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 .
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 WITH A FIRST BLACK MATRIX COVERED BY A SECOND BLACK MATRIX
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 9 and 25, they each recite “a width of the bank” without providing any reference to determine in what direction is “width” measured. For the purposes of this office action, it will be assumed that the above recitation is equivalent of “a width of the bank, wherein width is measured in the direction going from one sub-pixel to an adjoining sub-pixel”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 1, 4, 6, 8, 10-11 and 14-16, 19-21, 24, 26-27, 30-32 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jo (US 20210202594), hereinafter Jo, in view of Zhu (US 20220268980), hereinafter Zhu.
Regarding claims 1, 4, 6 and 14-15, Jo (US 20210202594) (refer to Figure 1A-1E) teaches a display device comprising:
a substrate (110, para 43);
a plurality of pixels disposed on the substrate, wherein each of the plurality of pixels includes a plurality of sub-pixels (SP1, SP2, SP3, SP4 – see para 40; also see para 49);
a transistor (TFT, para 43) disposed in each of the plurality of sub-pixels;
a light-emitting element (130 comprising 130a, 130b and 130c, see para 49) disposed in each of the plurality of sub-pixels (SP1, SP2, SP3 and SP4, respectively, as explained in para 49), wherein the light-emitting element includes a light-emitting layer (132, para 43);
an encapsulation layer (140, para 43) covering (best seen in Figure 1C) the light-emitting layer (130);
a touch electrode (see para 58 which describes "The touch layer 151 includes a touch electrode") disposed on (best seen in Figure 1C or 1E) the encapsulation layer (140);
a plurality of color filters (171, 172, 173 – see para 69), each of the plurality of color filters corresponding to one of the plurality of sub-pixels (para 69);
a black matrix (180, para 76) disposed between (best seen in Figure 1C) a first color filter (171) and a second color filter (173).
Kim does not teach that the black matrix includes “a first black matrix and a second black matrix disposed on and covering a side surface of the first black matrix” (as recited in claim 1), wherein (as recited in claim 4) “wherein heights of the first black matrix and the second black matrix are different from each other”; OR wherein (as recited in claim 6) “the first black matrix and the second black matrix comprise a different material”. Further, Kim does not teach that “the second black matrix is formed to expose at least a portion of an upper surface of the first black matrix” (as recited in claim 14); or wherein (as recited in claim 15), “the second black matrix further covers a second side surface of the first black matrix”.
Zhu (US 20220268980) teaches a display device (para 1) comprising a color filters (103, see Figure 1 and para 37; various embodiments shown in Figures 2-4), further comprising a black matrix (102, comprising 1021 and 1022 respectively in Figure 2 – see para 39), wherein the black matrix includes a first black matrix (1021, para 41) and a second black matrix (1022, para 42) disposed on and covering a side surface (i.e. surface of top side in orientation of Figure 2-4) of the first black matrix (102) - see Figure 2 and para 41-42 (alternatively, see embodiments of Figure 3, where 102 comprises 1023 and 1024, respectively – see para 47; OR embodiment of Figure 4, where 102 comprises 1025 and 1026, respectively -se para 51). Zhu (refer to Figure 4) also teaches wherein (as recited in claim 4) heights of the first black matrix (1025) and the second black matrix (1026) are different from each other (best seen in Figure 4) and also wherein (as recited in claim 6) the first black matrix (which may be hydrophilic material – see para 38) and the second black matrix (which may be hydrophobic material – see para 38) comprise a different material. Zhu also teaches wherein (as recited in claim 14) the second black matrix (1022) is formed to expose (best seen in embodiment of Figure 3; also see para 48) at least a portion of an upper surface (topmost surface of 1021 in orientation of Figure 3) of the first black matrix (1021). Although embodiments of Zhu do not specifically show a case wherein (as recited in claim 15) the second black matrix (1022) further covers a second side surface of the first black matrix (1021), this would be an obvious variant as it would increase the contact area between the first and second black matrix, which is known to improve adhesion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify Jo to include the missing features of claims identified above. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Kim for at least the purpose of effectively controlling a thickness of the color resistance unit in the color filter (para 5 of Zhu) as per design requirements, while increasing a contact area between the first black matrix and the second black matrix on part of a second side surface to increase adhesion while still have hydrophilic and hydrophobic regions (see para 14 of Zhu).
Note regarding rejection of claim 1: Currently, claim 1 does not recite any reference to determine what is a “side surface” and hence any surface on any side reads on a “side surface”. If applicant wants to limit the claim to a specific side surface (e.g. side surface of 510_a that directly contacts 510_b in example of Figure 4C), applicant may amend the limitations “a touch electrode disposed on the encapsulation layer” and “a first black matrix and a second black matrix disposed on and covering a side surface of the first black matrix” to provide the missing reference to determine what constitutes a “side surface”, for example, as follows:
“a touch electrode disposed on the encapsulation layer and spaced apart from the light-emitting layer in a thickness direction” and “a first black matrix and a second black matrix disposed on and in direct contact with covering a side surface of the first black matrix, wherein the side surface extends in the thickness direction.
Regarding claims 8 and 11, Jo (refer to Figure 1A-1E) teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the light-emitting element (130) further includes an anode electrode (131, para 49), and the display device further comprising a bank (125, para 51) exposing at least a portion of the anode electrode (see Figure 1C and para 51), and that the black matrix (180) overlaps with the bank in a plan view (as can be seen from cross-sectional view of Figure 1C), wherein the bank is a black bank (para 51 describes “the bank 125 may be configured by a black bank having high light absorptance”).
Although Jo does not teach “the first black matrix and the second black matrix overlap with the bank in plan view” (as required by claim 8), Jo as modified by Zhu for claim 1, teaches that the first black matrix and the second black matrix overlap with the bank in plan view [because in Zhu’s black matrix, for example 102 of Figure 4 of Zhu, the second black matrix (1026) completely covers the top surface of the first black matrix (1025) in a similar cross-sectional view of Figure 4. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify Jo to include the missing limitation of claim 8 identified above for the same purpose as outlined for claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Jo (refer to Figure 1A-1E) teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the substrate has a display area (DA – see Figure 1E and para 39) where the plurality of pixels (e.g. SP2, SP4 – see Figure 1E) are disposed, and a non-display area (NDA – see Figure 1E and para 39) around the display area (para 39), wherein the non-display area includes a driver circuit area (para 39 discloses "driving circuits" and "driving ICs" are located in NDA) and a dam area (area corresponding to 125 in NDA – see Figure 51, described as “bank 125” in para 51).
Regarding claim 16, it is substantially similar to claim 1 except that the substrate further requires “at least one pixel disposed” on the substrate, that the black matrix is “disposed on the touch electrode” and additionally the first black matrix or the second black matrix “overlaps with the touch electrode in a first direction”.
The above listed features are also taught by Jo (see Figure 1E) as follows: at least one pixel (formed by plurality of sub-pixels (SP1, SP2, SP3, SP4 – see para 40; also see para 49) is disposed on the substrate (110), that the black matrix (180) is disposed on the touch electrode (part of touch layer 151) and additionally the first black matrix or the second black matrix (i.e. black matrix 180, as modified for claim 1) overlaps with the touch electrode in a first direction (e.g. when viewed from top of Figure 1e of Jo)
Regarding claim 19, all limitations are covered in rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, all limitations are covered in rejection of claim 15.
Regarding claim 21, it is similar to claim 4 and hence the rejection is similar.
Regarding claim 24, it is similar to claim 8 and hence the rejection is similar.
Regarding claim 26, it is similar to claim 11 and hence the rejection is similar.
Regarding claim 27, it is similar to claim 10 and hence the rejection is similar.
Regarding claim 30, it is similar to claim 14 and hence the rejection is similar.
Regarding claim 31, all limitations have been addressed in claim 1, except the requirement of “a thin film transistor electrically connected to the light-emitting element”, which is taught by Jo – see Figure 1E where a thin film transistor (TFT, see para 43) is shown electrically connected to the light-emitting element (see para 47). Note that claim 1 recites “a first pixel and a second pixel” but that is similar to “a plurality of pixels” recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 32, Jo teaches the display device of claim 31, wherein the first material is at least one or a combination of a metal including chromium or an organic material including carbon black (see para 75 that describes organic material including carbon black).
Regarding claim 35, all limitations are covered in rejection of claim 1
.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 17, 18 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jo and Zhu, as applied to claim 1 or 16 above, and further in view of Kaneko (US 20100328589), hereinafter Kaneko.
Regarding claim 2, Jo teaches the display device of claim 1, further comprising: a color buffer layer (160, described as “pattern buffer layer 160” in para 61) the black matrix (180) is disposed on (best seen in Figure 1C), wherein an end of the first black matrix is lifted from the color buffer layer to expose at least a portion of a lower surface of the first black matrix. Kaneko (US 20100328589) teaches a display device comprising a color filter and a black matrix layer, further teaching that when forming an interface between a first layer (12) and a second layer (10) that are both deposited on a third layer (3), it is known to lift an end (i.e. right side end of 12 best seen in Figure 3 that is lifted from 3 to accommodate “opening rim 10a” of “width T” of 10; also see para 32) of the first layer (12) from the third layer (3) to expose at least a portion of a lower surface of the first layer (as explained above) for the purpose of improving adhesion (para 8, last sentence) of a black matrix layer (in this case, 10 – see para 32) to another layer (12) to effectively apply a black matrix film (para 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify Jo so that “an end of the first black matrix is lifted from the color buffer layer to expose at least a portion of a lower surface of the first black matrix.”. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Jo for at least the purpose of creating a pocket in the first black matrix layer (by lifting an end of the first black matrix), thus providing improved adhesion (see para 8 and 10 of Kaneko) to any other layer that forms an interface by increasing area of contact.
Regarding claims 3 and 5, Jo (refer to Figure 1A-1E) teaches the display device of claim 1, but does not teach wherein a height of each of the first black matrix and the second black matrix is “smaller than a height of the first color filter and the second color filter” (as recited in claim 3); or wherein (as recited in claim 5) “each color filter overlaps with a portion of the second black matrix in plan view”. Kaneko (see embodiment of Figure 4) teaches a height of each of the first black matrix (1025 of Figure 4) and the second black matrix (1026 of Figure 4) is smaller than a height (see maximum height of 103 at approximately it’s center in Figure 3) of the first color filter (one of 103) and the second (another one of adjacent 103) color filter (para 52); and ALSO that each color filter (103) overlaps with a portion of the second black matrix (1026 of Figure 4) in plan view (because of the inclined wall of 103 that interfaces with 1026 in the cross-sectional view of Figure 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify Jo so that a height of each of the first black matrix and the second black matrix is “smaller than a height of the first color filter and the second color filter”. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Jo for at least the purpose of ensuring ink forming the black matrix does not hang on a side wall of the second black matrix unit (see para 52 of Kaneko) while using a typical color filter with inclined sidewalls (see Figure 4 of Kaneko).
Regarding claim 17, it is similar to claim 2 and hence the rejection is similar.
Regarding claim 18, it is similar to claim 3 and hence the rejection is similar.
Regarding claim 22, it is similar to claim 5 and hence the rejection is similar.
Claims 7, 23, 33 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jo and Zhu, as applied to claim 1, 16 or 31 above, and further in view of Choi (US 20110151379), hereinafter Choi.
Regarding claim 7, Jo teaches the display device of claim 1, but does not teach that the second black matrix “includes a polymerization inhibitor, and wherein the polymerization inhibitor includes at least one of hydroquinone, 1,4-dihydroxynaphthalene, 2,5-di-tert-butylhydroquinone, methylhydroquinone, benzoquinone, or 1,4-naphthoquinone”. Choi (US 20110151379) teaches use of black matrix in the context of a display device (para 3), further teaching that it is known to include a thermal polymerization inhibitor to black matrix (para 46), which may include at least hydroquinone (para 49). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify Jo so that the second black matrix includes a polymerization inhibitor, and wherein the polymerization inhibitor includes at least hydroquinone. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Jo for at least the purpose of forming a black matrix with high light-shielding and excellent adhesion properties can be fabricated (see Choi - para 14, also see para 17).
Regarding claim 23, it is similar to claim 7 and hence the rejection is similar.
Regarding claims 33-34, it is similar to claim 32 and claim 7 and hence the rejection is similar.
Claims 2-13, and 28-29: are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jo and Zhu, as applied to claim 1, or16 above, and further in view of Liu (CN-112286389A), hereinafter Liu. A full English machine translation of Liu reference is included with this office action and all references to text of Liu are with respect to the include English machine translation
Regarding claims 12-13, Jo teaches the display device of claim 1, but does not teach that the display device further comprises “a protective layer, an adhesive layer, and a cover window disposed on the plurality of color filters and the black matrix” (as recited in claim 12), wherein (as recited in claim 13) “the adhesive layer is embodied as a gray adhesive layer having a light transmittance in a range of 72 to 79%”. Liu (CN-112286389A) teaches a display device comprising a light transmitting layer (2, see Figure 6 and para 70) that includes a protective layer (described as “third ink layer 4” in para 75; see Figure 6), an adhesive layer (22, see Figure 6 and para 70) that is located between a cover window (1, described as “cover plate 1” in para 70) and the protective layer, wherein the adhesive layer may be embodied as a gray adhesive layer (see para 72, last sentence, which describes “adhesive layer can appear gray-black” when “the light transmittance above adhesive layer is in the range of 30-70%”, but can also have higher or lower light transmittance – see para 76), and that the goal of selecting a specific light transmittance % of the adhesive layer is to adjust the reducing the color difference between the display area and the non-display area of the display when the display module is in a screen-off or power-off state, while clearly, it should also not block too much light when the display is on. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify Jo so that the display device further comprises “a protective layer, an adhesive layer, and a cover window disposed on the plurality of color filters and the black matrix” (as recited in claim 12), wherein (as recited in claim 13) the adhesive layer is embodied as a gray adhesive layer having a light transmittance in a specific range, such as a range of 72 to 79%. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Jo for at least the purpose of reducing the color difference between the display area and the non-display area of the display when the display module is in a screen-off or power-off state, giving a better user experience, while still not blocking too much light when display is on, and additionally, the adhesive layer acts to bond the cover window to other parts of the display (see para 72 and 76 of Liu) to protect display contents.
Regarding claims 28-29, respectively, they are similar to claims 12-13, respectively, and hence the rejection is similar.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 25 are 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 (and also overcome 35 USC 112, 2nd paragraph rejections based on assumptions listed in the 35 USC 112, 2nd paragraph rejections). The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 9 and 25 are allowable because the prior art of record does not teach or suggest, singularly or in combination, at least the limitations of claim 9 (and substantially similar recitations of claim 25) that require “a width of the bank is different from a sum of widths of the first black matrix and the second black matrix”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AJAY ARORA whose telephone number is (571)272-8347. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM - 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, Drew Richards can be reached at 5712721736. 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.
/AJAY ARORA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2892