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 Amendment
Receipt of the Amendment, filed on March 9, 2026, is acknowledged.
Cancellation of claims 5 and 18 has been entered.
Claims 1-4, 6-17 and 19-22 are pending in the instant application.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-10, 12-17 and 19-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lee et al. (US 2021/0066652 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a display panel (Fig. 10A-10B) comprising: a display element layer (DL) including a pixel defining film (119) having a pixel opening defined therein, and a light emitting element (OLED); and an encapsulation layer (TFE) disposed on the display element layer, wherein the encapsulation layer (TFE) includes: a first inorganic encapsulation film (131); an organic encapsulation film (132) disposed on the first inorganic encapsulation film; and a second inorganic encapsulation film (133) disposed on the organic encapsulation film, the second inorganic encapsulation film (133) has a refractive index in a range of about 1.89 to about 2.20 (¶[0142]), wherein a thickness of the first inorganic encapsulation film is greater than a thickness of the second inorganic encapsulation film by about 2,600 Å to about 5,600 Å (¶[0143], when t1=1.5 µm & t3=1.2 µm).
Alternatively, one skilled in the art would have reasonably contemplate selecting the thicknesses of the first inorganic encapsulation film and the second inorganic encapsulation film from the ranges disclosed by Lee to obtain the thickness of the first inorganic encapsulation film being greater than a thickness of the second inorganic encapsulation film by about 2,600 Å to about 5,600 Å in order to minimize the reflectance of external light, as an obvious matter of design engineering. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a thickness of the first inorganic encapsulation film being greater than a thickness of the second inorganic encapsulation film by about 2,600 Å to about 5,600 Å in order to minimize the reflectance of external light, since optimization of workable ranges is considered within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 2, Lee discloses a display panel wherein the second inorganic encapsulation film (133) comprises silicon nitride (¶s[0060,0071,0132]).
Regarding claim 3, Lee discloses a display panel wherein the first inorganic encapsulation film (131) comprises at least one compound selected from silicon nitride, silicon oxynitride, silicon oxide, titanium oxide, and aluminum oxide (¶[0016]).
Regarding claim 4, Lee discloses a display panel wherein the second inorganic encapsulation film has a thickness in a range of about 6000 Å to about 8000 Å (¶[0143]); and the first inorganic encapsulation film has a thickness in a range of about 10600 Å to about 11600 Å (¶[0143]).
Regarding claim 6, Lee discloses a display panel wherein the organic encapsulation film has a thickness in a range of about 79000 Å to about 81000 Å (¶[0143]).
Regarding claim 7, Lee discloses a display panel wherein a thickness of the organic encapsulation film is greater than thicknesses of the first inorganic encapsulation film and the second inorganic encapsulation film (¶[0143]).
Regarding claim 9, Lee discloses a display panel wherein the encapsulation layer covers the display element layer (Fig. 10A).
Regarding claim 10, Lee discloses a display panel wherein the light emitting element comprises a first electrode (121) exposed in the pixel opening, a second electrode (123) disposed on the first electrode, and an emission layer (122) disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode, and the light emitting element emits blue light or white light (¶[0051]).
Regarding claim 12, Lee discloses a display panel wherein: the light emitting element (OLED) further comprises a hole transport region disposed between the first electrode and the emission layer; and an electron transport region disposed between the emission layer and the second electrode (¶[0110]).
Regarding claim 13, Lee discloses a display device comprising: a display panel (Fig. 3); and a protection member (OFL, ¶[0061]) disposed on the display panel, wherein the display panel (Fig. 10A-10B) includes: a display element layer (DL) including a pixel defining film (119) having a pixel opening defined therein, and a light emitting element (OLED); and an encapsulation layer (TFE) disposed on the display element layer, wherein the encapsulation layer (TFE) includes: a first inorganic encapsulation film (131); an organic encapsulation film (132) disposed on the first inorganic encapsulation film; and a second inorganic encapsulation film (133) disposed on the organic encapsulation film, the second inorganic encapsulation film (133) has a refractive index in a range of about 1.89 to about 2.20 (¶[0142]), wherein a thickness of the first inorganic encapsulation film is greater than a thickness of the second inorganic encapsulation film by about 2,600 Å to about 5,600 Å (¶[0143], when t1=1.5 µm & t3=1.2 µm).
Alternatively, one skilled in the art would have reasonably contemplate selecting the thicknesses of the first inorganic encapsulation film and the second inorganic encapsulation film from the ranges disclosed by Lee to obtain the thickness of the first inorganic encapsulation film being greater than a thickness of the second inorganic encapsulation film by about 2,600 Å to about 5,600 Å in order to minimize the reflectance of external light, as an obvious matter of design engineering. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a thickness of the first inorganic encapsulation film being greater than a thickness of the second inorganic encapsulation film by about 2,600 Å to about 5,600 Å in order to minimize the reflectance of external light, since optimization of workable ranges is considered within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 14, Lee discloses a display device wherein the second inorganic encapsulation film (133) comprises silicon nitride (¶s[0060,0071,0132]).
Regarding claim 15, Lee discloses a display device wherein the display device does not include a polarizing plate (¶s[0061-0063]). Lee discloses multiple embodiments of the optical functional layer OFL, an embodiment where the OFL may include a polarizer and a retarder, an embodiment where the OFL may include a black matrix and color filters, and an embodiment where the OFL may include a destructive interference structure. As such, the polarizer plate is an optional disclosed embodiment and the display device not including a polarizing plate is taught by Lee.
Regarding claim 16, Lee discloses a display device wherein the first inorganic encapsulation film (131) comprises at least one compound selected from silicon nitride, silicon oxynitride, silicon oxide, titanium oxide, and aluminum oxide (¶[0016]).
Regarding claim 17, Lee discloses a display device wherein the second inorganic encapsulation film has a thickness in a range of about 6000 Å to about 8000 Å (¶[0143]); and the first inorganic encapsulation film has a thickness in a range of about 10600 Å to about 11600 Å (¶[0143]).
Regarding claim 19, Lee discloses a display device wherein the organic encapsulation film has a thickness in a range of about 79000 Å to about 81000 Å (¶[0143]).
Regarding claim 20, Lee discloses a display device wherein: the display element layer comprises a first light emitting element (EA1), a second light emitting element (EA3), and a third light emitting element (EA2) that are spaced apart from each other in a first direction perpendicular to a thickness direction; and the first light emitting element emits red light (¶[0074]), the second light emitting element emits green light (¶[0074]), and the third light emitting element emits blue light (¶[0074]).
Regarding claim 21, Lee discloses an electronic device comprising: a display panel (Fig. 10A-10B) comprising: a display element layer (DL) including a pixel defining film (119) having a pixel opening defined therein, and a light emitting element (OLED); and an encapsulation layer (TFE) disposed on the display element layer, wherein the encapsulation layer (TFE) includes: a first inorganic encapsulation film (131); an organic encapsulation film (132) disposed on the first inorganic encapsulation film; and a second inorganic encapsulation film (133) disposed on the organic encapsulation film, the second inorganic encapsulation film (133) has a refractive index in a range of about 1.89 to about 2.20 (¶[0142]), wherein a thickness of the first inorganic encapsulation film is greater than a thickness of the second inorganic encapsulation film by about 2,600 Å to about 5,600 Å (¶[0143], when t1=1.5 µm & t3=1.2 µm).
Alternatively, one skilled in the art would have reasonably contemplate selecting the thicknesses of the first inorganic encapsulation film and the second inorganic encapsulation film from the ranges disclosed by Lee to obtain the thickness of the first inorganic encapsulation film being greater than a thickness of the second inorganic encapsulation film by about 2,600 Å to about 5,600 Å in order to minimize the reflectance of external light, as an obvious matter of design engineering. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a thickness of the first inorganic encapsulation film being greater than a thickness of the second inorganic encapsulation film by about 2,600 Å to about 5,600 Å in order to minimize the reflectance of external light, since optimization of workable ranges is considered within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 22, Lee discloses a display panel wherein: the second inorganic encapsulation film comprises silicon nitride (¶s[0060,0071,0132]); and the first inorganic encapsulation film comprises at least one compound selected from silicon oxynitride, silicon oxide, titanium oxide, and aluminum oxide (¶[0016]).
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.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2021/0066652 A1) in view of Park et al. (US 2020/0227485 A1, of record).
Regarding claim 11, Lee fails to exemplify wherein the emission layer emits thermally activated delayed fluorescence or phosphorescence.
Park discloses a display panel comprising: a display element layer (Fig. 3) including a pixel defining film (PDL) having a pixel opening defined therein, and a light emitting element (ED1); and an encapsulation layer (TFE) disposed on the display element layer, wherein the encapsulation layer includes: a first inorganic encapsulation film (EL1, ¶[0108]); an organic encapsulation film (EL2, ¶[0108]) disposed on the first inorganic encapsulation film; and a second inorganic encapsulation film (EL3, ¶[0108]) disposed on the organic encapsulation film, wherein the light emitting element comprises a first electrode (E1-1) exposed in the pixel opening, a second electrode (E2-1) disposed on the first electrode, and an emission layer (EML-1) disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode, and the light emitting element emits blue light or white light (¶[0122]) and wherein the emission layer emits thermally activated delayed fluorescence or phosphorescence (¶[0122]). It is considered within the capabilities of one skilled in the art the selection of a material based on its known suitability for an intended application as an obvious matter of design engineering. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time of effective filling of the claimed invention to have thermally activated delayed fluorescence or phosphorescence emission layer as disclosed by Park in the display panel of Ju, since the selection of known materials for a known purpose is within the skill of the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 6-17 and 19-22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Conclusion
The rejections above rely on the references for all the teachings expressed in the text of the references and/or one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably understood or implied from the texts of the references. To emphasize certain aspects of the prior art, only specific portions of the texts have been pointed out. Each reference as a whole should be reviewed in responding to the rejection, since other sections of the same reference and/or various combinations of the cited references may be relied on in future rejections in view of amendments.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mariceli Santiago whose telephone number is (571) 272-2464. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM.
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 on (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.
/Mariceli Santiago/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2879
Prosecution Insights