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 9/24/2024 and 4/22/2024 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.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the area of a lower surface" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there is no previous mention of an area of a lower surface in the claim or claim of which it depends on. For proper antecedence and for examination purposes, "the area of a lower surface" is being interpreted as "an area of a lower surface." Appropriate correction is required Claim 22 recites the limitation "about 60 to about 1000%" in line 2. It is unclear if this is meant to say about 60 to about 100% as is in [0207] of the specification of the instant application of if it indeed about 60 to about 1000% as in [0205] of the specification of the instant application. If it is about 60 to about 100%, both the claims and the specification should be corrected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-4, 7, 9, 11-14 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Seong et al. US PGPub. 2022/0052300. Regarding claim 1, Seong teaches a display device (12, fig. 7) [0100] comprising: a light emitting element layer (140, fig. 7) [0044] disposed on a substrate (110, fig. 7) [0044]; a thin-film encapsulation layer (150, fig. 7) [0044] disposed on the light emitting element layer (140); a wavelength conversion layer (251-253, fig. 7) [0061] disposed on the thin-film encapsulation layer (150) and comprising a bank (260, fig. 7) [0044] which defines a plurality of light emitting areas (PA1-3, fig. 7) [0039] and a non-light emitting area (NPA, fig. 7) [0039]; a dam structure (430, fig. 7) [0069] disposed on the wavelength conversion layer (251-253) and overlapping at least one (PA3) of the plurality of light emitting areas (PA1-3); a filling layer (410+420, fig. 7) [0069] disposed on the wavelength conversion layer (251-253) and disposed between portions of the dam structure (430); a color filter layer (231-233, fig. 7) [0066] disposed on the (bottom surface of the) dam structure (430); and a counter substrate (500, fig. 7) [0100] disposed on the color filter layer (231-233), wherein the filling layer (410+420) overlaps ones (PA1, PA2) of the plurality of light emitting areas (PA1-3) not overlapping the dam structure (430) (Seong et al., fig. 7).
Regarding claim 2, Seong teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the at least one (PA3) of the plurality of light emitting areas (PA1-3) overlapping the dam structure (430) has a light conversion rate of about 50% or less in the wavelength conversion layer (253) (Seong et al., fig. 7). Since the at least one (PA3) of the plurality of light emitting areas (PA1-3) is a light transmissive area [0064] overlapping the dam structure (430) and the wavelength conversion layer (253) which is light transmits the L3 (blue light) that is emitted by the light emitting element 140 [0064], then no light conversion occurs (only light transmission) in the wavelength conversion layer (253) and therefore the at least one (PA3) of the plurality of light emitting areas (PA1-3) overlapping the dam structure (430) has a light conversion rate of about zero which fails in the range of 50% or less in the wavelength conversion layer (253).
Regarding claim 3, Seong teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the plurality of light emitting areas (PA1-3) comprise a first light emitting area (PA3) which emits blue light [0040], a second light emitting area (PA1) which emits red light [0040] and a third light emitting area (PA2) which emits green light [0040], and the dam structure (430) overlaps the first light emitting area (PA3) (Seong et al., fig. 7, [0040]).
Regarding claim 4, Seong teaches the display device of claim 3, wherein the filling layer (410+420) overlaps the second light emitting area (PA1) and the third light emitting area (PA2) (Seong et al., fig. 7).
Regarding claim 7, Seong teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the dam structure (430) overlaps the non-light emitting area (NPA) (Seong et al., fig. 7).
Regarding claim 9, Seong teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein a refractive index of the dam structure (430) is in a range of about 1.5 to about 2 (Seong et al., [0079]). Since the dam structure (430) is made up of silicon nitride and silicon oxide layers [0079], then the refractive index of the dam structure (430) is in a range of about 1.5 to about 2 because the refractive index of SiO is about 1.5 and the refractive index of SiN is about 2.0 (see [0080] of 2018/0315893 as evidence).
Regarding claim 11, Seong teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein a thickness of the dam structure (430) is less than or equal to that of the filling layer (410+420) (Seong et al., fig. 7).
Regarding claim 12, Seong teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein a thickness of the dam structure (430) and a thickness of the filling layer (410+420) are each in a range of about 0.1 to about 4.5 um (3000Å or 0.3µm, [0094]) (Seong et a., [0094]).
Regarding claim 13, Seong teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the color filter layer (231-233) comprises a plurality of color filters (231-233, fig. 7) and an overcoat layer (242, fig. 7) [0065] covering the (bottom surface of the) plurality of color filters (231-233), and the dam structure (430) and the filling layer (410+420) (indirectly) contact the overcoat layer (242) (Seong et al., fig. 7).
Regarding claim 14, Seong teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the wavelength conversion layer (251-253) comprises a light transmission pattern (253, fig. 7) [0064] overlapping the dam structure (430), and first (251) and second (252) wavelength conversion patterns overlapping the filling layer (410, 420) (Seong et al., fig. 7).
Regarding claim 18, Seong teaches a display device (12, fig. 7) [0100] comprising: a light emitting element layer (140, fig. 7) [0044] disposed on a substrate (110, fig. 7) [0044]; a thin-film encapsulation layer (150, fig. 7) [0044] disposed on the light emitting element layer (140); a wavelength conversion layer (251-253, fig. 7) [0061] disposed on the thin-film encapsulation layer (150) and comprising a bank (260, fig. 7) [0044] which defines a plurality of light emitting areas (PA1-3, fig. 7) [0039] and a non-light emitting area (NPA, fig. 7) [0039]; a dam structure (430, fig. 7) [0069] disposed on the wavelength conversion layer (251-253) and overlapping ones (PA3) of the plurality of light emitting areas (PA1-3) having a light conversion rate of about 50% or less (zero; no light conversion; only light transmission [0064]) in the wavelength conversion layer (251-253); a filling layer (410+420, fig. 7) [0069] disposed on the wavelength conversion layer (251-253) and disposed between portions of the dam structure (430); a color filter layer (231-233, fig. 7) [0066] disposed on the (bottom surface of the) dam structure (430); and a counter substrate (500, fig. 7) [0100] disposed on the color filter layer (231-233) (Seong et al., fig., 7). Since the at least one (PA3) of the plurality of light emitting areas (PA1-3) is a light transmissive area [0064] overlapping the dam structure (430) and the wavelength conversion layer (253) which is light transmits the L3 (blue light) that is emitted by the light emitting element 140 [0064], then no light conversion occurs (only light transmission) in the wavelength conversion layer (253) and therefore the at least one (PA3) of the plurality of light emitting areas (PA1-3) overlapping the dam structure (430) has a light conversion rate of about zero which fails in the range of 50% or less in the wavelength conversion layer (253).
Regarding claim 19, Seong teaches the display device of claim 18, wherein the plurality of light emitting areas (PA1-3) comprise a first light emitting area (PA3) which emits blue light [0040], a second light emitting area (PA1) which emits red light [0040] and a third light emitting area (PA2) which emits green light [0040], and the dam structure (430) overlaps the first light emitting area (PA3) (Seong et al., fig, 7).
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 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seong et al. US PGPub. 2022/0052300 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. US PGPub. 2020/0258946 as evidenced by Kanematsu et al. US PGPub. 2012/0114876 Regarding claim 10, Seong does not teach the display device of claim 1, wherein a refractive index of the filling layer (410+420) is in a range of about 1.05 to about 1.4. However, Kim teaches a display device (1, fig. 4) comprising a filling layer (70, fig. 4) [0054] wherein the filling layer (70) is made of air or silicone rubber [0054] (Kim et al., fig. 4) [0054]). Silicon rubber has a refractive index of 1.4 as evidenced by [0107] of Kanematsu et al. US PGPub. 2012/0114876).
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 the simple substitution of the filling layer of Seong for the silicone rubber filling layer of Kim because Kim teaches that air and silicone rubber are alternatives [0054] well known in the art and such substitution is art recognized equivalence for the same purpose (as filling layer that can transmit light in a display device [0054]) to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2144.06). Regarding claim 17, Seong does not teach the display device of claim 1, wherein the filling layer (410+420) comprises an arrangement selected from a plurality of filling particles dispersed in a filling resin, a silicone compound, and at least one of a vacuum, nitrogen gas and an inert gas. However, Kim teaches a display device (1, fig. 4) comprising a filling layer (70, fig. 4) [0054] wherein the filling layer (70) comprises an arrangement of a silicone compound (silicone rubber [0054]) (Kim et al., fig. 4) [0054]).
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 the simple substitution of the filling layer of Seong for the silicone rubber filling layer of Kim because Kim teaches that air and silicone rubber are alternatives [0054] well known in the art and such substitution is art recognized equivalence for the same purpose (as filling layer that can transmit light in a display device [0054]) to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2144.06).
Claims 21- 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seong et al. US PGPub. 2022/0052300 as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Kaneta et al. US PGPub. 2011/0241027.
Regarding claim 21, Seong does not teach the display device of claim 18, wherein a taper angle of the dam structure (430) is in a range of about 20 to about 170 degrees. However, Kaneta teaches a display device (fig. 1) wherein a taper angle of the dam structure (23B, fig. 1) [0114] is in a range of about 20 to about 170 degrees (50 degrees, [0114]) (Kaneta et al., fig. 1, [0114]) 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 Seong and Kaneta in the range as claimed such tapered shape are well known in reducing leak current in light emitting and transmitting mediums (Kaneta et al., [0064]) and 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 22, Seong does not teach the display device of claim 18, wherein an area of an upper surface of the dam structure (430) is in a range of about 60 to about 1000% of the area of a lower surface of the dam structure (430).
However, Kaneta teaches a display device (fig. 1) wherein an area of an upper surface of the dam structure (23B, fig. 1) [0114] is in a range of about 60 to about 1000% of the area of a lower surface of the dam structure (23B) (Kaneta et al., fig. 1, [0114]) Since the top and bottom surfaces of 23B are 15µ and 25µm, respectively, then the upper surface is about 15/25, (0.6 or 60%) of the lower surface of the dam (23B). 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 Seong and Kaneta in the range as claimed such tapered shape are well known in reducing leak current in light emitting and transmitting mediums (Kaneta et al., [0064]) and 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 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. US PGPub. 2022/0052121 in view of Kim et al. US PGPub. 2020/0258946 and as evidenced by Kanematsu et al. US PGPub. 2012/0114876. Regarding claim 23, Jang teaches a display device (1e, fig. 11) [0195] comprising: a light emitting element layer (ED1-3, fig. 11) [0087] disposed on a substrate (110, fig. 11) [0079]; a thin-film encapsulation layer (170, fig. 11) [0079] disposed on the light emitting element layer (ED1-3); a wavelength conversion layer (330-350, fig. 11) [0079] disposed on the thin-film encapsulation layer (170); a filling layer (air layer AL, fig. 11) [0041] disposed on the wavelength conversion layer (330-350); a color filter layer (231-235, fig. 11) [0095] disposed on the filling layer (AL); and a counter substrate (310, fig. 11) [080] disposed on the color filter layer (231-235), wherein a refractive index of the filling layer (AL) is 1.0 [0.136], and a thickness of the filling layer (AL) is in a range of about 0.1 to about 4.5 um (1-5µm, [0146]) (Jang et al., fig.11). But Jang fails to teach wherein a refractive index of the filling layer (AL) is in a range of about 1.05 to about 1.4. However, Kim teaches a display device (1, fig. 4) comprising a filling layer (70, fig. 4) [0054] wherein the filling layer (70) is made of air or silicone rubber [0054] (Kim et al., fig. 4) [0054]). Silicon rubber has a refractive index of 1.4 as evidenced by [0107] of Kanematsu et al. US PGPub. 2012/0114876).
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 the simple substitution of the air layer of the filling layer of Jang for the silicone rubber filling layer of Kim because Kim teaches that air and silicone rubber are alternatives [0054] well known in the art and such substitution is art recognized equivalence for the same purpose (as filling layer that can transmit light in a display device [0054]) to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2144.06). Regarding claim 24, Jang in view of Kim teaches the display device of claim 23, wherein the filling layer (AL) is disposed between the wavelength conversion layer (330-350) and the color filter layer (231-235) and (indirectly) contacts each of the wavelength conversion layer (330-350) and the color filter layer (231-235) (Jang et al., fig. 11).
Regarding claim 25, Jang in view of Kim teaches the display device of claim 23, wherein the filling layer (70) comprises a silicone compound [0054] or a plurality of filling particles dispersed in a filling resin (Kim et al., fig. 4, [0054]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6, 8, 15-16 and 20 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 “the dam structure does not overlap the non-light emitting area” as recited in claim 5 in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 1; a display device wherein “the dam structure overlaps portions of the non-light emitting area adjacent to the at least one of the plurality of light emitting areas overlapping the dam structure and does not overlap portions of the non-light emitting area that are spaced apart from the at least one of the plurality of light emitting areas overlapping the dam structure” as recited in claim 6 in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 1; a display device wherein “a refractive index of the dam structure is greater than that of the filling layer” as recited in claim 8 in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 1;
a display device wherein “the filling layer overlaps the plurality of light emitting areas and covers the dam structure” as recited in claim 15 in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 1; and
a display device wherein “the plurality of light emitting areas comprise a first light emitting area which emits blue light, a second light emitting area which emits red light, a third light emitting area which emits green light, and a fourth light emitting area which emits white light, and the dam structure overlaps the fourth light emitting area” as recited in claim 20 in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 18.
Claim 16 is also objected to as allowable for further limiting and depending upon allowable claim 15.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kwon et al. US PGPub. 2022/0262864 teaches a display device comprising color filters layers, wavelength conversion layers and a dam structure. However, it is the wavelength conversion layer that overlaps the light emitting area and non-light emitting area in the manner as that of the invention.
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