DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to applicant’s amendments filed on 08/03/2026.
Currently claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment to independent claims 1, 17, and 18 to recite that “each of the first, second, and third capping layers are comprised of a single layer” is acknowledged. This amendment overcomes the previously applied teaching of US 2018/0123068 A1 (Ushikubo), in which the different optical thicknesses were obtained by stacking a plurality of cap layers (152, 154, 156) so that the capping structure over two of the three pixels is not a single layer. However, the amendment necessitates a new ground of rejection set forth below applying US 2016/0240589 A1 (Jeong), which discloses a single capping layer (150) whose thickness—and therefore optical thickness—differs among the red, green, and blue pixel areas while remaining a single layer in each pixel area. The amendment therefore does not place the claims in condition for allowance.
Because the new ground of rejection was necessitated by Applicant’s amendment, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a).
Response to Arguments
To the extent Applicant argues that the prior art of record fails to teach first, second, and third capping layers that are each comprised of a single layer while having different optical thicknesses, the argument is moot in view of the new ground of rejection set forth below. Jeong expressly discloses a single capping layer (150) formed with a different physical thickness in each of the red, green, and blue pixel areas (W1 > W2 > W3; Jeong Fig. 3), and a layer of a given material having a different physical thickness necessarily has a different optical thickness (optical thickness = refractive index × physical thickness). The remaining limitations are taught by Ohsawa as set forth in the previous action and reproduced below.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-4, 6-8 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2025/0089446 A1 (Ohsawa) in view of US 2016/0240589 A1 (Jeong).
Regarding claim 1, Ohsawa discloses, a display device comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
370
592
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a base substrate (substrate; Fig. 2B; [0167]);
first (130R), second (130G), and third (130B) light emitting diodes disposed on the base substrate (Fig. 2B; [0170]), wherein the first, second, and third light emitting diodes each emit light of a different color (red, green and blue); and
first, second, and third capping layers (131; protective layer; Fig. 2B; [0168]; same protective layer over all three light emitting diodes) respectively disposed on the first (130R), second (130G), and third (130B) light emitting diodes. Ohsawa’s protective layer 131 is a single protective layer, thereby teaching the further limitation “wherein each of the first, second, and third capping layers are comprised of a single layer.”
But Ohsawa fails to teach explicitly, wherein the first, second, and third capping layers have different optical thicknesses.
However, in analogous art, Jeong teaches, a display device in which a single capping layer (150; capping layer; Fig. 2; [0062] – [0064]) is disposed on the second electrode over the red, green, and blue pixel areas and is formed with a first thickness W1 in the red pixel area, a second thickness W2 in the green pixel area, and a third thickness W3 in the blue pixel area, where W1 > W2 > W3. Because the capping layer 150 is formed of a common material and differs only in physical thickness among the three pixel areas, each capping layer is a single layer and has a different optical thickness (optical thickness = refractive index × physical thickness). Jeong teaches that forming the capping layer with a greater thickness in the red and green pixel areas than in the blue pixel area enhances the light extraction efficiency of the display device and reduces viewing-angle color distortion.
PNG
media_image2.png
446
810
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Ohsawa and Jeong before him/her, to modify the teachings of a display device with a single capping layer as taught by Ohsawa and to include the teachings of capping layers having different optical thicknesses as taught by Jeong because (1) forming the single capping layer with a different thickness—and therefore a different optical thickness - in each of the red, green, and blue pixel areas enhances the light extraction efficiency and reduces the viewing-angle color distortion for each color ([0072]). Absent this teaching in Ohsawa, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to reach out to Jeong while forming the display device of Ohsawa.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Ohsawa and Jeong teaches, the display device of claim 1, wherein the first, second, and third capping layers overlap the first, second, and third light emitting diodes, respectively. Jeong’s single capping layer 150 overlaps each of the red, green, and blue pixel areas and Ohsawa’s protective layer 131 overlaps the light emitting diodes (150; Jeong Fig. 3; and 131; Ohsawa Fig. 2B; [0168]).
Regarding claim 3, Ohsawa teaches, the display device of claim 1, wherein the first light emitting diode emits red light, the second light emitting diode emits green light, and the third light emitting diode emits blue light (130R, 130G, 130B; Ohsawa Fig. 2B; [0170]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Ohsawa and Jeong teaches, the display device of claim 1, wherein an optical thickness of each of the first, second, and third capping layers is defined by multiplying a layer thickness of each of the first, second, and third capping layers by a refractive index of each of the first, second, and third capping layers.” Jeong’s single capping layer 150 is formed of a common material (hence a common refractive index) with different physical thicknesses W1, W2, and W3 in the red, green, and blue pixel areas; the optical thickness of each is therefore the product of that pixel’s layer thickness and the refractive index of the capping layer material (150; capping layer; Fig. 2; [0062] – [0064]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Ohsawa and Jeong teaches, the display device of claim 1, wherein the first, second, and third capping layers have a same refractive index. Jeong forms the single capping layer 150 of a common material across the red, green, and blue pixel areas, such that the first, second, and third capping layers have the same refractive index (150; capping layer; Fig. 2; [0062] – [0064]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Ohsawa and Jeong teaches, the display device of claim 6, wherein the first, second, and third capping layers include a same material as each other. Jeong’s single capping layer 150 is a continuous layer of the same material in each of the red, green, and blue pixel areas (150; capping layer; Fig. 2; [0062] – [0064]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Ohsawa and Jeong teaches, the display device of claim 6, wherein the first, second, and third capping layers have different layer thicknesses. Jeong teaches W1 > W2 > W3 for the red, green, and blue pixel areas, i.e., different layer thicknesses (150; capping layer; Fig. 2; [0062] – [0064]).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Ohsawa and Jeong teaches, the display device of claim 1, wherein each of the first, second, and third capping layers includes an organic material. Jeong teaches that the capping layer 150 may be formed of an organic layer (or an organic layer containing inorganic particles) (150; capping layer; Jeong; [0066]).
Regarding claim 15, Ohsawa teaches, the display device of claim 1, further comprising: an encapsulation layer disposed on the first, second, and third capping layers and covering the first, second, and third capping layer. Ohsawa teaches a resin layer disposed on and covering the protective layer (122; resin layer; Ohsawa Fig. 2B; [0168]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohsawa and Jeong as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of US 2024/0315117 A1 (Gu).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Ohsawa and Jeong does not teach explicitly, the display device of claim 15, further comprising: a reflection control layer disposed on the encapsulation layer.
However, in analogous art, Gu discloses, the display device of claim 15, further comprising: a reflection control layer (7; anti-reflection film; Fig. 2; [0042]) disposed on the encapsulation layer (8; encapsulation layer; Fig. 2; [0042]).
PNG
media_image3.png
290
658
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Ohsawa, Jeong, and Gu before him/her, to modify the teachings of a display device with an encapsulation layer as taught by Ohsawa and to include the teachings of a reflection control layer disposed on the encapsulation layer as taught by Gu because the anti-reflection film improves the light transmission efficiency and reduces external-light reflection of the display. Absent this teaching in Ohsawa, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to reach out to Gu while forming the display device of Ohsawa.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2025/0089446 A1 (Ohsawa) in view of US 2016/0240589 A1 (Jeong).
Regarding claim 17, Ohsawa discloses, a display device comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
370
592
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a base substrate (substrate; Fig. 2B; [0167]);
first (130R), second (130G), and third (130B) light emitting diodes disposed on the base substrate (Fig. 2B; [0170]), wherein the first, second, and third light emitting diodes each emit light of a different color (red, green and blue); and
first, second, and third capping layers (131; protective layer; Fig. 2B; [0168]; same protective layer over all three light emitting diodes) respectively disposed on the first (130R), second (130G), and third (130B) light emitting diodes. Ohsawa’s protective layer 131 is a single protective layer, thereby teaching the further limitation “wherein each of the first, second, and third capping layers are comprised of a single layer.”
an encapsulation substrate (120; substrate; Fig. 2B; [0168]) disposed on the first, second, and third capping layers; and
a filler filling (122; resin layer; Fig. 2B; [0168]) between the first, second, and third capping layers and the encapsulation substrate;
But Ohsawa fails to teach explicitly, wherein the first, second, and third capping layers have different optical thicknesses.
However, in analogous art, Jeong teaches, a display device in which a single capping layer (150; capping layer; Fig. 2; [0062] – [0064]) is disposed on the second electrode over the red, green, and blue pixel areas and is formed with a first thickness W1 in the red pixel area, a second thickness W2 in the green pixel area, and a third thickness W3 in the blue pixel area, where W1 > W2 > W3. Because the capping layer 150 is formed of a common material and differs only in physical thickness among the three pixel areas, each capping layer is a single layer and has a different optical thickness (optical thickness = refractive index × physical thickness). Jeong teaches that forming the capping layer with a greater thickness in the red and green pixel areas than in the blue pixel area enhances the light extraction efficiency of the display device and reduces viewing-angle color distortion.
PNG
media_image2.png
446
810
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Ohsawa and Jeong before him/her, to modify the teachings of a display device with a single capping layer as taught by Ohsawa and to include the teachings of capping layers having different optical thicknesses as taught by Jeong because (1) forming the single capping layer with a different thickness—and therefore a different optical thickness - in each of the red, green, and blue pixel areas enhances the light extraction efficiency and reduces the viewing-angle color distortion for each color ([0072]). Absent this teaching in Ohsawa, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to reach out to Jeong while forming the display device of Ohsawa.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2025/0089446 A1 (Ohsawa) in view of US 2016/0240589 A1 (Jeong).
Regarding claim 18, Ohsawa teaches, a method of manufacturing a display device, the method comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
370
592
media_image1.png
Greyscale
forming first (130R), second (130G), and third (130B) light emitting diodes (Fig. 2B; [0170]) that emit light of a different color (red, green and blue) on a base substrate (substrate; Fig. 2B; [0167]); and
forming first, second, and third capping layers … on the first, second, and third light emitting diodes, wherein each of the first, second, and third capping layers are comprised of a single layer; Ohsawa teaches forming of the single protective layer (131; protective layer; Ohsawa Fig. 2B; [0168]) over the light emitting diodes.
But Ohsawa fails to teach explicitly, wherein the first, second, and third capping layers have different optical thicknesses.
However, in analogous art, Jeong teaches, a display device in which a single capping layer (150; capping layer; Fig. 2; [0062] – [0064]) is disposed on the second electrode over the red, green, and blue pixel areas and is formed with a first thickness W1 in the red pixel area, a second thickness W2 in the green pixel area, and a third thickness W3 in the blue pixel area, where W1 > W2 > W3. Because the capping layer 150 is formed of a common material and differs only in physical thickness among the three pixel areas, each capping layer is a single layer and has a different optical thickness (optical thickness = refractive index × physical thickness). Jeong teaches that forming the capping layer with a greater thickness in the red and green pixel areas than in the blue pixel area enhances the light extraction efficiency of the display device and reduces viewing-angle color distortion.
PNG
media_image2.png
446
810
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Ohsawa and Jeong before him/her, to modify the teachings of a display device with a single capping layer as taught by Ohsawa and to include the teachings of capping layers having different optical thicknesses as taught by Jeong because (1) forming the single capping layer with a different thickness—and therefore a different optical thickness - in each of the red, green, and blue pixel areas enhances the light extraction efficiency and reduces the viewing-angle color distortion for each color ([0072]). Absent this teaching in Ohsawa, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to reach out to Jeong while forming the display device of Ohsawa.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Ohsawa and Jeong teaches, the method of claim 18, wherein the first, second, and third capping layers have different layer thicknesses. Jeong teaches W1 > W2 > W3 for the red, green, and blue pixel areas, i.e., different layer thicknesses (150; capping layer; Fig. 2; [0062] – [0064]).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Ohsawa and Jeong teaches, the method of claim 19, wherein the forming the first, second, and third capping layers includes: stacking the first, second, and third capping layers having a common layer thickness on the first, second, and third light emitting diodes; and stacking an additional layer thickness other than the common thickness on one or two of the first, second, and third capping layers. Jeong teaches forming the single capping layer (150; capping layer; Fig. 2; [0062] – [0064]) with a common thickness in the blue pixel area (W3) and a greater thickness in the red and green pixel areas (W1, W2 > W3) - that is, providing a common capping-layer thickness over the three pixel areas and an additional thickness on two of the three pixel areas to obtain the different single-layer thicknesses of claim 19. Forming layers of different thickness by depositing a common thickness and then selectively depositing an additional thickness is, moreover, a well-known and predictable manufacturing technique (MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 9-13 are objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent forms including all of the limitations of the base claims and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 5, the closest prior art of record, US 2025/0089446 A1 (Ohsawa) in combination with US 2016/0240589 A1 (Jeong), in combination with the other claimed features, fails to disclose, “the display device of claim 4, wherein an optical thickness of the first capping layer is between about 60 nanometers and about 90 nanometers, an optical thickness of the second capping layer is between about 20 nanometers and about 50 nanometers, and an optical thickness of the third capping layer is between about 35 nanometers and about 65 nanometers”, in combination with the additionally claimed features, as claimed by the Applicant.
Regarding claim 9, the closest prior art of record, US 2025/0089446 A1 (Ohsawa) in combination with US 2016/0240589 A1 (Jeong), in combination with the other claimed features, fails to disclose, “the display device of claim 8, wherein a layer thickness of the first capping layer is between about 32 nanometers and about 40 nanometers, a layer thickness of the second capping layer is between about 12 nanometers and about 20 nanometers, and a layer thickness of the third capping layer is between about 20 nanometers and about 30 nanometers”, in combination with the additionally claimed features, as claimed by the Applicant.
Regarding claim 10, the closest prior art of record, US 2025/0089446 A1 (Ohsawa) in combination with US 2016/0240589 A1 (Jeong), in combination with the other claimed features, fails to disclose, “the display device of claim 1, wherein the first, second, and third capping layers have a same layer thickness as each other”, in combination with the additionally claimed features, as claimed by the Applicant.
Claims 11-13 are also objected to due to their dependence on an allowable base claim.
Examiner’s Note (Additional Prior Arts)
The examiner included a few prior arts which were not used in the rejection but are relevant to the disclosure.
US 2024/0065026 A1 (Yamazaki) - A display device that can easily achieve higher resolution is provided. A display device having both high display quality and high resolution is provided. A first EL film is deposited over a first pixel electrode, a first sacrificial film is formed to cover the first EL film and a first electrode, and the first sacrificial film and the first EL film are etched, so that a first EL layer is formed over the first pixel electrode. Then, the first sacrificial film is removed to expose the first electrode. Furthermore, a common electrode is formed over the first EL layer and the first electrode. The first EL film is etched by dry etching, and the first sacrificial film is removed by wet etching.
US 2023/0309334 A1 (Zhang) - A display device is disclosed including a hole transport layer common to a plurality of light-emitting elements between a light-emitting layer and an anode electrode below thereof in the light-emitting element in each pixel. The hole transport layer includes a hole transport section that transports positive holes to the light-emitting layer, and an adjacent pixel hole blocking section that is formed in a portion between the light-emitting elements in adjacent pixels and blocks transportation of positive holes between the light-emitting elements in adjacent pixels.
US 2020/0251688 A1 (Chung) - A display device is disclosed comprising a first substrate comprising at least one light-emitting element; a second substrate facing the first substrate, wherein light emitted from the light-emitting element is to be incident on the second substrate; and a filling layer between the first substrate and the second substrate, wherein the filling layer comprises a filling pattern comprising a first pattern part on the first substrate and having a curve portion formed in at least a part thereof.
US 2015/0187847 A1 (Choi) - Discloses a single capping layer (200) of uniform physical thickness disposed on the second electrode over red, green, and blue sub-pixels, formed of an optical adjustment material whose refractive index increases with wavelength so that the optical thickness (refractive index × thickness) of the capping layer differs among the red, green, and blue sub-pixels to maximize the luminous efficiency of each color. Choi is directly pertinent to the amended “single layer / different optical thicknesses” limitation and provides an alternative combination (Ohsawa in view of Choi) that would reject independent claims 1, 17, and 18; because Choi achieves the different optical thicknesses with the same physical thickness but different refractive index per color, Choi could additionally be applied to reject claims 10 and 12 (same layer thickness; different refractive indices) should further prosecution warrant.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to S M SOHEL IMTIAZ whose telephone number is (408) 918-7566. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-5PM, M-F, PST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christine S. Kim can be reached at 571-272-8458. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/S M SOHEL IMTIAZ/Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2812
09/24/2026
