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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 3-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “a first (second/third) refractive particle,” is unclear as to how it is related to the previously recited “first (second/third) refractive particles.”
Note the dependent claims necessarily inherit the indefiniteness of the claims on which they depend.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 8, and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20170110522; herein “Lee”) in view of Okumura et al. (US 20150303405; herein “Okumura”).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses in Fig. 2-5 and related text an organic light emitting diode display, comprising:
a substrate including a plurality of sub-pixels (SP1-4, see [0067] at least), the plurality of sub-pixels comprising a red sub-pixel, a green sub-pixel, and a blue sub-pixel;
a thin film transistor (T1/T2, see [0060]) on the substrate;
a passivation layer (206, see [0078]) on the thin film transistor;
a color filter layer (230/231/232, see [0091]) on the passivation layer;
a first overcoat layer (e.g. a bottom portion of 208, see [0078]) directly on the color filter
a second overcoat layer (e.g. top portion of 208) on the first overcoat layer and having a flat surface; and
a light emitting diode (214, see [0079]) on the second overcoat layer.
Song does not explicitly disclose
the first overcoat layer including a plurality of micro lenses at a surface of the first overcoat layer;
the second overcoat layer including refractive particles dispersed within the second overcoat layer.
In the same field of endeavor, Okumura teaches in Fig. 3 and related text a light emitting diode display comprising
a first overcoat layer (2, see [0022]), the first overcoat layer including a plurality of micro lenses (see [0045]) at a surface of the first overcoat layer;
a second overcoat layer (3, see [0022]) on the first overcoat layer, the second overcoat layer including refractive particles dispersed within the second overcoat layer (see [0050]-[0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Lee by having the first overcoat layer with micro lenses and the second overcoat layer with refractive particles dispersed within the second overcoat layer, as taught by Okumura, in order to increase light extraction (see Okumura [0022] at least).
Regarding claim 3 (first interpretation), the combined device shows wherein the refractive particles include first refractive particles that overlaps the red sub-pixel and a first refractive particle having a first diameter, second refractive particles that overlaps the green sub-pixel and a second refractive particle having a second diameter, and third refractive particles that overlaps the blue sub-pixel and a third refractive particles having a third diameter (Okumura: see [0050]-[0051]).
Regarding claim 8, the combined device shows wherein the second overcoat layer (Okukura: 3) has a refractive index that is different from a refractive index of the refractive particles (e.g. using low refractive index particles to lower refractive index of layer 2 as opposed to higher refractive index layer 3, see [0050]).
Regarding claim 10, the combined device shows wherein the refractive particles include at least one of polystyrene, acrylic resin, silicone resin, novolak resin, silica, alumina, titanium oxide, or zirconium oxide (Okumura: see [0050]).
Regarding claim 11, the combined device shows wherein the first overcoat layer (Okumura: 2) has a refractive index that is less than a refractive index of the second overcoat layer (3) (see [0022]).
Regarding claim 12, the combined device shows wherein the refractive index of the first overcoat layer (Okumura: 2) is in a range of 1.43 to 1.57 (see [0043]), and the refractive index of the second overcoat layer (3) is in a range of 1.57 to 1.8 (see [0043).
Note that the range disclosed by Okumura overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)). Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the refractive indices to be a result effective variable affecting the light extraction of the device. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the combined device to have the refractive indices within the claimed range in order to achieve desired light output, and since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B and 2143. Furthermore, it has also been held that the applicant must show that a particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936, (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that the law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some dimensional limitation or other variable within the claims, patentability cannot be found. The instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.
Regarding claim 13, the combined device shows further discloses wherein the light emitting diode includes an anode (Lee: 211) on the second overcoat layer (top portion of 208), an organic light emitting layer (212) on the anode, and a cathode (213) on the organic light emitting layer (see [0082]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Okumura, as applied to claim 3 (first interpretation) above, and in view of Kim (US 20180061894; herein “Kim ‘894”).
Regarding claim 7, Lee in view of Okumura does not explicitly disclose
wherein the plurality of sub- pixels further comprise a white sub-pixel over the substrate and the refractive particles further include fourth refractive particles that overlap the white sub-pixel,
wherein a fourth refractive particle from the fourth refractive particles that overlap the white sub-pixel has a fourth diameter that is a same as the first diameter of a first refractive particle from the first refractive particles that overlap the red sub-pixel.
In the same field of endeavor, Kim ‘894 teaches in Fig. 10B and related text a light emitting diode display comprising
wherein the plurality of sub- pixels further comprise a white sub-pixel (WE, see [0069]) over the substrate and the refractive particles (330, see [0149]) further include fourth refractive particles that overlap the white sub-pixel,
wherein a fourth refractive particle from the fourth refractive particles that overlap the white sub-pixel has a fourth diameter that is a same as the first diameter of a first refractive particle from the first refractive particles that overlap the red sub-pixel (see3 Fig. 10B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Lee and Okumura by having the plurality of sub- pixels further comprise a white sub-pixel over the substrate and the refractive particles further include fourth refractive particles that overlap the white sub-pixel, a fourth refractive particle from the fourth refractive particles that overlap the white sub-pixel has a fourth diameter that is a same as the first diameter of a first refractive particle from the first refractive particles that overlap the red sub-pixel, as taught by Kim ‘894, in order to employ a well-known alternative pixel arrangement for desired color rendering.
Claim(s) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Okumura, as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Kim et al. (US 20160049612; herein “Kim ‘612”).
Regarding claim 2, Lee in view of Okumura does not explicitly disclose wherein the refractive particles have a diameter in which a Mie-Scattering occurs in response to a wavelength of light emitted from the light emitting diode.
In the same field of endeavor, Kim ‘612 teaches in Fig. 4 and related text a light emitting diode display comprising refractive particles, wherein the refractive particles have a diameter in which a Mie-Scattering occurs in response to a wavelength of light emitted from the light emitting diode (see [0087]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Lee as modified by having the refractive particles have a diameter in which a Mie-Scattering occurs in response to a wavelength of light emitted from the light emitting diode, as taught by Kim ‘612, in order to ensure predominantly forward scattering (see Kim ‘612 [0086] at least), thereby improving light extraction and output.
Regarding claims 3 (second interpretation), 4, and 5, Lee in view of Okumura does not explicitly disclose
wherein the refractive particles include first refractive particles that overlaps the red sub-pixel and a first refractive particle having a first diameter, second refractive particles that overlaps the green sub-pixel and a second refractive particle having a second diameter, and third refractive particles that overlaps the blue sub-pixel and a third refractive particles having a third diameter;
wherein the first diameter of the first refractive particle from the first refractive particles that overlaps the red sub-pixel is larger than the second diameter of the second refractive particle from the second refractive particles that overlaps the green sub-pixel and larger than the third diameter of the third refractive particle from the third refractive particles that overlaps the blue sub-pixel;
wherein the first diameter of the first refractive particle from the first refractive particles that overlaps the red sub-pixel is larger than the second diameter of the second refractive particle from the second refractive particles that overlaps the green sub-pixel, and wherein the second diameter of the second refractive particle is larger than the third diameter of the third refractive particle from the third refractive particles that overlaps the blue sub-pixel.
In the same field of endeavor, Kim ‘612 teaches in Fig. 4 and related text a light emitting diode display comprising refractive particles
wherein the refractive particles include first refractive particles that overlaps the red sub-pixel and a first refractive particle having a first diameter, second refractive particles that overlaps the green sub-pixel and a second refractive particle having a second diameter, and third refractive particles that overlaps the blue sub-pixel and a third refractive particles having a third diameter (see [0087]);
wherein the first diameter of the first refractive particle from the first refractive particles that overlaps the red sub-pixel is larger than the second diameter of the second refractive particle from the second refractive particles that overlaps the green sub-pixel and larger than the third diameter of the third refractive particle from the third refractive particles that overlaps the blue sub-pixel (see [0087]);
wherein the first diameter of the first refractive particle from the first refractive particles that overlaps the red sub-pixel is larger than the second diameter of the second refractive particle from the second refractive particles that overlaps the green sub-pixel, and wherein the second diameter of the second refractive particle is larger than the third diameter of the third refractive particle from the third refractive particles that overlaps the blue sub-pixel (see [0087]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Lee as modified by having the refractive particles with the relative diameters as claimed, as taught by Kim ‘612, in order to have Mie-Scattering in response to each wavelength of light emitted from the light emitting diodes, to ensure predominantly forward scattering (see Kim ‘612 [0086] at least), thereby improving light extraction and output.
Claim(s) 3, 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Okumura, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ryu et al. (US 20230200124) and Kim ‘612.
Regarding claims 3 (third interpretation), 5 (second interpretation) and 6, Lee and Okumura do not teach
wherein the refractive particles include first refractive particles that overlaps the red sub-pixel and a first refractive particle having a first diameter, second refractive particles that overlaps the green sub-pixel and a second refractive particle having a second diameter, and third refractive particles that overlaps the blue sub-pixel and a third refractive particles having a third diameter;
wherein the first diameter of the first refractive particle from the first refractive particles that overlaps the red sub-pixel is larger than the second diameter of the second refractive particle from the second refractive particles that overlaps the green sub-pixel, and wherein the second diameter of the second refractive particle is larger than the third diameter of the third refractive particle from the third refractive particles that overlaps the blue sub-pixel;
wherein the first diameter is in a range of 3µm to 4µm the second diameter is in a range of 2.5µm to 3µm, and the third diameter is in a range of 2µm to 3µm.
In the same field of endeavor, Ryu teaches in Fig. 2 and related text a light emitting display device comprising refractive particles (900, see [0101])
wherein the refractive particles include first refractive particles that overlaps the red sub-pixel and a first refractive particle having a first diameter, second refractive particles that overlaps the green sub-pixel and a second refractive particle having a second diameter, and third refractive particles that overlaps the blue sub-pixel and a third refractive particles having a third diameter (see [0101]);
wherein the first diameter is in a range of 3µm to 4µm the second diameter is in a range of 2.5µm to 3µm, and the third diameter is in a range of 2µm to 3µm (see [0101]).
In the same field of endeavor, Kim ‘612 teaches in Fig. 4 and related text a light emitting diode display comprising refractive particles
wherein the refractive particles include first refractive particles that overlaps the red sub-pixel and a first refractive particle having a first diameter, second refractive particles that overlaps the green sub-pixel and a second refractive particle having a second diameter, and third refractive particles that overlaps the blue sub-pixel and a third refractive particles having a third diameter (see [0087]);
wherein the first diameter of the first refractive particle from the first refractive particles that overlaps the red sub-pixel is larger than the second diameter of the second refractive particle from the second refractive particles that overlaps the green sub-pixel, and wherein the second diameter of the second refractive particle is larger than the third diameter of the third refractive particle from the third refractive particles that overlaps the blue sub-pixel (see [0087]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Lee and Okumura by having the refractive particles with the relative diameters as claimed, as taught by Ryu and Kim ‘612, in order to have Mie-Scattering in response to each wavelength of light emitted from the light emitting diodes, to ensure predominantly forward scattering (see Ryu [0102] and Kim ‘612 [0086] at least), thereby improving light extraction and output.
Note that the ranges disclosed by Ryu overlap the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)). Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the diameters to be a result effective variable affecting the type of scattering. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Lee and Okumura to have the diameters within the claimed range in order to ensure sufficient forward scattering, and since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B and 2143. Furthermore, it has also been held that the applicant must show that a particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936, (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that the law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some dimensional limitation or other variable within the claims, patentability cannot be found. The instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.
Claim(s) 14-17, 19-20, and 22-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Okumura and Kim ‘612.
Regarding claims 14-17 and 23, Lee in view of Okumura and Kim ‘612 teach the claimed invention in substantially the same manner and for substantially the same reasons as applied to claims 1 and 3-5 above.
Regarding claim 19, the combined device shows wherein the plurality of sub- pixels further comprise a fourth sub-pixel (Lee: e.g. a second red subpixel in the display) over the substrate that emits light of a fourth color and the refractive particles further include fourth refractive particles that overlap the fourth sub-pixel, wherein the fourth refractive particles that overlap the fourth sub-pixel has a fourth diameter that is a same as the first diameter of the first refractive particles that overlap the first sub-pixel.
Regarding claim 20, the combined device further shows the claimed limitation in substantially the same manner and for substantially the same reasons as applied to claim 8 above.
Regarding claim 22, the combined device further shows the claimed limitation in substantially the same manner and for substantially the same reasons as applied to claim 10 above.
Regarding claim 24, the combined device further shows the claimed limitation in substantially the same manner and for substantially the same reasons as applied to claim 11 above.
Regarding claim 25, the combined device further shows the claimed limitation in substantially the same manner and for substantially the same reasons as applied to claim 12 above.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Okumura, Ryu, and Kim ‘612.
Regarding claims 14 (second interpretation), 17 (second interpretation), and 18, Lee in view of Okumura, Ryu, and Kim ‘612 teach the claimed invention in substantially the same manner and for substantially the same reasons as applied to claims 1, 3, 5 and 6 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/31/2016 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lauren R Bell whose telephone number is (571)272-7199. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, William Kraig can be reached at (571) 272-8660. 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.
/LAUREN R BELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights