DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/21/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 10-13, 25 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4, “is same as” appears to contain a grammatical/typographical error;
Claim 10-13, the first, second and third angles should be changed such that they correspond properly to the first, second, and third inclined surfaces/sub-pixels, respectively;
Claim 25, “are different a third aspect ratio” appears to contain a grammatical/typographical error;
Claim 25, “are same as…to” appears to contain a grammatical/typographical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 4, 16-19, 20-21, and 24 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 4, the recitations of “respectively” are unclear. Specifically, “respectively” is understood to indicate an order to a correspondence of element in a parallel or sequential way. It is unclear how “respectively” indicates either in the instance of the claim.
Regarding claim 16, the limitations “a red (blue/green) sub-pixel” are unclear as to how they are related to the red (blue/green) sub-pixels recited in claim 1.
Regarding claims 17, 18, and 19, the limitations “the cathode corresponding to the red (blue/green) sub-pixel” are unclear as to how they are related to the previously recited cathode of the red (blue/green) sub-pixels.
Regarding claim 20, the limitation “each portion of the first overcoat layer” is unclear as to how it is related to the “portions of the first overcoat layer.”
Regarding claim 24, the limitation “the respective light extraction area” is unclear as to which light extraction area it refers.
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) 1-9, 14-16, 20-21 and 23-30 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”) and Lim et al. (US 2017/0092705; herein “Lim”)
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 (SP1-4, see [0067] at least) that each have a non-emission area and an emission area;
a plurality of thin film transistors (T1/T2, see [0060]), each thin film transistor of the plurality of thin film transistors in the non-emission area of a corresponding sub-pixel from the plurality of sub-pixels;
a second overcoat layer (208, see [0079]), the second overcoat layer having a second refractive index and having a flat surface; and
a plurality of light emitting diodes (214, see [0079]) on the second overcoat layer, each light emitting diode of the plurality of light emitting diodes in the emission area of a corresponding sub-pixel from the plurality of sub-pixels.
Lee does not explicitly disclose
a first overcoat layer covering the plurality of thin film transistors, the first overcoat layer having a first refractive index and a plurality of microlenses at a surface of the first overcoat layer;
the second overcoat layer on the first overcoat layer and the second refractive index that is greater than the first refractive index of the first overcoat layer, the flat surface that overlaps the plurality of microlenses in a plan view of the organic light emitting diode display; and
wherein a first radius and a first aspect ratio of a concave portion of a microlens of the red sub-pixel from the plurality of microlenses and a second radius and a second aspect ratio of a concave portion of a microlens of the green sub- pixel from the plurality of microlenses are different from a third radius and a third aspect ratio of a concave portion of a microlens of the blue sub-pixel from the plurality of microlenses.
In the same field of endeavor, Okumura teaches in Fig. 3 and related text a display device comprising
a first overcoat layer (2, see [0022]), the first overcoat layer having a first refractive index and a plurality of microlenses at a surface of the first overcoat layer;
the second overcoat layer (3, see [0022]) on the first overcoat layer and having a second refractive index that is greater than the first refractive index of the first overcoat layer (see [0022]), the second overcoat layer having a flat surface that overlaps the plurality of microlenses in a plan view of the organic light emitting diode display (see Fig. 3).
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 a first overcoat layer, the first overcoat layer having a first refractive index and a plurality of microlenses at a surface of the first overcoat layer and the second overcoat layer on the first overcoat layer and having a second refractive index that is greater than the first refractive index of the first overcoat layer (see [0022]), the second overcoat layer having a flat surface that overlaps the plurality of microlenses in a plan view of the organic light emitting diode display, as taught by Okumura, in order to reduce total reflection loos and improve light emitting output (see Okumura [0022]). The limitation “a first overcoat layer covering the plurality of thin film transistors,” is taught by the combination of the transistors being over the substrate and below the second overcoat layer, as shown by Lee, and the first overcoat layer being directly under the second overcoat layer, as shown by Okumura.
In the same field of endeavor, Lim teaches in Fig. 12 and related text a display device comprising
the plurality of sub-pixels comprising a red sub-pixel (SP13 and EA73), a green sub-pixel (SP12 and EA72), and a blue sub-pixel (SP11 with EA11) (see [0097]);
a plurality of microlenses (131/331, see [0105] and [0141]);
wherein a first radius and a first aspect ratio of a concave portion of a microlens of the red sub-pixel (of 331) from the plurality of microlenses and a second radius and a second aspect ratio of a concave portion of a microlens of the green sub- pixel (of 331) from the plurality of microlenses are different from a third radius and a third aspect ratio of a concave portion of a microlens of the blue sub-pixel (of 131) from the plurality of microlenses (evidenced by different diameter, see Fig. 12).
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 device of Koo by having the plurality of sub-pixels comprising a red sub-pixel, a green sub-pixel, and a blue sub-pixel and a radius and an aspect ratio of a concave portion of a microlens of the red sub-pixel and a radius and an aspect ratio of a concave portion of a microlens of the green sub-pixel are different from a radius and an aspect ratio of a concave portion of a microlens of the blue sub-pixel, as shown by Lim, in order to decrease color shift with respect to a viewing angle and improve chromaticity characteristics (see Lim [0172] and [0007]).
Regarding claim 2, the combined device shows wherein the first radius of the concave portion of the microlens of the red sub-pixel is same as the second radius of the concave portion of the microlens of the green sub-pixel, and wherein the first aspect ratio of the concave portion of the microlens of the red sub- pixel is same as the second aspect ratio of the concave portion of the microlens of the green sub- pixel (Lim: ½D2 and H2 for red and green and ½D1 and H1 for blue).
Regarding claim 3, the combined device shows wherein the first radius is 1.75µm (Lim: see [0161]) and the first aspect ratio is 1 (see [0161] and [0163]), and the third radius of 2.0µm (see [0161]) and the third aspect ratio of 1.25 (see [0161] and [0163]).
Note that the ranges disclosed by Lim 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 radius and height, and therefore the aspect ratio, to be result effective variables affecting the color shift with respect to the viewing angle (see Lim [0161] and [0163]). Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Koo to have the radius and aspect ratio within the claimed range in order to achieve desired color shift with respect to a viewing angle, 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 4, the combined device shows
wherein the plurality of sub- pixels further comprise a white sub-pixel from the plurality of microlenses on the substrate (Lee: see [0067; Lim: see [0088]-[0089]),
but does not explicitly disclose
wherein a fourth radius of a concave portion of a microlens of the white sub-pixel is same as the first radius of the concave portion of the microlens of the red sub-pixel and the concave portion of the green sub-pixel, respectively, and wherein a fourth aspect ratio of the concave portion of the microlens of the white sub- pixel is same as the first aspect ratio of the concave portion of the microlens of the red sub-pixel and the second aspect ratio of the concave portion of the green sub- pixel, respectively.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the invention of Lee to have a concave portion of a microlens of the white sub-pixel has a same radius and a same aspect ratio as the concave portion of the microlens of the red sub-pixel and the concave portion of the green sub-pixel as claimed for the purpose of choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (i.e. the same or different), with a reasonable expectation of success (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, the combined device shows
wherein the first refractive index is in a range of 1.43 to 1.57, and the second refractive index is in a range of 1.57 to 1.8 (Okumura: see [0043]);
wherein a difference between the first refractive index and the second refractive index is 0.2 (Okumura: see [0042]-[0043]).
Note that the ranges disclosed by Okumura 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 refractive indices to be result effective variables affecting the light extraction of the device. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Koo to have the refractive indices within the claimed range in order to achieve desired light extraction characteristics, 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 7, the combined device shows wherein a red color filter layer (Lee: 230, see [0078]) is between the substrate and a portion of the first overcoat layer on the red sub-pixel, a green color filter layer (232, see [0091]) is between the substrate and a portion of the first overcoat layer on the green sub-pixel, and a blue color filter layer (231, see [0091]) is between the substrate and a portion of the first overcoat layer on the blue sub-pixel.
Regarding claim 8, the combined device shows wherein a first portion of the first overcoat layer corresponding to the red sub-pixel includes a first pair of inclined surfaces at a boundary of the red sub-pixel, a second portion of the first overcoat layer corresponding to the green sub-pixel includes a second pair of inclined surfaces at a boundary of the green sub-pixel, and a third portion of the first overcoat layer corresponding to the blue sub- pixel includes a third pair of inclined surfaces at a boundary of the blue sub-pixel (Okumura: see Fig. 3; see also Lee: inclined surface of second overcoat layer 208, Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 9, the combined device shows the first overcoat layer comprises: a first portion of the first overcoat layer corresponding to the red sub-pixel includes a first pair of inclined surfaces at an edge boundary of a light extraction area of the red sub-pixel; a second portion of the first overcoat layer corresponding to the green sub-pixel includes a second pair of inclined surfaces at an edge boundary of a light extraction area of the green sub-pixel; and a third portion of the first overcoat layer corresponding to the blue sub-pixel includes a third pair of inclined surfaces at an edge boundary of a light extraction area of the blue sub-pixel (Okumura: see Fig. 3; see also Lee: inclined surface of second overcoat layer 208, Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 14, the combined device shows
wherein the second overcoat layer includes inclined surfaces, each inclined surface of the inclined surfaces of the second overcoat layer extending from a corresponding inclined surface of the first pair of inclined surfaces, the second pair of inclined surfaces, and the third pair of inclined surfaces of the first overcoat layer (Okumura: inclined surface of 3), and
wherein an anode (Okumura: 5) of a light emitting diode from the plurality of light emitting diodes covers the flat surface of the second overcoat layer and includes an inclined surface that overlaps the inclined surface of the first overcoat layer and the inclined surface of the second overcoat layer.
Regarding claim 15, the combined device shows wherein the light emitting diode further includes a cathode (Lee: 213) on the anode (Lee: 211) with an organic light emitting layer (212) between the anode and the cathode, the cathode including an inclined surface that overlaps the inclined surface of the anode.
Regarding claim 16, Lee further discloses wherein a light emitting diode from the plurality of light emitting diodes of a red sub-pixel includes a cathode (213, see [0082]) with inclined surfaces, a light emitting diode from the plurality of light emitting diodes of a green sub-pixel includes a cathode with inclined surfaces, and a light emitting diode from the plurality of light emitting diodes of a blue sub- pixel includes a cathode with inclined surfaces.
Regarding claim 20, the combined device shows wherein portions of the first overcoat layer correspond to ends of inclined surfaces from at least one of the first pair of inclined surfaces, the second pair of inclined surfaces, and the third pair of inclined surfaces at the non-emission area, each portion of the first overcoat layer has a thickness that is less than a thickness of a portion of the first overcoat layer having a microlens from the plurality of microlenses (note that one can choose portions such that the claimed limitation is met).
Regarding claim 21, the combined device shows wherein a portion of the first overcoat layer extending into the non-emission area includes a flat portion, and an anode of a light emitting diode from the plurality of light emitting diodes extends onto the flat portion (note that one can choose portions such that the claimed limitation is met).
Regarding claim 23, Lee further discloses a bank (216a/b/c, see [0080] and [0102]; see also Fig. 17) along an edge of the emission area of the red sub-pixel, an edge of the emission area of the green sub-pixel, and an edge of the emission area of the blue sub-pixel; and a trench (e.g. opening in which 212/213 is disposed) in the bank.
Regarding claim 24, Lee further discloses wherein the red sub-pixel, the green sub-pixel, and the blue sub-pixel each has a light extraction area from which light emitted, the respective light extraction area being wider than the emission area (note that one can choose “areas” such that the claim limitation is met; note “area is defined as “a section, portion, or part”).
Regarding claims 25 and 26, Lee, Okumura and Lim teach the claimed invention in substantially the same manner and for substantially the same reasons as applied to claims 1 and 2 above.
Regarding claim 27, Lee, Okumura and Lim further teach the claimed invention in substantially the same manner and for substantially the same reasons as applied to claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 28, Lee, Okumura and Lim further teach the claimed invention in substantially the same manner and for substantially the same reasons as applied to claims 5 and 6 above.
Regarding claim 29, Lee, Okumura and Lim further teach the claimed invention in substantially the same manner and for substantially the same reasons as applied to claim 8 above.
Regarding claim 30, Lee further discloses a bank (216a/b/c, see [0080] and [0102]; see also Fig. 17) including an opening corresponding to the emission area of each sub-pixel of the plurality of sub-pixels, wherein an anode (211) of each light emitting diode of the plurality of light emitting diodes has a flat surface corresponding to the opening of the bank (see Fig. 4), and wherein a cathode (213) of each light emitting diode of the plurality of light emitting diodes has a flat surface (see Fig. 4) corresponding to the opening of the bank.
Claims 10-13, 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Okumura and Lim as applied to claims 1 and 25, and further in view of Lu et al. (US 2023/0180540; herein “Lu”).
Regarding claim 10, Lee as modified by Okumura and Lim further discloses
wherein a portion of the first overcoat layer corresponding to the red sub-pixel includes a first inclined surface, and a portion of the first overcoat layer corresponding to the green sub-pixel includes a second inclined surface, and a portion of the first overcoat layer corresponding to the blue sub- pixel includes a third inclined surface (Okumura: see inclined surface of 2, Fig. 3; see also Lee: inclined surface of second overcoat layer 208, Fig. 5),
wherein the first inclined surface, the second inclined surface, and the third inclined surface have a third angle, a second angle, and a first angle, respectively, with a surface of the substrate (Okumura: see inclined surface of 2, Fig. 3; see also Lee: inclined surface of second overcoat layer 208, Fig. 5),
but does not explicitly disclose
wherein the first angle, the second angle, and the third angle are different angles.
In the same field of endeavor, Lu teaches in Fig. 5 and related text a display device
wherein the first angle, the second angle, and the third angle are different angles (angle of overcoat layer a1, see Fig. 5 and [0116]-[0117]).
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 device of Lee as modified to have wherein the first angle, the second angle, and the third angle are different angles, as taught by Lu, in order to improve light emission and minimize color shift (see Lu [0109]) and adjust for blue being a shorter wavelength and achieve a device where blue light is emitted normally (see [0117]).
Regarding claim 11, the combined device shows wherein the first angle that is between the third inclined surface and the surface of the substrate is greater than the second angle that is between the second inclined surface and the surface of the substrate (Lu: inclined surface of blue is greater than inclined surface of green, see [0116]-[0117]).
Regarding claim 12, the combined device shows
wherein the first angle that is between the third inclined surface and the surface of the substrate is greater than the second angle that is between the second inclined surface and the surface of the substrate, and is greater than the third angle between the first inclined surface and the surface of the substrate (Lu: blue is greater than red and green, see [0116]-[0117]),
but does not explicitly disclose
wherein the second angle is greater than the third angle.
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 device of Koo as modified to have the second angle is greater than the third angle because, as taught by Lu, a shorter wavelength benefits from a larger angle (see Lu [0116]-[0117]). Accordingly as green is a shorter wavelength than red, it follows that the angle for the green subpixel (i.e. the second angle) is larger than the angle for the red subpixel (i.e. the third angle).
Regarding claim 13, the combined device shows
wherein the plurality of sub- pixels further comprise a white sub-pixel on the substrate (Lee: see [0067; Lim: see [0088]-[0089]) and a portion of the first overcoat layer corresponding to the white sub-pixel has a fourth inclined surface, and
wherein the first angle is greater than the second angle, the second angle is greater than the third angle (Lu: for the same reasons as applied to claim 12 above).
but does not explicitly disclose the third angel is greater than the fourth angle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the invention of Lee as modified to have the angle of the fourth inclined surface as claimed for the purpose of choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (i.e. before the third, after the third and before the second, after the second and before the first, or after the first), with a reasonable expectation of success (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Regarding claim 17, Lee as modified by Okumura and Lim further discloses
wherein the inclined surfaces of the cathode (Lee: 213) of the red sub-pixel includes a first inclined surface that overlaps a first inclined surface of the first overcoat layer, the inclined surfaces of the cathode of the green sub-pixel includes a second inclined surface that overlaps a second inclined surface of the first overcoat layer, and the inclined surfaces of the cathode of the blue sub-pixel includes a third inclined surface that overlaps a third inclined surface of the first overcoat layer (Okumura: see inclined surface of 2, Fig. 3; see also Lee: inclined surface of second overcoat layer 208, Fig. 5);
but does not explicitly disclose
wherein the first inclined surface of the cathode corresponding to the red sub-pixel, the second inclined surface of the cathode corresponding to the green sub-pixel, and the third inclined surface of the cathode corresponding to the blue sub-pixel have different angles with a surface of the substrate.
In the same field of endeavor, Lu teaches in Fig. 5 and related text a display device
wherein the first inclined surface of the cathode corresponding to the red sub-pixel, the second inclined surface of the cathode corresponding to the green sub-pixel, and the third inclined surface of the cathode corresponding to the blue sub-pixel have different angles with a surface of the substrate (angle of overcoat layer a1, see Fig. 5 and [0116]-[0117]).
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 device of Lee as modified to have wherein the first angle, the second angle, and the third angle are different angles, as taught by Lu, in order to improve light emission and minimize color shift (see Lu [0109]) and adjust for blue being a shorter wavelength and achieve a device where blue light is emitted normally (see [0117]).
Regarding claim 18, the combined device shows
wherein a first angle between the third inclined surface of the cathode corresponding to the blue sub-pixel and the surface of the substrate is greater than a second angle between the second inclined surface of the cathode corresponding to the green sub-pixel and the surface of the substrate and is greater than a third angle between the first inclined surface of the cathode corresponding to the red sub-pixel and the surface of the substrate (Lu: blue is greater than red and green, see [0116]-[0117]),
but does not explicitly disclose wherein the second angle is greater than the third angle.
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 device of Koo as modified to have the second angle is greater than the third angle because, as taught by Lu, a shorter wavelength benefits from a larger angle (see Lu [0116]-[0117]). Accordingly as green is a shorter wavelength than red, it follows that the angle for the green subpixel (i.e. the second angle) is larger than the angle for the red subpixel (i.e. the third angle).
Regarding claim 19, the combined device shows
wherein the plurality of sub- pixels further comprise a white sub-pixel (Lee: see [0067; Lim: see [0088]-[0089]) and a cathode corresponding to the white sub-pixel includes a fourth inclined surface that overlaps a fourth inclined surface of the first overcoat layer, and
wherein angles formed by the third inclined surface of the cathode corresponding to the blue sub-pixel, the second inclined surface of the cathode corresponding to the blue sub- pixel, the first inclined surface of the cathode corresponding to the red sub-pixel, and the fourth inclined surface of the cathode corresponding to the white sub-pixel, respectively, with the surface of the substrate decrease in an order of the third inclined surface of the cathode corresponding to the blue sub-pixel, the second inclined surface of the cathode corresponding to the green sub-pixel, the first inclined surface of the cathode corresponding to the red sub- pixel (Lu: for the same reasons as applied to claim 12 above),
but does not explicitly disclose
the angles decrease in order from the third inclined surface, the second inclined surface, the first inclined surface, and the fourth inclined surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the invention of Koo to have the angle of the fourth inclined surface as claimed for the purpose of choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (i.e. before the third, after the third and before the second, after the second and before the first, or after the first), with a reasonable expectation of success (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/21/2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented above.
Conclusion
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 3/27/2026
Prosecution Insights