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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) to foreign applications KR 10-2023-0076283 filed on 6/14/2023 and KR 10-2023-0093736 filed on 7/19/2023. The foreign applications are not in English. The certified copy of the foreign priority application has been received. Filing Dates for the Claims — All Claims Not Entitled to Priority DateTo be entitled to the filing date of the foreign priority applications KR 10-2023-0076283 and an KR 10-2023-0093736 that is not in English, an English translation of the non-English language foreign applications and a statement that the translation is accurate in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55 is required to perfect the claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The foreign application must adequately support the claimed subject matter, meaning satisfy the written description and enablement requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a). See MPEP §§ 215 and 216. 37 C.F.R. 1.55(g)(3)(ii)-(iii). To demonstrate compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(a), applicant should point to support for their claimed subject matter in their translations.
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6, 10, 11, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (US Pub. 20220399479), hereinafter referred to as Xu and Araki et al. (US Pub. 20140286019), hereinafter referred to as Araki and Nam et al. (KR 10-2007-0031140), hereinafter referred to as Nam.
Regarding claim 1, Xu teaches a display (Xu, para. 2) comprising: a substrate (Xu, 314, Fig. 3, para. 37); a light emitting layer disposed on the substrate (Xu, 304, 312, 316, 318, 322, 324, Fig. 3, paras. 36-37), and including a plurality of first light emitting elements (Xu 312, para. 37, specifically the elements under 302 a-c), and at least one second light emitting element (Xu, 312, para. 37, the element under 302d); a plurality of first transmission members (Xu, microlenses 306 of subpixels 302a-c, Fig. 3, paras. 36, 69) disposed on each of the plurality of first light emitting elements, and configured to refract a first light from each of the plurality of first light emitting elements (Xu, 302a-c, Fig. 3, para 36); at least one second transmission member disposed on the at least one second light emitting element, and configured to transmit a second light from the at least one second light emitting element (Xu, 302d, Fig. 3, para 36).
Xu does not teach a blocking member including opaque material for absorbing at least a portion of the second light transmitted to an outside of the display, and contacting the at least one second transmission member, wherein a shape of the at least one second transmission member is different from a shape of each of the plurality of first transmission members.
However, Araki teaches and a blocking member (Araki, 35, Fig. 7, para. 125). including opaque material (Araki, para. 125) for absorbing at least a portion of the light transmitted to an outside of the display, and contacting the transmission member (Araki, 3, Fig. 7, para. 197), which is fitted into a recess (Araki, 3a, Fig. 7, para 202). Because the recess interrupts the normal rounded shape of the transmission member, the transmission member with the blocking member would therefore have a different shape.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine the display of Xu with the blocking member of Araki in order to block the light that travels straight in front of the light source and cause light to travel obliquely (Araki, para. 207).
Further, Nam, Fourth embodiment, Figs. 7A-7E teaches a method of repairing a bright point defect caused by a defect between portions of the substrate, after it is bonded, utilizing a light blocking material, .
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teachings of Xu and Araki to darken bright spots as suggested by Nam in order to solve the bright spot caused by a defect (Nam, Tech Solution, second paragraph) in the second light emitting element, thereby naturally resulting in the “different shape” as described by Araki,
Regarding claim 2, modified Xu teaches the display of claim 1, wherein the second light becomes brighter than the first light by a defect in the at least one of the substrate and the light emitting layer (Nam, Fourth embodiment, Figs. 7A-7E teaches a method of repairing a bright point defect caused by a defect between portions of the substrate, after it is bonded, utilizing a light blocking material).
Regarding claim 3, modified Xu teaches the display of claim 1, wherein the substrate is formed of an opaque material (Xu, para. 40, describes it as a silicon substrate, which per para. 61 of the application is an opaque material).
Regarding claim 4, modified Xu teaches the display of claim 1, wherein the substrate includes silicone (Xu, para. 40).
Regarding claim 5, modified Xu teaches the display of claim 1, wherein at least a portion of the blocking member (Araki, 35, Fig. 7) is surrounded by the at least one second transmission member (Araki, 3, Fig. 7, para. 202).
Regarding claim 6, modified Xu teaches the display of claim 5, wherein the blocking member (Araki, 35, Fig. 7) is at least partially inserted in the at least one second transmission member (Araki, 3, Fig. 7, para. 202).
Regarding claim 10, modified Xu teaches the display of claim 1, wherein the blocking member (Araki, 34, Figs. 4-5, paras. 162-169) overlaps the at least one second light emitting element when viewing the display from above (Araki, Figs. 4 and 5 show the light blocking region, 34, arranged between the light transmitting region, 33, and in Fig. 7 it shows the lock blocking member, 35 arranged over the light emitting part, 22, para. 138, of the LED).
Regarding claim 11, modified Xu teaches the display of claim 1, wherein a thickness of the at least one second transmission member is smaller than a thickness of each of the plurality of first transmission members (Araki, Fig. 7, the top portion of the transmission member 3, is removed to create the recess , therefore the modified transmission member will have a different shape than the unmodified ones).
Regarding claim 14, modified Xu teaches the display of claim 1, further comprising: a plurality of conductive lines (Xu, 316, 318, Fig. 3) see diagram below) interposed between the light emitting layer and the substrate (Xu, 314, Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
271
648
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, modified Xu teaches the display of claim 1, wherein an area of one surface of the at least one second transmission member facing the at least one second light emitting element is greater than an area of one surface of the blocking member facing the at least one second light element (Araki, Figs. 4, 5, 7).
Regarding claim 2, modified Xu teaches the display of claim 1, wherein the second light becomes brighter than the first light by a defect in the at least one of the substrate and the light emitting layer (Nam, Fourth embodiment, Figs. 7A-7E teaches a method of repairing a bright point defect caused by a defect between portions of the substrate, after it is bonded, utilizing a light blocking material).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu and Araki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Furula et al. (US Pub. 20230077028, hereinafter referred to as Furula.
Regarding claim 12, modified Xu teaches the display of claim 1, wherein the light emitting layer includes: a plurality of first electrodes (Xu, 318, Fig. 3, para. 37) spaced apart from each other; a plurality of partition walls (Xu, 304, Fig. 3, para. 36) surrounding the plurality of first electrodes; and a light emitting layer, disposed on the plurality of first electrodes (Xu, 312, Fig. 3, para. 37) and a second electrode disposed on the light emitting layer (Xu, 316, Fig. 3, para. 37).
Xu does not teach wherein the light emitting layer is an organic layer including organic light emitting material.
However, Furula teaches a display device which uses an OLED layer (Furula, 12, Fig. 1a, para. 33) which contains a first electrode an organic layer and a second electrode.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the OLED layer of Furula with the pixel of Xu and the blocking member of Araki in order to improve reliability (Furula, para. 44).
Regarding claim 13, modified Xu teaches the display of claim 12, wherein the organic layer fills at least a portion of a space between the plurality of partition walls (Xu, the LED 312, Fig. 3 is disposed between the partition walls 304, Fig. 3, and has been replaced by the organic layer of Furula, 12, Fig. 1a).
Claims 16, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu, Araki, Furula and Nam.
Regarding claim 16, Xu teaches a display (Xu, para. 2) which includes: a substrate (Xu, 314, Fig. 3, para. 37); a light emitting layer disposed on the substrate (Xu, 304, 312, 316, 318, 322, 324, Fig. 3, paras. 36-37), and including a plurality of first light emitting elements (Xu 312, para. 37, specifically the elements under 302 a-c), and at least one second light emitting element (Xu, 312, para. 37, the element under 302d); a plurality of first transmission members disposed on each of the plurality of first light emitting elements, and configured to refract a first light from each of the plurality of first light emitting elements (Xu, 302a-c, Fig. 3, para 36); at least one second transmission member disposed on the at least one second light emitting element, and configured to transmit a second light from the at least one second light emitting element (Xu, 302d, Fig. 3, para 36).
Xu does not teach an electronic device comprising a housing and a display disposed on the housing, and wherein the display includes a blocking member including opaque material for absorbing at least a portion of the second light having a brighter brightness than the first light due to a defect on the substrate, and contacting the at least one second transmission member, wherein a volume of the at least one second transmission member is different from a volume of each of the plurality of first transmission members.
However, Furula teaches an electronic device comprising a housing (Furula, 1203, Fig. 6B, para. 120) and a display (Furula 1201, Fig. 6B, para. 120) disposed on the housing.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the display of Xu in the housing of Furula to support and protect the display.
Additionally, Araki teaches a blocking member (Araki, 35, Fig. 3, para. 125). including opaque material (Araki, para. 125) for absorbing at least a portion of the light transmitted to an outside of the display, and contacting the transmission member (Araki, 3, Fig. 7, para. 197), which is fitted into a recess (Araki, 3a, Fig. 7, para 202). Because the recess removes a portion of the transmission member, the transmission member with the blocking member would therefore have a different volume.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine the display of Xu and the housing of Furula with the blocking member of Araki in order to block the light that travels straight in front of the light source and cause light to travel obliquely (Araki, para. 207).
Finally, Nam (Fourth embodiment, Figs. 7A-7E) teaches a method of repairing a bright point defect caused by a defect between portions of the substrate, after it is bonded, utilizing a light blocking material.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teachings of Xu, Furula and Araki to darken bright spots as suggested by Nam in order to solve the bright spot (Nam, Tech Solution, second paragraph).
Regarding claim 17, modified Xu teaches the electronic device of claim 16, wherein at least a portion of the blocking member (Araki, 35, Fig. 7) is surrounded by the at least one second transmission member (Araki, 3, Fig. 7, para. 202).
Regarding claim 19, modified Xu teaches the display of claim 19, wherein a thickness of the at least one second transmission member is smaller than a thickness of each of the plurality of first transmission members (Araki, Fig. 7, the top portion of the transmission member 3, is removed to create the recess , therefore the modified transmission member will have a different shape than the unmodified ones).
Regarding claim 20, modified Xu teaches the display of claim 16, wherein an area of one surface of the at least one second transmission member facing the at least one second light emitting element is greater than an area of one surface of the blocking member facing the at least one second light element (Araki, Figs. 4, 5, 7) surface of the blocking member facing the at least one second light element.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 8, 9, and 18 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 7, modified Xu teaches the display of claim 1, further comprising: an encapsulation layer (Xu, 329, Fig. 3, para. 38) interposed between the light emitting layer and the plurality of first transmission members, and between the light emitting layer and the at least one second transmission member; and a filter layer (Xu, 310a-c, 304, Fig. 3, para. 36, also includes the area under 302d corresponding to 310d) interposed between the encapsulation layer and the plurality of first transmission members, and between the encapsulation layer and the at least one second transmission member, wherein the filter layer includes: a plurality of color filters (Xu, 310a-c and corresponding area under 302d, Fig. 3, para. 36) corresponding to each of the plurality of first light emitting elements, and the at least one second light emitting element, and a plurality of BMs (Xu, 304, para. 36) disposed between the plurality of color filters.
Xu and Araki do not teach, nor does the prior art suggest wherein the blocking member is inserted in at least a portion of one color filter corresponding to the at least one second light emitting element among the plurality of color filters.
PNG
media_image1.png
271
648
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 8 and 9, depend from claim 7, and would be allowable if the objection to claim 7 was overcome.by rewriting claim 7 in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 18, modified Xu teaches the electronic device of claim 16, further comprising: an encapsulation layer (Xu, 329, Fig. 3, para. 38) interposed between the light emitting layer and the plurality of first transmission members, and between the light emitting layer and the at least one second transmission member; and a filter layer (Xu, 310a-c, 304, Fig. 3, para. 36, also includes the area under 302d corresponding to 310d) interposed between the encapsulation layer and the plurality of first transmission members, and between the encapsulation layer and the at least one second transmission member, wherein the filter layer includes: a plurality of color filters (Xu, 310a-c and corresponding area under 302d, Fig. 3, para. 36) corresponding to each of the plurality of first light emitting elements, and the at least one second light emitting element, and a plurality of BMs (Xu, 304, para. 36) disposed between the plurality of color filters.
Xu Furula, Araki, and Nam do not teach, nor does the prior art suggest wherein the blocking member is inserted in at least a portion of one color filter corresponding to the at least one second light emitting element among the plurality of color filters.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Park et al. (US Pub. 20210280750) teaches a method of repairing a display device.
Tanaka et al. (US Pub 20130235278) teaches a method of manufacturing a display panel when there is a foreign object causing a bright point defect.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIERAN M CUNNINGHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-9654. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-4:3.
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, Britt Hanley can be reached at 5712703042. 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.
/KIERAN M. CUNNINGHAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/Britt Hanley/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights