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 .
Prior Art of Record
The applicant's attention is directed to additional pertinent prior art cited in the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited, which, however, may not be currently applied as a basis for the following rejections. While these references were considered during the examination of this application and are deemed relevant to the claimed subject matter, they are not presently being applied as a basis for rejection in this Office action. The pertinence of these documents, however, may be revisited, and they may be applied in subsequent Office actions, particularly in light of any amendments or further clarification of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (US 20230034664 A1) in view of Jo et al. (US 20220013587 A1)
PNG
media_image1.png
534
610
media_image1.png
Greyscale
CLAIM 1. A display device comprising:
a display panel comprising a circuit element layer PCL and a light emitting element layer OLED on the circuit element layer; and
a first light conversion layer, a second light conversion layer ¶81, and a light transmitting layer 300 on the display panel and spaced apart from one another, wherein the light emitting element layer OLED comprises: a pixel defining layer 220 defining light emitting openings overlapping the first light conversion layer, the second light conversion layer, and the light transmitting layer (Fig. 8); a plurality of light emitting elements OLED arranged in the light emitting openings, respectively; and a barrier wall [top portion of 220 or 230] on the pixel defining layer, the barrier wall being black in color (¶152-154 – Both 220 and 230 are disclosed to be formed of the same material. 220 is disclosed to be a black shielding material, thus it is understood 230 may be a black light shielding material also.), and wherein, when viewed from above a plane, the barrier wall is located between light emitting elements adjacent to each other among the plurality of light emitting elements and extends parallel to sides of the adjacent light emitting elements that face each other (230 is formed on 220 which is the pixel defining material, thereby inherently extending the recited direction. 230 being formed on 220 is understood to extend in the same directions some finite amount thereby meeting the scope of the claim.).
Shin explicitly mentions a color conversion layer, omitting it from the figures merely because it constitutes a conventional layer routinely formed over organic light-emitting diode (OLED) structures. Jo further establishes the state of the art, explicitly teaching that color conversion layers and overlying transparent layers were routinely formed over OLED structures.
PNG
media_image2.png
528
760
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) at the time of the invention to modify the display of Shin by incorporating the color conversion and transparent layers in the arrangement taught by Jo. A PHOSITA would have been motivated to combine these teachings because doing so merely applies a known technique (Jo's layer arrangement) to a known device ready for improvement (Shin's display structure) to yield predictable results. Such a predictable combination of prior art elements is prima facie obvious under KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
CLAIM 2. The display device of claim 1, wherein the plurality of light emitting elements comprise a first light emitting element, a second light emitting element, and a third light emitting element having different sizes, and wherein the first light emitting element and the third light emitting element are arranged in a first direction when viewed from above the plane (Both Shin and Jo disclose methodologies for forming RGB OLED displays. A core principle of these architectures is the use of at least three distinct light-emitting elements, each corresponding to a primary color (red, green, blue). Because these individual colors possess inherently different operational efficiencies and the human eye has varying sensitivities to them (e.g., higher sensitivity to green), the sub-elements are fabricated with varying geometric surface areas. This deliberate, geometric sizing acts as a standard optimization technique to achieve proper white balance and ensure vibrant, full-spectrum color reproduction.)
CLAIM 3. The display device of claim 2, wherein, when viewed from above the plane, the barrier wall is located between the first light emitting element and the third light emitting element and extends parallel to a side of the first light emitting element and a side of the third light emitting element in a second direction crossing the first direction, and the side of the first light emitting element and the side of the third light emitting element face each other (Shin Fig. 8 – The claim language does not provide any further structural distinction over the cross sectional figure 8 of Shin. Even though Shin depicts a cross sectional view, the “barrier” 230 is a three dimensional structure extending in some finite amount meeting the broad scope of the language.).
CLAIM 4. The display device of claim 3, wherein, when viewed from above the plane, the second light emitting element and the first light emitting element are spaced apart from each other in a first diagonal direction, and the second light emitting element and the third light emitting element are spaced apart from each other in a second diagonal direction, the first diagonal direction crossing the first direction and the second direction, and the second diagonal direction crossing the first diagonal direction (The statement describes a fundamental, repetitive grid geometry (such as staggered rows and columns) that is universally present in all standard pixel arrays. Because every conventional pixel array is structured on continuous orthogonal or diagonal axes, the language fails to define any unique physical layout. This description is true of any standard pixel array.).
CLAIM 5. The display device of claim 4, wherein, when viewed from above the plane, the barrier wall [top portion of 220 or 230] is located between the first light emitting element and the second light emitting element and between the second light emitting element and the third light emitting element and extends in the first direction (Shin Fig. 8).
CLAIM 6. The display device of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of light emitting elements comprises: an anode on the circuit element layer; an emissive layer on the anode; and a cathode on the emissive layer (The described features are standard to LED design.).
CLAIM 7. The display device of claim 6, wherein the barrier wall is located on an upper surface of the pixel defining layer, and the emissive layer covers the pixel defining layer and the barrier wall (Both Shin fig. 8 & Jo Fig. 10).
CLAIM 8. The display device of claim 6, wherein the barrier wall 220 and the pixel defining layer 220 are integrally formed (Both Shin fig. 8 & Jo Fig. 10).
CLAIM 9. The display device of claim 1, further comprising: a thin film encapsulation layer comprising a first inorganic layer 211/310 on the light emitting element layer, an organic layer 212/320 on the first inorganic layer, and a second inorganic layer 213/330 on the organic layer (Shin Fig. 8).
CLAIM 10. The display device of claim 9, wherein the barrier wall 220 is located on an upper surface of the first inorganic layer 211 and overlaps the pixel defining layer (Shin Fig. 8).
CLAIM 11. The display device of claim 10, wherein the organic layer 212
covers the barrier wall (Shin Fig. 8)..
CLAIM 12. The display device of claim 1, however are silent upon wherein the barrier wall has a thickness of 1 µm to 3 µm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select an appropriate thickness of the organic layers of the OLED , since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the base of its suitability, for its intended use involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
CLAIM 13. The display device of claim 1, further comprising: a first color filter 410 on the first light conversion layer; a second color filter 420 on the second light conversion layer; and a third color filter 430 on the light transmitting layer (Jo fig. 10 –The recited structure is routine industry standard used in the art of OLED displays.).
CLAIM 14. A display device comprising: a display panel; and a first light conversion layer ¶81, a second light conversion layer, and a light transmitting layer on the display panel and spaced apart from one another, wherein the display panel comprises:
a pixel defining layer 220 defining a plurality of pixel openings;
a first light emitting element OLED arranged in the pixel openings and overlapping the first light conversion layer (See Jo Fig. 10. Shin discloses but does not depict the conventional conversion layers, color filters, and/or transparent layers overlying the OLED elements. Such features are well known features are the general relative positioning/locations are well known industry standards.);
a second light emitting element arranged in the pixel openings and overlapping the second light conversion layer (Shin Fig. 8 & Jo Fig. 10); a third light emitting element arranged in the pixel openings and spaced apart from the first light emitting element in a first direction, the third light emitting element overlapping the light transmitting layer (Shin Fig. 8 & Jo Fig. 10); and
a barrier wall [top portion of 220 or 230] between the first light emitting element and the third light emitting element, and wherein, when viewed from above a plane, a length of the barrier wall in a second direction crossing the first direction is longer than a length of the first light emitting element in the second direction and a length of the third light emitting element in the second direction (230 is formed on 220 which is the pixel defining material, thereby inherently extending the recited direction. 230 being formed on 220 is understood to extend in the same directions some finite amount thereby meeting the scope of the claim.).
Shin explicitly mentions a color conversion layer, omitting it from the figures merely because it constitutes a conventional layer routinely formed over organic light-emitting diode (OLED) structures. Jo further establishes the state of the art, explicitly teaching that color conversion layers and overlying transparent layers were routinely formed over OLED structures.
PNG
media_image2.png
528
760
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) at the time of the invention to modify the display of Shin by incorporating the color conversion and transparent layers in the arrangement taught by Jo. A PHOSITA would have been motivated to combine these teachings because doing so merely applies a known technique (Jo's layer arrangement) to a known device ready for improvement (Shin's display structure) to yield predictable results. Such a predictable combination of prior art elements is prima facie obvious under KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
CLAIM 15. The display device of claim 14, wherein the barrier wall is located between the first light emitting element and the second light emitting element and between the second light emitting element and the third light emitting element, and a length of the barrier wall in the first direction is longer than a length of the second light emitting element in the first direction (Both Shin fig. 8 & Jo Fig. 10 – The pixel defining layer which may be consider the barrier wall (i.e. top portion) extends around the LED elements, thereby meeting the scope of the language.).
CLAIM 16. The display device of claim 14, wherein each of the first light emitting element, the second light emitting element, and the third light emitting element comprises: an anode, at least a portion of which is exposed from the pixel defining layer to an outside by the pixel openings; an emissive layer on the anode; and a cathode on the emissive layer (The described features are standard to LED design.).
CLAIM 17. The display device of claim 16, wherein the barrier wall is located on an upper surface of the pixel defining layer, and wherein the emissive layer covers the pixel defining layer and the barrier wall (Both Shin fig. 8 & Jo Fig. 10).
CLAIM 18. The display device of claim 17, wherein the pixel defining layer and the barrier wall 220 are integrally formed (Both Shin fig. 8 & Jo Fig. 10)
CLAIM 19. The display device of claim 14, further comprising: a thin film encapsulation layer comprising a first inorganic layer 211/310 on the first light emitting element, the second light emitting element, and the third light emitting element, an organic layer 212/320 on the first inorganic layer, and a second inorganic layer 213/330on the organic layer (Shin Fig. 8).
CLAIM 20. The display device of claim 19, wherein the barrier wall 220 is located on an upper surface of the first inorganic layer 211, and the organic layer 212 covers the barrier wall (Shin Fig. 8).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JARRETT J STARK whose telephone number is (571)272-6005. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4 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, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. 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.
JARRETT J. STARK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2822
6/22/2026
/JARRETT J STARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights