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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A drawn to Fig (5) and the corresponding claims 1-20 in the reply filed on 12/01/2025 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/14/2022 was filed after the mailing date of the application on 10/14/2022. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 13 and all subsequently dependent claims (14) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention
Regarding claim 13;
Claim 13 recites the limitations: “…a light emitting element; a low refractive layer above the display element layer...” and “… low refractive valley…” (emphasis added). The language used to express the limitations in the claim fails to specify the details of what characterizes the layer. Refraction is a phenomenon that pertains to wave motion through a material or more specifically at the boundary between different materials. Referring to a layer as “low refractive layer” or “low refractive valley” leaves a crucial aspect of the characterization out of the description. One can legitimately ask the question of what is the characteristic that is described by low refractive for the layer? Does the Applicant mean that the layer has a low refractive index? Or is it that the layer produces low refractive errors, for example? This language presents a problem in defining the metes and bounds of the claim and consequently of the invention rendering the claim indefinite in scope. The applicant is reminded that the dependence on the specifications listing some of these details is not sufficient given that it is improper to import claim limitations from the specifications see MPEP 2111.01. For the sake of advancing prosecution by examining the claim on merits, the examiner is considering the limitation to be “low refractive index layer”
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 1-9, 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al, US 20190288043 A1 (Shin) in view of Hou et al, CN 112467005 A (Hou).
Regarding claim 1; Shin teaches a display device (DP) comprising: a substrate (SUB)+(IL); a pixel (PXA) on the substrate (SUB)+(IL) in a display area (PXA); and an optical structure (Optical Structure – see structure in the NPXA area of the device in annotated Fig (5) of Shin shared in this OA) on the substrate (SUB)+(IL) in a non-display area (NPXA), and comprising a first layer (PDL).
PNG
media_image1.png
948
1524
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Shin does not teach wherein a refractive index of the first layer is greater than a refractive index of the substrate.
Hou teaches wherein a refractive index of the first layer (AIN) is greater than a refractive index of the substrate (AI2O3) (see the specification of Hou: “…as shown in FIG. 10; and in the multi-layer composite substrate; the AlN film refractive index is higher than the SiO2 layer and the Al2O3 substrate;…”). Shin and Hou are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Shin by making the refractive index of the first layer higher than the refractive index of the substrate as disclosed in Hou to improve the amount of light extracted from the display device and thus leading to a more efficient device.
PNG
media_image2.png
775
701
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2; Shin in view of Hou teach all the limitations of claim 1.
Further, Shin teaches wherein the optical structure (Optical Structure – see Fig (5) of Shin) and the substrate (SUB)+(IL) form an optical interface (Optical Interface – see annotated Fig (5) of Shin shared in this OA), wherein the display device further comprises a middle layer (EML) on the substrate, the middle layer (EML) not overlapping with the optical interface (Optical Interface – see annotated Fig (5) of Shin shared in this OA) in a plan view.
However, Shin does not teach wherein a refractive index of the middle layer is less than the refractive index of the first layer.
Hou teaches wherein a refractive index of the middle layer (SiO2) is less than the refractive index of the first layer (AIN) (see the specification of Hou: “…as shown in FIG. 10; and in the multi-layer composite substrate; the AlN film refractive index is higher than the SiO2 layer and the Al2O3 substrate;…”). Shin and Hou are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Shin by making the refractive index of the first layer higher than the refractive index of the middle layer as disclosed in Hou to improve the amount of light extracted from the display device and thus leading to a more efficient device.
Regarding claim 3; Shin in view of Hou teach all the limitations of claim 2.
Further, Shin teaches wherein the pixel comprises: a pixel circuit layer (DP-CL) comprising a transistor (T1); a first electrode (DE1) and a second electrode (SE1) on the pixel circuit layer (DP-CL); a first insulating layer (IL) over the first electrode (DE1) and the second electrode (SE1); a light emitting element (OEL) on the first insulating layer (IL); a second insulating layer (TFE) on the light emitting element (OEL); a first contact electrode (EL1) and a second contact electrode (EL2) electrically connected to the light emitting element (OEL); and a third insulating layer (OBL) over the first contact electrode (EL1), and wherein the first layer (PDL) comprises a first optical layer ((PDL) on the right side of the pixel) in a same layer as the second insulating layer (TFE), and a second optical layer ((PDL) on the left hand side of the pixel structure) in a same layer as the third insulating layer (OBL).
.
Regarding claim 4; Shin in view of Hou teach all the limitations of claim 1.
Further, Shin teaches wherein one of the second insulating layer (TFE) and the third insulating layer OBL) comprise one of silicon nitride (SiNx), aluminum oxide (AIOx), and titanium oxide (TiOx) (see paragraphs [0078] – [0079} of the specification of Shin: “[0078] The light absorbing layer OBL may further include oxides of Group V metal elements in addition to the molybdenum oxide. For example, the light absorbing layer OBL may further include at least one oxide of vanadium (V), niobium (Nb), tantalum (Ta), titanium (Ti), tungsten (W), germanium (Ge), tin (Sn), selenium (Se), or zirconium, in addition to the molybdenum oxide.
[0079] For example, the light absorbing layer OBL may include molybdenum oxide and tantalum oxide. The tantalum oxide provided in the light absorbing layer OBL may be Ta.sub.2O.sub.5.”).
Regarding claim 5; Shin in view of Hou teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
However, Shin does not teach wherein the refractive index of the first layer is greater by about 0.2 or more than the refractive index of the substrate.
Hou teaches wherein the refractive index of the first layer (AlN) is greater by about 0.2 or more than the refractive index of the substrate (Al2O3). Shin and Hou are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Shin by making the difference between the first layer and the substrate refractive indices larger than 0.2 as disclosed in Hou to improve the efficiency of light production of the device leading to a more efficient device.
Regarding claim 6; Shin in view of Hou teach all the limitations of claim 3.
Further, Shin teaches wherein the optical structure further comprises a second layer (EL1) between the middle layer (EML) and the first layer (PDL), wherein the second layer (EL1) comprises a reflective material.
Regarding claim 7; Shin in view of Hou teach all the limitations of claim 6.
Further, Shin teaches wherein the second layer (EL1) is on a base surface of the middle layer (EML), and wherein the base surface is inclined with respect to the substrate (SUB)+(IL).
Regarding claim 8; Shin in view of Hou teaches all the limitations of claim 6.
Further Shin teaches wherein the second layer (EL1) comprises a reflective electrode layer in a same layer as the first electrode (DE1) and the second electrode (SE1).
Regarding claim 9; Shin in view of Hou teaches all the limitations of claim 2.
Further, Shin teaches further comprising a third layer (OBL-E) on the first layer (PDL), the third layer (OBL-E) being configured to absorb light having a wavelength in a band, wherein the first layer (PDL) and the third layer (OBL-E) overlap with the optical interface (Optical Interface – see annotated Fig (10) shared in this OA) in a plan view.
PNG
media_image3.png
841
1244
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12; Shin in view of Hou teach all the limitations of claim 2.
However, Shin does not teach wherein the middle layer comprises one of silicon oxide (SiOx) and silicon oxynitride (SiOxNy).
Hou teaches wherein the middle layer (SiO2) comprises one of silicon oxide (SiOx) and silicon oxynitride (SiOxNy). Shin and Hou are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Shin by making the middle layer out of SiO2 as disclosed in Hou to improve the amount of light extracted from the display device and thus leading to a more efficient device.
Regarding claim 15; Shin in view of Hou teaches all the limitations of claim 2.
Further, Shin teaches wherein the first layer (PDL) and the substrate (SUB)+(IL) are in contact with each other at the optical interface.
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al, US 20190288043 A1 (Shin) in view of Hou et al, CN 112467005 A (Hou) in further view of Lu, US 20220165082 A1 (Lu).
Regarding claim 16; Shin in view of Hou teaches all the limitations of claim 2.
Further, Shin teaches wherein the pixel comprises: a light emitting element (OEL) for emitting light; and a pixel circuit layer (DP-CL) comprising a transistor (T1) electrically connected to the light emitting element (OEL), and an electrode layer (layer containing (EL1) and (EL2)).
Shin in view of Hou teach all the limitations disclosed above.
However, Shin in view of Hou does not teach wherein light emitted from the light emitting element is reflected between the substrate, and an air layer outside of the substrate, and is reflected by the electrode layer, wherein at least a portion of the light emitted from the light emitting element is provided to the optical structure, and wherein the light provided to the optical structure is provided at an incident angle to the optical interface, and is transmitted at a transmission angle that is smaller than the incident angle through the optical structure.
Lu teaches wherein light emitted from the light emitting element (031) is reflected between the substrate (01), and an air layer outside of the substrate (01), and is reflected by the electrode layer (03), wherein at least a portion of the light emitted from the light emitting element (031) is provided to the optical structure (05), and wherein the light provided to the optical structure (05) is provided at an incident angle to the optical interface (optical interface between (02) and (01)), and is transmitted at a transmission angle that is smaller than the incident angle through the optical structure (05). Shin in view of Hou and Lu are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Shin in view of Hou by using the light reflected from the air gap between the substrate and the optical structure as disclosed in Lu to improve the ability of the device to capture images of objects facing it using the light produced by the light-emitting devices leading to a more efficient device.
PNG
media_image4.png
794
613
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17; Shin in view of Hou teach all the limitations of claim 1.
However, Shin in view of Hou does not teach wherein the optical structure comprises a plurality of island shapes.
Lu teaches wherein the optical structure (05) comprises a plurality of island shapes (see Fig (1) of Lu shared in this OA). Shin in view of Hou and Lu are considered analogous at. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Shin in view of Hou by making the optical structure in the shape of a plurality of island shapes as disclosed in Lu to allow for light to pass from the light-emitting elements to the object outside the device and then back into the optical structure to improve the efficiency of the device.
Regarding claim 18; Shin in view of Hou teach all the limitations of claim 1.
However, Shin in view of Hou does not teach wherein the optical structure comprises a bar shape extending in one direction.
Lu teaches wherein the optical structure (05) comprises a bar shape extending in one direction. Shin in view of Hou and Lu are considered analogous at. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Shin in view of Hou by making the optical structure in the shape of a bar extending in one direction as disclosed in Lu to make the device production process more efficient in terms of using space on the chip leading to a more efficient device.
Regarding claim 19; Shin in view of Hou in further view of Lu teaches all the limitations of claim 17.
Further, Shin teaches further comprising a line area (SE2) in the non- display area (NPXA), and in which a line (SE2) electrically connected to the pixel (PXA) is located, wherein the line area (area that contains (SE2)) is between the optical structure (Optical Structure) and the display area (area which contains the pixel (PXA)).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al, US 20190288043 A1 (Shin) in view of Hou et al, CN 112467005 A (Hou) in further view of Kim et al, US 20210202587 A1 (Kim).
Regarding claim 10; Shin in view of Hou teaches all the limitations of claim 9.
However, Shin in view of Hou does not teach wherein the pixel comprises: a first sub-pixel for emitting light of a first color; a second sub-pixel for emitting light of a second color; a third sub-pixel for emitting light of a third color; and a light emitting element comprised in each of the first sub-pixel, the second sub- pixel, and the third sub-pixel, the light emitting element being configured to emit light of the third color, wherein, in a plan view, the first sub-pixel overlaps with a first color filter that is configured to substantially block the light of the second color and the light of the third color, and that is configured to allow the light of the first color to be transmitted therethrough, wherein, in a plan view, the second sub-pixel overlaps with a second color filter that is configured to substantially block the light of the first color and the light of the third color, and that is configured to allow the light of the second color to be transmitted therethrough, wherein, in a plan view, the third sub-pixel overlaps with a third color filter that is configured to substantially block the light of the first color and the light of the second color, and is configured to allow the light of the third color to be transmitted therethrough, and wherein the third layer comprises a same material as at least one of the first color filter and the second color filter.
Kim teaches wherein the pixel comprises: a first sub-pixel (structure where Lb is produced – see Fig (7) of Kim) for emitting light of a first color; a second sub-pixel (structure where Lg is produced – see Fig (7) of Kim) for emitting light of a second color; a third sub-pixel (structure where Lr is produced – see Fig (7) of Kim) for emitting light of a third color; and a light emitting element ((OLED) – see Fig (7) of Kim) comprised in each of the first sub-pixel (structure where Lb is produced – see Fig (7) of Kim), the second sub- pixel (structure where Lg is produced – see Fig (7) of Kim), and the third sub-pixel (structure where Lr is produced – see Fig (7) of Kim), the light emitting element (OLED) being configured to emit light of the third color, wherein, in a plan view, the first sub-pixel (structure where Lb is produced – see Fig (7) of Kim) overlaps with a first color filter (313) that is configured to substantially block the light of the second color and the light of the third color, and that is configured to allow the light of the first color to be transmitted therethrough, wherein, in a plan view, the second sub-pixel (structure where Lg is produced – see Fig (7) of Kim) overlaps with a second color filter (312) that is configured to substantially block the light of the first color and the light of the third color, and that is configured to allow the light of the second color to be transmitted therethrough, wherein, in a plan view, the third sub-pixel (structure where Lr is produced – see Fig (7) of Kim) overlaps with a third color filter (311) that is configured to substantially block the light of the first color and the light of the second color, and is configured to allow the light of the third color to be transmitted therethrough, and wherein the third layer (301) comprises a same material as at least one of the first color filter (313) and the second color filter (312) (see paragraph [0081] of the specification of Kim: “The light-shielding member 301 includes the same material as the third color filter 313”). Shin in view of Hou and Kim are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Shin in view of Hou by using the three light filters disclosed in Kim to improve the quality of the display device.
PNG
media_image5.png
826
1114
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11; Shin in view of Hou in further view of Kim teach all the limitations of claim 10.
However, Shin in view of Hou does not teach further comprising an organic insulating layer on the first layer, wherein the third layer is on the organic insulating layer.
Kim teaches further comprising an organic insulating layer (320) on the first layer (610), wherein the third layer (301) is on the organic insulating layer (320) (see paragraph [0076] of the specification of Kim: “[0076]… The first partition 320 is formed of an organic insulating material such as polyimide, polyamide, an acryl resin, benzocyclobutene, hexamethyldisiloxane (HMDSO), or a phenol resin, etc., by using a method such as spin coating, etc”). Shin in view of Hou and Kim are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Shin in view of Hou by using the organic material structure disclosed in Kim to make the production process of the device more efficient.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al, US 20190288043 A1 (Shin) in view of Hou et al, CN 112467005 A (Hou) in further view of Kim et al, US 20210202587 A1 (Kim) in further view of Wu et al, CN 106129219 A (Wu)
Regarding claim 13; Shin in view of Hou in further view of Kim teach all the limitations of claim 10.
Further, Shin teaches wherein the pixel comprises: a display element layer (DP-OEL) comprising a light emitting element (OEL).
Shin in view of Hou in further view of Kim teach all the limitations disclosed above.
However, Shin in view of Hou in further view of Kim does not teach a low refractive layer above the display element layer; and a capping layer contacting the low refractive layer, wherein the display device further comprises a low refractive valley between the display area and the optical structure, wherein a portion of the low refractive layer is accommodated in the low refractive valley, and wherein the optical structure is located outside of the low refractive valley in a plan view.
Wu teaches a low refractive layer (5) above the display element layer (2); and a capping layer (11) contacting the low refractive layer (5), wherein the display device further comprises a low refractive valley (7) between the display area and the optical structure (structure under (10)), wherein a portion of the low refractive layer (5) is accommodated in the low refractive valley (7), and wherein the optical structure (structure under (10)) is located outside of the low refractive valley (7) in a plan view. Shin in view of Hou in further view of Kim and Wu are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Shin in view of Hou in further view of Kim by using the low refractive index material disclosed in Wu to improve the separation of light produced by the different part of the pixels leading to a better performing display device.
PNG
media_image6.png
682
782
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14; Shin in view of Hou in further view of Kim in further view of Wu teach all the limitations of claim 13.
However, Shin in view of Hou in further view of Kim does not teach wherein the capping layer does not overlap with the optical interface in a plan view.
Wu teaches wherein the capping layer (10) does not overlap with the optical interface (interface between (1) and (2) below (9) in a plan view. Shin in view of Hou in further view of Kim and Wu are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Shin in view of Hou in further view of Kim by making the capping layer not overlap the optical interface as disclosed in Wu to improve the light production quality of the device leading to a better performing display device.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al, US 20190288043 A1 (Shin) in view of Kim et al, US 20210202587 A1 (Kim) in further view of Hou et al, CN 112467005 A (Hou).
Regarding claim 20; Shin teaches a display device comprising a display area (area that contains (PXA)) and a non-display area (area that contains (NPXA)), the display device comprising: a substrate (SUB)+(IL); a pixel (PXA) comprising: a pixel circuit layer (DP-CL) that is on the substrate (SUB)+(IL) in the display area, and that comprises an electrode layer (layer containing electrodes (EL1) and (EL2)); a display element layer (OEL) that is on the pixel circuit layer (DP-CL), and that comprises a light emitting element (OEL) and an insulating layer (PDL).
However, Shin does not teach a color filter layer that is on the display element layer, and that comprises a color filter for absorbing light in a corresponding band; an optical refractive layer over the substrate in the non-display area, and comprising a same material as the insulating layer; and an optical absorption layer on the optical refractive layer, and comprising a same material as the color filter.
Kim teaches a color filter layer (313) that is on the display element layer (layer containing light emitting elements (OLED)), and that comprises a color filter (313) for absorbing light in a corresponding band; an optical refractive layer (320) over the substrate (100) in the non-display area (area under (320)), and comprising a same material as the insulating layer (320); and an optical absorption layer (301) on the optical refractive layer (320), and comprising a same material as the color filter (313). Shin and Kim are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Shin by introducing the color filter and light reflective layers disclosed in Kim to improve the sharpness of the light wavelength produced by the display device leading to a better performing device.
Shin in view of Kim teach all the above disclosed subject matter.
However, Shin in view of Kim does not teach wherein a refractive index of the optical refractive layer is greater than a refractive index of the substrate.
Hou teaches wherein a refractive index of the optical refractive layer (AIN) is greater than a refractive index of the substrate (AI2O3) (see the specification of Hou: “…as shown in FIG. 10; and in the multi-layer composite substrate; the AlN film refractive index is higher than the SiO2 layer and the Al2O3 substrate;…”). Shin in view of Kim and Hou are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Shin in view of Kim by making the refractive index of the refractive layer higher than the refractive index of the substrate as disclosed in Hou to improve the amount of light extracted from the display device and thus leading to a more efficient device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Moataz Khalifa whose telephone number is (703)756-1770. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (8:30 am - 5:00).
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, Joshua Benitez can be reached at 571-270-1435. 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.
/MOATAZ KHALIFA/Examiner, Art Unit 2815
/MONICA D HARRISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815