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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 4/17/2024 and 12/12/2024 were filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract is consistent with the requirements set forth in the MPEP 608.01(b).
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: DISPLAY DEVICE COMPRISING WINDOW MODULE WITH CURVED REGION or DISPLAY DEVICE COMPRISING RESONANCE DISTANCE BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND ELECTRODE
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.
Claims 1, 6, 12, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. US PGPub. 2022/0209198 in view of Bang et al. US PGPub. 2019/0189701. Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a display device (100, fig. 1-2) [0035] comprising: a display module (layers 110-170, fig. 2) [0035]; and a window module (180, fig. 1-2) [0035] on the display module (110-170), the window module (180) comprising a front (top) surface comprising a flat region (PA, fig. 1) and a curved region (CA, fig. 1) around the flat region (PA), the display module (110-170) comprising: a base layer (110, fig. 2) [0035]; a light emitting element layer (layers 132-153, fig. 2) on the base layer (110), the light emitting element layer (132-153) comprising a light emitting element (150, fig. 2) [0035], the light emitting element (150) comprising a first electrode (151, fig. 2) [0042], a second electrode (153, fig. 2) [0042] on the first electrode (151) and comprises transparent conductive metal oxide (ITO etc., [0076]), and a light emitting layer (152, fig. 2) [0042] between the first electrode (151) and the second electrode (153); an encapsulation layer (170, fig. 2) [0079] on the light emitting element layer (150), and comprising: a single first inorganic layer (171, fig. 2) [0080] directly on the light emitting element layer (150); an organic layer (172, fig. 2) [0082] on the first inorganic layer (171); and a second inorganic layer (173, fig. 2) [0083] on the organic layer (172) (Kim et al., fig. 1-2). But Kim fails to teach wherein a distance between the first electrode (151) and the second electrode (153) is a primary resonance distance for light emitted from the light emitting layer (152); and a color filter layer on the encapsulation layer (170). However, Bang teaches a display device (100, fig. 2-3) [0031] comprising a distance (MCB, MCR, MCG, fig. 3) [0140] between the first electrode (RE, fig. 3) [0137] and the second electrode (143, fig. 3) [0137] is a primary resonance distance [0140] for light emitted from the light emitting layer (142, fig. 3) [0048]; and a color filter layer (180, fig. 2) [0031] on the encapsulation layer (170, fig. 2) [0031] (Bang et al., fig. 2-3). At the time before the effective filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make a simple substitution of the light emitting element of Kim for the light emitting element of Bang having the resonance distance because such resonance distance in a light emitting element is well known in the art and such structure is art recognized and suitable for the intended purpose of amplifying particular colored light while cancelling other colors (Bang et al., [0140]) which improves the light extraction efficiency and color reproducibility of the light emitting element (see MPEP 2144.07). Regarding claim 6, Kim in view of Bang teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the second electrode (153) comprises at least one of indium zinc oxide (IZO), indium tin oxide (ITO), zinc oxide (ZnO), or indium tin zinc oxide (ITZO) [0076] (Kim et al., [0076]).
Regarding claim 12, Kim teaches a display device (100, fig. 1-2) [0035] comprising: a display module (layers 110-170, fig. 2) [0035] comprising a first region (I-I’, fig. 1 and 2) and a second region (III-III’, fig. 1 and 4) around the first region (I-I’); and a window module (180, fig. 1-2) [0035] on the display module (110-170), the window module (180) comprising a front (top) surface comprising a flat region (PA, fig. 1) configured to overlap the first region (I-I’) in a plan view and a curved region (CA, fig. 1) around the flat region (PA), the display module (110-170) comprising: a base layer (110, fig. 2) [0035]; a light emitting element layer (layers 132-153, fig. 2) comprising a first light emitting element (150, fig. 2; hereinafter called 150-1) [0035] in the first region (I-I’) and a second light emitting element (layers 150, fig. 2; hereinafter called 150-2) [0035] in the second region (III-III’), the second light emitting element (150-2) comprising a first electrode (151, fig. 2) [0042], a second electrode (153, fig. 2) [0042] on the first electrode (151) and comprising transparent conductive metal oxide (ITO etc., [0076]), and a first light emitting layer (152, fig. 2) [0042] between the first electrode (151) and the second electrode (153),
an encapsulation layer (170, fig. 2) [0079] on the light emitting element layer (132-153) and comprising: a single first inorganic layer (171, fig. 2) [0080] directly on the light emitting element layer (132-153); an organic layer (172, fig. 2) [0082] on the first inorganic layer (171); and a second inorganic layer (173, fig. 2) [0083] on the organic layer (172) (Kim et al., fig., 1-2 and 4). But Kim fails to teach wherein a distance between the first electrode (151) and the second electrode (153) is a primary resonance distance for light emitted from the first light emitting layer (152); and a color filter layer on the encapsulation layer (170). However, Bang teaches a display device (100, fig. 2-3) [0031] comprising a distance (MCB, MCR, MCG, fig. 3) [0140] between the first electrode (RE, fig. 3) [0137] and the second electrode (143, fig. 3) [0137] is a primary resonance distance [0140] for light emitted from the light emitting layer (142, fig. 3) [0048]; and a color filter layer (180, fig. 2) [0031] on the encapsulation layer (170, fig. 2) [0031] (Bang et al., fig. 2-3). At the time before the effective filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make a simple substitution of the light emitting element of Kim for the light emitting element of Bang having the resonance distance because such resonance distance in a light emitting element is well known in the art and such structure is art recognized and suitable for the intended purpose of amplifying particular colored light while cancelling other colors (Bang et al., [0140]) which improves the light extraction efficiency and color reproducibility of the light emitting element (see MPEP 2144.07). Regarding claim 18, Kim in view of Bang teaches the display device of claim 12, wherein the second region (III-III’) surrounds the first region (I-I’) in a plan view (fig. 1), and wherein the curved region (CA) surrounds the flat region (PA) in the plan view (fig. 1) (Kim et al., fig. 1).
Regarding claim 20, Kim in view of Bang teaches the display device of claim 12, wherein the second region (III-III’) overlaps the curved region (CA) in a plan view (Kim et al., fig. 1).
Claims 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. US PGPub. 2022/0209198 in view of Bang et al. US PGPub. 2019/0189701 as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Ko et al. US PGPub. 2021/0183958. Regarding claims 2 and 13, Kim in view of Bang does not teach the display device of claims 1 and 12, wherein the distance (MCB, MCR, MCG, fig. 3) [0140] between the first electrode (RE) and the second electrode (143) is in a range from about 700 Å to about 1300 Å. However, Ko teaches a display device (1, fig. 2A) [0060] wherein the distance (L1, L2, L3, fig. 2A) [0168] between the first electrode (111-113, fig. 2A) [0061] and the second electrode (150, fig. 2A) [0073] is in a range from about 700 Å to about 1300 Å (650 Å - 1300 Å) [0168] (Ko et al., fig. 2A, [0168]). Accordingly, at the time before the effective filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to combine the teaching of Kim and Bang with that of Ko by using the distances between the first and second electrode in the range as claimed and as taught by Ko so that the colored light are in resonance mode which reduces manufacturing cost since smaller interlayer thickness is required and reduces driving voltage ad increases current efficiency (Ko et al., [0092]), because it has been held that where the general conditions of the claims are discloses in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05. Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. US PGPub. 2022/0209198 in view of Bang et al. US PGPub. 2019/0189701 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xia et al. US PGPub. 2020/0144548. Regarding claim 3, Kim in view of Bang does not teach the display device of claim 1, wherein the light emitting layer (152) has a refractive index of 1.8 to 1.95. However, Xia teaches a display device (fig. 2) [0024] wherein the light emitting layer (14, fig. 2) [0034] has a refractive index of 1.8 to 1.95 (1.7-1.9, [0017]) (Xia et al., fig. 2, [0017]). Accordingly, at the time before the effective filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to substitute the light emitting layer of Kim and Bang with that of Xia having a refractive index in the range as claimed and as taught by Xia in order to achieve a full-color display effect determined by the resonance cavity, thickness and refractive index of the layers (Xia et al., [0036]), because it has been held that where the general conditions of the claims are discloses in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05. Regarding claim 4, Kim in view of Bang does not teach the display device of claim 1, wherein the light emitting element (150) further comprises a hole transport region between the first electrode (151) and the light emitting layer (152), and wherein a distance between the first electrode (151) and the light emitting layer (152) is in a range from about 100 Å to about 400 Å. However, Xia teaches a display device (fig. 2-3) [0024] wherein the light emitting element (OLED, fig. 2) [0034] further comprises a hole transport region (141, fig. 2-3)[0042] between the first electrode (12, fig. 2)[0041] and the light emitting layer (14, fig. 2)[0041], and wherein a distance between the first electrode (12) and the light emitting layer (14) is in a range from about 100 Å to about 400 Å (18-25nm, 180-250 Å, [0042]) (Xia et al., fig. 2-3, [0042]). Accordingly, at the time before the effective filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to substitute the layers of the light emitting element of Kim and Bang with that of Xia having a hole transport region in the thickness range as claimed and as taught by Xia in order to achieve a full-color display effect determined by the resonance cavity, thickness and refractive index of the layers (Xia et al., [0036]), because it has been held that where the general conditions of the claims are discloses in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05. Regarding claim 5, Kim in view of Bang and Xia teaches the display device of claim 4, wherein the light emitting element (OLED) further comprises an electron transport region (143, fig. 2-3) [0042] between the light emitting layer (14/142) and the second electrode (12), and wherein the hole transport region (141) and the electron transport region (143) have a refractive index of about 1.8 to about 2.0 (1.7-1.9, [0017]) (Xia et al., fig. 2, [0017]). Accordingly, at the time before the effective filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to substitute the light emitting layer of Kim and Bang with that of Xia having a refractive index in the range as claimed and as taught by Xia in order to achieve a full-color display effect determined by the resonance cavity, thickness and refractive index of the layers (Xia et al., [0036]), because it has been held that where the general conditions of the claims are discloses in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. US PGPub. 2022/0209198 in view of Bang et al. US PGPub. 2019/0189701 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. US PGPub. 2022/0005985 (hereinafter called Kim ‘5985).
Regarding claim 7, Kim in view of Bang does not teach the display device of claim 1, wherein the second electrode (153) has a thickness of about 500 Å to about 800 Å. However, Kim ‘5958 teaches a display device (1, fig. 5) [0053] wherein the second electrode (CE, fig. 5) [0100] has a thickness of about 500 Å to about 800 Å (hundreds if angstroms, [0100]) (Kim ‘5958 et al., fig. 5, [0100]). Accordingly, at the time before the effective filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to combine teaching of Kim and Bang with that of Kim ‘5985 such that the thickness of the second electrode is in the range as claimed and as taught in order for the second electrode to have translucency (Kim ‘5985 et al. [0100]) to achieve a full-color display effect determined by the resonance cavity, thickness and refractive index of the layers (Xia et al., [0036]), because it has been held that where the general conditions of the claims are discloses in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. US PGPub. 2022/0209198 in view of Bang et al. US PGPub. 2019/0189701 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al. US PGPub. 2022/0102687.
Regarding claim 8, Kim in view of Bang does not teach the display device of claim 1, wherein the display module (110-170, fig. 2) further comprises a polarizer film on the color filter layer (180). However, Wang teaches a display device (100, fig. 12) [0073] wherein the display module (1, fig. 12) [0074] further comprises a polarizer film (3, fig. 12) [0152] on the color filter layer (6, fig. 12) [0152](Wang et al., fig. 12). At the time before the effective filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Kim and Bang by adding the polarizer on the color filter in the manner as taught by Wang because polarizers are well known in the art and such material/structure are art recognized and suitable for the intended purpose of jointly reduce the reflectivity of the display module to external light (Wang et al., [0152]) (see MPEP 2144.07).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. US PGPub. 2022/0209198 in view of Bang et al. US PGPub. 2019/0189701 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. US PGPub. 2022/0149312.
Regarding claim 11, Kim in view of Bang does not teach the display device of claim 1, wherein the light emitting layer (142) comprises a first light emitting layer and a second light emitting layer on the first light emitting layer. However, Lee teaches a display device (DD, fig. 2) [0053] wherein the light emitting layer (ED-1, fig. 2) [0060] comprises a first light emitting layer (EML1-1, fig. 2) [0061] and a second light emitting layer (EML1-2, fig. 2) [0061] on the first light emitting layer (EML1-1) (Lee et al., fig. 2).
At the time before the effective filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the single light emitting layer of Kim and Bang for the multi light emitting layer taught by Lee because light emitting elements with multiple light emitting layers stacked is well known in the art and such material/structure are art recognized and suitable for the intended purpose of improving the light emitting efficiency and life span (Lee et al., [0069]) (see MPEP 2144.07).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10, 14-17, 19 and 21-22 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior arts of record taken alone or in combination neither anticipates nor renders obvious a display device wherein “a luminance reduction percentage per angle within the window module of light emitted from the display module is about 2%/dgr or less based on luminance of light emitted in a direction parallel to a direction from the display module to the window module” as recited in claims 9 and 21 in combination with the rest of the limitations of claims 1 and 12; a display device wherein “a luminance reduction percentage per angle of light emitted from the display module and outputted through the window module is about 1%/dgr or less based on luminance of light emitted in a direction parallel to a direction from the display module to the window module” as recited in claims 10 and 22 in combination with the rest of the limitations of claims 1and 12;
a display device wherein “the first light emitting element comprises a third electrode, a fourth electrode on the third electrode, and a second light emitting layer between the third electrode and the fourth electrode, and wherein a distance between the third electrode and the fourth electrode of the first light emitting element is greater than the distance between the first electrode and the second electrode of the second light emitting element” as recited in claim 14 in combination with the limitation of claim 12 wherein the first light emitting element is in the first region and a second light emitting element is in the second region; and
a display device wherein “a distance between the second region and the curved region is less than a distance between the first region and the curved region in a plan view” as recited in claim 19 in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 12. Claims 15-17 are also allowable for further limiting and depending upon allowable claim 14. Claims 23-25 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior arts of record taken alone or in combination neither anticipates nor renders obvious a display device comprising “a color filter layer on the encapsulation layer, the color filter layer comprising a color filter configured to overlap the second color light emitting element in a plan view, the color filter not overlapping the first color light emitting element and the third color light emitting element in the plan view; a polarizer film on the color filter layer; and a window on the polarizer film, the window comprising a front surface comprising a flat region and a curved region around the flat region” in combination with the rest of the limitations as recited in claim 23. Claims 24-25 are also allowed for further limiting and depending upon allowed claim 23.
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. Ko et al. US PGPub. 2023/0165031 (fig. 1) and Ko et al. US PGPub. 2022/0173346 (fig. 5) teaches display devices with resonance structures.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NDUKA E OJEH whose telephone number is (571)270-0291. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 9am - 5pm..
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, DREW N RICHARDS can be reached at (571) 272-1736. 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.
/NDUKA E OJEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2892
Prosecution Insights