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 .
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 10 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.
Regarding claim 10, the term “approximately” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Since the term “approximately” is not defined in the disclosure, the ranges of refractive index are not clear. For the purpose of examination, “approximately” is here defined as 50% accuracy.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 10-11, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et. al., KR 2021/0081603, hereafter Kim.
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses (see annotated Fig. 1b of Kim below, translated text)
a display device, comprising:
a substrate [110];
a light emitting element [EL1] positioned on the substrate [110];
a bank (bank shown in annotated Fig. 1B below) dividing an emission area corresponding to the light emitting element [EL1] and a non- emission area that is adjacent to the emission area, and including a first opening (between adjacent banks, [SP1]) corresponding to the light emitting element [EL1];
an encapsulation layer [Encap] positioned on the light emitting element;
a touch electrode [132] positioned on the encapsulation layer [Encap];
a first matrix [172] positioned on (“on” is broadly interpreted as being on any side with an arbitrary number of layers in between) the touch electrode [132] and a second matrix [162] positioned on the first matrix [172] and having a lower refractive index than the first matrix [172] (bottom 2 paragraphs of p. 8 and top paragraph of p.9); and
a color filter [151] positioned on the touch electrode [132].
PNG
media_image1.png
458
576
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Kim further discloses (see annotated Fig. 1b of Kim above)
wherein the first matrix, the second matrix, the touch electrode, and the bank are positioned to overlap each other.
Regarding claim 4, Kim further discloses (see annotated Fig. 1b of Kim above) wherein the touch electrode [132] includes a second opening (opening between adjacent touch electrodes [132]), and
wherein the first opening of the bank is overlapped with the second opening of the touch electrode (see annotated Fig. 1b of Kim above).
Regarding claim 10 (as best understood), Kim further discloses (bottom of p.8-top of p. 9) wherein a refractive index of the first matrix is approximately 2.1 to 2.7 (Kim discloses a range of 1.7 to 1.8, but since approximately is not defined, it is taken to “approximately” meet the range 2.1 to 2.7), and wherein a refractive index of the second matrix is approximately 1.4 to 1.8 (the ranges overlap, the range of 1.4 to 1.5 is taken to be “approximately” 1.4 to 1.8).
Regarding claim 11, Kim discloses (see annotated Fig. 1b above)
a display device, comprising:
a first substrate [110] including;
a plurality of light emitting elements [EL1], [EL2], [EL3] positioned on the first substrate and including a first light emitting element [EL1]and a second light emitting element [EL2];
a bank (see annotated Fig. 1b) dividing a first emission area of the first light emitting element [EL1]and a second emission area of a second light emitting element [EL2] (the bank is non-emission area);
an encapsulation layer [Encap] positioned on the first light emitting element [EL1] and the second light emitting element [EL2];
a first matrix [171],[172],[173] positioned on the encapsulation layer [Encap] and a second matrix [161],[162],[163] positioned on the first matrix; and
a first color filter [151] corresponding to the first emission area [EL1] and a second color filter [152] corresponding to the second emission area [EL2], on the encapsulation layer ,
wherein a portion of the first color filter [151] and a portion of the second color filter [152] are positioned on the first matrix [172] (positioned on the side of it).
Regarding claim 19, Kim further discloses (see annotated Fig. 1b above, there is no polarizing plate in this embodiment) wherein the display device lacks a polarizing plate.
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.
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et. al., KR 2021/0081603, hereafter Kim.
Regarding claim 9, Kim discloses everything as applied above.
Kim teaches (pp.10-11 of translation) adding particles and adjusting weight of the particles as a means to control or lower the refractive index of a black matrix layer, but fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein the second matrix includes a black particle, and wherein a weight ratio of the black particle included in the second matrix is larger than a weight ratio of a black particle included in the first matrix.
However, since Kim discloses (pp.10-11 of translation) that weight percentage of the black particle is a result effective variable, optimization within Prior Art conditions or through routine experimentation to improve Display efficiency would be obvious (MPEP, 2144.05.A, and case law therein).
Claims 1-8, 10-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et. al., U.S. Pat. Pub. 2021/0005845, hereafter ’45 (of record), in view of Kim et. al., KR 2021/0081603, hereafter Kim.
Regarding claim 1, ’45 discloses (Figs 5, 11,12, 15) a display device, comprising:
a substrate [BL] (par. [0124]);
a light emitting element [OLED] positioned on the substrate [BL];
a bank [PDL] (par. [0136]) dividing an emission area [PXA] corresponding to the light emitting element and a non- emission area [NPXA] (par. [0107]) that is adjacent to the emission area, and including a first opening [PXA] corresponding to the light emitting element [OLED];
an encapsulation layer [TFE] (par. [0153]) positioned on the light emitting element [OLED];
a touch electrode [SP1] (par. [0095]) positioned on the encapsulation layer [TFE];
a first refractive layer [HRF1] positioned on the touch electrode [SP1] and a second refractive layer [LRF2] positioned on the first refractive layer [HRF1] and having a lower refractive index (about 1.5, par. [0245]) than the first refractive layer [HRF1] (about 1.8, par [0184]); and
a color filter [CF] (par. [0210]) positioned on the touch electrode [SP1].
