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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on July 26, 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on Dec. 29, 2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the KR10-2023-0197915 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 Apparatus with Two-Layered Low Reflection Layer.
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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, 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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 20150162390 A1), hereinafter referred to as Wang, in view of Lee et al. (US 20230094620 A1), hereinafter referred to as Lee.
Regarding Claim 1, Wang teaches a display apparatus ([0038] “an organic light-emitting display”; FIG. 1-9, 13-14) includes:
a sub-pixel having a light emitting area ([0044] “the display unit 110 may include a red pixel unit 115R emitting red light, a green pixel unit 115G emitting green light, and a blue pixel unit 115B emitting blue light.”; FIG. 1-7, 9, 13: 115, 115R, 115G, 115B), the sub-pixel including a low-reflection layer disposed in the light emitting area ([0042] “A light output unit 215”; FIG. 1, 3, 8-9, 13: 215), the low-reflection layer including a first layer ([0071] “second external light anti-reflective layer 201b”; FIG. 3, 8-9, 13: 201b) and a second layer disposed on the first layer ([0071] “a second light reflection layer 202b”; FIG. 3, 8-9, 13: 202b),
wherein the second layer contains a low-resistance metal ([0067] “the light reflection layer 202 may be formed of aluminum (Al)”),
wherein the first layer includes a metal oxide containing an element M ([0066] “For example, the external light anti-reflective layer 201 may be formed of at least one of a black matrix, a metal nitride and a metal oxide.”).
Wang does not teach the element M being a group 6B element.
Lee teaches a display device ([0053] “a display device 1000”; FIG. 1-4: 1000) and a first layer of a low-reflection layer including a metal oxide containing a group 6B element ([0151] “In addition, when the low reflective layer AL2 contains a metal oxide, it may include, for example… WO3”). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display apparatus of Wang with the display device of Lee. Both inventions are devices meant to emit light and contain mechanisms to prevent external light reflection, improving viewer quality. Replacing the first layer described in Wang with the layer described in Lee allows the device to make use of destructive interference in a similar way to the invention in Lee (Lee [0153] “The low reflective layer AL2 induces destructive interference between the light incident into the display device and the light reflected from the metal disposed under the low reflective layer AL2”).
Regarding Claim 2, Wang in view of Lee teaches the display apparatus of claim 1. Wang further teaches the low-reflection layer having two or more low-reflection patterns, and
wherein the two or more low-reflection patterns are spaced apart from each other in a first direction and disposed side by side ([0070] “Thus, the light output unit 215 includes a plurality of slit patterns S through which light may pass to the outside.”; FIG. 3, 8-9, 13: 215).
Regarding Claim 3, Wang in view of Lee teaches the display apparatus of claim 1.
Wang does not teach the group 6B element including at least one of chromium (Cr), molybdenum (Mo), and tungsten (W).
Lee teaches the 6B element being tungsten ([0151] “In addition, when the low reflective layer AL2 contains a metal oxide, it may include, for example… WO3”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display apparatus of Wang with the display device of Lee because of reasons stated above in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 4, Wang in view of Lee teaches the display apparatus of claim 1. Wang further teaches the low-resistance metal including at least one of copper (Cu), silver (Ag), aluminum (Al), molybdenum (Mo), and titanium (Ti) ([0067] “the light reflection layer 202 may be formed of aluminum (Al)”),.
Regarding Claim 5, Wang in view of Lee teaches the display apparatus of claim 1. Wang further teaches a first insulating layer on the low reflective layer ([0068] “Next, a protective layer 203 is formed on the surface of the light reflection layer 202… For example, the protective layer 203 may be formed of a silicon oxide (e.g., SiOx).”; FIG. 3,8-9,13: 203, 203b);
a second insulating layer on the first insulating layer ([0053] “A gate insulating layer 103 is formed on the active layer 102 and may be formed as multiple layers or as a single layer that is (or are) formed of an inorganic material such as silicon dioxide and/or silicon nitride.” FIG. 3-6, 9, 13: 103);
a planarization layer on the second insulating layer ([0055] “Next, a planarization layer 107 is formed”; FIG. 3-6, 9, 13: 107); and
a light emitting element layer on the planarization layer ([0056] “Next, an OLED is formed on the planarization layer 107.”; FIG. 3-6, 9, 13: OLED, 111, 112, 113).
Regarding Claim 6, Wang in view of Lee teaches the display apparatus of claim 1.
Wang does not explicitly teach the area ratio between the low-reflective layer and the light emitting area to be 5-15%.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the area ratio of Wang in view of Lee with routine experiment and optimization. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding Claim 8, Wang in view of Lee teaches the display apparatus of claim 5. Wang further teaches the first insulating layer disposed on the second layer in the form of an island (FIG. 3, 8-9, 13: 203b is disposed on 202b, which is referenced as the second layer).
Regarding Claim 12, Wang in view of Lee teaches the display apparatus of claim 1. Wang further teaches a light-absorbing layer ([0053] “An interlayer dielectric 105 is formed on the gate electrode 104… formed of an inorganic material… an aluminum oxide (e.g., Al.sub.2O.sub.3), a titanium oxide (e.g., TiO.sub.2), a tantalum oxide (e.g., Ta.sub.2O.sub.5), a hafnium oxide (e.g., HfO.sub.2), and/or a zirconium oxide (e.g., ZrO.sub.2).”; FIG. 3-6, 9, 13: 105, the listed materials can function as light absorbing)
Regarding Claim 13, Wang in view of Lee teaches the display apparatus of claim 2.
Wang does not explicitly teach the width of the low-reflection patterns to be 3µm to 5µm in a plan view.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the width of the low-reflection patterns of Wang in view of Lee with routine experiment and optimization. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding Claim 14, Wang in view of Lee teaches the display apparatus of claim 2.
Wang does not explicitly teach the two or more low-reflection patterns being spaced apart from each other at intervals of 5µm or more.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change interval width of the low-reflection patterns of Wang in view of Lee with routine experiment and optimization. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pan et al. (US 20210343895 A1), hereinafter referred to as Pan.
Regarding Claim 7, Wang in view of Lee teaches the display apparatus of claim 5.
Wang does not teach a low refractive and a high refractive layer having a lens shape.
Pan teaches a planarization layer ([0058] “a lens planarization layer 212”; FIG. 3-8, 10: 210, 212) including:
a low refractive layer ([0058] “a lens planarization layer 212”; FIG. 4-8, 10: 212); and
a high refractive layer disposed on the low refractive layer and having a lens shape ([0057] “a lens array 210 consisting of a plurality of convex lenses 211 by imprinting.”; FIG. 3-8, 10: 210).
The examiner notes that while Pan explicitly considers only 212 the planarization layer, 210 and 212 combined can also functionally be considered a planarization layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display apparatus of Wang in view of Lee with the lens array of Pan. Adding the lens array of Pan would give the predictable result of diverting external light to absorbing materials surrounding the lens (Pan [0068] “When the ambient light 700 passes through the enhancement film 300 and the lens array 210, the ambient light 700 will be focused onto the plurality of retaining walls 110 with light absorption characteristics.”), thereby reducing reflection of external light.
Regarding Claim 18, Wang in view of Lee and in further view of Pan teaches the display apparatus of Claim 7.
Wang does not teach the two refractive layers including materials that have different refractive indexes.
Pan teaches the low refractive layer including a material having a first refractive index and the high refractive layer including a material having a second refractive index, and
wherein the second refractive index is different from the first refractive index ([0057]-[0058]; the lens array 210 and the planarization layer 212 must inherently have different refractive indices, otherwise the lenses would not refract light at their boundary and thus would not be lenses).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display apparatus of Wang in view of Lee with the lens array of Pan because of the reasoning stated in Claim 7.
Regarding Claim 19, Wang in view of Lee and in further view of Pan teaches the display apparatus of claim 18.
Pan does not explicitly teach a difference in refractive indexes of the two refractive layers being 0.05 to 0.40.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the refractive indexes of Wang in view of Lee with routine experiment and optimization. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Lee as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Zhou (US 20230422584 A1), hereinafter referred to as Zhou.
Regarding Claim 10, Wang in view of Lee teaches the display apparatus of claim 5.
Wang does not teach a plurality of bead particles dispersed in the planarization layer.
Zhou teaches a plurality of particles dispersed in the planarization layer ([0060] “the transparent planarization layer 104 may also be doped with a plurality of light scattering particles 1041.”; FIG. 1-4: 104, 1041).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display apparatus of Wang in view of Lee with the planarization layer of Zhou. Adding the scattering particles prevents light concentration and improves the uniformity of the emitted light (Zhou [0060] “The plurality of the light scattering particles 1041 are uniformly distributed in the transparent planarization layer 104 to improve uniformity of light emission.”).
Regarding Claim 11, Wang in view of Lee and in further view of Zhou teaches the display apparatus of claim 10.
Wang does not teach the bead particles including a metal oxide.
Zhou teaches the light scattering particles comprising of a metal oxide ([0062] “Specifically, the light scattering particles 1041 comprise one or more of silicon dioxide, titanium dioxide, zinc oxide, and zirconium dioxide.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display apparatus of Wang in view of Lee with the planarization layer of Zhou because of the reasoning stated in Claim 10.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 15-17 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Min et al. (US 20240210608 A1), Miyashita et al. (US 20230083180 A1), and Kazmierski et al. (US 20160091786 A1) are cited to teach a planarization layer with refractive layers shaped to be convex and concave lenses, relevant to claims 7, 18, and 19.
Jia et al. (US 12461282 B2) is cited to teach various shapes and setups of low refraction layers, relevant to claim 17.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW SHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-0642. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 0730-1730.
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, Jacob Choi can be reached at (469) 295-9060. 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.
/MATTHEW L SHEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/JACOB Y CHOI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights