DETAILED ACTION
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(s) 2 and 19 is/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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 2 and 19, the limitation “the sub-organic film is devoid of quantum dots” is unclear as to how it is related to the previously recited “quantum dots.”
Note the dependent claims necessarily inherit the indefiniteness of the claims on which they depend.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 8-12, 14 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Kim et al. (WO 2021251560, using US 20230263029 as English language equivalent; herein “Kim”)
Regarding claims 1, Park discloses in Fig. 10 and related text a display device comprising:
a circuit layer (e.g. PCL);
a light-emitting element layer (e.g. at least a portion of DPL) disposed above the circuit layer;
an inorganic encapsulation film (INS4, see [0132]) disposed above the light-emitting element layer;
a light control layer (e.g. an upper layer portion of layer including CCL1/CCL2/LSL) including a bank (e.g. upper portion of BNK2), first light control part (e.g. CCL1), a second light control part (e.g. CCL2), and a third light control part (e.g. a LSL), the first light control part, the second light control part, and the third light control parts spaced apart from each other in the lateral direction;
a capping layer (e.g. CP1) disposed above the light control layer and covering the light control layer; and
a color filter layer (CFL, see [0106]) disposed above the capping layer and including a first filter (CF1), a second filter (CF2), and a third filter (CF3), wherein
the bank is disposed between the first light control part and the second light control part,
the bank is further disposed between the second light control part and the third light control part,
the light-emitting element layer includes:
a pixel defining film (e.g. lower portion of BNK2) with a pixel opening defined therein;
a first electrode (e.g. ELT1, see [0076]) exposed in the pixel opening;
a second electrode (e.g. CNE1, see [0107]) disposed above the first electrode; and
a light-emitting layer (12 of LD, see [0044]) disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode, and
the light control layer includes quantum dots (see [0167]-[0168])
Park does not disclose
a sub light control layer disposed above the inorganic encapsulation film and including a first sub light control part, a second sub light control part, and a third sub light control part, each spaced apart from each other in a lateral direction, wherein the lateral direction is perpendicular to a thickness direction;
a light control layer disposed above the sub light control layer;
a sub-inorganic film disposed between the sub light control layer and the light control layer;
the sub light control layer includes quantum dots;
the light control layer is spaced apart from the sub light control layer in the thickness direction by the sub-inorganic film, and
the sub-inorganic film is further disposed between the bank and the capping layer in the thickness direction in the non-light-emitting region.
In the same field of endeavor, Kim teaches in Fig. 3 and related text a display device comprising
a sub light control layer (e.g. CCP-B1/CCP-G1/CCP-R1) disposed under a light control layer (CCP-B2/CCP-G2/CCP-R2) and including a first sub light control part, a second sub light control part, and a third sub light control part, each spaced apart from each other in a lateral direction, wherein the lateral direction is perpendicular to a thickness direction;
the light control layer disposed above the sub light control layer;
the sub light control layer includes quantum dots (see [0103]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Park by having a sub light control layer disposed above a light control layer and including a first sub light control part, a second sub light control part, and a third sub light control part, each spaced apart from each other in a direction perpendicular to a thickness direction, as taught by Kim, in order to improve pattern forming quality, increase bonding force, and improve reliability without deteriorating light efficiency (see Kim [0158]). The limitation “a sub light control layer disposed above the inorganic encapsulation film” is therefore taught by the combination of the light control layer being above the inorganic encapsulation film, as shown by Park, and the sub light control layer being below the light control layer, as shown by Kim.
Further, Park teaches using a sub-inorganic film disposed between above a layer comprising quantum dots and/or scattering particles for the purposes of sealing each layer, preventing permeation of impurities or contaminants to the layers (see [0194]-[0195]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Park and Kim by having a sub-inorganic film above the sub light control layer (i.e. between the sub light control layer and the light control layer) in order to seal the sub light control layer and to prevent permeation of impurities or contaminants to the sub light control layer.
The limitations “a sub-inorganic film disposed between the sub light control layer and the light control layer,” “the light control layer is spaced apart from the sub light control layer in the thickness direction by the sub-inorganic film,” and “the sub-inorganic film is further disposed between the bank and the capping layer in the thickness direction in the non-light-emitting region,” are taught by the sub light control layer and light control layer of Kim in combination with an sub-inorganic film for sealing, as shown by Park as applied to the sub light control layer (see Annotated and combined figure below, which represents Fig. 10 of Park and Fig. 3 of Kim when combined and further modified with the sub inorganic layer resulting from the teaching of Park to seal the sub light control layer).
PNG
media_image1.png
241
772
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, the combined device shows
wherein the pixel defining film (Park: bottom portion of BNK2) is disposed between the first sub light control part and the second sub light control part,
the pixel defining film (bottom portion of BNK2) is further disposed between the second light control part and the third sub light control part (see Fig. 10);
the sub-organic film is devoid of quantum dots.
Regarding claim 4, the combined device shows
the sub-inorganic film (see annotated combined figure above) is disposed directly between the first sub light control part and the first light control part in the thickness direction;
the sub-inorganic film is disposed directly between the second sub light control part and the second light control part in the thickness direction;
the sub-inorganic film is disposed directly between the third sub light control part and the third light control part in the thickness direction.
Regarding claim 8, the combined device shows
wherein the pixel defining film and the bank are integrated to form a partition wall (Park: BNK2, see Fig. 10) defining a plurality of openings, and
the plurality of openings includes a first opening, a second opening, and a third opening (Park: see Fig. 10),
the first sub light control part and the first light control part are disposed in the first opening (Kim: see Fig. 3; see also annotated combined figure above),
the second sub light control part and the second light control part are disposed in the second opening (Kim: see Fig. 3; see also annotated combined figure above), and
the third sub light control part and the third light control part are disposed in the third opening (Kim: see Fig. 3; see also annotated combined figure above).
Regarding claim 9, the combined device shows the sub-inorganic film (see annotated combined figure above) is disposed directly between the first sub light control part and the first light control part, between the second sub light control part and the second light control part and between the third sub
Regarding claim 10, the combined device shows a minimum width of each of the first to third sub light control parts in the direction is substantially equal to a minimum width of each of the first to third light control parts in the direction in a cross-sectional view (note that one can choose a portion of the CCP-R1/CCP-B1/CCP-G1 to read on the respective “sub light control part” and a portion of the CCP-R2/CCP-B2/CCP-G2 to read on the respective “light control part” such that the claimed limitation is met).
Additionally, note that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the widths to be a function of the taper and the thickness of the sub-inorganic film. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to change the taper angle of the opening, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component and because it is well-known in the art to change the angle to affect the reflection and extraction of the light. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP 2144.04. Further, it would have been an obvious matter to change the thickness of the sub-inorganic film because since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component and it is well-known in the art that the thickness would affect the transparency as well as sealing properties of the layer. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 11, the combined device shows wherein a first height of the partition wall is greater than a second height of each of the first sub light control part, the second sub light control part and the third sub light control parts in a cross-sectional view, and each of the first height and the second height is defined as a maximum height in the thickness direction from a surface of the circuit layer (note that one can choose a portion of the CCP-R1/CCP-B1/CCP-G1 to read on the respective “sub light control part” such that the claimed limitation is met).
Regarding claim 12, the combined device shows wherein the partition wall is optically transparent (Park: in the instance where the partition wall is interpreted to further include to portions of INS4, CP1 and CP2 in regions over BNK2; INS4, CP1 and CP2 are optically transparent as evidenced by their presence over LD), and the color filter layer further includes a light blocking portion (BM, see [0190]) overlapping the partition wall in the thickness direction.
Regarding claim 14, Park further discloses wherein each of the sub light control layer and the light control layer further includes a scatterer (see [0173]).
Regarding claim 18, Park discloses in Fig. 10 and related text a display device comprising:
a light-emitting region (e.g. region including at least a portion of EMA) and a non-light-emitting region (e.g. region including at least a portion of area between adjacent EMA); and
a partition wall (BNK2).
The remaining limitations of the claim are taught in substantially the same manner and for substantially the same reasons as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 19, the limitations are taught in substantially the same manner and for substantially the same reasons as applied to claims 2 and 4 above.
Regarding claim 20, the combined device shows wherein the first sub light control part, the second sub light control part, and theta third sub light control part and the first light control part, the second light control part, and the third light control part do not overlap the non-light-emitting region in the thickness direction (Park: see Fig. 10; see also annotated combined figure above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (page 16-18) that Park and Kim do not teach or suggest the invention of claim 18 because the rejection is contradictory in that it recites Park does not teach a sub-inorganic film and then later says it does and that capping layer CP1 is disposed external to the color conversion CCL of Park.
In response, the examiner disagrees. Specifically, it is noted that Park does not teach a sub-inorganic film between a sub light control layer and a light control layer. Park does, however, teach the use of an organic film to seal off a layer which comprises QDs and/or scattering particles. Since Park is modified by Kim to include a sub light control layer and a light control layer, each comprising QDs and/or scattering particles, it would be obvious to then further modify the combination to have an additional inorganic layer sealing off the sub light control layer, i.e. the claimed “sub-inorganic film,” because it would be beneficial as suggested by Park, to seal each layer which comprises QDs and/or scattering particles. It is readily apparent that if one were to employ a sealing inorganic layer to the sub light control layer, it would be disposed directly above and conformal to the sub light control layer, just as the sealing inorganic layer CP1 for the light control layer is disposed directly above and conformal to the light control layer. The resulting disposition is between the sub light control layer and the light control layer.
Applicant argues (page 18-19) that Park and Kim do not teach or suggest the invention of claim 18 because the rejection relies upon a single element to teach two claimed elements.
In response, the examiner disagrees. Specifically, the rejection relies on CP1 to teach the capping layer and further relies on the general teaching that it would be beneficial to seal a layer comprising QDs and/or scattering particles with an inorganic layer to motivate an additional layer over the additional sub light control layer of Kim.
Applicant argues (page 19) that Park and Kim do not teach or suggest the invention of claim 18 because the rejection is based on Park in view of Kim and not Kim in view of Park.
In response, the examiner disagrees. Specifically, the rejection is based upon Park as a primary reference and modified by Kim to have the sub light control layer in addition to the light control layer. Park, as a whole, is considered to further suggest that the addition of a second layer comprising QDs and/or scattering particles would also have a corresponding sealing layer, which naturally follows from the combination. A prior art reference, may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. (see MPEP 2121.01 and 2123) This does not constitute an error in the combining of the references merely because the primary reference provides a teaching which is applicable to and follows from the combination.
Applicant’s remaining arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented above.
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 Lauren R Bell whose telephone number is (571)272-7199. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-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, William Kraig can be reached at (571) 272-8660. 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.
/LAUREN R BELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights