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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-15) in the reply filed on 8/22/26 is acknowledged. Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Further, Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A in the reply filed on 6/22/26 is acknowledged. The claims readable on the elected Species are claims 7-9. Claims 6-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Accordingly, claims 1–9 and 14–15 are examined on the merits in the present Office action. Claims 10–13 and 16–20 remain withdrawn from consideration as being directed to non-elected subject matter.
Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/22/26.
Specification
The specification is objected to because it contains inconsistent descriptions concerning the layer in which pattern openings OPX1, OPX2, and OPX3 are formed, thereby creating an inconsistency between portions of the specification and the claimed subject matter.
In particular, paragraph [0205] states that “the light blocking layer BM may include pattern openings OPX1, OPX2, and OPX3” disposed to overlap pixel openings POP1, POP2, and POP3. This disclosure is consistent with claim 14, which recites that “the light blocking layer includes a plurality of pattern openings overlapping the plurality of pixel openings.”
However, paragraph [0179] identifies OPX1, OPX2, and OPX3 as “pattern openings ... of the metal oxide layer USL.” Similarly, paragraph [0208] refers to “the pattern openings OPX1, OPX2, and OPX3 of the metal oxide layer USL.”
Thus, the specification inconsistently identifies the same pattern openings OPX1, OPX2, and OPX3 as being associated with the light blocking layer BM in paragraph [0205] and with the metal oxide layer USL in paragraphs [0179] and [0208].
Applicant is required to amend the specification, as appropriate, to correct this inconsistency and provide a consistent description of the layer in which pattern openings OPX1, OPX2, and OPX3 are formed.
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites, in pertinent part, “the pixel defining layer includes a plurality of pixel openings disposed between adjacent pixel electrodes.”
However, claim 1, from which claim 14 depends, previously recites only “a pixel electrode” and does not provide antecedent basis for the subsequently recited plurality of “pixel electrodes.”
Accordingly, it is unclear what plurality of pixel electrodes is referenced by the recitation “adjacent pixel electrodes,” thereby rendering claim 14 indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oh et al. (US 20220005874; “Oh”).
Regarding claim 1, Oh discloses a display device for a vehicle comprising:
a substrate (Fig. 3; [0079]-[0080]: base layer BL);
a light emitting element layer (Fig. 3; [0079]: light emitting elements EMD) disposed on the substrate and including a pixel electrode ([0082]: first electrode AE), an organic layer ([0087]: light emitting layer EML, which may include an organic material), and a common electrode ([0090]: second electrode CE, which may be a common electrode);
a pixel defining layer (Fig. 3; [0079], [0082]-[0084]: pixel definition layer PDL) disposed on the substrate and including a plurality of openings exposing a portion of the pixel electrode ([0084]: first opening areas OA1-R, OA1-G, and OA1-B are defined through PDL and expose at least portions of first electrodes AE);
an encapsulation layer (Fig. 3: ISL, which forms a discrete layer over and covers the underlying structure including the light emitting element layer EMD) disposed on the light emitting element layer;
a metal oxide layer (Figs. 3, 5A, and 5B; [0101]: second layer LR2, which may comprise a titanium oxide layer or an aluminum oxide layer) disposed on the encapsulation layer and overlapping the pixel defining layer;
a light blocking layer (Fig. 3; [0102], [0105]: light blocking layer BM) disposed on the metal oxide layer and overlapping the metal oxide layer; and
a color filter layer (Fig. 3; [0102]: color filter layer CFL including color filters CF) disposed on the light blocking layer and the encapsulation layer.
With respect to the recitation “for a vehicle,” Oh further expressly discloses that the disclosed display device may be applied to various electronic devices including a vehicle navigation unit [0058], thereby teaching use of the disclosed display device for a vehicle. Moreover, the recitation “for a vehicle” merely sets forth an intended use of the claimed display device and does not further structurally distinguish the claimed display device from the display device disclosed by Oh.
Regarding claim 2, Oh further discloses the display device of claim 1, wherein the metal oxide layer is in contact with an upper surface of the encapsulation layer and a lower surface of the light blocking layer (Figs. 3 and 5B: LR2 is disposed between ISL and BM; [0098]: the intervening high refractive-index layer RFL may be omitted, thereby providing direct contact between LR2 and the upper surface of ISL; Fig. 5B further shows LR2 in direct contact with the lower surface of BM).
Regarding claim 3, Oh further discloses the display device of claim 1, wherein the metal oxide layer includes at least one of titanium oxide, zinc oxide, and tantalum oxide ([0101]: the second layer LR2 may be an inorganic layer including a titanium oxide layer).
Regarding claim 5, Oh further discloses the display device of claim 1, wherein the metal oxide layer includes a plurality of opening holes (Fig. 5B; [0115]: third opening areas OA3 formed through the second layer LR2) overlapping the plurality of openings of the pixel defining layer (Fig. 3: first opening areas OA1-R, OA1-G, and OA1-B of PDL).
Regarding claim 14, Oh further discloses the display device of claim 1, wherein the pixel defining layer includes a plurality of pixel openings (Fig. 3; [0084]: OA1-R, OA1-G, and OA1-B formed through PDL) disposed between adjacent pixel electrodes (Fig. 3; [0082]-[0085]: first electrodes AE), and the light blocking layer includes a plurality of pattern openings (Fig. 3; [0106]: OA2-R, OA2-G, and OA2-B formed through BM) overlapping the plurality of pixel openings (Fig. 3; [0106]: OA2-R, OA2-G, and OA2-B respectively correspond to OA1-R, OA1-G, and OA1-B).
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. (US 20220005874; “Oh”).
Regarding claim 4, Oh discloses the display device of claim 1 as discussed above, including a metal oxide layer ([0101]: second layer LR2, which may comprise, inter alia, a titanium oxide layer).
But Oh does not expressly disclose that the metal oxide layer has a thickness of about 10 nm to about 10,000 nm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a suitable thickness for the metal oxide layer LR2 through routine experimentation, since determination of an appropriate thickness for a known layer would have involved no more than routine optimization of a known parameter to provide the layer with a thickness suitable for its intended application. The claimed range of about 10 nm to about 10,000 nm is broad, and Applicant's specification does not indicate that the claimed range is critical or that selecting a thickness within the claimed range provides any unexpected result relative to thicknesses outside the claimed range.
Therefore, absent evidence of criticality or unexpected results associated with the claimed range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a suitable thickness for Oh's LR2, including a thickness within the claimed range of about 10 nm to about 10,000 nm, through routine experimentation.
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. (US 20220005874; “Oh”) in view of Lee et al. (US 20180123074; “Lee”).
Regarding claim 6, Oh discloses the display device of claim 1 as set forth above. Oh further discloses that the metal oxide layer includes a plurality of opening holes (Fig. 5B; [0115]: third opening areas OA3 formed through the second layer LR2) overlapping the plurality of openings of the pixel defining layer.
But Oh does not expressly disclose that a width of each of the plurality of opening holes of the metal oxide layer is substantially the same as a width of each of the plurality of openings of the pixel defining layer.
However, Lee teaches a similar display device including a black matrix 410 having a reflective layer 411, a light path change layer 412, and a semi-transmissive layer 413 (Fig. 2; [0060]-[0063]). Lee teaches that the light path change layer 412 may comprise ITO or IZO ([0062]). Lee further teaches a plurality of holes H1, H2, and H3 through the black matrix 410, in which respective color filters 421, 422, and 423 are disposed ([0057], [0064]).
Lee further teaches that the black matrix 410 is disposed at boundaries between adjacent pixels and overlaps the bank 270, which defines the respective pixel regions ([0059]). As illustrated in Fig. 2, each of the holes H1, H2, and H3 through the black matrix, including light path change layer 412, is vertically aligned with a corresponding pixel opening defined between adjacent portions of bank 270, and the corresponding openings are illustrated as having substantially corresponding lateral extents.
Although Lee does not expressly specify a numerical width relationship between the holes H1-H3 and the corresponding openings defined by bank 270, Fig. 2 teaches or at least suggests substantially corresponding widths between the vertically aligned openings.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the openings of Oh's metal oxide layer LR2 in accordance with the opening arrangement taught or suggested by Lee, such that a width of each opening hole of the metal oxide layer is substantially the same as a width of the corresponding opening of the pixel defining layer, thereby maintaining the layer over the pixel-defining portions while leaving the corresponding pixel/emission regions unobstructed. Such a modification would have involved no more than the predictable use of Lee's known opening arrangement in Oh's corresponding layered display structure to obtain the predictable result of aligned openings for the respective pixel regions.
Regarding claim 15, Oh discloses the display device of claim 14 as discussed above, including pixel defining layer PDL, metal oxide layer LR2, and light blocking layer BM.
But Oh does not expressly disclose the additional dimensional and alignment relationship recited in claim 15.
However, Lee teaches a display structure including a pixel defining layer (Fig. 2: bank 270) and a black matrix 410 disposed at boundaries between adjacent pixels and overlapping bank 270 ([0059]). The black matrix 410 includes a light path change layer 412, which may comprise ITO or IZO ([0060]-[0062]), thereby teaching a metal oxide layer.
As illustrated in Fig. 2 of Lee, the metal oxide layer 412 is vertically aligned with the corresponding bank 270, and a side of layer 412 is substantially aligned with a corresponding side of bank 270, thereby teaching or at least suggesting that the metal oxide layer and the pixel defining layer have substantially the same width and corresponding sides thereof are aligned with each other.
Although Lee does not expressly provide numerical dimensions for the respective widths, the relative dimensional and alignment relationship is illustrated in Fig. 2.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Oh's metal oxide layer LR2 and pixel defining layer PDL according to the corresponding arrangement taught or suggested by Lee, such that the metal oxide layer and the pixel defining layer have substantially the same width and corresponding sides are aligned with each other, thereby providing the known vertically corresponding layered arrangement over the non-emission regions while maintaining the respective pixel openings.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. (US 20220005874; “Oh”) in view of Lee et al. (US 20180123074; “Lee”), and further in view of Hwang et al. (US20240224697; “Hwang”).
Regarding claim 7, Oh in view of Lee teaches the display device of claim 6 as discussed above.
But, Oh in view of Lee does not expressly disclose the particular relative dimensional relationships additionally recited in claim 7.
However, Hwang teaches a display device including touch electrodes 151, which may be formed of a transparent metallic material or an oxide such as ITO or IZO ([0066]), thereby teaching a metal oxide layer. Hwang further teaches banks 125 defining the emission areas of the respective sub-pixels SP1, SP2, and SP3 ([0058]).
As illustrated in Fig. 3 of Hwang, each opening in metal oxide layer 151 is vertically aligned with a corresponding opening SP1, SP2, or SP3 defined by pixel defining layer 125. Fig. 3 further shows that the width of the opening in metal oxide layer 151 is greater than the width of the corresponding opening in pixel defining layer 125, while the portion of metal oxide layer 151 between adjacent openings is disposed within the corresponding portion of pixel defining layer 125 in the vertical direction, such that the width of metal oxide layer 151 is smaller than the width of the corresponding pixel defining layer 125.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further configure the metal oxide layer and corresponding openings of the device of Oh as modified by Lee according to the relative dimensional arrangement taught by Hwang, such that the opening of the metal oxide layer is wider than the corresponding opening of the pixel defining layer while the metal oxide layer itself is narrower than the corresponding pixel defining layer, thereby obtaining the known relative dimensional arrangement illustrated by Hwang.
Regarding claim 8, Oh in view of Lee and Hwang teaches the display device of claim 7 as discussed above. Hwang further teaches a light blocking layer 180 disposed over metal oxide layer 151 (Fig. 3). As illustrated in Fig. 3, in the vertical direction, light blocking layer 180 completely covers metal oxide layer 151 and transversely extends beyond opposite sides of metal oxide layer 151, such that the width of light blocking layer 180 is greater than the width of metal oxide layer 151.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further configure the light blocking layer of the device of Oh as modified by Lee according to the arrangement taught by Hwang, such that the light blocking layer completely covers the metal oxide layer in the vertical direction and transversely extends beyond the metal oxide layer, thereby providing light blocking over the non-emission region while maintaining the corresponding emission opening and obtaining the predictable light-blocking arrangement taught by Hwang.
Regarding claim 9, Oh in view of Lee and Hwang teaches the display device of claim 8 as discussed above. Hwang further teaches light blocking layer 180 disposed over and completely covering metal oxide layer 151 in the non-emission region. As illustrated in Fig. 3, light blocking layer 180 includes openings corresponding to the respective emission areas SP1, SP2, and SP3, and each opening of light blocking layer 180 is vertically aligned with the corresponding opening of metal oxide layer 151. Fig. 3 further shows that the opening of metal oxide layer 151 is greater in width than the corresponding opening of light blocking layer 180, such that metal oxide layer 151 is disposed inward from light blocking layer 180 in the non-emission region.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further configure the metal oxide layer and light blocking layer of the device of Oh as modified by Lee according to the relative dimensional arrangement taught by Hwang, such that the opening of the metal oxide layer is wider than the corresponding opening of the light blocking layer, thereby maintaining the light blocking layer over the non-emission region while providing the corresponding opening over the emission region and obtaining the predictable layered arrangement taught by Hwang.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Changhyun Yi whose telephone number is (571)270-7799. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 10A-3P.
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, Davienne Monbleau can be reached on 571-272-1945. 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.
/Changhyun Yi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights