DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 4/16/24, 2/11/25, and 1/26/26 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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) 1, 2, 4-8, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ha (US 2022/0165983).
As to claim 1, Ha teaches a display device (1000, fig. 7) comprising:
a substrate (100) on which a display area and a non-display area surrounding the display area are defined ([0044], display and non-display areas not explicitly taught but they are very obviously the standard in display devices);
a light emitting element layer (200) disposed on the substrate (100, [0045]) and comprising a plurality of light emitting elements disposed in the display area (plurality not explicitly taught however no one makes a display device with just one LED); and
an encapsulation layer (300 and 400, [0046] – [0055]) comprising
a first inorganic encapsulation layer (300) disposed on the light emitting element layer (200, [0047]),
an organic encapsulation layer (401) disposed on the first inorganic encapsulation layer (300, [0054]), and
a second inorganic encapsulation layer (402) disposed on the organic encapsulation layer (401, [0054]),
wherein at least one selected from the first inorganic encapsulation layer (300) and the second inorganic encapsulation layer (402) comprises a first inorganic layer (301), a second inorganic layer (302) disposed on the first inorganic layer (301) and a third inorganic layer (303) disposed on the second inorganic layer (302, fig. 1, [0048] – [0050]),
a thickness (d1 and d3) of each of the first inorganic layer (301) and the third inorganic layer (303) is less than a thickness (d2) of the second inorganic layer (302, fig. 1m, [0051]),
the thickness (d1 and d3) of each of the first inorganic layer (301) and the third inorganic layer (303) is about 50 Å or less ([0012] – [0013]), and
a ratio of the thickness (d1) of the first inorganic layer (301) to the thickness (d2) of the second inorganic layer (302) is about 0.03 or less ([0012] – [0013] and [0052]).
As to claim 2, Ha further teaches a sum of thicknesses of the first inorganic layer, the second inorganic layer, and the third inorganic layer is about 0.4 µm or less (fig. 4, the max thickness is 100nm, which is less than 0.4 µm).
As to claim 4, Ha further teaches a refractive index of the second inorganic layer is in a range of about 1.75 to about 1.90, a refractive index of each of the first inorganic layer and the third inorganic layer is about 1.85 or greater, and the refractive index of each of the first inorganic layer and the third inorganic layer is greater than the refractive index of the second inorganic layer (see table 1 on p. 4).
As to claim 5, Ha further teaches each of the first inorganic layer, the second inorganic layer, and the third inorganic layer comprises silicon nitride ([0063] and table 1 on p. 4, SiCN comprises silicon nitride).
As to claim 6, Ha does not teach each of the first inorganic encapsulation layer and the second inorganic encapsulation layer comprises the first inorganic layer, the second inorganic layer, and the third inorganic layer. However, having multiple layers for a passivation/protection layer, such as 402, is known and would have been obvious so as to improve protection of the device.
As to claims 7 and 8, Ha is silent on the water vapor transmission rate of the inorganic encapsulation layers. However, reducing the water vapor transmission rate would have been obvious so as to keep damaging water vapor away from the sensitive electronic devices within the display device. If that leads to the range claimed. then that is the result of ordinary skill in the art and not innovation. Furthermore, the Applicant has not shown that anything other than inherent properties of the inorganic encapsulation layers contribute to this claimed range. Thus, the Ha reference meets this limitation.
As to claim 12, Ha further teaches a circuit layer (figs. 1 and 7, 200) disposed between the substrate (100) and the light emitting element layer (300), wherein the circuit layer comprises a first semiconductor layer (ATV), a first insulating layer (IL1), a first conductive layer (G), a second insulating layer IL2), a second conductive layer (EL1/EL2), and a third insulating layer (IL3).
Ha doesn’t explicitly teach a second semiconductor layer, a fourth insulating layer, a third conductive layer, a fifth insulating layer, and a fourth conductive layer sequentially disposed on the substrate.
However, having multiple transistors in different levels, along with their buildouts, would have been obvious so as to fabricate smaller devices with smaller footprints and dimensions.
Claim(s) 3 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ha (US 2022/0165983) in view of Wang (US 2014/0210085).
As to claim 3, Ha further teaches the first and third inorganic layers (301 and 303) are SiN and the second inorganic layer (302) is SiCN ([0063] and table 1 on p. 4) but does not explicitly teach the densities of these layers. However, Wang teaches a multi-layered capping layer for protecting a device, similar to that of the instant invention, having SiN and SiCn layers with densities of 2.4 g/cm3 and 1.5 g/cm3, respectively ([0023]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed that these layers would have had the density
As to claim 13, Ha teaches a method of fabricating a display device (figs. 1, 7, and 8A-8D), the method comprising:
forming a light emitting element layer (200, [0045]), which comprises a plurality of light emitting elements, on a substrate (plurality not explicitly taught however no one makes a display device with just one LED);
forming a first inorganic encapsulation layer (300) on the light emitting element layer (200, [0047]) and forming an organic encapsulation layer (401) on the first inorganic encapsulation layer (300, [0054]); and
forming a second inorganic encapsulation layer (402) on the organic encapsulation layer (401, [0054]),
Ha teaches:
forming of the first inorganic encapsulation layer (402) comprises:
forming a first inorganic layer (301, [0047]) having a high-density on the organic encapsulation layer (301 is SiN, see table 1 and [0063], Wang teaches SiN with a density of 2.4 g/cm3);
forming a second inorganic layer (302, [0054]) having a low-density on the first inorganic layer (302 is SiCN, see table 1 and [0063], Wang teaches SiCN with a density of 1.5 g/cm3); and
forming a third inorganic layer (303, [0054]) having a high-density on the second inorganic layer (301 is SiN, see table 1 and [0063], Wang teaches SiN with a density of 2.4 g/cm3),
But does not teach the second inorganic encapsulation layer is also formed in this manner. However, having multiple layers for a passivation/protection layer, such as 402, is known and would have been obvious so as to improve protection of the device.
Ha does not teach a deposition rate in the forming of the second inorganic layer is higher than a deposition rate in the forming of the first inorganic layer and the forming of the third inorganic layer.
However, it is obvious that deposition rate would be higher as it is known that higher deposition rates increase thickness (as thickness control depends on the formula rate * time). Furthermore, higher deposition rates lead to lower densities as there is less time for the silicon nitride lattice to form. Since the second layer has both a lower density and is thicker than the first and third layers, it is obvious that the deposition rate for the second layer would be higher.
As to claim 14, Ha in view of Wang are silent on the deposition rates. However, determining the optimal deposition rates would be obvious so as to arrive at layers having the desired thicknesses and densities. If that leads to the rates claimed, then that is the result of ordinary skill in the art and not innovation.
As to claim 15, Ha further teaches a thickness (d1 and d3) of each of the first inorganic layer (301) and the third inorganic layer (303) is less than a thickness (d2) of the second inorganic layer (302, fig. 1), the thickness of each of the first inorganic layer and the third inorganic layer is about 50 Å or less ([0012] – [0013]), and a ratio of the thickness of the first inorganic layer to the thickness of the second inorganic layer is about 0.03 or less ([0052] and [0012] – [0013]).
As to claim 16, see rejections of claims 3 and 4.
As to claims 17-19, Ha further teaches these limitations ([0103]).
As to claim 20, Ha is silent on the water vapor transmission rate of the inorganic encapsulation layers. However, reducing the water vapor transmission rate would have been obvious so as to keep damaging water vapor away from the sensitive electronic devices within the display device. If that leads to the range claimed. then that is the result of ordinary skill in the art and not innovation. Furthermore, the Applicant has not shown that anything other than inherent properties of the inorganic encapsulation layers contribute to this claimed range. Thus, the Ha reference meets this limitation.
Claim(s) 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ha (US 2022/0165983) in view of Kim (US 2019/0179466).
As to claim 9, Ha teaches the layers associated with a single pixel circuit within a display device (fig. 7) but does not show the rest of the display device. However, display devices are known the have display areas and non-display areas and are also known to have dams between those areas.
Kim teaches such a device having a display area (DA) and a non-display area (NDA) surrounding the display area (figs. 13, 14, and [0045] – [0048]). Kim further teaches a first dam (121) disposed in the non-display area (NDA) and surrounding the display area (DA, fig. 13, [0108]) and a second dam (122) surrounding the first dam (121, [0112]), wherein the organic encapsulation layer (313) is disposed in the display area (DA, fig. 14) and the non-display area (NDA) inside the second dam (122, fig. 13, [0156]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed that the display device of Ha would have the dams of Kim so as to prevent the overflow of the organic material (Kim, [0117]).
As to claim 10, Kim further teaches the first inorganic encapsulation layer (311) and the second inorganic encapsulation layer (314) directly contact each other in the non-display area outside the second dam (122, fig. 13, the encapsulation layer comprises first inorganic encapsulation layer 311, organic encapsulation layer 313, and second encapsulation inorganic layer 314, which is analogous to Ha’s encapsulation layer 300, 401, and 402).
As to claim 11, Kim further teaches side surfaces of the second inorganic layer are exposed in the non-display area (Fig. 13).
Conclusion
Any response to this Office Action should be faxed to (571) 273-8300 or mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Hand-Delivered responses should be brought to:
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22313
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREN M KUSUMAKAR whose telephone number is (571)270-3520. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday from 7:30a – 4:30p EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fernando Toledo can be reached on 571-272-1867. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KAREN KUSUMAKAR/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897
6/22/26
Prosecution Insights