DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant Election filed on 01/30/2026.
Currently, claims 1-20 are pending in the application. Currently, claims 4, 10, and 15-20 have been withdrawn.
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 Invention I, Species I (Fig. 10), and Species A (Figs. 6 & 8) in the reply filed on 01/30/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 4 and 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a non-selected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Further, claim 10 does not read on the elected Species (Fig. 10) and is withdrawn by the Examiner (the Examiner notes that claim 10 reads on Species II Fig. 11). Claims 1-3, 5-9, and 11-14 are examined in this Office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/15/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the Examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
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, 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.
Claims 1, 9, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over KIM et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0226174 A1) in view of CHUNG et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0148467 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1, Kim teaches a display device (Fig. 13) comprising:
a display part (Fig. 13, EML, ¶ [0116]) including a light emitting element (¶ [0116]) on a base layer (Fig. 13, SUB, ¶ [0113]); and
a sensor part (Fig. 13, SL, ¶ [0112]) on the display part and including a conductive pattern (Fig. 13, SCL1 + SCL2, ¶ [0231]) including an upper conductive pattern (Fig. 13, SCL2, ¶ [0231]), and an inorganic layer (Fig. 13, SPVX, ¶ [0172] teaches that SPVX can be an inorganic film) covering the upper conductive pattern.
However, Kim does not explicitly teach that the inorganic layer includes a first inorganic layer having a first refractive index and a second inorganic layer having a second refractive index less than the first refractive index, and
the second inorganic layer is outside the first inorganic layer with respect to the base layer.
However, Chung is a pertinent art that teaches that the inorganic layer (Figs. 13A-13B, IS-IL2, ¶ [0197]) includes a first inorganic layer (Fig. 13B, IRL3, ¶¶ [0010], [0169], [0174], [0192] & [0197] teaches that IRL3 can have a refractive index of 1.9 to 2.1) having a first refractive index and a second inorganic layer (Fig. 13B, IRL1, ¶¶ [0010], [0169], [0192] & [0197] teaches that first refractive index layer IRL1 can have a refractive index of 1.4 to 1.6) having a second refractive index less than the first refractive index, and
the second inorganic layer is outside the first inorganic layer (Figs. 13A-14B) with respect to the base layer (Fig. 13A, BL, ¶ [0092]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s device to further comprise Chung’s inorganic insulating layers on top of Kim’s sensing conductive layers according to the teaching of Chung (Figs. 13A-13B) in order to prevent pixel failure (Chung ¶ [0199]).
Regarding claim 9, Kim modified by Chung teaches the display device according to claim 1, and Kim teaches that the sensor part (Fig. 13, SL, ¶ [0112]) further includes a lower conductive pattern (Fig. 13, SCL1, ¶ [0231]) and an insulating layer (Fig. 13, SCNT, ¶ [0168]) between the lower conductive pattern and the upper conductive pattern, and the insulating layer includes an organic material (¶¶ [0162] & [0168] teaches that SCNT can include an organic film).
Regarding claim 12, Kim modified by Chung teaches the display device of claim 1, and Chung teaches that the first inorganic layer (Fig. 13B, IRL3, ¶¶ [0162], [0164] & [0197] teaches that IRL3 can be silicon nitride) and the second inorganic layer (Fig. 13B, IRL1, ¶¶ [0162], [0164] & [0197] can be silicon oxide) include materials different from each other.
Regarding claim 13, Kim modified by Chung teaches the display device according to claim 1.
However, Kim modified by Chung does not explicitly teach that the first inorganic layer and the second inorganic layer include a same material having compositions different from each other.
However, Chung ¶¶ [0011]-[0012] teaches that IRL1 and IRL3 can each include silicon oxynitride. It is known in the art that the refractive index of silicon oxynitride can be adjusted by adjusting the ratios between nitrogen, oxygen, and silicon (see ¶ [0063] of Fan). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kim modified by Chung’s inorganic layers to be silicon oxynitride with different ratios of nitrogen, oxygen, and silicon according to the teaching of Fan (¶ [0063]) in order to simplify manufacturing (Kim modified by Chung modified by Fan would require less overall deposition steps because a single deposition step could form multiple layers by adjusting the gas ratios during formation)
Claims 2-3, 5-7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over KIM et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0226174 A1) in view of CHUNG et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0148467 A1) and further in view of ISHIZUYA (US Pub. No. 2020/0274103 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Kim modified by Chung teaches the display device according to claim 1, and Kim teaches an organic layer (Fig. 13, CF2, ¶ [0260]) on the sensor part (Fig. 13, SL, ¶ [0112]), and overlapping the inorganic layer (Fig. 13, SPVX, ¶ [0172]) in a plan view (It would be obvious that CF2 and SPVX would overlap in a plan view).
However, as it is not pertinent to the particulars of their invention, Kim does not explicitly teach the material of their color filters.
However, it is known in the art that color filters can be a dye or pigment dispersed in an organic material such as an acrylic resin (see Ishizuya Fig. 2, 101 + 201 + 301, ¶¶ [0048] & [0054]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that Kim’s color filter can include an organic material such as acrylic resin in a similar manner to Ishizuya’s color filter (Ishizuya Fig. 2). Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the base of its suitability, for its intended use involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 3, Kim modified by Chung modified by Ishizuya teaches the display device according to claim 2, and Kim modified by Chung modified by Ishizuya teaches that a third refractive index of the organic layer (Ishizuya Fig. 2, 101 + 201 + 301, ¶ [0050] teaches that Ishizuya’s color filters can have a refractive index of about 1.5 to about 1.7) is less (It would be obvious that Kim modified by Chung modified by Ishizuya’s color filter can have a lower refractive index than Kim modified by Chung modified by Ishizuya’s first refractive index layer) than the second refractive index (Chung Fig. 13B, IRL1, ¶¶ [0010], [0169], [0192] & [0197] teaches that first refractive index layer IRL1 can have a refractive index of 1.4 to 1.6).
Regarding claim 5, Kim modified by Chung modified by Ishizuya teaches the display device according to claim 2, and Ishizuya teaches that the organic layer (Fig. 2, 101 + 201 + 301, ¶¶ [0048] & [0054] teaches that Ishizuya’s color filters can include a dye or pigment) includes a reflection adjust layer (Fig. 2, 101 + 201 + 301, ¶¶ [0048] & [0054] teaches that Ishizuya’s color filters can include a dye or pigment) including at least one of a dye or a pigment capable of selectively absorbing light of one wavelength band (It would be obvious that Ishizuya’s color filters would be able to selectively absorb at least one wavelength band).
Regarding claim 6, Kim modified by Chung modified by Ishizuya teaches the display device according to claim 5, and Ishizuya teaches that the reflection adjust layer (Fig. 2, 101 + 201 + 301, ¶¶ [0048] & [0054] teaches that Ishizuya’s color filters can include a dye or pigment) includes at least one of a group of a tetraazaporphyrin compound, a porphyrin compound, an oxazine compound, a squarylium compound, a triarylmethane compound, a polymethine (cyanine) compound, an anthraquinone compound, a phtalocyanine compound, an azo compound, a perylene compound, an xanthene compound, a diimmonium compound, or a dipyrromethene compound (¶ [0054] teaches that Ishizuya’s color filters can include a perylene or anthraquinone based material).
Regarding claim 7, Kim modified by Chung modified by Ishizuya teaches the display device according to claim 2, and Ishizuya teaches that the organic layer (Fig. 2, 101 + 201 + 301, ¶¶ [0048] & [0054] teaches that Ishizuya’s color filters can include a dye or pigment) includes a color filter layer (Fig. 2, 101 + 201 + 301) configured to selectively transmit light of one color (¶ [0049]).
Regarding claim 11, Kim modified by Chung modified by Ishizuya teaches the display device according to claim 2, and Kim teaches that at least one layer (Fig. 14, BM1, ¶ [0242]) is interposed between the first inorganic layer (bottommost portion of Kim modified by Chung’s inorganic layer) and the organic layer (Fig. 13, CF2, ¶ [0260]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over KIM et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0226174 A1) in view of CHUNG et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0148467 A1) and further in view of JU et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0083227 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Kim modified by Chung teaches the display device according to claim 1, and Kim teaches that the light emitting element (Fig. 13, EML, ¶ [0116]) includes a first electrode (Fig. 13, ANO, ¶ [0199]), a second electrode (Fig. 13, CAT, ¶ [0199]), and an emission layer (Fig. 13, EL, ¶ [0199]) between the first electrode and the second electrode,
the display part further includes a low reflection inorganic layer (Fig. 13, TFE1, ¶ [0222]) on the second electrode and a thin film encapsulation layer (Fig. 13, TFE3, ¶ [0221]) on the low reflection inorganic layer.
However, Kim modified by Chung does not explicitly teach that the low reflection inorganic layer includes at least one of a metal or a metal compound.
However, Ju is a pertinent art that teaches that the low reflection inorganic layer (Fig. 2, 311, ¶ [0064]) includes at least one of a metal or a metal compound (¶¶ [0064]-[0065] teaches that inorganic layer 311 can be a metal oxide such as aluminum oxide or titanium oxide).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the material of Kim’s inorganic layer to be a metal oxide according to teaching of Ju (Fig. 2) in order to reduce light reflection (Ju ¶ [0062]). Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the base of its suitability, for its intended use involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over KIM et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0226174 A1) in view of CHUNG et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0148467 A1) and further in view of FAN et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0310969 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Kim modified by Chung teaches the display device according to claim 1.
However, Kim modified by Chung does not explicitly teach that the first inorganic layer and the second inorganic layer include a same material having compositions different from each other.
However, Chung ¶¶ [0011]-[0012] teaches that IRL1 and IRL3 can each include silicon oxynitride. It is known in the art that the refractive index of silicon oxynitride can be adjusted by adjusting the ratios between nitrogen, oxygen, and silicon (see ¶ [0063] of Fan).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kim modified by Chung’s inorganic layers to be silicon oxynitride with different ratios of nitrogen, oxygen, and silicon according to the teaching of Fan (¶ [0063]) in order to simplify manufacturing (Kim modified by Chung modified by Fan would require less overall deposition steps because a single deposition step could form multiple layers by adjusting the gas ratios during formation).
Claims 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over KIM et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0226174 A1) in view of CHUNG et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0148467 A1) and further in view of AN et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0328107 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Kim modified by Chung teaches the display device according to claim 1.
However, Kim modified by Chung does not explicitly teach a pad in a pad area on the base layer,
wherein:
the pad includes a first pad layer and a second pad layer on the first pad layer, and
the second pad layer is on a same layer as the upper conductive pattern.
However, An is a pertinent art that teaches a pad (Fig. 6, 171 + 530 + 531, ) in a pad area (Fig. 5, 30, ¶ [0081]) on the base layer (Fig. 6, 100, ¶ [0081]),
wherein:
the pad includes a first pad layer (Fig. 6, 171, ¶ [0128]) and a second pad layer (Fig. 6, 530/531, ¶ [0127]) on the first pad layer, and
the second pad layer is on a same layer (¶ [0133]) as the upper conductive pattern (Fig. 3, 540/520, ¶ [0084]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim modified by Chung’s device to further comprise a pad and pad portion according to the teaching of An (Fig. 6) in order to transfer voltages and signals to pixel disposed in the display area (An ¶ [0083]).
Cited Prior Art
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant.
Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pub No. 2024/0172538 by Shin et al discloses a display device.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pub No. 2023/0108581 by Cai discloses a display device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RHYS P. SHEKER whose telephone number is (703)756-1348. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am to 5 pm.
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, Steven B Gauthier can be reached on 571-270-0373. 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.
/R.P.S./
Examiner, Art Unit 2813
/STEVEN B GAUTHIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights