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 .
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 2 and 14 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites “the reflectance of the reflection-reducing layer is lower at a driving temperature of the display device than at room temperature.”
The Examiner notes that since a driving temperature of the display device is not defined (can be lower or higher that room temperature) it is not clear at what temperature the reflectance of the reflection-reducing layer is lower than at room temperature.
For the purposes of examination, the examiner will treat limitation to be met as long as the reflectance of the reflection-reducing layer is lower one temperature range than at another temperature range.
The Examiner recommends further defining temperature ranges.
Claims 3-6 are rejected as being dependent on Claim 2.
Claim 14 recites “a first layer having reflectance is lower at a driving temperature of the display device than at room temperature”
The Examiner notes that since a driving temperature of the display device is not defined (can be lower or higher that room temperature) it is not clear at what temperature the reflectance of the reflection-reducing layer is lower than at room temperature.
For the purposes of examination, the examiner will treat limitation to be met as long as the reflectance of the reflection-reducing layer is lower one temperature range than at another temperature range.
The Examiner recommends further defining temperature ranges.
Claims 15-17 are rejected as being dependent on Claim 14.
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) 1-5 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beak et al. (US 2020/0135971 A1) in view of Van Bommel et al. (US 2011/0176076 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Beak (Fig. 1, 4) discloses a display device, comprising: ‘
a first substrate (substrate 111) including an active area (AA) including a plurality of pixels (PX) and a non-active area (NA) adjacent the active area (AA) (Fig. 1) [0035];
a plurality of light-emitting diodes (130) disposed in the plurality of pixels (PX) on the first substrate (111); (“Light-emitting elements, e.g., light-emitting diodes (LEDs) and driving elements for driving the light-emitting elements, e.g., thin-film transistors, may be disposed in the active area AA.”, 0034-0035]
a planarization layer (first planarization layer 116) disposed to surround the plurality of light-emitting diodes (130) on at least four sides [00048-0049];
a bank disposed (bank 119) on the planarization layer (116) and including a black material; (“the bank 119 may include a black material to absorb light in order to prevent light emitted from the LED 130 from being transmitted to an adjacent sub-pixel PX such that the light is mixed.”) [0055]
a reflection-reducing layer (an optical layer 250) disposed on the bank (219) and having a reflectance [(“the optical structure may be or include an optical layer that is reflective” 0058].
Beak does not explicitly disclose a reflection-reducing having a reflectance that varies according to temperature thereof; and a heat dissipation layer disposed on the reflection-reducing layer.
Van Bommerl (Fig. 4) discloses a reflection-reducing layer (60, thermally variable reflecting element) having a reflectance that varies according to temperature [0089] and a heat dissipation layer (300 diffuser 300 is also thermally variable) disposed on the reflection-reducing layer (60).
The Examiner notes that heat dissipation layer is considered to be met as long as the layer is capable of absorb heat.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify display device in Beak in view of Van Bommel such that a reflection-reducing having a reflectance that varies according to temperature thereof; and a heat dissipation layer disposed on the reflection-reducing layer in order to have a reflection-reducing layer that is switchable in a substantially transparent state, for transmitting light source light, and in a substantially not-transparent state (i.e. the reflecting state) [0011], [0089] and to dissipate heat from luminescent material [0102]
Regarding Claim 2, Beak in view of Van Bommel discloses the display device of claim 1, wherein
the reflectance of the reflection-reducing layer (60 Van Bommel) is lower at a driving temperature of the display device than at room temperature. [0026, 0032 Van Bommel]
Regarding Claim 3, Beak in view of Van Bommel discloses the display device of claim 2, wherein
the reflection-reducing layer (60) functions as a haze layer at the driving temperature of the display device. [0026, 0032 Van Bommel].
The Examiner notes since metes and bounds of the driving temperature of the display device is not defined the limitation is considered to be met as long as the reflection-reducing layer is at least semi-transparent at any temperature.
Examiner notes that “the reflection-reducing layer functions as a haze layer” is a functional language.
While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claim directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429,1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959).
Regarding Claim 4, Beak in view of Van Bommel discloses the display device of claim 2, wherein
the reflection-reducing layer (60) includes a base resin and a polymer dispersed in the base resin and having a reflectance varying according to temperature. (“ thermally variable reflecting element 60 was obtained by mixing Norland 65 resin mixed together with liquid crystal E7 (Merck) After polymerization of the polymerization reflecting so-called polymer dispersed liquid crystal where the liquid crystal molecules are dispersed in a polymer matrix is obtained (PDLC). “ [0114])
Regarding Claim 5, Beak in view of Van Bommel discloses the display device of claim 4, wherein
the base resin includes one of polyimide resin, acryl resin, cardo resin, novolac resin, and siloxane resin. (the examiner notes that Norland 65 resin is acrylate-based resin).
Regarding Claim 11, Beak in view of Van Bommel discloses the display device of claim 1, wherein
Beak in view of Van Bommel does not explicitly disclose that the planarization layer extends to the non-active area, and the bank, the reflection-reducing layer, and the heat dissipation layer are sequentially stacked on the planarization layer in the non-active area.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify display device in Beak in view of Van Bommel to have the planarization layer extends to the non-active area, and the bank, the reflection-reducing layer, and the heat dissipation layer are sequentially stacked on the planarization layer in the non-active area since since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beak et al. (US 2020/0135971 A1) in view of Van Bommel et al. (US 2011/0176076 A1) and further in view of Fang et al. (US 2021/0373361 A1)
Regarding Claim 6, Beak in view of Van Bommel discloses the display device of claim 4.
Beak in view of Van Bommel does not explicitly disclose the polymer includes poly(N-isopropylacrylamide) (PNIPAM).
Fang discloses a polymer includes poly(N-isopropylacrylamide) (PNIPAM). [0035-0037].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify display device in Beak in view of Van Bommel and Beak such that the polymer includes poly(N-isopropylacrylamide) (PNIPAM) in order to have a material with phase transition at relatively low temperature ˜32° C [0035] and since the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (See MPEP 2144.07).
Claim(s) 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beak et al. (US 2020/0135971 A1) in view of Van Bommel et al. (US 2011/0176076 A1) and further in view of Ohkoshi et al. (US 2021/0151895 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Beak in view of Van Bommel discloses the display device of claim 1.
Beak in view of Van Bommel does not disclose the heat dissipation layer includes a vertically aligned carbon nanotube (CNT) layer and metal oxide particles doped in the carbon nanotube layer.
Ohkoshi discloses carbon nanotube (CNT) layer and metal oxide particles doped in the carbon nanotube layer. [0059].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify display device in Beak in view of Van Bommel and Ohkoshi such that the heat dissipation layer includes a vertically aligned carbon nanotube (CNT) layer and metal oxide particles doped in the carbon nanotube layer in order to have achieve radio shielding for LED device [0059] and since the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (See MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding Claim 8, Beak in view of Van Bommel and Ohkoshi discloses the display device of claim 7.
Beak in view of Van Bommel and Ohkoshi does not explicitly disclose the heat dissipation layer further includes carbon black particles, a binder, and a photosensitizer.
However, Ohkoshi discloses carbon black particles (“carbon black”) a binder (“cured product 23 of the thermosetting resin”) and further additives including photostabilizers [0059]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify display device in Beak in view of Van Bommel and Ohkoshi such that the heat dissipation layer further includes carbon black particles, a binder, and a photosensitizer since the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (See MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding Claim 9, Beak in view of Van Bommel and Ohkoshi discloses the display device of claim 8.
Beak in view of Van Bommel and Ohkoshi does not explicitly disclose the binder includes an alkali-developable binder or a silicon-based binder.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify display device in Beak in view of Van Bommel and Ohkoshi to select the binder such that the binder includes an alkali-developable binder or a silicon-based binder since the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (See MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding Claim 10, Beak in view of Van Bommel and Ohkoshi discloses the display device of claim 8.
Beak in view of Van Bommel and Ohkoshi does not explicitly disclose the photosensitizer includes an oxime-based compound or a benzophenone-based compound.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify display device in Beak in view of Van Bommel and Ohkoshi to select the photosensitizer such that the photosensitizer includes an oxime-based compound or a benzophenone-based compound since the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (See MPEP 2144.07).
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beak et al. (US 2020/0135971 A1) in view of Van Bommel et al. (US 2011/0176076 A1) and further in view of Kwon et al. (US 2020/0013846 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Beak in view of Van Bommel discloses the display device of claim 1, further comprising:
Beak in view of Van Bommel does not explicitly disclose a signal line disposed on the first substrate; a second substrate disposed under the first substrate; a signal link line disposed under the second substrate; and a side line disposed on side surfaces of the first substrate and the second substrate to connect the signal line and the signal link line.
(Fig. 3A) disclose a signal line (150) disposed on a first substrate (110); a second substrate (390) disposed under the first substrate (110); a signal link line (380) disposed under the second substrate (390); and a side line (370) disposed on side surfaces of the first substrate (110) and the second substrate (390) to connect the signal line (150) and the signal link line (360).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify display device in Beak in view of Van Bommel and Kwon such that a signal line disposed on the first substrate; a second substrate disposed under the first substrate; a signal link line disposed under the second substrate; and a side line disposed on side surfaces of the first substrate and the second substrate to connect the signal line and the signal link line in order to have as an auxiliary substrate supporting components disposed on a lower side of the display device for stability and product reliability. [0072, 0073, 0077]
Regarding Claim 13, Beak in view of Van Bommel and Kwon discloses the display device of claim 12, wherein the side line (370) is a line in which a conductive paste is cured. [0060]
Further, limitation in line 2, “a line in which a conductive paste is cured” is considered to be product-by-process.
“Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Claim(s) 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beak et al. (US 2020/0135971 A1) in view of n view of Van Bommel et al. (US 2011/0176076 A1), Ohkoshi et al. (US 2021/0151895 A1) and Li et al. (US 2014/0199542 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Beak (Fig. 1-4) discloses the display device, comprising:
a substrate (111);
a plurality of pixels (PX) on the substrate (111);
a plurality of light-emitting diodes (130) disposed in the plurality of pixels (PX);
a planarization layer (116) adjacent to the plurality of light-emitting diodes (130);
a bank disposed (119) on the planarization layer (116);
a first layer (250) disposed on the bank (219) and having reflectance [(“the optical structure may be or include an optical layer that is reflective” 0058].
Beak does not explicitly disclose that a first layer having reflectance is lower at a driving temperature of the display device than at room temperature; and a second layer disposed on the first layer, the second layer including a vertically aligned carbon nanotube layer doped with metal oxide particles.
Van Bommerl (Fig. 4) discloses a first layer (60) having a reflectance that varies according to temperature [0089]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify display device in Beak in view of Van Bommel such that a first layer having a reflectance that varies according to temperature such that first layer having reflectance is lower at a driving temperature of the display device than at room temperature in order to have a reflection-reducing layer that is switchable in a substantially transparent state, for transmitting light source light, and in a substantially not-transparent state (i.e. the reflecting state) [0011], [0089].
Beak in view of Van Bommel does not explicitly disclose the second layer including a vertically aligned carbon nanotube layer doped with metal oxide particles.
Ohkoshi discloses carbon nanotube (CNT) layer and metal oxide particles doped in the carbon nanotube layer. [0059].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify display device in Beak in view of Van Bommel and Ohkoshi such that the heat dissipation layer includes a vertically aligned carbon nanotube (CNT) layer and metal oxide particles doped in the carbon nanotube layer in order to have achieve radio shielding for LED device [0059] and since the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (See MPEP 2144.07).
Beak in view of Van Bommel and Ohkoshi does not explicitly disclose that carbon nanotube (CNT) are vertically aligned.
Li (Fig. 3) discloses vertically aligned carbon nanotube layer (320, A graphene coating layer comprising vertically or substantially vertically oriented single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWNTs).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify display device in Beak in view of Van Bommel and Ohkoshi and Li to have vertically aligned carbon nanotube layer present over display device such vertically aligned carbon nanotube layer in order to have high optical transparency in the visible and/or ultraviolet (UV) regions of the electromagnetic spectrum, a low Fresnel loss, and a high hardness and/or bulk modulus. [0005-0006]
Regarding Claim 15, Beak in view of Van Bommel and Ohkoshi and Li discloses the display device of claim 14, wherein the first layer has haze that is higher at the driving temperature than at the room temperature. [0089]
Regarding Claim 16, Beak in view of Van Bommel and Ohkoshi and Li discloses the display device of claim 14, wherein
the metal oxide particles include black titanium oxide, black iron oxide or a combination thereof. [Ohkoshi 0045]
Regarding Claim 17, Beak in view of Van Bommel and Ohkoshi and Li discloses the display device of claim 14, wherein
the bank (119) has a plurality of openings that expose the plurality of light-emitting diodes (130) ,
Beak in view of Van Bommel and Ohkoshi and Li does not explicitly disclose that bank absorbing light in a range of about 380 nanometers to about 700 nanometers and vertically aligned carbon nanotube layer disposed on the bank
However, Beak discloses the bank include a black material to absorb light in order to prevent light emitted from the LED from being transmitted to an adjacent sub-pixel PX such that the light is mixed [0055] and plurality of pixels PX may include, but is not limited to, a red sub-pixel PX, a green sub-pixel PX, and a blue sub-pixel PX [0036].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify display device in Beak in view of Van Bommel and Ohkoshi and Li such that bank absorbing light in a range of about 380 nanometers to about 700 nanometers in order to prevent light emitted from the LED from being transmitted to an adjacent sub-pixel [0055]
Claim(s) 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beak et al. (US 2020/0135971 A1) in view of Li et al. (US 2014/0199542 A1).
Regarding Claim 18, Beak Fig. 1 and 4) discloses a display device, comprising:
a substrate (111);
a plurality of pixels (PX) on the substrate (111);
a plurality of light-emitting diodes (130) disposed in the plurality of pixels (PX);
(“Light-emitting elements, e.g., light-emitting diodes (LEDs) and driving elements for driving the light-emitting elements, e.g., thin-film transistors, may be disposed in the active area AA.”, 0034-0035]
a planarization layer (116) adjacent to the plurality of light-emitting diodes (130);
a bank (119) disposed on the planarization layer (116), the bank absorbing light (“the bank 119 may include a black material to absorb light in order to prevent light emitted from the LED 130 from being transmitted to an adjacent sub-pixel PX such that the light is mixed”) [0055]
Beak does not explicitly disclose that bank absorbing light in a range of about 380 nanometers to about 700 nanometers and vertically aligned carbon nanotube layer disposed on the bank
However, Beak discloses the bank include a black material to absorb light in order to prevent light emitted from the LED from being transmitted to an adjacent sub-pixel PX such that the light is mixed [0055] and plurality of pixels PX may include, but is not limited to, a red sub-pixel PX, a green sub-pixel PX, and a blue sub-pixel PX [0036].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify display device in Beak such that bank absorbing light in a range of about 380 nanometers to about 700 nanometers in order to prevent light emitted from the LED from being transmitted to an adjacent sub-pixel [0055]
Beak does not explicitly disclose vertically aligned carbon nanotube layer disposed on the bank.
Li (Fig. 3) discloses vertically aligned carbon nanotube layer (320, A graphene coating layer comprising vertically or substantially vertically oriented single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWNTs).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify display device in Beak in view of Li to have vertically aligned carbon nanotube layer present over display device such vertically aligned carbon nanotube layer in order to have high optical transparency in the visible and/or ultraviolet (UV) regions of the electromagnetic spectrum, a low Fresnel loss, and a high hardness and/or bulk modulus. [0005-0006]
Regarding Claim 19, Beak in view of Li discloses the display device of claim 18, wherein:
the substrate (111) includes an active area (AA) and a non-active area (NA) adjacent the active area (AA), the plurality of pixels (PX) being in the active area (AA);
Beak in view of Li does not explicitly disclose that and the carbon nanotube layer is on the bank in the active area and in the non-active area.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify display device in Beak in view of Li to have vertically aligned carbon nanotube layer present over entire surface of the display device such the carbon nanotube layer is on the bank in the active area and in the non-active area in order to have high optical transparency in the visible and/or ultraviolet (UV) regions of the electromagnetic spectrum, a low Fresnel loss, and a high hardness and/or bulk modulus. [0005-0006]
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beak et al. (US 2020/0135971 A1) in view of Li et al. (US 2014/0199542 A1) and further in view of Kwon et al. (US 2020/0013846 A1).
Regarding Claim 20, Beak in view of Li discloses the display device of claim 19.
Beak in view of Li does not explicitly disclose a signal line disposed on the substrate; a second substrate disposed under the substrate; a signal link line disposed under the second substrate; an insulating layer adjacent sidewalls of the substrate and the second substrate; and a side line disposed on the sidewalls of the substrate and the second substrate to connect the signal line to the signal link line, the side line including a conductive paste that is between the insulating layer and the sidewalls of the substrate and the second substrate.
Kwon (Fig. 3A) discloses a signal line (150) disposed on the substrate (110); second substrate (390) disposed under the first substrate (110); a signal link line (380) disposed under the second substrate (390); an insulating layer (380) adjacent sidewalls of the substrate and the second substrate; and a side line (370) disposed on the sidewalls of the substrate (110) and the second substrate (390) to connect the signal line to the signal link line, the side line (370) including a conductive paste that is between the insulating layer (380) and the sidewalls of the substrate (110) and the second substrate (390).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify display device in Beak in view of Van Bommel and Kwon such that a signal line disposed on the substrate; a second substrate disposed under the substrate; a signal link line disposed under the second substrate; an insulating layer adjacent sidewalls of the substrate and the second substrate; and a side line disposed on the sidewalls of the substrate and the second substrate to connect the signal line to the signal link line, the side line including a conductive paste that is between the insulating layer and the sidewalls of the substrate and the second substrate in order to have as an auxiliary substrate supporting components disposed on a lower side of the display device for stability and product reliability. [0072, 0073, 0077]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DMITRIY YEMELYANOV whose telephone number is (571)270-7920. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a.m.-6p.m.
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.
/DMITRIY YEMELYANOV/Examiner, Art Unit 2891