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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection
The Examiner notes that with respect to Kim et al. (US PGPub 2020/0258946 A1) that while the previous grounds of rejection used 413 as the lower/first inorganic encapsulation layer, the new grounds of rejection in view of Kim et al. uses 432 as the lower/first inorganic encapsulation layer with a refractive index of about 1.6 to about 1.9 (Paragraph 110).
Specification
The amendments filed 3/12/2026 are sufficient to overcome the objections to the specification stated in the previous office action. Therefore, said objections are withdrawn.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1-4, 6, 8-13, and 17-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 and 5 of copending Application No. 18/046,501 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
Examiner’s Note: Claim 5 of ‘501 is the reference claim, but the rejection includes reference to the parent claim 1 for the purposes of citation.
As to claim 1, claim 5 of ‘501 includes a display apparatus comprising: a display element (claim 1, line 2, light emitting element) comprising: a first emission layer disposed on a substrate; a first capping layer (claim 1, line 2) disposed on the display element; a second capping layer (claim 1, line 7, first inorganic insulating layer) disposed on the first capping layer; a thin-film encapsulation layer (claim 1, line 3) comprising a lower inorganic encapsulation layer (claim 1, lines 6-12, thin film encapsulation includes second inorganic insulating layer and third inorganic insulating layer) in contact with the second capping layer (second inorganic insulating layer disposed directly on first inorganic insulating layer); wherein the lower inorganic encapsulation layer (second and third inorganic insulating layer) has a refractive index that is about 1.77 to about 1.96 (Claim 5, lines 4-5) and is greater than a refractive index of the second capping layer (claim 1, lines 15-16, third refractive index greater than second refractive index).
Claim 5 of ‘501 does not recite a second emission layer disposed on the first emission layer; and a light-blocking layer disposed on the thin-film encapsulation layer and comprising an opening corresponding to an emission area of the display element. Furthermore, claim 5 of ‘501 does not recite that the lower inorganic encapsulation layer comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of an inorganic oxide and an inorganic oxynitride.
However, the Examiner takes official notice that is well-known to both use multiple emission layers disposed on each other in order to emit multiple colors and also to use a light-blocking layer in order to reduce color bleed between pixels and/or reduce reflections of light from the viewing side. Furthermore, the Examiner takes official notice that it is well-known to use inorganic oxynitride as an inorganic encapsulation layer and it would be obvious to do so since the selection from among known materials for their known purposes is generally within the abilities of one having ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include multiple emission layers and to include the recited light-blocking layer in order to emit multiple colors and in order to reduce color bleed between pixels and reduce reflections of light from the viewing side, as is well-known in the art. It is noted that the second capping layer is not explicitly recited as a capping layer, but since it is disposed on the capping layer, it also caps at least the capping layer.
As to claim 2, claim 5 of ‘501 does not recite that specific material of the lower inorganic encapsulation layer.
However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well-known in the art to use silicon oxynitride as an inorganic encapsulation layer and it would be obvious to do so since the selection of from among known suitable materials for their known purposes is generally within the abilities of one having ordinary skill in the art.
As to claim 3, claim 5 of ‘501 includes that the lower inorganic encapsulation layer comprises: a first inorganic encapsulation layer (second inorganic insulating layer) in contact with the second capping layer (first inorganic insulating layer); and a second inorganic encapsulation layer (third inorganic insulating layer) disposed on the first inorganic encapsulation layer (second inorganic insulating layer), and the first inorganic encapsulation layer has a refractive index greater than a refractive index of the second inorganic encapsulation layer (claim 1, last paragraph, fourth refractive index is smaller than the third refractive index).
As to claim 4, claim 5 of ‘501 includes that the refractive index of the first inorganic encapsulation layer is in a range of about 1.77 to about 1.95 (third refractive index 1.75-1.9).
As to claim 6, claim 5 of ‘501 includes that the first capping layer has a refractive index greater than the refractive index of the second capping layer (claim 1, second to last paragraph, first refractive index greater than second refractive index).
As to claim 8, the claim 5 of ‘501 do not recite a pixel electrode disposed under the first emission layer; and an opposite electrode disposed on the second emission layer. However, the Examiner takes official notice that it is well-known in the art to use the recited electrodes in the recited fashion and it would be obvious to do so since it is a well-known way of providing electricity to the display element.
As to claim 9, claim 5 of ‘501 includes an upper inorganic encapsulation layer (line 14, fourth inorganic insulating layer) disposed on the lower inorganic encapsulation layer (second and third inorganic insulating layers); and an organic encapsulation layer (Claim 1, line 13, organic layer) arranged between the lower inorganic encapsulation layer (second and third inorganic insulating layer) and the upper inorganic encapsulation layer (fourth inorganic insulating layer).
As to claim 10, claim 5 of ‘501 recites a color filter (Claim 1, line 5). Claim 5 of ‘501 does not explicitly recite that the color filter fills the opening of the light-blocking layer. However, the Examiner takes official notice that it is well-known to place the color filter in the opening of the light-blocking layer and therefore it would be obvious to place the color filter in said location due to its well-known placement for its well-known use.
As to claim 11, claim 5 of ‘501 includes a display apparatus comprising:; a first capping layer (capping layer, claim 1, line 2); a second capping layer (first inorganic insulating layer) disposed on the first capping layer; a first inorganic encapsulation layer (second inorganic insulating layer) in contact with the second capping layer (first inorganic insulating layer); wherein each of a refractive index of the first capping layer and a refractive index of the first inorganic encapsulation layer is greater than a refractive index of the second capping layer (claim 1, second to last paragraph, first and third refractive indices are greater than second refractive index).
Claim 5 of ‘501 does not explicitly recite a pixel electrode disposed on a substrate; a plurality of emission layers disposed on the pixel electrode and overlapping each other in a plan view; an opposite electrode disposed on the plurality of emission layers and a light-blocking layer disposed on the first inorganic encapsulation layer and comprising at least one opening corresponding to the plurality of emission layers.
However, the Examiner takes official notice that these features are well-known in the art and it would be obvious to include them for their well-known purposes.
As to claim 12, claim 5 of ‘501 includes that the refractive index of the first inorganic encapsulation layer is in a range of about 1.59 to about 1.95.
As to claim 13, claim 5 of ‘501 includes a second inorganic encapsulation layer (third inorganic insulating layer) disposed on the first inorganic encapsulation layer (second inorganic insulating layer), wherein the refractive index of the first inorganic encapsulation layer is greater than a refractive index of the second inorganic encapsulation layer (claim 1, last paragraph, fourth refractive index is smaller than third refractive index).
As to claim 17, claim 5 of ‘501 includes that the refractive index of the first capping layer (capping layer) is greater than the refractive index of the second capping layer (first inorganic insulating layer, claim 1, second to last paragraph, first refractive index is greater than the second refractive index).
As to claim 18, claim 5 of ‘501 includes an organic encapsulation layer (claim 1, line 13) disposed on the first inorganic encapsulation layer (second inorganic insulating layer); and an upper inorganic encapsulation layer (fourth inorganic insulating layer) disposed on the organic encapsulation layer.
As to claim 19, the claims of ‘501 do not recite a touch sensing layer arranged between the upper inorganic encapsulation layer and the light-blocking layer. However, the Examiner takes official notice that it is well-known in the art to include a touch sensing layer at the recited location and would be obvious to use one at said location in order to allow for touch input from the user, as is well-known in the art.
As to claim 20, claim 5 of ‘501 recites a color filter (claim 1, line 5). Claim 5 of ‘501 does not explicitly recite that the color filter fills the opening of the light-blocking layer. However, the Examiner takes official notice that it is well-known to place the color filter in the opening of the light-blocking layer and therefore it would be obvious to place the color filter in said location due to its well-known placement for its well-known use.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The amendments filed 3/12/2026 are sufficient to overcome the 112 rejections stated in the previous office action. Therefore, said 112 rejections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6-8, 10, 11, 17, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US PGPub 2020/0258946 A1).
As to claim 1, Kim et al. discloses (Figs. 4 and 6) a display apparatus comprising: a display element 310 comprising: a first emission layer EL11 disposed on a substrate 101; and a second emission layer EL12 disposed on the first emission layer EL11; a first capping layer 350 disposed on the display element 310; a second capping layer 431 disposed on the first capping layer 350; a thin-film encapsulation layer (at least 432 and potentially layers above within encapsulation layer 400) comprising a lower inorganic encapsulation layer 432 in contact with the second capping layer 431; and a light-blocking layer 521 (Paragraph 121) disposed on the thin-film encapsulation layer 432 and comprising an opening corresponding to an emission area of the display element 310, wherein the lower inorganic encapsulation layer 432 comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of an inorganic oxide and an inorganic oxynitride (Paragraph 109, material of #432 same group of materials as #411; Paragraph 91, metal oxide, metal oxynitride) and the lower inorganic encapsulation layer 432 has a refractive index that is about 1.77 to about 1.95 (Paragraph 110, about 1.6 to about 1.9) and is greater than a refractive index of the second capping layer 431 (Paragraphs 107 and 110).
PNG
media_image1.png
664
516
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
498
470
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 6, Kim et al. discloses that the first capping layer 350 has a refractive index greater than the refractive index of the second capping layer (Paragraphs 86 and 107, first capping layer 350 about 1.9 to about 2.5, greater than the 1.5 to 1.57 of second capping layer 432).
As to claim 7, Kim et al. discloses that the refractive index of the first capping layer 350 is in a range of about 1.8 to about 2.4 (Paragraph 86, 1.9 to 2.5), and the refractive index of the second capping layer 431 is in a range of about 1.2 to about 1.8 (Paragraph 107, 1.5 to 1.57).
As to claim 8, Kim et al. discloses (Fig. 4) that the display element further comprises: a pixel electrode 311 disposed under the first emission layer EL11; and an opposite electrode 312 disposed on the second emission layer EL12.
As to claim 10, Kim et al. discloses (Fig. 16) a color filter 541-543 (Paragraph 125) filling the opening of the light-blocking layer 521.
As to claim 11, Kim et al. discloses (Figs. 4 and 6) A display apparatus comprising: a pixel electrode 311 disposed on a substrate 101 ; a plurality of emission layers EL11, EL12 disposed on the pixel electrode 311 and overlapping each other in a plan view; an opposite electrode 312 disposed on the plurality of emission layers EL11, EL12; a first capping layer 350 disposed on the opposite electrode 312; a second capping layer 431 disposed on the first capping layer 350; a first inorganic encapsulation layer 432 in contact with the second capping layer 431; and a light-blocking layer 521 disposed on the first inorganic encapsulation layer 432 and comprising at least one opening (filled by 531-533) corresponding to the plurality of emission layers EL11, EL12, a refractive index of the first inorganic encapsulation layer 432 is greater than a refractive index of the second capping layer 431 (Paragraphs 107 and 110), the first inorganic encapsulation layer comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of an inorganic oxide and an inorganic oxynitride (Paragraph 109, material of #432 same group of materials as #411; Paragraph 91, metal oxide, metal oxynitride), and the first inorganic encapsulation layer 432 has a refractive index of about 1.77 to about 1.95 (Paragraph 110, about 1.6 to about 1.9).
As to claim 17, Kim et al. discloses that the refractive index of the first capping layer 350 is greater than the refractive index of the second capping layer 431 (Paragraphs 86 and 107, first capping layer 350 about 1.9 to about 2.5, greater than the 1.5 to 1.57 of second capping layer 432).
As to claim 20, Kim et al. discloses (Fig. 16) a color filter 541-543 (Paragraph 125) filling the at least one opening of the light-blocking layer 521.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9, 11-16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noh et al. (US PGPub 2017/0373277 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US PGPub 2020/0258946 A1) and Song et al. (EP 3745486 A1).
As to claim 1, Noh et al. discloses (Fig. 1 and 7) a display apparatus comprising: a display element 100 comprising: a first emission layer 102 (Paragraph 49, two or more light emitting layers) disposed on a substrate 104; and a second emission layer 102 (Paragraph 49, two or more light emitting layers) disposed on the first emission layer 102; a first capping layer 121 disposed on the display element 100; a second capping layer 122 disposed on the first capping layer 121; a thin-film encapsulation layer (Paragraphs 71 and 72, silicon oxide, silicon oxynitride, silicon nitride, similar or same materials as Applicant) comprising a lower inorganic encapsulation layer 123, 124 in contact with the second capping layer 122; wherein the lower inorganic encapsulation 123, 124 layer comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of an inorganic oxide and an inorganic oxynitride (Paragraphs 71 and 72), and the lower inorganic encapsulation layer 123, 124 has a refractive index greater than a refractive index of the second capping layer 122 (Paragraph 64, refractive index of 123 is larger than that of 122).
PNG
media_image3.png
402
474
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Noh et al.
PNG
media_image4.png
440
464
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Noh et al.
Noh et al. is silent as to Applicant’s light-blocking layer.
Kim et al. teaches (Fig. 4) including a light-blocking layer 521, 522 disposed on the thin-film encapsulation layer 413, 420, 430 and comprising an opening corresponding to an emission area of the display element 310.
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a light-blocking layer like that of Kim et al. in order to reduce color bleed between pixels and/or reduce reflections of light from the viewing side.
Noh et al. discloses layer 123 of the lower inorganic encapsulation layer 123, 124 to be made of silicon oxynitride, for example. Furthermore, Noh et al. discloses that the desired difference in refractive index between layers 123 and 124 and between layers 122 and 123 to be 0.01 and 0.6 (Paragraph 67 and 116), which allows for reflection 132B (Paragraph 64).
Noh et al. includes silicon oxide and silicon oxynitride with refractive indexes as approximately between 1.46 and 1.5 (Paragraph 71) and silicon nitride with refractive index of between 1.9 and 2.3, but Noh et al. in view of Kim et al. is silent as to the material being at Applicant’s disclosed range of about 1.77 to about 1.95.
Song et al. teaches (Fig. 3) a silicon oxynitride inorganic encapsulation layer 310 with refractive index of 1.77 (Table 1).
PNG
media_image5.png
388
574
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Song et al.
Since the layer 123 of Noh et al. is taught to be a silicon oxynitride and the silicon oxynitride of Song et al. has an index of refraction (1.77) within the upper and lower examples (1.46 lower for silicon oxynitride and 2.3 upper for silicon nitride) given by Noh et al., one having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to include silicon oxynitride of index of refraction of 1.77 since it is taught as an available inorganic encapsulation layer material of the type (silicon oxynitride) used by Noh et al. and capable of satisfying the desired characteristics (between 0.01 and 0.6 away from adjacent layers) and the selection from among known suitable materials for their known purposes is generally within the abilities of one having ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, using silicon oxynitride of 1.77 would increase the available range of material/index of refraction to work with, thus easing design constraints.
As to claim 2, Noh et al. in view of Kim et al. and Song et al. teaches that the lower inorganic encapsulation layer comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of aluminum oxide, titanium oxide, tantalum oxide, hafnium oxide, zinc oxide, silicon oxide, and silicon oxynitride (silicon oxynitride, Noh et al. Paragraph 71; Song et al. Table 1).
As to claim 3, Noh et al. discloses (Fig. 1 and 7) that the lower inorganic encapsulation layer 123, 124 comprises: a first inorganic encapsulation layer 123 (Paragraph 71, inorganic materials disclosed) in contact with the second capping layer 122; and a second inorganic encapsulation layer 124 (Paragraph 71, inorganic materials disclosed) disposed on the first inorganic encapsulation layer 123, and the first inorganic encapsulation layer 123 has a refractive index greater than a refractive index of the second inorganic encapsulation layer 124 (Paragraph 66, fourth optical layer 124 with refractive index smaller than third optical layer 123).
