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 02/05/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 14-20 objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 1-6 and 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).
Claim 15 is further objected to because of the following informalities:
As written in claim 15, "The display panel of claim 1" should be corrected to "The display panel of claim 14", as a display panel is not claimed in claim 1. The latter is to be considered for examination purposes. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 9, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian et al. (US 2022/0209175 A1) in view of Hussell (US 2018/0076368 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Tian et al. (US 2022/0209175 A1) teaches a display device/panel (Fig. 4) comprising:
a substrate (transparent base 100) provided with a pixel (pixel repeating units 200) including an emission area (first pixel area 1) and a laser area (second pixel area 2);
a lower mirror layer (specular function layer 220) over the substrate;
a first light-emitting diode (first OLED light-emitting unit 211) provided in the emission area over the lower mirror layer; and
a second light-emitting diode (second OLED light-emitting unit 212) provided in the laser area over the lower mirror layer.
Tian et al. (US 2022/0209175 A1) does not specify an upper mirror layer over the second light-emitting diode, but does teach an encapsulation layer TFE 500.
Hussell teaches an explanation that an encapsulant layer made of reflective material increases light output from LED ([0055]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the explanation of Hussell with the teaching of Tian et al. (US 2022/0209175 A1) to suggest that encapsulation TFE layers as taught in Tian et al. typically include a reflective material, and thus a mirror layer.
Regarding claims 9 and 20, Tian et al. (US 2022/0209175 A1) in view of Hussell teaches the display device/panel of claims 1 and 14. Tian et al (US 2022/0209175 A1) teaches wherein the pixel (pixel repeating unit 200) includes three emission areas ([0053], Each first OLED light-emitting unit 211- which is in specular reflection area 221- corresponds to one red, green, or blue sub-pixel) and one laser area (light-transmitting area 222, see Fig. 3).
Claims 2-4 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian et al. (US 2022/0209175 A1) in view of Hussell (US 2018/0076368 A1) and Tian et al. (US 2022/0384537 A1).
Regarding claims 2 and 15, Tian et al. (US 2022/0209175 A1) in view of Hussell teaches the display device/panel of claims 1 and 14. Tian et al. (US 2022/0209175 A1) teaches wherein the first light-emitting diode (211) includes a first pixel electrode (first anode 2111 and first cathode 2113), and a first light-emitting layer (first light-emitting layer 2112), and
wherein the second light-emitting diode (212) includes a second pixel electrode (second anode 2123), and a second light-emitting layer (second light-emitting layer 2122).
Tian et al. (US 2022/0209175 A1), however, fails to teach wherein the first light-emitting diode includes a common electrode, wherein the second light-emitting diode includes a common electrode, and wherein the common electrode of the first light-emitting diode and the common electrode of the second light-emitting diode are provided as one body.
However, Tian et al. (US 2022/0384537 A1) teaches wherein the first light-emitting diode (FIG. 9 shows organic light emitting layer 23 in one embodiment, which must include an LED) includes a common electrode (FIG.9, cathode 24), wherein the second light-emitting diode (FIG. 9 shows organic light emitting layer 23 in an adjacent embodiment, which must include an LED)) includes a common electrode (FIG.9, cathode 24), and wherein the common electrode (FIG.9, cathode 24) of the first light-emitting diode (FIG. 9) and the common electrode (FIG.9, cathode 24) of the second light-emitting diode (FIG. 9) are provided as one body ([0100], cathodes 24 of multiple sub-pixels are of an integrated structure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have simplified the process by eliminating the patterning step of the first and second cathodes 2113 and 2123 respectively in Tian et al. (US 2022/0209175 A1) to form a singular common electrode as depicted by Tian et al. (US 2022/0384537 A1) as a cathode 24 that connects the first and second light-emitting diodes, thereby reducing processing cost.
Regarding claim 3 and 16, Tian et al. (US 2022/0209175 A1) in view of Hussell and Tian et al. (US 2022/0384537 A1) teaches the display device/panel of claims 2 and 15. Tian et al. (US 2022/0209175 A1) teaches wherein the first pixel electrode (first anode 2111 and first cathode 2113) reflects light ([0051] and Fig.1, in the specular reflection area 221) and
the second pixel electrode (second cathode 2123) transmits light ([0051] and Fig.1, in the light-transmitting area 222).
Regarding claim 4 and 17, Tian et al. (US 2022/0209175 A1) in view of Hussell and Tian et al. (US 2022/0384537 A1) teaches the display device/panel of claims 3 and 16. Tian et al. (US 2022/0209175 A1) teaches wherein the first pixel electrode (first anode 2111 and first cathode 2113) has a multi-layered structure including at least one reflective electrode (first anode 2111 made of a reflective anode material, [0066]) and at least one transparent electrode ([0058], first cathode 2113 is a transparent electrode), and
the second pixel electrode (second cathode 2123) has a single-layered structure including a transparent electrode (second anode 2123 is transparent electrode, [0066]).
Claims 5, 6, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian et al. (US 2022/0209175 A1) in view of Hussell (US 2018/0076368 A1) and Ji et al. (KR 102437180 B1).
Regarding claims 5 and 18, Tian et al. (US 2022/0209175 A1) in view of Hussell teaches the display device/panel of claims 1 and 14, but fails to teach further comprising a color filter over the first light-emitting diode in the emission area.
However, Ji et al. teaches further comprising a color filter (color filter CF) over the first light-emitting diode (organic light emitting diode OLE) in the emission area (light emitting area LEA).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have replaced the circular polarizer CPOL 700 (Fig. 4 and [0085]) in Tian et al. (US 2022/0209175 A1) with a color filter as taught in Ji et al. Circular polarizers filters light wave based of polarization state or direction and thus absorbs light in all directions created by pixels regardless of color, so many prospect light waves are absorbed and wasted. Color filter however selectively absorbs unwanted wavelengths of light by color so only a light wave of a specific color is able to pass. So by allowing light of any directions to pass, a color filter efficiently transmits more of the light of a specific color (as less light is lost at the source), thereby achieving same brightness with less power and less energy wasted by pixels creating the light waves.
Regarding claims 6 and 19, Tian et al. (US 2022/0209175 A1) in view of Hussell teaches the display device/panel of claims 1 and 14. Tian et al. (US 2022/0209175 A1) teaches further comprising: first transistor (first thin film transistor 310) between the substrate (transparent base 100) and the first light-emitting diode (first OLED light-emitting unit 211) in the emission area (first pixel area 1); and
a third transistor (Fig. 4, second thin film transistor 320) between the substrate (transparent base 100) and the second light-emitting diode (second OLED light-emitting unit 212) in the laser area (second pixel area 2).
Tian et al. (US 2022/0209175 A1), however, is silent to a second transistor between the substrate and the first light-emitting diode in the emission area.
However, Ji et al. teaches a second transistor (driving thin film transistor DT) between the substrate (substrate SUB) and the first light-emitting diode (OLE) in the emission area (LEA).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have implemented the driving thin film transistor DT of Ji et al. to the singular first thin film transistor 310 in Tian et al. (US 2022/0209175 A1) to have the emission area now include first and second transistors. Integrating two transistors instead of one allows operation at lower voltages or currents as size of transistor can be reduced with addition of transistor in the same emission area, which lowers the gate drive voltages required to switch effectively and thus reduces power consumption. The smaller size of transistors also allows for reduced emission area and thinner display layer.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian et al. (US 2022/0209175 A1) in view of Hussell (US 2018/0076368 A1), Ji et al. (KR 102437180 B1), and Kim et al. (KR 2011/0023996 A).
Regarding claim 7, Tian et al. (US 2022/0209175 A1) in view of Hussell and Ji et al. teaches the display device/panel of claims 6 and 19. Tian et al. (US 2022/0209175 A1) teaches wherein the first and third transistors (first thin film transistor 310 and second thin film transistor 320) are electrically connected together to one data line (Fig. 20, data line material 7).
Tian et al. (US 2022/0209175 A1), however, is silent to teach wherein the first and third transistors are electrically connected to first and second gate lines, respectively.
However, Kim et al. teaches wherein the first and third transistors (switching and driving transistors) are electrically connected to first and second gate lines (FIG 3, plurality of gate lines GL), respectively.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have electrically connected the first and second gate lines as taught in Kim et al. to the first and third transistors in Tian et al. (US 2022/0209175 A1) because conventional display devices typically comprise pixels in array connected through a combination of gate lines running horizontally and data lines running vertically, as shown by the plurality of data lines DL and gate lines GL in FIG 3 of Kim et al.
Regarding claim 8, Tian et al. (US 2022/0209175 A1) in view of Hussell and Ji et al. teaches the display device/panel of claims 6 and 19. Tian et al. (US 2022/0209175 A1) does teach first and third transistors (first and second thin film transistors 310 and 320) but fails to teach explicitly wherein the first and third transistors are electrically connected to first and second gate lines, respectively and electrically connected together to one data line.
However, Kim et al. teaches wherein the first and third transistors ([0022], switching and driving transistors (not shown or numbered)) are electrically connected together to one gate line (FIG 3, gate line GL) and electrically connected to first and second data lines (FIG 3, plurality of data lines DL), respectively.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have electrically connected the first and second data lines as taught in Kim et al. to the first and third transistors in Tian et al. (US 2022/0209175 A1), and also electrically connect the one data line taught in Kim et al. to the first and third transistors in Tian et al. (US 2022/0209175 A1), because conventional display devices typically comprise pixels in array connected through a combination of gate lines running horizontally and data lines running vertically, as shown by the plurality of data lines DL and gate lines GL in FIG 3 of Kim et al.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian et al. (US 2022/0209175 A1) in view of Hussell (US 2018/0076368 A1) and Lee et al. (US 20170214003 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Tian et al. (US 2022/0209175 A1) in view of Hussell (US 2018/0076368 A1) teaches the display device of claims 1 and 14. Tian et al. (US 2022/0209175 A1) teaches wherein the pixel (pixel repeating unit 200) further includes a transparent area (area to the right of vertical dotted line, also the right side of second pixel area 2), but fails to teach wherein the lower mirror layer is not provided in the transparent area.
However, Lee et al. teaches wherein the lower mirror layer ([0070], planarization layer 270 made of inorganic materials such as silicon oxide (SiOx)) is not provided in the transparent area ([0070], may not be disposed in the transparent region 35 on the first substrate 110).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the lower mirror layer (specular function layer 220) of Tian et al. (US 2022/0209175 A1) removed in the transparent area, as taught by Lee et al., because a mirror layer (being more reflective than transmissive of light) in the transparent area could interfere with the intended path of light from the background passing through, thereby making display less transparent and reducing overall brightness. Not having a lower mirror layer in the transparent area would thus ensure maximal light transmission and enhanced visibility. Furthermore, depositing a lower mirror layer requires extra material and manufacturing steps, so not depositing the mirror layer would simplify the process, making production more efficient.
Regarding claim 11, Tian et al. (US 2022/0209175 A1) in view of Hussell and Lee et al. teaches the display device of claim 10. Tian et al. (US 2022/0209175 A1) teaches further comprising a bank (spacer PS layer 400) provided between the emission area (first pixel area 1) and the laser area (second pixel area 2),
between the laser area (second pixel area 2) and the transparent area (right side of second pixel area 2 past the vertical dotted line, wherein transparent base 100 is located), and
between the transparent area (right side of second pixel area 2 past the vertical dotted line, wherein transparent base 100 is located) and an emission area of another pixel adjacent to the pixel (first pixel area 1 of another pixel repeating unit 200 placed adjacent to the right end of the previous).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian et al. (US 2022/0209175 A1) in view of Hussell (US 2018/0076368 A1) and Johnson et al. (WO 2006039341 A2).
Regarding claim 12, Tian et al. (US 2022/0209175 A1) in view of Hussell teaches the display device/panel of claim 1 and 14, but fails to teach wherein the lower mirror layer includes first and second lower refractive index layers having different refractive indexes and alternately stacked, wherein the upper mirror layer includes first and second upper refractive index layers having different refractive indexes and alternately stacked, and wherein a difference between the refractive indexes of the first and second lower refractive index layers is greater than a difference between the refractive indexes of the first and second upper refractive index layers.
However, Johnson et al. teaches wherein the lower mirror layer (Fig. 1 oriented upside down, undoped top mirror 102) includes first and second lower refractive index layers having different refractive indexes and alternately stacked (Pg. 8, row 18: alternating layers of GaAs and AlGaAs, higher and lower index of refraction materials, respectively),
wherein the upper mirror layer (bottom mirror 108 is a DBR mirror) includes first and second upper refractive index layers having different refractive indexes and alternately stacked (Pg. 6, rows 34-36: alternating layers of AlAs and GaAs, high and low index of refraction materials, respectively), and
wherein a difference between the refractive indexes of the first and second lower refractive index layers (Pg. 8, rows 32-33: use of binary materials in the top mirror 102 also provides the greatest refractive index difference) is greater than a difference between the refractive indexes of the first and second upper refractive index layers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the upper and lower mirror layers (encapsulation layer TFE 500 and specular function layer 220, respectively) of Tian et al. (US 2022/0209175 A1) to have included alternately stacked refractive index layers of different refractive indexes, and to have more specifically constructed a lower mirror layer with a greater difference between refractive indexes, because lower mirrors in typical display devices are designed for high reflectivity, and a greater difference in refractive indexes allow for greater reflectivity, as further evidenced by Johnson et al. in Pg. 8, row 34. The higher reflectivity of the lower mirror enables more incident light to be reflected back toward the display or viewer, which results in increased brightness without increasing power.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian et al. (US 2022/0209175 A1) in view of Hussell (US 2018/0076368 A1), Kim et al (KR 2011/0023996 A), and Hanamura et al. (JP 2014/022091 A).
Regarding claim 13, Tian et al. (US 2022/0209175 A1) in view of Hussell teaches the display device of claims 1 and 14, but fails to teach wherein the pixel includes first, second, and third sub-pixels, and each of the first, second, and third sub-pixels includes the emission area and the laser area, and wherein a thickness of the upper mirror layer of the second sub-pixel is smaller than a thickness of the upper mirror layer of the first sub-pixel and greater than a thickness of the upper mirror layer of the third sub-pixel.
However, Kim et al. teaches wherein the pixel ([0054] and [0055], pixel repeating unit 200 includes first and second OLED light-emitting units 211 and 212, respectively) includes first, second, and third sub-pixels ([0054], 211 and 212 each correspond to one of red, green, and blue sub-pixels), and each of the first, second, and third sub-pixels includes the emission area (first pixel area 1 includes a specular reflection area 221) and the laser area (second pixel area 2 includes light-transmitting area 222).
And Hanamura et al. teaches wherein a thickness of the upper mirror layer (Fig 3, interference filter 50 includes a pair of dielectric mirror layers 51, 52 with translucent spacer layer 53 in between) of the second sub-pixel ([0074], green sub-pixel 34G, set x value (proportional to transmission wavelength λp) to x to 1.9 to 2.1) is smaller than a thickness of the upper mirror layer of the first sub-pixel (red sub-pixel 34R, x value of 2.8 to 3.2) and greater than a thickness of the upper mirror layer of the third sub-pixel (blue sub-pixel 34B, x value of 0.9 to 1.4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified or replaced the upper mirror layer (encapsulation layer TFE 500) taught by Tian et al. with one that varies in thickness by sub-pixel color taught by Hanamura et al., in the order of thickest to thinnest as follows: red, green, blue. Given fixed high and low refractive index layers nH and nL in equation (1): nHdH = λ0/4, nLdL = λ0/4 provided in Hanamura et al., the upper mirror layer for red light requires a greater value for film thicknesses dH and dL because red light has a longer wavelength λ0 than green and blue. By tailoring mirror thickness to each color by their respective wavelengths, transmittance for emission peaks are increased for specific RGB subpixel, thus enhancing reflectivity and improving optical efficiency, which reduces power required to achieve target brightness.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEANNE M KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-8768. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-6:00.
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, Leonard Chang can be reached at (571) 270-3691. 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.
/JEANNE MYON KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 2898
/Leonard Chang/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights