the refractive index of the first encapsulation inorganic layer, the second light-emitting element includes a second cathode, which is disposed below the first encapsulation inorganic layer, the display device further comprises an optical compensation layer, which is disposed between the second cathode and the first encapsulation inorganic layer, the optical compensation layer includes a low refractive index layer, which is disposed on the second cathode, and a high refractive index layer, which is disposed between the low refractive index layer and the first encapsulation inorganic layer, the low refractive index layer has a refractive index of about 1.5 or less, and the high refractive index layer has a refractive index of about 1.8 or greater.
Ju teaches a thin-film encapsulation layer (fig. 2, 300) including a first encapsulation inorganic layer (311), which is disposed on the first and second subpixels (paragraph 0059), an encapsulation organic layer (321), which is disposed on the first encapsulation inorganic layer, and a second encapsulation inorganic layer (312), which is disposed on the encapsulation organic layer (fig. 2); and
wherein each of the first encapsulation inorganic layer, the encapsulation organic layer, and the second encapsulation inorganic layer has a refractive index of about 1.5 to about 1.7 (paragraph 0061, claimed range overlap with ranges disclosed by Ju and thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists per MPEP 2144.05), and the refractive index of the encapsulation organic layer is greater than or equal to the refractive index of the first encapsulation inorganic layer (paragraph 0061, 1.66 is greater than 1.6), the second light-emitting element includes a second cathode (fig. 3, 213), which is disposed below the first encapsulation inorganic layer (fig. 3), the display device further comprises an optical compensation layer (330), which is disposed between the second cathode and the first encapsulation inorganic layer (fig. 3, 330 disposed between second cathode 213 and first encapsulation inorganic layer 311).
Jeong teaches the optical compensation layer (fig. 4, 150) includes a low refractive index layer (152a), which is disposed on the second cathode (140), and a high refractive index layer (152b), which is disposed between the low refractive index layer and the first encapsulation inorganic layer (fig. 4, 152b disposed between 152a and 160 which contains first encapsulation inorganic layer of Ju, see also paragraph 0070), the low refractive index layer has a refractive index of about 1.5 or less (paragraph 0082, claimed range overlap with ranges disclosed by Jeong and thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists per MPEP 2144.05), and the high refractive index layer has a refractive index of about 1.8 or greater (paragraph 0085, “first high-refractive-index layer 152b and the second refractive-index layer 154 may have a refractive index in a range of about 1.8 to about 3.0”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the display device of Yang, the thin-film encapsulation layer of Ju, and the optical compensation layer of Jeong in order to reduce light reflection at an interfacial surface between the inorganic layer and organic layer (Ju paragraph 0062) and assist in efficient dissipation of light generated in the organic light emitting layer (Jeong paragraph 0062).
Regarding dependent claim 7, Yang in view of Ju and Jeong teaches the display device of claim 1.
Yang in view of Ju and Jeong does not explicitly teach wherein the encapsulation organic layer has a haze of about 4% or less, however, Ju discloses the encapsulation organic layer to have a refractive index of 1.66 or greater (paragraph 0061), and changes in refractive index can affect the haze percentage.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to derive the haze percentage with routine experiment and optimization. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Boesch, 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).
Regarding dependent claim 8, Yang in view of Ju and Jeong teaches the display device of claim 1.
Yang in view of Ju and Jeong does not explicitly teach wherein the encapsulation organic layer has a peak-to-valley (P-V) wavefront value of 2 micrometers (µm), however, Ju discloses the encapsulation organic layer to have a refractive index of 1.66 or greater (paragraph 0061), and changes in refractive index can affect the P-V wavefront value.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to derive the peak-to-valley (P-V) wavefront value with routine experiment and optimization. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Boesch, 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).
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Ju and Jeong as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Byun et al. (US Publication 20210083012).
Regarding dependent claim 2, Yang in view of Ju and Jeong teaches the display device of claim 1.
Yang in view of Ju and Jeong does not teach further comprising: a touch sensor layer disposed on the thin-film encapsulation layer, wherein the touch sensor layer includes a first touch insulating layer, which is disposed on the second encapsulation inorganic layer, a first touch conductive layer, which is disposed on the first touch insulating layer, a second touch insulating layer, which is disposed on the first touch conductive layer, a second touch conductive layer, which is disposed on the second touch insulating layer, and a touch protection layer, which is disposed on the second touch conductive layer, the first and second touch conductive layers do not overlap with the light-transmitting part in the plan view, and each of the first touch insulating layer, the second touch insulating layer, and the touch protection layer has a refractive index of about 1.5 to about 1.7.
Byun teaches further comprising:
a touch sensor layer (fig. 6 TU) disposed on the thin-film encapsulation layer (paragraph 0079), wherein the touch sensor layer includes a first touch insulating layer (fig. 10 430), which is disposed on the second encapsulation inorganic layer (330), a first touch conductive layer (CTL1), which is disposed on the first touch insulating layer, a second touch insulating layer (440), which is disposed on the first touch conductive layer, a second touch conductive layer (CTL2), which is disposed on the second touch insulating layer, and a touch protection layer (410), which is disposed on the second touch conductive layer, the first and second touch conductive layers do not overlap with the light-transmitting part in the plan view (fig. 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the display device of Yang in view of Ju and Jeong and the touch sensor layer of Byun in order to obtain coordinate information of an external input (Byun paragraph 0062).
Yang in view of Ju and Byun does not explicitly teach each of the first touch insulating layer, the second touch insulating layer, and the touch protection layer has a refractive index of about 1.5 to about 1.7, however, Byun discloses “420 may have a first refractive index, and the organic layer 450 may have a second refractive index that is greater than the first refractive index… the first refractive index may be equal to or greater than 1.5 and less than or equal to 1.55, and the second refractive index may be equal to or greater than 1.65 and less than or equal to 1.74” (paragraph 0120).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to derive the refractive index range of the first touch insulating layer, the second touch insulating layer, and touch protection layer with routine experiment and optimization. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Boesch, 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).
Regarding dependent claim 3, Byun further teaches the display device of claim 2, further comprising:
an overcoat layer (fig. 10 420 and 450) disposed on the touch sensor layer, wherein the overcoat layer includes an overcoat material layer (420), and the overcoat material layer has a refractive index of about 1.5 to about 1.7 (paragraph 0120, range falls within specified range).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the display device of Yang in view of Ju and Jeong and the overcoat layer of Byun per the reason(s) stated above in claim 2.
Regarding dependent claim 4, Yang in view of Ju and Jeong and further in view of Byun teaches the display device of claim 3.
Yang in view of Ju and Jeong and further in view of Byun does not explicitly teach wherein the first encapsulation inorganic layer, the encapsulation organic layer, the second encapsulation inorganic layer, the first touch insulating layer, the second touch insulating layer, the touch protection layer, and the overcoat layer have the same refractive index, however, Ju and Byun disclose the first encapsulation inorganic layer, the encapsulation organic layer, the second encapsulation inorganic layer, the first touch insulating layer, the second touch insulating layer, the touch protection layer, and the overcoat layer to fall within the same specified range (see Ju paragraph 0061 and Byun paragraph 0120).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to derive the same refractive index for the first encapsulation inorganic layer, the encapsulation organic layer, the second encapsulation inorganic layer, the first touch insulating layer, the second touch insulating layer, the touch protection layer, and the overcoat layer with routine experiment and optimization. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Boesch, 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).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Ju and Jeong as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ma et al. (CN Publication 111785853/Machine Translation Document of 06/26/2025).
Regarding dependent claim 5, Yang further teaches the display device of claim 1, further comprising:
a third subpixel (fig. 2, 21 in A21) including a third TFT (fig. 5, T1 in 22c), which is disposed on the third display area of the substrate (fig. 2) and a third light-emitting element (212 in A22), which is disposed on the second display area of the substrate and does not overlap with the third TFT in the plan view (fig. 2).
Yang in view of Ju and Jeong does not teach a second transparent conductive layer disposed between the third TFT and the third light-emitting element to electrically connect the third TFT and the third light-emitting element; a first via-insulating layer disposed between the substrate and the second and third light-emitting elements; and a third via-insulating layer disposed between the first via-insulating layer and the second light-emitting element and between the first via-insulating layer and the third light-emitting element, wherein the second light-emitting element of the second subpixel and the third light-emitting element of the third subpixel are spaced apart from each other by the light-transmitting part, the first transparent conductive layer is disposed between the first via-insulating layer and the substrate, and the second transparent conductive layer is disposed between the first via-insulating layer and the third via-insulating layer.
Ma teaches a second transparent conductive layer (fig. 2, 3020) disposed between the third TFT and the third light-emitting element to electrically connect the third TFT and the third light-emitting element (fig. 10, 7201 which occupies space for third TFT of Yang connected to anode 771 which occupies space for anode of third light-emitting element of Yang via 300 which correlates to second transparent conductive layer 3020);
a first via-insulating layer (fig. 16, 730) disposed between the substrate and the second and third light-emitting elements; and
a third via-insulating layer (750) disposed between the first via-insulating layer and the second light-emitting element and between the first via-insulating layer and the third light-emitting element,
wherein the second light-emitting element of the second subpixel and the third light-emitting element of the third subpixel are spaced apart from each other by the light-transmitting part (fig. 16, 7735 occupies space for light-transmitting part of Yang), the first transparent conductive layer is disposed between the first via-insulating layer and the substrate (fig. 16), and the second transparent conductive layer is disposed between the first via-insulating layer and the third via-insulating layer (fig. 16, 300 occupies space for transparent conductive layer structure of fig. 2 and therefore 3020 is disposed between 730 and 750).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the display device of Yang in view of Ju and Jeong and the second transparent conductive layer, first via-insulating layer, and the third via-insulating layer of Ma in order to have “high light transmission uniformity at the optical component area, improve the light transmission uniformity of the light transmission area in the optical component area, so as to improve the optical component area corresponding to the optical device to collect image effect” (Ma machine translation document, page 15 paragraph 4).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Ju and Ma as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Chung et al. (US Publication 20200357871).
Regarding dependent claim 6, Ma further teaches the display device of claim 5, wherein the first light-emitting element includes a first cathode (fig. 10, 773), which is disposed below the first encapsulation inorganic layer (773 corresponds to 213 of Ju which is disposed below first encapsulation inorganic layer 311 of Ju, see Ju fig. 2), and the second light emitting element includes a second cathode (Ma machine translation document page 10 paragraph 7, “light emitting device provided by the embodiment of the invention may include an anode 771, a light emitting layer 772 and a cathode 773” therefore second light-emitting element of Yang includes a second cathode), which is disposed below the first encapsulation inorganic layer (second cathode corresponds to 213 of Ju which is disposed below first encapsulation inorganic layer 311 of Ju, see Ju fig. 2).
Yang in view of Ju and Jeong and further in view of Ma does not teach and is defined in the second cathode-
Chung teaches an opening (fig. 12, 210)and is defined in the second cathode (23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the display device of Yang in view of Ju and Ma and the low/high refractive index layers of Chung in order to better sense infrared rays (Chung paragraph 0158).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Ju and Jeong as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chung.
Regarding dependent claim 9, Yang in view of Ju and Jeong teaches the display device of claim 1.
Yang in view of Ju and Jeong does not teach further comprising: an optical device disposed below the substrate, wherein the optical device is disposed to overlap with the second display area of the substrate in the plan view.
Chung teaches further comprising: an optical device (fig. 2, 10) disposed below the substrate (140), wherein the optical device is disposed to overlap with the second display area (210) of the substrate in the plan view. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the display device of Yang in view of Ju and Jeong and the optical device of Chung in order to increase light transmittance in the light-transmitting area (Chung paragraph 0085).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see 12, filed 01/19/2026, with respect to the title have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of 11/26/2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-9 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection (Amendments).
Applicant’s arguments filed 01/19/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 16-17 of the instant Remarks: “In particular, FIG. 13 of Chung the Examiner relies on merely discloses that the intermediate layer 24-1 (allegedly corresponding to the recited "low refractive index layer") is disposed between the common film organic passivation layer 24 (allegedly corresponding to the recited "high refractive index layer") and the first encapsulation layer 31a (allegedly corresponding to the recited "first encapsulation inorganic layer"), different from the present claim 1. In other words, neither Yang, Ju nor Chung, either alone or in any combination thereof, disclose, teach or suggest "the optical compensation layer includes a low refractive index layer, which is disposed on the second cathode, and a high refractive index layer, which is disposed between the low refractive index layer and the first encapsulation inorganic layer, the low refractive index layer has a refractive index of about 1.5 or less, and the high refractive index layer has a refractive index of about 1.8 or greater," as recited in independent claim 1, discussed above.”.
However, Jeong discloses, teaches, or suggests Jeong teaches “a high refractive index layer (fig. 4, 152b), which is disposed between the low refractive index layer (152a) and the first encapsulation inorganic layer (160 contains first encapsulation inorganic layer of Ju, see also paragraph 0070), the low refractive index layer has a refractive index of about 1.5 or less (paragraph 0082, claimed range overlap with ranges disclosed by Jeong and thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists per MPEP 2144.05), and the high refractive index layer has a refractive index of about 1.8 or greater (paragraph 0085, “first high-refractive-index layer 152b and the second refractive-index layer 154 may have a refractive index in a range of about 1.8 to about 3.0”). Therefore, claim 1, along with dependent claims 2-9, define over the cited references and stand unpatentable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRACE Y CHA whose telephone number is (703)756-5393. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm and every other Friday 8:00 am - 4:00 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, Jacob Choi can be reached at (469) 295-9060. 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.
/GRACE CHA/Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/JACOB Y CHOI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights