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 statement (IDS) submitted on 11/7/23 is 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 § 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al., CN 115633524 in view of Moon et al., US 2020/0295310.
Regarding claim 1, Li teaches a (at least in Figure 6) display apparatus comprising: a substrate (100); a display element (OLED, 221, 222, 223) on the substrate and defining an emission area (EA); a low-reflection layer (300) on the display element and comprising an inorganic material (see English translation, “The low reflective layer may comprise an inorganic material having a low reflectivity. the low reflective layer may include ytterbium (Yb), bismuth (Bi), cobalt (Co), molybdenum (Mo), titanium (Ti), zirconium (Zr), aluminium (Al), chromium (Cr), niobium (Nb), platinum (Pt), tungsten (W), indium (In), tin (Sn), iron (Fe), nickel (Ni), tantalum (Ta), manganese (Mn), zinc (Zn), germanium (Ge), or any combination thereof. The inorganic material included in the low reflective layer may have an absorption coefficient of 0.5 or more. In some embodiments, the inorganic material included in the low reflective layer may have a refractive index of 1 or more.”); a light blocking layer (610) having an opening passing through the light blocking layer to correspond to the emission area (see Figure 6, opening 610OP), and a reflection control layer on the light blocking layer and filling the opening (620), wherein the light blocking material comprises metal or metal oxide (see English translation, “The light-blocking material may include carbon black, carbon nanotubes, resins and/or pastes including black dyes, metal particles (e.g., nickel, aluminum, molybdenum and/or any alloy thereof), metal oxide particles (e.g., chromium oxide, etc.), and/or metal nitride particles (e.g., chromium nitride, etc.”). Li fails to teach first and second sub-light blocking layers.
However, in the same field of endeavor of display devices, Moon teaches (at least in Figure 4) a first sub-light blocking layer (510) on the low-reflection layer (inorganic layer 430) and a second sub-light blocking layer (210) on the first sub-light blocking layer, wherein the first sub-light blocking layer comprises a metal material ([0115]), and the second sub-light blocking layer comprises a metal material and/or a metal oxide ([0118]). Further, it would have been well known to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that providing two light blocking layers would allow for a more robust prevention of light leakage by employing light blocking layers have different reflectance and color absorption characteristics. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the Li device with a second light blocking layer in order to improve light leakage prevention in the display device.
Regarding claim 2, Li and Moon teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 1, and further it is the position of the examiner that lacking criticality and unexpected results, it would have been an obvious matter of routine optimization for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize a first sub-light blocking layer have a reflectance of 95% or more, in view of Moon’s teaching that the layer be comprised of metal, which is highly reflective. Similarly, it would have been an obvious matter of routine optimization for one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a second sub-light blocking layer having an extinction coefficient between .5 and 4, in view of Moon’s teaching that it be comprised of a metal oxide such as CrO, which has an extinction coefficient in the claimed range. Further, it would have been well known to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to optimize these qualities to ensure the desired light reflectance and light absorption of the two light blocking layers, as set forth in Moon.
Regarding claim 3, Li and Moon teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 1, and further it is the position of the examiner that lacking criticality and unexpected results, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide first and second sub-light blocking layers in a thickness within the claimed range because they would have been similarly sized to other elements within the device, and would have been chosen based on well-known principals of light reflection and absorption, based on light propagation patterns through the device.
Regarding claim 4, Li and Moon teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 1, and Moon further teaches the light blocking layer comprises an auxiliary layer (Figure 4, 220) in contact with the first sub-light blocking layer, and the auxiliary layer comprises a transparent conductive material and/or silicon nitride ([0119]). Further, it would have been well known for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that a silicon nitride material layer would have provided protection for delicate display elements, therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide an auxiliary layer of silicon nitride in the Li device in order to protect the display elements.
Regarding claim 5, Li and Moon teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 4, and Moon further teaches the auxiliary layer is between the first sub-light blocking layer and the second sub-light blocking layer (Figure 4, 220 is between 210 and 510). Further, it would have been well known for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that a silicon nitride material layer would have provided protection for delicate display elements, therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide an auxiliary layer of silicon nitride in the Li device in order to protect the display elements.
Regarding claim 6, Li and Moon teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 4, and further it is the position of the examiner that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the auxiliary layer between the low reflection layer and the first sub-light blocking layer in order to provide more direct protection to the display elements below the layer. Further, it would have been well known for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that a silicon nitride material layer would have provided protection for delicate display elements, therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide an auxiliary layer of silicon nitride in the Li device in order to protect the display elements.
Regarding claim 7, Li and Moon teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 4, and further it is the position of the examiner that lacking criticality and unexpected results, it would have been an obvious matter of routine optimization to determine the thickness range for the auxiliary layer that would achieve the desired strength while still maintaining the appropriate light propagation qualities.
Regarding claim 8, Li and Moon teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 1, and Li further teaches the low reflection layer comprises at least one selected from a metal material and a metal oxide, and the low reflection layer has a refractive index of 1 or more (see English translation, “The low reflective layer may comprise an inorganic material having a low reflectivity. the low reflective layer may include ytterbium (Yb), bismuth (Bi), cobalt (Co), molybdenum (Mo), titanium (Ti), zirconium (Zr), aluminium (Al), chromium (Cr), niobium (Nb), platinum (Pt), tungsten (W), indium (In), tin (Sn), iron (Fe), nickel (Ni), tantalum (Ta), manganese (Mn), zinc (Zn), germanium (Ge), or any combination thereof. The inorganic material included in the low reflective layer may have an absorption coefficient of 0.5 or more. In some embodiments, the inorganic material included in the low reflective layer may have a refractive index of 1 or more.”).
Regarding claim 9, Li and Moon teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 1, and Li further teaches a capping layer on the display element and comprising an organic material, wherein the low reflection layer is directly on the capping layer (capping layer 400, see Figure 6, low reflective layer 300 is directly on capping layer 400, capping layer comprises organic layer 420).
Regarding claim 10, Li and Moon teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 1 and Li further teaches the reflection control layer comprises a dye, a pigment or any combination thereof (Figure 6, reflection control layer 620, see English translation “In some embodiments, the reflective control layer 620 may include an organic material layer, the organic material layer comprises…a pigment.”).
Regarding claim 11, Li and Moon teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 1 and Li further teaches a thin-film encapsulation layer (400, see Figure 9) on the low-reflection layer; and a touch sensing layer (500) on the thin-film encapsulation layer, wherein the light blocking layer is on the touch sensing layer (light blocking layer 610).
Regarding claim 12, Li teaches a display apparatus (at least in Figure 6) comprising: a first substrate (100); a display element (OLED, 221, 222, 223) on the first substrate and defining an emission area (EA); a low-reflection layer (300) on the display element and comprising an inorganic material (see English translation, “The low reflective layer may comprise an inorganic material having a low reflectivity. the low reflective layer may include ytterbium (Yb), bismuth (Bi), cobalt (Co), molybdenum (Mo), titanium (Ti), zirconium (Zr), aluminium (Al), chromium (Cr), niobium (Nb), platinum (Pt), tungsten (W), indium (In), tin (Sn), iron (Fe), nickel (Ni), tantalum (Ta), manganese (Mn), zinc (Zn), germanium (Ge), or any combination thereof. The inorganic material included in the low reflective layer may have an absorption coefficient of 0.5 or more. In some embodiments, the inorganic material included in the low reflective layer may have a refractive index of 1 or more.”); a light blocking layer (610) and a reflection control layer (620) between the light blocking layer (610) and the low-reflection layer (300, layer 620 is at least between layers 610 and 300 from a diagonal perspective) and filling the opening (see Figure 6). Li is silent as to a first and second sub-light blocking layer and a second substrate.
However, in the same field of endeavor of display devices, Moon teaches a second substrate (200, see Figure 4) above the first substrate (100) with the display element (see Figure 4, anode, organic layer, cathode, emission area) therebetween and a light blocking layer comprising a second sub-light blocking layer (210) on a lower surface of the second substrate facing the first substrate and a first sub-light blocking layer (510) on a lower surface of the second sub-light blocking layer facing the first substrate (see Figure 4), the light blocking layer having an opening passing through the first sub-light blocking layer and the second sub-light blocking layer to correspond to the emission area (EA, see Figure 4), wherein the first sub-light blocking layer comprises a metal material ([0115]), and the second sub-light blocking layer comprises a metal material and/or a metal oxide ([0118]). Further, it would have been well known to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that providing two light blocking layers would allow for a more robust prevention of light leakage by employing light blocking layers have different reflectance and color absorption characteristics. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the Li device with a second light blocking layer in order to improve light leakage prevention in the display device.
Regarding claim 13, Li and Moon teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 12, and further it is the position of the examiner that lacking criticality and unexpected results, it would have been an obvious matter of routine optimization for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize a first sub-light blocking layer have a reflectance of 95% or more, in view of Moon’s teaching that the layer be comprised of metal, which is highly reflective. Similarly, it would have been an obvious matter of routine optimization for one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a second sub-light blocking layer having an extinction coefficient between .5 and 4, in view of Moon’s teaching that it be comprised of a metal oxide such as CrO, which has an extinction coefficient in the claimed range. Further, it would have been well known to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to optimize these qualities to ensure the desired light reflectance and light absorption of the two light blocking layers, as set forth in Moon.
Regarding claim 14, Li and Moon teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 13, and further it is the position of the examiner that lacking criticality and unexpected results, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide first and second sub-light blocking layers in a thickness within the claimed range because they would have been similarly sized to other elements within the device, and would have been chosen based on well-known principals of light reflection and absorption, based on light propagation patterns through the device.
Regarding claim 15, Li and Moon teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 12, and Moon further teaches the light blocking layer comprises an auxiliary layer (220) in contact with the first sub-light blocking layer, and the auxiliary layer comprises a transparent conductive material and/or silicon nitride ([0119]). Further, it would have been well known for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that a silicon nitride material layer would have provided protection for delicate display elements, therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide an auxiliary layer of silicon nitride in the Li device in order to protect the display elements.
Regarding claim 16, Li and Moon teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 15, and further it is the position of the examiner that lacking criticality and unexpected results, it would have been an obvious matter of routine optimization to determine the thickness range for the auxiliary layer that would achieve the desired strength while still maintaining the appropriate light propagation qualities.
Regarding claim 17, Li and Moon teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 12, and Li further teaches the low reflection layer comprises at least one selected from a metal material and a metal oxide, and the low reflection layer has a refractive index of 1 or more (see English translation, “The low reflective layer may comprise an inorganic material having a low reflectivity. the low reflective layer may include ytterbium (Yb), bismuth (Bi), cobalt (Co), molybdenum (Mo), titanium (Ti), zirconium (Zr), aluminium (Al), chromium (Cr), niobium (Nb), platinum (Pt), tungsten (W), indium (In), tin (Sn), iron (Fe), nickel (Ni), tantalum (Ta), manganese (Mn), zinc (Zn), germanium (Ge), or any combination thereof. The inorganic material included in the low reflective layer may have an absorption coefficient of 0.5 or more. In some embodiments, the inorganic material included in the low reflective layer may have a refractive index of 1 or more.”).
Regarding claim 18, Li and Moon teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 12, and Li further teaches a capping layer on the display element and comprising an organic material, wherein the low reflection layer is directly on the capping layer (capping layer 400, see Figure 6, low reflective layer 300 is directly on capping layer 400, capping layer comprises organic layer 420).
Regarding claim 19, Li and Moon teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 12 and Li further teaches the reflection control layer comprises a dye, a pigment or any combination thereof (Figure 6, reflection control layer 620, see English translation “In some embodiments, the reflective control layer 620 may include an organic material layer, the organic material layer comprises…a pigment”).
Regarding claim 20, Li and Moon teach the invention as explained above and Li further teaches a filler between the low reflection layer and the reflection control layer (filler 460, see Figure 4 for example).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jeong et al., US 10971557 teaches a low reflection display comprising a reflection reducing layer and light blocking members, but fails to teach a first and second sub light blocking layer.
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