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 .
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 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. 20190165318 (Choi) in view of Liu et al. 20100243868 (Liu).
PNG
media_image1.png
390
472
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, fig. 2 of Choi discloses a display device, comprising:
a light-emitting substrate (the combination of base substrate 110, driving element layers 200 and 300, and a light-emitting element 501);
a counter substrate 130, disposed opposite to the light-emitting substrate;
multiple color conversion layers (color conversion patterns 810 and 830), disposed between the light-emitting substrate and the counter substrate; and
a patterned distributed Bragg reflector 850 (par [0141] - 850 may be … a distributed Bragg reflector – which is a three-dimensional pattern as shown in fig. 2), located between the color conversion layers and the counter substrate.
Choi does not disclose that the patterned distributed Bragg reflector comprising multiple first sub-layers and multiple second sub-layers that are stacked alternately, wherein a material of each of the first sub-layers comprises silicon oxide, and a material of each of the second sub-layers comprises silicon nitride.
However, par [0021] of Liu discloses of a distributed Bragg reflector includes two pairs of alternating silicon oxide and silicon nitride layers in the present embodiment, N=2.
In view of such teaching, it would have been obvious to form a device of Choi comprising wherein the patterned distributed Bragg reflector comprising multiple first sub-layers and multiple second sub-layers that are stacked alternately, wherein a material of each of the first sub-layers comprises silicon oxide, and a material of each of the second sub-layers comprises silicon nitride such as taught by Liu in order to create a light reflector.
Regarding claim 15, Choi and Liu do not disclose wherein a thickness of one of the first sub-layers directly contacting the counter substrate is greater than a thickness of each of the second sub-layers and a thickness of each of another of the first sub-layers respectively.
However, the courts have held that when the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is a size/proportion, then a prima facie case of obviousness exists [See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to form a device comprising wherein a thickness of one of the first sub-layers directly contacting the counter substrate is greater than a thickness of each of the second sub-layers and a thickness of each of another of the first sub-layers respectively in order to optimize color property and brightness.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi view of Nam et al. 20040233359
Regarding claim 1, figs. 1-2 of Choi discloses a display device, comprising:
a light-emitting substrate;
a counter substrate, disposed opposite to the light-emitting substrate, and having multiple sub-pixel areas, each of the sub-pixel areas having a sub-pixel width in a first direction X (fig. 1);
multiple color conversion layers, disposed between the light-emitting substrate and the counter substrate; and
a first patterned distributed Bragg reflector (par [0141] - 850 may be … a distributed Bragg reflector – which is a three-dimensional pattern as shown in fig. 2), disposed on one side of the color conversion layers.
Choi does not disclose that the first patterned distributed Bragg reflector having multiple first through-holes, wherein each of the first through-holes has a first opening width in the first direction, and the first opening width is greater than or equal to 1 μm, and less than the sub-pixel width.
PNG
media_image2.png
472
483
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
310
462
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, figs. 4-5 of Nam discloses a color filter layer 180 including red, green and blue sub-color filters 80a, 80b and 80c has a through hole "TH" to adjust color property and brightness.
Note that Choi discloses wavelength band filter 850 may be a color filter or a distributed Bragg reflector and through holes in color is applicable to through holes in distributed Bragg reflector.
As such it would have been obvious to form a device of Choi comprising the first patterned distributed Bragg reflector having multiple first through-holes, wherein each of the first through-holes has a first opening width in the first direction, and the first opening width is less than the sub-pixel width such as taught by Nam in order to adjust color property and brightness.
Choi and Nam do not disclose that the first opening width is greater than or equal to 1 μm.
However, it should be noted that a width of the first opening does inherently exist in Nam reference Therefore, the prior art of Nam provides foundation for experimental optimization and suggests a progress of changes in size/proportion in order to optimize color property and brightness.
Therefore, while the structure of Choi and Nam do not quantitatively state a range, the courts have held that when the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is a size/proportion, then a prima facie case of obviousness exists [See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to form a device comprising that the first opening width is greater than or equal to 1 μm in order to optimize color property and brightness.
Regarding claim 2, Choi discloses wherein the first patterned distributed Bragg reflector is located between the color conversion layers and the counter substrate.
Regarding claim 3, the resulting structure would have been one wherein the color conversion layers are filled into the through-holes as forming through-hole in layer 850 of Choi would create open region to be filled with 810 materials.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi and Liu in view of Nam.
Regarding claim 13, Choi and Liu disclose claim 12. Figs. 1-2 of Choi discloses wherein the counter substrate has multiple sub-pixel areas, each of the sub-pixel areas having a sub-pixel width in a first direction.
Choi and Liu do not disclose that the patterned distributed Bragg reflector has multiple through-holes, each of the through-holes having an opening width in the first direction, wherein the opening width is greater than or equal to 1 μm, and less than the sub-pixel width.
However, figs. 4-5 of Nam discloses a color filter layer 180 including red, green and blue sub-color filters 80a, 80b and 80c has a through hole "TH" to adjust color property and brightness.
Note that Choi discloses wavelength band filter 850 may be a color filter or a distributed Bragg reflector and through holes in color is applicable to through holes in distributed Bragg reflector.
As such it would have been obvious to form a device of Choi and Liu comprising the first patterned distributed Bragg reflector having multiple first through-holes, wherein each of the first through-holes has a first opening width in the first direction, and the first opening width is less than the sub-pixel width such as taught by Nam in order to adjust color property and brightness.
Choi and Liu and Nam do not disclose that the first opening width is greater than or equal to 1 μm.
However, it should be noted that a width of the first opening does inherently exist in Nam reference Therefore, the prior art of Nam provides foundation for experimental optimization and suggests a progress of changes in size/proportion in order to optimize color property and brightness.
Therefore, while the structure of Choi and Nam do not quantitatively state a range, the courts have held that when the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is a size/proportion, then a prima facie case of obviousness exists [See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to form a device comprising that the first opening width is greater than or equal to 1 μm in order to optimize color property and brightness.
Regarding claim 14, Choi and Liu disclose claim 12, but do not disclose wherein the patterned distributed Bragg reflector has multiple through-holes, and the color conversion layers are filled into the through-holes.
However, figs. 4-5 of Nam discloses a color filter layer 180 including red, green and blue sub-color filters 80a, 80b and 80c has a through hole "TH" to adjust color property and brightness.
Note that Choi discloses wavelength band filter 850 may be a color filter or a distributed Bragg reflector and through holes in color is applicable to through holes in distributed Bragg reflector.
As such it would have been obvious to form a device of Choi and Liu comprising the first patterned distributed Bragg reflector having multiple first through-holes, wherein each of the first through-holes has a first opening width in the first direction, and the first opening width is less than the sub-pixel width such as taught by Nam in order to adjust color property and brightness.
The resulting structure would have been one wherein the color conversion layers are filled into the through-holes as forming through-hole in layer 850 of Choi would create open region to be filled with 810 materials.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi and Nam and Liu.
Regarding claim 11, Choi and Nam do not disclose wherein the first patterned distributed Bragg reflector comprises multiple first sub-layers and multiple second sub-layers that are stacked alternately, wherein a thickness of one of the first sub-layers directly contacting the counter substrate is greater than a thickness of each of the second sub-layers and a thickness of each of another of the first sub-layers respectively.
However, par [0021] of Liu discloses of a distributed Bragg reflector includes two pairs of alternating silicon oxide and silicon nitride layers in the present embodiment, N=2.
In view of such teaching, it would have been obvious to form a device of Choi and Nam comprising wherein the first patterned distributed Bragg reflector comprises multiple first sub-layers and multiple second sub-layers that are stacked alternately such as taught by Liu in order to create a light reflector.
Choi and Nam and Liu do not disclose wherein a thickness of one of the first sub-layers directly contacting the counter substrate is greater than a thickness of each of the second sub-layers and a thickness of each of another of the first sub-layers respectively.
However, the courts have held that when the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is a size/proportion, then a prima facie case of obviousness exists [See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to form a device comprising wherein a thickness of one of the first sub-layers directly contacting the counter substrate is greater than a thickness of each of the second sub-layers and a thickness of each of another of the first sub-layers respectively in order to optimize color property and brightness.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VONGSAVANH SENGDARA whose telephone number is (571)270-5770. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM 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, PURVIS A. Sue can be reached on (571)272-1236. 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.
/VONGSAVANH SENGDARA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893