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 .
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.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over ‘8166 et al (KR 101108166 B1) in view of Kang et al (US 2015/0123098 A1) and further in view of Li et al. (US PGPUB 2022/0352487 A1)
Regarding claim 16: ‘8166 teaches in Fig. 3, 6 about a display panel comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
380
608
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a base substrate 110 including a first base layer 113 (bottom one), a second base layer 113 (top one), and a first barrier layer 111 disposed between the first base layer and the second base layer;
a light-emitting element (comprising 131, 133, 134) disposed on the base substrate; and
an encapsulation layer disposed on the light-emitting element and covering the light-emitting element, wherein the first barrier layer includes:
a (1-1)-th barrier layer 111a disposed on the first base layer and having a first thickness and a first refractive index (page 3 teaches the silicon rich silicon nitride film may have a thickness of 20 nm to 80 nm and page 2 teaches The silicon rich silicon nitride layer may have a refractive index of 1.81 to 1.85), and
a (1-2)-th barrier layer disposed on the (1-1)-th barrier layer, having a second thickness greater than the first thickness (page 3 teaches he silicon oxide film may have a thickness of 100 nm to 500 nm), and having a second refractive index less than the first refractive index, and
wherein a sum of the first thickness and the second thickness is about 600 nm or less (page 3 teaches the barrier layer may have a thickness of about 120 nm to about 2000 nm).
‘8166 does not explicitly talk about an encapsulation layer disposed on the light-emitting element and covering the light-emitting element and the (1-2)-th barrier layer having a second refractive index less than the first refractive index.
Kang teaches in Fig. 2and [0087], [0092] about an encapsulation layer 260 disposed on the light-emitting element 70 and covering the light-emitting element.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to use an encapsulation layer disposed on the light-emitting element and covering the light-emitting element in ‘8166 device according to the teaching’s of Kang to prevent moisture transmission to the organic light emitting diode (Kang, [0092]).
‘8166 in view of Kang still does not explicitly talk about the (1-2)-th barrier layer having a second refractive index less than the first refractive index.
However ‘8166 teaches the (1-2)-th barrier layer is silicon dioxide and it is well known in the art that silicon dioxide has less refractive index than silicon nitride as Li teaches in [0081] silicon dioxide refractive index is approximately 1.7 which is less than refractive index of silicon nitride.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have the refractive indexes as claimed depending on light t different frequencies (Li, [0079]).
Regarding claim 17: ‘8166 teaches in page 3 wherein the first thickness is greater than or equal to about 153 nm and less than or equal to about 207 nm (20 nm to 80 nm), and the second thickness is greater than or equal to about 323 nm and less than or equal to about 437 nm (100 nm to 600 nm).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the thickness in the claimed ranges with routine experiment and optimization since the thickness is critical in order to control moisture permeability suppression and a stress balance role can be optimally exhibited according to the teaching of ‘8166 (page). In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Regarding claim 18: 8166 teaches in page 3 wherein the first thickness is greater than or equal to about 85 nm and less than or equal to about 115 nm (20 nm to 80 nm), and the second thickness is greater than or equal to about 340 nm and less than or equal to about 460 nm (100 nm to 600 nm).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the thickness in the claimed ranges with routine experiment and optimization since the thickness is critical in order to control moisture permeability suppression and a stress balance role can be optimally exhibited according to the teaching of ‘8166 (page 2). In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Regarding claim 19: Li teaches in [0081] wherein the first refractive index is greater than or equal to about 1.56 and less than or equal to about 1.9, and wherein the second refractive index is greater than or equal to about 1.32 and less than or equal to about 1.62.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the refractive index in the claimed ranges with routine experiment and optimization since the thickness is critical depending on application of light different frequencies according to the teaching of Li (Li, [0079]). In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Regarding claim 20: ‘8166 teaches in page 3 wherein the (1-1)-th barrier layer comprises silicon oxynitride, and the (1-2)-th barrier layer comprises silicon oxide.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application was filed to have the materials as claimed, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Ebisuno et al. (US PGPUB 20220069045 A1) in view of ‘8166 et al (KR 101108166 B1) and further in view of Li et al. (US PGPUB 2022/0352487 A1)
Regarding claim 1: Ebisuno teaches in Fig. 1, 3, 9, 12 about an electronic device 1 comprising:
a display panel 10 including a display region DA having a first region Pa and a second region TA which has a lower transmittance than the first region, and a non-display region DPA adjacent to the display region; and
an electronic module 40 disposed under the display panel, and overlapping the first region [0089],
wherein the display panel includes:
a base substrate 100 (Fig. 9) having a first base layer 101, a second base layer BML (as no material type or functionality is claimed and therefore in BRI can be interpreted as base layer over which other layers are present), and a first barrier layer (103+104) disposed between the first base layer and the second base layer and overlapping the display region and the non-display region,
a light-emitting element OLED (Fig. 9) disposed on the base substrate and overlapping the display region, and an encapsulation layer TFEL disposed on the light-emitting element and covering the light-emitting element (Fig. 9), and
wherein the first barrier layer includes:
a (1-1)-th barrier layer 103 disposed on the first base layer and having a first thickness and a first refractive index [0200] – [0201]), and
a (1-2)-th barrier layer 104 disposed on the (1-1)-th barrier layer and having a second thickness greater than the first thickness and a second refractive index less than the first refractive index ([0208] – [0209].
Ebisuno does not explicitly talk about having a second thickness greater than the first thickness and a second refractive index less than the first refractive index.
‘8166 teaches in pages 2-3 about the (1-2)-th barrier layer disposed on the (1-1)-th barrier layer, having a second thickness greater than the first thickness (page 3 teaches he silicon oxide film may have a thickness of 100 nm to 500 nm) and the (1-2)-th barrier layer is silicon dioxide and it is well known in the art that silicon dioxide has less refractive index than silicon nitride as Li teaches in [0081] silicon dioxide refractive index is approximately 1.7 which is less than refractive index of silicon nitride.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have the thickness and refractive indexes as claimed for the (1-2)-th barrier layer depending on light t different frequencies (Li, [0079]) and to control moisture permeability suppression and a stress balance role can be optimally exhibited according to the teaching of ‘8166 (page 2).
Regarding claim 2: ‘8166 teaches in page 3 wherein the first thickness is greater than or equal to about 153 nm and less than or equal to about 207 nm (20 nm to 80 nm), and the second thickness is greater than or equal to about 323 nm and less than or equal to about 437 nm (100 nm to 600 nm).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the thickness in the claimed ranges with routine experiment and optimization since the thickness is critical in order to control moisture permeability suppression and a stress balance role can be optimally exhibited according to the teaching of ‘8166 (page). In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Regarding claim 3: 8166 teaches in page 3 wherein the first thickness is greater than or equal to about 85 nm and less than or equal to about 115 nm (20 nm to 80 nm), and the second thickness is greater than or equal to about 340 nm and less than or equal to about 460 nm (100 nm to 600 nm).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the thickness in the claimed ranges with routine experiment and optimization since the thickness is critical in order to control moisture permeability suppression and a stress balance role can be optimally exhibited according to the teaching of ‘8166 (page 2). In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Regarding claim 4: ‘8166 teaches wherein a sum of the first thickness and the second thickness is about 600 nm or less (page 3 teaches the barrier layer may have a thickness of about 120 nm to about 2000 nm).
Regarding claim 5: ‘8166 teaches in page 3 wherein the (1-1)-th barrier layer comprises silicon oxynitride, and the (1-2)-th barrier layer comprises silicon oxide.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application was filed to have the materials as claimed, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 6: Li teaches in [0081] wherein the first refractive index is greater than or equal to about 1.56 and less than or equal to about 1.9, and wherein the second refractive index is greater than or equal to about 1.32 and less than or equal to about 1.62.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the refractive index in the claimed ranges with routine experiment and optimization since the thickness is critical depending on application of light different frequencies according to the teaching of Li (Li, [0079]). In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Regarding claim 7: Ebisuno teaches in Fig. 9 wherein the base substrate further comprises a second barrier layer 111 disposed on the second base layer BML, and
wherein the second barrier layer includes:
a (2-1)-th barrier layer 111a disposed on the second base layer and having a third thickness and the first refractive index [0213], and
a (2-2)-th barrier layer 111b disposed on the (2-1)-th barrier layer, having a fourth thickness greater than the third thickness (as shown), and having the second refractive index [0216].
Regarding claim 8: Ebisuno teaches wherein the (2-1)-th barrier layer comprises silicon oxynitride [0211], and the (2-2)-th barrier layer comprises silicon oxide [0214].
Regarding claim 9: Ebisuno teaches in Fig. 9 wherein the encapsulation layerTFEL comprises:
a first inorganic layer 131 disposed on the light-emitting element OLED;
an organic layer 132 disposed on the first inorganic layer; and a second inorganic layer 133 disposed on the organic layer, and wherein the first inorganic layer includes:
a first thin-film inorganic layer disposed on the light-emitting element and having a third refractive index [0220], and
a second thin-film inorganic layer disposed on the first thin-film inorganic layer and having a fourth refractive index greater than the third refractive index [0189].
Regarding claim 10: Ebisuno teaches in [0227] –[ 0228] similar material types and thickness except wherein the first thin-film inorganic layer has a thickness of greater than or equal to about 170 nm and less than or equal to about 230 nm, and
wherein the second thin-film inorganic layer has a thickness of greater than or equal to about 731 nm and less than or equal to about 989 nm.
However it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the thickness in the claimed ranges with routine experiment and optimization t and thus the light transmittance of the transmission area TA may be improved according to the teaching of Ebisuno ([0228]). In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Regarding claim 11: Ebisuno teaches in [0227] – [ 0228] similar material types and thickness except wherein the first thin-film inorganic layer has a thickness of greater than or equal to about 170 nm and less than or equal to about 230 nm, and
wherein the second thin-film inorganic layer has a thickness of greater than or equal to about 638 nm and less than or equal to about 863 nm.
However it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the thickness in the claimed ranges with routine experiment and optimization t and thus the light transmittance of the transmission area TA may be improved according to the teaching of Ebisuno ([0228]). In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Regarding claim 12: Ebisuno in view of ‘8166 and Li does not explicitly talk about wherein the third refractive index is greater than or equal to about 1.33 and less than or equal to about 1.63, and
wherein the fourth refractive index is greater than or equal to about 1.7 and less than or equal to about 2.08.
However Li teaches in [0081] wherein the first refractive index is greater than or equal to about 1.56 and less than or equal to about 1.9, and wherein the second refractive index is greater than or equal to about 1.32 and less than or equal to about 1.62.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the refractive index in the claimed ranges with routine experiment and optimization since the thickness is critical depending on application of light different frequencies according to the teaching of Li (Li, [0079]). In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Regarding claim 13: Ebisuno teaches in Fig. 5 further comprising a pixel circuit disposed in the second region and electrically connected to the light-emitting element.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Ebisuno et al. (US PGPUB 20220069045 A1) in view of ‘8166 et al (KR 101108166 B1) and further in view of Li et al. (US PGPUB 2022/0352487 A1) and Jeong et al. (US 20220045151 A1)
Regarding claim 14: Ebisuno in view of ‘8166 and Li does not explicitly talk about comprising a connection line connected to the light-emitting element in the first region, connected to the pixel circuit in the second region, and including a light-transmissive material.
Jeong teaches in Fig. 11, [0074] – [0075] about a connection line TWL2 connected to the light-emitting element OLED in the first region, connected to the pixel circuit in the second region, and including a light-transmissive material.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the feature as claimed and thus, even when the connecting line TWL is at (e.g., in or on) the transmission area TA, the transmittance of the transmission area TA may be secured (Jeong, [0075]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Ebisuno et al. (US PGPUB 20220069045 A1) in view of ‘8166 et al (KR 101108166 B1) and further in view of Li et al. (US PGPUB 2022/0352487 A1) and Choi et al. (KR20220033573 A)
Regarding claim 15: Ebisuno in view of ‘8166 and Li does not explicitly talk about wherein a reflectance for light passing through the first region is about 13% or less.
Choi teaches in Fig. 6 and page 6 about when the reflectance of the main display area MDA is about 5%, the reflectance of the component area CA may be about 12% to 13%, and the reflectance of the intermediate area MA is about 8%, which is an intervening value.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the feature as claimed and therefore It is possible to reduce the difference in visual perception between In the intermediate area MA, the first insulating layer 119a or the black matrix 610 is disposed to have a reflectance between the reflectance of the main display area MDA and the reflectance of the component area CA, and the boundary between the two areas. Lines can be merged (Choi, page 6).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED SHAMSUZZAMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1839. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7 am -4 pm EST.
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, Fernando Toledo can be reached at 571-272-1867. 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.
/Mohammed Shamsuzzaman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897