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 .
This office action is in response to application filed on 12/26/2023.
Currently claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/26/2023 was filed before the mailing date of the office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement was considered by the examiner.
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 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2025/0089446 A1 (Ohsawa) and further in view of US 2018/0123068 A1 (Ushikubo).
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,
But Ohsawa fails to teach explicitly, wherein the first, second, and third capping layers have different optical thicknesses.
However, in analogous art, Ushikubo discloses, an optical adjustment layer 150 which is a combination of three capping layers 152, 154 and 156 (Fig. 2; [0064], [0068], [0076]) over three light-emitting diodes. It is different over different light emitting diodes. The optical thickness of each of the first, second, and third capping layers 152, 154 and 156 is defined by multiplying the layer thickness of each of the first, second, and third capping layers 152, 154 and 156 by the respective refractive index of each of the first, second, and third capping layers (Ushikubo Ref.; this is how the optical thickness is defined by the applicant and is consistent with para. [0046] of Ushikubo; therefore it can be considered that the limitation is taught by Ushikubo). This optical adjustment layer 150 allows excellent color purity and high efficiency ([0064]). Ushikubo used thicker optical adjustment layer 150 over blue LED than the green and red LEDs. Therefore, with this teaching, it is well within the purview of a person with ordinary skill in the art to choose different optical thicknesses for the first, second, and third capping layers.
PNG
media_image2.png
468
750
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 Ushikubo before him/her, to modify the teachings of a display device with an uniform capping layer as taught by Ohsawa and to include the teachings of capping layers having different optical thicknesses as taught by Ushikubo since the optical adjustment layer used allows excellent color purity and high efficiency if a proper thickness is chosen ([0051] – [0052], [0064]; see note below). Absent this important teaching in Ohsawa, a person with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to reach out to Ushikubo while forming a display device of Ohsawa.
Note: Ushikubo teaches in para. [0051] – [0052] that a refractive index and a thickness of the first cap layer 152 can be selected so that both or one of the light emissions of the light-emitting elements 120 of the pixels 102b and 102c is amplified between a top surface and a bottom surface of the first cap layer 152. That is, the refractive index and the thickness of the first cap layer 152 can be selected so that a product of the refractive index by the thickness is an odd multiple of one fourth of both or one of the emission wavelengths of the light-emitting elements 120 of the pixels 102b and 102c. For example, the film thickness of the first cap layer 152 is equal to or more than 10 nm and equal to or less than 200 nm. It is preferred that the film thickness of the first cap layer 152 be selected according to individual cases because the optimal value thereof depends on a material of the first cap layer 152, a material and a film thickness of the third cap layer 156, an optical film thickness of the EL layer 130, an emission wavelength of a light-emitting material, and objective color purity of the emission.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Ohsawa and Ushikubo discloses, the display device of claim 1, wherein the first, second, and third capping layers (Fig. 2; Ushikubo Ref.) overlap the first, second, and third light emitting diodes (blue, green and red light emitting diodes; Fig. 2; Ushikubo Ref.), respectively.
Regarding claim 3, Ohsawa discloses, 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 (Fig. 2B; [0170]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Ohsawa and Ushikubo discloses, 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 (Ushikubo Ref.; this is how the optical thickness is defined by the applicant and is consistent with para. [0046] of Ushikubo; therefore it can be considered that the limitation is taught by Ushikubo).
Regarding claim 15, Ohsawa discloses, the display device of claim 1, further comprising: an encapsulation layer (122; resin layer; Fig. 2B; [0168]) disposed on the first, second, and third capping layers (131) and covering the first, second, and third capping layer.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohsawa and Ushikubo as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US 2023/0094724 A1 (Utshumi).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Ohsawa and Ushikubo fails to teach explicitly, the display device of claim 1, wherein each of the first, second, and third capping layers includes an organic material.
However, in analogous art, Utshumi discloses, the display device of claim 1, wherein each of the first, second, and third capping layers (6; sealing layer; Fig. 1; [0056]) includes an organic material (31; organic sealing film; Fig. 1; [0056]).
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, Ushikubo and Utshumi before him/her, to modify the teachings of a display device with a capping layer as taught by Ohsawa and to include the teachings of capping layer includes an organic material as taught by Utshumi since in MPEP 2143 (I) (A), it is stated that Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. Absent this important teaching in Ohsawa, a person with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to reach out to Utshumi while forming a display device of Ohsawa.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohsawa and Ushikubo as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US 2024/0315117 A1 (Gu).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Ohsawa and Ushikubo fails to 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, Ushikubo 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 since the anti-reflection layer improves the light transmission efficiency. Absent this important teaching in Ohsawa, a person with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to reach out to Gu while forming a display device of Ohsawa.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2025/0089446 A1 (Ohsawa) and further in view of US 2018/0123068 A1 (Ushikubo).
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,
an encapsulation substrate (120; substrate on top; Fig. 2B; [0168]) disposed on the first, second, and third capping layers (131); and
a filler (122; resin layer; Fig. 2B; [0168]) filling between the first, second, and third capping layers (131) and the encapsulation substrate (120).
But Ohsawa fails to teach explicitly, wherein the first, second, and third capping layers have different optical thicknesses.
However, in analogous art, Ushikubo discloses, an optical adjustment layer 150 which is a combination of three capping layers 152, 154 and 156 (Fig. 2; [0064], [0068], [0076]) over three light-emitting diodes. It is different over different light emitting diodes. The optical thickness of each of the first, second, and third capping layers 152, 154 and 156 is defined by multiplying the layer thickness of each of the first, second, and third capping layers 152, 154 and 156 by the respective refractive index of each of the first, second, and third capping layers (Ushikubo Ref.; this is how the optical thickness is defined by the applicant and is consistent with para. [0046] of Ushikubo; therefore it can be considered that the limitation is taught by Ushikubo). This optical adjustment layer 150 allows excellent color purity and high efficiency ([0064]). Ushikubo used thicker optical adjustment layer 150 over blue LED than the green and red LEDs. Therefore, with this teaching, it is well within the purview of a person with ordinary skill in the art to choose different optical thicknesses for the first, second, and third capping layers.
PNG
media_image2.png
468
750
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 Ushikubo before him/her, to modify the teachings of a display device with an uniform capping layer as taught by Ohsawa and to include the teachings of capping layers having different optical thicknesses as taught by Ushikubo since the optical adjustment layer used allows excellent color purity and high efficiency if a proper thickness is chosen ([0051] – [0052], [0064]; see note below). Absent this important teaching in Ohsawa, a person with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to reach out to Ushikubo while forming a display device of Ohsawa.
Note: Ushikubo teaches in para. [0051] – [0052] that a refractive index and a thickness of the first cap layer 152 can be selected so that both or one of the light emissions of the light-emitting elements 120 of the pixels 102b and 102c is amplified between a top surface and a bottom surface of the first cap layer 152. That is, the refractive index and the thickness of the first cap layer 152 can be selected so that a product of the refractive index by the thickness is an odd multiple of one fourth of both or one of the emission wavelengths of the light-emitting elements 120 of the pixels 102b and 102c. For example, the film thickness of the first cap layer 152 is equal to or more than 10 nm and equal to or less than 200 nm. It is preferred that the film thickness of the first cap layer 152 be selected according to individual cases because the optimal value thereof depends on a material of the first cap layer 152, a material and a film thickness of the third cap layer 156, an optical film thickness of the EL layer 130, an emission wavelength of a light-emitting material, and objective color purity of the emission.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2025/0089446 A1 (Ohsawa) and further in view of US 2018/0123068 A1 (Ushikubo).
Regarding claim 18, Ohsawa discloses, 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 (131; protective layer; Fig. 2B; [0168]; same protective layer over all three light emitting diodes) on the first (130R), second (130G), and third (130B) 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, Ushikubo discloses, an optical adjustment layer 150 which is a combination of three capping layers 152, 154 and 156 (Fig. 2; [0064], [0068], [0076]) over three light-emitting diodes. It is different over different light emitting diodes. The optical thickness of each of the first, second, and third capping layers 152, 154 and 156 is defined by multiplying the layer thickness of each of the first, second, and third capping layers 152, 154 and 156 by the respective refractive index of each of the first, second, and third capping layers (Ushikubo Ref.; this is how the optical thickness is defined by the applicant and is consistent with para. [0046] of Ushikubo; therefore it can be considered that the limitation is taught by Ushikubo). This optical adjustment layer 150 allows excellent color purity and high efficiency ([0064]). Ushikubo used thicker optical adjustment layer 150 over blue LED than the green and red LEDs. Therefore, with this teaching, it is well within the purview of a person with ordinary skill in the art to choose different optical thicknesses for the first, second, and third capping layers.
PNG
media_image2.png
468
750
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 Ushikubo before him/her, to modify the teachings of a display device with an uniform capping layer as taught by Ohsawa and to include the teachings of capping layers having different optical thicknesses as taught by Ushikubo since the optical adjustment layer used allows excellent color purity and high efficiency if a proper thickness is chosen ([0051] – [0052], [0064]; see note below). Absent this important teaching in Ohsawa, a person with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to reach out to Ushikubo while forming a display device of Ohsawa.
Note: Ushikubo teaches in para. [0051] – [0052] that a refractive index and a thickness of the first cap layer 152 can be selected so that both or one of the light emissions of the light-emitting elements 120 of the pixels 102b and 102c is amplified between a top surface and a bottom surface of the first cap layer 152. That is, the refractive index and the thickness of the first cap layer 152 can be selected so that a product of the refractive index by the thickness is an odd multiple of one fourth of both or one of the emission wavelengths of the light-emitting elements 120 of the pixels 102b and 102c. For example, the film thickness of the first cap layer 152 is equal to or more than 10 nm and equal to or less than 200 nm. It is preferred that the film thickness of the first cap layer 152 be selected according to individual cases because the optimal value thereof depends on a material of the first cap layer 152, a material and a film thickness of the third cap layer 156, an optical film thickness of the EL layer 130, an emission wavelength of a light-emitting material, and objective color purity of the emission.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Ohsawa and Ushikubo discloses, the method of claim 18, wherein the first, second, and third capping layers (as annotated on Fig. 2; [0064], [0068], [0076]) have different layer thicknesses (as evident in Fig. 2; Ushikubo Ref.).
PNG
media_image2.png
468
750
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Ohsawa and Ushikubo discloses, the method of claim 19, wherein the forming the first, second, and third capping layers (as annotated on Fig. 2; [0064], [0068], [0076]; Ushikubo Ref.) includes:
stacking the first, second, and third capping layers (as annotated on Fig. 2) having a common layer (152) thickness on the first, second, and third light emitting diodes (blue, green and red light emitting diodes; Ushikubo Ref.); and
PNG
media_image2.png
468
750
media_image2.png
Greyscale
stacking an additional layer thickness (156 and/or 154) other than the common thickness (152) on one or two of the first, second, and third capping layers (as annotated on Fig. 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-13 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, US 2025/0089446 A1 (Ohsawa), in combination with US 2018/0123068 A1 (Ushikubo), 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 are claimed by the Applicant.
Regarding claim 6, the closest prior art, US 2025/0089446 A1 (Ohsawa), in combination with US 2018/0123068 A1 (Ushikubo), 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 refractive index”, in combination with the additionally claimed features, as are claimed by the Applicant.
Regarding claim 10, the closest prior art, US 2025/0089446 A1 (Ohsawa), in combination with US 2018/0123068 A1 (Ushikubo), 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 are claimed by the Applicant.
Claims 7-9 and 11-13 are also objected to due to their dependence on an objected 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.
Conclusion
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
04/10/2026
Prosecution Insights