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 2 (Fig. 8), which is encompassed by claims 1-13 and 16-20 in the reply filed on 09/30/2025 is acknowledged.
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 1-13 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. 20200328256 in view of Kwak et al. 20190131350.
PNG
media_image1.png
478
427
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
519
615
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 1 and 16, fig. 4-5 of Lee discloses a display device comprising:
a substrate 110 comprising a first sub pixel region (region of TA3 – see fig. 4), a second sub pixel region (region of TA2 – see fig. 4), on one side of the first sub pixel region, and a third sub pixel region (region of TA1 – see fig. 4), on the other side of the first sub pixel region;
reflective bottom electrodes AE1/2/3 provided on the substrate;
a blue light emitting layer OL (par [0054] – blue) provided on the lower reflective electrodes;
an encapsulation layer 170 provided on the blue light emitting layer;
partition walls 370 provided on the encapsulation layer and disposed in boundaries of the first to third sub pixel regions;
a green color conversion layer 350 (par [0203]) provided between the partition walls on the encapsulation layer in the first sub pixel region;
a color conversion layer 340 provided between the partition walls on the encapsulation layer in the second sub pixel region;
and
a blue transmissive layer 330 (par [0181]) having an uneven shape and provided between the partition walls on the encapsulation layer in the third sub pixel region.
Lee does not disclose of a blue reflective layer having a flat shape and provided on some of the partition walls, the green color conversion layer, and the color conversion layer.
PNG
media_image3.png
297
496
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
312
336
media_image4.png
Greyscale
However, figs. 3 and 5 of Kwak discloses display device comprising:
a substrate 110 comprising a first sub pixel region, a second sub pixel region on one side of the first sub pixel region, and a third sub pixel region;
reflective bottom electrode 120 provided on the substrate;
a blue light emitting layer (par [0012])) provided on the lower reflective electrode; an encapsulation layer 150 provided on the blue light emitting layer; partition walls 350 provided on the encapsulation layer and disposed in boundaries of the first to third sub pixel regions;
a green color conversion layer 300B (par [0055]) provided between the partition walls on the encapsulation layer in the first sub pixel region;
a color conversion layer 300A provided between the partition walls on the encapsulation layer in the second sub pixel region;
a blue reflective layer 400 having a flat shape and provided on some of the partition walls, the green color conversion layer, and the color conversion layer; and
a blue transmissive layer 300C provided between the partition walls on the encapsulation layer in the third sub pixel region.
In view of such teaching, it would have been obvious to form a display device of Lee further comprising a blue reflective layer having a flat shape and provided on some of the partition walls, the green color conversion layer, and the color conversion layer such as taught by Kwak in order to reflect (e.g., totally reflect or substantially totally reflect) the light of the first wavelength range, and may transmit both the light of the second wavelength range and the light of the third wavelength range as shown in fig. 5 of Kwak shown above.
Regarding claim 2, Lee discloses wherein the blue transmissive layer is not spiky.
However, although the Lee device does not teach the exact shape of the blue transmissive 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 3, Kwak discloses wherein the blue reflective layer is flat. The resulting structure would have been one meeting the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 4, Lee discloses wherein the blue transmissive layer have a stacked structure (fig. 5 of Lee shows 331 and 33 are stacked) and Kwak discloses the blue reflective layer have a stacked structure (par [0076]). The resulting structure would have been one meeting the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 5, Lee and Kwak do not discloses of wherein the stacked structure comprises: silicon oxide layers; and silicon nitride layers between the silicon oxide layers.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use silicon oxide layers; and silicon nitride layers between the silicon oxide layers to form the stacked structure in order to meet applicant specification.
Note that although Lee and Kwak do not teach exact the material as that claimed by Applicant, the material differences are considered obvious design choices and are not patentable unless unobvious or unexpected results are obtained from these changes. It appears that these changes produce no functional differences and therefore would have been obvious. Note In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416, In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Circ. 1990).
Regarding claim 6, fig. 3 of Kwak discloses further comprising partition walls which are disposed between the encapsulation layer and the blue reflective layer and provided at boundaries between the first sub pixel region, the second sub pixel region, and the third sub pixel region. The resulting structure would have been one meeting the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 7, Lee discloses wherein each of the green color conversion layer and the color conversion layer is provided between the partition walls.
Regarding claim 8, Lee discloses wherein the blue transmissive layer is provided between the partition walls.
Regarding claim 9, fig. 5 of Lee discloses further comprising a color filter layer 231 and the resulting structure would have been one on the blue reflective layer.
Regarding claim 10, the resulting structure would have been one wherein the color filter layer comprises: a green color filter on the blue reflective layer in the first sub pixel region; and a red color filter on the blue reflective layer in the second sub pixel region.
Regarding claims 11 and 19, fig. 5 of Lee discloses further comprising quantum dots (345/355) inside the color conversion layer and the green color conversion layer.
Regarding claim 12, fig. 5 of Lee discloses further comprising nanoparticles 333 which are disposed in the blue transmissive layer.
Lee does not disclose larger than the quantum dots.
In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., 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.
As such it would have been obvious to form a display device comprising nanoparticles which are larger than the quantum dots in order to have better scattering characteristics.
Regarding claim 13, fig. 5 of Lee discloses wherein the encapsulation layer 170 has a first rough surface below the blue transmissive layer (there exist and surface non-uniformity which is surface roughness and the bottom surface of 170 is conformal with the ED1/2/3 and 150 which is roughness).
Regarding claim 17, fig. 5 of Lee discloses further comprising a color filter layer 231/233/235 and the resulting structure would have been one comprising a color filter layer on the blue reflective layer.
Regarding claim 18, wherein the color filter layer comprises: a green color filter (par [0174] – green) in the first sub pixel region; and a red color filter (par [0173] - red) in the second sub pixel region.
The resulting structure would have been one wherein the color filter layer comprises: a green color filter on the blue reflective layer in the first sub pixel region; and a red color filter on the blue reflective layer in the second sub pixel region.
Regarding claim 20, fig. 5 of Lee discloses further comprising nanoparticles 333 which are disposed in the blue transmissive layer and wherein the nanoparticles comprise titanium oxide particles (par [0184]).
Lee does not disclose smaller than the quantum dots.
In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., 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.
As such it would have been obvious to form a display device comprising nanoparticles which are smaller than the quantum dots in order to have desire scattering characteristics.
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