DETAILED ACTION
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
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/7/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 2-5 and 16 are 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.
Claim 2 recites “a refractive index of the first light transmitting layer” in lines 3-4 of the claim, however “a refractive index of the first light transmitting layer” element was already introduced earlier in line 14 of claim 1, which claim 2 depends from, and thereby it is unclear whether the “a refractive index of the first light transmitting layer” in lines 3-4 of the claim is directed to that same element and therefore should be properly amended to “the refractive index of the first light transmitting layer” or directed to an entirely different element and therefore should be amended with specific language to distinguish it from the already introduced element.
Claim 3 recites the terms “about” in line 3 of the claim, which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “about” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For example, one of ordinary skill in the art could not make a clear determination of whether or not a specific value reasonably constitutes as being “about 0.1” without clear upper and lower limits defined for the term “about”.
Claim 4 recites the terms “about” in lines 2 and 4 of the claim, which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “about” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For example, one of ordinary skill in the art could not make a clear determination of whether or not a specific value reasonably constitutes as being “about 1.4” without clear upper and lower limits defined for the term “about”.
Claim 16 recites the terms “about” in line 3 of the claim, which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “about” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For example, one of ordinary skill in the art could not make a clear determination of whether or not a specific value reasonably constitutes as being “90 degrees” without clear upper and lower limits defined for the term “about”.
Note the dependent claims 3-5 necessarily inherit the indefiniteness of the claims on which they depend.
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.
Claims 1 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ebisuno et al. (US 2022/0069045 A1, hereinafter “Ebisuno”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Figure 9 of Ebisuno discloses a display device comprising:
a substrate 100 (“substrate”- ¶0071);
a light emitting element layer 122b/122b’ (collectively 122b and 122b’) disposed on the substrate 100, the light emitting element layer 122b/122b’ comprising a plurality of emission areas 122b, 122b’ (“emission layer”[s]- ¶0178), each of the plurality of emission areas 122b, 122b’ comprises a light emitting element that emits light (¶0178);
a thin film encapsulation layer TFEL (“thin-film encapsulation layer”- ¶0072) disposed on the light emitting element layer 122b/122b’, the thin film encapsulation layer TFEL comprising a first inorganic encapsulation film 131 (“inorganic encapsulation layers”- ¶0077), a first organic encapsulation film 132 (“organic encapsulation layer”- ¶0077) disposed on the first inorganic encapsulation film 131, and a second inorganic encapsulation film 133 (“inorganic encapsulation layers”- ¶0077) disposed on the first organic encapsulation film 132; and
a light control layer 119/122e (collectively 119 and 122e) comprising a first light blocking layer 119 (“pixel defining layer”- ¶0175, which can comprise phenol resin -¶0175, which naturally has a yellow or reddish brown color (i.e., “This is considered to be derived from the faint yellow color or light reddish brown color that phenol resin originally has”-see ¶0004 of US 2022/0325047 A1), and thereby would block certain colors in that range) disposed on an underside of the thin film encapsulation layer TFEL and having a first opening OP1 (“opening”- ¶0178), and a first light transmitting layer 122e (“organic functional layer”- ¶0179) disposed on the first light blocking layer 119,
wherein the first light transmitting layer 122e includes an organic layer 122e (¶0179), and
a refractive index of the first light transmitting layer 122e is greater than a refractive index of the first organic encapsulation film 132, since the refractive index of 122e is 1.9 and the refractive index of 132 is 1.5 (¶0220).
Regarding claim 17, Figure 9 of Ebisuno discloses wherein the first opening OP1 overlaps an emission area 122b of the plurality of emission areas 122b, 122b’ in a thickness direction of the substrate 100.
Regarding independent claim 18, Figure 9 of Ebisuno discloses a display device comprising:
a substrate 100 (“substrate”- ¶0071);
a light emitting element layer 122b/122b’ (collectively 122b and 122b’) disposed on the substrate 100, the light emitting element layer 122b/122b’ comprising a plurality of emission areas 122b, 122b’ (“emission layer”[s]- ¶0178), each of the plurality of emission areas 122b, 122b’ comprises a light emitting element emitting light (¶0178);
a thin film encapsulation layer TFEL (“thin-film encapsulation layer”- ¶0072) disposed on the light emitting element layer 122b/122b’, the thin film encapsulation layer TFEL comprising a first inorganic encapsulation film 131 (“inorganic encapsulation layers”- ¶0077), a first organic encapsulation film 132 (“organic encapsulation layer”- ¶0077) disposed on the first inorganic encapsulation film 131, and a second inorganic encapsulation film 133 (“inorganic encapsulation layers”- ¶0077) disposed on the first organic encapsulation film 132; and
a light control layer 119/122e (collectively 119 and 122e) comprising a first light blocking layer 119 (“pixel defining layer”- ¶0175, which can comprise phenol resin -¶0175, which naturally has a yellow or reddish brown color (i.e., “This is considered to be derived from the faint yellow color or light reddish brown color that phenol resin originally has”-see ¶0004 of US 2022/0325047 A1), and thereby would block certain colors in that range) disposed on an underside of the thin film encapsulation layer TFEL and having a first opening OP1 (“opening”- ¶0178), and a first light transmitting layer 122e (“organic functional layer”- ¶0179) disposed on the first light blocking layer 119,
wherein a refractive index of the first light transmitting layer 122e is greater than or equal to a refractive index of the second inorganic encapsulation film 133, since the refractive index of 122e is 1.9 and the refractive index of 133 (similar to the refractive index of 131 given they can be made from the same materials- ¶0078) is 1.55-1.7 (¶0220).
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.
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 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable and obvious over Ebisuno.
Regarding claim 16, Figure 9 of Ebisuno discloses wherein there is an angle between a sidewall of the first opening OP1 and a horizontal direction within the first opening OP1.
Ebisuno does not expressly disclose wherein the angle is in a range of about 90 degrees to about 110 degrees.
However, it would have been obvious to form the angle between a sidewall of the first opening and a horizontal direction within the first opening within the claimed range, since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-15 and 19-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 6 (which claims 7-10 depend from), the prior art of record including Ebisuno, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the combination of limitations including, but not limited to, “wherein: the light control layer further comprises: a second light blocking layer disposed on the first light transmitting layer, the second light blocking layer having a second opening; and a second light transmitting layer disposed on the second light blocking layer, and wherein the second light transmitting layer includes an organic layer, and wherein a refractive index of the second light transmitting layer is greater than the refractive index of the first organic encapsulation film”.
Regarding claim 11 (which claims 12-15 depend from), the prior art of record including Ebisuno, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the combination of limitations including, but not limited to, “[the] display device…further comprising a touch sensor layer disposed between the thin film encapsulation layer and the light control layer, wherein the touch sensor layer comprises: a first touch insulating layer; a touch electrode disposed on the first touch insulating layer; and a second touch insulating layer disposed on the touch electrode, wherein refractive indices of the first touch insulating layer and the second touch insulating layer are greater than the refractive index of the first organic encapsulation film”.
Regarding claim 19 (which claim 20 depends from), the prior art of record including Ebisuno, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the combination of limitations including, but not limited to, “wherein the light control layer further comprises: a second light blocking layer disposed on the first light transmitting layer, the second light blocking layer having a second opening; and a second light transmitting layer disposed on the second light blocking layer, wherein a refractive index of the second light transmitting layer is greater than or equal to the refractive index of the second inorganic encapsulation film”.
Claims 2-5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 2 (which claims 3-5 depend from), the prior art of record including Ebisuno, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the combination of limitations including, but not limited to, “wherein: the first light blocking layer contains an organic material that blocks light; and a refractive index of the first light blocking layer is less than a refractive index of the first light transmitting layer”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Chung et al. (US 2020/0357871 A1), which discloses a display device comprising a light emitting layer and a light control layer on the light emitting layer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY C CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-6132. The examiner can normally be reached Mon- Fri 12pm-10pm.
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, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano can be reached at (571)-272-7925. 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.
/JAY C CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817