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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 9/21/23 and 10/10/23 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-4, 9, 11-14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Woo et al., US 2024/0097086.
Regarding claim 1, Woo teaches a display device (Abstract and at least Figure 5) comprising: a substrate (sub); a light-emitting element (LD) disposed on the substrate and including an emission layer (LEL); and a light controller (140) disposed on the light-emitting element, wherein the light controller includes: a plurality of light blocking parts (ASB) extending in a first direction and spaced apart along a second direction crossing the first direction (see Figure 5 and 9); and a transparent organic layer (PLN) disposed between the plurality of light blocking parts, each of the plurality of light blocking parts includes at least one light absorption layer and at least one compensation layer alternately stacked along a thickness direction of the substrate ([0107], multi layer structure MTO/Mo/MTO), and the at least one light absorption layer has a compressive stress and the at least one compensation layer has a tensile stress (MTO has compressive stress and Mo has tensile stress).
Regarding claim 2, Woo teaches the invention as explained above regarding claim 1 and further teaches the at least one light absorption layer is formed of a molybdenum-tantalum oxide, and the at least one compensation layer is formed of molybdenum ([0107]).
Regarding claim 3, Woo teaches the invention as explained above regarding claim 1 and further teaches a number of the light absorption layers is greater than a number of the compensation layers ([0107] MTO/Mo/MTO, two absorption layers and one compensation layer).
Regarding claim 4, Woo teaches the invention as explained above regarding claim 1 and further teaches at least one of an uppermost layer or a lowermost layer of each of the light blocking parts is one light absorption layer of the at least one light absorption layer ([0107] MTO/Mo/MTO, top and bottom are light absorption).
Regarding claim 9, Woo teaches the invention as explained above regarding claim 1 and further teaches a touch sensor layer disposed between the light-emitting element and the light controller and including a touch electrode (Figure 8, touch sensing layer 150, including touch electrode TE1).
Regarding claim 11, Woo teaches a manufacturing method of a display device ([0142-0143]) comprising: forming a light-emitting element (LD) on a substrate (Sub); forming an encapsulation layer (OEL) covering the light-emitting element; forming a light blocking material layer (ASB) by alternately stacking a light absorption layer for absorbing light and a compensation layer for compensating for a stress of the light absorption layer on the encapsulation layer ([0107] alternating MTO/Mo/MTO); forming light blocking parts by dry etching the light blocking material layer ([0151]); and coating a transparent organic layer filling between the light blocking parts (PLN).
Regarding claim 12, Woo teaches the invention as explained above regarding claim 11 and further teaches the at least one light absorption layer has a compressive stress and the at least one compensation layer has a tensile stress (MTO has compressive stress and Mo has tensile stress).
Regarding claim 13, Woo teaches the invention as explained above regarding claim 11 and further teaches the at least one light absorption layer is formed of a molybdenum-tantalum oxide, and the at least one compensation layer is formed of molybdenum ([0107]).
Regarding claim 14, Woo teaches the invention as explained above regarding claim 11 and further teaches at least one of an uppermost layer or a lowermost layer of each of the light blocking parts is one light absorption layer of the at least one light absorption layer ([0107] MTO/Mo/MTO, top and bottom are light absorption).
Regarding claim 19, Woo teaches the invention as explained above regarding claim 11 and further teaches a touch sensor layer disposed between the light-emitting element and the light controller and including a touch electrode (Figure 8, touch sensing layer 150, including touch electrode TE1).
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.
Claims 5-7, 15-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woo.
Regarding claim 5, Woo teaches the invention as explained above regarding claim 2, but is silent as to the exact amount of tantalum in the light absorbing layer. However, because Woo teaches the layer serves the function of light absorbing, and that the material is MTO, it is the position of the examiner that lacking criticality and unexpected results, it would have been a matter of routine optimization for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to determine the appropriate amount of tantalum to ensure the layer would absorb light and maintain sufficient strength.
Regarding claim 6, Woo teaches the invention as explained above regarding claim 1 and further teaches that the light blocking layer can be formed of MTO/Mo/MTO, therefore, although Woo does not specifically teach the thickness ratio of the absorbing layer and the compensation layer, based on the fact that there are two absorbing layers and one compensation layer, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide an absorbing layer twice as thick as the compensating layer to achieve similar results.
Regarding claim 7, Woo teaches the invention as explained above regarding claim 6, and further teaches that the light blocking layer can be formed of MTO/Mo/MTO, therefore, although Woo does not specifically teach the thickness ratio of the absorbing layer and the compensation layer, based on the fact that there are two absorbing layers and one compensation layer, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide an absorbing layer at least twice as thick as the compensating layer to achieve similar results.
Regarding claim 15, Woo teaches the invention as explained above regarding claim 13, but is silent as to the exact amount of tantalum in the light absorbing layer. However, because Woo teaches the layer serves the function of light absorbing, and that the material is MTO, it is the position of the examiner that lacking criticality and unexpected results, it would have been a matter of routine optimization for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to determine the appropriate amount of tantalum to ensure the layer would absorb light and maintain sufficient strength.
Regarding claim 16, Woo teaches the invention as explained above regarding claim 11 and further teaches that the light blocking layer can be formed of MTO/Mo/MTO, therefore, although Woo does not specifically teach the thickness ratio of the absorbing layer and the compensation layer, based on the fact that there are two absorbing layers and one compensation layer, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide an absorbing layer twice as thick as the compensating layer to achieve similar results.
Regarding claim 17, Woo teaches the invention as explained above regarding claim 16, and further teaches that the light blocking layer can be formed of MTO/Mo/MTO, therefore, although Woo does not specifically teach the thickness ratio of the absorbing layer and the compensation layer, based on the fact that there are two absorbing layers and one compensation layer, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide an absorbing layer at least twice as thick as the compensating layer to achieve similar results.
Regarding claim 20, Woo teaches the invention as explained above regarding claim 11, and further teaches the light blocking material layer is etched ([0174]). Woo does not specifically teach a hard mask, however, it was well known to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that etching often requires a hard mask to ensure proper etching depth and shape. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a hard mask during the etching process in Woo in order to ensure desired results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 10 and 18 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art fails to teach or suggest a total thickness of the compensation layer is dependent upon a total thickness of the absorption layer and the stress of the at least one light absorption layer divided by the stress of the at least one compensation layer, or that at least one of the light absorption layers has a different thickness from another light absorption layer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Joo et al., US 2020/0258944 teaches a display device comprising spaced light blocking layers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARY-ELLEN BOWMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5383. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday; 7:00 am-5:00 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, James Greece can be reached at (571) 272-3711. 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.
MARY ELLEN BOWMAN
Examiner
Art Unit 2875
/MARY ELLEN BOWMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875