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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
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.
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 1-2, 5-7, 9-11, 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al (US20120098414A1) in view of Jung et al (US20190072818A1).
Re claim 1 Nakamura teach a display device (fig 9) comprising:
light emitting areas (see annotated fig 9) [0073] and a non-light emitting area (fig 9);
a substrate (110, fig 9) [0073];
a light emitting element layer (EL layer 160, fig 9) [0051] disposed on the substrate (110, fig 9);
a thin film encapsulation layer (180, fig 9) [0134] disposed on the light emitting element layer (160, fig 9);
a wavelength conversion layer (40G/40R, fig 9) [0109] disposed on the thin film encapsulation layer (180, fig 9);
a counter substrate (10, fig 9) [0099] facing the substrate (110, fig 9);
a color filter layer (3, fig 9) [0075] disposed on a surface (bottom of 10) of the counter substrate (10, fig 9) [0077]; and
a filling layer (190, fig 9) [0137] filled between the color filter layer (3, fig 9) and the wavelength conversion layer (40G/40R, fig 9) [0109].
Nakamura does not teach the filling layer including particles.
Jung taches the filling layer (230, fig 1) [0059] including particles (resin and nano particles) [0073].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Jung into the structure of Nakamura to include the filling layer including particles as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Nakamura based of the teaching of Jung in the above manner for the purpose of improving the light output efficiency [0072].
PNG
media_image1.png
474
752
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re claim 2 Nakamura in view of Jung teach the display device of claim 1, wherein
the light emitting areas (see annotated fig 9) [Nakamura, 0072]include a first light emitting area, a second light emitting area, and a third light emitting area, and
the wavelength conversion layer (40G/40R, fig 9) includes a first wavelength conversion pattern (40R, fig 9) overlapping the first light emitting area (see annotated fig 9) and a second wavelength conversion pattern (40G,f fig 9)[Nakamura, 0109] overlapping the second light emitting area.
Re claim 5 Nakamura in view of Jung teach the display device of claim 1, wherein the filling particles include light scattering particles (ZnO, TiO2, based on the disclosure) [Jung, 0073].
Re claim 6 Nakamura in view of Jung teach the display device of claim 5, wherein the filling particles (nanoparticles) [Jung, 0073] are at least one selected from the group consisting of silica (SiO2) , alumina, silicon, titanium oxide (TiO2) [Jung, 0073], zirconia oxide (ZrO2), barium sulfate, zinc oxide (ZnO) [Jung, 0073], and polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA).
Re claim 7 Nakamura in view of Jung teach the display device of claim 1, wherein a thickness of the filling layer (230, fig 6) is in a range of about 0.1 µm to about 10 µm (about 1 µm) [Jung 0166].
Re claim 9 Nakamura in view Jung teach the display device of claim 1, wherein a thickness (thickness of 230 in third light emitting area) [Jung, 0072] of the filling layer (230, fig 1) [0072] measured in a vertical direction (top to bottom) in one of the light emitting areas (right light emitting area, fig 1) is different from a thickness (thickness of 230 in first and second light emitting area, fig 1) of the filling layer (230, fig 1) [Jung, 0073] measured in the vertical direction in the other one of the light emitting areas (right side light emitting area) [Jung, 0072] .
Re claim 10 Nakamura in view Jung teach the display device of claim 2, wherein a thickness of the filling layer measured in a vertical direction in the third light emitting area is greater (thickness of 230 is greater in right side third light emitting area , fig 1) than a thickness of the filling layer measured in the vertical direction in the first light emitting area or the second light emitting area (thickness of 230 is smaller in left side light emitting area) [Jung, 0073] .
Re claim 11 Nakamura in view of Jung teach the display device of claim 1, further comprising:
a spacer (60, fig 5B and 9) [Nakamura, 0072] disposed between the wavelength conversion layer and the color filter layer (3, fig 9) [Nakamura, 0147].
Re claim 15. Nakamura teaches a display device comprising:
light emitting areas (see fig 9 above) and a non-light emitting area (see fig 9 above);
a substrate (110, fig 9) [0073];
a light emitting element layer (160, fig 9) [0073] disposed on the substrate (110, fig 9) [0073];
a thin film encapsulation layer (180, fig 9) [0073] disposed on the light emitting element layer (160, fig 9) [0073];
a wavelength conversion layer (40, fig 9) [0073] disposed on the thin film encapsulation layer (180);
a counter substrate (10, fig 9)[0073] facing the substrate (110, fig 9) [0073];
a color filter layer (3/30, fig 9) [0073] disposed on a surface(bottom surface) of the counter substrate (10, fig 9)[0073]; and
a filling layer (190, fig 9) [0073] filled between the color filter layer (3/30) and the wavelength conversion layer (40, fig 9) [0073]
wherein the color filter layer and the wavelength conversion layer contact each other.
Nakamura does not teach the filling layer including particles.
Jung taches the filling layer (230, fig 1) [0059] including particles (resin and nano particles) [0073].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Jung into the structure of Nakamura to include the filling layer including particles as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Nakamura based of the teaching of Jung in the above manner for the purpose of improving the light output efficiency [0072].
Re claim 16 Nakamura in view of Jung teach the display device of claim 15, wherein the filling layer (190, fig 9) [0137] includes a first filling pattern (190 above first 40R), a second filling pattern (190 above 40G) [Nakamura 0137], and a third filling pattern (right side 190, fig 9) [Nakamura, 0137] that overlap the light emitting areas (see fig 9) are spaced apart from each other (right 190 is separated by 60,fig 9) [0124].
Re claim 17 Nakamura in view of Jung and the display device of claim 16, wherein the light emitting areas (see fig 9 above) include a first light emitting area (left are), a second light emitting area (middle area), and a third light emitting area (right area) [Nakamura 0073], and
the first filling pattern (190 above first area, fig 9) overlaps the first light emitting area (left area , fig 9), the second filling pattern (190 above middle area, fig 9) overlaps the second light emitting area (middle area, fig 9), and the third filling pattern (190 above right area. Fig 9) overlaps the third light emitting area (right area see fig 9) [Nakamura 0073].
Re claim 18 Nakamura in view of Jung and teach the display device of claim 17, wherein a thickness of the third filling pattern (thickness of right side of 230, fig 1) [Jung, 0069] is greater than a thickness (thickness of left side of 230, fig 1) [Jung, 0069] of the first filling pattern (left side of WC) [Jung, 0069] or a thickness of the second filling pattern.
Re claim 19 Nakamura in view of Jung teach the display device of claim 15, wherein the filling particles (230, fig 9) [0069] include light scattering particles (based on the disclosure) and are at least one selected from the group consisting of silica (SiO2, alumina, silicon, titanium oxide (TiO2), zirconia oxide (ZrO2), barium sulfate, zinc oxide (ZnO), and polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA). (such as zinc oxide (ZnO) or titanium dioxide (TiO2)) [Jung, 0073].
Re claim 20. Nakamura in view of Jung the display device of claim 15,
Nakamura in view of Jung teach the filling layer includes a filling resin in which the filling particles are dispersed (230, fig 9) [Jung 0073] , and
Nakamura and Jung do not Jung a refractive index of the filling resin is in a range of about 1.4 to about 1.7.
Jung teaches a refractive index of the filling resin of the filling layer is in a range of about 1.4 to about 1.7 (about 1.1 to 1.4) [Jung, 0071].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Jung into the structure of Nakamura to include a refractive index of the filling resin of the filling layer is in a range of about 1.4 to about 1.7 as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Nakamura and Jung in the above manner for the purpose of improve the efficiency of the device.
Furthermore, it has been held that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exits. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura modified by Jung as applied to claims 1, 2 and further in view of Kim et al (US20200301197A1).
Re claim 3 Nakamura in view of Jung teach the display device of claim 2,
Nakamura and Jung do not teach the wavelength conversion layer includes a capping layer covering the first wavelength conversion pattern, the second wavelength conversion pattern, and the thin film encapsulation layer, and
the capping layer is disposed closer to the substrate in the third light emitting area than the first light emitting area and the second light emitting area.
Kim teaches the wavelength conversion layer (WCL1/WCL2, fig 5) [0093] includes a capping layer (L2, fig 5) [0082] covering the first wavelength conversion pattern (WCL1, fig 5)[0093], the second wavelength conversion pattern (WCL2, fig 5), and the thin film encapsulation layer (SCL, fig 5) [0080], and
the capping layer (L2, fig 5) [0080] is disposed closer to the substrate (BS2, fig 5) [0080] in the third light emitting area (right BMC2) [0080] than the first light emitting area (WCL1, fig 5) and the second light emitting area (WCL2, fig 5).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Kim into the structure of Nakamura and Jung to include the wavelength conversion layer includes a capping layer covering the first wavelength conversion pattern, the second wavelength conversion pattern, and the thin film encapsulation layer, and
the capping layer is disposed closer to the substrate in the third light emitting area than the first light emitting area and the second light emitting area as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Nakamura and Jung based on the teaching of Kim in the above manner for improving reliability of the device [0129].
Claims 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura modified by Jung s applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Cok et al (US20100219429A1).
Re claim 4 Nakamura in view of Jung teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the filling layer (230, fig 1) [Jung, 0073] includes a filling resin including the filling particles (resin and nano particles) [Jung, 0073].
Nakamura and Jung do not teach a content of the filling particles is in a range of about 1 wt% to about 10 wt%.
Cok teaches a content of the filling particles is in a range of about 1 wt% to about 10 wt% (0.5-2%) [0077].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Cok into the structure of Nakamura and Jung to include a content of the filling particles is in a range of about 1 wt% to about 10 wt% as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Cok based on the teaching of Nakamura and Jung in the above manner for the purpose of improving device contrast [0006].
Re claim 8 Nakamura in view Jung teach the display device of claim 4,
Nakamura and Jung do not teach a refractive index of the filling resin of the filling layer is in a range of about 1.4 to about 1.7
Jung teaches a refractive index of the filling resin of the filling layer is in a range of about 1.4 to about 1.7 (about 1.1 to 1.4) [Jung, 0071].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Jung into the structure of Nakamura to include a refractive index of the filling resin of the filling layer is in a range of about 1.4 to about 1.7 as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Nakamura and Jung in the above manner for the purpose of improve the efficiency of the device.
Furthermore, it has been held that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exits. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura modified by Jung as applied to claims 1, 11 and further in view of Sun et al (US20240268159A1).
Re claim 12 Nakamura in view of Jung teach the display device of claim 11,
Nakamura and Jung do not tech the spacer overlaps the non-light emitting area and does not overlap the light emitting area.
Sun teaches the spacer (20, fig 4) [0096] overlaps the non-light emitting area (6, fig 4) [0087] and does not overlap the light emitting area (area of 7, fig 4) [0074].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Sun into the structure of Nakamura and Jung to include the spacer overlaps the non-light emitting area and does not overlap the light emitting area as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Nakamura and Jung based on the teaching of Sun in the above manner for the purpose of improving product performance [0096].
Re claim 13 Nakamura in view of Jung the display device of claim 11,
Nakamura and Jung do not tech a thickness of the spacer is in a range of about 0.1 µm to about 4.5 µm.
Sun teaches a thickness of the spacer is in a range of about 0.1 µm to about 4.5 µm.( a thickness of less than 3 um) [0098].
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Nakamura and Jung based on the teaching of Sun in the above manner for the purpose of improving product performance [0096].
Furthermore, it has been held that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exits. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura modified by Jung as applied to claims 1, 11 and further in view of Hong et al (US 20150316809 A1).
Re claim 14 Nakamura in view of Jung teach the display device of claim 11.
Nakamura and Jung do not teach a planar shape of the spacer is a substantially mesh shape or a dot shape.
Hong teaches a planar shape (fig 2) of the spacer (300, fig 2) [0028] is a substantially mesh shape or a dot shape (dot shape, fig 1) [0130].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Hong into the structure of Nakamura and Jung to include a planar shape of the spacer is a substantially mesh shape or a dot shape as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Nakamura and Jung based on the teaching of Hong in the above manner for the purpose of minimizing the non-uniformity of the space [0088].
Further, a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) and it has been held that rearranging part of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kudo et al (US10243170B2) teaches a light emitting apparatus including a substrate including a plurality of light emitting devices. Kim et al (US11574970B2) a display device includes a filling area.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRATIKSHA J LOHAKARE whose telephone number is (571)270-1920. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7.30 am-4.30 pm.
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, EVA MONTALVO can be reached at 571-270-3829. 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.
/PRATIKSHA JAYANT LOHAKARE/Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/DUY T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818 8/20/26
Prosecution Insights