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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an applications filed
in Korea, KR 10-2022-0060452, filed on May 17, 2022, and KR 10-2022-0068504, filed on June 3, 2022.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 06/08/2026 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. This objection pertains to the foreign references KR 20210132787, KR 20220021978 and CN 114078910.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/11/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
An amendment filed on 08/11/2026 in response to the Office Action mailed on 05/18/2026 is
being acknowledged and entered into the record. The present Non-Final rejection is made by taking into fully consideration all the amendments.
Response to Arguments
On pages 9-10 of the remarks filed on 07/16/2026, with regards to the rejection of independent Claims 1 and 21, Applicant argues that Park fails to disclose the low-refractive inorganic layer is between the color conversion-transmitting layer and the filler. This argument is fully considered but is not persuasive. Park teaches another low refractive index layer 393a in Fig. 24, and the low-refractive layer 393a is between the color conversion-transmitting layer 341, 343, 345 and the filler 70 (see Fig. 24: 391, 341, 343, 345, 70, paragraph 0114, 0192 of Park). Thus, the combination of Park and newly found prior art reference of Chiu teaches the above limitations as outlined in the rejection below. Therefore, Park will be still relied upon to teach the above limitations.
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.
Rejection note: Italicized claim limitations are limitations not explicitly disclosed in the primary
reference but disclosed either in a different embodiment of the primary reference or in the secondary references.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 20200091464 A1), in view of Chu et al. (US 20170315389 A1) and Kim et al. (US 20220102433 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Park et al. discloses a display device comprising:
a first substrate 110 (Fig. 24: 110, paragraph 0042);
a second substrate 310 opposite to the first substrate 110 (Fig. 24: 110, 310, paragraph 0106);
a light-emitting element layer OL1, OL2, OL3 on the first substrate 110 and comprising at least one light-emitting element ED1, ED2, ED3 (Fig. 24: OL1, OL2, OL#, ED1, ED2, ED3, paragraph 0050, 0053);
an encapsulation layer 170 on the light-emitting element layer OL1, OL2, OL3 and comprising at least one inorganic encapsulation layer 171, 175 and at least one organic encapsulation layer 173 (Fig. 24: 170, 171, 173, 175, paragraph 0104, 0105);
a color conversion-transmitting layer 341, 343, 345 on the encapsulation layer 170 and configured to convert light emitted from the at least one light-emitting element ED1, ED2, ED3 into light having different colors, the color conversion-transmitting layer including quantum dots 3433, 3413 (Fig. 24: 341, 343, 345, 3433, 3413, paragraph 0114, 0142);
a low-refractive inorganic layer 393a on the color conversion-transmitting layer 341, 343, 345, between the color conversion-transmitting layer 341, 343, 345 and the second substrate 310, and having a refractive index less than a refractive index of the color conversion- transmitting layer 341, 343, 345 (Fig. 24: 393a, 341, 343, 345, paragraph 0159, 0188, 0116);
a color filter layer 331, 333, 335 on a surface of the second substrate 310 opposite to the first substrate 110 (Fig. 24: 331, 333, 335, paragraph 0108);
and a filler 70 between the low-refractive inorganic layer 393a and the color filter layer 331, 333, 335 and having a refractive index greater than the refractive index of the low-refractive inorganic layer 393a. (Fig. 24: 70, paragraph 0038).
wherein the low-refractive inorganic layer 393a is between the color conversion- transmitting layer 341, 343, 345 and the filler 70 (Fig. 24: 393a, 341, 343, 345, 70, paragraph 0159).
While Park et al. fails to explicitly teach the low refractive index layer 393a is an inorganic layer, Chu et al. discloses a display device comprising a low-refractive inorganic layer 370a on the color conversion-transmitting layer 330R, 330G, 330B (Fig. 1A: 370a, 330R, 330B, 330G, paragraph 0072, 0073).
Note that the layer 370a maybe made of silicon oxide (see paragraph 0071), which is the same material disclosed for the low-refractive inorganic layer of the instant application (see paragraph 00131 of originally filed disclosure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Park et al. by substituting the low refractive inorganic index layer of Chu et al. in order to improve the light emission rate of the display device, as recognized by Chu et al. (paragraph 0075). Such a modification would have yielded predictable results and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Kim et al. discloses a display device comprising a filler PL between the low-refractive inorganic layer LR and the color filter layer CFB, CFR, CFG (Fig. 3: LR, PL, CFB, CFG, CFR, paragraph 0054).
Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art, would have combined the teachings of Park et al. and Kim et al. in order to dispose the filler of Kim et al. in the display device of Park et al. such that the filler is between the low-refractive inorganic layer and the color filter layer. Doing so would planarize uneven interfaces, as recognized by Kim et al. (paragraph 0054), as well as minimize internal reflections to improve light outcoupling efficiency.
The combination of Park et al., Chu et al. and Kim et al. fails to explicitly teach the filler having a refractive index greater than the refractive index of the low-refractive inorganic layer.
However, Park et al. teaches the refractive index of the low-refractive layer 393a is about 1.1 to 1.4 (paragraph 0114, 0192), and Kim et al. teaches the filler PL may include silicon oxynitride (paragraph 0085), which has a refractive index in the range of 1.45 to 2.0 (See Silicon oxynitride. Applications [online]. Wikipedia, January 2013 [retrieved on 08-26-2025]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_oxynitride>).
Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that when the filler of Kim et al. is disposed in the display device of Park et al./Chu et al., the filler will have a refractive index greater than the refractive index of the low-refractive inorganic layer.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Park et al. and Chu et al. discloses the display device of claim 1, wherein the refractive index of the low- refractive inorganic layer 393a is greater than 1.2 and less than 1.4 (as taught by Park, paragraph 0114, 0192).
According to MPEP § 2144.05 (I), “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding Claim 3, Chu et al. discloses the display device of claim 2, wherein the low-refractive inorganic layer 370a comprises silicon oxide (SiO2) (paragraph 0071).
Regarding Claim 5, Park et al. discloses the display device of claim 1, a difference between the refractive index of the color conversion-transmitting layer 341, 343, 345 and the refractive index of the low-refractive inorganic layer 393a is at least 0.3 (paragraph 0159).
Regarding Claim 6, Park et al. discloses the display device of claim 1, further comprising a first passivation layer 353a, 355a between the color conversion-transmitting layer 341, 343, 345 and the filler 70 (Fig. 24: 353a paragraph 0117, 0113, 0193).
Park et al./Chu et al. fails to explicitly teach the first passivation layer 353a having a refractive index greater than the refractive index of the low-refractive inorganic layer 393a. However, Park et al. teaches the refractive index of the low-refractive layer 393a is about 1.1 to 1.4 (paragraph 0114, 0192), and the first passivation layer 353a may include silicon oxynitride (paragraph 0113, 0117), which has a refractive index in the range of 1.45 to 2.0 (See Silicon oxynitride. Applications [online]. Wikipedia, January 2013 [retrieved on 08-26-2025]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_oxynitride>).
Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the first passivation layer will have a refractive index greater than the refractive index of the low-refractive inorganic layer.
Regarding Claim 7, Park et al. disclose the display device of claim 6, wherein the first passivation layer 355a is between the low-refractive inorganic layer 393a and the filler 70 (see Fig. 24: 355a, 70, 393a, paragraph 0193).
Regarding Claim 8, Park et al. discloses the display device of claim 6, wherein the first passivation layer 353a is between the color conversion-transmitting layer 341, 343, 345 and the low-refractive inorganic layer 393a (see Fig. 24: 351a, 391a, 341, 343, 345).
Regarding Claim 9, Park et al. discloses the display device of claim 6, wherein the first passivation layer 353a, 355a comprises an inorganic material layer comprising silicon oxynitride (SiON) (paragraph 0113, 0117).
Regarding Claim 12, Park et al., in a different embodiment, discloses the display device of claim 1, further comprising a low-refractive organic layer 391 and a second passivation layer 351 on a surface of the color filter layer 331, 335 opposite to the color conversion-transmitting layer 341, 343, 345 (Fig 13: 391, 351, 341, 343, 345, 331, 335, paragraph 0159, 0116, 0113, 0193).
Note that according to paragraph 0116, the low-refractive organic layer 391 may include a base resin which is an organic material.
Therefore, a person or ordinary skill in the art would have combined the different embodiments of Park et al. in order to have a low-refractive organic layer and a second passivation layer on a surface of the color filter layer opposite to the color conversion-transmitting layer. Doing so would recycle at least a part of the light transmitted through the color conversion-transmitting layer, thereby improving the light utilization efficiency, as recognized by Park et al. (paragraph 0115).
Regarding Claim 13, Park et al. discloses the display device of claim 12, wherein the low-refractive organic layer 391 comprises an organic material and porous particles dispersed in the organic material (paragraphs 0116).
Regarding Claim 15, The combination of Park et al., Chu et al. and Kim et al. fails to explicitly teach the display device of claim 12, wherein a refractive index of the low- refractive organic layer is less than the refractive index of the low-refractive inorganic layer.
However, Chu et al. teaches the low-refractive inorganic layer 370a comprises silicon oxide (paragraph 0071), which has a refractive index of 1.45 (See Silicon oxynitride. Applications [online]. Wikipedia, January 2013 [retrieved on 08-26-2025]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_oxynitride>). Park et al. further teaches the low- refractive organic layer 393a comprises a base resin with dispersed particles and having a refractive index of about 1.1. to 1.4. (paragraph 0116, 0114).
Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the refractive index of the low- refractive organic layer is less than the refractive index of the low-refractive inorganic layer.
Regarding Claim 16, Park et al. discloses the display device of claim 12, wherein the second passivation layer 351 comprises an inorganic material layer comprising SiO2 (paragraph 0113).
Park et al. fails to explicitly teach the second passivation layer 351 has a refractive index greater than the refractive index of the low-refractive layer. However, Park et al. teaches the refractive index of the low-refractive inorganic layer 391a is about 1.1 to 1.4 (paragraph 0114), and the second passivation layer 351 may include a silicon oxide such as silicon dioxide (paragraph 0113), which has a refractive index of 1.45 (See Silicon oxynitride. Applications [online]. Wikipedia, January 2013 [retrieved on 08-26-2025]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_oxynitride>).
Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the second passivation layer will have a refractive index greater than the refractive index of the low-refractive inorganic layer.
Regarding Claim 18, Park et al. discloses the display device of claim 1, wherein the light-emitting element layer OL1, OL2, OL3 comprises a first light-emitting element ED1, a second light-emitting element ED2, and a third light-emitting element ED3, and the color conversion-transmitting layer 341, 343, 345 comprises a first color converter 341 corresponding to the first light-emitting element ED1, a second color converter 343 corresponding to the second light-emitting element ED2, and a transmitter 345 corresponding to the third light-emitting element ED2, and further comprises a light-blocking partition wall 360 arranged among the first color converter 341, the second color converter 343, and the transmitter 345 (Fig. 24: OL1, OL2, OL3, ED1, ED2, ED3, 341, 343, 345, 360, paragraph 0118, 0137, 0156, 0178).
Regarding Claim 20, Park et al. discloses the display device of claim 1, wherein the first substrate 110 and the second substrate 310 each comprises glass (paragraph 0042, 0106).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 20200091464 A1), in view of Chu et al. (US 20170315389 A1) and Kim et al. (US 20220102433 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, further in view of Kobayashi et al. (CN 111771163 A).
The combination of Park et al., Chiu et al. and Kim et al. fails to teach the display device of claim 1, wherein a thickness of the low-refractive inorganic layer is from 100 Å to 4,000 Å.
However, Kobayashi et al. discloses a display device comprising a low-refractive inorganic layer 4 on the color conversion-transmitting layer 3, wherein a thickness of the low-refractive inorganic layer 3 is from 1000 Å to 20,000 Å (Fig. 3: 3, 4, page 46, lines 3, 4, page 26, lines 35-40 in English Translation of Kobayashi et al.). According to MPEP § 2144.05 (I), “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art, would have combined the teachings of Park et al., Kim et al. and Kobayashi et al. in order to have a thickness of the low-refractive inorganic layer to be from 100 Å to 4,000 Å. Doing so would ensure a low-refractive inorganic layer of sufficient thickness is deposited without causing damage to the color conversion-transmitting layer.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 20200091464 A1), in view of Chu et al. (US 20170315389 A1) and Kim et al. (US 20220102433 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, further in view of second reference Park et al. (US 20220149251 A1), herein referred to as Park II.
The combination of Park et al., Chiu et al. and Kim et al. fails to explicitly teach the display device of claim 1, wherein the refractive index of the filler is from 1.45 to 1.55, and a thickness of the filler is from 1 µm to 10 µm.
However, Kim et al. teaches the filler PL may include silicon oxynitride (paragraph 0085), which has a refractive index in the range of 1.45 to 2.0 (See Silicon oxynitride. Applications [online]. Wikipedia, January 2013 [retrieved on 08-26-2025]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_oxynitride>). According to MPEP § 2144.05 (I), “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the refractive index of the filler of Kim et al. is from 1.45 to 1.55.
Furthermore, Park II teaches a display device comprising a filler 140, wherein a thickness of the filler 140 is from 1 µm to 10 µm (Fig. 4: 140, paragraph 0375, 0376, 0377).
Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art, would have combined the teachings of Park et al., Kim et al. and Park II in order to have a thickness of the filler to be from 1 µm to 10 µm. Doing so would protect and planarize the surfaces of the color conversion-transmitting layer, as recognized by Park II (paragraph 0375).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 20200091464 A1), in view of Chu et al. (US 20170315389 A1) and Kim et al. (US 20220102433 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, further in view of Yun (US 20210336224 A1).
Park et al. teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the encapsulation layer 170 comprises a first inorganic encapsulation layer 171, an organic encapsulation layer 173, and a second inorganic encapsulation layer 175 sequentially arranged (see Fig. 24: 170, 171, 173, 175, paragraph 0105), but fails to teach the color conversion-transmitting layer directly contacts the second inorganic encapsulation layer.
However, Yun teaches a display device, wherein the color conversion-transmitting layer 451, 452, 453 directly contacts the second inorganic encapsulation layer 330 (Fig. 2: 451, 452, 453, 330, paragraph 0076, 0080).
Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art, would have combined the teachings of Park et al., Kim et al. and Kobayashi et al. in order to have the color conversion-transmitting layer directly contacting the second inorganic encapsulation layer. Doing so would prevent the permeation of impurities into the color conversion-transmitting layer as well as the light-emitting layer.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 20200091464 A1), in view of Chu et al. (US 20170315389 A1) and Kim et al. (US 20220102433 A1), as applied to Claim 12 above, further in view of Tooley et al. (US 20100090182 A1).
The combination of Park et al., Chiu et al. and Kim et al. fails to teach the display device of claim 12, wherein the low-refractive inorganic layer has a coefficient of extinction less than a coefficient of extinction of the low-refractive organic layer.
However, Park et al. teaches the low-refractive inorganic layer 391a comprises silica (paragraph 0116), which has a coefficient of extinction of zero in the visible wavelength range relevant for display applications (See Optical constants of SiO2. Refractive index database [online]. RefractiveIndex.info, January 2017 [retrieved on 08-27-2025]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: https://refractiveindex.info/?shelf=main&book=SiO2&page=Gao>). Park et al. further teaches the low- refractive organic layer 393a comprises a base resin with dispersed particles such as TiO2 (paragraph 0116, 0114). Furthermore, Tooley et al. teaches the coefficient of extinction of certain resin filled with TiO2 particles is non-zero and is in the range of 0.3 to 1.2 at 524 nm (paragraph 0009, 0063).
Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Park et al. and Tooley et al. in order to recognize that the low-refractive inorganic layer has a coefficient of extinction less than a coefficient of extinction of the low-refractive organic layer. Doing so would minimize light loss due to absorption.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 20200091464 A1), in view of Chu et al. (US 20170315389 A1) and Kim et al. (US 20220102433 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, further in view of Lee et al. (US 20170076678 A1).
Park et al. teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the color filter layer 331, 333, 335 comprises a first color filter 331 configured to transmit light La of a first color, a second color filter 333 configured to transmit light Lb of a second color, a third color filter 335 configured to transmit light L3 of a third color, and a light-blocking portion 360 dividing the first color filter 331, the second color filter 333, and the third color filter 335 (Fig.24: 331, 333, 335, La, Lb, L3, 360, paragraph 0195).
The combination of Park et al., Chiu et al. and Kim et al. fails to teach in the light-blocking portion, a first color layer, a second color layer, and a third color layer respectively comprising same materials as the first color filter, the second color filter, and the third color filter overlap.
However, Lee et al. discloses a display device, wherein in the light-blocking portion SA, a first color layer 320G’, a second color layer 320R, and a third color layer 320B respectively comprising same materials as the first color filter 320G, the second color filter 320R, and the third color filter 320B overlap (Fig. 1: 320G’, 320G, 320R, 320B, paragraph 0045, 0048).
Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art, would have combined the teachings of Park et al., Kim et al. and Lee et al. in order to have in the light-blocking portion, a first color layer, a second color layer, and a third color layer respectively comprising same materials as the first color filter, the second color filter, and the third color filter overlap. By doing so, overlapping color filters would block the light emitted in the display device thereby preventing color mixing without the need for a separate light blocking member, as recognized by Lee et al. (paragraph 0049).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 20200091464 A1), in view of Chu et al. (US 20170315389 A1) and Kim et al. (US 20220102433 A1), as applied to Claim 18 above, further in view of second reference Park et al. (US 20220149251 A1), herein referred to as Park II.
The combination of Park et al., Chiu et al. and Kim et al. fails to teach the display device of claim 1, wherein a top surface of each of the first color converter, the second color converter, and the transmitter has a concave shape recessed with respect to a top surface of the light-blocking partition wall, and the low-refractive inorganic layer comprises a groove formed according to the concave shape.
However, Park II discloses a display device, wherein a top surface of each of the first color converter 130R, the second color converter 130G, and the transmitter 130B has a concave shape recessed with respect to a top surface of the light-blocking partition wall 131, and the low-refractive inorganic layer 140 comprises a groove formed according to the concave shape (Fig. 4: 130R, 130G, 130B, 131, 140, paragraphs 0349, 0359, 0376).
Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art, would have combined the teachings of Park et al., Kim et al. and Park II in order to have a top surface of each of the first color converter, the second color converter, and the transmitter have a concave shape recessed with respect to a top surface of the light-blocking partition wall, and the low-refractive inorganic layer comprise a groove formed according to the concave shape. Doing so would yield a color conversion-transmitting layer with an improved photo-efficiency and an absorption ratio relevant for high definition display device, as recognized by Park II (paragraph 0004).
Claims 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 20200091464 A1), in view of Chu et al. (US 20170315389 A1) and Jang et al. (KR 20180078805 A).
Regarding Claim 21, Park et al. discloses a display device comprising:
a first substrate 110 (Fig. 24: 110, paragraph 0042);
a second substrate 310 opposite to the first substrate 110 (Fig. 24: 110, 310, paragraph 0106);
a light-emitting element layer OL1, OL2, OL3 on the first substrate 110 and comprising at least one light-emitting element ED1, ED2, ED3 (Fig. 24: OL1, OL2, OL#, ED1, ED2, ED3, paragraph 0050, 0053);
an encapsulation layer 170 on the light-emitting element layer OL1, OL2, OL3 and comprising at least one inorganic encapsulation layer 171, 175 and at least one organic encapsulation layer 173 (Fig. 24: 170, 171, 173, 175, paragraph 0104, 0105);
a color conversion-transmitting layer 341, 343, 345 on the encapsulation layer 170 and configured to convert light emitted from the at least one light-emitting element ED1, ED2, ED3 into light having different colors, the color conversion-transmitting layer including quantum dots 3433, 3413 (Fig. 24: 341, 343, 345, 3433, 3413, paragraph 0114, 0142);
a low-refractive inorganic layer 393a on the color conversion-transmitting layer 341, 343, 345, between the color conversion-transmitting layer 341, 343, 345 and the second substrate 310, and having a refractive index less than a refractive index of the color conversion- transmitting layer 341, 343, 345 (Fig. 24: 393a, 341, 343, 345, paragraph 0159);
a color filter layer 331, 333, 335 on a surface of the second substrate 310 opposite to the first substrate 110 (Fig. 24: 331, 333, 335, paragraph 0108), and being spaced apart from the low-refractive inorganic layer 391a with an air gap therebetween;
wherein the low-refractive inorganic layer 393a is between the color conversion- transmitting layer 341, 343, 345 and the filler 70 (Fig. 24: 393a, 341, 343, 345, 70, paragraph 0159).
While Park et al. fails to explicitly teach the low refractive index layer 393a is an inorganic layer, Chu et al. discloses a display device comprising a low-refractive inorganic layer 370a on the color conversion-transmitting layer 330R, 330G, 330B (Fig. 1A: 370a, 330R, 330B, 330G, paragraph 0072, 0073). Note that the layer 370a maybe made of silicon oxide (see paragraph 0071), which is the same material disclosed for the low-refractive inorganic layer of the instant application (see paragraph 00131 of originally filed disclosure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Park et al. by substituting the low refractive inorganic index layer of Chu et al. in order to improve the light emission rate of the display device, as recognized by Chu et al. (paragraph 0075). Such a modification would have yielded predictable results and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Jang et al. discloses a display device comprising a color filter layer 320 on a surface of the second substrate 300 opposite to the first substrate 110, and being spaced apart from the low-refractive inorganic layer 250 with an air gap 260 therebetween (Fig. 3: 260, 250, 320, 110, 300, paragraph 0051, 0052 in English Translation of Jang et al.).
Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art, would have combined the teachings of Park et al., Chiu et al. and Jang et al. in order to have the color filter layer be spaced apart from the low-refractive inorganic layer with an air gap therebetween. By doing so, the emitted light is repeatedly reflected between the air gap and light emitting layer, thereby increasing the light extraction efficiency (paragraph 0053 in English Translation of Jang et al.).
Regarding Claim 23, Park et al. discloses the display device of claim 21, a difference between the refractive index of the color conversion-transmitting layer 341, 343, 345 and the refractive index of the low-refractive inorganic layer 393a is at least 0.3 (paragraph 0159).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 20200091464 A1), in view of Chu et al. (US 20170315389 A1) and Jang et al. (KR 20180078805 A), as applied to Claim 21 above, further in view of Kobayashi et al. (CN 111771163 A).
Park et al. teaches the display device of claim 21, wherein the refractive index of the low-refractive inorganic layer 393a is greater than 1.2 and less than 1.4 (paragraph 0159, 0114), but fails to teach a thickness of the low-refractive inorganic layer 393a is from 100 A to 4,000 A.
However, Kobayashi et al. discloses a display device comprising a low-refractive inorganic layer 4 on the color conversion-transmitting layer 3, wherein a thickness of the low-refractive inorganic layer 3 is from 1000 Å to 20,000 Å (Fig. 3: 3, 4, page 46, lines 3, 4, page 26, lines 35-40 in English Translation of Kobayashi et al.), which overlaps the claimed range. According to MPEP § 2144.05 (I), “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art, would have combined the teachings of Park et al., Jang et al. and Kobayashi et al. in order to have a thickness of the low-refractive inorganic layer to be from 100 Å to 4,000 Å. Doing so would ensure a low-refractive inorganic layer of sufficient thickness is deposited without causing damage to the color conversion-transmitting layer.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 20200091464 A1), in view of Chu et al. (US 20170315389 A1) and Jang et al. (KR 20180078805 A), as applied to Claim 21 above, further in view of Lee et al. (US 20170076678 A1).
Park et al. teaches the display device of claim 21, wherein the color filter layer 331, 333, 335 comprises a first color filter 331 configured to transmit light La of a first color, a second color filter 333 configured to transmit light Lb of a second color, a third color filter 335 configured to transmit light L3 of a third color, and a light-blocking portion 360 dividing the first color filter 331, the second color filter 333, and the third color filter 335 (Fig.24: 331, 333, 335, La, Lb, L3, 360, paragraph 0195).
The combination of Park et al. and Jang et al. fails to teach in the light-blocking portion, a first color layer, a second color layer, and a third color layer respectively comprising same materials as the first color filter, the second color filter, and the third color filter overlap.
However, Lee et al. discloses a display device, wherein in the light-blocking portion SA, a first color layer 320G’, a second color layer 320R, and a third color layer 320B respectively comprising same materials as the first color filter 320G, the second color filter 320R, and the third color filter 320B overlap (Fig. 1: 320G’, 320G, 320R, 320B, paragraph 0045, 0048).
Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art, would have combined the teachings of Park et al., Jang et al. and Lee et al. in order to have in the light-blocking portion, a first color layer, a second color layer, and a third color layer respectively comprising same materials as the first color filter, the second color filter, and the third color filter overlap. By doing so, overlapping color filters would block the light emitted in the display device thereby preventing color mixing without the need for a separate light blocking member, as recognized by Lee et al. (paragraph 0049).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 20200091464 A1), in view of Chu et al. (US 20170315389 A1) and Jang et al. (KR 20180078805 A), as applied to Claim 21 above, further in view of second reference Park et al. (US 20220149251 A1), herein referred to as Park II.
Park et al. discloses the display device of claim 21, wherein the light-emitting element layer OL1, OL2, OL3 comprises a first light-emitting element ED1, a second light-emitting element ED2, and a third light-emitting element ED3, and the color conversion-transmitting layer 341, 343, 345 comprises a first color converter 341 corresponding to the first light-emitting element ED1, a second color converter 343 corresponding to the second light-emitting element ED2, and a transmitter 345 corresponding to the third light-emitting element ED2, and further comprises a light-blocking partition wall 360 arranged among the first color converter 341, the second color converter 343, and the transmitter 345 (Fig. 24: OL1, OL2, OL3, ED1, ED2, ED3, 341, 343, 345, 360, paragraph 0118, 0137, 0156, 0178).
The combination of Park et al. and Jang et al. fails to teach wherein a top surface of each of the first color converter, the second color converter, and the transmitter has a concave shape recessed with respect to a top surface of the light-blocking partition wall, and the low-refractive inorganic layer comprises a groove formed according to the concave shape.
However, Park II discloses a display device, wherein a top surface of each of the first color converter 130R, the second color converter 130G, and the transmitter 130B has a concave shape recessed with respect to a top surface of the light-blocking partition wall 131, and the low-refractive inorganic layer 140 comprises a groove formed according to the concave shape (Fig. 4: 130R, 130G, 130B, 131, 140, paragraphs 0349, 0359, 0376).
Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art, would have combined the teachings of Park et al., Jang et al. and Park II in order to have a top surface of each of the first color converter, the second color converter, and the transmitter have a concave shape recessed with respect to a top surface of the light-blocking partition wall, and the low-refractive inorganic layer comprise a groove formed according to the concave shape. Doing so would yield a color conversion-transmitting layer with an improved photo-efficiency and an absorption ratio relevant for high definition display device, as recognized by Park II (paragraph 0004).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAMNA F IQBAL whose telephone number is (571)272-1587. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8.30 am - 5.30 pm 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, Kretelia Graham can be reached at 571-272-5055. 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.
/HAMNA FATHIMA IQBAL/Examiner, Art Unit 2817 08/19/2026
/Kretelia Graham/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights