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 .
Specification
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 HAVING MULTILAYER INORGANIC ENCPSULATION STACK AND METHOD OF FABRICATING THE SAME
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 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamiya; Akinori et al. (US 2017/0244066; hereinafter Kamiya) in view of Imai; Toshiaki et al. (US 2012/0280614; hereinafter Imai).
Regarding claim 15, Kamiya discloses a method of fabricating a display device, the method comprising:
forming a light emitting element layer (12; Fig 2; ¶ [0021-23]) on a substrate (11; Fig 2; ¶ [0021-22]), the light emitting layer including a plurality of light emitting elements;
forming a first inorganic encapsulation layer (13a; Fig 2; ¶ [0026]) on the light emitting element layer;
forming an organic encapsulation layer (13b; Fig 2; ¶ [0026]) on the first inorganic encapsulation layer; and
forming a second inorganic encapsulation layer (13c, comprising silicon nitride; Fig 2; ¶ [0026]) on the organic encapsulation layer,
wherein the forming of the second inorganic encapsulation layer comprises:
forming a first inorganic layer (dense film A; Fig 2; ¶ [0031-33, 0038-39]) on the organic encapsulation layer at a first deposition rate;
forming a second inorganic layer (sparse film B; Fig 2; ¶ [0031-33, 0038-39]) on the first inorganic layer at a second deposition rate; and
forming a third inorganic layer (dense film C; Fig 2; ¶ [0031-33, 0038-39]) on the second inorganic layer at a third deposition rate.
Kamiya does not disclose the second deposition rate is greater than the first deposition rate and the third deposition rate.
In the same field of endeavor, Imai discloses a method of fabricating a display device comprising an inorganic layer 4, comprising layers 4a,4b,4c (each comprising silicon nitride; Fig 2; ¶ [0032-43]), similar to the second inorganic layer of Kamiya, wherein a second deposition rate of a second inorganic layer 4b, having a low-density, is greater than first and third deposition rates of first and third inorganic layers 4a and 4c respectively, each having high-densities (¶ [0039]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art for the second deposition of Kamiya to be greater than the first and third deposition rates of Kamiya. One would have been motivated to come to this conclusion, with a reasonable expectation of success, because of the similar relative density of the films, each formed of silicon nitride by a plasma chemical vapor deposition (PECVD) method, of Kamiya and Imai.
Regarding claim 20, Kamiya in view of Imai discloses the method of claim 15, wherein
the forming of the first inorganic layer is performed by a plasma enhanced atomic layer deposition (PEALD) or plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition (PECVD) process (Kamiya; plasma CVD method; ¶ [0037-38]; Imai; plasma CVD method; ¶ [0033]), and
the forming of the second inorganic layer and the forming of the third inorganic layer are performed by a PECVD process (Kamiya; plasma CVD method; ¶ [0037-38]; Imai; plasma CVD method; ¶ [0033]).
Claims 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamiya; Akinori et al. (US 2017/0244066; hereinafter Kamiya) in view of Imai; Toshiaki et al. (US 2012/0280614; hereinafter Imai), and further in view of Park; Rae-Man (US 2014/0061749; hereinafter ParkR).
Regarding claim 16, Kamiya in view of Imai discloses the method of claim 15, but does not disclose wherein the second deposition rate is about 3 nm/min or more, and the first deposition rate and the third deposition rate are about 30 nm/min or less. However, since the method requires more than one deposition rate to achieve at least the desired film density relationships, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have experimented to arrive at the desired deposited film properties including deposition rate, perhaps along other film property or manufacturing throughput requirements.
In the same field of endeavor, ParkR discloses a deposition rate range of 5 nm/min to 10 nm/min for a silicon nitride film formed by PECVD (¶ [0056]), which is a same deposited material and same PECVD deposition method as used in by Kamiya in view of Imai (Kamiya; plasma CVD method; ¶ [0037-38]; Imai; plasma CVD method; ¶ [0033]), and having a deposition rate range overlapping the each of the ranges claimed in claim 16.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to have arrived at the claimed ranges through routine optimization of the film properties including deposition rate. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 17-18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamiya; Akinori et al. (US 2017/0244066; hereinafter Kamiya) in view of Imai; Toshiaki et al. (US 2012/0280614; hereinafter Imai), and further in view of Kim; Jinah et al. (US 2011/0126877; hereinafter Kim).
Regarding claim 17, Kamiya in view of Imai discloses the method of claim 15, but does not disclose wherein the forming of the first inorganic layer, the forming of the second inorganic layer, and the forming of the third inorganic layer are performed within the same chamber. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art that this may be the case for the second inorganic encapsulation layer comprising a same silicon nitride material for each of the sub-layers (see for example; Kim; ¶ [0176]). One would have had a reasonable expectation of success because such a formation method in the same chamber is well-known in the art.
Regarding claim 18, Kamiya in view of Imai and further in view of Kim discloses the method of claim 17, wherein the forming of the first inorganic layer, the forming of the second inorganic layer, and the forming of the third inorganic layer use the same precursor (Kamiya; ¶ [0038]; Imai; ¶ [0038]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamiya; Akinori et al. (US 2017/0244066; hereinafter Kamiya) in view of Imai; Toshiaki et al. (US 2012/0280614; hereinafter Imai), further in view of Kim; Jinah et al. (US 2011/0126877; hereinafter Kim), and still further in view of Park; Jin-Seong et al. (US 2022/0278298; hereinafter ParkJ).
Regarding claim 19, Kamiya in view of Imai and further in view of Kim discloses the method of claim 18, but does not disclose wherein the precursor comprises at least one of cyclosilazane, trisilylamine, bis(diethylamino)silane, bis(t-butylamino)silane (BTBAS), tris(dimethylamino)silane, tris(isopropylamino)silane, tetrakis(dimethylamino)silane, tri(isopropyl)cyclotrisilazane, tetramethyldisilazane, and a combination thereof.
In the same field of endeavor, ParkJ discloses a method of forming a sealing structure (encapsulation layer), comprising forming a silicon nitride layer by a plasma-enhanced atomic layer deposition (PEALD) method using a precursor comprising BTBAS.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have combined the formation method of ParkJ with that of Kamiya in view of Imai and further in view of Kim. One would have been motivated to do this in order to reduce a thickness of the encapsulation layer(s) of a display device in order to meet increasing demand for advanced display devices (ParkJ; ¶ [0002]). One would have had a reasonable expectation of success because of the similar OLED encapsulation layer application and silicon nitride material disclosed by Park as in the method of Kamiya in view of Imai and further in view of Kim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the prior art of record, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the combination of limitations including ““a thickness of the second inorganic layer is greater than a thickness of the third inorganic layer, the thickness of the third inorganic layer is greater than a thickness of the first inorganic layer, and a refractive index of the second inorganic layer is about 1.9 or more”, in combination with the additional limitations of claim 1.
The closest prior art Nishizaki; Shogo et al. (US 2020/0266323; hereinafter Nishizaki) discloses each of the limitations of claim 1 (see, in particular, 752a-752c; Fig 10; ¶ [0236-237,0230-232]), except a refractive index of the second inorganic layer (752a) is about 1.9 or more (Nishizaki discloses a lower value (¶ [0226]).
Additional prior art Kamiya, cited above (claim 15), discloses limitations of claim 1, but is silent in regards to the thickness relationships and refractive index value. The Examiner does not find it obvious to arrive at the specific combination of references from any combination of references found.
Regarding claim 12, the prior art of record, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the combination of limitations including “a film density of the first inorganic layer is greater than a film density of the second inorganic layer, and a refractive index of the first inorganic layer is equal to or smaller than a refractive index of the second inorganic layer”, in combination with the additional limitations of claim 12.
The closed prior art Kamiya discloses all the limitations of claim 12, except a refractive index of the first inorganic layer (A; Fig 2; ¶ [0031-35]) is equal to or smaller than a refractive index of the second inorganic layer (B; Fig 2; ¶ [0031-35]); Kamiya teaches away from this relationship; ¶ [0035])).
Additional prior art Nishizaki discloses limitations of claim 12, but teaches away from the density and refractive index limitations of claim 12 (a film density of a first inorganic layer (752c; Fig 10) may be less than a film density of the second inorganic layer (752a; Fig 10; ¶ [0244]) and a refractive index of the first inorganic layer (752c; Fig 10) may be higher than a refractive index of the second inorganic layer (752a; Fig 10; ¶ [0242]). The Examiner does not find it obvious to arrive at the specific combination of references from any combination of references found.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Choi; Chul Hyun et al. (US 2022/0140290; the prior art discloses a display device comprising a 3-layer inorganic encapsulation layer stack wherein the 3 sub-layers may have different thicknesses and indices of refraction {in particular, Fig 8 and associated description});
Guo; Tianfu et al. (US 2021/0408468; the prior art discloses a display device comprising a 3-layer inorganic encapsulation layer stack wherein the 3 sub-layers may have different thicknesses {in particular, Fig 9 and associated description});
Liu; Shengfang et al. (US 2021/0336217; the prior art discloses a display device comprising a 3-layer inorganic encapsulation layer stack wherein the 3 sub-layers {121-123; Fig 3} may have increasing thicknesses and refractive indices in a direction away from the substrate);
Li; Xiaolong et al. (US 2021/0234124; the prior art discloses a display device comprising a 3-layer inorganic encapsulation layer stack wherein the 3 sub-layers {1201-1203; Fig 3} have increasing thicknesses and decreasing refractive indices in a direction away from the substrate).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRAD KNUDSON whose telephone number is (703)756-4582. The examiner can normally be reached Telework 9:30 -18:30 ET; M-F.
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, Eliseo Ramos Feliciano can be reached at 571-272-7925. 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.
/B.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/ELISEO RAMOS FELICIANO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights