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 filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Park discloses
PNG
media_image1.png
272
296
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a reflection control layer 150/522/524 (in region 20 of fig. 5 and fig. 6 above) disposed in the non-display area on the substrate and the dummy pattern and including a same material as the pixel defining layer 150,
wherein a second opening OP3 exposing an upper surface of the dummy pattern is defined in the reflection control layer;
wherein a minimum width of the first opening OP1 of the pixel defining layer is different from a minimum width of the second opening OP3 of the reflection control layer.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 9-20 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.
Claims 1, 12 and 19 “different” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “different” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For example, a width dimension is a random variable which follows a bell shape curve have average and +/- 3 sigma value, the width dimension is measure by a critical dimension measuring tool and tools have tool measuring accuracy capability and there repeated measurements of a dimension are always different to a degree and likewise for different openings. As such the claims are unclear and indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-2, 4-7, 9, 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. 20200013834.
PNG
media_image2.png
399
562
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
197
420
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
498
714
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, figs. 5 and 12-13 of Park discloses a display device comprising:
a substrate 100a1 (fig. 17) including a display area DA including a first transmission area TH (area of TH (TH1+TH2) first and second through portions TH1 and TH2, disposed inside the display area DA) and a pixel area (area of P), and a non-display area NDA2 including a second transmission area (area of TH2) and a dummy pixel area (area of DP);
a light emitting element 500 including a lower electrode 510 disposed in the pixel area on the substrate;
a dummy pattern (fig. 6) disposed in the dummy pixel area on the substrate and including a same material 510D as the lower electrode 510 (par [0090]);
a pixel defining layer 150 disposed in the display area on the substrate and the lower electrode, wherein a first opening OP1 exposing an upper surface of the lower electrode is defined in the pixel defining layer; and
PNG
media_image1.png
272
296
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a reflection control layer 150/522/524 (in region 20 of fig. 5 and fig. 6 above) disposed in the non-display area on the substrate and the dummy pattern and including a same material as the pixel defining layer 150,
wherein a second opening OP3 exposing an upper surface of the dummy pattern is defined in the reflection control layer;
wherein a minimum width of the first opening OP1 of the pixel defining layer is different from a minimum width of the second opening OP3 of the reflection control layer.
Regarding claim 2, par [0078] of Park discloses wherein each of the pixel defining layer and the reflection control layer includes an organic insulating material.
Regarding claim 4, Park discloses wherein an area of the first transmission area (that of TH2) is the same as an area of the second transmission area (that of TH2).
Regarding claim 5, Park discloses wherein the minimum width of the second opening OP3 of the reflection control layer is smaller than the minimum width of the first opening OP1 of the pixel defining layer.
Regarding claim 6, fig. 5 of Park discloses wherein the light emitting element further includes: a light emitting layer disposed in the pixel area on the lower electrode; and an upper electrode disposed on the pixel defining layer and the light emitting layer.
Regarding claim 7, fig. 5 of Park and par ([0079]-[0080]) discloses wherein the upper electrode is entirely disposed in the display area and the non-display area.
Regarding claim 9, fig. 5 of Park discloses further comprising: an encapsulation structure 400 disposed in the display area and the non-display area on the upper electrode, wherein the encapsulation structure includes an inorganic encapsulation layer 410 and an organic encapsulation layer 420.
Regarding claim 13, fig. 17 of Park discloses further comprising: a buffer layer 100b1 disposed in the display area and the non-display area on the substrate; an insulating layer 100a2 disposed in the display area and the non-display area on the buffer layer; and a planarization layer 130 disposed in the display area and the non-display area on the insulating layer.
Regarding claim 16, fig. 13 of Park discloses wherein the dummy pattern P has an island shape in a plan view.
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 3 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Kang et al. 20220123060.
Regarding claim 3, Park discloses claim 2. Park does not disclose wherein each of the pixel defining layer and the reflection control layer further includes at least one selected from a black pigment, a black dye, and a carbon black.
However, par [0092] of Kang discloses of pixel defining film PDL may be formed including a light absorbing material, and/or may be formed including a black pigment and/or a black dye. The pixel defining film PDL formed including a black pigment and/or a black dye may implement a black pixel defining film. When forming the pixel defining film PDL, carbon black may be used as a black pigment and/or a black dye, but the present disclosure is not limited thereto.
In view of such teaching, it would have been obvious to form a display device of Park comprising wherein each of the pixel defining layer and the reflection control layer further includes at least one selected from a black pigment, a black dye, and a carbon black such as taught by Kang in order a pixel defining layer with a light absorbing material.
Regarding claim 19, figs. 5 and 12-13 of Park discloses a display device comprising:
a substrate 100a1 (fig. 17) including a display area DA including a first transmission area TH (area of TH (TH1+TH2) first and second through portions TH1 and TH2, disposed inside the display area DA) and a pixel area (area of P), and a non-display area NDA2 including a second transmission area (area of TH2) and a dummy pixel area (area of DP), wherein the second transmission area has a same area (area of TH2) as an area of the first transmission area (area of TH2);
a light emitting element 500 including a lower electrode 510 disposed in the pixel area on the substrate;
a dummy pattern disposed in the dummy pixel area on the substrate and disposed in a same layer as the lower electrode;
a pixel defining layer 150 disposed in the display area on the substrate and the lower electrode; and
a reflection control layer 150/522/524 (in region 20 of fig. 5 and fig. 6) disposed in the non-display area on the substrate and the dummy pattern, and disposed in a same layer as the pixel defining layer;
wherein a first opening OP1 exposing an upper surface of the lower electrode is defined in the pixel defining layer, and a second opening OP3 exposing an upper surface of the dummy pattern is defined in the reflection control layer, and
wherein a minimum width of the first opening of the pixel defining layer is different from a minimum width of the second opening of the reflection control layer.
Park does not disclose that the pixel defining layer having a black color.
However, par [0092] of Kang discloses of pixel defining film PDL may be formed including a light absorbing material, and/or may be formed including a black pigment and/or a black dye. The pixel defining film PDL formed including a black pigment and/or a black dye may implement a black pixel defining film. When forming the pixel defining film PDL, carbon black may be used as a black pigment and/or a black dye, but the present disclosure is not limited thereto.
In view of such teaching, it would have been obvious to form a display device of Park comprising wherein the pixel defining layer having a black color such as taught by Kang in order a pixel defining layer with a light absorbing material.
Regarding claim 20, fig. 5 of Park discloses wherein the minimum width of the second opening OP3 of the reflection control layer is smaller than the minimum width of the first opening OP1 of the pixel defining layer.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park.
Regarding claim 17, Park discloses claim 1. In addition, it would have been obvious to form a display device comprising wherein each of the pixel area and the dummy pixel area is repeatedly arranged in a first direction and a second direction orthogonal to the first direction in order to use the same processing step for both areas.
Regarding claim 18, figs. 12-13 of Park discloses wherein the first transmission area is arranged on a side of the pixel area, and the second transmission area is arranged on a side of the dummy pixel area.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Lee et al. 20220045160.
Regarding claims 10-11, Park discloses claim 9. Park does not disclose of further comprising: a first light blocking layer disposed in the display area on the encapsulation structure, wherein a first opening overlapping each of the first transmission area and the pixel area is defined in the first light blocking layer; and a first color filter layer disposed in the first opening of the first light blocking layer overlapping the pixel area.
PNG
media_image5.png
485
489
media_image5.png
Greyscale
However, fig. 2 of Lee discloses a display device comprising: a first light blocking layer 180 disposed in a display area MDA on an encapsulation structure ENCM, wherein a first opening overlapping each of a first transmission area and a pixel area is defined in the first light blocking layer; and a first color filter layer 182 disposed in the first opening of the first light blocking layer overlapping the pixel area; and further comprising: a second light blocking layer disposed in a non-display area on the encapsulation structure, wherein a second opening overlapping each of a second transmission area and another pixel area is defined in a second light blocking layer; and a second color filter layer disposed in the second opening of the second light blocking layer overlapping the another pixel area.
In view of such teaching, it would have been obvious to form a display device of Par further comprising a first light blocking layer disposed in the display area on the encapsulation structure, wherein a first opening overlapping each of the first transmission area and the pixel area is defined in the first light blocking layer; and a first color filter layer disposed in the first opening of the first light blocking layer overlapping the pixel area; a second light blocking layer disposed in the non-display area on the encapsulation structure, wherein a second opening overlapping each of the second transmission area and the dummy pixel area is defined in the second light blocking layer; and a second color filter layer disposed in the second opening of the second light blocking layer overlapping the dummy pixel area such as taught by Lee in order form an optical functional layer.
Regarding claim 12 (insofar as to be incompliance with 112 2nd ), Lee discloses a minimum width of the first opening of the first light blocking layer overlapping the pixel area is different (term of degree for random variable) from a minimum width of the second opening of the second light blocking layer overlapping the dummy pixel area.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Bae et al. 20190097170.
Regarding claim 14, Park discloses claim 13, but does not disclose of wherein the planarization layer includes at least one selected from a photo sensitive polyimide and a siloxane-based resin.
However, par [0075] of Bae discloses of a planarization layer 220 may planarize the first substrate 111 by eliminating a height difference of the first substrate 111 to increase luminous efficiency of the OLED to be formed thereon. The planarization layer 220 may include one or more materials of the followings: a polyacrylate resin, an epoxy resin, a phenolic resin, a polyamide resin, a polyimide resin, an unsaturated polyester resin, a polyphenylen ether resin, a polyphenylene sulfide resin, or benzocyclobutene (BCB).
In view of such teaching, it would have been obvious to form a device of Lee wherein the planarization layer includes at least one selected from a photo sensitive polyimide and a siloxane-based resin such as taught by Bae in order to organic material as to meet applicant specification.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is allowed.
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 VONGSAVANH SENGDARA whose telephone number is (571)270-5770. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST.
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, PURVIS A. Sue can be reached on (571 )272-1236. 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.
/VONGSAVANH SENGDARA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights