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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) to foreign application KR 10-2023-0124883 filed on 9/19/2023. The foreign application is not in English. The certified copy of the foreign priority application has been received. Filing Dates for the Claims — All Claims Not Entitled to Priority DateTo be entitled to the filing date of the foreign priority application KR 10-2023-0124883 that is not in English, an English translation of the non-English language foreign application KR 10-2023-0124883 and a statement that the translation is accurate in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55 is required to perfect the claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The foreign application must adequately support the claimed subject matter, meaning satisfy the written description and enablement requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a). See MPEP §§ 215 and 216. 37 C.F.R. 1.55(g)(3)(ii)-(iii). To demonstrate compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(a), applicant should point to support for their claimed subject matter in their translations.
Claims Rejections 35 U.S.C. 35 § 102
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Qi (CN 116390539 A), hereinafter referred to as Qi.
Regarding claim 1, Qi teaches a display device comprising a display panel (Qi, 11, Fig. 5a, 11 is described as the interface between the panel and the air), the display panel including: a light-emitting element (Qi, 3, Fig. 4) disposed on a base substrate (Qi, 1, Fig. 4) and including a light-emitting layer (Qui, 4, Fig. 4); an inorganic deposition layer disposed on the light-emitting element (Qi, 5, Figs. 2, 4); and an encapsulation layer disposed on the inorganic deposition layer (Qi, 6, Fig. 4), wherein the inorganic deposition layer includes: a first portion including a first upper surface inclined at a first angle with respect to an upper surface of the base substrate (Qi, Figs. 2, 4, see diagram below); and a second portion including a second upper surface substantially parallel to the upper surface of the base substrate (Qi, Figs. 2, 4, see diagram below), and a first thickness of the first portion is greater than a second thickness of the second portion (Qi, Fig. 2, the first portion is given a surface treatment which gives it a convex microstructure, which increases the thickness).
PNG
media_image1.png
409
637
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims Rejections 35 U.S.C. 35 § 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, 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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5-8 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US Pub. 20230209877), hereinafter referred to as Lee and Qi.
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a display device comprising a display panel (Lee, DP, Fig. 4A, para. 58), the display panel including: a light-emitting element (Lee, ED-1, ED-2, ED-3, Fig. 4A, para. 59), disposed on a base substrate (Lee, BS, Fig. 4A, para. 59) and including a light-emitting layer (Lee, EML-R, EML-G, EML-B, Fig. 4A, para. 75); an inorganic deposition layer disposed on the light-emitting element (Lee, INF, Fig. 4A, para. 57); and an encapsulation layer (Lee, disposed on the inorganic deposition layer (Lee, TFE, Fig. 4A, para. 59), wherein the inorganic deposition layer includes: a first portion including a first upper surface inclined at a first angle with respect to an upper surface of the base substrate (Lee, Fig. 4A, see diagram below); and a second portion including a second upper surface substantially parallel to the upper surface of the base substrate (Lee Fig. 4A, see diagram below).
Lee does not teach wherein a first thickness of the first portion is greater than a second thickness of the second portion.
However, Qi teaches a display device wherein the first portion (Qi, Fig. 2) of the inorganic layer has been given a surface treatment which gives it a convex micro-structure and increases the thickness.
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine the display device of Lee with the modified thickness of Qi in order to increase the scatter of the light from the area and render invisible to the human eye.
PNG
media_image2.png
855
1133
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, modified Lee teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the first angle is in a range of about 60 degrees to about 90 degrees (Lee, Θ1, Fig. 5A, paras. 115-116).
Regarding claim 5, modified Lee teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the display panel further comprises: a pixel-defining film (Lee, PDL, Fig. 4A, para. 59) disposed on the base substrate and having a pixel opening (Lee, OH, Fig. 4A, para. 76), and the light-emitting layer is disposed in the pixel opening.
Regarding claim 6, modified Lee teaches the display device of claim 5, wherein the pixel-defining film comprises a side surface defining the pixel opening, (Lee, Fig 5A) the side surface of the pixel-defining film is inclined at a second angle with respect to the upper surface of the base substrate (Lee, Fig. 5A), and the second angle is substantially the same as the first angle (Lee, Fig. 5A).
Regarding claim 7, modified Lee teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the inorganic deposition layer comprises an inorganic material having a refractive index of about 1.0 or greater and a light absorption coefficient of about 0.5 or greater (Lee, para. 91).
Regarding claim 8, modified Lee teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the inorganic deposition layer comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of bismuth (Bi) and ytterbium (Yb) (Lee, para. 91).
Regarding claim 10, modified Lee teaches the display device of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the first thickness is in a range of about 50 Å to about 200 Å.
Lee states the inorganic deposition layer INF may be a layer for preventing or reducing reflection of external light from by the second electrode EL2 of the light-emitting elements ED-1, ED-2, and ED-3.
Lee further states that the thickness of the inorganic deposition layer INF and the capping layer may be controlled or selected so that destructive interference may be controlled or selected so that destructive int may occur between light reflected on the surface of the inorganic deposition layer INF and light reflected on the second electrode EL2 (Lee, para. 90). The thickness of the inorganic deposition layer changes the path of the light in accordance with Snell’s Laws and affect the interference patterns. If the thickness is outside the optimum range, then the destructive interference nodes may not occur because the refraction of the light combined with the thickness cause the light to be in phase rather than out of phase.
Because the prior art recognizes that the thickness of the inorganic deposition layer directly affects the destructive interference and states that the thicknesses may be controlled or selected the thickness is a result affective variable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to optimize this variable through routine experimentation. The selection of a thickness between 50 Å and 200 Å would be a predictable result of such optimization, absent evidence of unexpected results or criticality associated with the 50 Å to 200 Å range (See MPEP 2144.05 II).
Regarding claim 11, modified Lee teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the first thickness is in a range of about 40 Å to about 100 Å.
Lee states the inorganic deposition layer INF may be a layer for preventing or reducing reflection of external light from by the second electrode EL2 of the light-emitting elements ED-1, ED-2, and ED-3.
Lee further states that the thickness of the inorganic deposition layer INF and the capping layer may be controlled or selected so that destructive interference may be controlled or selected so that destructive int may occur between light reflected on the surface of the inorganic deposition layer INF and light reflected on the second electrode EL2 (Lee, para. 90). The thickness of the inorganic deposition layer changes the path of the light in accordance with Snell’s Laws and affect the interference patterns. If the thickness is outside the optimum range, then the destructive interference nodes may not occur because the refraction of the light combined with the thickness cause the light to be in phase rather than out of phase.
Because the prior art recognizes that the thickness of the inorganic deposition layer directly affects the destructive interference and states that the thicknesses may be controlled or selected the thickness is a result affective variable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to optimize this variable through routine experimentation. The selection of a thickness between 40 Å and 100 Å would be a predictable result of such optimization, absent evidence of unexpected results or criticality associated with the 40 Å to 100 Å range (See MPEP 2144.05 II).
Regarding claim 12, modified Lee teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the encapsulation layer (Lee, TFE, Fig. 4A) is entirely in contact with the first upper surface and the second upper surface (Lee, Fig. 4A, see diagram above).
Regarding claim 13, modified Lee teaches he display device of claim 1, wherein the light-emitting element further comprises: a first electrode (Lee, EL1, Fig. 4A, para. 75) disposed on the base substrate; a second electrode (Lee, EL2, Fig. 4A, para. 75) spaced apart from the first electrode; a hole transport region (Lee, HTR, Fig. 4A, para. 57) disposed between the first electrode and the light-emitting layer (Lee, EML-R, G, B, Fig. 4A); an electron transport region (Lee, ETR, Fig. 4A, para. 57) disposed between the second electrode and the light-emitting layer; and a capping layer (Lee, CPL, Fig. 4A, para. 57) disposed on the second electrode, the light-emitting layer is disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode (Lee Fig. 4A), and the inorganic deposition layer is directly disposed on the capping layer (Lee, Fig. 4A).
Regarding claim 14, modified Lee teaches the display device of claim 1, further comprising: a light control layer (Lee, AR, Fig. 4A, para. 55, 95) disposed on the display panel and including at least one of a dye and a pigment; and a sensor layer (Lee, TU, Fig. 4A, para. 56) disposed between the display panel and the light control layer.
Claims 16-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, Qi and Yamazaki et al. (US Pub. 20210104699), hereinafter referred to as Yamazaki.
Regarding claim 16, Lee teaches a method of manufacturing a display device, the method comprising: providing a base substrate (Lee, BS, Fig. 4A para. 59) and a light-emitting element (Lee, ED-1, ED-2, ED-3, Fig. 4A, para. 59) including a light-emitting layer (Lee, EML-R, EML-G, EML-B, Fig. 4A, para. 75) disposed on the base substrate; forming, on the light-emitting element, an inorganic deposition layer (Lee, INF, Fig. 4A, para. 57, 91) including an inorganic material; and forming an encapsulation layer (Lee, TFE, Fig. 4A, para. 59) on the inorganic deposition layer, wherein the forming of the inorganic deposition layer includes: forming a preliminary inorganic deposition layer including: a first preliminary portion (Lee, Fig 4A, see diagram below) including a first preliminary upper surface having a first angle (Lee, Θ1, Fig. 5A, paras. 115-116 ) with respect to an upper surface of the base substrate; and a second preliminary portion (Lee, Fig. 4A, see diagram below) including a second preliminary upper surface substantially parallel to the upper surface of the base substrate.
Lee does not teach, and forming an irregular pattern by etching at least a portion of the second preliminary upper surface.
However, Qi teaches a display device wherein the entire surface of the packaging layer away from the electrode layer (Qi, 4, Figs. 2, 4) may be the surface treatment area (Qi, 9, Fig. 2) and results in an irregular surface. Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine the display device of Lee with the irregular surface of Qi in order to increase the scatter of the light from the area and render invisible to the human eye.
The irregular surface of Qi is accomplished by a surface treatment process or process using plasma, such as ashing process, not by an etching method.
However, Yamazaki teaches a method of creating an irregular surface on a light translating plate (Yamazaki, 2, Fig. 6, para. 28) using etching. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to substitute the method of Yamazaki to create an irregular surface for scattering light (Yamazaki, para. 3).
Regarding claim 17, modified Lee teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the first angle (Lee, Θ1, Fig. 5A, paras. 115-116 ) is in a range of about 60 degrees to about 90 degrees.
Regarding claim 20, modified Lee teaches the method of claim 16, wherein a thickness of the first preliminary portion and a thickness of the second preliminary portion are substantially the same (Lee INF, Fig. 4A, para. 57 they are formed as a single layer and are the same thickness prior to the etching or treatment).
PNG
media_image3.png
848
1130
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, Qi and Yamazaki as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Kim (US Pub. 20220209204).
Regarding claim 18, modified Lee teaches he method of claim 16, but does not teach wherein the forming of the preliminary inorganic deposition layer comprises performing a thermal evaporation process, Lee instead uses a thermal deposition method (Lee, para.
However, Kim teaches a display device wherein the antireflection layer (Kim, LRL, Fig. 2, para. 53, 75) can be formed by thermal evaporation (Kim, para. 80). Therefore it would have been obvious to obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to create the inorganic deposition layer of Lee using the thermal evaporation process of Kim in order to improve display quality (Kim, para. 27).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, Qi and Yamazaki as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Jeong et al. (US Pub. 20230282631).
Regarding claim 19, modified Lee teaches the method of claim 16, but does not teach, wherein the forming of the irregular pattern comprises performing any one among a wet etching process, a dry etching process, and an ion milling process. Yamazaki teaches a method using etching, but does not further limit itself to a wet etching process, a dry etching process, and an ion milling process.
However, Jeong teaches a method wherein etching may be done using sequential dry and wet etching (Jeon, Figs. 10A, 10B, para. 46). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the dry and wet etching method of Jeong in the etching process of Yamazaki to provide a high efficiency display apparatus that may be manufactured with a simplified process (Jeong, para. 158).
Allowable Subject Material
Claims 3, 4, and 9 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.
Regarding claim 3, modified Lee teaches the display device of claim 1, but does not teach, nor does the prior art of record suggest wherein a surface roughness of the first upper surface is smaller than a surface roughness of the second upper surface. Qi teaches wherein the roughness is greater on the first surface (Qi, Fig. 3), or wherein the roughness is unform throughout. Yamazaki shows an irregular pattern (Yamazaki 2, 3, Fig. 6) which is uniform throughout the surface.
Regarding claim 4, modified Lee teaches the display device of claim 1, but does not teach, nor does the prior art of record suggest wherein an irregular pattern is defined on the second upper surface. Qi does teach an embodiment wherein the irregular pattern may cover both surfaces, but in that embodiment the first thickness of the first portion would be the same as the second thickness of the second portion.
Regarding claim 9, modified Lee teaches the display device of claim 1, but does not teach wherein a difference between the first thickness and the second thickness is in a range of about 5 Å to about 50 Å. While Lee does teach that the thickness of the inorganic deposition layer can be controlled or selected for destructive interference, the prior art does not teach that the difference in the thickness of the two layers is a result affective variable.
Claim 15-20
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 15, Lee teaches a display device, comprising: a display panel (Lee, DP, Fig. 4A, para. 58); and a light control layer (Lee, AR, Fig. 4A, para. 55, 95) disposed on the display panel and including at least one of a dye and a pigment, wherein the display panel includes: a light-emitting element (Lee, ED-1, ED-2, ED-3, Fig. 4A, para. 59), disposed on a base substrate (Lee, BS, Fig. 4A, para. 59) and including a light-emitting layer (Lee, EML-R, EML-G, EML-B, Fig. 4A, para. 75); an inorganic deposition layer (Lee, INF, Fig. 4A, para. 57) disposed on the light-emitting element and including: a partition portion (Lee, Fig. 4A, see diagram below); and a flat portion adjacent to the partition portion (Lee, Fig. 4A, see diagram below); and an encapsulation layer (Lee, TFE, Fig. 4A, para. 59) being entirely in contact with a first upper surface of the partition portion and a second upper surface of the flat portion, the first upper surface is inclined at a first angle with respect to an upper surface of the base substrate (Lee Fig. 4A), the second upper surface is substantially parallel to the upper surface of the base substrate (Lee Fig. 4A).
Lee does not teach, nor does the prior art of record suggest a surface roughness of the first upper surface is smaller than a surface roughness of the second upper surface. Qi teaches wherein the roughness is greater on the first surface (Qi, Fig. 3), or wherein the roughness is unform throughout. Yamazaki shows an irregular pattern (Yamazaki 2, 3, Fig. 6) which is uniform throughout the surface.
PNG
media_image4.png
848
1130
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim (US Pub 20230255093) teaches a display device comprising a capping layer, an encapsulation layer, a light emitting layer and upper and lower electrodes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIERAN M CUNNINGHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-9654. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:30.
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, Britt Hanley can be reached at 5712703042. 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.
/KIERAN M. CUNNINGHAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/Britt Hanley/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights