DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to U.S. Patent Application No. 18/354,878 filed on 19 July 2023.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant' s Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS). The IDS(es) has/have been considered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of the Group I embodiment in the reply filed on 3 December 2025 is acknowledged.
Accordingly, claims 9-13 and 20, drawn to a nonelected embodiment, are withdrawn from further consideration.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claimed features:
Of claim 5: “wherein the sensor is operated when the light emitting device in an off state, and the sensor is not operated when the light emitting device is in an on state”;
Of claim 6: “wherein the sensor detects incident light outside the display device, and the sensor adjusts a brightness of the display device according to an amount the incident light”;
Of claim 8: “an auxiliary layer disposed on the light emitting device, wherein the auxiliary layer includes at least one of a color filter, a quantum dot color conversion layer, a touch sensor, and a polarization layer”
Of claim 18: “wherein the sensor is operated when the light emitting device is in an off state, and the sensor is not operated when the light emitting device is in an on state.”
Of claim 19: “wherein the sensor detects incident light from outside the display device, and the sensor adjusts a brightness of the display panel according to an amount of the incident light.”
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Of claim 8: wherein the display device comprises “an auxiliary layer disposed on the light emitting device, wherein the auxiliary layer includes at least one of a color filter, a quantum dot color conversion layer, a touch sensor, and a polarization layer.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 8: Claim 8 states, in relevant part, “an auxiliary layer disposed on the light emitting device, wherein the auxiliary layer includes at least one of a color filter, a quantum dot color conversion layer, a touch sensor, and a polarization layer.” Nowhere in the specification or any of FIGS. 1-20 does Applicant show, disclose, or reference the abovementioned claimed features of “an auxiliary layer disposed on the light emitting device, wherein the auxiliary layer includes at least one of a color filter, a quantum dot color conversion layer, a touch sensor, and a polarization layer” in accordance with the ordinary meaning of the claim language (see § 112(b) rejection of claim 8, below) in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Thus, claim 8 is directed to subject matter the specification fails to describe.
Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims, or present a sufficient showing that the claims comply with the statutory requirements.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
“The essential inquiry pertaining to this requirement is whether the claims set out and circumscribe a particular subject matter with a reasonable degree of clarity and particularity. ‘As the statutory language of “particular[ity]” and “distinct[ness]” indicates, claims are required to be cast in clear—as opposed to ambiguous, vague, indefinite—terms. It is the claims that notify the public of what is within the protections of the patent, and what is not.’” MPEP § 2173.02(II) (quoting In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
Regarding Claim 8: Claim 8 states, in relevant part, “an auxiliary layer disposed on the light emitting device, wherein the auxiliary layer includes at least one of a color filter, a quantum dot color conversion layer, a touch sensor, and a polarization layer.” This phrase renders scope of the claim unclear because Applicant uses language with a plain meaning that contradicts the description of the features in the specification. Specifically, Applicant states “the auxiliary layer includes at least one of a color filter, a quantum dot color conversion layer, a touch sensor, and a polarization layer.” Emphasis added.
“[T]he plain meaning of ‘at least one of A and B’ is the conjunctive phrase ‘at least one of A and at least one of B.’” Ex parte Jung, No. 2016-008290, at 4 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2017) (quoting SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 885-86 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also id. at 10 (citing Agilent Techs., Inc. v. Affymetrix, Inc., 567 F.3d 1366, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2009)) (holding that because the specification only disclosed an example of “or” and not “and,” the limitation lacked written description; “As discussed below, we recognize that this claim construction compels a finding that the limitation ‘at least one of a connection branch and a contents connection list’ lacks written description because the Specification discloses only an example of ‘or,’ not ‘and.’ Although we could preserve validity by construing ‘and’ as ‘or,’ we decline to do so here.”) (emphasis added).
In the instant case, Applicant fails to include an example wherein each of a color filter, a quantum dot color conversion layer, a touch sensor, and a polarization layer are included in the display device, and instead offers only an example of a touch sensor layer alone, and a general reference to each of the structures being incorporated individually, using the word “or.” See [0108]: “A touch sensor layer (not shown) may be positioned on the encapsulation layer, and an anti-reflection layer (not shown) for reducing reflection of external light may be positioned on the touch sensor layer. A color filter, a quantum dot color conversion layer, a polarization layer, or the like may be positioned above or on the light emitting device ED.” (emphasis added).
Accordingly, it is unclear whether Applicant the phrase “an auxiliary layer disposed on the light emitting device, wherein the auxiliary layer includes at least one of a color filter, a quantum dot color conversion layer, a touch sensor, and a polarization layer,” should be provided its ordinary meaning, or should be used disjunctively. For the purposes of examination, the phrase has been interpreted in accordance with the ordinary meaning of the phrase.
Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims, or present a sufficient showing that the claims comply with the statutory requirements.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(1)(1) as being anticipated by Korean Patent Publication No. KR20180062205A (published June 8, 2018) (hereinafter “Lee 1”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Lee 1 discloses: A display device comprising:
a substrate (FIG. 2, lower substrate 10, [0024]);
a transistor (FIG. 2, thin film transistor 110, [0032]) disposed on the substrate (FIG. 2, depicting wherein the thin film transistor 110 is disposed on the lower substrate 10); and
a light emitting device (FIG. 2, light emitting diode 30, [0035]) that is electrically connected to the transistor (FIG. 2, depicting wherein the light emitting diode 30 is electrically connected to the transistor),
wherein the light emitting device comprises:
a first electrode (FIG. 2, anode electrode 151, [0035]) that is electrically connected to the transistor (FIG. 2, depicting wherein the anode electrode 151 is electrically connected to the thin film transistor 110);
a second electrode (FIG. 2, cathode electrode 154, [0035]) disposed on the first electrode (FIG. 2, depicting wherein the cathode electrode 154 is disposed on the anode electrode 151);
a light emitting layer (FIG. 2, light emitting layers 153, [0035]) disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode (FIG. 2, depicting wherein the light emitting layers 153 are disposed between the cathode electrode 154 and the anode electrode 151);
a hole transport layer (FIG. 3, hole transport layer 230, [0048]) disposed between the first electrode and the light emitting layer (FIG. 3, depicting wherein the hole transport layer 230 is disposed between the anode electrode 210 and the light emitting layer 250); and
an electron blocking layer (FIG. 3, electron blocking layer 240, [0049]) disposed between the hole transport layer and the light emitting layer (FIG. 3, depicting wherein the electron blocking layer 240 is disposed between the hole transport layer 230 and the light emitting layer 250),
mobility of the hole transport layer is equal to or less than about 2.0*10-3 cm2/(Vs) (FIG. 3, disclosing wherein the mobility of the hole transport layer 230 ranges from 10-4 cm 2/(Vs) or more and 10-3 cm 2/(Vs) or less, [0049]).
Applicant further claims “a real part of impedance of the light emitting device is equal to or less than about 100 Ω, in a frequency range of about 105 Hz to about 106 Hz.”
When the structure recited in a reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. MPEP § 2112.01(I). “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” Id. (citing In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 U.S.P.Q. 430, 433 (C.C.P.A. 1977)). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” Id. (quoting In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). “Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product.” Id. (citing In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255).
In the instant case, Lee 1 discloses a display device structure that is identical to the display device structure claimed in Applicant’s claim 1, and thus necessarily possesses the properties of the display device structure claimed in Applicant’s claim 1, including wherein a real part of impedance of the light emitting device is equal to or less than about 100 Ω, in a frequency range of about 105 Hz to about 106 Hz. See Lee 1 [0001]-[0083].
Accordingly, Lee 1 discloses a display device that necessarily possesses the properties of the display device structure disclosed in Applicant’s claim 1, and thus anticipates claim 1.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lee 1 in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2025/0275469 (effectively filed Apr. 22, 2022) (hereinafter “Kawakami”).
Regarding claim 2, Lee 1 does not specifically disclose wherein a difference between a highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) energy level of the hole transport layer and a HOMO energy level of the electron blocking layer is equal to or less than about 0.1 eV.
In the same field of endeavor, Kawakami discloses a display device including a hole transport layer (FIG. 1D, hole-transport layer 112-1, [0085]) and a hole blocking layer (FIG. 1D, electron blocking layer 112-2), wherein a difference between a highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) energy level of the hole transport layer and a HOMO energy level of the electron blocking layer is equal to or less than about 0.1 eV ([0085]: “ In the same case, a difference (ΔE1) between the HOMO level of the first organic compound and the HOMO level of the electron-blocking material is preferably less than or equal to 0.30 eV, further preferably less than or equal to 0.10 eV.”). Regarding the differences in HOMO levels, in [0085], Kawakami states: “With the above structure, a barrier due to a step in the HOMO level between the layers is reduced, so that hole transport to the light-emitting layer can be smooth. Accordingly, the driving voltage of the light-emitting device can be reduced, and the light-emitting device with low power consumption can be provided. Since the emission efficiency can be improved, a light-emitting device with high reliability can be obtained. Moreover, a change in voltage with respect to the initial voltage in the driving test can be inhibited.” Thus, noted in Kawakami, the difference in HOMO energy levels is a result-effective variable for optimizing hole transport properties, driving voltage, and emission efficiency.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary, through routine optimization, the difference in HOMO energy levels, identified by Kawakami as a result-effective variable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at a difference between a highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) energy level of the hole transport layer and a HOMO energy level of the electron blocking layer that is equal to or less than about 0.1 eV in order to achieve a desired hole transport property, driving voltage, and emission efficiency as disclosed in Kawakami in [0085]. See MPEP § 2144.05 (“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”) (quoting In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (C.C.P.A. 1955)); see also MPEP § 2144.05 (“In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”) (quoting In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257 (C.C.P.A. 1976).
Claims 3-7, 14, 15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lee 1 in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0363217 (effectively filed May 9, 2022) (hereinafter “Lee 2”).
Regarding claim 3, Lee 1 does not specifically disclose a sensor disposed at a rear surface of the substrate, wherein the sensor overlaps the light emitting device.
In the same field of endeavor, Lee 2 discloses a display device including a sensor (FIG. 3A, ALS package 200, [0070]) disposed at a rear surface of a substrate (FIG. 3A, depicting wherein the ALS package 200 is disposed at a rear surface of a substrate, [0077]), wherein the sensor overlaps a light emitting device (FIG. 3A, depicting wherein the ALS package 200 overlaps the OLED device 304, [0078]). Regarding the ALS package 200 configuration, in [0104], Lee 2 states: “the ALS sensor of the multi-functional ALS package of a computing device is utilized to obtain an ALS measurement. It will be appreciated that ambient brightness levels may vary through variety of conditions—for example, in an office environment, the ambient brightness level may be in the range of 300 to 500 Lux, while for an outdoor environment on the order of 10,000 Lux or more. At stage 1103, based on a predetermined ambient light threshold level (which may be user-defined), the computing device may determine whether the computing device is in a closed position or an open position (e.g., if the computing device is a laptop, it may determine whether its lid is open or closed; if the computing device is a tablet or smartphone, it may determine whether the screen is covered; or if the computing device is a foldable smartphone, it may determine whether the foldable smartphone has been folded shut). . . . Further, it will be appreciated that if the ambient light is detected as being above the threshold and the computing device is thus in the open position, the magnitude of the ALS measurement may be used for other purposes, such as to adjust a brightness of the display of the computing device.”
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosed display device of Lee 1 by adding the ALS package 200 of Lee 2 behind the lower substrate 10 and overlapping the light emitting diode 30 in order to enable adjustment of brightness of the display of the display device. See Lee 2 [0104].
Regarding claim 4, Lee 1 in view of Lee 2 further discloses wherein the sensor includes an ambient luminance sensor (FIG. 3A, [0002]: “The described embodiments relate generally to electronic devices, and more specifically, to multi-functional packages which include an ambient light sensor (ALS).”).
Regarding claim 5, Lee 1 in view of Lee 2 further discloses wherein the sensor is operated when the light emitting device in an off state (FIG. 3A/10, depicting wherein the ALS package is operated when a computing device including an OLED display is in an off state (i.e., shut); [0104]: “At stage 1103, based on a predetermined ambient light threshold level (which may be user-defined), the computing device may determine whether the computing device is in a closed position or an open position (e.g., if the computing device is a laptop, it may determine whether its lid is open or closed; if the computing device is a tablet or smartphone, it may determine whether the screen is covered; or if the computing device is a foldable smartphone, it may determine whether the foldable smartphone has been folded shut).”), and the sensor is not operated when the light emitting device is in an on state (FIG. 3A/10, depicting wherein the ALS package is not operated when a computing device including an OLED display is in an on state (i.e., open); [0104]: “At stage 1103, based on a predetermined ambient light threshold level (which may be user-defined), the computing device may determine whether the computing device is in a closed position or an open position (e.g., if the computing device is a laptop, it may determine whether its lid is open or closed; if the computing device is a tablet or smartphone, it may determine whether the screen is covered; or if the computing device is a foldable smartphone, it may determine whether the foldable smartphone has been folded shut).”; “At stage 1113, the computing device obtains a capacitive SAR proximity measurement via an antenna, and at stage 1115, the computing device detects whether a human body is within 0-10 mm of the computing device based on the obtained capacitive SAR proximity measurement. If a human body is not present, the computing device maintains a normal wireless power for optimal connection to a wireless transmission source (stage 1117). On the other hand, if a human body is present, the computing device regulates its transmission power to be relatively lower so as to comply with SAR-related requirements (stage 1119).”).
Regarding claim 6, Lee 1 in view of Lee 2 further discloses wherein the sensor detects incident light outside the display device, and the sensor adjusts a brightness of the display device according to an amount the incident light (FIG. 3A, [0104]: “Further, it will be appreciated that if the ambient light is detected as being above the threshold and the computing device is thus in the open position, the magnitude of the ALS measurement may be used for other purposes, such as to adjust a brightness of the display of the computing device.”).
Regarding claim 7, Lee 1 in view of Lee 2 further discloses a support member (FIG. 3A, FPC 302 and heatsink foam layer 303, [0078]-[0079]) disposed between the substrate and the sensor (FIG. 3A, depicting wherein the FPC 302 and heatsink foam layer 303 are disposed between the ALS package 200 and the substrate), wherein the support member includes a hole overlapping the sensor (FIG. 3A, depicting wherein the FPC 302 and heatsink foam layer 303 include cutouts overlapping the ALS package 200). Regarding the FPC and heatsink foam layer configuration, in [0078]-[0079], Lee 2 states: “As shown in FIG. 3A, components of the display 304 are positioned such that a clear area (i.e., an aperture) is provided through the display 304. This clear area is aligned with a field of view of the photosensor of the multi-functional ALS package 200 and respective cutouts of the FPC 302 and the heatsink foam layer 303. FIG. 3B depicts a bottom-up view of the FPC 302 depicted in FIG. 3A. The FPC 302 includes solder pads 321 (for attachment to corresponding solder balls of the multi-functional ALS package 200) and a cutout 320 to allow for ambient light to pass through the FPC 302. The size and location of the cutout 320 is aligned to the FOV of the ALS of the multi-functional ALS package 200 and allows for an appropriate amount of ambient light (e.g., at least an amount of light exceeding a minimum brightness detection level of the ALS) to pass through to the photosensor 203 on the die of the multi-functional ALS package 200.”
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosed display device of Lee 1 by adding the FPC 302 and the heatsink foam layer 303 of Lee 2 behind the lower substrate 10 in order to enable an appropriate amount of ambient light to pass through to the ALS package. See Lee 2 [0078]-[0079].
Regarding independent claim 14, Lee 1 discloses: A display device comprising:
a display panel (FIG. 1, depicting an organic light emitting diode display, [0012]);
wherein the display panel comprises:
a transistor (FIG. 2, thin film transistor 110, [0032]) disposed on a substrate (FIG. 2, depicting wherein the thin film transistor 110 is disposed on a lower substrate 10, [0024]); and
a light emitting device (FIG. 2, light emitting diode 30, [0035]) that is electrically connected to the transistor (FIG. 2, depicting wherein the light emitting diode 30 is electrically connected to the transistor),
the light emitting device comprises:
a first electrode (FIG. 2, anode electrode 151, [0035]) that is electrically connected to the transistor (FIG. 2, depicting wherein the anode electrode 151 is electrically connected to the thin film transistor 110);
a second electrode (FIG. 2, cathode electrode 154, [0035]) disposed on the first electrode (FIG. 2, depicting wherein the cathode electrode 154 is disposed on the anode electrode 151);
a light emitting layer (FIG. 2, light emitting layers 153, [0035]) disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode (FIG. 2, depicting wherein the light emitting layers 153 are disposed between the cathode electrode 154 and the anode electrode 151);
a hole transport layer (FIG. 3, hole transport layer 230, [0048]) disposed between the first electrode and the light emitting layer (FIG. 3, depicting wherein the hole transport layer 230 is disposed between the anode electrode 210 and the light emitting layer 250); and
an electron blocking layer (FIG. 3, electron blocking layer 240, [0049]) disposed between the hole transport layer and the light emitting layer (FIG. 3, depicting wherein the electron blocking layer 240 is disposed between the hole transport layer 230 and the light emitting layer 250).
Lee 1 does not specifically disclose a sensor disposed at a rear surface of the substrate.
In the same field of endeavor, Lee 2 discloses a display device including a sensor (FIG. 3A, ALS package 200, [0070]) disposed at a rear surface of a substrate (FIG. 3A, depicting wherein the ALS package 200 is disposed at a rear surface of a substrate, [0077]). Regarding the ALS package 200 configuration, in [0104], Lee 2 states: “the ALS sensor of the multi-functional ALS package of a computing device is utilized to obtain an ALS measurement. It will be appreciated that ambient brightness levels may vary through variety of conditions—for example, in an office environment, the ambient brightness level may be in the range of 300 to 500 Lux, while for an outdoor environment on the order of 10,000 Lux or more. At stage 1103, based on a predetermined ambient light threshold level (which may be user-defined), the computing device may determine whether the computing device is in a closed position or an open position (e.g., if the computing device is a laptop, it may determine whether its lid is open or closed; if the computing device is a tablet or smartphone, it may determine whether the screen is covered; or if the computing device is a foldable smartphone, it may determine whether the foldable smartphone has been folded shut). . . . Further, it will be appreciated that if the ambient light is detected as being above the threshold and the computing device is thus in the open position, the magnitude of the ALS measurement may be used for other purposes, such as to adjust a brightness of the display of the computing device.”
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosed display device of Lee 1 by adding the ALS package 200 of Lee 2 behind the lower substrate 10 and overlapping the light emitting diode 30 in order to enable adjustment of brightness of the display of the display device. See Lee 2 [0104].
Applicant further claims “a real part of impedance of the light emitting device is equal to or less than about 100 Ω, in a frequency range of about 105 Hz to about 106 Hz.”
When the structure recited in a reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. MPEP § 2112.01(I). “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” Id. (citing In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 U.S.P.Q. 430, 433 (C.C.P.A. 1977)). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” Id. (quoting In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). “Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product.” Id. (citing In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255).
In the instant case, Lee 1 in view of Lee 2 discloses a display device structure that is identical to the display device structure claimed in Applicant’s claim 1, and thus necessarily possesses the properties of the display device structure claimed in Applicant’s claim 1, including wherein a real part of impedance of the light emitting device is equal to or less than about 100 Ω, in a frequency range of about 105 Hz to about 106 Hz. See See Lee 1 [0001]-[0083].
Accordingly, Lee 1 discloses a display device that necessarily possesses the properties of the display device structure disclosed in Applicant’s claim 1, and thus renders obvious claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, Lee 1 in view of Lee 2 further discloses wherein mobility of the hole transport layer is equal to or less than about 2.0*10-3 cm2/(Vs) (FIG. 3, disclosing wherein the mobility of the hole transport layer 230 ranges from 10-4 cm 2/(Vs) or more and 10-3 cm 2/(Vs) or less, [0049]).
Regarding claim 17, Lee 1 in view of Lee 2 further discloses wherein the sensor includes an ambient luminance sensor (FIG. 3A, [0002]: “The described embodiments relate generally to electronic devices, and more specifically, to multi-functional packages which include an ambient light sensor (ALS).”), and the sensor overlaps the light emitting device (FIG. 3A, depicting wherein the ALS package 200 overlaps the OLED device 304 such that the sensor would overlap the light emitting diode 30, [0078]).
Regarding claim 18, Lee 1 in view of Lee 2 further discloses wherein the sensor is operated when the light emitting device is in an off state (FIG. 3A/10, depicting wherein the ALS package is operated when a computing device including an OLED display is in an off state (i.e., shut); [0104]: “At stage 1103, based on a predetermined ambient light threshold level (which may be user-defined), the computing device may determine whether the computing device is in a closed position or an open position (e.g., if the computing device is a laptop, it may determine whether its lid is open or closed; if the computing device is a tablet or smartphone, it may determine whether the screen is covered; or if the computing device is a foldable smartphone, it may determine whether the foldable smartphone has been folded shut).”), and the sensor is not operated when the light emitting device is in an on state (FIG. 3A/10, depicting wherein the ALS package is not operated when a computing device including an OLED display is in an on state (i.e., open); [0104]: “At stage 1103, based on a predetermined ambient light threshold level (which may be user-defined), the computing device may determine whether the computing device is in a closed position or an open position (e.g., if the computing device is a laptop, it may determine whether its lid is open or closed; if the computing device is a tablet or smartphone, it may determine whether the screen is covered; or if the computing device is a foldable smartphone, it may determine whether the foldable smartphone has been folded shut).”; “At stage 1113, the computing device obtains a capacitive SAR proximity measurement via an antenna, and at stage 1115, the computing device detects whether a human body is within 0-10 mm of the computing device based on the obtained capacitive SAR proximity measurement. If a human body is not present, the computing device maintains a normal wireless power for optimal connection to a wireless transmission source (stage 1117). On the other hand, if a human body is present, the computing device regulates its transmission power to be relatively lower so as to comply with SAR-related requirements (stage 1119).”).
Regarding claim 19, Lee 1 in view of Lee 2 further discloses wherein the sensor detects incident light from outside the display device, and the sensor adjusts a brightness of the display panel according to an amount of the incident light (FIG. 3A, [0104]: “Further, it will be appreciated that if the ambient light is detected as being above the threshold and the computing device is thus in the open position, the magnitude of the ALS measurement may be used for other purposes, such as to adjust a brightness of the display of the computing device.”).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lee 1 in view of Lee 2, and further in view of Korean Patent Publication No. KR20210019617A (published Feb. 23, 2021) (hereinafter “Jo”).
Regarding claim 8, Lee 1 further discloses an auxiliary layer disposed on the light emitting device, wherein the auxiliary layer includes a polarization layer (FIG. 2, polarizing film 60, [0030]).
Lee does not specifically disclose wherein the auxiliary layer further includes at least one of a color filter, a quantum dot color conversion layer, a touch sensor, and a polarization layer.
In the same field of endeavor, Jo discloses a display device including at least one of a color filter, a quantum dot color conversion layer and a touch sensor, additional to a polarization layer (FIG. 47, upper cover member 400, [0058]). Regarding the upper cover member 400, in [0063], Jo states: “The upper cover member 400 may include at least one of various functional members. For example, the upper cover member 400 may include a polarizing plate or a polarizing member having a polarizing function, a touch panel or a touch module having a touch sensing function, a color filter, a color conversion film, an optical film, an antireflection member, and/or fingerprint recognition. It may include a biometric information recognition member such as a sensor. The upper cover member 400 according to an embodiment may include a touch panel or a touch sensor disposed on the encapsulation layer 170, and a polarizing plate or a polarizing member disposed on the touch panel or the touch sensor.”
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosed display device of Lee 1 by adding upper cover member 400 of Jo in order to enable the various functionalities of the upper cover member, including color conversion, color filtration, and touch sensing. See Jo [0063].
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lee 1 in view of Lee 2, and further in view of Kawakami.
Regarding claim 16, Lee 1 in view of Lee 2 does not specifically disclose wherein a difference between a highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) energy level of the hole transport layer and a HOMO energy level of the electron blocking layer is equal to or less than about 0.1 eV.
In the same field of endeavor, Kawakami discloses a display device including a hole transport layer (FIG. 1D, hole-transport layer 112-1, [0085]) and a hole blocking layer (FIG. 1D, electron blocking layer 112-2), wherein a difference between a highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) energy level of the hole transport layer and a HOMO energy level of the electron blocking layer is equal to or less than about 0.1 eV ([0085]: “ In the same case, a difference (ΔE1) between the HOMO level of the first organic compound and the HOMO level of the electron-blocking material is preferably less than or equal to 0.30 eV, further preferably less than or equal to 0.10 eV.”). Regarding the differences in HOMO levels, in [0085], Kawakami states: “With the above structure, a barrier due to a step in the HOMO level between the layers is reduced, so that hole transport to the light-emitting layer can be smooth. Accordingly, the driving voltage of the light-emitting device can be reduced, and the light-emitting device with low power consumption can be provided. Since the emission efficiency can be improved, a light-emitting device with high reliability can be obtained. Moreover, a change in voltage with respect to the initial voltage in the driving test can be inhibited.” Thus, noted in Kawakami, the difference in HOMO energy levels is a result-effective variable for optimizing hole transport properties, driving voltage, and emission efficiency.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary, through routine optimization, the difference in HOMO energy levels, identified by Kawakami as a result-effective variable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at a difference between a highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) energy level of the hole transport layer and a HOMO energy level of the electron blocking layer that is equal to or less than about 0.1 eV in order to achieve a desired hole transport property, driving voltage, and emission efficiency as disclosed in Kawakami in [0085]. See MPEP § 2144.05 (“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”) (quoting In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (C.C.P.A. 1955)); see also MPEP § 2144.05 (“In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”) (quoting In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257 (CCPA 1976).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM D WEILAND whose telephone number is (703)756-4760. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Steven Gauthier can be reached at (571)270-0373. 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.
/ADAM D WEILAND/Examiner, Art Unit 2813
/STEVEN B GAUTHIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2813