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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 12, and 19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not exclusively rely on the same references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments (Applicant’s Remarks pages 2-10) that the disclosures of US 20200091464 A1 (Park et al) in view of US 20200365776 A1 (Sim et al) do not read on the amended claims for various reasons (previously designated organic layer 173 of Park not being the closest organic layer to the light control parts for claim 1, organic layer 173 of Park does not contact either of inorganic films 353 or 355 for claim 12, and the removal of the term “about” from claim 19 narrowing its scope). While Applicant’s assertions are correct when organic layer 173 of Park is considered as the claimed organic layer, filler 70 of Park FIG. 4 is also an organic layer and is the closest to the light control parts of Park. Additionally, layers 355, 370, and 393 of Park are all inorganic, which allows for them to be considered a composite/multilayer inorganic film for the purposes of considering claim 12. Filler 70 can also have a refractive index satisfying the limitations of claim 19 in view of US 20180149774 A1 (Nonaka et al), which teaches that polysiloxane, a known Si-based organic material used in optical applications can have a refractive index as low as 1.3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 11, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent publications US 20200091464 A1 (Park et al hereinafter Park) in view of US 20180149774 A1 (Nonaka et al hereinafter Nonaka).
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses a display device (display device 1 of FIGS. 1-5 ¶ [0009-0013, 0030-0032]) comprising: a plurality of light emitting elements (FIG. 4, organic light emitting elements ED1, ED2, and ED3 ¶ [0053]) which provide source light (FIG. 4, ED1, ED2, and ED3 produce light L1, L2, and L3 ¶ [0053]); a plurality of light control parts (FIG. 4, wavelength conversion patterns 341 and 343 and light transmitting pattern 345 ¶ [0114]) which respectively correspond to the plurality of light emitting elements and have a refractive index (patterns 341, 343, and 345 each are disposed above light emitting elements ED1, ED2, and ED3 respectively, and are noted to have a refractive index 0.3 or more higher than that of low refractive index layer 391 ¶ [0114]), each of the plurality of light control parts receiving the source light, color converting the source light and outputting a light having a color (FIG. 4, lights La, Lb, L22, and L3 are output by the light control patterns 341, 343, and 345, which performed light-conversion functions ¶ [0130, 0147-0150, 0156]; much like what is described in present application ¶ [00141], the blue conversion pattern both receives and outputs blue light); and a plurality of insulating layers between the plurality of light emitting elements and the plurality of light control parts (FIG. 4, thin film encapsulation layer 170, filler 70, second low-refractive index layer 393, protective layer 370, and third capping layer 355 are insulating layers between emitters ED1/ED2/ED3 and patterns 341/343/345 ¶ [0034, 0104, 0157-0159]), the plurality of insulating layers including: an insulating layer which contacts the plurality of light control parts which color-convert the source light (FIG. 4, third capping layer 355 contacts patterns 341, 343, and 345 ¶ [0117, 0113]), an organic insulating layer which is a closest organic layer to the plurality of light control parts among the plurality of insulating layers (FIG. 4, filler 70 is the closest organic layer to the light control parts ¶ [0038]), and
an encapsulation layer (FIG. 4, thin film encapsulation layer 170, filler 70, and second low refractive index layer 393 function as an encapsulation layer that seals the elements ED1, ED2, and ED3 ¶ [0034, 0104, 0159]) which seals the plurality of light emitting elements, the encapsulation layer including the organic insulating layer and a first inorganic film which contacts the organic insulating layer (FIG. 4, filler 70, part of the encapsulation film, is the organic insulating layer, and second inorganic encapsulating film 175 of encapsulation 170 is a first inorganic film ¶ [0038, 0105]).
Park does not explicitly state that the organic insulating layer has a refractive index lower than the refractive index of the plurality of light control parts and defines a low-refractive index organic film of the plurality of insulating layers, a comparison of refractive indices of those two features not being a parameter of particular importance to the disclosure of their invention. Park does teach that a low refractive index layer 391 may have a refractive index of about 1.1 to about 1.4, and that the light control patterns may have a refractive index 0.3 or more higher than that of low refractive index layer 391 (¶ [0114]), and it is further taught that the filler/organic insulating layer may be formed of Si-based organic material or epoxy-based organic material (¶ [0038]).
Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have the organic insulating layer has a refractive index lower than the refractive index of the plurality of light control parts and defines a low-refractive index organic film of the plurality of insulating layers in view of Nonaka, which discloses that polysiloxane, a known Si-based organic material, may have an optical application and have a refractive index as low as 1.3 (¶ [0053-0054]). Based on the disclosed ranges of Park and Nonaka in view of known refractive index values of one of the organic materials suggested for the low-refractive index organic film (Si-based polysiloxane), a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I) to arrive at a configuration wherein the organic insulating layer has a refractive index lower than the refractive index of the plurality of light control parts:
a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to select polysiloxane as the material for the low-refractive index organic film (having a refractive index of 1.3-1.6 per Nonaka ¶ [0054]; for the purpose of discussion, 1.3), select a refractive index of 1.4 for the low refractive index layer 391 of Park (FIG. 4, 1.4 is on the disclosed range ¶ [0114]), and select a refractive index of at least 1.7 for the light control patterns (in keeping with Park’s teaching of a refractive index disparity of at least 0.3 between the light control patterns and the low-refractive index film 391 ¶ [0114]). Having done so, the low-refractive index organic film (Park FIG. 4, filler 70 at 1.3 ¶ [0105]) has a refractive index lower than the refractive index of the plurality of light control parts (Park FIG. 4, patterns 341, 343, and 345 at least 1.7 ¶ [0114]), therefore the organic insulating layer also defines a low-refractive index organic film of the plurality of insulating layers; a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have this configuration of refractive indices to arrive at improved light emitting efficiency with lower production cost.
Regarding claim 2, Park in view of Nonaka disclose the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above, and they further disclose that the low-refractive index organic film has a refractive index of about 1.15 to about 1.35 (Nonaka ¶ [0054] teaches that the refractive index of polysiloxane may be as low as 1.3).
Regarding claim 4, Park in view of Nonaka disclose the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above, and they further disclose that the encapsulation layer further includes: a second inorganic film (FIG. 4, second low refractive index layer 393 is between filler 70 and patterns 341, 343, and 345 ¶ [0159]) between the low-refractive index organic film and each of the plurality of light control parts, respectively, the second inorganic film having a refractive index (¶ [0159]), and the refractive index of the low-refractive index organic film lower than the refractive index of the second inorganic film (as was discussed regarding claim 1, second low refractive index layer 393 may have a refractive index of 1.4, which is higher than the 1.3 of the polysiloxane applied in filler 70 in view of Nonaka ¶ [0054]).
Regarding claim 5, Park in view of Nonaka disclose the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above, and they further disclose a low-refractive index layer (FIG. 4, first low refractive index layer 391 faces encapsulation 170 with patterns 341, 343, and 345 between them ¶ [0114]) facing the encapsulation layer with the plurality of light control parts therebetween, the low-refractive index layer having a refractive index (first low refractive index layer 391 is suggested to have a refractive index of about 1.1-1.4 ¶ [0114]), and the refractive index of the low-refractive index layer lower than the refractive index of the light control parts (Park teaches that first low refractive index layer 391 should have a refractive index lower than those of patterns 341, 343, and 345 by at least 0.3 ¶ [0114]).
Regarding claim 6, Park in view of Nonaka disclose the limitations of claim 5 as detailed above, and they further disclose that the low-refractive index layer is common to each of the plurality of light control parts (Park FIG. 4, first low refractive index layer 391 overlaps each of light control patterns 341, 343, and 345).
Regarding claim 8, Park in view of Nonaka disclose the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above, and they further disclose that each of the plurality of light emitting elements includes a first electrode (Park FIG. 4, pixel electrodes AE1, AE2, and AE3 ¶ [0046]), an emissive part (FIG. 4, organic layers OL1, OL2, and OL3 ¶ [0050]) and a second electrode (FIG. 4, common electrode CE ¶ [0051]) in order, the emissive part includes a plurality of emissive layers (an embodiment comprising the emissive layers of FIGS. 5, 8, and 10 is taught by Park ¶ [0013, 0016, 0018]), and the plurality of emissive layers emit light having the same color (each of organic layers OL1, OL2, and OL3 emit blue light by means of first light emitting layer EL11, fourth light emitting layer EL21, and seventh light emitting layer EL31 respectively ¶ [0058, 0078, 0091]).
Regarding claim 9, Park in view of Nonaka disclose the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above, and they further disclose that each of the plurality of light emitting elements includes a first electrode (Park FIG. 4, pixel electrodes AE1, AE2, and AE3 ¶ [0046]), an emissive part (FIG. 4, organic layers OL1, OL2, and OL3 ¶ [0050]) and a second electrode (FIG. 4, common electrode CE ¶ [0051]) in order, the emissive part includes a plurality of emissive layers (an embodiment comprising the emissive layers of FIGS. 7, 8, and 12 is taught by Park ¶ [0015-0016, 0020]), and the plurality of emissive layers emit light having different colors (each of organic layer OL1b, OL2, and OL3b emit the different colors of blue and green by means of light emitting layers EL11 and EL13, ¶ [0058,0071], EL21 and EL22 ¶ [0078, 0080], and EL31 and EL33 ¶ [0091,0101] respectively).
Regarding claim 11, Park in view of Sim disclose the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above, and they further disclose a plurality of color filters (Park FIG. 4, color filters 331, 333, and 335 overlapping light control patterns 341, 343, and 345 ¶ [0108]) corresponding to the plurality of light control parts, respectively.
Regarding claim 19, Park discloses a display device (display device 1 of FIGS. 1-5 ¶ [0009-0013, 0030-0032]) comprising: a plurality of light emitting elements (FIG. 4, organic light emitting elements ED1, ED2, and ED3 ¶ [0053]); an encapsulation layer (FIG. 4, thin film encapsulation layer 170, filler 70, and second low refractive index layer 393 function as an encapsulation layer that seals the elements ED1, ED2, and ED3 ¶ [0034, 0104, 0159]) which seals the plurality of light emitting elements, the encapsulation layer including a low-refractive index organic film (FIG. 4, filler 70, part of the encapsulation film, is an organic film ¶ [0038, 0105]; as no threshold of refractive index was claimed to differentiate it being low or not low, any of the suggested materials are considered sufficiently low) having a refractive index; a plurality of barrier ribs (FIG. 4, light blocking members 320 are located above encapsulation 170, filler 70, and second low refractive index layer 393 ¶ [0107]) on the encapsulation layer, and a plurality of openings defined between the plurality of barrier ribs (FIG. 4, pixel light emitting regions PA1, PA2, and PA3 are openings in the barrier ribs ¶ [0032]), the plurality of openings corresponding to the plurality of light emitting elements (FIG. 4, openings in light blocking patterns 320 overlap light emitting elements ED1, ED2, and ED3), respectively; and
a plurality of light control parts (FIG. 4, wavelength conversion patterns 341 and 343 and light transmitting pattern 345 are located in the opening regions PA1, PA2, and PA3 ¶ [0114]) in the plurality of openings, respectively, at least one of the light control parts including a quantum dot (FIG. 4, first wavelength shifters 3413 may be quantum dots ¶ [0121-0122]) and having a refractive index (each of the light-control patterns 341, 343, and 345 have a refractive index ¶ [0114]).
Park does not explicitly disclose that the refractive index of the low-refractive index organic film is 1.35 or less and is lower than the refractive index of the at least one of the light control parts, a comparison of refractive indices of those two features not being a parameter of particular importance to the disclosure of their invention. Park does teach that a low refractive index layer 391 may have a refractive index of about 1.1 to about 1.4, and that the light control patterns may have a refractive index 0.3 or more higher than that of low refractive index layer 391 (¶ [0114]), and it is further taught that the filler/organic insulating layer may be formed of Si-based organic material or epoxy-based organic material (¶ [0038]).
Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have the refractive index of the low-refractive index organic film is 1.35 or less and is lower than the refractive index of the at least one of the light control parts in view of Nonaka, which discloses that polysiloxane, a known Si-based organic material, may have a refractive index as low as 1.3 (¶ [0053-0054]). Based on the disclosed ranges of Park and Nonaka in view of known refractive index values of one of the organic materials suggested for the low-refractive index organic film (Si-based polysiloxane), a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I) to arrive at a configuration wherein the refractive index of the low-refractive index organic film is 1.35 or less and is lower than the refractive index of the at least one of the light control parts:
a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to select polysiloxane as the material for the low-refractive index organic film (having a refractive index of 1.3-1.6 per Nonaka ¶ [0054]; for the purpose of discussion, 1.3), select a refractive index of 1.4 for the low refractive index layer 391 of Park (FIG. 4, 1.4 is on the disclosed range ¶ [0114]), and select a refractive index of at least 1.7 for the light control patterns (in keeping with Park’s teaching of a refractive index disparity of at least 0.3 between the light control patterns and the low-refractive index film 391 ¶ [0114]). Having done so, the refractive index of the low-refractive index organic film is 1.35 or less (Park FIG. 4, filler 70 at 1.3 ¶ [0105] in view of Nonaka ¶ [0054]) and is lower than the refractive index of the at least one of the light control parts (which is at least 1.7 in view of Park’s teaching of a refractive index disparity of at least 0.3 between the light control patterns and the low-refractive index film 391 ¶ [0114]); a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have this configuration of refractive indices to arrive at improved light emitting efficiency with lower production cost.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Nonaka as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US patent publication US 20200258946 A1 (Kim et al hereinafter Kim).
Park in view of Nonaka discloses the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above, but they do not further disclose that the low-refractive index organic film has a thickness of about 1 micrometer to about 6 micrometers, that thickness not being a parameter of particular importance to the disclosure of their invention.
However, Kim discloses a display device (display device 1 of FIG. 4) comprising an organic low-refractive index film (FIG. 4, organic layer 420 of encapsulation 400 ¶ [0089]), wherein the organic low-refractive index film has a thickness range suggested at about 2 μm to about 10 μm (¶ [0104]).
Park and Kim both pertain to the field of display devices having encapsulation layers, placing them in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the device of Park in view of Nonaka further in view of Kim to select a thickness for the first low-refractive index film in the disclosed range of Kim, in order to provide an organic encapsulation layer at a thickness which provides sufficient protective properties while not hindering the light-emitting function of the device. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would also have found it obvious to select a thickness wherein the first low-refractive index film has a thickness of about 6 micrometers or less, because such thicknesses lie within the disclosed range of Kim (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Nonaka as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US patent publication US 20180130858 A1 (Kim et al hereinafter Kim 2).
Park in view of Nonaka disclose the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above, and Park further discloses light emission areas (FIG. 4, emission areas above color filters 331, 333, and 335 ¶ [0108-0111]) which emit light of different colors (FIG. 4, the emission areas above color filters 331, 333, and 335 emit red, green, and blue light respectively ¶ [0108-0111]), wherein the plurality of light emitting elements include first to third light emitting elements (FIG. 4, organic light emitting elements ED1, ED2, and ED3 are first to third light emitting elements that correspond to the light emission areas ¶ [0053]) corresponding to the light emission areas, each of the first to third light emitting elements includes a first electrode (Park FIG. 4, pixel electrodes AE1, AE2, and AE3 ¶ [0046]), an emissive part (FIG. 4, organic layers OL1, OL2, and OL3 ¶ [0050]) and a second electrode (FIG. 4, common electrode CE ¶ [0051]) in order,
and the low-refractive index organic film of the encapsulation layer defines a flat upper surface furthest from the first to third light emitting elements (FIG. 4, encapsulation layer 170 defines a flat upper surface on the upper end of second encapsulating inorganic film 175, further from the first to third light emitting elements ED1, ED2, and ED3).
Park in view of Nonaka does not further disclose that the emissive parts of the first to third light emitting elements have different thicknesses, and the low-refractive index organic film of the encapsulation layer covers the first to third light emitting elements including the emissive parts having the different thicknesses.
However, Kim 2 discloses a display device (the device of FIG. 7B) wherein emissive parts of first to third light emitting elements (FIG. 7B, first to third light emitting patterns EL1, EL2, and EL3 ¶ [0130]) have different thicknesses (FIG. 7B, thicknesses D-EL1, D-EL2, and D-EL3 differ from each other ¶ [0131-0132]), and a low-refractive index organic film (FIG. 7B, organic cover layer MN ¶ [0053]) of an encapsulation layer (FIG. 7B, layers UL, MN, and IL1-IL3 together form an encapsulation layer ¶ [0053-0056]) covers the first to third light emitting elements including the emissive parts having the different thicknesses (FIG. 7B, organic cover layer MN covers first to third light emitting patterns EL1, EL2, and EL3 having thicknesses D-EL1, D-EL2, and D-EL3). Kim 2 also discloses that the differing thicknesses of the light emitting layers enable a resonance phenomenon for light of a given sub-pixel’s respective color (¶ [0132]), said resonance phenomenon noted to improve the light efficiency of an organic light emitting diode (¶ [0125]).
Park and Kim 2 both pertain to the field of display devices having encapsulation layers, placing them in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the device of Park in view of Nonaka further in view of Kim 2 to have the emissive parts of the first to third light emitting elements have different thicknesses, and the low-refractive index organic film of the encapsulation layer covers the first to third light emitting elements including the emissive parts having the different thicknesses, in order to enable a resonance phenomenon as taught by Kim 2 to improve the light efficiency of the organic light emitting diodes.
Claims 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Nonaka and Kim.
Regarding claim 12, Park discloses a display device (display device 1 of FIGS. 1-5 ¶ [0009-0013, 0030-0032]) comprising: a light emitting element (FIG. 4, organic light emitting element ED1 ¶ [0053]); a light control part (FIG. 4, wavelength conversion pattern 341 ¶ [0114]) which color-converts light and corresponds to the light emitting element (FIG. 4, wavelength conversion pattern 341 color-converts light and is disposed above light emitting element ED1 ¶ [0114, 0118]); a first inorganic film (FIG. 4, second low-refractive index layer 393, protective layer 370, and third capping layer 355 together form a multilayer inorganic film ¶ [0157-0159]) contacting the light control part which color-converts light (FIG. 4, the composite multilayer of second low-refractive index layer 393, protective layer 370, and third capping layer 355 contacts wavelength conversion pattern 341); a first low-refractive index film (FIG. 4, filler 70 is between pattern 341 and element ED1, and contacts second low-refractive index layer 393 ¶ [0038, 0105]; as no threshold of refractive index was claimed to differentiate it being low or not low, any of the suggested materials are considered sufficiently low) between the light emitting element and the light control part and contacting the first inorganic film; and a second low-refractive index film (FIG. 4, first low refractive index layer 391 faces encapsulation 173 with pattern 341 between them ¶ [0114]) facing the first low-refractive index film with the light control part therebetween, wherein the first low-refractive index film includes an organic film (FIG. 4, filler 70 is an organic film ¶ [0038]) and has a thickness of about 6 micrometers or less, each of the light control part, the organic film of the first low-refractive index film and the second low-refractive index film has a refractive index (pattern 341, filler 70, and first low refractive index layer 391 all inherently have refractive indices), and the refractive index of the organic film and the refractive index of the second low-refractive index film are lower than the refractive index of the light control part.
Park does not explicitly disclose that the first low-refractive index film has a thickness of about 6 micrometers or less, or that the refractive index of the organic film and the refractive index of the second low-refractive index film are lower than the refractive index of the light control part.
Regarding the limitation that the refractive index of the organic film and the refractive index of the second low-refractive index film are lower than the refractive index of the light control part, Park does teach that low refractive index layer 391 may have a refractive index of about 1.1 to about 1.4, and that the light control patterns may have a refractive index 0.3 or more higher than that of low refractive index layer 391 (¶ [0114]), and it is further taught that the filler/organic insulating layer may be formed of Si-based organic material or epoxy-based organic material (¶ [0038]).
Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have the refractive index of the organic film and the refractive index of the second low-refractive index film are lower than the refractive index of the light control part in view of Nonaka, which discloses that polysiloxane, a known Si-based organic material, may have a refractive index as low as 1.3 (¶ [0053-0054]). Based on the disclosed ranges of Park and Nonaka in view of known refractive index values of one of the organic materials suggested for the low-refractive index organic film (Si-based polysiloxane), a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I) to arrive at a configuration wherein the refractive index of the organic film and the refractive index of the second low-refractive index film are lower than the refractive index of the light control part:
a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to select polysiloxane as the material for the low-refractive index organic film (having a refractive index of 1.3-1.6 per Nonaka ¶ [0054]; for the purpose of discussion, 1.3), select a refractive index of 1.4 for the low refractive index layer 391 of Park (FIG. 4, 1.4 is on the disclosed range ¶ [0114]), and select a refractive index of at least 1.7 for the light control patterns (in keeping with Park’s teaching of a refractive index disparity of at least 0.3 between the light control patterns and the low-refractive index film 391 ¶ [0114]). Having done so, the refractive index of the organic film and the refractive index of the second low-refractive index film (Park FIG. 4, filler 70 at 1.3 ¶ [0105] in view of Nonaka ¶ [0054] and low-refractive index film 391 is 1.4 Park ¶ [0114]) and is lower than the refractive index of the at least one of the light control parts (which is at least 1.7 in view of Park’s teaching of a refractive index disparity of at least 0.3 between the light control patterns and the low-refractive index film 391 ¶ [0114]); a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have this configuration of refractive indices to arrive at improved light emitting efficiency with lower production cost.
Regarding the limitation that the first low-refractive index film has a thickness of about 6 micrometers or less, Park does not explicitly suggest a thickness for the first low-refractive index film, that thickness not being a parameter of particular importance to the disclosure of their invention.
However, Kim discloses a display device (display device 1 of FIG. 4) comprising an organic low- refractive index film (FIG. 4, organic layer 420 of encapsulation 400 ¶ [0089]), wherein the organic low-refractive index film has a thickness range suggested at about 2 μm to about 10 μm (¶ [0104]).
Park and Kim both pertain to the field of display devices having encapsulation layers, placing them in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the device of Park in view of Nonaka further in view of Kim to select a thickness for the first low-refractive index film in the disclosed range of Kim, in order to provide an organic encapsulation layer at a thickness which provides sufficient protective properties while not hindering the light-emitting function of the device. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would also have found it obvious to select a thickness wherein the first low-refractive index film has a thickness of about 6 micrometers or less, because such thicknesses lie within the disclosed range of Kim (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
Regarding claim 13, Park in view of Nonaka and Kim discloses the limitations of claim 12 as detailed above, and they further disclose that the refractive index of the first low-refractive index film is about 1.15 to about 1.35 (when filler 70 of Park FIG. 4 is formed of the polysiloxane discussed in Nonaka ¶ [0054], the refractive index may be 1.3).
Regarding claim 14, Park in view of Nonaka and Kim discloses the limitations of claim 12 as detailed above, and Park further discloses a second inorganic film (FIG. 4, second inorganic encapsulating film 175 is between filler 70 and light emitting element ED1 and contacts filler 70 ¶ [0105]) between the first low-refractive index film and the light emitting element and contacting the first low-refractive index film.
Regarding claim 15, Park in view of Nonaka and Kim discloses the limitations of claim 12 as detailed above, and Park further discloses an encapsulation layer (FIG. 4, thin film encapsulation layer 170 and filler 70 function as an encapsulation layer that seals the elements ED1, ED2, and ED3 ¶ [0034, 0104]) which seals the light-emitting element, wherein the encapsulation layer includes the organic film of the first low-refractive index film.
Regarding claim 16, Park in view of Nonaka and Kim discloses the limitations of claim 12 as detailed above, and Park further discloses that in order (due to how claim 12 included the combination of limitations “a first inorganic film contacting the light control part” and “a first low-refractive index film between the light emitting element and the light control part and contacting the first inorganic film”, which requires that the claimed first inorganic film is further from the light emitting element than the first low-refractive index film in view of present application’s elected Species of FIG. 7A, the “order” of the films is understood to be “farthest to nearest”) from the light emitting element, the first inorganic film (FIG. 4, second low-refractive index layer 393, protective layer 370, and third capping layer 355 together form a multilayer inorganic film ¶ [0157-0159]), the first low-refractive index film (FIG. 4, filler 70 ¶ [0034, 0038]) and a second inorganic film (FIG. 4, second inorganic encapsulating film 175 ¶ [0105]), wherein each of the first inorganic film and the second inorganic film contacts the first low-refractive index film (FIG. 4, second low-refractive index layer 393 and second inorganic encapsulating film 175 both contact filler 70).
Regarding claim 17, Park in view of Nonaka and Kim discloses the limitations of claim 12 as detailed above, and Park further discloses that the light control part is provided in plural including a plurality of light control parts (FIG. 4, in addition to the previously described wavelength conversion pattern 341, a second wavelength conversion pattern 343 and light transmitting pattern 345 are also present as light control parts disposed over filler 70 ¶ [0114]) along the first low-refractive index film, and the second low-refractive index film covers all of the plurality of light control parts (FIG. 4, first low refractive index layer 391 covers all of the light control patterns 341, 343, and 345 from above).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Nonaka as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Kim 2.
Park in view of Nonaka disclose the limitations of claim 19 as detailed above, and Park further discloses light emission areas which emit light of different colors (FIG. 4, emission areas above color filters 331, 333, and 335 emit red, green, and blue light respectively ¶ [0108-0111]), wherein the plurality of light emitting elements include first to third light emitting elements (FIG. 4, light emitting elements ED1, ED2, and ED3 respectively overlap the emission areas above color filters 331, 333, and 335) corresponding to the light emission areas.
Park in view of Nonaka does not further disclose that the first to third light emitting elements provide a stepped upper surface, and the low-refractive index organic film covers the stepped upper surface and planarizes the stepped upper surface.
However, Kim 2 discloses a display device (the device of FIG. 7B) wherein first to third light emitting elements (FIG. 7B, first to third light emitting patterns EL1, EL2, and EL3 ¶ [0130]) provide a stepped upper surface (FIG. 7B, upper surfaces of light emitting patterns EL1, EL2, and EL3 gradually step down), and a low-refractive index organic film (FIG. 7B, organic cover layer MN ¶ [0053]) covers the stepped upper surface and planarizes the stepped upper surface (FIG. 7B, organic cover layer MN covers upper surfaces of each of light emitting patterns EL1, EL2, and EL3, and has a planarized upper surface where it borders upper layer UL ¶ [0055]). Kim 2 also discloses that the differing thicknesses of the light emitting layers enable a resonance phenomenon for light of a given sub-pixel’s respective color (¶ [0132]), said resonance phenomenon noted to improve the light efficiency of an organic light emitting diode (¶ [0125]).
Park and Kim 2 both pertain to the field of display devices having encapsulation layers, placing them in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the device of Park in view of Nonaka further in view of Kim 2 to have the first to third light emitting elements provide a stepped upper surface, and the low-refractive index organic film covers the stepped upper surface and planarizes the stepped upper surface, in order to enable a resonance phenomenon as taught by Kim 2 to improve the light efficiency of the organic light emitting diodes.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD RHETT CHEEK whose telephone number is (571)272-3461. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30am - 5pm, Every other Friday 8:30am - 5pm.
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, Steven Gauthier can be reached at 571-270-0373. 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.
/E.R.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2813
/STEVEN B GAUTHIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights