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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Currently, claims 1-18 are pending and examined below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statement submitted on 07/03/2023 ("07-03-23 IDS") is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the 07-03-23 IDS is being considered by the examiner.
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 BANK INCLUDING SECOND BANK SCATTER HAVING A SIZE DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF FIRST BANK SCATTER
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a color conversion layer disposed in the area surrounded by the bank, the color conversion layer including a quantum dot” of claim 13 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 5 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 5 is indefinite, because "for example" is an exemplary claim language that includes examples or preferences which "...may lead to confusion over the intended scope of a claim." (see MPEP 2173.05(d)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 1021
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, 3, 5, 12, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pub. No. US 2021/0335929 A1 to Li et al. (" ‘929 Li").
Fig. 5 of Li has been provided to support the rejection below:
PNG
media_image1.png
213
449
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding independent claim 1, ‘929 Li teaches a display device A, B (para [0044] - “Referring to FIG. 5, the display panel in some embodiments includes a display substrate A and a counter substrate B facing the display substrate A. The display substrate A and the counter substrate B are assembled together to form the display panel…Each of the plurality of light emitting elements 3 includes a first electrode 31, an organic light emitting layer 32 on a side of the first electrode 31 distal to the base substrate 1 and in the plurality of subpixel apertures SA, and a second electrode 33 on a side of the organic light emitting layer 32 distal to the base substrate 1.”) comprising:
a base layer 1;
a display layer 32 disposed on the base layer 1 and including a light emitting element 32;
a conductive pattern layer 33 disposed on the display layer 32; and
a bank 2 (para [0035] - “The pixel definition layer 2 includes a plurality of hydrophobic particles 20 dispersed in a main body 21 for enhancing hydrophobicity of a portion of the pixel definition layer 2.”) disposed on the display layer 32, the bank 2 protruding in a thickness direction of the base layer 1, and the bank 2 surrounding at least a portion of an area SA (para [0035] - “a pixel definition layer 2 on the base substrate 1 defining a plurality of subpixel apertures SA.”),
wherein the bank 2 covers the conductive pattern layer 33, the bank 2 including a first bank scatterer and a second bank scatterer (a plurality of hydrophobic nanoparticles having an average diameter as disclosed in para [0061]), the second bank scatter having a size different from that of the first bank scatterer (para [0061] - “Optionally, the plurality of hydrophobic nanoparticles have an average diameter in a range of 5 nm to 10 nm.” Since the nanoparticles have an average diameter, it is more likely than not that there is a distribution of nanoparticle sizes. Therefore, at least one particle must be of a different size than another particle).
Regarding claim 3, a limitation of “wherein the bank has a light transmittance in a range of about 13% to about 15% with respect to light having a wavelength of about 880 nm” does not structurally limit the claimed display device, because it is directed to an operational characteristic of the bank. As currently recited, there is nothing in the limitation that structurally distinguishes the bank over the bank taught by ‘929 Li.
Regarding claim 5, ‘929 Li teaches each of the first bank scatterer and the second bank scatter that includes silica (SiOx) (para [0067] - “…to obtain hydrophobic magnetic nanoparticles having…SiO2 as the intermediate portion…”).
Regarding claim 12, a limitation of “functions as an alignment key during an exposure process for manufacturing the display device” does not structurally limit the claimed display device, because it is directed to an intended use of the conductive pattern. As currently recited, there is nothing in the limitation that structurally distinguishes the conductive pattern over the conductive pattern taught by ‘929 Li.
Regarding claim 15, ‘929 Li teaches the conductive pattern layer 33 and the bank 2 that are in contact with each other.
Regarding claim 17, a limitation of “wherein the bank simultaneously increases reflectance of a visible light produced by the display layer and transmits a near infrared light to detect a location of the alignment key by detecting a reflection of the near infrared light from the alignment key” does not structurally limit the claimed display device, because it is directed to an intended use of the bank and the conductive pattern layer. As currently recited, there is nothing in the limitation that structurally distinguishes the display device over the display device taught by ‘929 Li.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by ‘929 Li as evidenced by Pub. No. US 2019/0333368 A1 to Li et al. (“ ‘368 Li”).
Regarding claim 2, ‘929 Li teaches the bank 2 having a main body 21 that includes polymethacrylate (para [0042]).
As evidenced by ‘368 Li, polymethacrylate is configured to transmit infrared light (para [0045] - “Further, in a preferred implementation, the light cover 2 is made of acrylic (also referred to as PMMA or plexiglass, sourced from acrylic (acrylic plastics) in English, and referred to polymethyl methacrylate in chemistry) material, and is configured to transmit invisible infrared light.”).
Therefore, ‘929 Li teaches the bank 2 that transmits light of a near infrared wavelength band.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by ‘929 Li as evidenced by Pub. No. US 2015/0179672 A1 to Sun (“Sun”).
Regarding claim 4, ‘929 Li teaches the bank 2 that includes a bank base including polymethacrylate.
As evidenced by Sun, polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) is a photoresist material.
Therefore, ‘929 Li teaches the bank 2 that includes a photosensitive material of polymethacrylate.
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 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 6, 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘929 Li.
Regarding claim 6, ‘929 Li does not disclose a size of the first bank scatter that ranges from about 200 nm to about 300 nm.
However, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Court held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (see MPEP 2144.04).
Since the only difference between the claimed display device and the display device taught by ‘929 Li is a relative dimension of the size that ranges from about 200 nm to about 300 nm, the Court would be more likely than not hold that the claimed display device is not patentably distinct from the display device taught by ‘929 Li
Moreover, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art modify the display device such that the size is in a range of about 200 nm to 300 nm with a reasonable expectation of providing a display device as the one of ordinary skill in the semiconductor art is incentivized to make adjustments to size to fit an intended purpose of making a display device as market forces demand that the device scale down with Moore's Law.
Regarding claim 7, ‘929 Li does not disclose a size of the second bank scatter that ranges from about 100 nm to about 200 nm.
However, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Court held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (see MPEP 2144.04).
Since the only difference between the claimed display device and the display device taught by ‘929 Li is a relative dimension of the size that ranges from about 100 nm to about 200 nm, the Court would be more likely than not hold that the claimed display device is not patentably distinct from the display device taught by ‘929 Li
Moreover, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art modify the display device such that the size is in a range of about 100 nm to 200 nm with a reasonable expectation of providing a display device as the one of ordinary skill in the semiconductor art is incentivized to make adjustments to size to fit an intended purpose of making a display device as market forces demand that the device scale down with Moore's Law.
Regarding claim 18, ‘929 Li does not disclose a size of the first bank scatter that is about 200 nm or a size of the second bank scatter that is about 200 nm.
However, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Court held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (see MPEP 2144.04).
Since the only difference between the claimed display device and the display device taught by ‘929 Li is a relative dimension of the size of about 200 nm for the first bank scatter and the second bank scatter, the Court would be more likely than not hold that the claimed display device is not patentably distinct from the display device taught by ‘929 Li
Moreover, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art modify the display device such that the size of about 200 nm with a reasonable expectation of providing a display device as the one of ordinary skill in the semiconductor art is incentivized to make adjustments to size to fit an intended purpose of making a display device as market forces demand that the device scale down with Moore's Law.
Claims 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘929 Li and further in view of Pub. No. US 2022/0123183 A1 to Kim et al. (“Kim”).
Regarding claim 13, ‘929 Li does not disclose a color conversion layer disposed in the area surrounded by the bank, the color conversion layer including a quantum dot.
Park teaches color conversion layer CCL that includes quantum dots corresponding to a color of a pixel (para [0166] - “The color conversion layer CCL may be disposed on the light emitting elements LD in the opening OP of the second bank BNK2. The color conversion layer CCL may include a first color conversion layer CCL1 disposed on the first pixel PXL1, a second color conversion layer CCL2 disposed on the second pixel PXL2, and a light scattering layer LSL disposed on the third pixel PXL3.”; para [0168] - “For example, in case that the light emitting element LD is a blue light emitting element that emits blue light and the first pixel PXL1 is a red pixel, the first color conversion layer CCL1 may include a first quantum dot QDr that converts blue light emitted from the blue light emitting element into red light.”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of ‘929 with a color conversion layer including a quantum dot in an area surrounded by a bank taught by Kim so as to be able to select the color emission based on a common light emitting element that emits at a predetermined wavelength.
Regarding claim 16, ‘929 Li does not disclose the area that corresponds to one of a color conversion layer and a scattering layer.
Park teaches color conversion layer CCL that includes quantum dots corresponding to a color of a pixel (para [0166] - “The color conversion layer CCL may be disposed on the light emitting elements LD in the opening OP of the second bank BNK2. The color conversion layer CCL may include a first color conversion layer CCL1 disposed on the first pixel PXL1, a second color conversion layer CCL2 disposed on the second pixel PXL2, and a light scattering layer LSL disposed on the third pixel PXL3.”; para [0168] - “For example, in case that the light emitting element LD is a blue light emitting element that emits blue light and the first pixel PXL1 is a red pixel, the first color conversion layer CCL1 may include a first quantum dot QDr that converts blue light emitted from the blue light emitting element into red light.”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of ‘929 with a color conversion layer including a quantum dot in an area surrounded by a bank taught by Kim so as to be able to select the color emission based on a common light emitting element that emits at a predetermined wavelength.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 8 is objected to for depending on a rejected base claim 1, but would be allowable if it is rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim 1 or the base claim 1 is amended to include all of the limitations of claim 8.
Claim 9 is objected to for depending on a rejected base claim 1, but would be allowable if it is rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim 1 or the base claim 1 is amended to include all of the limitations of claim 9.
Claim 10 is objected to for depending on a rejected base claim 1, but would be allowable if it is rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim 1 or the base claim 1 is amended to include all of the limitations of claim 10.
Claim 11 is objected to for depending on a rejected base claim 1, but would be allowable if it is rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim 1 or the base claim 1 is amended to include all of the limitations of claim 11.
Claim 14 is objected to for depending on a rejected base claim 1, but would be allowable if it is rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim 1 or the base claim 1 is amended to include all of the limitations of claim 14.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Pub. No. US 2024/0147781 A1 to Wu et al.
Pub. No. US 2020/0168677 A1 to Gao et al
Pub. No. US 2014/0168572 A1 to Iwata et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL JUNG whose telephone number is (408) 918-7554. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 A.M. to 7 P.M.
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 on (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 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.
/MICHAEL JUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817 16 July 2026
1 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
Prosecution Insights