DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1, 7-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (U.S. PGPub 2024/0107848) in view of Takahashi (U.S. PGPub 2019/0305051).
Regarding claim 1, Wu teaches a pixel (Fig. 2a) comprising a first sub-pixel, a second sub-pixel, and a third sub-pixel each including an emission area and a non-emission area (122/121, [0038]), wherein each of the first sub-pixel the second sub-pixel and the third sub-pixel includes: a pixel circuit layer disposed on a substrate (110, [0034]), a first electrode disposed on the pixel circuit layer, a pixel defining layer disposed in the non-emission area, the pixel defining layer including an opening disposed on the first electrode to expose an area of the first electrode corresponding to the emission area, an emission layer disposed on the pixel defining layer, a second electrode disposed on the emission layer ([0036]-[0040]), a thin film encapsulation layer disposed over the second electrode (130, [0043]), a color filter disposed on the thin film encapsulation layer (183, [0058]-[0059]), an overcoat layer disposed over the color filter (174, [0084]), and the overcoat layer has a refractive index greater than a refractive index of the color filter ([0090]).
Wu does not explicitly teach wherein a color filter of the second sub-pixel overlaps a color filter of each of the first sub-pixel and third sub-pixel in the non-emission area in plan view. Wu teaches wherein the non-emission area may comprise two overlapping color filters (Fig. 5, [0066]).
Takahashi teaches a pixel comprising first, second, and third sub-pixels (2B/2R/2G, Fig. 3) where a color filter of the second subpixel overlaps a color filter of each of the first sub-pixel and third sub-pixel in the non-emission area in plan view (8B/8R/8G, [0082]-[0083]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Wu with Takahashi such that a color filter of the second sub-pixel overlaps a color filter of each of the first sub-pixel and third sub-pixel in the non-emission area in plan view for the purpose of suppressing color mixing and improving viewing angle characteristics (Takahashi, [0083]-[0084]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Wu and Takahashi teaches wherein the substrate includes a silicon wafer substrate (Takahashi, [0047]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Wu and Takahashi for the purpose of choosing an appropriate known substrate material because the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Wu and Takahashi teaches wherein the pixel circuit layer includes a gate insulating layer, a gate electrode disposed on the gate insulating layer, and source and drain regions disposed at sides of the gate electrode in the substrate (Takahashi, [0047], transistor formed on the Si itself). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Wu and Takahashi for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 7.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Wu and Takahashi does not explicitly teach wherein each of the first sub-pixel, the second sub-pixel, and the third sub-pixel further includes a conductive pattern disposed on the pixel circuit layer, a via layer disposed between the conductive pattern and the first electrode, and a via plug contacting the conductive pattern while penetrating the via layer. Wu and Takahashi are silent on the structure of the connection between the pixel circuit and light emitting element. The Examiner takes official notice that connecting a pixel transistor having a source/drain electrode (conductive pattern) to the pixel electrode (first electrode) by forming a via and via plug is the standard configuration. Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Wu and Takahashi to arrive at the claimed structure for the purpose of connecting the pixel circuit and light emitting element.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Wu and Takahashi teaches the color filter of the first sub-pixel includes one color filter among a red color filter, a green color filter, and a blue color filter, the color filter of the second sub-pixel includes another color filter among the red color filter, the green color filter, and the blue color filter, and the color filter of the third sub-pixel includes the other color filter among the red color filter, the green color filter, and the blue color filter (Wu, [0059]; Takahashi, [0032]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Wu and Takahashi for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Wu and Takahashi teaches wherein the substrate includes a transparent insulative material (Takahashi, [0047]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Wu and Takahashi for the purpose of choosing an appropriate known substrate material for the purpose of choosing an appropriate known substrate material because the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Wu and Takahashi teaches wherein an emission layer of the first sub-pixel emits light of a first color, an emission layer of the second sub-pixel emits light of a second color, different from the light of the first color, an emission layer of the third sub-pixel emits light of a third color, different from the light of the second color, and the emission layer of the first sub-pixel, the emission layer of the second sub-pixel, and the emission layer of the third sub-pixel are spaced apart from each other (Wu, Fig. 1, 121, [0038], RGB). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Wu and Takahashi for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, Wu teaches a display device (Fig. 2a) comprising a substrate including an emission area and a non-emission area (122/121, [0038], [0040]), a pixel circuit layer disposed on the substrate (110, [0034]), a (1-1)th electrode, a (1-2)th electrode, and a (1-3)th electrode, disposed on the pixel circuit layer, the (1-1)th electrode, the (1-2)th electrode, and the (1-3)th electrode, spaced apart from each other ([0036]-[0038]), a pixel defining layer disposed over the (1-1)th electrode, the (1-2)th electrode, and the (1-3)th electrode, the pixel defining layer including an opening exposing an area of each of the (1-1)th electrode, the (1-2)th electrode, and the (1-3)th electrode in the emission area (122, [0038]), an emission layer disposed on the (1-1)th electrode, the (1-2)th electrode, and the (1-3)th electrode exposed by the openings ([0038]-[0040]), a second electrode disposed on the emission layer ([0036]-[0037]), a thin film encapsulation layer disposed over the second electrode (130, [0043]), a color filter layer disposed on the thin film encapsulation layer, the color filter layer including a first color filter corresponding to the (1-1)th electrode, a second color filter corresponding to the (1-2)th electrode, and a third color filter corresponding to the (1-3)th electrode (183, [0058]-[0059]) and an overcoat layer disposed over the color filter layer, wherein the overcoat layer has a refractive index greater than a refractive index of each of the first color filter, the second color filter, and the third color filter, and the overcoat layer has a refractive index greater than a refractive index of the color filter ([0090]).
Wu does not explicitly teach wherein the emission layer is disposed on a side of the pixel defining layer and a top of the pixel defining layer and wherein two color filters are disposed adjacent to each other in the non-emission area overlap each other in plan view. Wu teaches wherein the non-emission area may comprise two overlapping color filters (Fig. 5, [0066]).
Takahashi teaches wherein the emission layer is disposed on a side and top of a pixel defining layer which defines openings for first, second, and third sub-pixels (Fig. 3, 3, [0030]; 4, [0057]) and wherein two color filters are disposed adjacent to each other in the non-emission area overlap each other in plan view (8B/8R/8G, [0082]-[0083]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Wu with Takahashi such that the emission layer is disposed on a side of the pixel defining layer and a top of the pixel defining layer and wherein two color filters are disposed adjacent to each other in the non-emission area overlap each other in plan view for the purpose of forming the emission layer with a single deposition step (Takahashi, [0057]) and suppressing color mixing and improving viewing angle characteristics (Takahashi, [0083]-[0084]).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Wu and Takahashi teaches wherein the substrate includes a silicon wafer substrate (Takahashi, [0047]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Wu and Takahashi for the purpose of choosing an appropriate known substrate material because the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention.
Claims 4, 6, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (U.S. PGPub 2024/0107848) in view of Takahashi (U.S. PGPub 2019/0305051) and Ishizuya (U.S. PGPub 2019/0305050).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Wu and Takahashi teaches wherein the color filter of the second sub-pixel includes a first end portion disposed on the color filter of the first sub-pixel in the non-emission area and a second end portion facing the first end portion and disposed on the color filter of the third sub-pixel (Takahashi, Fig. 3) but does not explicitly teach a width of each of an overlapping area of the first end portion and the color filter of the first sub-pixel and an overlapping area of the second end portion and the color filter of the third sub-pixel is equal to or greater than a value obtained by subtracting about 0.6 μm from a width of the pixel defining layer and is equal to or less than a value obtained by adding about 0.2 μm to the width of the pixel defining layer.
Ishizuya teaches a pixel comprising a first sub-pixel, a second sub-pixel, and a third sub-pixel with respective color filters, wherein the color filter of the second sub-pixel includes a first end portion disposed on the color filter of the first sub-pixel in the non-emission area and a second end portion facing the first end portion and disposed on the color filter of the third sub-pixel (Fig. 1, 100/200/300, 101/201/301, [0035]-[0036]), wherein a width of the pixel defining layer is 1.4 μm ([0102]), wherein the width of the overlapping area is 0.8 μm ([0119], Example 2, see Fig. 1). In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Alternately, Ishizuya teaches wherein the width of the overlapping area is optimized to improve color purity without decreasing luminance ([0010]). Therefore, the width of the overlapping area is a result-effective variable. Mere optimization of a result effective variable is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05IIB.
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Ishizuya with Wu and Takahashi such that a width of each of an overlapping area of the first end portion and the color filter of the first sub-pixel and an overlapping area of the second end portion and the color filter of the third sub-pixel is equal to or greater than a value obtained by subtracting about 0.6 μm from a width of the pixel defining layer and is equal to or less than a value obtained by adding about 0.2 μm to the width of the pixel defining layer.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Wu, Takahashi, and Ishizuya teaches wherein the thickness of the end portion of the color filter is 0.4-1.5 μm ([0084]). In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Alternatively, Takahashi teaches wherein the thickness of the end portion of the color filter is optimized to suppress color mixing without decreasing light efficiency (Takahashi, [0083]-[0085]). Therefore, the thickness of the end portion of the color filter is a result-effective variable. Mere optimization of a result effective variable is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05IIB.
