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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s remarks/amendments of claims 1-18 in the reply filed on January 20th, 2026, are acknowledged. Claims 11-18 have been cancelled. Claims 19-23 have been withdrawn. New claims 24-27 have been added. Claims 1-10 and 19-27 are pending.
Action on merits of claims 1-10 and 24-27 as follows.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 01/20/2026 are acceptable.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-9 and 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2020/0144550, hereinafter as Lee ‘550) in view of Bae (US 2020/0350517, hereinafter as Bae ‘517) and further in view of Moon (US 2019/0115404, hereinafter as Moon ‘404).
Regarding Claim 1, Lee ‘550 teaches a display device comprising:
a substrate (Fig. 10, (401); [0054]);
an emission material layer (Fig. 10, (OLED); [0053]) disposed on the substrate, the emission material layer comprising: a pixel including a pixel electrode (Fig. 10, (410); [0068]), an emissive layer (Fig. 10, (412); [0066]), and a common electrode (Fig. 10, (411); [0066]); and a pixel-defining film (Fig. 10, (413); [0071]) defining the pixel;
a thin-film encapsulation layer (Fig. 10, (414); [0073]) disposed on the emission material layer;
a low-refractive pattern layer (Fig. 10, (1100); [0122]) overlapping the pixel-defining film and disposed on the thin-film encapsulation layer; and a high-refractive planarization layer (1200, [0122]).
Thus, Lee ‘550 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “an etch stop layer disposed on the low-refractive pattern layer, the etch stop layer including an inorganic material; and a high-refractive planarization layer disposed on the etch stop layer, wherein the high-refractive planarization layer includes a recess overlapping the low-refractive pattern layer”.
Bae ‘517 teaches an etch stop layer (a roof layer, Fig. 8, (410); [0073]) disposed on the low-refractive pattern layer (air cavity (AC); [0073]), the etch stop layer including an inorganic material (see para. [0087]); and a high-refractive (310; [0082]) disposed on the etch stop layer, wherein the high-refractive layer includes a recess (Fig. 8, (R_Annotated)) overlapping the low-refractive pattern layer (AC). Examiner considers the roof layer (410) is the etch stop layer. Since the refractive index of the air cavity (AC) about 1.0 (see para. [0088]) and the inorganic layer (310; [0083]) (includes including aluminum oxide, titanium oxide, tantalum oxide, hafnium oxide, zinc oxide, silicon oxide, silicon nitride, or silicon oxynitride) is greater than 1.0, thus it would obviously appear that the inorganic layer (310) is the high-refractive layer.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lee ‘550 by having an etch stop layer disposed on the low-refractive pattern layer, the etch stop layer formed of an inorganic material; and a high-refractive planarization layer formed on the etch stop layer, wherein the high-refractive planarization layer includes a recess overlapping the low-refractive pattern layer for the purpose of providing high quality image of the light emitting diode display device (see para. [0004]) as suggested by Bae ‘517.
Thus, Lee ‘550 and Bae ‘517 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “a high-refractive planarization layer”.
Moon ‘404 teaches a high-refractive planarization layer (Fig. 4, (311); [0090]). Examiner considers the high-refractive layer (311; flat layer) is high-refractive planarization layer.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lee ‘550 and Bae ‘517 by having the high-refractive planarization layer in order to improve light emission efficiency (see para. [0002]) as suggested by Moon ‘404.
PNG
media_image1.png
520
508
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 10 (Lee ‘550)
[AltContent: textbox (R)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
280
362
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 8 (Bae ‘517_Annotated)
Regarding Claim 2, Bae ‘517 teaches the recess of the high-refractive planarization layer is aligned with the low-refractive pattern layer, and a width of the recess gradually decreases as being closer to the low-refractive pattern layer (AC) from an upper surface of the high-refractive planarization layer (300) (see Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 3, Lee ‘550 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the recess has a depth greater than a thickness of the low-refractive pattern layer”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select the recess has a depth greater than a thickness of the low-refractive pattern layer on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
PNG
media_image3.png
18
19
media_image3.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select the recess has a depth greater than a thickness of the low-refractive pattern layer in order to improve the performance of the display device.
Regarding Claim 5, Bae ‘517 teaches the recess (410H; [0090]) surrounds the emissive layer (EA; [0089]) in a plan view (see Fig. 10A).
Regarding Claim 6, Bae ‘517 teaches the low-refractive pattern layer (AC; [0090]) surrounds the emissive layer (EA; [0089]) in a plan view (see Fig. 10A).
Regarding Claim 7, Lee ‘550 teaches the high-refractive planarization layer has a refractive index greater than a refractive index of the low-refractive pattern layer by 1.6-1.5= 0.1 (see para. [0115]) which overlap the claim range about 0.05 to about 0.3.
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). The claim would have been obvious in the absence of a showing that the claimed range(s) achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select the high-refractive planarization layer has a refractive index greater than a refractive index of the low-refractive pattern layer by about 0.05 to about 0.3 on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select the high-refractive planarization layer has a refractive index greater than a refractive index of the low-refractive pattern layer by about 0.05 to about 0.3 when this improves the performance of the display device.
Regarding Claim 8, Bae ‘517 teaches the etch stop layer (a roof layer, Fig. 8, (410); [0073]) has a refractive index that is greater than the refractive index of the low-refractive pattern layer (AC) (see para. [0088]).
Lee ‘550, Bae ‘517 and Moon ‘404 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the etch stop layer has a refractive index that is smaller than the refractive index of the high-refractive planarization layer”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select the etch stop layer has a refractive index that is smaller than the refractive index of the high-refractive planarization layer on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select the etch stop layer has a refractive index that is smaller than the refractive index of the high-refractive planarization layer when this improves the performance of the display device. The claim would have been obvious in the absence of a showing that the claimed range(s) achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select the etch stop layer has a refractive index that is smaller than the refractive index of the high-refractive planarization layer when this improves the performance of the display device.
Regarding Claim 9, Bae ‘517 teaches a display area (EA; [0089]) overlapping the emissive layer (222) and a non-display area around the display area, and the etch stop layer (410) entirely covers the display area and the non-display area (see Fig. 9).
Regarding Claim 24, Bae ‘517 teaches the low-refractive pattern layer (AC) is located in a non-emission area (periphery area; [0089]) and is not located in an emission area (EA; [0089]) (see Fig. 4C).
Regarding Claim 25, Moon ‘404 teaches a bottom surface of the recess contacts an upper surface of the etch stop layer (331; [0087]) (see Fig. 4). Examiner considers the reflection layer (311) is the etch stop layer.
Regarding Claim 26, Bae ‘517 teaches opposing sides of the low-refractive pattern layer (322; []) are inclined (see Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 27, Moon ‘404 teaches each side of the low-refractive pattern layer (321; [0107]) is at an angle of about 480 or more which overlaps the claim range of about 70 degrees to about 90 degrees.
Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select the angle about 70 degrees to about 90 degrees of each side of the low-refractive pattern layer on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select the angle about 70 degrees to about 90 degrees of each side of the low-refractive pattern layer when this improves the performance of the display device.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee ‘550, Bae ‘517 and Moon ‘404 as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Jang (US 2019/0221779, hereinafter as Jang ‘779).
Regarding Claim 4, Lee ‘550, Bae ‘517 and Moon ‘404 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the recess includes an opening exposing the etch stop layer”.
Jang ‘779 teaches the recess includes an opening (Fig. 7, (LOP); [0109]) exposing the etch stop layer (510; [0097]). Examiner considers the light blocking portion (510) is the etch stop layer.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lee ‘550, Bae ‘517 and Moon ‘404 by having the recess includes an opening exposing the etch stop layer in order to improve the luminous efficiency of the display device (see para. [0005]) as suggested by Jang ‘779.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee ‘550, Bae ‘517 and Moon ‘404 as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Kim (US 2018/0166525, hereinafter as Kim ‘525).
Regarding Claim 10, Lee ‘550, Bae ‘517 and Moon ‘404 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “a metal pad disposed in the non-display area, and the etch stop layer comprises an opening exposing the metal pad”.
Kim ‘525 teaches a metal pad (Fig. 18, (TP1); [0062]) disposed in the non-display area (NDA), and the etch stop layer comprises an opening exposing the metal pad (see Fig. 18). Examiner considers the inorganic film (350; [0104]) is the etch stop layer.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lee ‘550, Bae ‘517 and Moon ‘404 by having a metal pad disposed in the non-display area, and the etch stop layer comprises an opening exposing the metal pad in order to provide a display device whose cracks can be detected easily and more accurately (see para. [0005]) as suggested by Kim ‘525.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-10 and 24-27, filed on January 20th, 2026, have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
Interviews After Final
Applicants note that an interview after a final rejection is permitted in order to place the application in condition for allowance or to resolve issues prior to appeal. However, prior to the interview, the intended purpose and content of the interview should be presented briefly, preferably in writing. Upon review of the agenda, the Examiner may grant the interview if the examiner is convinced that disposal or clarification for appeal may be accomplished with only nominal further consideration. Interviews merely to restate arguments of record or to discuss new limitations will be denied. See MPEP § 714.13
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Dzung Tran whose telephone number is (571) 270-3911. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8 AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DZUNG TRAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893