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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 3, as disclosed in FIG. 17 of the drawings, claims 1-20 in the reply filed on 11/05/2025 is acknowledged.
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites “another sub-pixel” is unclear if the “another sub-pixel” is that the first display area of that of the second display area. As such the claim is unclear and indefinite.
Claim 1 recites “the one sub-pixel” lack antecedent basis, and is that the first display area of that of the second display area. As such the claim is unclear and indefinite.
Claims 2 and 5 recite “the sub-pixels” lack antecedent basis, and is that the first display area of that of the second display area. As such the claim is unclear and indefinite.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. 20210193749 in view of Kim et al. US 20150001486 (Kim86).
PNG
media_image1.png
645
474
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
512
769
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, figs. 3-8 of Kim discloses a display device comprising: a display panel including a first display area 1A in which a plurality of first pixels are disposed, and a second display area 2A in which a plurality of second pixels and a light-transmission area disposed between the second pixels are disposed; and
a sensor 20 (fig. 8) disposed to correspond to the second display area 2A,
wherein the display panel includes a circuit layer (layer 101-113) disposed on a substrate 100, a light emitting element layer (OLED layer) disposed on the circuit layer, and
a planarization layer 113 of the circuit layer;
one second pixel among the plurality of second pixels Pa includes a plurality of sub-pixels (Pa1/2/3 fig. 7),
a space (see fig. 8) is formed between an anode electrode 210’ of one of the plurality of sub-pixels and an anode electrode of another sub-pixel disposed adjacent to the one sub-pixel.
Kim does not disclose an anti-reflection layer disposed between a planarization layer of the circuit layer and an anode electrode of the light emitting element layer, and a path of light directed to the sensor through the space is changed by means of the anti-reflection layer.
PNG
media_image3.png
368
669
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, fig. 4 of Kim86 discloses a display device comprising: a display panel including a display area in which a plurality of first pixels P are disposed;
wherein the display panel includes a circuit layer disposed on a substrate, a light emitting element layer E disposed on the circuit layer, and
a space (region between 150 in W region in middle of fig. 4) is formed between an anode electrode 150 of one of the plurality of first pixels P and an anode electrode of another of the plurality of first pixels P disposed adjacent to;
an anti-reflection layer 153a ([0059] The first bank 153a, as a lower layer, may be formed of an insulating material having relatively high light absorptivity) – note light absorbed are not reflected and that 153a is an anti-reflective layer) disposed between a planarization layer 140 of the circuit layer and an anode electrode 150 of the light emitting element layer.
In view of such teaching, it would have been obvious to form a device of Kim further comprising an anti-reflection layer disposed between a planarization layer of the circuit layer and an anode electrode of the light emitting element layer such as taught by Kim86 in order to have high light absorptivity and blocking penetration of light in unwanted region.
Note that the resulting structure would have been one comprising a path of light directed to the sensor through the space is changed by means of the anti-reflection layer.
Regarding claim 5 (see claim 1 rejection), figs. 3-8 of Kim discloses a display device comprising:
a display panel including a first display area in which a plurality of first pixels are disposed, and a second display area in which a plurality of second pixels and a light-transmission area disposed between the second pixels are disposed; and
a sensor disposed to correspond to the second display area, wherein the display panel includes a circuit layer disposed on a substrate, a light emitting element layer disposed on the circuit layer, and
one second pixel among the plurality of second pixels includes a plurality of sub-pixels and a pixel-defining film 180 disposed between the sub-pixels.
Kim does not disclose an anti-reflection layer disposed between a planarization layer of the circuit layer and an anode electrode of the light emitting element layer, and the pixel-defining film overlaps with the anti-reflection layer.
However, fig. 4 of Kim86 discloses a display device comprising: a display panel including a display area in which a plurality of first pixels P are disposed;
wherein the display panel includes a circuit layer disposed on a substrate, a light emitting element layer E disposed on the circuit layer, and
a space (region between 150 in W region in middle of fig. 4) is formed between an anode electrode 150 of one of the plurality of first pixels P and an anode electrode of another of the plurality of first pixels P disposed adjacent to;
an anti-reflection layer 153a ([0059] The first bank 153a, as a lower layer, may be formed of an insulating material having relatively high light absorptivity) – note light absorbed are not reflected and that 153a is an anti-reflective layer) disposed between a planarization layer 140 of the circuit layer and an anode electrode 150 of the light emitting element layer, and a pixel-defining film 153b overlaps with the anti-reflection layer 153a.
In view of such teaching, it would have been obvious to form a device of Kim further comprising an anti-reflection layer disposed between a planarization layer of the circuit layer and an anode electrode of the light emitting element layer, and the pixel-defining film overlaps with the anti-reflection layer such as taught by Kim86 in order to have high light absorptivity and blocking penetration of light in unwanted region.
Regarding claim 2, fig. 8 of Kim discloses wherein the one second pixel includes a pixel-defining film disposed between the sub-pixels, and Kim86 discloses the pixel-defining film 153b overlaps with the anti-reflection layer 153a.
As such the resulting structure would have been one wherein the pixel-defining film overlaps with the anti-reflection layer.
Regarding claim 3, Kim discloses that the pixel defining layer can be HMDSO (par [0155]) and discloses wherein the planarization layer can be HMDSO (par [0149]). As such it would have been obvious to form a device comprising wherein a refractive index of the pixel definition film is the same as a refractive index of the planarization layer in order to use the same material.
Regarding claim 4, the resulting structure would have been one wherein a refractive index of the anti-reflection layer (the refractive index of chromium oxide (Cr2O3) is approximately 2.551. Another source indicates a refractive index of 3.2120) is equal to or greater than a refractive index of an organic compound layer (refractive index of ETL (Alq3) 1.75) of the light emitting element layer.
Regarding claim 6, fig. 9 of Kim discloses wherein a space formed between an anode electrode of one of the plurality of sub-pixels disposed on a same layer and an anode electrode of another sub-pixel disposed adjacent to the one sub-pixel, overlaps with the pixel-defining film 180.
Regarding claim 7, the resulting structure would have been one wherein a refractive index of the anti-reflection layer (the refractive index of chromium oxide (Cr2O3) is approximately 2.551. Another source indicates a refractive index of 3.2120) is greater than a refractive index of the planarization layer (par [0149] polyimide (PI) is use as material and The refractive index of polyimide typically ranges from approximately 1.495 to 1.7427).
Regarding claim 8, fig. 4 of Kim86 disclose wherein the anti-reflection layer is formed to have a predetermined thickness, and a blocking rate of light directed to the sensor through the space is adjusted depending on the thickness of the anti-reflection layer (for example zero thickness means zero blocking rate).
Regarding claim 9, fig. 4 of Kim86 discloses further comprising a connection layer (portion of 153a) disposed in the space.
Regarding claim 10, fig. 4 of Kim86 discloses further comprising a lens layer 153b disposed on an upper portion of the connection layer.
Regarding claim 11, fig. 4 of Kim86 discloses wherein the anti-reflection layer, the connection layer, and the lens layer are integrally formed.
Regarding claim 12, the resulting structure would have been one wherein a blocking rate of light directed to the sensor is adjusted depending on a thickness set by the anti-reflection layer, the connection layer, and the lens layer that are integrally formed (for example, zero thickness means zero blocking rate).
Regarding claim 13, the resulting structure would have been one wherein the lens layer is disposed along a circumference of at least one of the plurality of sub-pixels.
Regarding claim 14, Kim and Kim86 do not disclose wherein the lens layer is formed to have a hemispherical cross section.
Although Kim and Kim86 device does not teach the exact shape of the lens layer as that claimed by Applicant, the shape differences are considered obvious design choices and are not patentable unless unobvious or unexpected results are obtained from these changes. Additionally, the Applicant has presented no discussion in the specification which convinces the Examiner that the particular shape of the support means is anything more than one of numerous shapes a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of providing support. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976). It appears that these changes produce no functional differences and therefore would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 15, Kim and Kim86 do not discloses wherein the lens layer is formed to have a thickness smaller than a width. However, note that the lens layer is formed to have a thickness smaller than a width is a type of shape of the lens layer.
Although Kim and Kim86 device does not teach the exact shape of the lens layer as that claimed by Applicant, the shape differences are considered obvious design choices and are not patentable unless unobvious or unexpected results are obtained from these changes. Additionally, the Applicant has presented no discussion in the specification which convinces the Examiner that the particular shape of the support means is anything more than one of numerous shapes a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of providing support. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976). It appears that these changes produce no functional differences and therefore would have been obvious.
The resulting structure would have been one wherein an amount of light reaching the sensor is decreased as the thickness relative to the width of the lens layer is decreased (for example is lens layer thickness is zero and width is than of the antireflection layer then zero light is passed as oppose to width greater than anti-reflection layer then light beyond the anti-reflection is not blocked and passes to the senor).
Regarding claim 16, Kim and Kim86 discloses wherein the lens layer is disposed inside the pixel-defining film.
Regarding claim 17, fig. 7 of Kim discloses wherein the plurality of sub-pixels include a first sub-pixel, a second sub-pixel, and a third sub-pixel, and the lens layer is disposed along a circumference of the first sub-pixel.
Regarding claim 18, par [0128] of Kim discloses wherein the sensor is an infrared sensor, and par [0066] of Kim discloses that the first sub-pixel is a red sub-pixel.
Regarding claim 19, Kim86 discloses wherein a refractive index of the lens layer is different from the refractive index of the anti-reflection layer.
Regarding claim 20, fig. 7 of Kim discloses wherein the one second pixel includes a boundary line representing a pixel group, and each of the plurality of sub-pixels is disposed spaced apart from the boundary line. The resulting structure would have been one comprising an area of the anti-reflection layer corresponds to the boundary line.
Conclusion
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, Sue Purvis 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