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, claims 1-16 in the reply filed on 05/29/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 1-16 have been fully considered in Examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 01/25/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
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.
The following title is suggested:
“DISPLAY DEVICE HAVING REFLECTION CONTROL LAYER”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (U.S. PG Pub No US2022/0131111A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a display device (1) fig. 13 [0208] comprising:
sub-pixels (P; provided in plural) fig. 5 [0111] corresponding to sub-pixel areas (each comprising individual OLED (210, 220, 230) [see fig. 13, 0111, 0147]),
wherein each of the sub-pixels (P) comprises:
a display unit (comprising 210, 220, 230 comprising individual 220b) fig. 13 [0147, 0152-0156] including a light-emitting layer (220b) fig. 13 [0153] which emits light [0153]; and
a reflection control layer (comprising 520 with 620) fig. 13 [0208] (layers of 520/50 and 620/70 used to control/modulate light reflection [0208, 0213, 0217-0219]) disposed over (above) the sub-pixel areas (P comprising 220b’s) on (supported by) the display unit (comprising 220b), wherein the reflection control layer (520 with 620) selectively absorbs light in a wavelength band ([0218 Lee] “…each of the color filters 620 may have a red, green, or blue color …" --- that which transmits a characteristic, visible color selectively absorbs other colors more than visible color, i.e., if 620 is visibly “red” [0218], it is assumed to absorb non-red color wavelengths more),
wherein the reflection control layer (comprising 520 with 620) fig. 13 [0208] includes a first layer (620) [0218] and a second layer (520) [0219] disposed (directly) on the first layer (620),
wherein the second layer (520) has a thickness (T2) (as defined in annotated fig. 13 below) less than a thickness (T1) (see below) of the first layer (620) (T2 is clearly less than T1, as defined in annotated fig. 13 below), and
wherein the second layer (520) includes a liquid repellent material (520 may include hydrophobic organic material [0195] – ‘hydrophobic’ is interpreted as ‘property of repellence towards liquid water’).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (T1)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (P)][AltContent: textbox (T2<T1)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (T2)]
PNG
media_image1.png
1420
972
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 13 of Lee
Regarding claim 2, Lee teaches the display device (1) fig. 13 [0208] according to claim 1. Lee also teaches wherein the reflection control layer (comprising 520 with 620) fig. 13 [0208] may --- absorb light in a non-emission wavelength band different from a wavelength band of the light emitted from the light-emitting layer,
the non-emission wavelength band includes a first non-emission wavelength band and a second non-emission wavelength band,
the wavelength band of the light emitted from the light-emitting layer includes a first wavelength band, a second wavelength band, and a third wavelength band,
the first non-emission wavelength band includes a wavelength band between the third wavelength band and the second wavelength band, and
the second non-emission wavelength band includes a wavelength band between the second wavelength band and the first wavelength band.
With respect to the underlined limitation(s) above regarding “a non-emission wavelength band” and “a wavelength band of the light”, these parameters are introduced in the context of what light the reflection control layer “may” absorb. Therefore, this “may” term renders all limitations that follow optional in the context of claim 2. For the purposes of Examination, it is assumed that all limitation(s) regarding the details of the claimed “non-emission wavelength band” and “wavelength band of the light” may be met by the display device of Lee, because claims 2 and 3 presently do not require for them to be definitively met by the display device of Lee.
Regarding claim 3, Lee teaches the display device (1) fig. 13 [0208] according to claim 2. Lee also teaches wherein the first non-emission wavelength band includes at least a partial band of 460 nm to 520 nm,
the second non-emission wavelength band includes at least a partial band of 560 nm to 620 nm,
the first wavelength band is a red wavelength band,
the second wavelength band is a green wavelength band, and
the third wavelength band is a blue wavelength band.
With respect to the underlined parameters above, see discussion above claim 3.
Regarding claim 6, Lee teaches the display device (1) fig. 13 [0208] according to claim 1. Lee also teaches wherein the display unit (comprising 210, 220, 230 comprising individual 220b) fig. 13 [0147, 0152-0156] comprises:
a light emitting element (210, 220, 230) fig. 13 [0147, 0152-0156] including a first electrode (210) fig. 13 [0147], a second electrode (230) fig. 13 [0147], and the light-emitting layer (220b) fig. 13 [0153] electrically connected between [0147-0148, 0157] (connected to facilitate light emission) the first electrode (210) and the second electrode (230), and
a low reflection inorganic layer (310) fig. 13 [0161] (formed of material such as aluminum oxide or tantalum oxide [0161]) (assumed to be low-reflection / transmissive because disposed directly over light emitting element; see further discussion below) disposed on the light emitting element (210, 220, 230).
Although Lee is silent with respect to the inorganic layer 310 [0161] being a “low reflection” layer, [0161] of Lee discloses that inorganic layer 310 may be composed of materials such as aluminum oxide or tantalum oxide [0161 Lee] – which are substantially identical to the materials disclosed for the “low reflection inorganic layer” of the instant application [see 0093 instant app]. Therefore, inorganic layer 310 in the context of Lee, which may be composed of materials such as aluminum oxide [0161 Lee], is considered to be the effective equivalent of a “low reflection inorganic layer” – in view of the instant application’s disclosure. (See MPEP 2112.01, I).
Regarding claim 7, Lee teaches the display device (1) fig. 13 [0208] according to claim 6. Lee also teaches wherein the second electrode (230) fig. 13 [0147] is disposed on (supported by) the light-emitting layer (220b) fig. 13 [0153], and
light reflected by the low reflection inorganic layer (310) fig. 13 [0161] and light reflected by the second electrode (230) fig. 13 [0147] destructively interfere with each other (although [0083] indicates that Lee recognizes destructive interference in display).
With respect to the claimed destructive interference condition, Lee does not explicitly disclose whether ‘light reflected by the low reflection inorganic layer and light reflected by the second electrode destructively interfere with each other’. However, because Lee discloses substantially the structural features, as claimed, Lee is considered by one having skill at the time of the claimed invention to meet the claimed properties which result from the structure, including some degree of destructive interference between light reflected off of the structural features. (See MPEP 2112.01, II).
Regarding claim 8, Lee teaches the display device (1) fig. 13 [0208] according to claim 1. Lee also teaches further comprising:
a light blocking layer (610) fig. 13 [0217] (light shielding / blocking [0217]) disposed (diagonally) between the display unit (comprising 210, 220, 230 comprising individual 220b) fig. 13 [0147, 0152-0156] and the reflection control layer (comprising 520 with 620) fig. 13 [0208],
wherein an opening (610OP) fig. 13 [0216] is defined in the light blocking layer (610),
wherein the opening (610OP) and the sub-pixel areas (P comprising EA boundaries) overlap each other in a plan view (see annotated fig. 13 above) (610OP overlaps P, as is shown in both cross-sectional view of fig. 13, and as would be understood to evident in a plan view, such as that of fig. 5 [0111]), and
the reflection control layer (comprising 620) contacts (directly contacts) the light blocking layer (610).
Regarding claim 9, Lee teaches the display device (1) fig. 13 [0208] according to claim 8. Lee also teaches wherein the light blocking layer (610) fig. 13 [0217] contacts the first layer (620) fig. 13 [0218] and (vertically) spaced apart from the second layer (520) fig. 13 [0219].
Regarding claim 12, Lee teaches the display device (1) fig. 13 [0208] according to claim 1. Lee also teaches wherein the second layer (520) fig. 13 [0219] has a structure of a film shape (formed/shaped as a “layer” / sheet / film [0213-0219]) on (directly on) the first layer (620) fig. 13 [0218].
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (U.S. PG Pub No US2022/0131111A1), as applied in claim 1 above, in view of So (U.S. PG Pub No US2013/0082589A1).
Regarding claim 4, Lee teaches the display device (1) fig. 13 [0208] according to claim 1. However, Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein the reflection control layer (comprising 520 with 620) fig. 13 [0208] includes a dye, a pigment, or a combination thereof (520, 620 – particularly color filter 620 [0218] not explicitly disclosed as being composed of dyes/pigments).
So teaches a display device [see fig. 12, 0123] wherein the reflection control layer (comprising ‘color filter’ material 1208) fig. 13 [0123, 0138] includes a dye, a pigment, or a combination thereof (color filters may comprise resin with pigment and/or die [0138]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the color filter portion of the reflection control layer of Lee such that the color filter(s) [0123] comprise at least one of the pigment and/or die compounds disclosed by [0138] of So in order to desirably control the light wavelength absorption and transmission characteristics [0123-0127] of the color filter(s) according to art-recognized preferred pigment/die chemicals [0138], as taught by So.
Regarding claim 5, Lee in view of So teaches the display device (1) fig. 13 [0208] according to claim 4. Lee in view of So (with reference to So) also teaches wherein the reflection control layer (comprising ‘color filter’ material 1208) fig. 13 [0123, 0138] includes at least one (die/pigment chemical) [0138] selected from an oxazine-based compound and a cyanine-based compound [0138].
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (U.S. PG Pub No US2022/0131111A1), as applied in claim 1 above, in view of Abe (U.S. PG Pub No US2018/0047798A1).
Regarding claim 10, Lee teaches the display device (1) fig. 13 [0208] according to claim 1. However, Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein the liquid repellent material (520-material) fig. 13 [0195] (‘hydrophobic’) has a liquid repellency greater than a liquid repellency of a dye, a pigment, or a combination thereof included in the reflection control layer (comprising 520 with 620) fig. 13 [0208] (liquid repellency of 520 not explicitly disclosed).
Abe teaches a display device (10A) fig. 17 [0180] wherein the liquid repellent material (522Y) fig. 17 [0183] fig. 13 [0182-0183] (‘hydrophobic’) has a liquid repellency greater than a liquid repellency of a pigment [0182] included in the reflection control layer (comprising 122) fig. 17 [082-0183] (repellency of 522 materials towards organic solvent greater than [0183] black-pigment comprising [0182] 122 materials [0182-0183]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the display device of Lee such that one of the layers has a greater repellency [0183] towards liquids such as organic solvents [0183] in order to selectively guide materials repelled by the intended layer, such as ink(s) [0085, 0183], during manufacturing [0183], to ensure an ideal optical density [0042-0043], as taught by Abe.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (U.S. PG Pub No US2022/0131111A1), as applied in claim 1 above, in view of Chen (U.S. PG Pub No US2018/0226316A1).
Regarding claim 11, Lee teaches the display device (1) fig. 13 [0208] according to claim 1. However, Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein the liquid repellent material (520-material) fig. 13 [0195] (‘hydrophobic’) has a surface energy greater than a surface energy of a dye, a pigment, or a combination thereof included in the reflection control layer (comprising 520 with 620) fig. 13 [0208] (surface energy of 520 not explicitly disclosed)
Chen teaches a device (10) fig. 1 [0015] wherein the liquid repellent material (7) fig. 1 [0022] has a surface energy greater [0022] than a surface energy [0022] of a dye [0021] included in the reflection control layer (comprising 9) fig. 1 [0021-0023] (9 comprising dye [0021] having lower surface energy than 7 [0022]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the display device of Lee such that the layers are explicitly formed with the surface energy characteristics described by [0022] of Chen in order to ensure favorable control of humidity and liquids [0022] by inhibiting the formation of puddles [0022] on portions of the device [0022], as taught by Chen.
Claims 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (U.S. PG Pub No US2022/0131111A1), as applied in claim 1 above, in view of Itou (U.S. PG Pub No US2013/0000724A1).
Regarding claim 13, Lee teaches the display device (1) fig. 13 [0208] according to claim 1. However, Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein the second layer (520) [0219] has a hardness greater than a hardness of the first layer (620) [0218] (relative hardnesses not explicitly disclosed).
Itou teaches a barrier film [see fig. 1, 0019] applicable to display devices [0050-0052] wherein the second layer (comprising 13) fig. 1 [0019] has a hardness greater than (harder by at least two grades than [0018, 0031]) a hardness of the first layer (comprising 12) fig. 1 [0019, 0031].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the display device of Lee such that the layers are explicitly formed with the hardness characteristics prescribed by Itou [0018, 0028-0031] in order to enhance resistance of the second, organic layer [0008] to dents, scratches, and other physical damage [0008], as taught by Itou.
Regarding claim 16, Lee teaches a display device (1) fig. 13 [0208] comprising:
a display unit (comprising 210, 220, 230 comprising individual 220b) fig. 13 [0147, 0152-0156]; and
a reflection control layer (comprising 520 with 620) fig. 13 [0208] (layers of 520/50 and 620/70 used to control/modulate light reflection [0208, 0213, 0217-0219]) disposed on the display unit, wherein the reflection control layer (520 with 620) selectively absorbs light in a wavelength band ([0218 Lee] “…each of the color filters 620 may have a red, green, or blue color …" --- that which transmits a characteristic, visible color selectively absorbs other colors more than visible color, i.e., if 620 is visibly “red” [0218], it is assumed to absorb non-red color wavelengths more), and includes a first surface (bottom of 520) facing the display unit (comprising 210, 220, 230) and a second surface (top of 620) opposite to the first surface (bottom of 520),
wherein the reflection control layer (comprising 520 with 620) fig. 13 [0208] includes a first layer (620) [0218] adjacent to (including) the first surface (bottom of 520) a second layer (520) [0219] disposed (directly) on the first layer (620) and adjacent to (including) the second surface (top of 620).
However, Lee does not explicitly disclose and the second layer (520) [0219] has a hardness greater than a hardness of the first layer (620) [0218] (relative hardnesses not explicitly disclosed).
Itou teaches a barrier film [see fig. 1, 0019] applicable to display devices [0050-0052] wherein the second layer (comprising 13) fig. 1 [0019] has a hardness greater than (harder by at least two grades than [0018, 0031]) a hardness of the first layer (comprising 12) fig. 1 [0019, 0031].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the display device of Lee such that the layers are explicitly formed with the hardness characteristics prescribed by Itou [0018, 0028-0031] in order to enhance resistance of the second, organic layer [0008] to dents, scratches, and other physical damage [0008], as taught by Itou.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (U.S. PG Pub No US2022/0131111A1), as applied in claim 1 above, in view of Goto (U.S. PG Pub No US2015/0168830A1).
Regarding claim 14, Lee teaches the display device (1) fig. 13 [0208] according to claim 1. However, Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein in the second layer (520) [0219], the liquid repellent material (520-material) fig. 13 [0195] (‘hydrophobic’) is included at a concentration of 500 ppm or less (relative ppm of hydrophobic material of 520 not explicitly disclosed).
Goto teaches a composition applicable to a device [see title, 0710-0711] wherein in the second layer (hydrophobic resin [0711]), the liquid repellent material (surfactant) [0711] is included at a concentration of 500 ppm or less (surfactant may be included in hydrophobic resin at 10 ppm or less < 500 ppm [0711]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the display device of Lee such that the surfactant of Goto [0711] is provided in the hydrophobic resin of Lee [0711] at a ppm of 10 or less [0711] in order to improve overall hydrophobicity of the layer [0711] with efficient concentrations of surfactant [0711], as taught by Goto.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (U.S. PG Pub No US2022/0131111A1), as applied in claim 1 above, in view of Moriya (U.S. PG Pub No US2015/0276175A1).
Regarding claim 15, Lee teaches the display device (1) fig. 13 [0208] according to claim 1. However, Lee does not explicitly disclose further comprising:
a protective film disposed on the reflection control layer (comprising 520 with 620) fig. 13 [0208],
wherein the protective film contacts the second layer (520) [0219] and is spaced apart from the first layer (620) [0218].
Moriya teaches a display device (100B) fig. 12 [0171], further comprising:
a protective film (33) fig. 12 [0171] (layer/film) disposed on (supported by) the reflection control layer (comprising 32 with 52) fig. 13 [0172],
wherein the protective film (33) (directly) contacts the second layer (52) and is (vertically) spaced apart from the first layer (32).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the display device of Lee to include the protective film [0171] disposed over the reflection control layer [0171-0173] in order to, along with other features, suppress undesirable light reflection [0172] based on relative refractive index values [0172], as taught by Moriya.
[AltContent: textbox (T1)]
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Remaining references made available on the PTO-892 form are considered relevant to the present disclosure because they all feature display devices with layers capable of controlling the reflection of light and either already being or being able to be composed of hydrophobic/liquid repelling material(s).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN AYERS WINTERS whose telephone number is (571)270-3308. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:30 am - 7:00 pm (EST).
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, N. Drew Richards can be reached at (571) 272-1736. 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.
/SEAN AYERS WINTERS/Examiner, Art Unit 2892 08/15/2026
Prosecution Insights