Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 .
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 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(s) 1, 6-8, 12-15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Noh et al. (US. Pub: 2022/0209202 A1~hereinafter “Noh”).
Regarding claim 1, Noh discloses (in at least figs. 3 and 4) an organic light emitting display device, comprising: a glass substrate (100; [0050]); an organic light emitting element (ED; [0045]-[0046]) on the glass substrate; and a phase retardation layer (21; [0095]-[0097]) disposed under the glass substrate.
Regarding claim 6, Noh discloses (in at least figs. 3 and 4) the phase retardation layer (21) comprises a phase retardation film ([0095]).
Regarding claim 7, Noh discloses (in at least figs. 3 and 4) an adhesive layer (not shown; [0104]) disposed between the phase retardation film (21) and the glass substrate (100).
Regarding claim 8, Noh discloses (in at least figs. 3 and 4) the adhesive layer is formed of an optical clear adhesive ([0104]).
Regarding claim 12, Noh discloses (in at least figs. 3 and 4; [0114]) the phase retardation layer (21) comprises a liquid crystal-coated layer.
Regarding claim 13, Noh discloses (in at least figs. 3 and 4; [0114]) the liquid crystal-coated layer is disposed to directly contact a lower surface of the glass substrate (100).
Regarding claim 14, Noh discloses (in at least figs. 3 and 4) a protective film (25; [0095]) disposed on a lower surface of the liquid crystal-coated layer (21) and configured to have an in-plane retardation value (Ro) of 0.
Regarding claim 15, Noh discloses (in at least figs. 3 and 4) a polarization layer (23; [0095]) disposed on the organic light emitting element (ED).
Regarding claim 17, Noh discloses (in at least figs. 3 and 4) the organic light emitting display device further comprises an encapsulation layer (150) configured to cover the organic light emitting element (ED); and the polarization layer is comprised of a plurality of color filters ([0090]) disposed on the encapsulation layer (150) to correspond to a plurality of sub pixels and a black matrix (140; [0083]) disposed between the plurality of color filters.
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.
Claim(s) 2-5 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noh et al. (US. Pub: 2022/0209202 A1~hereinafter “Noh”) in view of Diao et al. (US. Pub: 2022/0291435 A1~hereinafter “Diao”).
Regarding claim 2, Noh discloses all the claimed limitations except for an in-plane retardation value (Ro) of the phase retardation layer is in a range from 120 nm to 300 nm.
Diao discloses a phase retardation film for display device (title; abstract) comprised of, in part, an in-plane retardation value (Ro) of the phase retardation layer is in a range from 120 nm to 300 nm ([0014]) in order to correct the retardation of light to improve the display effect of the optical display ([0002]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the organic light emitting display device of Noh with the teaching of Diao in order to correct the retardation of light to improve the display effect of the optical display.
Regarding claim 3, Noh as modified by Diao does not expressly discloses a thickness retardation value (Rth) of the phase retardation layer is less than the in-plane retardation value (Ro) of the phase retardation layer.
However, Diao discloses (in at least [0014]) “an in-plane retardation of the phase retardation film is between 150 nm and 170 nm.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to consider forming the device of Noh as modified by Diao such that a thickness retardation value (Rth) of the phase retardation layer is less than the in-plane retardation value (Ro) of the phase retardation layer in order to correct the retardation of light to improve the display effect of the optical display.
Regarding claim 4, Noh discloses (in at least figs. 3 and 4) the phase retardation layer (21) is a retardation layer of λ/4 or λ/2 ([0097]).
Regarding claim 5, Noh as modified by Diao discloses (in at least [0016]-[0017] Diao) an optic axis of the phase retardation layer is 45° or 135° with respect to a long axis or a short axis of the glass substrate.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Noh and Dia discloses (abstract; Diao) a thickness of the glass substrate is in a range from 30 μm to 200 μm.
Regarding claim 19, Noh discloses (in at least figs. 3 and 4) the glass substrate (100) comprises a display area (i.e. the display region) and a non-display area (i.e. the edge region); but is silent about a crack having a size in a range from 3 μm to 100 μm is formed in the non-display area.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to consider forming a crack in the non-display area of Noh having a size in a range from 3 μm to 100 μm through routine experimentation and optimization.
Regarding claim 20, Noh does not expressly disclose a heat dissipation substrate disposed under the phase retardation layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to consider using a heat dissipation substrate under the phase retardation layer of Noh in order to remove heat in the display device.
Claim(s) 9-11, 16, 21 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Noh et al. (US. Pub: 2022/0209202 A1~hereinafter “Noh”) in view of Lee et al. (US. Pub: 2020/0264356 A1~ hereinafter “Lee”).
Regarding claim 9, Noh does not expressly disclose a glass transition temperature (Tg) of the adhesive layer is greater than a glass transition temperature (Tg) of the phase retardation film.
Lee discloses (in at least [0112]) a phase retardation film for display device comprised of, in part, a glass transition temperature (Tg) of the adhesive layer is greater than a glass transition temperature (Tg) of the phase retardation film so that a deformation that may occur when the adhesive member is folded or bent under room temperature or high temperature may be minimized, and a deformation of the phase retardation layer disposed adjacent to the adhesive member may be minimized ([0112]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the display device of Noh with the teaching of Lee so that a deformation that may occur when the adhesive member is folded or bent under room temperature or high temperature may be minimized, and a deformation of the phase retardation layer disposed adjacent to the adhesive member may be minimized ([0112]).
Regarding claim 10, Noh as modified by Lee does not expressly disclose a refractive index of the adhesive layer is the same as a refractive index of the glass substrate.
However, Noh discloses (in least [0050]) the substrate comprises a glass material. Lee discloses (in at least [0014]) the adhesive layer has a refractive index in a range of about 1.5 to about 1.8.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to consider forming the adhesive layer and the glass substrate of Noh as modified by Lee with the same refractive index in order to eliminate internal reflections and maximizing light throughput.
Regarding claim 11, Noh as modified by Lee discloses all the claimed limitations except for a storage modulus of the adhesive layer is 10.sup.6 Pa or greater.
However, it is well-known in the art to form adhesive film for polarizing plate comprised, in part, a storage modulus of the adhesive layer is 10.sup.6 Pa or greater as evident by Jeong et al. (US. Pub: 2015/0152293 A1~ hereinafter “Jeong”) at least ([0010]) in order to provide superior mechanical bond.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to consider using the adhesive teaching of Jeong in the display device of Noh as modified by Lee in order to provide superior mechanical bond.
Regarding claim 16, Noh as modified by Lee discloses (in at least figs. 6 and 7 Lee) the polarization layer comprises a polarization plate (abstract); but is silent about a size of the polarization plate is less than a size of the glass substrate, and four edges of the polarization plate are placed inside four edges of the glass substrate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the polarization plate of Noh as modified by Lee such that a size of the polarization plate is less than a size of the glass substrate, and four edges of the polarization plate are placed inside four edges of the glass substrate, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 21, Noh as modified by Lee discloses (in at least [0027] Lee) the glass transition temperature of the adhesive layer is 150° C. or greater, but is silent about the glass transition temperature of the phase retardation film is 90° C. or greater.
However, Lee discloses (in at least [0112]) the glass transition temperature (Tg) of the adhesive layer is greater than a glass transition temperature (Tg) of the phase retardation film so that a deformation that may occur when the adhesive member is folded or bent under room temperature or high temperature may be minimized, and a deformation of the phase retardation layer disposed adjacent to the adhesive member may be minimized ([0112]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to consider forming the glass transition temperature of the phase retardation film of Lee 90° C. or greater so that a deformation that may occur when the adhesive member is folded or bent under room temperature or high temperature may be minimized, and a deformation of the phase retardation layer disposed adjacent to the adhesive member may be minimized.
Regarding claim 22, Noh as modified by Lee discloses (in at least figs. 3 and 4 Noh; figs. 1-7; abstract Lee) the phase retardation layer compensates a retardation of a light source transmitted through or reflected from a portion of the glass substrate where a crack is created.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 23 is 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 23, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest a method of detecting a crack of a glass substrate in the organic light emitting display device according to claim 1, the method comprising: detecting the crack of the glass substrate by using a crack detector, wherein the crack detector comprises a polarization member and a liquid crystal layer disposed under the polarization member, and optic axes of the polarization member and the liquid crystal layer form an angle from 45° to 135° with an optic axis of a phase retardation layer of the organic light emitting display device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELMITO BREVAL whose telephone number is (571)270-3099. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th~ 7:30-5:30.
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, James R. Greece can be reached at 571-272-3711. 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.
ELMITO BREVAL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2875
/ELMITO BREVAL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights