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 12/15/2023 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.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choe, Wonkyu (US 2021/0074770 A1 hereinafter Choe).
Regarding Claim 1, Choe discloses in Fig 5 and 14: A manufacturing method of a display apparatus, comprising:
providing a color filter substrate (20);
forming a first encapsulation layer (IL1) on the color filter substrate;
forming a first bank layer (BM2/BM3) on the first encapsulation layer, wherein the first bank layer has a plurality of first openings (See Fig 14);
forming a plurality of wavelength selective dimming patterns (330R, 330G, 330R) in at least a portion of the first openings of the first bank layer (BM2/BM3);
forming a plurality of color conversion patterns (320R,320G,320B) in the at least a portion of the first openings of the first bank layer and on the wavelength selective dimming patterns (See Fig 9);
forming a second encapsulation layer (IL3) on the first bank layer and the color
conversion patterns, wherein the color filter substrate, the first encapsulation
layer, the first bank layer, the wavelength selective dimming patterns, the color
conversion patterns and the second encapsulation layer form a color conversion
substrate (20);
forming a plurality of light emitting components (OLED) [0094] and a second bank layer (119) on a driving circuit substrate (100), and electrically connecting the light emitting components to the driving circuit substrate (See Fig 14), wherein the second bank layer has a plurality of second openings, the light emitting components (OLED) are disposed in the second openings, and the driving circuit substrate (100), the light emitting components and the second bank layer form a light emitting component array substrate (10); and assembling the color conversion substrate and the light emitting component array substrate, such that the color conversion substrate and the light emitting component array substrate are fixedly connected (See Fig 14), wherein the first openings of the first bank layer respectively overlap with the second openings of the second bank layer (See Fig 14);
wherein one of the wavelength selective dimming patterns (330) comprises a base material (OM2) and a plurality of scattering particles (SP2, QD2), the one of the wavelength selective dimming patterns has a thickness in a direction perpendicular to the color filter substrate,
Choe specifically does not disclose: the thickness falls within a range of 2 µm to 10 µm, a volume ratio of the scattering particles to the one of the wavelength selective dimming patterns falls within a range of 0.5% to 4.5%, and diameters of the scattering particles fall within a range of 80 nm to 200 nm.
However, the Applicant has not disclosed that having the thickness, a volume ratio of the scattering particles, diameters of the scattering particles in a specific range, solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e. the invention would not work without the specific claimed values). On the other hand, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art that the thickness, volume ratio of scattering particles and the diameter of the scattering particles affect the performance of the light scattering layer and thus the above dimensions/properties would be considered result effective variables. Accordingly, the claim is obvious without showing that the claimed range(s) achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges of a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). 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). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would recognize that it would be obvious to optimize “the thickness, a volume ratio of the scattering particles, diameters of the scattering particles” as a "result effective variable”, and arrive at the recited limitation.
Regarding Claim 2, Choe discloses in Fig 5 and 14: The manufacturing method of the display apparatus according to claim 1.
Choe does not disclose: wherein the thickness falls within a range of 2 µm to 6 µm, and the volume ratio of the scattering particles to the one of the wavelength selective dimming patterns falls within a range of 0.5% to 1.5%.
However, the Applicant has not disclosed that having the thickness, a volume ratio of the scattering particles in a specific range, solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e. the invention would not work without the specific claimed values). On the other hand, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art that the thickness, volume ratio of scattering particles affect the performance of the light scattering layer and thus the above dimensions/properties would be considered result effective variables. Accordingly, the claim is obvious without showing that the claimed range(s) achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges of a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). 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). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would recognize that it would be obvious to optimize “the thickness, a volume ratio of the scattering particles” as a "result effective variable”, and arrive at the recited limitation.
Regarding Claim 3, Choe discloses in Fig 5 and 14: The manufacturing method of the display apparatus according to claim 1, wherein a reflectivity of the one of the wavelength selective dimming patterns to a blue light is higher than a reflectivity thereof to a red light [0135-0143]. Examiner notes that Choe discloses how concentration of the scattering particles and quantum dots affects the color properties of the light emitted from the scattering layer and thus one of ordinary skilled in the art will find it obvious that the concentration of red and blue particles can be adjusted to have the device perform as claimed above.
Regarding Claim 4, Choe discloses in Fig 5 and 14: The manufacturing method of the display apparatus according to claim 1, wherein a reflectivity of the one of the wavelength selective dimming patterns to a green light is higher than a reflectivity thereof to a red light [0135-0143]. Examiner notes that Choe discloses how concentration of the scattering particles and quantum dots affects the color properties of the light emitted from the scattering layer and thus one of ordinary skilled in the art will find it obvious that the concentration of red and green particles can be adjusted to have the device perform as claimed above.
Regarding Claim 5, Choe discloses in Fig 5 and 14: A display apparatus, comprising:
a color filter substrate (20);
a first encapsulation layer (IL1), disposed on the color filter substrate;
a first bank layer (BM2/BM3), disposed on the first encapsulation layer, and having a plurality of first openings (See Fig 14);
a plurality of wavelength selective dimming patterns (330R/B/G), disposed in at least a
portion of the first openings of the first bank layer (BM2/BM3);
a plurality of color conversion patterns (320 R/G/B), disposed in the at least a portion of the first openings of the first bank layer and on the wavelength selective dimming patterns (330R/B/G);
a second encapsulation layer (IL3), disposed on the first bank layer and the color
conversion patterns (320 R/G/B);
a driving circuit substrate (100), disposed opposite to the color filter substrate;
a second bank layer (190), disposed on the driving circuit substrate, and having a
plurality of second openings (See Fig 14), wherein the first openings of the first bank layer respectively overlap with the second openings of the second bank layer (See Fig 14); and
a plurality of light emitting components (OLED), disposed on the driving circuit
substrate (100), and respectively located in the second openings of the second bank layer (190), and electrically connected to the driving circuit substrate;
wherein one of the wavelength selective dimming patterns comprises a
base material (See Fig 13 OM2) and a plurality of scattering particles (SP2, QD2), the one of the wavelength selective dimming patterns has a thickness in a direction perpendicular to the color filter substrate (20) See Fig 14.
Choe specifically does not disclose: the thickness falls within a range of 2 µm to 10 µm, a volume ratio of the scattering particles to the one of the wavelength selective dimming patterns falls within a range of 0.5% to 4.5%, and diameters of the scattering particles fall within a range of 80 nm to 200 nm.
However, the Applicant has not disclosed that having the thickness, a volume ratio of the scattering particles, diameters of the scattering particles in a specific range, solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e. the invention would not work without the specific claimed values). On the other hand, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art that the thickness, volume ratio of scattering particles and the diameter of the scattering particles affect the performance of the light scattering layer and thus the above dimensions/properties would be considered result effective variables. Accordingly, the claim is obvious without showing that the claimed range(s) achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges of a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). 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). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would recognize that it would be obvious to optimize “the thickness, a volume ratio of the scattering particles, diameters of the scattering particles” as a "result effective variable”, and arrive at the recited limitation.
Regarding Claim 6, Choe discloses in Fig 5 and 14: The display apparatus according to claim 5.
Choe does not disclose: wherein the thickness falls within a range of 2 µm to 6 µm, and the volume ratio of the scattering particles to the one of the wavelength selective dimming patterns falls within a range of 0.5% to 1.5%.
However, the Applicant has not disclosed that having the thickness, a volume ratio of the scattering particles in a specific range, solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e. the invention would not work without the specific claimed values). On the other hand, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art that the thickness, volume ratio of scattering particles affect the performance of the light scattering layer and thus the above dimensions/properties would be considered result effective variables. Accordingly, the claim is obvious without showing that the claimed range(s) achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges of a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). 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). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would recognize that it would be obvious to optimize “the thickness, a volume ratio of the scattering particles” as a "result effective variable”, and arrive at the recited limitation.
Regarding Claim 7, Choe discloses in Fig 5 and 14: The display apparatus according to claim 5, wherein a reflectivity of the one of the wavelength selective dimming patterns to a blue light is higher than a reflectivity thereof to a red light [0135-0143]. Examiner notes that Choe discloses how concentration of the scattering particles and quantum dots affects the color properties of the light emitted from the scattering layer and thus one of ordinary skilled in the art will find it obvious that the concentration of red and blue particles can be adjusted to have the device perform as claimed above.
Regarding Claim 8, Choe discloses in Fig 5 and 14: The display apparatus according to claim 5, wherein a reflectivity of the one of the wavelength selective dimming patterns to a green light is higher than a reflectivity thereof to a red light [0135-0143]. Examiner notes that Choe discloses how concentration of the scattering particles and quantum dots affects the color properties of the light emitted from the scattering layer and thus one of ordinary skilled in the art will find it obvious that the concentration of red and green particles can be adjusted to have the device perform as claimed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NISHATH YASMEEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7564. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM-6PM.
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, Lynne Gurley can be reached at 571-272-1670. 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.
/NISHATH YASMEEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2811