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Wu, Takahashi, and Ishizuya such that each of the first end portion and the second end portion of the color filter of the second sub-pixel has a height of about 1 μm or more in each of the overlapping areas.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Wu, Takahashi, and Ishizuya teaches wherein each of the first end portion and the second end portion has a side slope angle in a range of about 60 degrees to about 90 degrees (Takahashi, [0050]).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Wu and Takahashi teaches wherein the color filter of the second sub-pixel includes a first end portion disposed on the color filter of the first sub-pixel in the non-emission area and a second end portion facing the first end portion and disposed on the color filter of the third sub-pixel (Takahashi, Fig. 3) but does not explicitly teach a width of each of an overlapping area of the first end portion and the color filter of the first sub-pixel and an overlapping area of the second end portion and the color filter of the third sub-pixel is equal to or greater than a value obtained by subtracting about 0.6 μm from a width of the pixel defining layer and is equal to or less than a value obtained by adding about 0.2 μm to the width of the pixel defining layer.
Ishizuya teaches a pixel comprising a first sub-pixel, a second sub-pixel, and a third sub-pixel with respective color filters, wherein the color filter of the second sub-pixel includes a first end portion disposed on the color filter of the first sub-pixel in the non-emission area and a second end portion facing the first end portion and disposed on the color filter of the third sub-pixel (Fig. 1, 100/200/300, 101/201/301, [0035]-[0036]), wherein a width of the pixel defining layer is 1.4 μm ([0102]), wherein the width of the overlapping area is 0.8 μm ([0119], Example 2, see Fig. 1). In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Alternately, Ishizuya teaches wherein the width of the overlapping area is optimized to improve color purity without decreasing luminance ([0010]). Therefore, the width of the overlapping area is a result-effective variable. Mere optimization of a result effective variable is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05IIB.
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Ishizuya with Wu and Takahashi such that a width of each of an overlapping area of the first end portion and the color filter of the first sub-pixel and an overlapping area of the second end portion and the color filter of the third sub-pixel is equal to or greater than a value obtained by subtracting about 0.6 μm from a width of the pixel defining layer and is equal to or less than a value obtained by adding about 0.2 μm to the width of the pixel defining layer.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Wu, Takahashi, and Ishizuya teaches wherein the thickness of the end portion of the color filter is 0.4-1.5 μm ([0084]). In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Alternatively, Takahashi teaches wherein the thickness of the end portion of the color filter is optimized to suppress color mixing without decreasing light efficiency (Takahashi, [0083]-[0085]). Therefore, the thickness of the end portion of the color filter is a result-effective variable. Mere optimization of a result effective variable is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05IIB.
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Wu, Takahashi, and Ishizuya such that each of the first end portion and the second end portion of the color filter of the second sub-pixel has a height of about 1 μm or more in each of the overlapping areas.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Wu, Takahashi, and Ishizuya teaches wherein each of the first end portion and the second end portion has a side slope angle in a range of about 60 degrees to about 90 degrees (Takahashi, [0050]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (U.S. PGPub 2024/0107848) in view of Takahashi (U.S. PGPub 2019/0305051) and Bae (U.S. PGPub 2020/0343310).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Wu and Takahashi does not explicitly teach a bank disposed on the thin film encapsulation layer in the non-emission area and a color conversion pattern disposed on the thin film encapsulation layer in the emission area, the color conversion pattern being surrounded by the bank.
Bae teaches wherein sub-pixels in a pixel each comprise a bank disposed on an encapsulation member formed over light-emitting elements in the non-emission area and a color conversion pattern disposed on the encapsulation layer in the emission area, the color conversion pattern being surrounded by the bank, and respective color filters (Fig. 10, 450, 300, [0159], 180, [0143], 160, [0142], 120, [0142]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Bae with Wu and Takahashi such that the device comprises a bank disposed on the thin film encapsulation layer in the non-emission area and a color conversion pattern disposed on the thin film encapsulation layer in the emission area, the color conversion pattern being surrounded by the bank because the prior art teaches an element which differs from the claim by substitution with a different element, the claimed element is known in the art, a person of ordinary skill could have substituted one known element for another, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention. See MPEP 2143(II)B.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 and 15-16 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:
Regarding claim 2, prior art does not teach or suggest wherein the color filter includes a monomer containing fluorine and silica in combination with the limitations of claim 1. U.S. PGPub 2022/0077253 teaches a low refractive index color filter layer comprising silica particles ([0183]), however this art has the same inventive entity as the instant application. Claim 3 depends from and further limits claim 2 and is therefore correspondingly allowable.
Regarding claim 15, prior art does not teach or suggest wherein the color filter includes a monomer containing fluorine and silica in combination with the limitations of claim 1. U.S. PGPub 2022/0077253 teaches a low refractive index color filter layer comprising silica particles ([0183]), however this art has the same inventive entity as the instant application. Claim 16 depends from and further limits claim 15 and is therefore correspondingly allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALIA SABUR whose telephone number is (571)270-7219. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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, Christine S. Kim can be reached at 571-272-8458. 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.
/ALIA SABUR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812