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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 14-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/07/2025.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 8-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Jin et al. (US. Pub: 2021/0376000 A1~ hereinafter “Jin”).
Regarding claim 1, Jin discloses (in at least fig. 4) a display device comprising: a substrate (BS2) including a light emitting area (PXA), and a non-light emitting area (NPXA); a light emitting element (ED) disposed in the light emitting area on the substrate (see at least fig. 4); an encapsulation layer (TFE, FL) disposed on the light emitting element; a transparent layer (L3; [0097]) disposed on the encapsulation layer, wherein a plurality of first openings (i.e. the openings where item BM2 is formed; see fig. 4) and a plurality of second openings (i.e. the openings on top of L3 where item TL is formed; see fig. 4) are defined through the transparent layer; a plurality of light blocking patterns (BM2; [0104]; [0173]) disposed on the encapsulation layer and filling the first openings, respectively (see fig. 4); a first transparent pattern (WCL1, WCL2, and TL) disposed on the encapsulation layer in each of the second openings (see fig. 4); and a second transparent pattern (L2) disposed on the first transparent pattern, wherein the second transparent pattern (L2) has a refractive index different from a refractive index of the first transparent pattern ([0071] and [0072]-[0077]).
Regarding claim 2, Jin discloses (in at least fig. 5C and 5F) a recess is defined on an upper surface of the first transparent pattern (WCL1, WCL2, and TL), and the second transparent pattern (L2) fills the recess.
Regarding claim 8, Jin discloses (in at least fig. 4) the transparent layer (L3) and the second transparent pattern (L2) include a same material as each other ([0071]; [0097]).
Regarding claim 9, Jin discloses (in at least fig. 4) angles between each of the light blocking patterns (BM2) and the encapsulation layer (FL) is acute angles or right angles.
Regarding claim 10, Jin discloses (in at least fig. 4) an angle between a boundary line where the transparent layer (L3) and the first transparent pattern (WCL1, WCL2, and TL) are in contact with each other and the encapsulation layer (FL) is an acute angle or a right angle.
Regarding claim 11, Jin discloses (in at least fig. 4) each of the light blocking patterns (BM2) does not overlap the light emitting area (PXA), and overlaps the non-light emitting area (NPXA).
Regarding claim 12, Jin discloses (in at least fig. 4) a portion of the light blocking patterns (BM2) does not overlap the light emitting area (PXA), and another portion of the light blocking patterns (BM2) overlaps the non-light emitting area (NPXA).
Regarding claim 13, Jin discloses (in at least fig. 4) each of the light blocking patterns (BM2) extends along to a second direction (see fig. 4), and the light blocking patterns (BM2) are spaced apart from each other along to a first direction crossing the second direction.
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.
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(s) 3-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin et al. (US. Pub: 2021/0376000 A1~ hereinafter “Jin”).
Regarding claim 3, Jin discloses all the claimed limitations except for an upper surface of the first transparent pattern has a concave shape in a cross section.
However, Jin discloses (in at least fig. 5C and 5F) an upper surface of the first transparent pattern (WCL1, WCL2, and TL) has a convex shape in a cross section.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the convex upper surface of the transparent pattern of Jin such that it has a concave shape in a cross section, since it has been held mere pattern shape limitations are prima facie obvious absent a discloser that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Jin discloses all the claimed limitations except for a refractive index of the transparent layer is less than the refractive index of the first transparent pattern; the refractive index of the first transparent pattern is greater than the refractive index of the second transparent pattern; each of the transparent layer, the first transparent pattern, and the second transparent pattern include an organic material.
However, Jin discloses (in at least fig. 4) both the transparent layer (L3) and the second transparent pattern comprise inorganic material such as silicon oxide, silicon nitride, or silicon oxy nitride ([0071]; [0097]); and the first transparent pattern (WCL1, WCL2, and TL) comprises organic resin (BR) and scattering particles (SC; [0072]-[0077]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to form the transparent layer of Jin less than the refractive index of the first transparent pattern; and the refractive index of the first transparent pattern is greater than the refractive index of the second transparent pattern through routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 6, Jin discloses all the claimed limitations except for each of the transparent layer, the first transparent pattern, and the second transparent pattern include an organic material.
However, Jin discloses (in at least fig. 4) both the transparent layer (L3) and the second transparent pattern comprise inorganic material such as silicon oxide, silicon nitride, or silicon oxy nitride ([0071]; [0097]); and the first transparent pattern (WCL1, WCL2, and TL) comprises organic resin (BR) and scattering particles (SC; [0072]-[0077]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to consider forming each of the transparent layer, the first transparent pattern, and the second transparent pattern of Jin to an inorganic material in order to reduce the manufacturing steps of the device. Furthermore, it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination.
Regarding claim 7, Jin discloses all the claimed limitations except for each of the light blocking patterns includes at least one selected from molybdenum-tantalum oxide and an organic material including a black pigment.
However, Jin discloses (in at least [0173]) each of the light blocking patterns (BM) includes a liquid repellent treatment.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace light blocking patterns material of Jin with at least one selected from molybdenum-tantalum oxide and an organic material including a black pigment, since it has been held that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious. Also, it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELMITO BREVAL whose telephone number is (571)270-3099. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th~ 7:30-5:30.
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, James R. Greece can be reached at 571-272-3711. 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.
ELMITO BREVAL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2875
/ELMITO BREVAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875