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 Group I claims 1-16 in the reply filed on 11/5/2025 is acknowledged.
Prior Art of Record
The applicant's attention is directed to additional pertinent prior art cited in the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited, which, however, may not be currently applied as a basis for the following rejections. While these references were considered during the examination of this application and are deemed relevant to the claimed subject matter, they are not presently being applied as a basis for rejection in this Office action. The pertinence of these documents, however, may be revisited, and they may be applied in subsequent Office actions, particularly in light of any amendments or further clarification of the claimed invention.
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 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 7-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son et al. (US 20200274089 A1).
CLAIM 1. Son et al. discloses a display device comprising:
a substrate 110;
a light emitting element [ED1-3] disposed on the substrate 110 (Son et al. ¶53 & Fig. 4);
an encapsulation layer 173 disposed on the light emitting element ED1-3 (Son et al. ¶53 & Fig. 4);
a bank layer OC disposed on the encapsulation layer 173 (Note: Layer OC may be considered a "bank layer" as shown its structural function is to physically separate and define distinct regions (wells or banks) for different materials (PS2, 341, 343, 345) above it. This role of creating wells to contain materials in specific pixel areas is a characteristic function of a bank layer in display technology. Even though Son et al. does not disclose the structure as a bank layer, a POSITA would consider the structure disclosed in Son et al. to be structurally analogous.), defining an opening overlapping the light emitting element ED1-3, and including a first base layer 3411 and a plurality of first scattering particles 3413 dispersed in the first base layer 3411 (Son et al. ¶110 & Fig. 4); and
an anti-reflection layer PS2 disposed inside the opening.
Note: Son et al. is silent upon where PS2 in the figure may be functionally considered an "anti-reflection layer,” a person skilled in the art, when presented with the layer's material composition options12 and the explicit direction of light L passing through layer PS2 (Son et al. fig. 4), would find its function as an anti-reflection layer to be obvious, thereby selecting the appropriate material and thickness.
The primary purpose of an anti-reflection coating (ARC) is to enhance the transmission of light and minimize reflections at material interfaces. Since light L is directed to pass through PS2, its placement is consistent with the conventional application of these materials as an ARC to improve optical efficiency in an optoelectronic device. This functional limitation, thus, does not provide a structural distinction of the component itself, thus the layer as disclosed in Son et al. is considered structurally analogous would be a obvious choice, merely modifying Son et al. in function, by simply selecting the most desirable martial listed by Son et al. to optimize the anti-reflection functionality in the device.
CLAIM 2. Son et al. discloses a display device of claim 1, wherein each of the first scattering particles 3415 includes an inorganic material (Son et al. ¶0111-115, 0124 & Fig. 4).
CLAIM 3. Son et al. discloses a display device of claim 2, wherein the inorganic material includes at least one selected from a group consisting of titanium oxide (TiO2), aluminum oxide (A1203), zirconium oxide (ZrO2), and silicon oxide (S102) (Son et al. ¶0124 & Fig. 4).
CLAIM 4. Son et al. discloses a display device of claim 1, wherein the first base layer includes an organic material or an inorganic material (Son et al. ¶0111 & Fig. 4).
CLAIM 5. Son et al. discloses a display device of claim 4, wherein the first base layer further includes at least one selected from a group consisting of a carbon black, a black pigment, and a black dye(Son et al. ¶0322-323 & Fig. 22 – Alternatively, OC[as applied to claim 1) may be desirable to be light blocking. In such scenario, the structure may include the materials listed to make the structure light blocking.).
CLAIM 7. Son et al. discloses a display device of claim 1, wherein a refractive index of the bank layer is smaller than a refractive index of the anti-reflection layer (This limitation would be obvious in view of Snell’s Law, within the concept of the device because the law dictates that light traveling from the high-refractive-index (i.e. SiN) layer to the lower-refractive-index adjacent material cannot be refracted (transmitted) at all if its incident angle exceeds the critical angle, resulting in total internal reflection (TIR) and confining the light within the pixel structure. Such relative arrangement is fundamental to the understood goal of directed light extraction.).
CLAIM 8. Son et al. discloses a display device of claim 7, wherein the refractive index of the bank layer is about 1.2 to about 1.4 (Siloxane-based and silsesquioxane-based resins (PDMS) naturally have lower base indices [~1.4]. As such, the claimed range would be expected to overlap with the understood index of refraction of the listed materials suitable for the element OC in Son et al. As such, the simple selection of appropriate material with optimized parameters/properties per Snell’s Law to optimize the device performance would be a obvious parameter/material optimization for a POSITA at the time of the invention.)
CLAIM 9. Son et al. discloses a display device of claim 7, wherein the refractive index of the anti- reflection layer is about 1.5 to about 1.7 (silicon oxide and aluminum oxide are both disclosed suitable materials for PS2. Both materials are recognized to have a n value in the range.).
CLAIM 10. Son et al. discloses a display device of claim 1, wherein the anti-reflection layer includes an inorganic material or an organic material (Son et al. ¶0111 & Fig. 4).
CLAIM 11. Son et al. discloses a display device of claim 1, wherein the anti-reflection layer includes at least one selected from a group consisting of a pigment, a binder, and a monomer (Several of the inorganic materials, listed by Son et al., are used as pigments, most notably titanium oxide, which is the primary white pigment used globally for its exceptional brightness and opacity in a variety of coatings.).
CLAIM 12. Son et al. discloses a display device of claim 1, further comprising: a low refractive index layer disposed inside the opening, wherein the anti-reflection layer is disposed on the low refractive index layer (Son et al. ¶111-149 – PS2 may be a plurality of layers made from the listed materials. Son et al. Fig. 22 – further depicts a additional layer PS6 formed of the listed material. Per Snell’s law, a high index anti reflective layer would be expected to be arranged over a lower N material, to achieve TIL to directed light in the direction indicated by L.).
CLAIM 13. Son et al. discloses a display device of claim 12, wherein the low refractive index layer is monolithic with the bank layer (Son et al. figs. 4 & 22 – i.e. when the bank layer is considered the low reactive index layer.).
CLAIM 14. Son et al. discloses a display device of claim 12, wherein the low refractive index layer includes a second base layer 343 and a plurality of second scattering particles 3435 dispersed in the second base layer 343 (Son et al. fig. 4).
CLAIM 15. Son et al. discloses a display device of claim 14, wherein the second base layer includes an organic material or an inorganic material, and each of the second scattering particles includes an inorganic material (Son et al. ¶0111-115, 0124 & Fig. 4).
CLAIM 16. Son et al. discloses a display device of claim 1, further comprising: a capping layer 310 disposed on the light emitting element ED1-3; and a light absorption layer disposed PS1 between the capping layer 310 and the encapsulation layer 173 and including an inorganic material (Son et al. fig. 4. PS3 as disclosed [¶0149]may be anyone of silicon nitride, aluminum nitride, zirconium nitride, titanium nitride, hafnium nitride, tantalum nitride, silicon oxide, aluminum oxide, titanium oxide, tin oxide, cerium oxide, silicon oxynitride.).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son et al. (US 20200274089 A1) in view of Suzuki (KR 20190132188 A) in view of Kim et al. (US 10048530 B1).
CLAIM 6. Son et al. discloses a display device of claim 4, however is silent upon wherein the first base layer further includes at least one selected from a group consisting of an orange pigment, a violet pigment, and a blue pigment. At the time of the invention, such pigments were known functional equivalent alternatives selected for light blocking structures such as described in figure 22 of Son et al. For example, see Suzuki which teaches violet, blue, orange spectrum pigments may be selected to absorb specific wavelength, and thus may be beneficial over more convention options of carbon or carbon black.3
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the light absorption/blocking additive of Son et al. as taught by Suzuki, since simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.-, 82 USPQ2d 1385).
Further it is noted, this limitation modifies the interpretation of claim 1 where the scattering particles are not necessarily required to be located with in the light blocking portion of the bank layer. As Son et al. is applied, the first base layer in the bank layer is considered the conversion layer which is a base layer comprising scattering and conversion particles and is structurally analogous to the Application’s embodiment shown in figure 9. While Son et al. is silent upon particles being located in the light blocking bank structure of figure 22, such scattering features would be obvious if not expected. See Kim et al fig. 4 and column 13 lines 1+, teach the analogous scattering particles4 of Son et al. may be also found in the light blocking pixel partitions (i.e. banks). As shown in, figure 4, inorganic metal oxide particles 110p are located within the base layer forming the pixel defining structure of a bank layer. Such particles are to add benefits such as scattering, reflection, and/or blocking of light in a partition structure of a bank layer.
As such, the first base layer may be considered the binder material of the partition structure in Son et al. and was known in the art at the time of the invention to further contain inorganic scattering particles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the partition/shielding/blocking region of the bank layer of Son et al. to further include scattering particles, since applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.-, 82 USPQ2d 1385).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JARRETT J STARK whose telephone number is (571)272-6005. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4 M-F.
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, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. 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.
JARRETT J. STARK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2822
11/25/2025
/JARRETT J STARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
1 Son et al. para [106-107] – “In some exemplary embodiments, the first capping layer PS1 may be made of an inorganic material. For example, the first capping layer PS1 may be made of a material including silicon nitride, aluminum nitride, zirconium nitride, titanium nitride, hafnium nitride, tantalum nitride, silicon oxide, aluminum oxide, titanium oxide, tin oxide, cerium oxide, silicon oxynitride, etc.
The first capping layer PS1 may be a single layer containing at least one of the above-described inorganic materials or may be formed of multiple layers containing different inorganic materials.”
2 Son et al. para [0149] – “The second capping layer PS2 may be made of the same (e.g., substantially the same) material as the first capping layer 351”
3 Suzuki – “Since high light-shielding property is needed for such a resin black matrix for COA, thick film formation is calculated | required. However, as the film thickness of the resin black matrix increases, the difference in the crosslinking density with respect to the film thickness direction in the exposed portion increases, so that it becomes difficult to achieve high sensitivity and obtain a black pattern having a good shape. . Moreover, also when carbon black with high light shielding property was used as a means of high light shielding, there existed a problem that exposure sensitivity fell similarly…..
In order to alleviate this drawback, the attempt to use the black organic pigment composition (organic black matrix) obtained by mixing several organic pigments to black instead of carbon black for a light-shielding material is actively performed recently (for example, Patent document 1)…..
Here, blue pigments, such as phthalocyanine and indanthrene, are mainly used for light-shielding in a long wavelength range (550 nm-780 nm). However, conventionally known blue pigments have a small absorption intensity near 555 nm, which contributes greatly to the OD value (the value indicating the optical density and the light shielding performance, and the larger the value indicates the higher the light shielding performance) showing the light shielding property, Since the absorption intensity of 365 nm used for hardening of UV cure resin is large, when it sets it as black in combination with a short wavelength absorption pigment and a medium wavelength absorption pigment, there existed a problem that shading was inadequate and exposure sensitivity fell.”
4 Kim et al. Col. 13 ln 1-25: “In exemplary embodiments, the partition wall 110 may further include first particles 110p dispersed therein. The first particles 110p may be light-scattering materials that may scatter light transmitted through the partition wall 110. The first particles 110p may have a spherical shape or various polygonal shapes that are regular or irregular. A refractive index of the first particles 110p may be different from that of the partition wall 110. The first particles 110p are not particularly limited as long as they can scatter and reflect transmitted light. For example, the first particles 110p may be metal oxide particles or organic particles. Examples of the metal oxide may include at least one of titanium oxide (TiO.sub.2), zirconium oxide (ZrO.sub.2), aluminum oxide (Al.sub.2O.sub.3), indium oxide (In.sub.2O.sub.3), zinc oxide (ZnO), and tin oxide (SnO.sub.2). Examples of the organic material may include at least one of acrylic resin and urethane resin.”