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 Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 7 be found allowable, claim 10 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 9 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 9 recites the limitation "a first end of portion of the first color filter" and “a first end portion of the second color filters”, however these elements have already been introduced in claim 1, from which claim 9 depends. It is unclear if the “first end portions” of claim 9 are the same as those of claim 1 or not.
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.
Claims 1-2, 7-8, 10, 13-15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Joo et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0258945).
Regarding claim 1, Joo teaches a display apparatus comprising:
a first light-emitting diode (Fig. 5, ED3) disposed in a first emission area (LA3);
a second light-emitting diode (ED2) disposed in a second emission area (LA2);
an encapsulation layer (170) disposed on the first light-emitting diode and the second light-emitting diode (Fig. 9), wherein the encapsulation layer comprises at least one inorganic encapsulation layer (171) and at least one organic encapsulation layer (172);
a color converting-transmitting layer (341/342/343) disposed on the encapsulation layer (Fig. 9), wherein the color converting-transmitting layer comprises a color conversion portion (342/343) and a light blocking partition wall (322) surrounding the color conversion portion, wherein the color conversion portion converts light emitted from one of the first light-emitting diode and the second light-emitting diode into light of a different color (Fig. 9);
a first color filter (333) disposed on the color converting-transmiting layer corresponding to the first emission area;
a second color filter (332) disposed on the color converting-transmitting layer and corresponding to the second emission area;
a third color material (331) covering a first end portion of the first color filter (see Fig. 5, covers portion of 332) and a first end portion of the second color filter (Fig. 5, also covers portion of 333); and
a color adjustment layer (321, see paragraph [0101], prevents color mixing and is therefore a “color adjustment layer”) disposed on the color converting-transmitting layer corresponding to the light blocking partition wall (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 2, Joo teaches the display apparatus of claim 1, wherein a height of the color adjustment layer is less than a height of a central portion of the first color filter (Fig. 5) and a height of a central portion of the second color filter (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 7, Joo teaches the display apparatus of claim 1, wherein the color adjustment layer overlaps at least a part of the third color material (Joo Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 8, Joo teaches the display apparatus of claim 1, further comprising:
an insulating layer (PS1) disposed on the color converting-transmitting layer, wherein a lower surface of the first color filter, a lower surface of the second color filter, and a lower surface of the color adjustment layer are in direct contact with the insulating layer (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 10, Joo teaches the display apparatus of claim 1, wherein the color adjustment layer overlaps at least a part of the third color material (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 13, Joo teaches the display apparatus of claim 1, wherein the color conversion portion comprises quantum dots (see paragraph [0118]).
Regarding claim 14, Joo teaches a display apparatus comprising:
a light-emitting diode layer comprising a first light-emitting diode (Fig. 5, ED3) disposed in a
first emission area (LA3), a second light-emitting diode (ED2) disposed in a second emission area (LA2), and a third light-emitting diode (ED1) disposed in a third emission area (LA1);
an encapsulation layer (170) disposed on the light-emitting diode layer, wherein the encapsulation layer comprises at least one inorganic encapsulation layer (171) and at least one organic encapsulation layer (172);
a first color filter (333) disposed on the encapsulation layer and corresponding to the first emission area;
a second color filter (332) disposed on the encapsulation layer and corresponding to the second emission area;
a third color filter (331) disposed on the encapsulation layer and corresponding to the third emission area;
a third color material (portion of 331 not over LA1) covering a first end portion of the first color filter and a first end portion of the second color filter (Fig. 5) and having a same color as the third color filter (Fig. 5); and
a color adjustment layer (321) disposed on the encapsulation layer, wherein the color adjustment layer defines a first opening corresponding to the first emission area (Fig. 5), a second opening corresponding to the second emission area (Fig. 5), and a third opening corresponding to the third emission area (Fig. 5), and the color adjustment layer is disposed to overlap the third color material (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 15, Joo teaches the display apparatus of claim 14, wherein the color adjustment layer has a color different from the first color filter, the second color filter, and the third color filter (see paragraph [0099]-[0101], it is not any particular color and therefore is different than the first, second and third color filters, which are RGB).
Regarding claim 19, Joo teaches the display apparatus of claim 14, further comprising:
an insulating layer (PS1) disposed on the encapsulation layer, wherein a lower surface of the first color filter, a lower surface of the second color filter, a lower surface of the third color filter, and a lower surface of the color adjustment layer are in direct contact with the insulating layer (see Fig. 5).
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 3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joo in view of Gong et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0151508).
Regarding claim 3, Joo teaches the display apparatus of claim 1, but does not specifically teach wherein a height of the color adjustment layer is about 1 µm or less.
However, Gong teaches that the thickness of a color filter can be 1um or less (see Gong paragraph [0054]). Joo teaches that the color adjustment layer is thinner than the color filter, and therefore would be less than 1um as well (Joo Fig. 5). It would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date that the thickness of the color filters/color adjustment layer of Joo could have been similar to that of Gong because it would have been a simple substitution of one size for another with predictable results.
Regarding claim 16, Joo teaches the display apparatus of claim 14, but does not specifically teach wherein a height of the color adjustment layer is about 1 µm or less.
However, Gong teaches that the thickness of a color filter can be 1um or less (see Gong paragraph [0054]). Joo teaches that the color adjustment layer is thinner than the color filter, and therefore would be less than 1um as well (Joo Fig. 5). It would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date that the thickness of the color filters/color adjustment layer of Joo could have been similar to that of Gong because it would have been a simple substitution of one size for another with predictable results.
Claims 6, 9, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joo in view of Ryu et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0293684).
Regarding claim 6, Joo teaches the display apparatus of claim 1, wherein in a visible light wavelength band of about 380 nm to about 780 nm, a reflectivity of the third color material is less than a reflectivity of each of a first color material of the first color filter and a second color material of the second color filter.
However, Ryu teaches a similar device in which a reflectivity of the third color material is less than a reflectivity of each of a first color material of the first color filter and a second color material of the second color filter (see paragraph [0139]). It would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date that the reflectance of the third color material could have been less because Ryu teaches that because it is the uppermost color material layer, this allows for lower reflectance of external light (Ryu paragraph [0139]).
Regarding claim 9, Joo teaches the display apparatus of claim 1, wherein a first end portion of the first color filter and a first end portion of the second color filter are spaced apart from each other with a gap therebetween while overlapping the light blocking partition wall, and a part of the third color material is at least partially disposed in the gap.
However, Ryu teaches that there is a gap between the first and second color filters with the color material between the (Ryu Fig. 11). It would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date that a gap could have been formed because this allows for a more planar top surface of the color filters across the device, reducing diffuse reflection of externa light (see Ryu paragraph [0135]-[0136]).
Regarding claim 11, Joo teaches the display apparatus of claim 1, further comprising:
an overcoat layer (310) disposed on the first color filter and the second color filter, but does not teach wherein a lower surface of the overcoat layer includes a concave surface corresponding to a convex surface included in an upper surface of the third color material.
However, Ryu teaches a lower surface of the overcoat layer includes a concave surface corresponding to a convex surface included in an upper surface of the third color material (Ryu Fig. 11, overcoat 710). It would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date that the overcoat could have has a concave surface matching a convex surface of the color filter layer because Ryu teaches that the third color material should have a specific height/width ratio for reflection purposes (see Ryu paragraph [0137]).
Regarding claim 18, Joo teaches the display apparatus of claim 14, wherein a refractive index of the third color material is less than a refractive index of the first color filter and a refractive index of the second color filter.
However, Ryu teaches a similar device in which a refractive index of the third color material is less than a refractive index of each of a first color material of the first color filter and a second color material of the second color filter (see paragraph [0012]). It would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date that the refractive index of the third color material could have been less because Ryu teaches that because it is the uppermost color material layer, this allows for lower reflectance of external light (Ryu paragraph [0142]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, 12, 17 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:
Regarding claim 4-5, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest wherein the color adjustment layer comprises a first color material of the first color filter, a second color material of the second color filter, and a fourth color material having a color different from the third color material.
Regarding claim 12, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest wherein the color adjustment layer is disposed between the third color material and the overcoat layer.
Regarding claim 17, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest wherein the color adjustment layer comprises a yellow pigment or dye.
Regarding claim 20, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest wherein the color adjustment layer is disposed between the third color material and the overcoat layer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Evan G Clinton whose telephone number is (571)270-0525. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday at 8:30am to 5:30pm.
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, Zandra Smith can be reached at 571-272-2429. 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.
/EVAN G CLINTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights