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 Group I- Fig. 4 in the reply filed on 06/05/2026 is acknowledged.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7, 8, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JongHee Hwang (US 20180095581 A1) herein after referred to as “Hwang”, and further in view of Jong-Joon Lee (US 20170069692 A1) hereinafter referred to as “Lee”.
Regarding Claim 1 Hwang teaches
A display apparatus (Fig 17) comprising:
a substrate (10);
PNG
media_image1.png
488
752
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a display element layer (100) disposed on the substrate and including a plurality of light-emitting elements (ED) and a bank layer (BL), wherein the bank layer includes a lower opening (see diagram) defining an emission area of each of the plurality of light-emitting elements;
a color filter layer (fig 17 element 430) disposed on the display element layer and including a plurality of color filters;
an input-sensing layer (500) disposed on the color filter layer; and
PNG
media_image2.png
487
758
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a reflection-adjusting layer (450) disposed between the display element layer and the color filter layer, or between (Fig 17) the color filter layer (430) and the input-sensing layer (500),
wherein the emission area includes a first emission area, a second emission area, and a third emission area, (see diagram)
the color filter layer (430) includes a first color filter and a second color filter,
the first color filter is arranged in the first emission area and the second color filter is arranged in the second emission area, and
the reflection-adjusting layer (450) is integrally formed over the first emission area, the second emission area, and the third emission area.
Hwang does not explicitly teach that the reflection-adjusting layer (buffer layer 450) as being reflection adjusting.
However, Lee teaches a buffer layer (Fig 15, 170) of a similar epoxy material at a similar thickness also disposed over top of the color filters, and Lee teaches that this layer reduces double refraction when introduced to external light and thusly reducing the visibility of the reflected light therefore the layer is reflection adjusting. Therefore
the reflection-adjusting layer (170)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hwang such that the layer is a reflection adjusting layer, as described in Lee because both layers are known buffer layers with many similar if not identical qualities and Lee’s layer teaches the added benefit of a more desirable image quality. Therefore, substitution of a known element for another obtains a predictable result. (Lee Para [0018][0074][0127])
Regarding Claim 2 Hwang in view of Lee teaches
PNG
media_image3.png
488
752
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The display apparatus of claim 1,
Hwang further teaches
further comprising a first light-blocking layer (410) disposed between the display element layer (100) and the color filter layer (430), wherein the first light-blocking layer includes a mid-opening overlapping the lower opening. (see diagram of Fig 17)
Regarding Claim 3 Hwang teaches in view of Lee teaches
The display apparatus of claim 2,
Hwang further teaches
wherein the mid-opening of the first light-blocking layer(410) includes a first mid-opening overlapping the first emission area, a second mid-opening overlapping the second emission area, and a third mid-opening overlapping the third emission area (Fig 17), the reflection-adjusting layer is disposed between the color filter layer (430) and the input-
PNG
media_image4.png
181
220
media_image4.png
Greyscale
sensing layer (500), the first color filter fills the first mid-opening, the second color filter fills the second mid-opening, and the reflection-adjusting layer fills the third mid-opening. (see diagram)
Regarding Claim 7 Hwang teaches in view of Lee teaches
The display apparatus of claim 1,
Hwang further teaches
further comprising an encapsulation layer (300) disposed between the display element layer (100) and the color filter layer.(430)
Regarding Claim 8 Hwang teaches in view of Lee teaches
The display apparatus of claim 7,
Hwang further teaches
further comprising a low-reflective layer (CE Para [0077]) disposed between the display element layer (100) and the encapsulation layer.(300)
Regarding Claim 18 Hwang teaches in view of Lee teaches
The display apparatus of claim 1,
Hwang further teaches
wherein the input-sensing layer (500) includes: a touch insulating layer (515 not labeled in Fig 17 Para [0218]) disposed on the color filter layer (430); and a conductive layer (TE1, TE2, and/or TE3) disposed on the touch insulating layer.(Fig 17)
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang in view of Lee as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of JungSik Jo (US 20180182819 A1) hereinafter referred to as “Jo”
Regarding Claim 19 Hwang in view of Lee teaches
The display apparatus of claim 18,
Hwang in view of Lee fails to teach
wherein the input-sensing layer further includes a second light-blocking layer disposed on the conductive layer, wherein the second light-blocking layer includes an upper opening overlapping the lower opening.
Jo teaches why one would want a light blocking layer above the conductive layer and thusly teaches
wherein the input-sensing layer further includes a second light-blocking layer (BM) disposed on the conductive layer(TE), wherein the second light-blocking layer includes an upper opening overlapping the lower opening. (Fig8)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hwang in view of Lee such that the input-sensing layer further includes a second light-blocking layer disposed on the conductive layer, wherein the second light-blocking layer includes an upper opening overlapping the lower opening. as described in Jo because the modification allows for reflection of external light off of the touch electrodes leading to a more desirable image quality; and the position of overlapping openings prevents the color mixture of the different color filters (Jo Para [0120])
Regarding Claim 20 Hwang in view of Lee in view of Jo teaches
The display apparatus of claim 19,
Hwang further teaches
further comprising: an adhesive layer (550 Para [0107]) disposed on the input-sensing layer (at least a portion of 500) ; and a protective layer (700) disposed on the adhesive layer, wherein the adhesive layer fills the upper opening.(the adhesive layer is disposed over top of the input sensing layer and therefor would be disposed on top of the upper openings Fig 17)
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang in view of Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tony Maindron (US 20190280048 A1) hereinafter referred to as “Maindron” and further in view of Kouichi Tanaka (US 20190384110 A1) hereinafter referred to as “Tanaka”.
Regarding Claim 21 Hwang in view of Lee teaches
The display apparatus of claim 1,
Hwang further teaches a blue, red, and green pixel (Para [0065]) and thusly teaches a wavelength from each emission area. Therefore teaching
wherein a wavelength band of light emitted from the first emission area (of blue)
a wavelength band of light emitted from the second emission area (of red)
a wavelength band of light emitted from the third emission area (of green)(Para [0065])
However, Hwang in view of Lee does not explicitly teach the wavelength range
Maindron teaches blue and green wavelength ranges and thusly teaches
wherein a wavelength band of light emitted from the first emission area has a range of about 450 nm to about 490 nm, (Para [0033])
a wavelength band of light emitted from the third emission area has a range of about 490 nm to about 570 nm. (Para [0033])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hwang in view of Lee such that the wavelength band of light emitted from the first emission area has a range of about 450 nm to about 490 nm, and a wavelength band of light emitted from the third emission area has a range of about 490 nm to about 570 nm, as described in Maindron because the modification is a simple substitution of known wavelength ranges to achieve the same color of light (Maindron Para [0033])
Hwang in view of Lee in view of Maindron does not explicitly teach the specific wavelength of the red light in the second emission area
Tanaka teaches a red light with
a wavelength band of light emitted from the second emission area has a range of about 630 nm to about 750 nm, and (Para [0036][0054])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hwang in view of Lee in view of Maindron such that the wavelength band of light emitted from the second emission area has a range of about 630 nm to about 750 nm, as described in Tanaka because the modification is a simple substitution of known wavelength ranges to achieve the same color of light (Tanaka Para [0036][0054])
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang in view of Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee Young Wook (KR 20180133706 A) Hereinafter referred to as “Wook”
Regarding Claim 22 Hwang in view of Lee teaches
The display apparatus of claim 1,
Hwang in view of Lee does not teach the color filter to be optional and therefore does not teach
wherein no color filter is arranged on the third emission area.
Wook however does teach that the filter is an optional addition and thusly teaches
wherein no color filter is arranged on the third emission area (Fig 10 Page 18)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hwang in view of Lee such that the color filter is optional as described in Wook because the modification allows for the white light to create a brighter white color which improves the desired image quality. (Wook Page 18 and 19)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. FUKAGAWA; Nobutaka (US-20230012898-A1), Hwang; JongHee (US-10275075-B2), KANG; Yeonsuk (US-20180182816-A1), LEE; SeungHan (US-20250275420-A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAIME LYNN SPRENGER whose telephone number is (571)272-8444. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00a.m. - 5:00p.m. ET..
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, SUE PURVIS can be reached at 571-272-1236. 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.
/JAIME LYNN SPRENGER/ Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/SUE A PURVIS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights