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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 07/31/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are 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: “ORGANIC LIGHT EMITTING DISPLAY DEVICE WITH HIGH CURING RATE GAS BLOCKING LAYER”
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.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (U.S. PG Pub No US2022/0317852A1) in view of Ogawa (U.S. PG Pub No US2014/0305582A1).
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches an organic light emitting display device (300) fig. 6 [0126, 0064], comprising:
a substrate (SUB) fig. 6 [0127];
a plurality of light emitting diodes (LEL’s) fig. 6 [0172, 0064, 0145] (LED [0064] comprising organic light emitting layer 172 [0145]) on (supported by) the substrate (SUB);
an encapsulation layer (TiNS1) fig. 6 [0151] (encapsulating underlying components) that covers the plurality of light emitting diodes (LEL’s);
a gas blocking layer (TiNS3) fig. 6 [0156] (capable of physically blocking gas(es)) on (supported by) the encapsulation layer (TiNS1); and
a polarizer (POL) fig. 6 [0157] on (directly supported by) the gas blocking layer (TiNS3), a bottom surface of the polarizer (POL) in direct contact with the (top of) gas blocking layer (TiNS3).
However, Park does not explicitly disclose the gas blocking layer (TiNS3) having a curing rate of 90% or higher (curing rate of resin-based layer [0156] not explicitly disclosed).
Ogawa teaches an organic display apparatus (10) fig. 1E [0051] comprising the gas blocking layer (3/5) fig. 1E [0048-0051] (capable of blocking gas, formed of resin [0048]) having a curing rate of 90% or higher (preferably, curing rate of resin 3/5 [0048] is ‘preferably’ greater than 90% [0050], and ‘further preferably’, 95% or more [0048]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the organic display device of Park such that the gas blocking resin layer has a curing rate in excess of 90/95% [0048-0050] in order to ensure a sufficient degree of curing of the resin [0048-0050] and a sufficient degree of light transmissibility in the cured resin [0051-0053], as taught by Ogawa.
Regarding claim 2, Park in view of Ogawa teaches the organic light emitting display device (300) fig. 6 [0126, 0064] according to claim 1. Park also teaches further comprising a plurality of touch electrodes (comprising TE’s with respective BE1’s) fig. 6 [0150-0155] on (supported by) the encapsulation layer (TiNS1) fig. 6 [0151], wherein the gas blocking layer (TiNS3) fig. 6 [0156] is on (directly supported by) the plurality of touch electrodes (comprising TE’s with respective BE1’s) fig. 6 [0150-0155].
Regarding claim 3, Park in view of Ogawa teaches the organic light emitting display device (300) fig. 6 [0126, 0064] according to claim 2. Park also teaches further comprising a planarization layer (TiNS2) fig. 6 [0153] between the encapsulation layer (TiNS1) fig. 6 [0151] and the gas blocking layer (TiNS3) fig. 6 [0156], the planarization layer (TiNS2) covers (partially covers) the plurality of touch electrodes (comprising TE’s with respective BE1’s) fig. 6 [0150-0155].
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (U.S. PG Pub No US2022/0317852A1) modified by Ogawa (U.S. PG Pub No US2014/0305582A1), as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of Miyagawa (U.S. PG Pub No US2009/0142562A1).
Regarding claim 4, Park in view of Ogawa teaches the organic light emitting display device (300) fig. 6 [0126, 0064] according to claim 1. However, Park does not explicitly disclose wherein the gas blocking layer (3/5) fig. 1E [0048-0051] (capable of blocking gas, formed of acrylic resin [0048]) includes an acrylic resin [0048] cured by including an acrylate-based monomer and a urethane acrylate oligomer in the acrylic resin
Miyagawa teaches a resin film [0034-0035, 0061] applicable to display devices (1) fig. 1 [0034] wherein the gas blocking layer (3) fig. 1 [0034-0035] (capable of blocking gas) includes an acrylic resin [0064] cured by including an acrylate-based monomer [0064] and a urethane acrylate oligomer [0064] in the acrylic resin (“a mixture of a urethane acrylate oligomer and a dipentaerythritol hexa(meth)acrylate monomer is particularly preferred” [0064] with acrylic resin [0064]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the acrylic-resin based gas blocking layer of Park to comprise a mixture of a urethane acrylate oligomer and a dipentaerythritol hexa(meth)acrylate monomer [0064 Miyagawa] in order to ensure that the resin composition is readily curable in the presence of radiation [0061-0065], as taught by Miyagawa.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (U.S. PG Pub No US2022/0317852A1) modified by Ogawa (U.S. PG Pub No US2014/0305582A1) and Miyagawa (U.S. PG Pub No US2009/0142562A1), as applied in claim 4 above, and further in view of Jain (U.S. PG Pub No US2018/0026234A1).
Regarding claim 5, Park in view of Ogawa and Miyagawa teaches the organic light emitting display device (300) fig. 6 [0126, 0064] according to claim 4. However, Park does not explicitly disclose wherein the gas blocking layer (TiNS3) fig. 6 [0156] includes the acrylic resin [0156] cured by further including a multifunctional acrylate-based crosslinking agent in the acrylic resin [0156].
Jain teaches an OLED device (50) fig. 1 [0027-0029] wherein the gas blocking layer (62A) fig. 1 [0029-0030] (capable of blocking gas) includes the acrylic resin (acryl-comprising resin polymer [0024, 0008, 0030])] cured by further including a multifunctional acrylate-based [0007-0008] crosslinking agent [0007-0008, 0030] in the acrylic resin [0024, 0008, 0030].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the acrylic resin composition above the OLED’s of Park’s display device to comprise a multifunctional acylate crosslinking agent [0007-0008, 0030] in order to efficiently promote cross-linkage in the resin [0008, 0022, 0030] so as to promote controlled, high-volume, high-yield throughput [0022] of the cured polymer [0022, 0030], as taught by Jain.
Claims 6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (U.S. PG Pub No US2022/0317852A1) modified by Ogawa (U.S. PG Pub No US2014/0305582A1), as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of Choi (U.S. PG Pub No US2023/0251748A1).
Regarding claim 6, Park in view of Ogawa teaches the organic light emitting display device (300) fig. 6 [0126, 0064] according to claim 1. However, Park does not explicitly disclose wherein the polarizer includes (POL) fig. 6 [0157]:
an adhesive layer in contact with the gas blocking layer (TiNS3) fig. 6 [0156];
at least one anti-reflection film on the adhesive layer;
a polarization film [0157] on the at least one anti-reflection film, the polarization film including a polyvinyl alcohol; and
a base film on at least one surface of the polarization film.
Choi teaches an organic light emitting display device [see fig. 3B, 0048, 0059-0060] wherein the polarizer includes (RPP) fig. 3B [0048-0049, 0070-0072] (comprising polarizer film(s) [0070-0072]) (refer to fig. 6A [0103] for RPP close-up):
an adhesive layer (AL at bottom of RPP) fig. 6A [0108] in contact with the gas blocking layer (FL directly on bottom of RPP) fig. 3B [0066];
at least one anti-reflection film (VCL of RPP antireflection film [0107]) fig. 6A [0107] on (supported by) the adhesive layer (AL);
a polarization film (PL) fig. 6A [0105] on (supported by) the at least one anti-reflection film (VCL), the polarization film including a polyvinyl alcohol [0105]; and
a base film (UTL) fig. 6A [0106] on (supported by) at least one surface (top) of the polarization film (PL).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polarizer film of the organic light emitting display device of Park to comprise the additional anti-reflection and protective layers of Choi [0105-0110] in order to favorably modulate the characteristics of displayed light [0105-0110] and provide protection against potential corrosion caused by the polarizer material [0110], as taught by Choi.
Regarding claim 8, Park in view of Ogawa and Choi teaches the organic light emitting display device (300) fig. 6 [0126, 0064] according to claim 6. Park in view of Ogawa and Choi (with reference to Choi) also teaches wherein the polarizer further includes at least one retardation film (RTL) fig. 6A [0107] between (vertically between) the at least one anti-reflection film (VCL) fig. 6A [0107] and the polarization film (PL) fig. 6A [0105].
Regarding claim 9, Park in view of Ogawa and Choi teaches the organic light emitting display device (300) fig. 6 [0126, 0064] according to claim 8. Park also teaches wherein the at least one retardation film (in POL) [0157] includes one or more types selected from a quarter wave plate [0157 Park].
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (U.S. PG Pub No US2022/0317852A1) modified by Ogawa (U.S. PG Pub No US2014/0305582A1) and Choi (U.S. PG Pub No US2023/0251748A1), as applied in claim 6 above, and further in view of Lee (U.S. PG Pub No US2022/0299691A1).
Regarding claim 7, Park in view of Ogawa and Choi teaches the organic light emitting display device (300) fig. 6 [0126, 0064] according to claim 6. However, Park in view of Ogawa and Choi does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one anti-reflection film includes one or more types selected from a +C plate and a neutral density filter.
Lee teaches an organic light emitting display device [see fig. 1, 0030] wherein the at least one anti-reflection film (comprising 130) fig. 1 [0135-0136, 0138] includes one or more types selected from a +C plate [0136, 0138].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the antireflection film(s) of the polarizer of Park in view of Ogawa and Choi to be configured as a +C plate [0135-0136, 0138] to further improve
improved anti-reflection effects at the lateral sides thereof [0138], as taught by Lee.
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (U.S. PG Pub No US2022/0317852A1) modified by Ogawa (U.S. PG Pub No US2014/0305582A1), as applied in claim 2 above, and further in view of Lee (U.S. PG Pub No US2021/0202917A1).
Regarding claim 10, Park in view of Ogawa teaches the organic light emitting display device (300) fig. 6 [0126, 0064] according to claim 2. However, Park does not explicitly disclose further comprising a plurality of lenses between the plurality of touch electrodes (comprising TE’s with respective BE1’s) fig. 6 [0150-0155], the plurality of lenses corresponding to an emission area of a light emitting diode (LEL’s) fig. 6 [0172, 0064, 0145] (LED [0064]) of the plurality of light emitting diodes (LELs), and
the gas blocking layer (TiNS3) fig. 6 [0156] covers the plurality of lenses and the plurality of touch electrodes (TE’s with BE1’s).
Lee teaches an organic light emitting display device [see fig. 13, 0220-0227] further comprising a plurality of lenses (340) fig. 13 [0216] between the plurality of touch electrodes (comprising 320) fig. 13 [0194-0196], the plurality of lenses (340) corresponding to (overlapping) an emission area (EA) fig. 13 [0197] of a light emitting diode (260) fig. 13 [0114, 0158] of the plurality of light emitting diodes (260’s), and
the gas blocking layer (350) fig. 13 [0220] (capable of physically blocking gas) covers the plurality of lenses (340’s) and the plurality of touch electrodes (320’s).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the display of Park to include a plurality of lenses [0216] disposed between the touch electrodes [0194-0197] and over the light emitting diodes [0158] in order to optimize light extraction efficiency [0093-0097] and improve central luminance [0095] of the display, as taught by Lee.
Regarding claim 11, Park in view of Ogawa and Lee teaches the organic light emitting display device (300) fig. 6 [0126, 0064] according to claim 10. Park in view of Ogawa and Lee (with reference to Lee) also teaches further comprising:
a light shielding pattern (213) fig. 13 [0155] (formed of reflective metal [0161] such as titanium [0153, 0161]) on (supported by bottom of) the encapsulation layer (comprising 281) fig. 13 [0169-0170], the light shielding pattern (213) corresponding to a non-emission area (borders outside of EA) of the light emitting diode (260) fig. 13 [0114, 0158]; and
an optical gap layer (283) fig. 13 [0169-0170] (acting to separating gap between optical light source 260 and lenses 340) on (supported by) the light shielding pattern (213),
wherein the plurality of lenses (340) fig. 13 [0216] and the plurality of touch electrodes (comprising 320) fig. 13 [0194-0196] are on (supported by) the optical gap layer (283).
Regarding claim 12, Park in view of Ogawa and Lee teaches the organic light emitting display device (300) fig. 6 [0126, 0064] according to claim 10. Park in view of Ogawa and Lee (with reference to Lee) also teaches wherein a refractive index [0213] of the gas blocking layer (350) fig. 13 [0220] is lower than [0213] a refractive index of the plurality of lenses (340) fig. 13 [0216] (see [0213] Lee).
Regarding claim 13, Park in view of Ogawa and Lee teaches the organic light emitting display device (300) fig. 6 [0126, 0064] according to claim 10. Park in view of Ogawa and Lee (with reference to Lee) also teaches wherein a plurality of sub pixels (each defined as comprising 9 P’s with 9 260’s) fig. 14 [0162, 0197, 0158] are on (supported by) the substrate (111) fig. 13 [0168], each of the plurality of sub pixels (comprising cell of 9 260’s) [see fig. 14] includes a first light emitting diode (left 260) [0114, 0158] on (supported by) the substrate (111) and a second light emitting diode (right 260) on (supported by) the substrate (111), and the plurality of lenses (340) fig. 13 [0216] include a first lens (left 340) corresponding to (overlapping) an emission area (left EA) [0162] of the first light emitting diode (left 260) and a second lens (right 340) corresponding to (overlapping) an emission area (right EA) of the second light emitting diode (right 260) (see fig. 13).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (U.S. PG Pub No US2022/0317852A1) modified by Ogawa (U.S. PG Pub No US2014/0305582A1) and Lee (U.S. PG Pub No US2021/0202917A1), as applied in claim 13 above, and further in view of Takahashi (U.S. PG Pub No US2006/0114365A1).
Regarding claim 14, Park in view of Ogawa and Lee teaches the organic light emitting display device (300) fig. 6 [0126, 0064] according to claim 13. Further, Park in view of Ogawa and Lee (with reference to Lee) also teaches wherein the first lens (left 340) fig. 13 [0216] is a half-spherical lens (semi-circular cross-section).
However, Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein the second lens is a half-cylindrical lens (half-spherical instead).
Takahashi teaches an organic light emitting display device wherein the first lens (left 40) fig. 2 [0103] is a half-spherical lens [0103], and the second lens (right 40) [0103] is a half-cylindrical lens (may be half-cylindrical [0103] instead of half spherical [0103]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the display of Park in view of Ogawa and Lee such that the second, half spherical lens is instead a half-cylindrical lens [0103] in order to potentially improve diffusion efficiency of light emitting from the organic element [0103], as taught by Takahashi.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (U.S. PG Pub No US2022/0317852A1) modified by Ogawa (U.S. PG Pub No US2014/0305582A1) and Lee (U.S. PG Pub No US2021/0202917A1), as applied in claim 10 above, and further in view of Miyagawa (U.S. PG Pub No US2009/0142562A1).
Regarding claim 15, Park in view of Ogawa and Lee teaches the organic light emitting display device (300) fig. 6 [0126, 0064] according to claim 10. However, Park does not explicitly disclose wherein the gas blocking layer includes one or more types of resins selected from an acrylic resin and a fluoro resin, the acrylic resin cured by including an acrylate-based monomer and a urethane acrylate oligomer in the acrylic resin, and the fluoro resin cured by including a (per)fluoro(alkyl vinyl ether) and a fluorinated polyol in the fluoro resin.
Miyagawa teaches a resin film [0034-0035, 0061] applicable to display devices (1) fig. 1 [0034] wherein the gas blocking layer (3) fig. 1 [0034-0035] (capable of blocking gas) includes one type of resin selected from an acrylic resin [0064], the acrylic resin [0064] cured by including an acrylate-based monomer [0064] and a urethane acrylate oligomer [0064] in the acrylic resin (“a mixture of a urethane acrylate oligomer and a dipentaerythritol hexa(meth)acrylate monomer is particularly preferred” [0064] with acrylic resin [0064]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the acrylic-resin based gas blocking layer of Park to comprise a mixture of a urethane acrylate oligomer and a dipentaerythritol hexa(meth)acrylate monomer [0064 Miyagawa] in order to ensure that the resin composition is readily curable in the presence of radiation [0061-0065], as taught by Miyagawa.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Remaining reference made available on the PTO-892 form are considered relevant to the present disclosure because they all feature display devices with polarizers, touch electrodes, and/or lenses.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN AYERS WINTERS whose telephone number is (571)270-3308. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:30 am - 7:00 pm (EST).
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, N. Drew Richards can be reached at (571) 272-1736. 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.
/SEAN AYERS WINTERS/Examiner, Art Unit 2892 07/24/2026
Prosecution Insights