DETAILED ACTION
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) 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US Pub. 2023/0263014) in view of Yoo et al. (US Pub. 2018/0351133).
Regarding independent claim 1, Lin teaches a display device (Figs. 4A, 4B; para. 0057+) comprising:
first and second anodes (404) disposed on a substrate (102) to be spaced apart from each other (Fig. 4A; para. 0058);
an inorganic insulating layer (126) disposed on the substrate and in part on the first and second anodes (Fig. 4A; para. 0059);
a bank structure (110A/110B) disposed on the inorganic insulating layer, wherein a first opening and a second opening, which overlap the first and second anodes, respectively, are defined through the bank structure (Fig. 4A; para. 0061);
a first light-emitting layer (left-side 112) disposed on the first anode; a second light-emitting layer (right-side 112) disposed on the second anode (Fig. 4A; para. 0062);
a first cathode (left-side 114) disposed on the first light-emitting layer; a second cathode (right-side 114) disposed on the second light-emitting layer (Fig. 4A; para. 0063);
a first encapsulation layer including a first inorganic layer (left-side 116), which is disposed on the first cathode, and a second inorganic layer (right-side 116), which is disposed on the second cathode (Fig. 4A; para. 0066);
a second encapsulation layer (120) disposed on the first encapsulation layer (Fig. 1A; para. 0036);
a third encapsulation layer (120) disposed on the second encapsulation layer (Fig. 4A; para. 0068),
wherein
the bank structure includes a first bank layer (110A) and a second bank layer (110B), wherein the second bank layer is disposed on the first bank layer, includes a different material from the first bank layer (para. 0061), and includes a tip protruding further than the first bank layer from each of sidewalls of the bank structure defining the first and second openings (Fig. 4A),
each of the first light-emitting layer and the second light-emitting layer is in contact with a sidewal of the first bank layer (Fig. 4B).
Lin is silent with respect to a first optical pattern and a second optical pattern.
Yoo teaches (Fig. 5) an optical pattern (LEN) disposed on a first layer (BNK) an in part of a first opening wherein the optical pattern overlaps a light-emitting layer (EML) and the optical pattern has a different refractive index from the encapsulation layer (PCL) (para. 0063).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include the optical pattern of Yoo within each opening of Lin such that a first optical pattern was disposed on the first inorganic layer and in part in the first opening, wherein the first optical pattern overlaps the first light-emitting layer and a second optical pattern was disposed on the second inorganic layer and in the second opening, wherein the second optical pattern overlaps the second light-emitting layer and the first and second optical patterns have a different refractive index from the second encapsulation layer, as claimed, to arrive at the claimed invention for the purpose of improving outcoupling efficiency of the device (Yoo para. 0063).
Re claim 2, Lin teaches wherein the first bank layer includes aluminum (Al), and the second bank layer includes titanium (para. 0061).
Re claim 3, Lin teaches wherein the first and second cathodes are in direct contact with side surfaces of the first bank layer (Fig. 4B).
Re claims 4 and 5, Lin teaches a first organic pattern disposed on the second bank layer to surround the first opening, wherein the first organic pattern includes a same material as the first light-emitting layer; a first electrode pattern disposed on the first organic pattern, wherein the first electrode pattern includes a same material as the first cathode; a second organic pattern disposed on the second bank layer to surround the second opening, wherein the second organic pattern includes a same material as the second light-emitting layer; and a second electrode pattern disposed on the second organic pattern, wherein the second electrode pattern includes a same material as the second cathode, wherein the first inorganic layer is disposed on the first electrode pattern, and the second inorganic layer is disposed on the second electrode pattern, wherein the first inorganic layer is disposed on the sidewalls of the bank structure defining the first opening, and the second inorganic layer is disposed on the sidewalls of the bank structure defining the second opening (Figs. 4A, 4B).
Re claim 6, the combination of Lin and Yoo teach wherein outer surfaces of the first and second optical patterns have a curved shape (Yoo Fig. 5), ends of an outer surface of the first optical pattern are aligned with the first inorganic layer, and ends of an outer surface of the second optical pattern are aligned with the second inorganic layer (Lin Fig. 4A).
Re claim 7, the combination of Lin and Yoo teach wherein the first and second optical patterns have a greater refractive index than the second encapsulation layer (Yoo para. 0063), and the ends of the outer surface of each of the first and second optical patterns form an acute angle with a top surface of the first or second inorganic layer (Yoo Fig. 5, Lin Fig. 4A).
Re claim 8, the combination of Lin and Yoo teach wherein the first and second optical patterns have a refractive index of about 1.6 or greater (1.73), and the second encapsulation layer has a refractive index less than about 1.6 (1.52) (Yoo para. 0063 – note that a specific example in the prior art which is within the claimed range anticipates the claimed range).
Re claims 13 and 14, Lin teaches wherein the inorganic insulating layer is not in contact with top surfaces of the first and second anodes, the first light-emitting layer is disposed in part between the first anode and the inorganic insulating layer, and the second light-emitting layer is disposed in part between the second anode and the inorganic insulating layer, and residual patterns (110C) disposed between the inorganic insulating layer and the first and second anodes (Figs. 4A, 4B).
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US Pub. 2023/0263014) in view of Yoo et al. (US Pub. 2018/0351133) and further in view of Park et al. (US Pub. 2019/0088906).
Re claim 15, Lin is silent with respect to a touch layer, a light blocking layer, and color filters.
Park teaches a display device (Fig. 12; para. 0139+) including a touch layer (200) disposed on an encapsulation layer (30); a light-blocking layer (40) provided with a first opening hole, which overlaps a first opening, and a second opening hole, which overlaps a second opening; and first and second color filters (51) disposed on the light-blocking layer, wherein the first and second color filters overlap the first and second opening holes, respectively.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include the teachings of Park above the combination of Lin and Yoo to arrive at the claimed invention for the purpose of providing a color display with touch sensing capabilities.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation from the prior art of record, nor does the prior art of record otherwise make obvious the limitations of “…wherein a minimum distance between the first and second optical patterns is the same as a distance between the first and second inorganic layers”, in combination with the other limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 (and its corresponding dependent claims) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 MOLLY KAY REIDA whose telephone number is (571)272-4237. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00PM.
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, Brent Fairbanks can be reached at (408)918-7532. 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.
/MOLLY K REIDA/Examiner, Art Unit 2899
/Brent A. Fairbanks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899 We’re
Prosecution Insights