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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed by the Applicant on 7/15/26 is acknowledged.
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
before the effective filing date.
Claim 1-3, 6-10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song (US 20220246882 A1, cited by Applicant and cited previously) in view of Oh (US 20170263886 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Song teaches a display device (at least Fig.7,3,5) comprising: a base layer (100,[0044]); a pixel defining film 150 ([0066]) on the base layer and having an opening; a light emitting element comprising a light emitting layer ([0064],OLED) in the opening in the pixel defining film; a capping layer (231,[0072]) on the light emitting element; and a first encapsulation layer (233 in [0078]-[0079]) on the capping layer, the first encapsulation layer comprising: a first optical layer 233 on the capping layer; a second optical layer 305 on the first optical layer;
and a stabilization layer 310,313 on the second optical layer, and an organic layer 320 ([0078]);
directly disposed on the stabilization layer, and containing an organic material ([0120] for Fig.3 and 5; 315 is also not present in Fig.7);
wherein a thickness ([0080] and [0113]) of the stabilization layer is greater than a thickness of the first optical layer (t2; [0097]) and a thickness (t3, [0098]) of the second optical layer, and wherein a refractive index of the capping layer is higher than a refractive index of the first optical layer ([0093]), and a refractive index of the second optical layer 305 is higher (1.7-2.0) than the refractive index of the first optical layer 233 ([0093] and [0095]) and a refractive index of the stabilization layer 310 ([0099]) and 313 ([0112]), ([0099],[0111],[0115]).
Song does not teach: each of the first optical layer, the second optical layer, and the stabilization layer is made of a material comprising oxygen atoms.
Oh teaches encapsulation layers made of a material comprising oxygen atoms ([0014],[0016] , [0017] ,[0025]-[0029] and Fig.3; also see [0019] ) and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the oxygen atoms in the encapsulation layers as disclosed in Oh, in the device of Song, in order to achieve a protective encapsulation for the display substrate.
Regarding claim 2, Song in view of Oh teaches a display device, wherein the thickness of each of the first optical layer and the second optical layer is equal to or greater than about 500 Å and equal to or smaller than about 2500 Å (From ranges in [0094], [0097], [0098] in Song), and wherein the thickness of the stabilization layer (310 and 313) is equal to or greater than about 4000 Å (400 nm) and equal to or smaller than about 9000 Å ( [0109] and [0113] in Song).
Regarding claim 3, Song in view of Oh teaches a display device, wherein a thickness t1 of the capping layer is smaller than the thickness of the first optical layer t2 and the thickness t3 of the second optical layer (From ranges in [0094], [0097], [0098] in Song).
Regarding claim 6, Song in view of Oh teaches a display device, wherein the refractive index of the capping layer is equal to or higher than about 1.6 and equal to or lower than about 2.3 ([0092] in Song).
Regarding claim 7, Song in view of Oh teaches a display device, wherein the refractive index of the first optical layer 233 is equal to or higher than about 1.48 and equal to or lower than about 1.77 ([0093] it is smaller than that of 231 and 231 has value of 1.6-2.3 in [0092] in Song).
Regarding claim 8, Song in view of Oh teaches a display device, wherein the refractive index of the second optical layer 305 is equal to or higher than about 1.62 and equal to or lower than about 1.89 ([0095] in Song).
Regarding claim 9, Song in view of Oh teaches a display device, wherein the refractive index of the stabilization layer is equal to or higher than about 1.52 and equal to or lower than about 1.77 ([0100]: RI of 310 maybe 1.57 and 1.57 for 313 in [0112] in Song).
Regarding claim 10, Song in view of Oh teaches a display device, wherein the light emitting element comprises a plurality of light emitting elements, wherein the plurality of light emitting elements comprises a first light emitting element configured to emit light of a first color, a second light emitting element configured to emit light of a second color, and a third light emitting element configured to emit light of a third color ([0049], [0067] in Song).
Regarding claim 15, Song in view of Oh teaches a display device, further comprising: a third encapsulation layer 330 on the second encapsulation layer 320 (in Song).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Song in view of Oh and further in view of Ohta (WO 2009093426 A1, cited by Applicant)
Regarding claim 11, Song in view of Oh teaches the light of the second color is green light ([0049], [0067]),but is silent regarding a metal layer beneath the second light emitting element.
Ohta teaches a metal layer12 beneath the light emitting elements (fig.6), and from the teachings of Ohta, and from the teachings of Ohta, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the reflection layer, beneath the second light emitting element, in the device of Song in view of Oh in order to enhance and optimize the output light.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Song in view of Oh and Ohta and further in view of Oh2 (US 2022085334, cited by Applicant, herein after Oh2)
Regarding claim 12, Song in view of Oh and Ohta teaches the invention set forth in claim 11 above but is silent regarding a reflection adjustment layer on the encapsulation layer, wherein the reflection adjustment layer comprises a pattern layer and a high refractive layer, and wherein the pattern layer has a refractive index lower than a refractive of the high refractive layer.
Reflection adjustment layers are well known in OLED display devices. Oh2 discloses a reflection adjustment layer (70 in Fig.11) on an encapsulation layer (173 and [0179]), wherein the reflection adjustment layer comprises a pattern layer (70b) and a high refractive index layer (70a, [0184]), and wherein the pattern layer has a refractive index lower than a refractive index of the high refractive index layer, causing the phenomena of reflection adjustment and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the reflection adjustment layer, from the teachings of Oh2, in the device of Song in view of Oh and Ohta in order to optimize the light.
Regarding claim 13, Song in view of Oh, Ohta and Oh2 teaches the display device, wherein the pattern layer overlaps the pixel defining film (150 in Oh2).
Regarding claim 14, Song in view of Oh, Ohta and Oh2 teaches the display device, wherein the pattern layer is adjacent to at least one of the first light emitting element and the third light emitting element. (the pattern layer in Oh2 is adjacent to all of the light emitting elements).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song in view of Oh and Rebab
PNG
media_image1.png
89
434
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(cited by Applicant)
Regarding claim 16, Song in view of Oh teaches a display device, wherein a refractive index of the second encapsulation layer 313 is lower than the refractive index of the stabilization layer ([0112]).
Further regarding a refractive index of the third encapsulation layer is about 1.89. , Rebab teaches that the refractive index maybe made of silicon oxynitride ([0084]) having a refractive index of 1.89, based on the proportion of the oxygen/nitrogen content in the composition (Fig.2) and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the refractive index, in order to optimize the output light.
Claims 17 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song in view of Bellman (KR 20180133479 A,cited previously) and Iwanaga (JP 2006263989 A, cited previously)
Regarding claim 17, Song teaches a display device (at least Fig.7,3,5) comprising: a base layer (100,[0044]); a pixel defining film 150 ([0066]) on the base layer and having an opening; a light emitting element comprising a light emitting layer ([0064],OLED) in the opening in the pixel defining film; a capping layer (231,[0072]) on the light emitting element; and a first encapsulation layer (233/300 in [0078]-[0079]) on the capping layer, the first encapsulation layer comprising: a first optical layer 233 on the capping layer; a second optical layer 305 on the first optical layer;
and a stabilization layer 310,313 ([0080]) on the second optical layer, and an organic layer 320 ([0078]); directly disposed on the stabilization layer, and containing an organic material ([0120] for Fig.3 and 5 ; 315 is also not present in Fig.7);
Song does not teach:
(for claim 17) wherein
each of the first optical layer,
the second optical layer,
and the stabilization layer is
made of a material comprising oxygen atoms and at least one from among silicon atoms and nitrogen atoms;
and wherein a ratio of the oxygen atoms of the second optical layer
is lower than oxygen ratios of the first optical layer
and the stabilization layer,
and a nitrogen ratio of the second optical layer is
higher than nitrogen ratios of
the first optical layer and
the stabilization layer.
(for claim 20): wherein a ratio of the silicon atoms of the first optical layer is equal to or higher than about 40 % and equal to or lower than about 52 %, wherein a ratio of the nitrogen atoms of the first optical layer is equal to or higher than about 10 % and equal to or lower than about 34 %, and wherein a ratio of the oxygen atoms of the first optical layer is equal to or higher than about 14 % and equal to or lower than about 50 %.
(for claim 21): wherein a ratio of the silicon atoms of the second optical layer is equal to or higher than about 47 % and equal to or lower than about 58 %, wherein a ratio of the nitrogen atoms of the second optical layer is equal to or higher than about 21 % and equal to or lower than about 42 %, and wherein a ratio of the oxygen atoms of the second optical layer is equal to or higher than about 0 % and equal to or lower than about 32 %.
(for claim 22): wherein a ratio of the silicon atoms of the stabilization layer is equal to or higher than about 42 % and equal to or lower than about 52 %, wherein a ratio of the nitrogen atoms of the stabilization layer is equal to or higher than about 15 % and equal to or lower than about 34 %, and wherein a ratio of the oxygen atoms of the stabilization layer is equal to or higher than about 17 % and equal to or lower than about 41 %.
However, varying the amount of nitrogen and oxygen in the layers, in order to design and achieve specific refractive indices, based on the nitrogen and oxygen contents, are well known techniques in the art (Fig.5 in the instant specification and the corresponding text: Referring to FIG. 5, the refractive indices based on the ratios of the silicon atom (Si), the nitrogen atoms (N), and the oxygen atoms (O) are shown. The table shown in FIG. shows values obtained by calculating refractive indices based on the ratio of the nitrogen atoms (N) and the ratio of the oxygen atoms (O) when the ratio of the silicon atom (Si) is converted to 1; is relied upon in the rejection).
Bellman described the dependency of the refractive index on the amount of Si, Al, O, and N as:
In one or more embodiments, the anti-scratch resistant layer 150 may comprise a composition gradient. For example, the scratch resistant layer 150 includes a composition gradient of Si .sub.u Al .sub.v O .sub.x N .sub.y where the concentration of at least one of Si, Al, O, and N is varied to increase or decrease the refractive index .
Furthermore, Iwanaga also teaches the same theory in Table I and for example in:
Furthermore, sample no. Compared with Samples 15 to 17, Sample Nos. Satisfying the conditions that the constituent ratio of oxygen and nitrogen of the silicon oxynitride layer is between 1: 1 to 20: 1 and the refractive index is 1.4 to 2.0. 2 to 7 can provide a more durable organic electroluminescence element.
Therefore, variation of the oxygen and nitrogen in the 3 layers is a result effective variable, to derive the desired design values of the refractive index in order to maximize the light extraction and therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to vary the refractive index by routine experimentation by varying the oxygen and nitrogen content of the materials used in the layer, by routine and well known experimentation or simulation techniques , in order to optimize light extraction efficiency of the device.
Response to Arguments
The arguments filed by the Applicant on 7/15/26 is acknowledged, however, they are not found to be persuasive. Applicant has argued that because of layer 315 that is in-between, therefore layer 320 does not directly contact 310,313, as claimed. However, the arguments are not found to be persuasive for 2 reasons. 1. Embodiment of Fig. 7 does not show 315 2. Song explicitly teaches in [0120] that 315 is optional.
Further, Applicant argues that there is no rationale for combining Oh with Song. The arguments are not found to be persuasive because: Oh teaches the sub-layers with the material as claimed, further more Oh discloses:
[0035] In an embodiment, the method further includes: before the forming of the thin film encapsulation layer, forming a protective layer above the display portion, wherein the protective layer includes a same material as that of the sub-layer and being formed by utilizing a same method as the sub-layer, and wherein flux of oxygen introduced into the chamber while the protective layer is formed is greater than that of oxygen introduced into the chamber while the sub-layer is formed.
Therefore, the motivation provided in the office action, for the sub-layers, that is, for the purpose of providing protection (see rejection of claim 1 above) is disclosed explicitly in [0035] and claim 27 of Oh.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fatima Farokhrooz whose telephone number is (571)-272-6043. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday, 9 am - 5 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s Supervisor, James Greece can be reached on (571) 272-3711.
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.
/Fatima N Farokhrooz/
Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights