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
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, and 8-11 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, and the hydrophilic layer is made of an inorganic material containing oxygen, wherein the inorganic material comprises at least one of silicon oxynitride, silicon oxide, aluminum oxide, barium oxide, and calcium oxide;
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 the claimed limitation of “a contact angle between a hydrophilic solution for preparing the light conversion structure and the hydrophilic layer is less than or equal to 50o, these are process limitations which would not carry patentable weight in this claim drawn to a structure, because distinct structure is not necessarily produced.
The formation of the light conversion structure by using a contact angle between a hydrophilic solution and the hydrophilic layer being less than or equal to 50o, does not produce a structure which is different from a structure which is formed using different processing steps.
Note that a “product by process” claim is directed to the product per se, no matter how actually made, In re Hirao, 190 USPQ 15 at 17 (footnote 3). See also In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685; In re Luck, 177 USPQ 523; In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324; In re Avery, 186 USPQ 161; In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90 (209 USPQ 554 does not deal with this issue); and In re Marosi et al., 218 USPQ 289, all of which make it clear that it is the patentability of the final product per se which must be determined in a “product by process” claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that an old or obvious product produced by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in “product by process” claims or not. Note that the applicant has the burden of proof in such cases, as the above case law makes clear.
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).
Response to Arguments
1. Applicants argue that Oh does not teach the “Based on the above technical feature 1… “the hydrophilic layer is made of an inorganic material containing oxygen, wherein the inorganic material comprises at least one of silicon oxynitride, silicon oxide, aluminum oxide, barium oxide, and calcium oxide”, because “Based on the above technical feature 1, it can be known that the hydrophilic layer is set to have the hydrophilicity. In Oh, a suitable method may be used to cause the surface treatment pattern layer 140 to have hydrophilicity or hydrophobicity; and thus the surface treatment pattern layer 140 may include at least one selected from the group of tetramethylsilane(TMS), tetraethoxysilane (TEOS), hexamethyldisiloxane (HMDSO), tetramethyldisiloxane (TMDSO), hexamethyldisilazane (HMIDSN), tetramethylcyclotetrasiloxane (TOMCTS), and octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (OMCTS). In this case, the surface treatment pattern layer 140 may be provided with hydrophilicity by increasing an amount of included oxygen or may be provided with hydrophobicity by decreasing the amount of the included oxyge. Simiarly, by adjusting an amount of oxygen in others of the above materials that may be included in the surface treatment pattern layer 140, the surface treatment pattern layer 140 may be provided with hydrophilicity or hydrophobicity (see lines 59-68 in column 5 and lines 1-17 in column 6 of the Specification). It can be seen that in Oh, the surface treatment pattern layer may require hydrophilicity or hydrophobicity. Based on this requirement, the surface treatment pattern layer is selected from organic materials, and the amount of oxygen in the organic materials can be adjusted to achieve hydrophilicity or hydrophobicity”.
1. The claims recite “the hydrophilic layer is made of an inorganic material containing oxygen, wherein the inorganic material comprises at least one of silicon oxynitride, silicon oxide, aluminum oxide, barium oxide, and calcium oxide”. Oh teaches that the hydrophilic layer is made of silicon oxide. Therefore, Oh teaches the claimed limitation.
2. Applicants argue that Oh does not teach “The technical feature 2 defines the contact angle between the hydrophilic solution for preparing the light conversion structure and the hydrophilic layer is less than or equal to 500. By limiting the range of the contact angle between the hydrophilic solution for preparing the light conversion structure and the hydrophilic layer, when the light conversion structure is formed, the hydrophilic solution fully spreads on the surface of the hydrophilic layer, such that the thickness of the light conversion structure is uniform”, because “Oh only discloses that the photo-functional layer 150 may have hydrophilicity or hydrophobicity that is a same surface characteristic as that of the surface treatment pattern layer 140, but does not mention the contact angle between the photo-functional layer 150 and the surface treatment pattern layer 140. Therefore, Oh does not disclose the technical feature 2. In the display panel according to amended claim 1, the inorganic material of the hydrophilic layer includes at least one of silicon oxynitride, silicon oxide, aluminum oxide, barium oxide, and calcium oxide. As the hydrophilic layer is made of the inorganic materials containing oxygen elements, it has good hydrophilicity, which is conducive to the close contact with the light conversion structure and the package layer. In addition, the contact angle between the hydrophilic solution for preparing the light conversion structure and the hydrophilic layer is less than or equal to 50°, when the light conversion structure is formed by the inkjet printing process, the ductility of the solution mixed with particles on the surface of the hydrophilic layer is great, and the solution mixed with particles is fully spread on the surface of the hydrophilic layer, such that the thickness of the solution mixed with particles on the hydrophilic layer is uniform, and the thickness of the light conversion structure formed by curing is also uniform. As such, an effect of converting light from the lightemitting device to light of other colors by the light conversion structure is great, an effect of scattering the light from the light-emitting device is great, and a display effect of the display panel is efficiently improved (see paragraph [0076] of the Specification). It can be seen that in amended claim 1, by limiting the material of the hydrophilic layer to be the inorganic material and setting the contact angle between the hydrophilic solution for preparing the light conversion structure and the hydrophilic layer to be less than or equal to 500, the thickness of the cured light conversion structure can be more uniform, thereby improving the display effect of the display panel. In Oh, the characteristic of the display apparatus may deteriorate due to exterior moistureor oxygen. Thus, a technical solution to improve the image characteristic of the display apparatus (that is, brightness or a contrast of the display apparatus) is provided. In the technical solution, the protective layer and the encapsulation member may be formed to protect the photo-functional layers and the display device (see lines 40-41 in column 5, lines 58-62 in column 14, and lines 53- 60 in column 16 of the Specification, and FIG. 8 and FIG. 9). Thus, it can be seen that the technical problem solved by Oh is deterioration of the display device due to the exterior moistureor oxygen in the prior art. Thus, on the basis that Oh does not disclose the above distinguishing technical features, Oh also fails to give any technical enlightenment of the above distinguishing features.
2. As discussed above, the claimed limitation of “a contact angle between a hydrophilic solution for preparing the light conversion structure and the hydrophilic layer is less than or equal to 50o, is a process limitation which would not carry patentable weight in this claim drawn to a structure, because distinct structure is not necessarily produced. The formation of the light conversion structure by using a contact angle between a hydrophilic solution and the hydrophilic layer being less than or equal to 50o, does not produce a structure which is different from a structure which is formed using different processing steps.
Conclusion
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.
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/
9/23/2026 PRIMARY EXAMINER
TECHNOLOGY CENTER 2800
Prosecution Insights