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 Acknowledged
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 1 shown in Figs. 3-7 in the Response to the Restriction Requirements filed on 04/43/26 is acknowledged. Applicant stated that Claims 1-9 are read on the elected species. However, Claim 6, with recitation: “the space is surrounded” - depends on Clam 1, which states: “the hydrogen donor layer overlaps the emission area and is in contact with the common electrode or is spaced apart from the common electrode with a space interposed between the hydrogen donor layer and the common electrode”, where the second part, related to the space – is not read on Figs. 3-7, but is read on Fig. 9 (portions of Figs. 5 and 9 are reproduced below), which belongs to Species 2, not chosen for examination:
Portion of Fig. 4
PNG
media_image1.png
287
218
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Portion of Fig. 9
PNG
media_image2.png
279
226
media_image2.png
Greyscale
For this Office Action, however, Claim 6 would be considered as belonging to Species 1 based on the additional consideration shown in this Office Action below.
Status of Claims
Claims 10-20 are withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to nonelected inventions.
Claims 1-9 are examined on merits herein.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figs. 4 and 5-7 are not consistent with each other: Paragraph 0036 of the published application (US 2024/041132) states that Fig. 5 (and, obviously, Figs. 6-7, showing a part of Fig. 5) is a cross-sectional view of the display device taken along line X1-X1’ of Fig. 4. However, Fig. 4 shows that a space SA surrounds an emission area EA1, while Fig. 5 shows that space SA is disposed on the light emission area EA. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The disclosure, including drawings, is inconsistent in description of spaces SA, as shown above in objection to drawings. In addition, paragraph 0073, describing Figs. 3-4, states that spaces SA surround emission areas EA (e.g., such as shown in Figs. 3 and 4), but paragraph 0108 states that in a situation when a hydrogen donor layer 330 is spaced apart from the common electrode CE, the space SA is over emission areas EA. At the same time, Fig. 5 (being a cross-section of a portion of Figs. 3 or 4), clearly shows that space SA exists even when the hydrogen donor layer 330 is in contact with the common electrode CE. Moreover paragraph 0133, referring to Fig. 7, indirectly teaches that spaces SA do exist in a structure in which the hydrogen donor layer is in direct contact with the common electrode. Inconsistence between paragraphs of the specification shall be corrected.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In re Claims 1 and 6: Claim 6 recites: “The display device of Claim 1, wherein the space is surrounded by the non-emission area in a plan view”, while Claim 1 recites: “the hydrogen donor layer overlaps the emission area and is in contact with the
common electrode or is spaced apart from the common electrode with a space interposed between the hydrogen donor layer and the common electrode”. A combination of cited recitation is unclear, since, based on the recitation of Claim 1, paragraph 0108, and Fig. 9, the structure with the space between the common electrode and the hydrogen donor layer does not belong to Figs. 5-7, but belongs to Fig. 9 (as having a space between the common electrode and the hydrogen donor layer) not chosen for examination. At the same time, Fig. 5, belonging to Species 1, has both – spaces and a direct contact of the hydrogen donor layer and the common electrode.
Appropriate correction is required to clarify the claims language.
For this Office Action, based on combination of Figs. 3-7, the cited recitation of Claim 1 is interpreted as: “the hydrogen donor layer overlaps the emission area and is in contact with the common electrode”, e.g., the recitation related to a space is omitted from consideration (as belonging to Species 2), leaving the Applicant a possibility, upon clarification the specification and drawings, to introduce a limitation related to “a space” into Claim 1 in a corrected form (to be read on Fig. 5-7).
With this interpretation of Claim 1, Claim 6 is interpreted as: “The display device of claim 1”, e.g., the limitation related to “the space” is also omitted from consideration.
In re Claim 3: Claim 3 recites: “the first portion and the second portion of the hydrogen donor layer extend in a direction parallel to the substrate”. The recitation is unclear for two reasons: Claim 1 (on which claim 3 depends) does not recite: “a substrate”, but recites “a first substrate” and “a second substrate”, while Claim 3 does not clarify to which substrate it refers. In addition, each substrate is a three-dimensional structure and extends at least in horizontal and vertical direction, which makes a portion of the recitation: “parallel” – unclear.
Appropriate correction is required to clarify the claim language.
For this Office Action, based on the specification of the application, the cited recitation was interpreted as: “the first portion and the second portion of the hydrogen donor layer extend in a direction parallel to top surfaces of the substrates”.
In re Claims 2, 4-5, and 7-9: Claims 2, 4-5, and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to dependency on Claim 1.
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.
As far as the claims are understood, Claims 1-2 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20210280831) in view of Park et al. (US 2023/0200132).
In re Claim 1, Lee teaches a display device (paragraph 0055) comprising (Fig. 3):
a first substrate BS (paragraph 0067) comprising an emission area PXA-B (or G or R, instead of B) and a non-emission area NPXA (paragraph 0058);
a first pixel electrode EL1 positioned on the emission area PXA of the first substrate BS (paragraph 0070);
a first light emitting structure EML-B (or G or R, instead of B, paragraph 0070) positioned on the first pixel electrode EL1 and comprising quantum dots (paragraph 0003);
a pixel defining layer PDL (paragraph 0059) positioned on the non-emission area NPXA of the first substrate BS and positioned on the first pixel electrode EL1;
a common electrode EL2 (paragraph 0070) covering the first light emitting structure ENL-B and the pixel defining layer PDL; and
an encapsulation structure TFE (paragraph 0067) positioned on the common electrode EL2 and in contact with the common electrode EL2 such that the encapsulation structure TFE overlaps the non-emission area NPXA, wherein
the encapsulation structure TFE may comprise a plurality of inorganic layers, such as silicon nitride, silicon oxide, silicon oxynitride (paragraphs 0076-0077).
Lee does not explicitly teach that the encapsulation structure comprises a second substrate and a hydrogen donor layer positioned between the second substrate and the common electrode, where the hydrogen donor layer overlaps the emission area and is in contact with the common electrode (e.g., where a limitation: “or is spaced apart from the common electrode with a space interposed between the hydrogen donor layer and the common electrode” – is omitted from consideration, in accordance with the claim interpretation).
Park teaches (Fig. 4) an encapsulation layer 150 (paragraph 0166), comprised an inorganic second substrate 150c, an organic layer 150b, and a hydrogen donor inorganic layer 150a (layer 150a is a primary protective layer created from silicon nitride and generating hydrogen, paragraphs 0074, 0166), where the hydrogen donor layer 150a is positioned between the second substrate 150c and a common electrode 133 (paragraph 0124), overlaps an emission area EA and is in contact with the common electrode 133.
Lee and Park teach analogous arts directed to displays having an encapsulating layer comprised inorganic materials, including such common material as silicon nitride, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying or understanding the Lee device in view of the Park device, since they are from the same field of endeavor, and Park created a successfully operated device.
Since Lee does not explicitly teach disposition of layers in his multilayer encapsulating structure, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application to modify the Lee encapsulating structure by substituting it with the encapsulating structure of Park, creating by that the second substrate and the lower layer, the last being a hydrogen donor layer of silicon nitride that is disposed between the second substrate and the common electrode, the hydrogen donor layer overlapping the emission area and being in contact with the common electrode, - in order to define disposition of layers in the multilayer encapsulation structure – for a better repeatability of devices during a manufacturing process.
Understanding that Park teaches negative influence of hydrogen on the device performance, note that Park also teaches how to prevent these negative effects. In addition, it is well known in the art that hydrogen is a common component of such inorganic materials as silicon oxide, silicon nitride, and silicon oxynitride (used by Lee for encapsulation structure and, more likely, also having hydrogen in its inorganic layers, similar to silicon nitride of Park), since hydrogen is either used in precursors for depositing these layers or existed as a component of water used for cleaning before and after depositing – see Chen et al. (US 2013/0210199) on a common knowledge in the art on presence of hydrogen in the above-cited inorganic materials.
In re Claim 2, Lee/Park teaches the display device of Claim 1 as cited above, wherein, as is clear from Clam 1, fig. 4 of Park, and Fig. 3 of Lee: the hydrogen donor layer comprises a first portion overlapping the non-emission arca and a second portion overlapping the emission arca, and the first portion is in contact with the common electrode.
In re Claim 6, Lee/Park teaches the display device of Claim 1 as cited above (the limitation: “the space is surrounded by the non-emission area in a plan view” is omitted from consideration in accordance with the claim interpretation).
In re Claim 7, Lee/Park teaches the display device of Claim 1 as cited above, including the first light emitting structure that comprises a quantum dot light emitting layer EML (in Lee).
Lee further teaches (Fig. 4) that the light emitting structure OEL also comprises and an electron transport layer ETR (paragraph 0070), and it is obvious (see Fig. 3 of Lee) that the first light emitting structure OEL comprises an inclined part inclined in a direction toward the common electrode EL2 at a portion of the inclined part in contact with the pixel defining layer PDL.
In re Claim 8, Lee/Park teaches the display device of Claim 7 as cited above, wherein, as it is clear from Claims 1 and 7, the inclined part overlaps the hydrogen donor layer.
In re Claim 9, Lee/Park teaches the display device of Claim 8 as cited above, including the electron transport layer taught by Lee. Lee further teaches that the electron transport layer comprises metal oxide (paragraph 0104), to which zinc oxide belongs inherently.
As far as the claims are understood, Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee/Park in view of Han (US 2008/0315755).
In re Claim 3, Lee/Park teaches the display device of Claim 2 as cited above, wherein (see Fig. 3 of Lee) – most of the first portion and most of the second portion of the hydrogen donor layer extend in a direction parallel to the substrate.
Lee/Park does not teach that the first and second portions of the hydrogen donor layer in their entirety extend in a direction parallel to “top surfaces of the substrates” (in accordance with the claim interpretation – since a shape a lower part of the encapsulation layer repeats curves of the common electrode.
Han teaches a display device in which (Fig, 2, paragraphs) an encapsulation layer 270 has top and bottom surfaces being parallel to each other and parallel to a top surface of a first substrate 210 in a region disposed over a common electrode 260.
Lee/Park and Han teach analogous arts directed to displays comprised an encapsulation structure, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Lee/Park device in view of the Han teaching, since they are from the same field of endeavor, and Han created a successfully operated device.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application to modify the Lee/Park display device (see Annotated Modified Fig. 3 below) by creating its encapsulating structure with parallel top and bottom surfaces that are parallel to a top surface of the first substrate (in the Annotated Modified Fig. 3, layers “a”, “b”, and “c” correspond to layers 150a, 150b, 150c of Park), if such shape of the encapsulation structure is desirable for the manufacturer. Note that in accordance with MPEP 2144.04. I.B, referencing In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), the court held that changes in shape is not patentable since this is a matter of choice of a person of ordinary skill in the art in absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant.
Annotated Modified Fig. 3
PNG
media_image3.png
307
649
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In re Claim 4, Lee/Park/Han teaches the display device of Claim 3 as cited above, wherein, as shown for Claim 1, the hydrogen donor layer comprises at least one of silicon nitride and silicon oxide – it comprises silicon nitride.
As far as the claims are understood, Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee/Park/Han in view of Chen et al. (US 201300210199).
In re Claim 5, Lee/Park/Han teaches the display device of Claim 4 as cited above, including the hydrogen contained hydrogen donor layer of silicon nitride.
Although further Lee/Park/Han does not teach that the hydrogen-contained silicon nitride layer has hydrogen forming any one of a silicon-hydrogen (Si-H) bond, a
nitrogen-hydrogen (N-H) bond, and an oxygen-hydrogen (O-H) bond, Chen teaches (Table 1 and paragraph 0090) that hydrogen-contained silicon nitride layer comprises all the above bonds.
Lee/Park/Han and Chen teach analogous arts directed to displays having silicon nitride layers comprised oxygen, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application would have had a reasonable expectation of success in understanding some elements of the Lee/Park/Han device in view of the Chen disclosure, since they are from the same field of endeavor, and Chen investigated details not described by Lee/Park/Han.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application to understand that if the Lee/Park/Han hydrogen donor layer was subjected the same or similar steps of deposition and cleaning as silicon nitride of Chen – it would inherently have silicon-hydrogen (Si-H) bond, a nitrogen-hydrogen (N-H) bond, and an oxygen-hydrogen (O-H) bond: In accordance with MPEP 2112.01 Composition, Product, and Apparatus Claims, I. PRODUCT AND APPARATUS CLAIMS — WHEN THE STRUCTURE RECITED IN THE REFERENCE IS SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE CLAIMS, CLAIMED PROPERTIES OR FUNCTIONS ARE PRESUMED TO BE INHERENT: “
PNG
media_image4.png
18
19
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to GALINA G YUSHINA whose telephone number is 571-270-7440. The Examiner can normally be reached between 8 AM - 7 PM Pacific Time (Flexible).
Examiner interviews are available. 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, Lynne Gurley can be reached on 571-272-1670.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300; a fax phone number of Galina Yushina is 571-270-8440.
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 visit 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.
/GALINA G YUSHINA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2811, TC 2800,
United States Patent and Trademark Office
E-mail: galina.yushina@USPTO.gov
Phone: 571-270-7440
Date: 05/29/26
Prosecution Insights