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 Amendment
The amendment filed on 27 October 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1, 9-11are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (US 2019/0348470 A1) in view of Jo et al. (US 20210202594 A1).
With respect to claim 1: Song teaches “a display apparatus (100+300) comprising: a lower substrate (100) comprising a display area (area with OLEDs; see Fig. 21); an upper substrate (310) disposed on the lower substrate (Fig. 21); a display layer (OLED+450) which is disposed on the lower substrate (see Fig. 21) and comprises a plurality of display elements (OLED) and a bank layer (450), the bank layer comprising a first opening defining an emission area for each of the plurality of display elements (see Fig. 21); a first anti-reflection layer (325+320+360) which is disposed between the upper substrate and the display layer (see Fig. 21), the first anti-reflection layer comprising a plurality of color filters (325R, 325B, 325G) positioned to correspond to emission areas of the plurality of display elements (see Fig. 21); and a second anti-reflection layer (40) disposed on the first anti-reflection layer and comprising at least one high refractive index layer and at least one low refractive index layer having a refractive index less than a refractive index of the high refractive index layer (paragraph 161)”.
Song does not specifically teach “a non-display area, the non- display area surrounding the display area, and an encapsulation layer disposed in the display area to cover the plurality of display elements, and continuously extending into the non-display area, wherein the encapsulation layer comprises: a first inorganic encapsulation layer disposed on the plurality of display elements in the display area and the non-display area; a first organic encapsulation layer disposed on the first inorganic encapsulation layer and between the first inorganic encapsulation layer and the first anti-reflection layer in the display area; and a second inorganic encapsulation layer covering the first organic encapsulation layer continuously in the display area and the non-display area”.
However, Jo teaches “a non-display area (NDA), the non- display area surrounding the display area (see Fig. 1a), and an encapsulation layer (140) disposed in the display area (see Fig. 1c) to cover the plurality of display elements (130), and continuously extending into the non-display area (see Fig. 1e), wherein the encapsulation layer comprises: a first inorganic encapsulation layer (141) disposed on the plurality of display elements in the display area (see Fig. 1c) and the non-display area (see Fig. 1e); a first organic encapsulation layer (142) disposed on the first inorganic encapsulation layer (see Fig. 1c) and between the first inorganic encapsulation layer and the first anti-reflection layer (160+170+180; see paragraph 38) in the display area (see Fig. 1c); and a second inorganic encapsulation layer (143) covering the first organic encapsulation layer continuously in the display area and the non-display area (see Fig. 1e)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display apparatus of Song by including the encapsulation layer extending from the display area to the non-display area as taught by Jo in order to minimize deterioration of the display due to oxygen and moisture (Jo paragraph 56).
With respect to claim 9: Song in view of Jo teaches “the display apparatus of claim 1 (see above)”.
Song further teaches “wherein the first anti-reflection layer is disposed over an inner surface of the upper substrate, and the second anti-reflection layer is disposed over an outer surface opposite to the inner surface of the upper substrate (see Fig. 21)”.
With respect to claim 10: Song in view of Jo teaches “the display apparatus of claim 9 (see above)”.
Song further teaches “wherein the first anti-reflection layer further comprises an upper base layer (320) on the inner surface of the upper substrate (see Fig. 21), the upper base layer comprises a second opening corresponding to the first opening (see Fig. 21), and the plurality of color filters fill the second opening (see Fig. 21)”.
With respect to claim 11: Song in view of Jo teaches “the display apparatus of claim 1 (see above)”.
Song’s Fig. 21 embodiment does not teach “wherein the second anti-reflection layer is disposed on an inner surface of the upper substrate, and the second anti-reflection layer is located between the upper substrate and the first anti-reflection layer”.
However, Song’s Fig. 11 embodiment teaches “wherein the second anti-reflection layer (361) is disposed on an inner surface of the upper substrate (see Fig. 11), and the second anti-reflection layer is located between the upper substrate and the first anti-reflection layer (360)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to place the second anti-reflection layer on the inner surface of the substrate as taught by Song’s Fig. 11 embodiment due to the art recognized suitability of an anti-reflection layer at that location for the purposes of absorbing external light and equivalence for that purpose of anti-reflection layers located at alternate locations (Song paragraphs 79, 85, 103).
Claims 2-8, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song in view of Jo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sakamoto et al. (US 2017/0279084 A1).
With respect to claim 2: Song in view of Jo teaches “the display apparatus of claim 1 (see above)”.
Song does not specifically teach “a sealing member located between the lower substrate and the upper substrate and bonds the lower substrate and the upper substrate together in the non-display area, wherein the sealing member is disposed on the encapsulation layer”.
However, Sakamoto teaches “a sealing member (DAM) located between the lower substrate (TFT-S) and the upper substrate (CS) and bonds the lower substrate and the upper substrate together in the non-display area (see Fig. 19), wherein the sealing member is disposed on the encapsulation layer (see Fig. 19)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display apparatus of Song by including the sealing member taught by Sakamoto in order to keep oxygen and water out (Sakamoto paragraph 68).
With respect to claim 3: Song in view of Jo and Sakamoto teaches “The display apparatus of claim 2 (see above)”.
Song does not specifically teach “wherein the first inorganic encapsulation layer and the second inorganic encapsulation layer are in contact with each other in the non-display area, and the sealing member is arranged on an area in which the first inorganic encapsulation layer and the second inorganic encapsulation layer are in contact with each other”.
However, Sakamoto teaches “wherein the first encapsulation layer and the second inorganic encapsulation layer are in contact with each other in the non-display area (see Fig. 19), and the sealing member (DAM) is arranged on an area in which the first inorganic encapsulation layer and the second inorganic encapsulation layer are in contact with each other (see Fig. 19)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display apparatus of Song by including the encapsulation and sealing members as taught by Sakamoto in order to keep oxygen and water out (Sakamoto paragraph 68).
Sakamoto does not specifically teach what the first encapsulation layer is made from.
However, Jo teaches a display apparatus in which the first (41) and third (43) encapsulation layers are inorganic layers (paragraph 56)
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the display apparatus of Song by choosing inorganic materials for the first and third encapsulation layers as taught by Jo in recognition of these materials being suitable for the purpose of blocking moisture (Jo paragraph 56).
With respect to claim 4: Song in view of Jo and Sakamoto teaches “the display apparatus of claim 2 (see above)”.
Song teaches “further comprising a filler (350)”.
Song does not specify that the filler is between the upper substrate and the encapsulation layer and in an area enclosed by the sealing member.
However, Sakamoto teaches “a filler (FIL) located between the upper substrate and the encapsulation layer (Fig. 19) and in an area enclosed by the sealing member (Fig. 19)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display apparatus of Song by including the sealing member enclosing the filler between the upper substrate and the encapsulation layer taught by Sakamoto in order to keep oxygen and water out (Sakamoto paragraph 68).
With respect to claim 6: Song in view of Jo and Sakamoto teaches “the display apparatus of claim 4 (see above)”.
Song further teaches “wherein the first anti-reflection layer further comprises at least one overcoat layer (360) between the plurality of color filters and the filler (see Fig. 21)’.
With respect to claim 7: Song in view of Jo and Sakamoto teaches “the display apparatus of claim 2 (see above)”.
Song further teaches “wherein the bank layer comprises a insulating material (paragraph 155)”.
Song does not specifically teach that the bank layer comprises a light shielding material.
However, Sakamoto teaches that the bank layer (BANK) comprises a light shielding material (RM; see Fig. 13).
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display apparatus of Song by including the light shielding material in the bank as taught by Sakamoto in order to more effectively extract light (Sakamoto paragraph 60).
With respect to claim 8: Song in view of Jo teaches “the display apparatus of claim 1 (see above)”.
Song further teaches “the high refractive index layer and the low refractive index layer are alternately stacked on each other (paragraph 161)”.
Song does not specifically teach “wherein the second anti-reflection layer comprises two or more high refractive index layers and two or more low refractive index layers”.
However, Jo teaches an anti-reflection layer (ARML) that comprises two or more high refractive index layers and two or more low refractive index layers (see Fig. 16).
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display apparatus of Song by including multiple alternating high index and low index layers as taught by Sakamoto in order to more effectively repress the reflection of outside light (Sakamoto paragraph 63)
With respect to claim 12: Song in view of Jo teaches “the display apparatus of claim 1 (see above)”.
Song does not specifically teach “wherein a sealing member, which bonds the lower substrate and the upper substrate together, is disposed on the second anti- reflection layer in the non-display area
However, Sakamoto teaches “wherein a sealing member (DAM), which bonds the lower substrate and the upper substrate together (see Fig. 2), is disposed on the second anti- reflection layer (CF-FL) in the non-display area (see Fig. 2; display area is the area of PX, non-display area is everything else)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display apparatus of Song by including the sealing member taught by Sakamoto in order to keep oxygen and water out (Sakamoto paragraph 68).
Claims 13-16, and 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song in view of Jo and Sakamoto.
With respect to claim 13: Song teaches “a display apparatus (100+300) comprising: a lower substrate (100) comprising a display area (area with OLEDs; see Fig. 21); an upper substrate (310) disposed on the lower substrate (see Fig. 21); a display layer (OLED+450) which is disposed on the lower substrate (see Fig. 21) and comprises a plurality of display elements (OLED) and a bank layer (450), the bank layer comprising a first opening defining an emission area for each of the plurality of display elements (see Fig. 21); a first anti-reflection layer (325+320+360) which is disposed between the upper substrate and the display layer (see Fig. 21), the first anti-reflection layer comprising a plurality of color filters (325R, 325G, 325B) positioned to correspond to emission areas of the plurality of display elements (see Fig. 21)”.
Song does not specifically teach “a non-display area, the non- display area surrounding the display area, and an encapsulation layer disposed in the display area to cover the plurality of display elements, and continuously extending into the non-display area, wherein the encapsulation layer comprises: a first inorganic encapsulation layer disposed on the plurality of display elements in the display area and the non-display area; a first organic encapsulation layer disposed on the first inorganic encapsulation layer and between the first inorganic encapsulation layer and the first anti-reflection layer in the display area; and a second inorganic encapsulation layer covering the first organic encapsulation layer continuously in the display area and the non-display area”.
However, Jo teaches “a non-display area (NDA), the non- display area surrounding the display area (see Fig. 1a), and an encapsulation layer (140) disposed in the display area (see Fig. 1c) to cover the plurality of display elements (130), and continuously extending into the non-display area (see Fig. 1e), wherein the encapsulation layer comprises: a first inorganic encapsulation layer (141) disposed on the plurality of display elements in the display area (see Fig. 1c) and the non-display area (see Fig. 1e); a first organic encapsulation layer (142) disposed on the first inorganic encapsulation layer (see Fig. 1c) and between the first inorganic encapsulation layer and the first anti-reflection layer (160+170+180; see paragraph 38) in the display area (see Fig. 1c); and a second inorganic encapsulation layer (143) covering the first organic encapsulation layer continuously in the display area and the non-display area (see Fig. 1e)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display apparatus of Song by including the encapsulation layer extending from the display area to the non-display area as taught by Jo in order to minimize deterioration of the display due to oxygen and moisture (Jo paragraph 56).
Song does not specifically teach “a sealing member which is located between the lower substrate and the upper substrate and bonds the lower substrate and the upper substrate together in the non- display area, wherein the sealing member is disposed on the encapsulation layer”.
However, Sakamoto teaches “a sealing member (DAM) which is located between the lower substrate and the upper substrate and bonds the lower substrate and the upper substrate together in the non- display area (see Fig. 19), wherein the sealing member is disposed on the encapsulation layer (see Fig. 19)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display apparatus of Song by including the sealing member taught by Sakamoto in order to keep oxygen and water out (Sakamoto paragraph 68).
With respect to claim 14: Song in view of Jo and Sakamoto “the display apparatus of claim 13 (see above)”.
Song further teaches “further comprising a second anti- reflection layer (40) disposed on the first anti-reflection layer (see Fig. 19), wherein the second anti-reflection layer comprises at least one high refractive index layer and at least one low refractive index layer, the at least one low refractive index layer having a refractive index less than a refractive index of the at least one low refractive index layer (paragraph 161)”.
With respect to claim 15: Song in view of Jo and Sakamoto teaches “The display apparatus of claim 13 (see above)”.
Song does not specifically teach “wherein the first inorganic encapsulation layer and the second inorganic encapsulation layer are in contact with each other in the non-display area, and the sealing member is arranged on an area in which the first inorganic encapsulation layer and the second inorganic encapsulation layer are in contact with each other”.
However, Sakamoto teaches “wherein the first encapsulation layer and the second inorganic encapsulation layer are in contact with each other in the non-display area (see Fig. 19), and the sealing member (DAM) is arranged on an area in which the first inorganic encapsulation layer and the second inorganic encapsulation layer are in contact with each other (see Fig. 19)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display apparatus of Song by including the encapsulation and sealing members as taught by Sakamoto in order to keep oxygen and water out (Sakamoto paragraph 68).
Sakamoto does not specifically teach what the first encapsulation layer is made from.
However, Jo teaches a display apparatus in which the first (41) and third (43) encapsulation layers are inorganic layers (paragraph 56)
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the display apparatus of Song by choosing inorganic materials for the first and third encapsulation layers as taught by Jo in recognition of these materials being suitable for the purpose of blocking moisture (Jo paragraph 56).
With respect to claim 16: Song in view of Jo and Sakamoto teaches “the display apparatus of claim 13 (see above)”.
Song teaches “further comprising a filler (350)”.
Song does not specify that the filler is located between the upper substrate and the encapsulation layer and in an area enclosed by the sealing member.
However, Sakamoto teaches “a filler (FIL) located between the upper substrate and the encapsulation layer (Fig. 19) and in an area enclosed by the sealing member (Fig. 19)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display apparatus of Song by including the sealing member enclosing the filler located between the upper substrate and the encapsulation layer taught by Sakamoto in order to keep oxygen and water out (Sakamoto paragraph 68).
With respect to claim 18: Song in view of Jo and Sakamoto teaches “the display apparatus of claim 16 (see above)”.
Song further teaches “wherein the first anti-reflection layer further comprises at least one overcoat layer (360) between the plurality of color filters and the filler (see Fig. 21)’.
With respect to claim 19: Song in view of Jo and Sakamoto teaches “the display apparatus of claim 13 (see above)”.
Song further teaches “wherein the bank layer comprises a insulating material (paragraph 155)”.
Song does not specifically teach that the bank layer comprises a light shielding material.
However, Sakamoto teaches that the bank layer (BANK) comprises a light shielding material (RM; see Fig. 13).
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display apparatus of Song by including the light shielding material in the bank as taught by Sakamoto in order to more effectively extract light (Sakamoto paragraph 60).
With respect to claim 20: Song in view of Jo and Sakamoto teaches “the display apparatus of claim 14 (see above)”.
Song further teaches “the high refractive index layer and the low refractive index layer are alternately stacked on each other (paragraph 161)”.
Song does not specifically teach “wherein the second anti-reflection layer comprises two or more high refractive index layers and two or more low refractive index layers”.
However, Sakamoto teaches an anti-reflection layer (ARML) that comprises two or more high refractive index layers and two or more low refractive index layers (see Fig. 16).
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display apparatus of Song by including multiple alternating high index and low index layers as taught by Sakamoto in order to more effectively repress the reflection of outside light (Sakamoto paragraph 63).
With respect to claim 21: Song in view of Jo and Sakamoto teaches “the display apparatus of claim 14 (see above)”.
Song further teaches “wherein the first anti-reflection layer is disposed over an inner surface of the upper substrate, and the second anti-reflection layer is disposed over an outer surface opposite to the inner surface of the upper substrate (see Fig. 21)”.
With respect to claim 22: Song in view of Jo and Sakamoto teaches “the display apparatus of claim 21 (see above)”.
Song further teaches “wherein the first anti-reflection layer further comprises an upper base layer (320) on the inner surface of the upper substrate (see Fig. 21), the upper base layer comprises a second opening corresponding to the first opening (see Fig. 21), and the plurality of color filters fill the second opening (see Fig. 21)”.
With respect to claim 23: Song in view of Jo and Sakamoto teaches “the display apparatus of claim 14 (see above)”.
Song’s Fig. 21 embodiment does not teach “wherein the second anti-reflection layer is disposed on an inner surface of the upper substrate, and the second anti-reflection layer is located between the upper substrate and the first anti-reflection layer”.
However, Song’s Fig. 11 embodiment teaches “wherein the second anti-reflection layer (361) is disposed on an inner surface of the upper substrate (see Fig. 11), and the second anti-reflection layer is located between the upper substrate and the first anti-reflection layer (360)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to place the second anti-reflection layer on the inner surface of the substrate as taught by Song’s Fig. 11 embodiment due to the art recognized suitability of an anti-reflection layer at that location for the purposes of absorbing external light and equivalence for that purpose of anti-reflection layers located at alternate locations (Song paragraphs 79, 85, 103).
Claims 5, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song in view of Jo and Sakamoto as applied to claims 1, 2, 4, 13, 16 above, and further in view of Chung et al. (US 2016/0218318 A1).
With respect to claim 5: Song in view of Jo and Sakamoto teaches “The display apparatus of claim 4 (see above)”.
Song does not specifically teach “wherein the filler comprises a silicon- based resin material”.
However, Chung teaches “wherein the filler (700) comprises a silicon- based resin material (paragraph 77)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the display apparatus of Song by choosing silicone as the filler material due to the art recognized suitability of silicone for providing the properties of impact resistance and light transmittance (Chung paragraph 77).
With respect to claim 17: Song in view of Jo and Sakamoto teaches “The display apparatus of claim 16 (see above)”.
Song does not specifically teach “wherein the filler comprises a silicon- based resin material”.
However, Chung teaches “wherein the filler (700) comprises a silicon- based resin material (paragraph 77)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the display apparatus of Song by choosing silicone as the filler material due to the art recognized suitability of silicone for providing the properties of impact resistance and light transmittance (Chung paragraph 77).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Adachi et al. (US 20050035353 A1), which teaches a light emitting display.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL J. LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-5721. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 EST 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, ABDULMAJEED AZIZ can be reached at (571)270-5046. 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.
/NATHANIEL J LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2875
/ABDULMAJEED AZIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights