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 1, 2, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae et al. (2022/0392978, hereafter Bae ‘978) in view of Bae et al. (2021/0066399, hereafter Bae ‘399) and Park et al. (2021/0225943, hereafter Park).
Regarding claim 1, Bae ‘978 discloses a display device, comprising: a substrate (101, par. 0084); a first electrode (ANO, par. 0085) on the substrate; a pixel defining layer (ED1, par. 0085) having a pixel opening, wherein the first electrode is in the pixel opening; a light emitting layer (EL_1, par. 0085) in the pixel opening; a second electrode (CAT, par. 0085) on the light emitting layer and the pixel defining layer; an encapsulation layer (110, par. 0084) on the second electrode; a first sensing electrode part (YMTL1, par. 0112) on the encapsulation layer; a first sensing insulating layer (TSL, par. 0084) on the first sensing electrode part; a second sensing electrode (YMTL2, par. 0112) part and a first light blocking layer (BM_1, par. 0055) and a second light blocking layer (BM_I_1, par. 0055) on the first sensing insulating layer (Fig. 8).
Bae ‘978 fails to disclose a reflective layer positioned on the first sensing insulating layer; wherein at least a portion of a lower surface of the reflective layer is inclined.
However, Bae ‘399 teaches a reflective layer (ICS) positioned on the first sensing insulating layer (TFL); wherein at least a portion of a lower surface of the reflective layer is inclined (Fig. 2B, par. 0099-0100).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Bae ‘978 with Bae ‘399 by including a reflective layer for which a portion of the lower surface is inclined in order to ensure signal optimization and optical path control via total internal reflection by directing the light toward the sensing element.
Bae ‘978 and Bae ‘399 fail to disclose the second light blocking layer overlaps the reflective layer and partially overlaps the light emitting layer.
However, Park teaches the second light blocking layer (BM2, Fig. 3B, par. 0087) overlaps the reflective layer (BW, Fig. 3B, par. 0108) and partially overlaps the light emitting layer (EML, Fig. 3B, par. 0076).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Bae ‘978 and Bae ‘399 with Park by including a light-blocking layer that overlaps a reflective layer and light emitting layer in order to block stray light from hitting reflective components and prevent unwanted reflections while preventing internal light leakage between sub-pixels to eliminate crosstalk.
Regarding claim 2, Bae ‘978 discloses a display device, wherein: the second light blocking layer comprises a second-1 sub-light blocking layer (BM_I_1) overlapping a first pixel (PX_1); a second-2 sub-light blocking layer (BM_I_2) overlapping a second pixel (PX_2), and a second-3 sub-light blocking layer (BM_I_3) overlapping a third pixel (PX_3) (Fig. 2, pr. 0058).
Regarding claim 11, Bae ‘978 discloses a display device, wherein: the display device further includes a color filter (121_1) on the first light blocking layer (BM_1) and the second light blocking layer (BM_I_1) (Fig. 8, par. 0084, 0126).
Regarding claim 12, Bae ‘978 discloses a display device, wherein: the second-1 sub-light blocking layer (BM_I_1), the second-2 sub-light blocking layer (BM_I_2), and the second-3 sub-light blocking layer (BM_I_3) have different areas from each other (Fig. 2, par. 0051-0052).
Regarding claim 14, Bae ‘978 discloses a display device, wherein: the first light blocking layer (BM_1) overlaps the pixel defining layer (ED1) (Fig. 8, par. 0083-0084).
Regarding claim 15, Bae ‘978 discloses a display device, comprising: a substrate (101); a plurality (Figs. 1, 2, 3; par. 0083) of first electrodes (ANO) on the substrate; a pixel defining layer having a plurality of pixel openings (ED1) overlapping each of the plurality of first electrodes; a plurality of light emitting layers (EL_1) respectively positioned within the plurality of pixel openings of the pixel defining layer; a second electrode (CAT) on the plurality of light emitting layers and the pixel defining layer; an encapsulation layer (110) on the second electrode; a lower sensing electrode part (YMTL1) on the encapsulation layer; a first sensing insulating layer (TSL) on the lower sensing electrode part; an upper sensing electrode part (YMTL2) on the first sensing insulating layer (Fig. 8, par. 0084, 0085, 0112); wherein the plurality of light blocking layers (BM_I_1/2/3) have at least two planar shapes different from each other (Fig. 2, par. 0051).
Bae ‘978 fails to disclose a plurality of reflective layers on the first sensing insulating layer and overlapping the plurality of pixel openings, respectively; and a plurality of light blocking layers on the plurality of reflective layers.
However, Bae ‘399 teaches a plurality (Fig. 5H) of reflective layers (ICS) on the first sensing insulating layer (IL-R) and overlapping the plurality of pixel openings (OP), respectively (par. 0126).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Bae ‘978 with Bae ‘399 by providing reflective layers on the sensing insulating layer and light blocking layers on the reflective layers so that the reflective layers may act as a shield against electromagnetic interference for the sensing electrodes and the light blocking layers may be a guard against noise from ambient light for the sensor.
Bae ‘978 and Bae ‘399 fail to disclose a plurality of light blocking layers overlapping the plurality of reflective layers.
However, Park teaches a plurality of light blocking layers (BM1/BM2, Fig. 3B) overlapping the plurality of reflective layers (BW, Fig. 3B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Bae ‘978 and Bae ‘399 with Park by providing a plurality of light-blocking layers overlapping reflective layers in order to block stray light from hitting reflective components and prevent unwanted reflections while preventing internal light leakage between sub-pixels to eliminate crosstalk.
Regarding claim 16, Bae ‘978 discloses a display device, wherein: the plurality of light blocking layers (BM_1/BM_I_1, Fig. 8) comprise a second light blocking layer (BM_I_1, Fig. 8), and the second light blocking layer comprises a second-1 sub-light blocking layer (BM_I_1) overlapping a first pixel (PX_1), a second-2 sub-light blocking layer (BM_I_2) overlapping a second pixel (PX_2), and a second-3 sub-light blocking layer (BM_I_3) overlapping a third pixel (PX_3) (Fig. 2, par. 0058).
Regarding claim 18, Bae ‘978 discloses a display device of, wherein: the second-1 sub-light blocking layer (BM_I_1) and the second-2 sub-light blocking layer (BM_I_2) have different planar areas (Fig. 2, par. 0051-0052).
Regarding claim 19, Bae ‘978 discloses a display device, wherein: the first sensing insulating layer (TSL) includes a first opening (121) exposing the lower sensing electrode part (YMTL1) and a plurality of second openings (122) respectively overlapping the plurality of pixel openings (Fig. 8, par. 0112).
Claims 3-10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae ‘978 in view of Bae ‘399 and Park as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jeon et al. (12369457, hereafter Jeon).
Regarding claim 3, Bae ‘978 discloses a display device, wherein: the display device includes a plurality of second-1 sub-light blocking layers (BM_I_1, Figs. 1-2, par. 0044, 0058).
Bae ‘978 and Bae ‘399 discussed above fail to disclose each of the second-1 sub-light blocking layers having an elliptical shape and having a first major axis, and a first angle between the first major axis and a first direction has a value of at least 2 or greater.
However, Jeon teaches each of the second-1 sub-light blocking layers (Pr’) having an elliptical shape and having a first major axis, and a first angle between the first major axis and a first direction has a value of at least 2 or greater (Fig. 12; Col. 23, lines 33-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Bae ‘978 and Bae ‘399 with Jeon by designing light blocking layers with an elliptical shape being oriented with an angle between the major axis and the first direction so that the degree of the diffraction of the light reflected from the side wall of the opening may be alleviated and the spread of the diffraction may also be improved.
Regarding claim 4, Bae ‘978 and Bae ‘399 fail to disclose a display device, wherein: the first major axes of the plurality of second-1 sub-light blocking layers are randomly arranged.
However, Jeon teaches a display device, wherein: the first major axes of the plurality of second-1 sub-light blocking layers (Pr’) are randomly arranged (Fig. 12; Col. 23, lines 41-43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Bae ‘978 and Bae ‘399 with Jeon by arranging the sub-light blocking layers randomly in order to reduce interference and distribute diffraction.
Regarding claim 5, Bae ‘978 and Bae ‘399 fail to disclose a display device wherein: the first major axes of the plurality of second-1 sub-light blocking layers are disposed at equal intervals.
However, Jeon teaches a display device wherein: the first major axes of the plurality of second-1 sub-light blocking layers (Pr’) are disposed at equal intervals (Fig. 12; Col. 20, lines 6-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Bae ‘978 and Bae ‘399 with Jeon by disposing light blocking layers at equal intervals in order to establish luminance uniformity, prevent crosstalk, and provide structural stability.
Regarding claim 6, Bae ‘978 discloses a display device, wherein: the display device includes a plurality of second-2 sub-light blocking layers (BM_I_2, Figs. 1-2, par. 0044, 0058).
Bae ‘978 and Bae ‘399 fail to disclose each of the second-2 sub-light blocking layers having an elliptical shape and having a second major axis, and a second angle between the second major axis and a first direction has a value greater than or equal to 2.
However, Jeon teaches each of the second-2 sub-light blocking layers (Pb’) having an elliptical shape and having a second major axis, and a second angle between the second major axis and a first direction has a value of at least 2 or greater (Fig. 12, Col. 23, lines 33-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Bae ‘978 and Bae ‘399 with Jeon by designing light blocking layers with an elliptical shape being oriented with an angle between the major axis and the first direction so that the degree of the diffraction of the light reflected from the side wall of the opening may be alleviated and the spread of the diffraction may also be improved.
Regarding claim 7, Bae ‘978 and Bae ‘399 fail to disclose a display device, wherein: the second major axes of the plurality of second-2 sub-light blocking layers are equally spaced or randomly arranged.
However, Jeon teaches a display device, wherein: the second major axes of the plurality of second-2 sub-light blocking layers (Pb’) are randomly arranged (Fig. 12; Col. 23, lines 41-43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Bae ‘978 and Bae ‘399 with Jeon by arranging the sub-light blocking layers randomly in order to reduce interference and distribute diffraction.
Regarding claim 8, Bae ‘978 discloses a display device, wherein: the display device includes a plurality of second-3 sub-light blocking layers (BM_I_3, Figs. 1-2, par. 0044, 0058).
Bae ‘978 and Bae ‘399 fail to disclose each of the second-3 sub-light blocking layers having an elliptical shape and having a third major axis, a third angle between the third major axis and a first direction has a value of at least 2 or greater.
However, Jeon teaches each of the second-3 sub-light blocking layers (Pg’) having an elliptical shape and having a third major axis, a third angle between the third major axis and a first direction has a value of at least 2 or greater (Fig. 12; Col. 23, lines 33-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Bae ‘978 and Bae ‘399 with Jeon by designing light blocking layers with an elliptical shape being oriented with an angle between the major axis and the first direction so that the degree of the diffraction of the light reflected from the side wall of the opening may be alleviated and the spread of the diffraction may also be improved.
Regarding claim 9, Bae ‘978 and Bae ‘399 fail to disclose a display device, wherein: the third major axes of the plurality of second-3 sub-light blocking layers are equally spaced or randomly arranged.
However, Jeon teaches a display device, wherein: the third major axes of the plurality of second-3 sub-light blocking layers (Pg’) are equally spaced or randomly arranged (Fig. 12; Col. 23, lines 41-43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Bae ‘978 and Bae ‘399 with Jeon by arranging the sub-light blocking layers randomly in order to reduce interference and distribute diffraction.
Regarding claim 10, Bae ‘978 and Bae ‘399 fail to disclose a display device, wherein: a major axis of the second-1 sub-light blocking layer, a major axis of the second-2 sub-light blocking layer, and a major axis of the second-3 sub-light blocking layer are disposed in different directions.
However, Jeon teaches a display device, wherein: a major axis of the second-1 sub-light blocking layer (Pr’), a major axis of the second-2 sub-light blocking layer (Pb’), and a major axis of the second-3 sub-light blocking layer (Pg’) are disposed in different directions (Fig. 12; Col. 23, lines 33-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Bae ‘978 and Bae ‘399 with Jeon by orienting sub-light blocking layers in different direction in order to cancel out diffraction orders and improve contrast.
Regarding claim 17, Bae ‘978 and Bae ‘399 fail to disclose a display device, wherein: the second-1 sub-light blocking layer is rotated in a clockwise direction on a plane with respect to the second-2 sub-light blocking layer.
However, Jeon teaches a display device, wherein: the second-1 sub-light blocking layer (Pr’) is rotated in a clockwise direction on a plane with respect to the second-2 sub-light blocking layer (Pb’) (Fig. 12; Col. 23, lines 33-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Bae ‘978 and Bae ‘399 with Jeon by orienting sub-light blocking layers in different direction in order to cancel out diffraction orders and improve contrast.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae ‘978 in view of Bae ‘399 and Park as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of He et al. (2021/0405260, hereafter He).
Regarding claim 13, Bae ‘978 and Bae ‘399 discussed above fail to disclose a display device, wherein: a planar shape of the second light blocking layer is a triangular, quadrangular or pentagonal.
However, He teaches a display device, wherein: a planar shape of the second light blocking layer (Z) is a triangular, quadrangular or pentagonal (Fig. 15, par. 0067).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Bae ‘978 and Bae ‘399 with He by changing the shape of the light blocking layer in order to facilitate uniform dispersion of diffracted light around the light-shielding structures.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae ‘978 in view of Bae ‘399 and Park as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (11237659, hereafter Kim).
Regarding claim 20, Bae ‘978 and Bae ‘399 discussed above fail to disclose a display device, wherein: the upper sensing electrode part is in the first opening, and the plurality of reflective layers are in the plurality of second openings.
However, Kim teaches a display device, wherein: the upper sensing electrode part (320) is in the first opening (1195), and the plurality of reflective layers (1010) are in the plurality of second openings (1199) (Fig. 11B; Col. 15, lines 8-19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Bae ‘978 and Bae ‘399 with Kim by providing the upper sensing electrode in the first and second opening and reflective layers in the second opening in order to provide a bridge that minimizes thickness of the display and also utilizing the reflective layers for shielding and ambient light reflection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
/C.M.B./Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/ALI NARAGHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights