DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 1 in the reply filed on 3/20/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 18 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/20/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 2 recites the limitation "the second light-emitting sub-pixel" in lines 14-15 of page 18 (claims section). It is unclear whether or not the claimed “second light-emitting sub-pixel” is part of the “plurality of second light-emitting sub-pixels disposed on the substrate and configured to emit a specific color of light during display”, or if it may exclude elements required by the “plurality of second light-emitting sub-pixels disposed on the substrate and configured to emit a specific color of light during display”. For the purposes of examination on the merits, it will be understood to be one of the plurality of second light-emitting sub-pixels disposed on the substrate and configured to emit a specific color of light during display.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 3 recites the phrase “an first encapsulation layer” in line 23 of page 18 (claims section); “a first encapsulation layer” would be an appropriate amendment. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 14 recites the limitation “a pixel density of the second light-emitting sub-pixel is smaller than that of the first light-emitting sub-pixel”. It is unclear how singular pixels have different densities from each other unless the limitation is intended to refer to respective pluralities of “first light-emitting sub-pixels” and “second light-emitting sub-pixels”. For the purposes of examination on the merits, it will be understood to be referring to pixel densities of pluralities of first and second sub-pixels.
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.
Claims 1-2, 11, 14, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US patent publication US 20210193759 A1 (Hyun et al hereinafter Hyun).
Regarding claim 1, Hyun discloses an organic light emitting diode (OLED) display panel (the display panel of the second embodiment shown in FIGS. 4 and 7 ¶ [0079]) having a light-transmitting display zone (FIG. 7, first region A, which transmits light ¶ [007, 0081]), the light-transmitting display zone comprising: a substrate (FIG. 7 substrate 300 ¶ [0081]); a plurality of second light-emitting sub-pixels (FIG. 4, subpixels SP in first region A ¶ [0055]) disposed on the substrate and configured to emit a specific color of light (subpixels SP may emit red, green, blue, or white light ¶ [0055]) during display; and
a light-transmitting film layer (FIG. 7, refracting layer 800 ¶ [0080]) disposed on an exit side (FIG. 7, an upper side of pixel array 400 ¶ [0055, 0081]) of the second light-emitting sub-pixels and configured to scatter or diffuse colored light of the second light-emitting sub-pixels (FIG. 9B light is scattered or diffused when it passes through refractive layer 800 ¶ [0102]), the light-transmitting film layer at least comprising a low-refractive-index film layer (FIG. 7, second refracting portion 800b ¶ [0084]) and a high-refractive-index film layer (FIG. 7, first refracting portion 800a, which is adjacent to second refracting portion 800b ¶ [0084]) adjacent to the low-refractive-index film layer; a refractive index of the low-refractive-index film layer being lower than that of the high-refractive-index film layer (portion 800b has lower refractive index than portion 800a ¶ [0084]).
Regarding claim 2, Hyun discloses the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above, and further discloses that the high-refractive-index film layer has a first light-transmitting structure (FIG. 7, the hemispheric lenses of first refractive portion 800a are a first light-transmitting structure ¶ [0087]) corresponding to the second light-emitting sub-pixel (FIGS. 4 and 7-8, the subpixels SP of pixel array 400 in first region A and some in second region B are overlapped by the hemisphere structures of first refractive portion 800a ¶ [0089-0091]), and an orthographic projection of the first light-transmitting structure on the substrate covers an orthographic projection of corresponding second light-emitting sub-pixel on the substrate (FIGS. 4 and 7-8, the hemisphere structures of first refractive portion 800a cover the sub-pixels SP in first region A, and a portion of the subpixels in second region B as well); and the low-refractive-index film layer has a second light-transmitting structure (FIG. 7, second refracting portion 800b is a light-transmitting structure that overlaps and contacts the hemispheric lenses of first refractive portion 800a ¶ [0092]) corresponding to the first light-transmitting structure, and an orthographic projection of the second light-transmitting structure on the substrate covers an orthographic projection of corresponding first light-transmitting structure on the substrate (FIG. 7, second refracting portion 800b overlaps and contacts the hemispheric lenses of first refractive portion 800a).
Regarding claim 11, Hyun discloses the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above, and further discloses a main screen zone (FIGS. 4 and 7-8, second region B is a main screen zone ¶ [0066]) comprising a plurality of first light-emitting sub-pixels (FIG. 4, pixels PXL are present in second region B, and at a higher resolution than in first region A ¶ [0066]), the first light-emitting sub-pixel comprises a first anode (FIG. 6, which illustrates a subpixel structure ¶ [0056, 0079], some of which are present in second region B, includes first electrode 410 which may be an anode ¶ [0061]), a first light-emitting layer (FIG. 6, emitting layer 420 is on anode 410 ¶ [0060]) located on the first anode, and a first cathode (FIG. 6, second electrode 430 may be a cathode, and is on emitting layer 420 ¶ [0060-0062]) on the first light-emitting layer.
Regarding claim 14, Hyun discloses the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above, and further discloses a main screen zone (FIGS. 4 and 7-8, second region B is a main screen zone ¶ [0066]), the main screen zone comprises a plurality of first light-emitting sub-pixels (FIG. 4, pixels PXL are present in second region B, and at a higher resolution than in first region A ¶ [0066]); a pixel density of the second light-emitting sub-pixel is smaller than that of the first light-emitting sub-pixel (FIG. 4, first region A, being the region which includes second light-emitting sub-pixels, has a lower pixel density than second region B, being ) the region which includes first light-emitting sub-pixels ¶ [0066]).
Regarding claim 19, Hyun discloses the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above, and further discloses that a contour of the light-transmitting display zone has a shape of one of a: water droplet shape, circle shape, rectangle shape, ellipse shape, diamond shape, semicircle shape or semi-ellipse shape (FIG. 4, first region A has a rectangular shape ¶ [0066]).
Regarding claim 20, Hyun discloses the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above, and further discloses a photosensitive device (FIG. 7, sensor 200 directly corresponds to first region A, being the light-transmitting display zone ¶ [0069]) disposed in direct correspondence with the light-transmitting display zone of the OLED display panel and comprising at least one of a light sensor, a light transmitter, a distance sensor, and an ambient light sensor (sensor 200 may be a light sensing camera or a proximity sensing distance sensor, among other suggested applications ¶ [0069]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent publication US 20210193759 A1 (Hyun et al hereinafter Hyun) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US patent publication US 20220392983 A1 (Choi).
Hyun discloses the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above, and further discloses a zone corresponding to the second light-emitting sub-pixel is a light-emitting zone (FIG. 4, the subpixels SP in first region A form a light emitting zone ¶ [0066-0068]), and a zone between adjacent second light-emitting sub-pixels in the light-transmitting display zone is a light-transmitting zone (FIG. 4, portions of first region A between pixels PXL form a light-transmitting zone ¶ [0066, 0075]), but does not explicitly state that a light transmittance of the light-transmitting zone is greater than 40%. Hyun does teach that “polarizing layer 600 of a first portion overlapping the first region A may have a relatively high transmittance based on the sensor 200” (¶ 0075]), but did not set forth a specific percentage.
However, Choi discloses a display device wherein a light transmittance of a light-transmitting zone (FIG. 1, transmission area TA ¶ [0068]) may be greater than 40% (the transmission percentage may be about 50%, 85%, 90%, or more ¶ [0068]). Choi having demonstrated such levels of transmissivity known and achieved in the art, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to configure a light transmittance of the light-transmitting zone is greater than 40% in order to have effective light transmittance in the light-transmitting zone.
Hyun and Choi both pertain to the field of display devices, placing them in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the device of Hyun in view of Choi to configure a light transmittance of the light-transmitting zone is greater than 40%, in order to have effective light transmittance in the light-transmitting zone, since such a level of light transmittance was demonstrated by Choi to be known in the art.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyun as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US patent publication US 20230089394 A1 (Li et al hereinafter Li).
Hyun discloses the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above, and further discloses that the second light-emitting sub-pixel comprises a second anode (FIG. 6, which illustrates a subpixel structure ¶ [0056, 0079], some of which are present in first region A, includes first electrode 410 which may be an anode ¶ [0061]), a second light-emitting layer (FIG. 6, emitting layer 420 is on anode 410 ¶ [0060]) on the second anode and a second cathode (FIG. 6, second electrode 430 may be a cathode, and is on emitting layer 420 ¶ [0060-0062]) on the second light-emitting layer. Hyun does not disclose that the second anode is a reflective anode, or that a contour of an orthographic projection of the second anode on the substrate has any one of the following shapes: water droplet shape, circle shape, rectangle shape, ellipse shape, diamond shape, semicircle shape or semi-ellipse shape, a top-down view of anode 410 not being provided as its shape was not a feature of particular importance to the disclosure of the invention of Hyun.
However, Li discloses a display device (the device of FIGS. 1-4 ¶ [0010-0013]) which comprises a reflective anode (FIG. 4, reflective anode 2242 ¶ [0052]), and a contour of an orthographic projection of the second anode on the substrate has a circle shape (FIG. 4, reflective anode 2242 has a circular shape).
Hyun and Li both pertain to the field of display devices, placing them in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the device of Hyun in view of Li such that the second anode is a reflective anode, and that a contour of an orthographic projection of the second anode on the substrate has a circle shape, as Li has demonstrated such a shape and reflective material to be suitable for a light-emitting device in a transmission region to emit light.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyun as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US patent publications US 20200258452 A1 (Feng) and US 20180190197 A1 (Chang et al hereinafter Chang).
Regarding claim 12, Hyun discloses the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above, and further discloses a driving circuit layer (FIG. 6, which illustrates a subpixel structure ¶ [0056, 0079], has TFT layer 350 ¶ [0072]) comprising a plurality of second pixel circuits and a plurality of first pixel circuits (FIGS. 4 and 6, the subpixel SP of pixel array 400 each include a pixel circuit in TFT layer 350, e.g. one of the pixel circuits illustrated in FIGS. 2-3 ¶ [0044-0053]). Hyun does not further disclose that a range of data voltage of a second pixel circuit is different from that of data voltage of a first pixel circuit, a comparison of data voltage ranges not being of particular importance to the disclosure of the invention.
However, Feng teaches that it is known in the art for data voltage ranges in transparent display and normal display areas to vary (Feng ¶ [0005]), and Chang further teaches that as a data voltage range widens, its power consumption increases while allowing for detailed greyscale representation to be performed (Chang ¶ [0085]); Feng and Chang therefore demonstrate that a disparity between data voltage ranges in transparent display and normal display areas is a result-effective variable. 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 data voltage ranges of the first and second pixel circuits as those ranges are identified as result-effective variables. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art
would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at a configuration wherein a range of data voltage of a second pixel circuit is different from that of data voltage of a first pixel circuit, in order to modify the power consumption and greyscale representation in the display and transmission areas as taught by Feng and Chang (see also MPEP 2144.05).
Furthermore, the applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed data voltage ranges are for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e., that the
invention would not work without the specific claimed ranges).
Regarding claim 13, Hyun, Feng, and Chang disclose the limitations of claim 12 as detailed above, and they further suggest that the range of data voltage of the second pixel circuit is 3-6.5 volts, and the range of data voltage of the first pixel circuit is 1-6.5 volts (when performing routine optimization as discussed regarding claim 12, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have further found it obvious to arrive at the claimed ranges when in the course of adjusting the data voltage ranges in consideration of power consumption and greyscale representation).
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyun as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US patent publication US 20210066409 A1 (Fan).
Regarding claim 15, Hyun discloses the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above and further discloses a main screen zone (FIGS. 4 and 7-8, second region B is a main screen zone ¶ [0066]) comprising a plurality of first light-emitting sub-pixels (FIG. 4, pixels PXL are present in second region B, and at a higher resolution than in first region A ¶ [0066]), but did not further disclose a third display zone located between the main screen zone and the light-transmitting display zone.
However, Fan discloses a display device (the device of FIGS. 1 and 12 ¶ [0009, 0020]) which comprises a light-transmitting display zone (FIGS. 1 and 12, optical module arrangement region A ¶ [0031]), a main screen zone (FIGS. 1 and 12, conventional region C ¶ [0031]), and a third display zone (FIGS. 1 and 12, transition region B, which is between regions A and C ¶ [0031]) located between the main screen zone and the light-transmitting display zone. Fan also teaches that in their FIG. 12 embodiment, the transition region gradually decreases the light emitting areas as it approaches the transmission area, making a distinction between the conventional area and the optical module arrangement area more difficult for an observer to notice, improving the display effect (¶ [0049-0050]).
Hyun and Fan both pertain to the field of display devices, placing them in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the device of Hyun in view of Fan to include a third display zone located between the main screen zone and the light-transmitting display zone, in order to make a distinction between the conventional area and the optical module arrangement area more difficult for an observer to notice, improving the display effect as taught by Fan.
Regarding claim 16, Hyun in view of Fan discloses the limitations of claim 15 as detailed above, and they further disclose that the third display zone comprises first light-emitting sub-pixels and second light-emitting sub-pixels arranged in an array (annotated Fan FIG. 12 below, first and second light-emitting sub-pixels in third area B are designated as they are labeled; there being no stated structural distinction between first and second light-emitting sub-pixels located in third area region B), and the first light-emitting sub-pixels are staggered with the second light-emitting sub-pixels (annotated Fan FIG. 12, first light-emitting sub-pixels are staggered with second light-emitting sub-pixels in transition region B).
PNG
media_image1.png
492
673
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Hyun in view of Fan discloses the limitations of claim 16 as detailed above, and they further disclose that in a direction where the main screen zone points towards the light-transmitting display zone (Fan FIG. 12, the leftward/f direction ¶ [0049]), opening areas of the first light-emitting sub-pixels in the third display zone gradually decrease (annotated Fan FIG. 12 above, opening areas of first light emitting sub-pixels P2 gradually decrease in transition region B ¶ [0049]).
Claims 1, 3-4, and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan in view of US patent publication US 20180040847 A1 (Lee).
Regarding claim 1, Fan discloses an organic light emitting diode (OLED) display panel (the device of FIGS. 1 and 5-6 ¶ [0009-0013-0014]) having a light-transmitting display zone (FIGS. 1 and 5, optical module arrangement region A ¶ [0031]), the light-transmitting display zone comprising: a substrate (FIG. 6, an unlabeled substrate under pixel circuits DL1-DL3 is shown); a plurality of second light-emitting sub-pixels (FIG. 5, first pixels P1 in region A disposed on the unlabeled substrate ¶ [0032]) disposed on the substrate.
Fan did not further specify that the plurality of second light-emitting sub-pixels is configured to emit a specific color of light during display; and a light-transmitting film layer disposed on an exit side of the second light-emitting sub-pixels and configured to scatter or diffuse colored light of the second light-emitting sub-pixels, the light-transmitting film layer at least comprising a low-refractive-index film layer and a high-refractive-index film layer adjacent to the low-refractive-index film layer; a refractive index of the low-refractive-index film layer being lower than that of the high-refractive-index film layer.
Regarding the limitations pertaining to the claimed light-transmitting film layer, Lee discloses a display device (the device of FIGS. 1-2 ¶ [0047-0048]) which comprises a light-transmitting film layer (FIGS. 1-2, encapsulating member 300 ¶ [0047]) disposed on an exit side of second light-emitting sub-pixels (FIG. 1, encapsulating member 300 is on an exit side of display member 200, which includes light-emitting sub-pixels ¶ [0047]) and configured to scatter or diffuse colored light of the second light-emitting sub-pixels (FIG. 2, encapsulating member 300 includes several sub-layers having different refraction indices, which scatter incident light and improve light extraction efficiency ¶ [0048-0060]), the light-transmitting film layer at least comprising a low-refractive-index film layer (FIG. 2, second layers 312 of inorganic sub-layers 310-1, 310-2, and 310-3 and first layers of inorganic sub-layers 310-2 and 310-3 form a low refractive index layer ¶ [0051]) and a high-refractive-index film layer (FIG. 2, first layer 311 of first inorganic sub-layer 310-1 is a high refractive index layer ¶ [0051]) adjacent to the low-refractive-index film layer; a refractive index of the low-refractive-index film layer being lower than that of the high-refractive-index film layer (first layer 311 of first inorganic sub-layer 310-1 has a higher refractive index than second layers 311 of inorganic sub-layers 310-1, 310-2, and 310-3 ¶ [0052]). Lee also teaches that the encapsulation member both protects the device against contaminants as well as improves light extraction efficiency for the emitted RGB light (¶ [0046, 0060]).
Fan and Lee both pertain to the field of display devices, placing them in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the device of Fan in view of Lee to include a light-transmitting film layer disposed on an exit side of the second light-emitting sub-pixels and configured to scatter or diffuse colored light of the second light-emitting sub-pixels, the light-transmitting film layer at least comprising a low-refractive-index film layer and a high-refractive-index film layer adjacent to the low-refractive-index film layer; a refractive index of the low-refractive-index film layer being lower than that of the high-refractive-index film layer, in order to both protect the device of Fan against contaminants as well as improve light extraction efficiency for emitted RGB light as taught by Lee.
Regarding the limitation that the plurality of second light-emitting sub-pixels is configured to emit a specific color of light during display, Lee also discloses that a plurality of second light-emitting sub-pixels (FIG. 6 illustrates a cross-sectional view of one subpixel ¶ [0088]) is configured to emit a specific color of light during display (FIG. 6, light emitting layer EML emits red, green, or blue light ¶ [0115]). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the device of Fan further in view of Lee such that the plurality of second light-emitting sub-pixels is configured to emit a specific color of light during display, in order to make use of RGB light emission to display colored images.
Regarding claim 3, Fan in view of Lee discloses the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above, and they further disclose that the organic light emitting diode display panel comprises a first encapsulation layer (Lee FIGS. 1-2, first layer 311 of first inorganic sub-layer 310-1 covers the light-emitting pixels as part of encapsulation member 300 ¶ [0051]) covering each of the second light-emitting sub-pixels of the light-transmitting display zone and a second encapsulation layer (Lee FIGS. 1-2, second layers 312 of inorganic sub-layers 310-1, 310-2, and 310-3 and first layers of inorganic sub-layers 310-2 and 310-3 form a second encapsulation layer) covering the first encapsulation layer; the first encapsulation layer forms the high-refractive-index film layer (Lee FIGS. 1-2, first layer 311 of first inorganic sub-layer 310-1 is considered the high refractive index film layer); and the second encapsulation layer forms the low-refractive-index film layer (Lee FIGS. 1-2, second layers 312 of inorganic sub-layers 310-1, 310-2, and 310-3 and first layers of inorganic sub-layers 310-2 and 310-3 are considered the low refractive index film layer).
Regarding claim 4, Fan in view of Lee discloses the limitations of claim 3 as detailed above, and they further disclose that the organic light emitting diode display panel is provided with a main screen zone (Fan FIG. 1, conventional region C is a main screen zone ¶ [0031]), and the first encapsulation layer or the second encapsulation layer covers each of the first light-emitting sub-pixels of the main screen zone (Lee FIG. 1, encapsulation member 300, which includes both first and second encapsulation layers covers all sub-pixels in the display member 200, in order to protect them against contaminants ¶ [0046]).
Regarding claim 6, Fan in view of Lee discloses the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above, and they further disclose that along an exiting direction of the OLED display panel (Lee FIG. 2, vertical second direction DR2 ¶ [0082]), the refractive index of the low-refractive-index film layer first decreases and then increases (Lee FIG. 2, when going from first layer 311 of 310-2 to second layer 312 of 310-2, the refractive index decreases, then when going from second layer 312 of 310-2 to first layer 311 of 310-3, the refractive index increases since second layers 312 have lower refractive indices when compared to first layers 311 ¶ [0051]).
Regarding claim 7, Fan in view of Lee discloses the limitations of claim 6 as detailed above, and they further disclose that the low-refractive-index film layer comprises at least three stacked light-transmitting layers (Lee FIG. 2, first layer 311 of 310-2, second layer 312 of 310-2, and first layer 311 of 310-3 is a stack of three light-transmitting layers); the light-transmitting layers in the same layer have the same refractive index (Lee FIG. 2, respective first layers 311 and second layers 312 have their own refractive indices held the same along a planar DR1 first direction ¶ [0082]; “the same layer” being understood to convey a same location along a vertical direction e.g. DR2); and refractive indexes of the light-transmitting layers in different layers first decrease and then increase along the exiting direction of the OLED display panel (Lee FIG. 2, the exiting direction being second direction DR2, when going from first layer 311 of 310-2 to second layer 312 of 310-2, the refractive index decreases, then when going from second layer 312 of 310-2 to first layer 311 of 310-3, the refractive index increases since second layers 312 have lower refractive indices when compared to first layers 311 ¶ [0051]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan in view of Lee as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of US patent publication US 20180074326 A1 (Lee et al hereinafter Lee 2).
Fan in view of Lee discloses the limitations of claim 3 as detailed above, but they do not further disclose that the first encapsulation layer is silicon oxynitride layer, and the second encapsulation layer is a lithium fluoride layer or a magnesium fluoride layer; or the first encapsulation layer and the second encapsulation layer are both made of silicon oxynitride, and the molar ratio of nitrogen to oxygen in the second encapsulation layer is smaller than that in the first encapsulation layer. Lee does disclose that the first encapsulation layer is made of silicon oxynitride (first layer 311 of inorganic sub-layer 310-1 may be silicon oxynitride (SiON) ¶ [0052]), and suggests that the second encapsulation layer (Lee FIG. 2, second layers 312 of the second encapsulation layer ¶ [0052]) is silicon oxide, or some other material with lower refractive index than the first encapsulation layer 311 of 310-1 (¶ [0051]).
Further, Lee 2 discloses a display device (the device of FIG. 8B ¶ [0052]) wherein a first encapsulation layer (FIG. 8B, first lower inorganic layer IOL-L1 having refractive index 1.68 ¶ [0133]) and a second encapsulation layer (FIG. 8B, second lower inorganic layer IOL-L2 having refractive index 1.65 ¶ [0133]) are both made of silicon oxynitride (¶ [0132]), and the molar ratio of nitrogen to oxygen in the second encapsulation layer is smaller than that in the first encapsulation layer (¶ [0132]). Lee 2 also teaches that a configuration wherein one encapsulation layer is silicon oxynitride and another is silicon oxide is an alternative and acceptable configuration (¶ [0012]), which matches the teaching of Lee.
Fan, Lee, and Lee 2 all pertain to the field of display devices, placing them in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the device of Fan in view of Lee further in view of Lee 2 such that the first encapsulation layer and the second encapsulation layer are both made of silicon oxynitride, and the molar ratio of nitrogen to oxygen in the second encapsulation layer is smaller than that in the first encapsulation layer, since Lee 2 has demonstrated it to be a known alternative encapsulation layer configuration, which may be found beneficial in view of materials costs and changing market conditions.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan in view of Lee as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Lee 2.
Fan in view of Lee discloses the limitations of claim 7 as detailed above, and they further disclose that but they do not further disclose that the low-refractive-index film layer comprises three light-transmitting layers (Lee FIG. 2, first layer 311 of 310-2, second layer 312 of 310-2, and first layer 311 of 310-3 are three light-transmitting layers) and the molar ratio of nitrogen to oxygen in the light-transmitting layer of different layers first decreases and then increases along the exiting direction of the OLED display panel (FIG. 2, first layer 311 of inorganic sub-layers 310-2 and 310-3 may be silicon oxynitride (SiON), and second layer 312 of 310-2 may be silicon oxide (SiO) ¶ [0051-0052]; the molar ratio of nitrogen to oxygen therefore decreasing when the layers transition from SiON to SiO and back to SiON), but they do not further disclose that the light-transmitting layer located in the middle is a lithium fluoride layer or a magnesium fluoride layer, and the light-transmitting layers located on both sides are silicon oxynitride layers; or, the light-transmitting layers are each silicon oxynitride layers.
However, Lee 2 discloses a display device (the device of FIG. 8B ¶ [0052]) wherein a first light transmitting layer (FIG. 8B, first lower inorganic layer IOL-L1 having refractive index 1.68 ¶ [0133]) a second light transmitting layer (FIG. 8B, second lower inorganic layer IOL-L2 having refractive index 1.65 ¶ [0133]), and a third light transmitting layer (FIG. 8B, IOL-U2 having refractive index of about 1.65 ¶ [0134]) are all made of silicon oxynitride (¶ [0132]), and the molar ratio of nitrogen to oxygen in the light-transmitting layer of different layers is adjusted to provide different refractive index parameters for the light-transmitting layers (¶ [0132]). Lee 2 also teaches that a configuration wherein one encapsulation layer is silicon oxynitride and another is silicon oxide is an alternative and acceptable configuration (¶ [0012]), which matches the teaching of Lee.
Fan, Lee, and Lee 2 all pertain to the field of display devices, placing them in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the device of Fan in view of Lee further in view of Lee 2 such that the light-transmitting layers are each silicon oxynitride layers, and the molar ratio of nitrogen to oxygen in the light-transmitting layer of different layers first decreases and then increases along the exiting direction of the OLED display panel, in order to provide a stack of light-transmitting layers which maintain the refractive index and molar ratio of N and O that was taught by Lee, since Lee 2 has demonstrated it to be a known alternative encapsulation layer configuration, which may be found beneficial in view of materials costs and changing market conditions.
Cited Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US patent publications US 20230189600 A1 (FIG. 3 reflective anode 21 in rectangle shape), US 20210349241 A1 (FIG. 3), US 20200211477 A1 (¶ [0200] discusses structures with different data voltage ranges), and US 20200144558 A1 (¶ [0033-0034] discusses “cross voltage ranges” as affecting signal delay time).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD RHETT CHEEK whose telephone number is (571)272-3461. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30am - 5pm, Every other Friday 8:30am - 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.
/E.R.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2813
/STEVEN B GAUTHIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights