DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s application 18/841,506 filed on August 26, 2024 in which claims 1 to 20 are pending.
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
Drawings
The drawings submitted on August 26, 2024 have been reviewed and accepted by the Examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS), filed on February 13, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosed therein has been considered by the Examiner.
Notation
References to patents will be in the form of [C:L] where C is the column number and L is the line number. References to pre-grant patent publications will be to the paragraph number in the form of [xxxx].
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2025/0048904 (Kim) and U.S. 2026/0114148 (Cho).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses at annotated Figure 10 a display substrate comprising:
a substrate, SUB [0085];
a light-emitting layer on the substrate, EML [0085];
wherein the light-emitting layer comprises a plurality of light-emitting structures, EL [0166], spaced apart from each other, as shown;
an encapsulation layer, TFEL [0171], on a side of the light-emitting layer away from the substrate, as annotated and shown;
a color light-filtering layer, CF1-CF3 [0182], on a side of the encapsulation
PNG
media_image1.png
623
712
media_image1.png
Greyscale
layer away from the substrate, as annotated and shown;
wherein the color light-filtering layer comprises a plurality of color light-filtering portions, e.g., CF1, CF2 and CF3, the color light-filtering portions comprise one or more first color light-filtering portions, CF1, and one or more non-first color light-filtering portions, CF2 with color different from a color of each of the first color light-filtering portions, e.g. CF1 is red and CF2 is blue [0136], and; and
a light-shielding layer, BM [0183], with holes, OPT1-OPT3 [0135], wherein an orthogonal projection of one of the holes on the substrate is within an orthogonal projection of one of the color light- filtering portions on the substrate, as shown;
wherein the light-shielding layer is located on a side of the first color light-filtering portions away from the substrate, as annotated and shown, and a surface of the light-shielding layer facing the substrate is planar, as shown.
Kim does not teach a thickness of each of the first color light-filtering portions is
PNG
media_image2.png
500
746
media_image2.png
Greyscale
less than a thickness of each of the non-first color light-filtering portions.
Cho is directed to improvements in OLED displays. At [0185-1897], Cho teaches;
[0185] According to the disclosure, the first color filter layer CF1 may have a first thickness TH1 in the cross-sectional view. The second color filter layer CF2 may have a second thickness TH2 in the cross-sectional view. In the disclosure, the thickness of the color filter layer may be defined by a distance from a surface of the color filter layer contacting the third sensing insulating layer 93, to the other surface of the color filter layer, which may be the opposite surface in the thickness direction. The thickness of each of the color filter layers CF1 and CF2 may be the thickness of a color filter layer in an area overlapping the pixel area PXA. For example, the thickness of the color filter layer may be a minimum thickness in the area overlapping the pixel area PXA.
[0186] According to the disclosure, the first thickness TH1 of the first color filter layer CF1 may be smaller than the second thickness TH2 of the second color filter layer CF2. The first thickness TH1 may have a value of about 60% to about 90% of the second thickness TH2.
[0187] According to the disclosure, as the thickness of the color filter layer is different in the first and second areas A1 and A2, the luminance lifetime of the light provided from the display panel 310 may be controlled. In the disclosure, the luminance lifetime means a time during which the luminance is maintained within a range from about 90% to about 97% of the luminance value that is first measured in the display panel 310 when the display panel 310 is manufactured.
[0188] The luminance lifetime is inversely proportional to the current density. Thus, the luminance lifetime may depend on the size of the light emitting openings OP-P1 and OP-P2. The luminance lifetime also depends on the light transmittance of the color filter layers CF1 and CF2. In the disclosure, the transmission area BT (refer to FIG. 4) of the first area A1 is set according to the requirements of the camera of the product to perform. The light blocking area BA may be defined as the remaining area excluding the previously set transmission area BT. Therefore, in the first area A1, there is a limit to how much the size of the light emitting openings OP-P1 may be increased in the light blocking area BA.
[0189] Accordingly, according to the disclosure, as the first thickness TH1 of the first color filter layer CF1 disposed in the first area A1 is reduced, the transmittance with respect to the light provided through the first light emitting opening OP-P1 may increase, and thus, the luminance lifetime may be improved without increasing the size of the first light emitting opening OP-P1.
Cho teaches a thickness of each of the first color light-filtering portions is less than a thickness of each of the non-first color light-filtering portions. Cho teaches that the hole (opening) area and color filter thickness modulate the luminance lifetime. An artisan would find it desirable to optimize luminescence lifetime of the display to improve the quality and reliability of the device.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to configure the device of claim 1 wherein a thickness of each of the first color light-filtering portions is less than a thickness of each of the non-first color light-filtering portions, as taught by Cho, to modulate the luminescence life-time, as taught by Cho, to produce a display with improved quality and reliability and because the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Regarding claim 20, Cho teaches a display at Figure 2 which when modified by the teaching of Kim results in a display substrate of claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-17 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2, the prior art fails to disclose the device of claim 1 wherein a surface of the first color light-filtering portion away from the substrate is flush with a surface of the defining layer away from the substrate.
Claims 3 and 14 depend upon claim 2 and is allowable on that basis.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art fails to disclose the device of claim 1 comprising a plurality of padding portions between the first color light-filtering portions and the encapsulation layer.
Claims 5-9 depend directly or indirectly on claim 4 and are allowable on that basis.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art fails to disclose the device of claim 1 wherein a surface of the defining layer away from the substrate is entirely covered by the first light lightering portion.
Claims 11-13 depend directly or indirectly on claim 10 and are allowable on that basis.
Regarding claim 15, the prior art fails to disclose the device of claim 1 comprising a planarization layer between the light shielding layer and the color light filtering layer; wherein the planarization layer at least covers the first color light filtering portions.
Claims 16-17 depend directly on claim 15 and are allowable on that basis.
Claims 18-19 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 18, the prior art fails to disclose the method of claim 18 wherein a distance from a surface of each of the first color light-filtering portions away from the substrate to the substrate is less than a distance from a surface of each of the non-first color light-filtering portions away from the substrate to the substrate.
Claim 19 depends upon claim 18 and is allowable on that basis.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed on the notice of references cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joe Schoenholtz whose telephone number is (571)270-5475. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur 7 AM to 7 PM PST.
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, Ms. Yara Green can be reached at (571) 272-3035. 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.
/J.E. Schoenholtz/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights