The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of the embodiment of figure 7 in the reply filed on 12/18/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that ”the structure of the hydrophilic layer in claim 1 is different from that of the hydrophilic layer in US2016103257A, and US2016103257A does not disclose the hydrophilic layer in claim 1. The hydrophilic layer is a specific technical feature”.
This is not found persuasive because US2016103257A is not cited to teach the entire claimed structure, as recited in claim 1. US2016103257A is cited to provide evidence that hydrophilic layer is not a special technical feature.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 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 of this title, 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 1-3, 8-11 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. (9,709,716) in view of Lee (2020/0119101) and Michihata et al. (6,008,940).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Oh et al. teach in figures 1, 9 (see corresponding numerals in figure 1) and related text a display
panel, comprising:
a base substrate 910 (110);
a plurality of light-emitting devices 921/922/923 (120a) on a side of the base substrate;
a package layer 930 (130) on a side, facing away from the base substrate, of the plurality of light-emitting devices, wherein the package layer is configured to package the plurality of light-emitting devices;
a hydrophilic layer 940 (140) on a side, facing away from the base substrate, of the package layer, wherein the hydrophilic layer is in direct contact with the package layer, and a material of the hydrophilic layer (silicon oxide) contains oxygen;
an isolation portion (the portion separating elements 140/150 from each other) on a side, facing away from the base substrate, of the hydrophilic layer, wherein a plurality of apertures in one-to-one correspondence to the plurality of light-emitting devices are defined in the isolation portion, wherein an orthogonal projection of each of the plurality of apertures on the base substrate covers an orthogonal projection of the corresponding light-emitting device 921/922/923 (120a) on the base substrate 110; and
a light conversion structure 950 (150) in the plurality of apertures, wherein the light conversion structure comprises a transparent medium layer made of a hydrophilic material (silicon oxide) and, and a face, close to the base substrate, of the transparent medium layer is in direct contact with the hydrophilic layer.
Oh et al. do not state that the portion separating elements 140/150 from each other is an isolation portion and do not teach that a plurality of particles dispersed in the transparent medium layer.
Lee teaches in figure 9 and related text using isolation portion 125 and a plurality of apertures in one-to-one correspondence to the plurality of light-emitting devices 142 are defined in the isolation portion, wherein an orthogonal projection of each of the plurality of apertures on the base substrate covers an orthogonal projection of the corresponding light-emitting device on the base substrate.
Michihata et al. teach in figure 9 and related text a plurality of particles 12, 14 made of a hydrophilic material (silicon oxide) dispersed in the transparent medium layer 10.
Lee, Oh et al. and Michihata et al. are analogous art because they are directed to display devices and comprising a hydrophilic material and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Park et al. because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to form the portion separating elements from each other is an isolation portion, as taught by Lee, and to a plurality of particles dispersed in the transparent medium layer, as taught by Michihata et al., in Oh et al.’s device, in order to improve the light emission characteristics of the device by properly separating the different colors from each other and in order to improve the light emission characteristics of the device by reducing the glare in the device, respectively.
Regarding claims 2 and 16, Oh et al. teach in figures 1, 9 and related text that the hydrophilic layer is made of an inorganic material containing oxygen.
Regarding claims 3 and 17, Oh et al. teach in figures 1, 9 and related text that the inorganic material comprises at least one of silicon oxynitride, silicon oxide, aluminum oxide, barium oxide, and calcium oxide.
Regarding claim 8, Oh et al. teach in figures 1, 9 and related text that a refractive index of the hydrophilic layer (silicon oxide being 1.43) is less than a refractive index of the light conversion structure (being 1.44).
Regarding claim 9, Lee, and thus prior art, teaches in figure 9 and related text that the plurality of light-emitting devices are configured to emit blue light 142B, and the display panel comprises a red pixel sub-region, a green pixel sub-region, and a blue pixel sub-region; wherein particles in the light conversion structure in the red pixel sub-region comprise red quantum dots (see figures 15 and 16) for converting blue light to red light and scattering particles for scattering light; particles in the light conversion structure in the green pixel sub-region comprise green quantum dots for converting blue light to green light and scattering particles for scattering light; and particles in the light conversion structure in the blue pixel sub-region comprise scattering particles for scattering light.
Regarding claim 10, Oh et al. teach in figures 1, 9 and related text an auxiliary package layer 930 (130) on a side, facing away from the base substrate, of the light conversion structure and a color resist layer 360 (see figure 3) on a side, facing away from the base substrate, of the auxiliary package layer, wherein the color resist layer comprises a red color resist block in the red pixel sub-region, a green color resist block in the green pixel sub-region, a blue resist block in the blue pixel sub-region, and a black matrix 360 between two adjacent color resist blocks.
Regarding claim 11, Lee, and thus prior art, teaches in figure 4 and related text a power supply assembly Vdd and a display panel electrically connected to the power supply assembly. It is noted that the device will not operate without a power supply assembly.
Claims 4-7 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. (9,709,716), Lee (2020/0119101) and Michihata et al. (6,008,940), as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Yan et al. (2022/0140007).
Regarding claims 4 and 18, prior art teaches substantially the entire claimed structure, as applied to the claims above, wherein Oh et al. teach in figure 1 and related text a package layer comprises an organic package layer 360, and a second inorganic package layer (top part of layer 130) that are laminated in a direction perpendicular to and away from the base substrate 110, wherein the hydrophilic layer 140 is in direct contact with the second inorganic package layer (top part of layer 130).
Oh et al. do not teach forming a first inorganic package layer, and wherein a roughness of the side, facing away from the base substrate, of the hydrophilic layer is greater than a roughness of a side, facing away from the base substrate, of the second inorganic package layer.
Yan et al. teach in related text (see paragraph [0047] a package layer comprises a first inorganic package layer, an organic package layer, and a second inorganic package layer that are laminated in a direction perpendicular to and away from the base substrate.
Yan et al., Lee, Oh et al. and Michihata et al. are analogous art because they are directed to display devices and comprising a hydrophilic material and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Park et al. because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to form the package layer comprises a first inorganic package layer, an organic package layer, and a second inorganic package layer that are laminated in a direction perpendicular to and away from the base substrate, as taught by Yan et al., in prior art’s device, in order to improve the device characteristics since two stacked inorganic layers prevent water vapor which affect electrical performance of the light-emitting elements and since the organic layer have high elasticity and thus inhibits cracking of the two stacked inorganic layers and release stress between the two stacked inorganic substances and since the organic layer also improves flexibility of the entire encapsulation layer, thereby realizing reliable and flexible encapsulation.
Regarding the claimed limitation of “a roughness of the side, facing away from the base substrate, of the hydrophilic layer is greater than a roughness of a side, facing away from the base substrate, of the second inorganic package layer”, prior art does not teach the above claimed limitation. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to CMP a side of the second inorganic package layer, facing away from the base substrate, such that a roughness of the side, facing away from the base substrate, of the hydrophilic layer is greater than a roughness of a side, facing away from the base substrate, of the second inorganic package layer, in prior art’s device in order to improve the structural integrity between the hydrophilic layer and the second inorganic package layer.
Regarding claims 5-7 and 19-20, prior art does not teach that a thickness of the hydrophilic layer is less than a thickness of the second inorganic package layer, and wherein a ratio of the thickness of the second inorganic package layer to the thickness of the hydrophilic layer is greater than 1 and less than or equal to 3, and wherein a sum of the thickness of the hydrophilic layer and the thickness of the second inorganic package layer is less than or equal to 2 pm.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to form a thickness of the hydrophilic layer is less than a thickness of the second inorganic package layer, and wherein a ratio of the thickness of the second inorganic package layer to the thickness of the hydrophilic layer is greater than 1 and less than or equal to 3, and wherein a sum of the thickness of the hydrophilic layer and the thickness of the second inorganic package layer is less than or equal to 2 pm, in prior art’s device, in order to adjust and optimize the reflective characteristics of the device.
It is to be presumed also that skilled workers would as a matter of course, if they do not immediately obtain desired results, make certain experiments and adaptations, within the skill of the competent worker. The failures of experimenters who have no interest in succeeding should not be accorded great weight. In re Michalek, 162 F.2d 229, 232 (CCPA 1947); In re Reid, 179 F.2d 998, 1002 (CCPA 1950).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ORI NADAV whose telephone number is 571-272-1660. The examiner can normally be reached between the hours of 7 AM to 4 PM (Eastern Standard Time) Monday through Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynne Gurley can be reached on 571-272-1670. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
O.N. /ORI NADAV/
2/6/2026 PRIMARY EXAMINER
TECHNOLOGY CENTER 2800