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 .
This Office Action is in response to the application filed February 20, 2025.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
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 2-3 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.
Which layer is “a layer”?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Karasawa et al. (JP 2005019074 A).
In regard to claim 1, Karasawa et al. teach a display device 1 comprising: a first electrode 20 provided on a substrate 11; a light emitting layer 22 provided on the first electrode 20; a second electrode 23 provided on the light emitting layer 22; and an anti-reflection layer (See pages 10-11, paragraph [0032]) provided on the second electrode 23, the anti-reflection layer (See pages 10-11, paragraph [0032]) including a light-absorbing material (See pages 10-11, paragraph [0032]), wherein the light-absorbing material (See pages 10-11, paragraph [0032]) comprises at least one material selected from the group consisting of amorphous carbon (a-C), a polymer, a monomer, metal (See pages 10-11, paragraph [0032]), and graphite (Figures 1-2, pages 8-14, paragraphs [0025]-[0043]).
As best understood and in regard to claim 2, Karasawa et al. teach a first interface layer 24 additionally provided on a top surface of the anti-reflection layer (See pages 10-11, paragraph [0032]), and the first interface layer 24 having a refractive index between a refractive index of the anti-reflection layer (See pages 10-11, paragraph [0032]) and a refractive index of a layer, contacting the first interface layer 24, on the first interface layer 24 (Figures 1-2, pages 8-14, paragraphs [0025]-[0043]).
As best understood and in regard to claim 3, Karasawa et al. teach a second interface layer 21 additionally provided on a bottom surface of the anti-reflection layer (See pages 10-11, paragraph [0032]), and the second interface layer 21 having a refractive index between a refractive index of the anti-reflection layer (See pages 10-11, paragraph [0032]) and a refractive index of a layer, contacting the second interface layer 21, under the second interface layer 21 (Figures 1-2, pages 8-14, paragraphs [0025]-[0043]).
In regard to claim 4, Karasawa et al. teach an encapsulation layer 24 additionally provided on the second electrode 23, and the anti-reflection layer (See pages 10-11, paragraph [0032]) provided between the second electrode 23 and the encapsulation layer 24 (Figures 1-2, pages 8-14, paragraphs [0025]-[0043]).
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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karasawa et al. (JP 2005019074 A) in view of Kim et al. (KR 20210004006 A).
Karasawa et al. teach all mentioned in the rejection above.
However, Karasawa et al. fail to teach an encapsulation layer and a hard coating layer additionally provided on the second electrode, and the anti-reflection layer provided between the encapsulation layer and the hard coating layer.
Kim et al. teach an encapsulation layer and a hard coating layer (See page 7, paragraph 5) additionally provided on the second electrode CE, and the anti-reflection layer RPL provided between the encapsulation layer TFE and the hard coating layer (See page 7, paragraph 5) (Figures 2a and 11, pages 5-30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display device structure as taught by Karasawa et al. with the display device having an encapsulation layer and a hard coating layer additionally provided on the second electrode, and the anti-reflection layer provided between the encapsulation layer and the hard coating layer as taught by Kim et al. to prevent reflection of external light (page 3, paragraph 3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 7 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.
Claims 8-16 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record (Karasawa et al. (JP 2005019074 A)) does not disclose, make obvious, or otherwise suggest the structure of the applicant's claimed invention together with the other limitations of the dependent claims 9-16, such as the configuration of the anti-reflection layer under the second electrode.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following patents are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to display devices:
Baek et al. (US 2018/0364521 A1) Lee et al. (EP 3553637 A1)
Yang et al. (US 2017/0317316 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IDA M SOWARD whose telephone number is (571)272-1845. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, 7am to 5:30pm.
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.
IMS
April 6, 2026
/IDA M SOWARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights