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
This office acknowledges receipt of the following items from the applicant: Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 13 November 2023. The references cited on the PTOL 1449 form have been considered.
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 1-20 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.
Claims 1 and 12 each recite “an emissive layer comprising the OLED,” which is unclear. According to the applicant’s disclosure, it appears that the OLED (“OLED”) comprises the emissive layer (“EL”) as shown in Fig. 7 and described par. 93. It’s unclear as to applicant’s intended meaning. Does applicant mean an emissive layer comprised by the OLED? As currently written, the claim language is confusing as to the intended structure based on the disclosure.
Claims 1 and 12 each recite “a light control pattern layer on the encapsulation layer and comprising an organic film pattern and a planarization film covering an upper surface of the encapsulation layer comprising the organic film pattern,” which is unclear. Does the light control pattern layer comprise the organic film pattern? or does the encapsulation layer comprise the organic film pattern? According to the applicant’s disclosure, it appears that the light control pattern layer (LCP) comprises the organic film pattern (811) and the planarization film (812); and the encapsulation layer (TFE) is below the organic film pattern (811) of the light control pattern layer (LCP) as shown in Fig. 7 and 8. As currently written, the claim language is confusing as to the intended structure based on the disclosure.
Claim 12 recites “the opening” at the last line which makes unclear as to which opening the applicant refers, as the antecedent basis requires more than one opening by the recitation of “openings” at line 13.
Claims 2-11 include and do not remedy the deficiencies of claim 1.
Claims 13-20 include and do not remedy the deficiencies of claim 12.
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, 6-8, 10, 11, 12 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0315113) in view of Bae et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0013455).
As insofar as Claim 1 is definite, Kim teaches a display device comprising: a glass (430) located in a display area of a lens (200);a display panel (510) comprising an OLED (730) on a semiconductor wafer substrate (710); and a reflective member (520/530) to reflect display light exiting from the display panel toward the glass (430), wherein the display panel (510) comprises: an emissive layer (EL) comprising the OLED (730); an encapsulation layer (TFE) on the emissive layer (EL); and a light control pattern layer on the encapsulation layer and comprising an film pattern (MLA) and a planarization film (FI) covering an upper surface of the encapsulation layer (TFE) comprising the film pattern (MLA), wherein the film pattern (MLA) is arranged in line with a second color pixel (SR) and a third color pixel (SG) among a first color pixel (SB), the second color pixel (SR), and the third color pixel (SG), and forms an opening (space between central portion of MLA and right portion of MLA, filled with FI) in the first color pixel (SB), and wherein a side surface of the film pattern (MLA) adjacent to the opening comprises a curve in the first color pixel (SB).
Kim (‘113) does not explicitly state wherein the film pattern (MLA) of the light control pattern layer is organic, per se or wherein a side surface of the film pattern (MLA) adjacent to the opening comprises a slope inclined at an angle, per se.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Bae teaches in Fig. 7 for example, a display device comprising: wherein the display panel comprises: an emissive layer (433) comprising the OLED (430) on a semiconductor wafer substrate (410); an encapsulation layer (440) on the emissive layer (433); and a light control pattern layer (450a) on the encapsulation layer (440) and comprising an organic film pattern (501; par. 152-153) and a planarization film (190; par. 110) covering an upper surface of the encapsulation layer (440) comprising the organic film pattern (501), wherein the organic film pattern (501) is arranged in line with a second color pixel (PX2) and a third color pixel (PX3) among a first color pixel (PX1), the second color pixel (PX2), and the third color pixel (PX3), and forms an opening (OP1; see Fig. 6A for example) in the first color pixel (PX1), and wherein a side surface of the organic film pattern (501) adjacent to the opening (OP1) comprises a slope inclined at an angle in the first color pixel (PX1) (par. 147-157). The organic film pattern (501) is in line with each pixel (PX), and each opening (OP1) is in adjacent pixels (PX). The manner in which the claim is written does not define the relative structure of organic film pattern and the opening with enough specificity to overcome the Bae reference.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to utilize the display panel of Bae for that of Park, in order to prevent color mixing between pixel areas, as well as increase color coincidence, color reproduction and light efficiency, thus reducing power consumption (par. 147).
As insofar as Claim 6 is definite, Bae further teaches a metal material (502; par. 155) on the slope of the side surface of the organic film pattern (501) to reflect light emitted from the emissive layer (433) of the first color pixel toward the side surface of the organic film pattern (501) toward a front side of the display panel (see Fig. 5).
As insofar as Claim 7 is definite, Bae further teaches wherein the emissive layer (433) is configured to emit white light, and the display device further comprises a color filter (130) on the light control pattern layer (450a).
As insofar as Claim 8 is definite, Bae further teaches wherein a refractive index of the organic film pattern (501) is lower than a refractive index of the planarization film (190) (par. 110 and 152).
As insofar as Claims 10 and 11 are definite, Kim further teaches wherein the reflective member (502/503) comprises a diffractive optical element (waveguide) or a reflective optical element (mirror) (par. 61-63).
As insofar as Claim 12 is definite, Kim teaches a display device comprising: a glass (430) located in a display area of a lens (200);a display panel (510) comprising an OLED (730) on a semiconductor wafer substrate (710); and a reflective member (520/530) to reflect display light exiting from the display panel toward the glass (430), wherein the display panel (510) comprises: an emissive layer (EL) comprising the OLED (730); an encapsulation layer (TFE) on the emissive layer (EL); and a light control pattern layer on the encapsulation layer and comprising an film pattern (MLA) and a planarization film (FI) covering an upper surface of the encapsulation layer (TFE) comprising the film pattern (MLA), wherein the film pattern (MLA) is arranged in line with a third color pixel (SB) among a first color pixel (SR), a second color pixel (SG), and the third color pixel (SB), and forms openings (space between central portion of MLA and right portion of MLA, filled with FI) in the first and second color pixels (SR and SG), and wherein, in each of the first and second color pixels (SR and SG), a side surface of the film pattern (MLA) adjacent to the opening comprises a curve.
Kim (‘113) does not explicitly state wherein the film pattern (MLA) of the light control pattern layer (LCP) is organic, per se or wherein a side surface of the film pattern (MLA) adjacent to the openings comprises a slope inclined at an angle, per se.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Bae teaches in Fig. 7 for example, a display device comprising: wherein the display panel comprises: an emissive layer (433) comprising the OLED (430) on a semiconductor wafer substrate (410/420; par. 131-133); an encapsulation layer (440) on the emissive layer (433); and a light control pattern layer (450a) on the encapsulation layer (440) and comprising an organic film pattern (501; par. 152-153) and a planarization film (190; par. 110) covering an upper surface of the encapsulation layer (440) comprising the organic film pattern (501), wherein the organic film pattern (501) is arranged in line with a third color pixel (PX3) among a first color pixel (PX1), a second color pixel (PX2), and the third color pixel (PX3), and forms openings (OP1; see Fig. 6A for example) in the first (PX1) and second (PX2) color pixels, and wherein, in each of the first and second color pixels (PX1 and PX2), a side surface of the organic film pattern (501) adjacent to the openings (OP1) comprises a slope inclined at an angle (par. 147-157). The organic film pattern (501) is in line with each pixel (PX), and each opening (OP1) is in adjacent pixels (PX). The manner in which the claim is written does not define the relative structure of organic film pattern and the opening with enough specificity to overcome the Bae reference.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to utilize the display panel of Bae for that of Park, in order to prevent color mixing between pixel areas, as well as increase color coincidence, color reproduction and light efficiency, thus reducing power consumption (par. 147).
As insofar as Claim 17 is definite, Bae further teaches a metal material (502; par. 155) on the slope of the side surface of the organic film pattern (501) to reflect light emitted from the emissive layer (433) of the first or second color pixel toward the side surface of the organic film pattern (501) toward a front side of the display panel (see Fig. 5).
As insofar as Claim 18 is definite, Bae further teaches wherein the emissive layer (433) is configured to emit white light, and the display device further comprises a color filter (130) on the light control pattern layer (450a).
As insofar as Claim 19 is definite, Bae further teaches wherein a refractive index of the organic film pattern (501) is lower than a refractive index of the planarization film (190) (par. 110 and 152).
Claims 1, 6-8, 10, 11, 12 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0328030) in view of Bae et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0013455).
As insofar as Claim 1 is definite, Park teaches a display device (100; Fig. 1 and 2) comprising: a glass (“glass plate”) located in a display area (154-1) of a lens (par. 43-44; Fig. 1); a display panel (221 of Fig. 2 is 151 or 152 of Fig. 1; par. 51-52) comprising an OLED (par. 43); and a reflective member (222-224) to reflect display light exiting from the display panel (221) toward the glass. Park does not explicitly state wherein the display panel comprises: an emissive layer comprising the OLED; an encapsulation layer on the emissive layer; and a light control pattern layer on the encapsulation layer and comprising an organic film pattern and a planarization film covering an upper surface of the encapsulation layer comprising the organic film pattern, wherein the organic film pattern is arranged in line with a second color pixel and a third color pixel among a first color pixel, the second color pixel, and the third color pixel, and forms an opening in the first color pixel, and wherein a side surface of the organic film pattern adjacent to the opening comprises a slope inclined at an angle in the first color pixel.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Bae teaches in Fig. 7 for example, a display device comprising: wherein the display panel comprises: an emissive layer (433) comprising the OLED (430) on a semiconductor wafer substrate (410); an encapsulation layer (440) on the emissive layer (433); and a light control pattern layer (450a) on the encapsulation layer (440) and comprising an organic film pattern (501; par. 152-153) and a planarization film (190; par. 110) covering an upper surface of the encapsulation layer (440) comprising the organic film pattern (501), wherein the organic film pattern (501) is arranged in line with a second color pixel (PX2) and a third color pixel (PX3) among a first color pixel (PX1), the second color pixel (PX2), and the third color pixel (PX3), and forms an opening (OP1; see Fig. 6A for example) in the first color pixel (PX1), and wherein a side surface of the organic film pattern (501) adjacent to the opening (OP1) comprises a slope inclined at an angle in the first color pixel (PX1) (par. 147-157). The organic film pattern (501) is in line with each pixel (PX), and each opening (OP1) is in adjacent pixels (PX). The manner in which the claim is written does not define the relative structure of organic film pattern and the opening with enough specificity to overcome the Bae reference.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to utilize the display panel of Bae for that of Park, in order to prevent color mixing between pixel areas, as well as increase color coincidence, color reproduction and light efficiency, thus reducing power consumption (par. 147).
As insofar as Claim 6 is definite, Bae further teaches a metal material (502; par. 155) on the slope of the side surface of the organic film pattern (501) to reflect light emitted from the emissive layer (433) of the first color pixel toward the side surface of the organic film pattern (501) toward a front side of the display panel (see Fig. 5).
As insofar as Claim 7 is definite, Bae further teaches wherein the emissive layer (433) is configured to emit white light, and the display device further comprises a color filter (130) on the light control pattern layer (450a).
As insofar as Claim 8 is definite, Bae further teaches wherein a refractive index of the organic film pattern (501) is lower than a refractive index of the planarization film (190) (par. 110 and 152).
As insofar as Claims 10 and 11 are definite, Park further teaches wherein the reflective member (222-224; waveguide) comprises a diffractive optical element or a reflective optical element (par. 45).
As insofar as Claim 12 is definite, Park teaches a display device (100; Fig. 1 and 2) comprising: a glass (“glass plate”) located in a display area (154-1) of a lens (par. 43-44; Fig. 1); a display panel (221 of Fig. 2 is 151 or 152 of Fig. 1; par. 51-52) comprising an OLED (par. 43); and a reflective member (222-224) to reflect display light exiting from the display panel (221) toward the glass. Park does not explicitly state wherein the display panel comprises: an emissive layer comprising the OLED; an encapsulation layer on the emissive layer; and a light control pattern layer on the encapsulation layer and comprising an organic film pattern and a planarization film covering an upper surface of the encapsulation layer comprising the organic film pattern, wherein the organic film pattern is arranged in line with a third color pixel among a first color pixel, a second color pixel, and the third color pixel, and forms openings in the first and second color pixels, and wherein, in each of the first and second color pixels, a side surface of the organic film pattern adjacent to the opening comprises a slope inclined at an angle.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Bae teaches in Fig. 7 for example, a display device comprising: wherein the display panel comprises: an emissive layer (433) comprising the OLED (430) on a semiconductor wafer substrate (410/420; par. 131-133); an encapsulation layer (440) on the emissive layer (433); and a light control pattern layer (450a) on the encapsulation layer (440) and comprising an organic film pattern (501; par. 152-153) and a planarization film (190; par. 110) covering an upper surface of the encapsulation layer (440) comprising the organic film pattern (501), wherein the organic film pattern (501) is arranged in line with a third color pixel (PX3) among a first color pixel (PX1), a second color pixel (PX2), and the third color pixel (PX3), and forms openings (OP1; see Fig. 6A for example) in the first (PX1) and second (PX2) color pixels, and wherein, in each of the first and second color pixels (PX1 and PX2), a side surface of the organic film pattern (501) adjacent to the openings (OP1) comprises a slope inclined at an angle (par. 147-157). The organic film pattern (501) is in line with each pixel (PX), and each opening (OP1) is in adjacent pixels (PX). The manner in which the claim is written does not define the relative structure of organic film pattern and the opening with enough specificity to overcome the Bae reference.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to utilize the display panel of Bae for that of Park, in order to prevent color mixing between pixel areas, as well as increase color coincidence, color reproduction and light efficiency, thus reducing power consumption (par. 147).
As insofar as Claim 17 is definite, Bae further teaches a metal material (502; par. 155) on the slope of the side surface of the organic film pattern (501) to reflect light emitted from the emissive layer (433) of the first or second color pixel toward the side surface of the organic film pattern (501) toward a front side of the display panel (see Fig. 5).
As insofar as Claim 18 is definite, Bae further teaches wherein the emissive layer (433) is configured to emit white light, and the display device further comprises a color filter (130) on the light control pattern layer (450a).
As insofar as Claim 19 is definite, Bae further teaches wherein a refractive index of the organic film pattern (501) is lower than a refractive index of the planarization film (190) (par. 110 and 152).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2-5, 9, 13-16 and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
As insofar as Claim 2 is definite, the prior art of record alone or in combination neither teaches nor makes obvious the invention of the display device wherein an emission efficiency of the first color pixel is lower than an emission efficiency of the second color pixel and an emission efficiency of the third color pixel in combination with all of the limitations of Claims 1 and 2. Claims 3-5 include the limitations of claim 2.
As insofar as Claim 9 is definite, the prior art of record alone or in combination neither teaches nor makes obvious the invention of the display device wherein light emitted from the emissive layer of the first color pixel to the side surface of the organic film pattern is totally reflected toward a front side of the display panel via a difference between the refractive index of the organic film pattern and the refractive index of the planarization film in combination with all of the limitations of Claim 1, 8 and 9.
As insofar as Claim 13 is definite, the prior art of record alone or in combination neither teaches nor makes obvious the invention of the display device wherein an emission efficiency of the third color pixel is higher than an emission efficiency of the first color pixel and an emission efficiency of the second color pixel in combination with all of the limitations of Claim 12 and 13. Claims 14-16 include the limitations of claim 13.
As insofar as Claim 20 is definite, the prior art of record alone or in combination neither teaches nor makes obvious the invention of the display device wherein light emitted from the emissive layer of the first color pixel to the side surface of the organic film pattern is totally reflected toward a front side of the display panel via a difference between the refractive index of the organic film pattern and the refractive index of the planarization film in combination with all of the limitations of Claim 12, 19 and 20.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EARL N TAYLOR whose telephone number is (571)272-8894. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, William Kraig can be reached on (571) 272-8660. 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.
/EARL N TAYLOR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
EARL N. TAYLOR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2896