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, which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 10/29/2023. These drawings are considered acceptable by Examiner.
Claim Objection(s)
Claim(s) 12-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim(s) 12-20 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim(s) 1-9. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Appropriate correction is required.
America Invents Act
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.
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 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.
1. Claim(s) 1-6, 8-17, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kim et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0093828 A1) over Choi et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0047800 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Kim et al., teaches a display panel, comprising: a light-emitting device (120, OLED, ¶ [0040]; see at least Fig. 2); and an encapsulating member disposed on the light-emitting device (120) for encapsulating the light-emitting device (120), the encapsulating member comprising a first inorganic encapsulating layer (130), the first inorganic encapsulating layer comprising at least a first inorganic encapsulating sub-layer (131, first inorganic encapsulating layer, ¶ [0048]) and a second inorganic encapsulating sub-layer (132, second inorganic encapsulation layer) that are stacked in a direction away from the light-emitting device (120), and the first inorganic encapsulating sub-layer (131) being disposed on one side of the second inorganic encapsulating sub-layer (132) close to the light-emitting device (120); a refractive index of the first inorganic encapsulating sub-layer (131) is n1, a refractive index of the second inorganic encapsulating sub-layer (132) is n2, wherein n1>n2 (“refractive index of the first inorganic encapsulation layer 131 may be set to be higher than that of the second inorganic encapsulation layer 132,” ¶ [0054]), and an extinction coefficient of the first inorganic encapsulating sub-layer (131) is less than 0.001 (k, coefficient, “about” 0.02, ¶ [0056]). Kim et al., is silent regarding the thickness of either the first or second encapsulating sub-layers.
In the same field of endeavor, Choi et al., teaches a display device wherein a thickness of a first inorganic encapsulating sub-layer (1st AL1, that is the first layer in the stack of Fig. 3A, AL1 [Wingdings font/0xE0] thickness, T1: 127 nm, ¶ [0077]) closer to the light-emitting device is greater than a thickness of a second inorganic encapsulating sub-layer (1st AL2, that is second layer in the stack of Fig. 3A, AL2 [Wingdings font/0xE0] thickness T2: 68 nm) in order to manipulate desired reflectance and transmittance by modifying the thickness of the inorganic films (¶ [0065]).
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 respective thickness of inorganic sub-layers, as disclosed by Choi et al., in the device of Kim et al., in order to manipulate desired reflectance and transmittance by modifying the thickness of the inorganic films (¶ [0065]).
Regarding Claim(s) 2, 13 Kim et al., teaches the display panel according to claim 1, wherein n1>1.7 (2.1, ¶ [0057]).
Regarding Claim(s) 3, 14, Kim et al., teaches the display panel according to claim 2, wherein n2>1.62 (range of difference between n1 vs. n2: 2.3 minus 0.6 = 1.7, ¶ [0057]).
Regarding Claim(s) 4, 15, Kim et al., teaches the display panel according to claim 3, wherein 1.62<n2<1.76 (range of difference between n1 vs. n2: 2.3 minus 0.6 = 1.7, ¶ [0057]).
Regarding Claim(s) 5, 16, Kim et al., teaches the display panel according to claim 1, wherein the light-emitting device (120) comprises a first electrode (121), a second electrode (123), and a light-emitting layer (122) disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode, and the second electrode is closer to the encapsulating member (131+132) than the first electrode; and wherein the display panel further comprises an organic light-gathering layer (134, organic) disposed on one side of the second electrode away from the light-emitting device (120).
Regarding Claim(s) 6, 17, Kim et al., teaches the display panel according to claim 5, further comprising an optical compensation layer (133) disposed between the organic light-gathering layer (134) and the encapsulating member (131+132); wherein a refractive index of the optical compensation layer is n3, and n3<n2 (¶ [0059]).
Regarding Claim(s) 8, 19, Kim et al., as modified by Choi et al., teaches the display panel according to claim 1, wherein materials of the first inorganic encapsulating sub-layer (1st A1) and the second inorganic encapsulating sub-layer (1st A2) comprise silicon oxynitride (SiON, ¶ [0074] of Choi et al.,).
Motivation to combine would be the same as stated above in addition to simplifying the manufacturing procedure by maintaining all same equivalent materials.
Regarding Claim 9, 20, Kim et al., teaches the display panel according to claim 1, further comprising an organic encapsulating layer (134) and a second inorganic encapsulating layer (135), wherein the organic encapsulating layer (134) is disposed on one side of the first inorganic encapsulating layer (of 131+132) away from the light-emitting device (120), and the second inorganic encapsulating layer (135) is disposed on one side of the organic encapsulating layer away from the light-emitting device (120).
Regarding Claim 10, Kim et al., teaches the display panel according to claim 2, wherein the light-emitting device (120) comprises a first electrode (121), a second electrode (123), and a light-emitting layer (122) disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode, and the second electrode (123) is closer to the encapsulating member (131+132) than the first electrode; and wherein the display panel further comprises an organic light-gathering layer (134) disposed on one side of the second electrode away from the light-emitting device (120).
Regarding Claim 11, Kim et al., teaches the display panel according to claim 10, further comprising an optical compensation layer (133) disposed between the organic light-gathering layer and the encapsulating member; wherein a refractive index of the optical compensation layer is n3, and n3<n2 (¶ [0059]).
Regarding Claim 12, Kim et al., teaches a display device comprising a display panel, wherein the display panel comprises: a light-emitting device (120); and an encapsulating member disposed on the light-emitting device (120) for encapsulating the light-emitting device (120), the encapsulating member comprising a first inorganic encapsulating layer, the first inorganic encapsulating layer comprising at least a first inorganic encapsulating sub-layer (131) and a second inorganic encapsulating sub-layer (132) that are stacked in a direction away from the light-emitting device (120), and the first inorganic encapsulating sub-layer (131) being disposed on one side of the second inorganic encapsulating sub-layer (132) close to the light-emitting device (120); a refractive index of the first inorganic encapsulating sub-layer (131) is n1, a refractive index of the second inorganic encapsulating sub-layer (132) is n2, wherein n1>n2 (“refractive index of the first inorganic encapsulation layer 131 may be set to be higher than that of the second inorganic encapsulation layer 132,” ¶ [0054]), and an extinction coefficient of the first inorganic encapsulating sub-layer (131) is less than 0.001 (k, coefficient, “about” 0.02, ¶ [0056]). Kim et al., is silent regarding the thickness of either the first or second encapsulating sub-layers.
In the same field of endeavor, Choi et al., teaches a display device wherein a thickness of a first inorganic encapsulating sub-layer (1st AL1, that is the first layer in the stack of Fig. 3A, AL1 [Wingdings font/0xE0] thickness, T1: 127 nm, ¶ [0077]) closer to the light-emitting device is greater than a thickness of a second inorganic encapsulating sub-layer (1st AL2, that is second layer in the stack of Fig. 3A, AL2 [Wingdings font/0xE0] thickness T2: 68 nm) in order to manipulate desired reflectance and transmittance by modifying the thickness of the inorganic films (¶ [0065]).
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 respective thickness of inorganic sub-layers, as disclosed by Choi et al., in the device of Kim et al., in order to manipulate desired reflectance and transmittance by modifying the thickness of the inorganic films (¶ [0065]).
2. Claim(s) 7, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kim et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0093828 A1) over Choi et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0047800 A1) in further view of Ahn et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0327973 A1).
Regarding Claim(s) 7, 18, Kim et al., modified by Choi et al., teaches the invention set forth above (see rejection in the corresponding claim(s) above). Kim et al., modified by Choi et al., is silent regarding the material of the optical compensation layer being lithium fluoride.
In the same field of endeavor of inorganic encapsulation layer(s), Ahn et al., teaches that an optical compensation layer is provided as either silicon oxide/silicon oxynitride or lithium fluoride, thus exemplifying recognized equivalent materials of the inorganic materials in the art. Ahn et al., teaches the suitability of using an optical compensation layer being provided as SiO/SiON or lithium fluoride in order to ensure adequate encapsulation that would otherwise not occur without the presence of such a layer.
In light of this teaching, Examiner reasonably contemplates it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the optical compensation layer of Kim et al., as lithium fluoride instead of as SiO/SiON, since the selection of any of these known equivalents would be considered within the level of ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by Ahn's teaching.
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to using lithium fluoride as a matter of choice. Applicant(s) has not disclosed that the materials is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected or significant result, or are otherwise critical and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another configuration (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
Examiner's Note
The Examiner cites particular figures, paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the reference(s), as applied to the claims above. Although the particular citations are representative teachings and are applied to specific limitations within the claims, other passages, internally cited references, and figures may also apply. In preparing a response, it is respectfully requested that the Applicant fully consider the references, in their entirety, as potentially disclosing or teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as fully consider the context of the passage as taught by the reference(s) or as disclosed by the Examiner.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner H. Featherly whose telephone number is (571) 272-8654. The examiner can normally be reached on M-R 10 AM - 2 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James Greece can be reached on 571-272-3711. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-272-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/H. Featherly/
USPTO Art Unit 2875
Patent Examiner H. Featherly
/JAMES R GREECE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875