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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the application No. 18/171,282 filed on 02/17/2023.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-18) in the reply filed on 11/10/2025 is acknowledged. Applicant added new claims 21-22.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO-1449. These IDS has been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pub # 2015/0249120 to Cheng et al. (Cheng).
Regarding independent claim 1, Cheng discloses a display device (Fig. 5) comprising:
a substrate (Fig. 5: 21 and 22);
a plurality of control transistors (Fig. 5: 2, each TFT corresponding to and driving an OLED sub-pixel. Examiner note: TFT are well recognized “control transistor” in display technology) disposed in the substrate (21 and 22);
a multi-layer interconnect (MLI) structure (Fig. 5: 6, 31, 41 and 60, even though the term “MLI” is not used verbatim, the discloses stacked metal/insulator routing structure reasonably read on an MLI structure) on the substrate; and
a luminous device layer (Fig. 5: 43 and 42) disposed on the MLI structure (6, 31, 41 and 60), wherein the luminous device layer (42 and 43) comprises a plurality of sub-pixels (color luminescent layer of red (R), green (G) or blue (B)) corresponding to the plurality of control transistors (Fig. 5: 2, each TFT (2) drives a corresponding OLED sub-pixel, explicitly disclosed in the pixel circuit description), respectively, and wherein the MLI structure (31, 41 and 60) comprises a plurality of routing features (60) and at least one light blocking feature (such as black matrix 6), and the plurality of routing features (60) electrically connect each of the plurality of control transistors (2) to the corresponding sub-pixel (red (R), green (G) or blue (B)), and the at least one light blocking feature (6) is operable to block stray light generated by the luminous device layer (¶0041, 0056 and 0075).
Regarding claim 2, Cheng discloses wherein the at least one light blocking feature (6) is not electrically connected with the routing features (60; the black matrix / light shielding layer 6 is a light-blocking structure, not a signal carrying interconnect. Examiner note: a structure whose sole disclosed function is optical shielding, and which is formed separate from signal lines, reasonably reads as not electrically connected to the routing features).
Regarding claim 3, Cheng discloses wherein the at least one light blocking feature (6) is not electrically connected to any of the plurality of control transistors (2; since Cheng discloses no electrical coupling between the black matrix (6) and TFT circuitry, and instead places the black matrix (6) as an optically functional layer, the light blocking feature is not electrically connected to any control transistor).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng in view of US Pub # 2018/0151645 to Lee et al. (Lee).
Regarding claim 4, Cheng discloses wherein the at least one light blocking feature (6) is operable to block the stray light (¶0041, 0056 and 0075).
Cheng fails to explicitly disclose to block the stray light by reflecting the stray light.
Lee discloses a reflective barrier (Fig. 2: 140) including a reflective layer (144) that reflects light emitted from the OLED light emitting stack back towards light emitting area and away from the circuit/transistor area, thereby blocking stray light by reflection.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the display device of Cheng to include the reflective barrier of Lee in order to improve optical efficiency and prevent deterioration in reliability of thin film transistors and to prevent light from traveling toward the transistor circuitry (¶0052).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng in view of US Pat # 6, 801, 293 to Nishiyama et al. (Nishiyama).
Regarding claim 5, Cheng discloses the at least one light blocking feature (6) and the plurality of routing features (60).
Cheng fails to explicitly disclose wherein the at least one light blocking feature and the plurality of routing features comprise a same material.
Nishiyama discloses wherein the at least one light blocking feature and the plurality of routing features comprise a same material. Nishiyama specifically teaches a metal light-blocking feature (e.g., a shielding or neutralization electrode serving as a black matrix) that is formed of a metal material and is formed together with metal routing features, such as gate lines or source lines, thereby comprising the same metal material as the routing features. More specifically, Nishiyama discloses that the metal light-blocking feature may be formed in the same conductive layer and using the same fabrication process as the signal routing lines.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the display device of Cheng to form the light blocking feature of the same metal as the routing features, as taught by Nishiyama in order to simplify fabrication, reduce the number of processing steps and masks, and improve shielding efficiency using existing metal interconnect layers (see corresponding text in Nishiyama). Such a modification represents a predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub # 2015/0249120 to Cheng et al. (Cheng) in view of US Pub # 2008/0129911 to Huang et al. (Huang).
Regarding independent claim 14, Cheng discloses a display device (Fig. 5) comprising:
a substrate (Fig. 5: 21 and 22);
a plurality of control transistors (Fig. 5: 2, each TFT corresponding to and driving an OLED sub-pixel. Examiner note: TFT are well recognized “control transistor” in display technology) disposed in the substrate (21 and 22);
a multi-layer interconnect (MLI) structure (Fig. 5: 6, 31, 41 and 60, even though the term “MLI” is not used verbatim, the discloses stacked metal/insulator routing structure reasonably read on an MLI structure) on the substrate; and
a luminous device layer (Fig. 5: 43 and 42) disposed on the MLI structure (6, 31, 41 and 60), wherein the luminous device layer (42 and 43) comprises a plurality of sub-pixels (color luminescent layer of red (R), green (G) or blue (B)) corresponding to the plurality of control transistors (Fig. 5: 2, each TFT (2) drives a corresponding OLED sub-pixel, explicitly disclosed in the pixel circuit description), respectively, and wherein the MLI structure (31, 41 and 60) comprises a plurality of routing features (60) and at least one light blocking feature (such as black matrix 6), and the plurality of routing features (60) electrically connect each of the plurality of control transistors (2) to the corresponding sub-pixel (red (R), green (G) or blue (B)), and the at least one light blocking feature (6) is operable to block stray light generated by the luminous device layer (¶0041, 0056 and 0075).
Cheng fails to explicitly disclose at least one light absorbing layer and the at least one light absorbing layer is operable to absorb the stray.
Huang discloses a display device (Fig. 2K) including a light shielding layer (205a; it is noted that the light absorbing layer corresponds to the light shielding layer, sometimes also described as a light blocking layer whose purpose is to prevent light from reaching the circuit region because light adversely affects transistor operation) disposed over a pixel switch circuit layer (22), wherein the light shielding layer (205a) is formed of an optically absorptive material and is operable to absorb stray light so as to protect underlying transistor circuitry from light exposure (¶0033).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the display device of Cheng to include a light absorbing layer as taught by Huang in order to further suppress stray light generated by the luminous device layer and improve protection of the control transistors (¶0033). Such a modification represents a predictable use of known light-management techniques in display device structures.
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub # 2015/0249120 to Cheng et al. (Cheng) in view of US Pub # 5,847,690 to Boie et al. (Boie).
Regarding independent claim 21, Cheng discloses a display device (Fig. 5) comprising:
a substrate (Fig. 5: 21 and 22);
a plurality of control transistors (Fig. 5: 2, each TFT corresponding to and driving an OLED sub-pixel. Examiner note: TFT are well recognized “control transistor” in display technology) disposed in the substrate (21 and 22);
a multi-layer interconnect (MLI) structure (Fig. 5: 6, 31, 41, 42 and 60, even though the term “MLI” is not used verbatim, the discloses stacked metal/insulator routing structure reasonably read on an MLI structure) on the substrate, the MLI structure (6, 31, 41, 42 and 60) comprises a plurality of conductive layers (41, 42 and 60) disposed in a plurality of dielectric layers (31 and 32); and
a luminous device layer (Fig. 5: 43) disposed on the MLI structure (6, 31, 41, 42 and 60), wherein the luminous device layer (43) comprises a plurality of sub-pixels (color luminescent layer of red (R), green (G) or blue (B)) corresponding to the plurality of control transistors (Fig. 5: 2, each TFT (2) drives a corresponding OLED sub-pixel, explicitly disclosed in the pixel circuit description) corresponding to the plurality of control transistors (2), respectively, wherein the MLI structure comprises:
a plurality of routing features (60) electrically connecting each of the plurality of control transistors (2) to the corresponding sub-pixel (Fig. 5: red (R), green (G) or blue (B)).
Cheng further teaches at least one anti-reflective layer (or black matrix (6)). However, Cheng fails to explicitly disclose at least one anti-reflective layer disposed in one of the plurality of conductive layers, the at least one anti-reflective layer being characterized by a plurality of area enlarging elements operable to increase absorption of stray light generated by the luminous device layer.
Boie teaches at least one anti-reflective layer (Fig. 2: 11, col, 3, lines 45-48 discloses black matrix material 11 comprising an anti-reflective, absorbing film) disposed in one of the plurality of conductive layers (Fig. 2: 23), the at least one anti-reflective layer (11) being characterized by a plurality of area enlarging elements operable to increase absorption (col. 6, lines 45-46) of stray light generated by the luminous device layer (col. 4, lines 30-39).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the anti-reflective layer (or black matrix layer) of Cheng in the conductive layer as taught by Boie in order to obtain a low reflectivity, strongly absorptive surface (col. 6, lines 45-46).
Regarding claim 22, Cheng as modified discloses all of the limitations of claim 21 from which this claim depends.
Cheng fails to explicitly disclose at least one light blocking feature disposed in one of the plurality of conductive layers, wherein the at least one light blocking feature is not electrically connected with the plurality of routing features.
Boie discloses at least one light blocking feature (Fig. 2: 12; it is well known in the art that a color filter operates by absorbing (blocking) specific wavelengths (colors) of the visible spectrum while transmitting others) disposed in one of the plurality of conductive layers (23), wherein the at least one light blocking feature (23) is not electrically connected with the plurality of routing features (14).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the display device of Cheng with the at least one light blocking feature as taught by Boie in order to block light (col. 1, lines 54-56).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-13 and 15-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 6 and 15 recites:
wherein the MLI structure comprises a plurality of conductive layers disposed in a plurality of dielectric layers, and the routing features comprise horizontal routing features disposed in the plurality of conductive layers and vertical routing features electrically connecting the horizontal routing features.
Each of the above recitations, interpreted in combination with all other limitations of the claim and all limitations of any claims they depend from, is not taught or rendered obvious by the prior art of record and are indicated as allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pub # 2017/0250219 to Bower et al., US Pub # 2020/0174172 to Dong et al., US Pat # 6,801,293 to Nishiyyama et al., US Pat # 6,593,224 to Lin, US Pat # 11,451,256 to Beaulieu and US Pub # 2019/0324341 to Tonar et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHSEN AHMADI whose telephone number is (571)272-5062. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-5:00pm.
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 F 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.
/MOHSEN AHMADI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896