As to claim 4, Noh et al. in view of Kim et al. and Song et al. discloses that the refractive index of the first inorganic encapsulation layer 123 is in a range of about 1.77 to about 1.95 (Noh et al. Paragraph 71, Song et al. Table 1, See Rejection of claim 1).
As to claim 5, Noh et al. discloses that a thickness of the first inorganic encapsulation layer 123 is less than a thickness of the second inorganic encapsulation layer 124 (Paragraph 73, Table 1, first inorganic encapsulation layer 300 nm, second inorganic encapsulation layer 900 nm, for example).
As to claim 9, Noh et al. discloses (Fig. 7) that the thin-film encapsulation layer further comprises: an upper inorganic encapsulation layer 142 (Paragraph 94) disposed on the lower inorganic encapsulation layer 123, 124; and an organic encapsulation layer 141 (Paragraph 93 and 95) arranged between the lower inorganic encapsulation layer 142 and the upper inorganic encapsulation layer 141.
As to claim 11, Noh et al. discloses (Figs. 1 and 7) a display apparatus comprising: a pixel electrode 101 (Paragraph 51) disposed on a substrate 104; a plurality of emission layers 102 (Paragraph 49, two or more light emitting layers) disposed on the pixel electrode 101 and overlapping each other in a plan view; an opposite electrode 103 disposed on the plurality of emission layers 102; a first capping layer 121, (or alternatively 110 for the rejection of dependent claim 16) disposed on the opposite electrode 103; a second capping layer 122 disposed on the first capping layer 121; a first inorganic encapsulation layer 123 in contact with the second capping layer 122; wherein a refractive index of the first inorganic encapsulation layer 123 is greater than a refractive index of the second capping layer 122 (Paragraphs 64 and 64, refractive index of second optical layer 122 is smaller than first optical layer 121 and refractive index of 123 is larger than that of 122), the first inorganic encapsulation 123, 124 layer comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of an inorganic oxide and an inorganic oxynitride (Paragraphs 71 and 72).
Noh et al. is silent as to Applicant’s light-blocking layer.
Kim et al. teaches (Fig. 4) including a light-blocking layer 521, 522 disposed on the first inorganic encapsulation layer 412, 413 and comprising at least one opening corresponding to the plurality of emission layers 320 (Paragraph 79).
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a light-blocking layer like that of Kim et al. in order to reduce color bleed between pixels and/or reduce reflections of light from the viewing side.
Noh et al. discloses layer 123 of the lower inorganic encapsulation layer 123, 124 to be made of silicon oxynitride, for example. Furthermore, Noh et al. discloses that the desired difference in refractive index between layers 123 and 124 and between layers 122 and 123 to be 0.01 and 0.6 (Paragraph 67 and 116), which allows for reflection 132B (Paragraph 64).
Noh et al. includes silicon oxide and silicon oxynitride with refractive indexes as approximately between 1.46 and 1.5 (Paragraph 71) and silicon nitride with refractive index of between 1.9 and 2.3, but Noh et al. in view of Kim et al. is silent as to the material being at Applicant’s disclosed range of about 1.77 to about 1.95.
Song et al. teaches (Fig. 3) a silicon oxynitride inorganic encapsulation layer 310 with refractive index of 1.77 (Table 1).
Since the layer 123 of Noh et al. is taught to be a silicon oxynitride and the silicon oxynitride of Song et al. has an index of refraction (1.77) within the upper and lower examples (1.46 lower for silicon oxynitride and 2.3 upper for silicon nitride) given by Noh et al., one having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to include silicon oxynitride of index of refraction of 1.77 since it is taught as an available inorganic encapsulation layer material of the type (silicon oxynitride) used by Noh et al. and capable of satisfying the desired characteristics (between 0.01 and 0.6 away from adjacent layers) and the selection from among known suitable materials for their known purposes is generally within the abilities of one having ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, using silicon oxynitride of 1.77 would increase the available range of material/index of refraction to work with, thus easing design constraints.
As to claim 12, Noh et al. in view of Kim et al. and Song et al. teaches that the first inorganic encapsulation layer comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of aluminum oxide, titanium oxide, tantalum oxide, hafnium oxide, zinc oxide, silicon oxide, and silicon oxynitride. (silicon oxynitride, Noh et al. Paragraph 71; Song et al. Table 1)
As to claim 13, Noh et al. discloses a second inorganic encapsulation layer 124 (Paragraph 71, inorganic materials disclosed) disposed on the first inorganic encapsulation layer 123, wherein the refractive index of the first inorganic encapsulation layer 123 is greater than a refractive index of the second inorganic encapsulation layer 124 (Paragraph 66).
As to claim 14, Noh et al. in view of Kim et al. and Song et al. discloses that, and the refractive index of the second inorganic encapsulation layer is in a range of about 1.41 to about 1.78 (Noh et al. Paragraph 71, Song et al. Table 1, See Rejection of claim 1 with refractive index of 123 at 1.77; Noh et al. Paragraph 67, difference between first inorganic encapsulation layer 123 and second inorganic encapsulation layer 124 being in the range of 0.01 to 0.6; Paragraph 66, refractive index of second inorganic encapsulation layer 124 is less than refractive index of first inorganic encapsulation layer 123; therefore implied acceptable range of modified device of refractive index of 124 would be 1.17 to 1.76; Paragraphs 67-71, 1.46 to 1.5, for example ).
As to claim 15, Noh et al. discloses that a thickness of the first inorganic encapsulation layer 123 is less than a thickness of the second inorganic encapsulation layer 124. (Paragraph 74, Table 1, first inorganic encapsulation layer 300 nm, second inorganic encapsulation layer 900 nm, for example)
As to claim 16, Noh et al. discloses that a thickness of the first inorganic encapsulation layer 123 is greater than a thickness of each of the first capping layer 110 and the second capping layer 122 (Paragraph 74, first capping layer 110 thickness 5 nm, second capping layer 122 thickness 200 nm, first inorganic encapsulation layer 300 nm).
As to claim 18, Noh et al. discloses (Fig. 7) an organic encapsulation layer 141 (Paragraph 93 and 95) disposed on the first inorganic encapsulation layer 123, 124; and an upper inorganic encapsulation layer 142 (Paragraph 94) disposed on the organic encapsulation layer 141.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noh et al. in view of Kim et al. and Song et al as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Jeon et al. (US PGPub 2019/0245017 A1).
As to claim 19, Noh et al. in view of Kim et al. and Song et al. is silent as to Applicant’s touch sensing layer.
Jeon et al. teaches (Fig. 2) a touch sensing layer 170 arranged between the upper inorganic encapsulation layer 163 and the light-blocking layer 180 in order to add the function of sensing a touch input (Paragraphs 77 and 78).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a touch sensing layer arranged between the upper inorganic encapsulation layer and the light-blocking layer in order to add the function of sensing a touch input, as taught by Jeon et al.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ha et al. (US PGPub 2020/0280023 A1) discloses (Fig. 4B and Paragraph 96) a comparative example with a silicon oxynitride layer having index of refraction of 1.76.
Ju et al. (US PGPub 2018/0083227 A1) discloses (Fig. 3) a thin film encapsulation layer 300 that creates resonant space d1).
Jeon (US PGPub 2019/0197924 A1) discloses (Fig. 3) resonant cavity with one pixel having multiple resonant spaces and one pixel having a single resonant space.
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 STEVEN Y HORIKOSHI whose telephone number is (571)270-7811. The examiner can normally be reached Monday and Tuesday 2-10PM EDT.
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, ABDULMAJEED AZIZ can be reached at 571-270-5046. 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.
/S.Y.H/Examiner, Art Unit 2875
/ABDULMAJEED AZIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights