DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is in response to application filed on 06/12/2024.
Currently claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/12/2024 was filed before the mailing date of the office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement was considered by the examiner.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-4, 6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0013607 A1 (Lee).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses, a display apparatus comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
638
674
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a substrate (100; Fig. 8A; [0138]);
a display element (OLED; Fig. 8A; [0138]) disposed on the substrate (100);
a pixel-defining layer (209; Fig. 8A; [0108]) disposed on the substrate (100) and defining an opening (209OP; opening; Fig. 8A; [0108]) that defines an emission area of the display element (OLED);
a spacer (211; spacer; Fig. 8A; [0109]) disposed on the pixel-defining layer (209) and defining a first opening (opening between two spacers 211) that overlaps the opening (209OP) of the pixel-defining layer (209);
a thin-film encapsulation layer (300; Fig. 8A; [0114]) disposed on the display element (OLED); and
a light-shielding layer (BM; black matrix; Fig. 8A; [0137]) disposed on the thin-film encapsulation layer (300) and defining a second opening (as annotated on Fig. 8A; [0138]) corresponding to the emission area of the display element (OLED),
wherein a size of the first opening (opening between two spacers 211) is greater than or equal to a size of the second opening (as annotated on Fig. 8A; [0138]) in a plan view (as evident in Fig. 8A). See MPEP 2125 (I), which states that Drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Lee and MPEP 2125 (I) before him/her, to modify the teachings of a display apparatus as taught by Lee and to make the size of the first opening being greater than or equal to the size of the second opening in a plan view.
Examiner’s Note: Examiner may additionally consider a §102 rejection of Claim 1 under MPEP 2125, if Figs. 8A-8B clearly depict the light-shielding layer and the spacer. However, given that patent drawings are typically not to scale and the text of US 2022/0013607 A1 (Lee) does not expressly specify this size relationship, a §103 rejection is the more defensible basis.
Regarding claim 2, Lee discloses, the display apparatus of claim 1, wherein the spacer (211) comprises: a first portion (as annotated on Fig. 8A) having a certain shape (flat top); and a second portion (slanted portion, as annotated on Fig. 8A) that defines the first opening (as annotated on Fig. 8A).
PNG
media_image2.png
638
676
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Lee discloses, the display apparatus of claim 2, wherein the first portion and the second portion are integrally provided as a single body (as evident in Fig. 8A). See MPEP 2125 (I).
Regarding claim 4, Lee discloses, the display apparatus of claim 2, wherein a thickness of the first portion is greater than a thickness of the second portion (as evident in Fig. 8A). See MPEP 2125 (I).
Regarding claim 6, Lee discloses, the display apparatus of claim 1, wherein the size of the second opening is greater than a size of the opening of the pixel-defining layer (209) in the plan view (as evident in Fig. 8A). See MPEP 2125 (I).
Regarding claim 11, Lee discloses, the display apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a touch sensing layer (403; touch protection layer; Fig. 8A; [0138]) between the thin-film encapsulation layer (300) and the light-shielding layer (BM).
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0013607 A1 (Lee) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US 2022/0149136 A1 (Lee2).
Regarding claim 7, Lee fails to teach explicitly, the display apparatus of claim 1, wherein the pixel-defining layer comprises a light-blocking material.
However, in analogous art, Lee2 discloses, the display apparatus of claim 1, wherein the pixel-defining layer (280; Fig. 7) comprises a light-blocking material (carbon black) (Fig. 7; [0066]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Lee and Lee2 before him/her, to modify the teachings of a display apparatus as taught by Lee and to include the teachings of pixel-defining layer comprising a light-blocking material as taught by Lee2 since it would block the light in pixel defining layer as required and absent this important teaching in Lee, a person with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to reach out to Lee2 while forming a display apparatus of Lee.
Regarding claim 9, Lee fails to teach explicitly, the display apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a color filter in the second opening of the light-shielding layer (black matrix).
However, in analogous art, Lee2 discloses, the display apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a color filter (350a/350b/350c; color filter; Fig. 3; [0082]) in the second opening of the light-shielding layer (black matrix).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Lee and Lee2 before him/her, to modify the teachings of a display apparatus as taught by Lee and to include the teachings of color filter in the opening of the light-shielding layer or black matrix as taught by Lee2 since in MPEP 2143 (A), it is stated that Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. Absent this important teaching in Lee, a person with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to reach out to Lee2 while forming a display apparatus of Lee.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Lee2 as applied to claim 7 and further in view of US 2021/0111232 A1 (Park).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Lee and Lee2 fails to teach explicitly, the display apparatus of claim 7, wherein the spacer comprises photosensitive polyimide (PSPI).
However, in analogous art, Park discloses, the display apparatus of claim 7, wherein the spacer (191; Fig. 10A; [0090]) comprises photosensitive polyimide (PSPI).
PNG
media_image3.png
332
626
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Lee, Lee2 and Park before him/her, to modify the teachings of a display apparatus as taught by Lee and to include the teachings of the spacer comprising photosensitive polyimide as taught by Park since in MPEP 2143 (A), it is stated that Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. Absent this important teaching in Lee, a person with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to reach out to Park while forming a display apparatus of Lee.
Claims 12-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0013607 A1 (Lee).
Regarding claim 12, Lee discloses, a display apparatus comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
638
674
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a substrate (100; Fig. 8A; [0138]);
a display element (OLED; Fig. 8A; [0138]) disposed on the substrate (100);
a pixel-defining layer (209; Fig. 8A; [0108]) disposed on the substrate (100) and defining an opening (209OP; opening; Fig. 8A; [0108]) that defines an emission area of the display element (OLED);
a spacer (211; spacer; Fig. 8A; [0109]) disposed on the pixel-defining layer (209) and defining a first opening (opening between two spacers 211) that overlaps the opening (209OP) of the pixel-defining layer (209);
a thin-film encapsulation layer (300; Fig. 8A; [0114]) disposed on the display element (OLED); and
a light-shielding layer (BM; black matrix; Fig. 8A; [0137]) disposed on the thin-film encapsulation layer (300) and defining a second opening (as annotated on Fig. 8A; [0138]) corresponding to the emission area of the display element (OLED),
wherein, in a plan view, an edge of the spacer (211) that defines the first opening (opening between two spacers 211) surrounds an edge of the light-shielding layer (BM) that defines the second opening (as evident in Fig. 8A). See MPEP 2125 (I), which states that Drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Lee and MPEP 2125 (I) before him/her, to modify the teachings of a display apparatus as taught by Lee and to make the size of the first opening being greater than or equal to the size of the second opening in a plan view.
Examiner’s Note: Examiner may additionally consider a §102 rejection of Claim 1 under MPEP 2125, if Figs. 8A-8B clearly depict the light-shielding layer and the spacer. However, given that patent drawings are typically not to scale and the text of US 2022/0013607 A1 (Lee) does not expressly specify this size relationship, a §103 rejection is the more defensible basis.
Regarding claim 13, Lee discloses, the display apparatus of claim 12, wherein the spacer (211) comprises: a first portion (as annotated on Fig. 8A) having a certain shape (flat top); and a second portion (as annotated on Fig. 8A) extending from the first portion and defining the first opening (as annotated on Fig. 8A).
PNG
media_image2.png
638
676
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Lee discloses, the display apparatus of claim 13, wherein a thickness of the first portion is greater than a thickness of the second portion (as evident in Fig. 8A).
Regarding claim 15, Lee discloses, the display apparatus of claim 12, wherein a size of the first opening is greater than or equal to a size of the second opening (as evident in Fig. 8A).
Regarding claim 16, Lee discloses, the display apparatus of claim 12, wherein a size of the second opening is greater than a size of the opening of the pixel-defining layer (as evident in Fig. 8A).
Regarding claim 20, Lee discloses, the display apparatus of claim 12, wherein the thin-film encapsulation layer (300) comprises, on the spacer (211), a first inorganic encapsulation layer (310), an organic encapsulation layer (320), and a second inorganic encapsulation layer (330) (Fig. 8A; [0114]).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0013607 A1 (Lee) as applied to claim 12 and further in view of US 2022/0149136 A1 (Lee2).
Regarding claim 17, Lee fails to teach explicitly, the display apparatus of claim 12, wherein the pixel-defining layer comprises a light-blocking material.
However, in analogous art, Lee2 discloses, the display apparatus of claim 12, wherein the pixel-defining layer (280; Fig. 7) comprises a light-blocking material (carbon black) (Fig. 7; [0066]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Lee and Lee2 before him/her, to modify the teachings of a display apparatus as taught by Lee and to include the teachings of pixel-defining layer comprising a light-blocking material as taught by Lee2 since it would block the light in pixel defining layer as required and absent this important teaching in Lee, a person with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to reach out to Lee2 while forming a display apparatus of Lee.
Regarding claim 18, Lee fails to teach explicitly, the display apparatus of claim 12, further comprising a color filter in the second opening of the light-shielding layer (black matrix).
However, in analogous art, Lee2 discloses, the display apparatus of claim 12, further comprising a color filter (350a/350b/350c; color filter; Fig. 3; [0082]) in the second opening of the light-shielding layer (black matrix).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Lee and Lee2 before him/her, to modify the teachings of a display apparatus as taught by Lee and to include the teachings of color filter in the opening of the light-shielding layer or black matrix as taught by Lee2 since in MPEP 2143 (A), it is stated that Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. Absent this important teaching in Lee, a person with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to reach out to Lee2 while forming a display apparatus of Lee.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 10 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent forms including all of the limitations of the base claims and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 5, the closest prior art, US 2022/0013607 A1 (Lee), in conjunction with US 2022/0149136 A1 (Lee2) and US 2021/0111232 A1 (Park), and in combination with the other claimed features, fails to disclose, “the display apparatus of claim 2, wherein a thickness of the first portion is about 8,000 angstroms (Å) to about 15,000 Å, and a thickness of the second portion is about 2,000 Å to about 6,000 Å”, in combination with the additionally claimed features, as are claimed by the Applicant.
Specifically, the aforementioned ‘the display apparatus of claim 2, wherein a thickness of the first portion is about 8,000 angstroms (Å) to about 15,000 Å, and a thickness of the second portion is about 2,000 Å to about 6,000 Å,’ is material to the inventive concept of the application at hand to allow the light-shielding layer to cover the spacer in plan view and prevent direct exposure of the spacer to outside light.
Regarding claim 10, the closest prior art, US 2022/0013607 A1 (Lee), in conjunction with US 2022/0149136 A1 (Lee2) and US 2021/0111232 A1 (Park), and in combination with the other claimed features, fails to disclose, “the display apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a reflection control layer in the second opening of the light-shielding layer, wherein the reflection control layer absorbs a first wavelength range of about 480 nanometers (nm) to about 505 nm, and a second wavelength range of about 585 nm to about 605 nm”, in combination with the additionally claimed features, as are claimed by the Applicant.
Specifically, the aforementioned ‘the display apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a reflection control layer in the second opening of the light-shielding layer, wherein the reflection control layer absorbs a first wavelength range of about 480 nanometers (nm) to about 505 nm, and a second wavelength range of about 585 nm to about 605 nm,’ is material to the inventive concept of the application at hand to allow the light-shielding layer to cover the spacer in plan view and prevent direct exposure of the spacer to outside light.
Regarding claim 19, the closest prior art, US 2022/0013607 A1 (Lee), in conjunction with US 2022/0149136 A1 (Lee2) and US 2021/0111232 A1 (Park), and in combination with the other claimed features, fails to disclose, “the display apparatus of claim 12, further comprising a reflection control layer in the second opening of the light-shielding layer, wherein the reflection control layer absorbs a first wavelength range of about 480 nanometers (nm) to about 505 nm, and a second wavelength range of about 585 nm to about 605 nm”, in combination with the additionally claimed features, as are claimed by the Applicant.
Specifically, the aforementioned ‘the display apparatus of claim 12, further comprising a reflection control layer in the second opening of the light-shielding layer, wherein the reflection control layer absorbs a first wavelength range of about 480 nanometers (nm) to about 505 nm, and a second wavelength range of about 585 nm to about 605 nm,’ is material to the inventive concept of the application at hand to allow the light-shielding layer to cover the spacer in plan view and prevent direct exposure of the spacer to outside light.
Examiner’s Note (Additional Prior Arts)
The examiner included a few prior arts which were not used in the rejection but are relevant to the disclosure.
US 2022/0115451 A1 (Lee) - A display panel is disclosed including a pixel defining layer including a first portion, in which an opening to expose the first electrode is defined, and a second portion, which is disposed on the first portion and overlaps the first portion. A plurality of thin-films are disposed on the second electrode. An insulation pattern is disposed on the plurality of thin-films, overlaps the pixel defining layer, and overlaps the second portion. A distance between the first portion, which overlaps the insulation pattern, of the sensing electrode and the base insulation layer is greater than that between the second portion, which non-overlaps the insulation pattern, of the sensing electrode and the base insulation layer.
US 2021/0183971 A1 (Kim) - A display device having improved image quality characteristics is disclosed including a substrate including a transmission area and an emission area defined by a pixel-defining layer; a display element including a pixel electrode at least partially exposed by the pixel-defining layer, an intermediate layer arranged on the pixel electrode, and an opposite electrode arranged on the intermediate layer; a thin film encapsulation layer arranged on the display element, the thin film encapsulation layer including at least one inorganic encapsulation layer and at least one organic encapsulation layer; and an external light-absorbing layer at least partially overlapping the emission area and arranged on the thin film encapsulation layer.
US 2021/0013452 A1 (Kim) - A display apparatus is disclosed including a substrate, a display element disposed above the substrate, an encapsulation layer disposed above the display element and including an inorganic encapsulation layer and an organic encapsulation layer, and a touch-sensing layer disposed above the encapsulation layer. The touch-sensing layer may include a first insulating layer including a side surface inclined with respect to a top surface of the encapsulation layer and including an organic material. The touch-sensing layer may include a conductive layer including sensing electrodes, and a second insulating layer covering the conductive layer and including a refractive index that may be different from that of the first insulating layer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to S M SOHEL IMTIAZ whose telephone number is (408) 918-7566. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-5PM, M-F, PST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christine S. Kim can be reached at 571-272-8458. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/S M SOHEL IMTIAZ/Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2812
06/23/2026
Prosecution Insights