’45 fails to explicitly disclose the first and second refractive layers being a matrix.
However, a refractive layer becomes a matrix by merely including small particles of refractive material within the layer. Such a modification is taught in Kim, Fig. 2, where low refractive index particles [280] are used to change the refractive index of the layer [260].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the instant application to us particles to modify refractive index of layers as taught by Kim, because Kim teaches (abstract) that such a modification increases light emission efficiency.
Regarding claim 2, ’45 in view of Kim discloses everything as applied above. ’45 further discloses
wherein a width of the second matrix (second refractive layer [LRF2]is smaller than a width of the first matrix (First refractive layer [HRF1].
Regarding claim 3, ’45 in view of Kim discloses everything as applied above. ’45 further discloses (Figs 11,12, 15)
wherein the first matrix (first refractive layer [HRF1], the second matrix (second refractive layer [LRF2]), the touch electrode [SP1], and the bank [PDL] are positioned to overlap each other (see Figs 11,12, all openings overlap).
Regarding claim 4, ’45 in view of Kim discloses everything as applied above. ’45 further discloses (Figs 11, 12, 15) wherein the touch electrode [SP1] includes a second opening [IS_OP], and
wherein the first opening of the bank is overlapped with the second opening of the touch electrode (as shown in Figs 11,12).
Regarding claim 5, ’45 in view of Kim discloses everything as applied above. ’45 further discloses (Figs 11,12,15, all openings overlap) wherein the first matrix [HRF1],LRF1] includes a third opening [ML_OP], wherein the second matrix [LRF2],[HRF2] includes a fourth opening [ML_OP2], and
wherein the third opening of the first matrix [ML_OP] and the fourth opening of the second matrix [ML_OP2] are overlapped with the second opening [IS_OP]of the first touch electrode [SP1].
Regarding claim 6, ’45 in view of Kim discloses everything as applied above. ’45 further discloses (Figs 11,12,15, all openings overlap) wherein the third opening of the first matrix [ML_OP] is overlapped with the fourth opening of the second matrix [ML_OP2].
Regarding claim 7, ’45 in view of Kim discloses everything as applied above. ’45 further discloses (Figs 11,12,15, all openings overlap) wherein the first opening [PXA] of the bank [PDL] is overlapped the fourth opening of the second matrix [ML_OP2], and wherein the first opening of the bank [PXA] is overlapped with the third opening of the first matrix [ML_OP].
Regarding claim 8, ’45 in view of Kim discloses everything as applied above. ’45 further discloses
(Figs 11,12,15) wherein a portion of the color filter [CF] is positioned on the first matrix [HRF1], and wherein the portion of the color filter [CF] is positioned under the second matrix [LRF2].
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, ’45 in view of Kim discloses everything as applied above. ’45 further discloses (’45 discloses the refractive index values of about 1.5 and about 1.8, par. [0184], [0245]. Since the assumed accuracy of “approximately” is 50%, as applied in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) above, these values approximately meet the ranges) wherein a refractive index of the first matrix is approximately 2.1 to 2.7, and wherein a refractive index of the second matrix is approximately 1.4 to 1.8.
Regarding claim 11, ’45 discloses (Figs 5, 11,12, 15) a display device, comprising:
a first substrate [BL] (par. [0124]);
a plurality light emitting element [OLED] (par. [0135]-[0137]) positioned on the first substrate [BL] and including a first light emitting element (in Red region [PX1]) and a second light emitting element (in Green region [PX2]);
a bank [PDL] (par. [0135]-[0137]) dividing a first emission area [PXA-R] of the first light emitting element (Red OLED) and a second emission [PXA-G] area of a second light emitting element (Green OLED);
an encapsulation layer [TFE] (par. [0153] positioned on the first light emitting element and the second light emitting element [PXA-R], [PXA-G];
a first refractive layer [HRF1] positioned on the encapsulation layer [TFE] and a second refractive layer [LRF2] positioned on the first refractive layer [HRF1]; and
a first color filter [CFR] (par. [0210] corresponding to the first emission area [PXA-R] and a second color filter [CFG] corresponding to the second emission area [PXA-G], on the encapsulation layer [TFE],
wherein a portion of the first color filter [CFR] and a portion of the second color filter [CFG] are positioned on the first refractive layer [HRF1].
’45 fails to explicitly disclose the first and second refractive layers being a matrix.
However, a refractive layer becomes a matrix by merely including small particles of refractive material within the layer. Such a modification is taught in Kim, Fig. 2, where low refractive index particles [280] are used to change the refractive index of the layer [260].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the instant application to us particles to modify refractive index of layers as taught by Kim, because Kim teaches (abstract) that such a modification increases light emission efficiency.
Regarding claim 12, ’45 in view of Kim discloses everything as applied above. ’45 further discloses (Figs 11,12,15) wherein the portion of the first color filter [CFR] positioned on the first matrix (first refractive layer [HRF1]) and the portion of the second color filter [CFG] positioned on the first matrix (first refractive layer [HRF1] are positioned under the second matrix (second refractive layer [LRF2].
Regarding claim 13, ’45 in view of Kim discloses everything as applied above. ’45 further discloses (Figs 11,12,15) wherein a side surface of the first color filter[CFR] contacts a side surface of the second color filter [CFG], on the first matrix (the first refractive layer [HRF1])
Regarding claim 14, ’45 in view of Kim discloses everything as applied above Kim further discloses (See annotated Fig. 1b above) wherein a side surface of the first color filter [151] is spaced apart from a side surface of the second color filter [152] on the first matrix [162] at a spaced-apart area, and wherein in the spaced-apart area, the second matrix [172] contacts the first matrix [162].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the instant application to modify the structure of ’45 with the teachings of spaced apart structure of Kim, because such structure will naturally result from deposition process flow when the color filters for the pixels are separated and such a structure prevents color mixing.
Regarding claim 15, ’45 in view of Kim discloses everything as applied above. ’45 further discloses (Figs 11,12,15) wherein the portion of the second color filter [CFG] positioned on the first matrix (first refractive layer [HRF1]) is positioned on the portion of the first color filter [CFR], and
wherein an area where the second color filter [CFG] and the first color filter [CFR] overlap each other is positioned on the first matrix (the first refractive layer [HRF1]) and positioned under the second matrix (the second refractive layer [LRF2]).
Regarding claim 16, ’45 in view of Kim discloses everything as applied above. ’45 further discloses (Figs 11,12,15) further comprising an organic insulation layer HRF2] (par. [0224]) covering the second matrix (second refractive layer [LRF2]) , the first color filter [CFR], and the second color filter [CFB].
Regarding claim 20, ’45 discloses (Figs 5,11,12,15) a display device, comprising:
a substrate [BL] (par. [0124]);
a light emitting element [OLED] (par. [0112]) on the substrate [BL];
a bank [PDL] (par. [0135]) defining an emission area [PXA] corresponding to the light emitting element [OLED];
an encapsulation layer [TFE] (par. [0153]) on the light emitting element [OLED];
a touch electrode [SP1] (par. [0095]) on the encapsulation layer [TFE];
a first refractive layer [HRF1] on the touch electrode [SP1] and a second refractive layer [LRF2] on the first refractive layer [HRF1] and having a different lower refractive index from that of the first refractive layer [HRF1] (par. [0184], [0245]; and
a color filter [CF] interposed between the first refractive layer and the second refractive layer over the touch electrode [SP1].
’45 fails to explicitly disclose the first and second refractive layers being a matrix.
However, a refractive layer becomes a matrix by merely including small particles of refractive material within the layer. Such a modification is taught in Kim, Fig. 2, where low refractive index particles [280] are used to change the refractive index of the layer [260].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the instant application to us particles to modify refractive index of layers as taught by Kim, because Kim teaches (abstract) that such a modification increases light emission efficiency.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et. al., U.S. Pat. Pub. 2021/0005845, hereafter ’45 (of record), in view of Kim et. al., KR 2021/0081603, hereafter Kim,
and further in view of Lee et. al., U.S. Pat. Pub. 2020/0257162, hereafter Lee.
Regarding claim 17, ’45 in view of Kim discloses everything as applied above. ’45 in view of Kim fails to explicitly disclose further comprising: a second substrate on the first substrate; and an organic layer between the first substrate and the second substrate, wherein the organic layer includes a dye or a pigment.
However, Lee discloses (Fig. 3B) further comprising: a second substrate [BS2] on the first substrate [BS1]; and an organic layer between the first substrate [BS1] and the second substrate [BS2], wherein the organic layer [CCF-G] includes a dye or a pigment (par. [0069]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the instant application to modify the device of ’45 with the teachings of second substrate to improve moisture protection for the display.
Regarding claim 18, ’45 in view of Kim in view of Lee discloses everything as applied above. Lee further discloses (par. [0078]) wherein the organic layer has adhesiveness.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTOR V BARZYKIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0508. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 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, BRITT HANLEY can be reached at (571)270-3042. 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.
/VICTOR V BARZYKIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/Britt Hanley/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights