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 Invention I in the reply filed on 03/05/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/05/2026.
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 1-2, 7-9, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et. Al. (US 20210229401 A1 hereinafter Choi) and further in view of Kim et. Al. (US 20180197921 A1 hereinafter Kim).
Regarding claim 1, Choi teaches in Figs. 1, 4 and 8A with associated text a display device comprising: a substrate BS (Fig. [0062] including a light emitting area (Area corresponding to DD-DA Fig. 1, [0043]) and a non-light emitting area (DD-NDA, Fig. 1, [0043]); a light emitting element (one of the elements in ED, Fig. 4, [0064]) disposed in the light emitting area on the substrate (Fig. 4, [0064]); an encapsulation layer TFE disposed on the light emitting element (Fig. 4, [0061]); and a layer (RS1, RS2 and RS3) disposed on the encapsulation layer, wherein the layer comprises a first portion RS2 adjacent to the encapsulation layer and a second portion RS1 disposed on the first portion (Fig. 8A RS1 is on the side of RS2), and a curing rate of the first portion and a curing rate of the second portion are different (Fig. 8A, [0082]).
Choi does not specify the layer is a reflection adjustment layer however such a layer in which light passes through would generally have optical properties that would adjust reflections in some way at least at certain angles.
Kim discloses in Figs. 1 with associated text a layer 350 for example similar to that of Choi that suppressing the reflection of external light [0106] and therefore acts as a reflection adjustment layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the layer of Choi a reflection adjustment layer similar to that taught by Kim because according to Kim because according to Kim such a structure contributes to suppressing the reflection of external light, thereby relatively reducing the content of the pigment in the color filter, and thus color filters having a regular taper shape may be easily formed [0106] which improves outdoor visibility, and maximizes the utilization efficiency of light emitted by a light-emitting element to improve luminance and reduce power consumption [0007].
Regarding claim 2, Choi teaches the curing rate of the second portion is greater than the curing rate of the first portion ([0082]).
Regarding claim 7, Choi in view of Kim teaches The display device of claim 1.
Choi does not specify a thickness of the second portion is in a range of about 0.1 times to about 0.9 times of a sum of a thickness of the first portion and the thickness of the second portion in a thickness direction of the substrate however Choi shows in Fig. 4 the thicknesses being approximately equal so that a thickness of the second portion is in a range of about 0.5 times of a sum of a thickness of the first portion and the thickness of the second portion in a thickness direction of the substrate .
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make a thickness of the second portion is in a range of about 0.1 times to about 0.9 times of a sum of a thickness of the first portion and the thickness of the second portion in a thickness direction of the substrate with routine experiment and optimization. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Regarding claim 8, Choi in view of Kim teaches the display device of claim 1.
Choi does not specify a light blocking pattern disposed on the encapsulation layer.
Kim teaches in Fig. 1 with associated text a light blocking pattern 310 [0081] disposed on an encapsulation layer 170 [0075] similar to that of Choi
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a light blocking layer similar to that of Kim on the encapsulation layer of Choi because according to Kim such a structure may suppress the color mixing defect of red light emitted from the first light-emitting element 150a, green light emitted from the second light-emitting element 150b and blue light emitted from the third light-emitting element 150c ([0082]).
Regarding claim 9, Choi in view of Kim teaches the reflection adjustment layer (350 or Kim) covers the light blocking pattern (Fig. 1 of Kim).
Regarding claim 12, Choi in view of Kim teaches the reflection adjustment layer includes a dye or a pigment (Kim [0095]).
Regarding claim 14, Choi teaches a protective film WD disposed on the second portion (Fig. 3A, plastic film [0048]).
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi and Kim as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Bowman et. Al. (US 20130096219 A1 hereinafter Bowman).
Regarding claim 3, Choi in view of Kim teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the reflection adjustment layer includes an acrylate monomer ([0080]) and an acrylate network..
Choi does not specify the reflection adjustment layer includes an acrylate network however Kim does teach a cross linking agent suggesting that curing would cross link the acrylate monomers into an acrylate network.
Bowman discloses a similar resin material having acrylate monomers cured to form crosslinked acrylate networks [0050] so that a cured product includes an acrylate monomer and an acrylate network depending on the curing rate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an acrylate monomer and an acrylate network similar to that taught by Bowman for the reflection adjustment layer of Choi in view of Kim because according to Bowman they possess numerous advantages, such as their fast curing rates and mechanical properties (i.e., strength) [0050].
Regarding claim 4, Choi in view of Kim and Bowman teaches an acrylate conversion rate of the second portion is greater than or equal to about 0.1 times of an acrylate conversion rate of the first portion (Choi [0082]).
Regarding claim 5, Choi in view of Kim and Bowman teaches the display device of claim 3.
Choi does not specify the acrylate conversion rate of the second portion is in a range of about 0.1 times to about 0.3 times of the acrylate conversion rate of the first portion however Choi teaches the acrylate conversion rate of the second portion is in a range of about 0.25 times or greater than the acrylate conversion rate of the first portion (the minimum is (50%-40%)/40% = 0.25 [0082]) so that Choi envisions the acrylate conversion rate of the second portion is in an overlapping range of about 0.25 times to about 0.3 times of the acrylate conversion rate of the first portion.
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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 6, Choi in view of Kim and Bowman teaches a ratio of the acrylate network to the acrylate monomer included in the second portion is greater than a ratio of the acrylate network to the acrylate monomer included in the first portion.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi and Kim as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Kim et. Al. (US 20220140283 A1 hereinafter Kim283).
Regarding claim 10, Choi in view of Kim teaches the display device of claim 1, further comprising: a capping layer WD disposed on the light emitting element (Fig. 13).
Choi does not specify an antireflection layer disposed between the capping layer and the encapsulation layer and including an inorganic material.
Kim283 discloses in Fig. 9 with associated text a device similar to that of Choi comprising an antireflection layer RPL disposed between a capping layer WDL and an encapsulation layer ENL (Fig. 3, [0050]) and including an inorganic material (Bi [0146]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an antireflection layer similar to that taught by Kim283 in the device of Choi in view of Kim because according to Kim283 such a layer serves to reduce reflection of external light (i.e., strength) [0056] so that it would be useful to further reduce external reflection in the device of Choi in view of Kim.
Regarding claim 11, Choi in view of Kim and Kim283 teaches the antireflection layer includes at least one of bismuth (Bi), ytterbium (Yb), tungsten (W), and tungsten trioxide (WO3) (Bi [0146]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi and Kim as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Song (US 20210167325 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Choi in view of Kim teaches the display device of claim 1.
Choi does not specify the first portion and the second portion are cured by a plasma dry etching process.
Song discloses a curing process similar to that of Choi by a plasma dry etching process [0023].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the first portion and the second portion to be cured by a plasma dry etching process similar to that taught by Song for making the device of Choi in view of Kim because according to Song interface characteristic may be accurately controlled by introducing the plasma (oxygen-containing plasma or fluorine-containing plasma) during the curing of the buffer layer; plasma curing with different intensities may be performed in divided areas (e.g. an edge area, a central area) to improve ink flowing at an edge [0078]. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Because Choi in view of Kim teaches a structure that is the same as are obvious from the claimed first portion and second portion, the process limitations are cured by a plasma dry etching process in claim 10, do not carry weight in a claim drawn to structure. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985), MPEP 2113
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON J GRAY whose telephone number is (571)270-7629. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-4pm.
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, Toledo Fernando can be reached on 5712721867. 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.
/AARON J GRAY/Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights