DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/23/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Original claims 9 and 10 are reproduced below:
9. The electronic device as claimed in claim 8, wherein the color filter layer has a pitting structure, and a third portion of the medium structure is disposed in the pitting structure.
10. The electronic device as claimed in claim 9, wherein the third portion has a convex structure.
Due to a typographical error, the rejection of claims 9 and 10 was listed as the rejection of claims 8 and 9 in the previous rejection. Applicant notes that the Office Action “does not include any rejection … directed to dependent claim 10” but addresses the rejection over Lee directed to the limitations of dependent claims 9 and 10 (Remarks, p. 10).
PNG
media_image1.png
702
1165
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant argues that Fig. 9 of Lee shows that “the alleged color filter layer 161 does not have a pitting structure corresponding to a convex structure of the medium structure” (Remarks, p. 11). Annotated Fig. 9 of Lee is reproduced below, with the medium structure 150, color filter 161, and corresponding pitting and convex structure PTb labeled. The rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-5, 9, 13-14, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (U.S. PGPub 2018/0166519) in view of Kim2014 (U.S. PGPub 2014/0117324) and Lee (U.S. PGPub 2019/0341428).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches an electronic device (Fig. 9) comprising: a first substrate (110, [0094]), a second substrate disposed opposite to the first substrate (270, [0094]), a first conductive element disposed on the first substrate (20, [0045]), an insulating layer disposed on the first conductive element and having a first via (146, [0050]), a first electronic element disposed on the insulating layer and electrically connected to the first conductive element through the first via (201, [0094]), a medium structure disposed between the first substrate and the second substrate, and having a first portion and a second portion, wherein the first portion overlaps with the first via, and the second portion is adjacent to the first portion, and wherein a thickness of the first portion is greater than a thickness of the second portion (230/280, [0094]-[0095]).
Kim teaches color filters ([0108]) but does not explicitly teach a color filter layer disposed between the second substrate and the medium structure.
Kim2014 teaches a display device (Fig. 2) comprising a medium structure disposed between first and second substrates (100, 200, 140/300, [0039]-[0041], [0049]-[0053]), and a color filter layer disposed between the second substrate and the medium structure (240, [0067]-[0068]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Kim2014 with Kim such that the device comprises a color filter layer disposed between the second substrate and the medium structure for the purpose of reducing reflection of external light (Kim2014, [0067]-[0068]).
Kim and Kim2014 do not explicitly teach wherein the color filter layer has a pitting structure, and a third portion of the medium structure is disposed in the pitting structure, wherein the third portion has a convex structure.
Lee teaches wherein a color filter layer has a pitting structure, a portion of a medium structure is disposed in the pitting structure, and the third portion has a convex structure (Fig. 9, 161, PTb, [0141]-[0143]; 150, [0113]-[0114]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Lee with Kim and Kim2014 such that the color filter layer has a pitting structure, and a third portion of the medium structure is disposed in the pitting structure, wherein the third portion has a convex structure for the purpose of reducing white angular dependency (Lee, [0143], [0005]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Kim, Kim2014, and Lee teaches wherein the medium structure has a multi-layer structure (Kim, [0094]-[0095]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Kim, Kim2014, and Lee for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Kim, Kim2014, and Lee teaches wherein a light transmittance of the medium structure is between 80% and 99% (Lee, [0114], optically clear). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Kim, Kim2014, and Lee for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Kim, Kim2014, and Lee teaches a bank layer disposed on the insulating layer, wherein and the medium structure has a groove, and the groove overlaps with the bank layer (Kim, 190, [0042], Fig. 9). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Kim, Kim2014, and Lee for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Kim, Kim2014, and Lee teaches a bank layer between electronic elements (Kim2014, [0044]-[0045], 131), and a light-shielding layer disposed on the second substrate, wherein the light-shielding layer at least partially overlaps with the bank layer in a normal direction of the first substrate (Kim2014, 230, [0066]-[0068]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Kim2014 with Kim and Lee for the purpose of preventing light leakage between pixels (Kim2014, [0066]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Kim, Kim2014, and Lee for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Kim, Kim2014, and Lee teaches wherein the third portion of the medium structure is disposed in the pitting structure (Lee, Fig. 9). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Kim, Kim2014, and Lee for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Kim, Kim2014, and Lee teaches wherein the medium structure comprises a first layer and a second layer, the first layer is disposed between the second substrate and the second layer, and a thickness of the first layer is greater than a thickness of the second layer (Kim, Fig. 9, first layer 280, second layer 230, [0094]-[0095]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Kim, Kim2014, and Lee for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Kim, Kim2014, and Lee teaches wherein the first layer has a first refractive index, and the second layer has a second refractive index, and the second refractive index is smaller than the first refractive index (Kim, [0095], filling layer 280 has refractive index greater than capping layer 230). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Kim, Kim2014, and Lee for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Kim, Kim2014, and Lee teaches wherein the first portion of the medium structure has a curved surface (Kim, Fig. 9). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Kim, Kim2014, and Lee for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Kim, Kim2014, and Lee teaches a second conductive element disposed on the first substrate and a second electronic element disposed on the insulating layer, wherein the second electronic element is electrically connected to the second conductive element through a second via, wherein the first electronic element emits red light or green light, and the second electronic element emits blue light (Kim, Fig. 1; Kim2014, Fig. 2; Lee, Figs. 2, 9). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Kim, Kim2014, and Lee for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (U.S. PGPub 2018/0166519) in view of Kim2014 (U.S. PGPub 2014/0117324), Lee (U.S. PGPub 2019/0341428), and Mohan (U.S. PGPub 2015/0280170).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Kim, Kim2014, and Lee does not explicitly teach wherein the medium structure abuts against the bank layer. Kim teaches wherein the second electrode is interposed between the medium structure and the bank layer (Fig. 9, 213, [0043]).
Mohan teaches wherein a medium structure abuts against a bank layer adjacent to an OLED pixel (Fig. 5, 52, 56, 54, [0047]), having a discontinuous second electrode as an alternative to an embodiment wherein the second electrode is interposed between the medium structure and the bank layer (Fig. 16, [0061]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Mohan with Kim, Kim2014, and Lee such that the medium structure abuts against the bank layer, because the prior art teaches every element, a person of ordinary skill could have combined them as claimed and in combination each element performs the same function as it does separately, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention. See MPEP 2143(I)A.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Kim, Kim2014, and Lee teaches wherein the bank layer has a convex profile and the medium structure partially surrounds the convex profile (Fig. 9) but does not explicitly teach wherein the convex profile abuts against the medium structure. Kim teaches wherein the second electrode is interposed between the medium structure and the bank layer (Fig. 9, 213, [0043]).
Mohan teaches wherein a medium structure abuts against a bank layer having a convex profile adjacent to an OLED pixel (Fig. 5, 52, 56, 54, [0047]), having a discontinuous second electrode as an alternative to an embodiment wherein the second electrode is interposed between the medium structure and the bank layer (Fig. 16, [0061]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Mohan with Kim, Kim2014, and Lee such that the convex profile abuts against the bank layer, because the prior art teaches every element, a person of ordinary skill could have combined them as claimed and in combination each element performs the same function as it does separately, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention. See MPEP 2143(I)A.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (U.S. PGPub 2018/0166519) in view of Kim2014 (U.S. PGPub 2014/0117324), Lee (U.S. PGPub 2019/0341428), and Sim (U.S. PGPub 2021/0043690).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Kim, Kim2014, and Lee teaches wherein the first electronic element comprises a cathode (Kim, [0043], 213) but is silent on the refractive index of the cathode.
Sim teaches wherein the refractive index of a cathode formed of a metal material has a very low refractive index ([0075], 0.13). Kim teaches wherein the refractive index of the filling layer may be about 1.5 ([0096]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Sim with Kim, Kim2014, and Lee such that the first electronic element comprises a cathode, and the cathode has a third refractive index, the first refractive index is greater than the third refractive index, and the second refractive index is greater than the third refractive index due to using a metal such as silver for the cathode in the device of Kim (Kim, [0056]).
Claims 11-12 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (U.S. PGPub 2018/0166519) in view of Kim2014 (U.S. PGPub 2014/0117324), Lee (U.S. PGPub 2019/0341428), and Zhao (U.S. PGPub 2021/0320166).
Regarding claims 11-12, the combination of Kim, Kim2014, and Lee teaches wherein the first electronic element comprises a first anode, the first anode is electrically connected to the first conductive element through the first via, the first via has a first area, and the first anode has a second area (Kim, Fig. 1, Fig. 9, [0049]) but does not explicitly teach wherein a ratio of the first area to the second area is between 0.15 and 0.3.
Zhao teaches wherein the size of the via is determined according to the luminous efficiency of the light-emitting device and to control the voltage drop ([0137]). Mere optimization of a result effective variable is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05IIB.
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Zhao with Kim, Kim2014, and Lee such that a ratio of the first area to the second area is between 0.15 and 0.3 for the purpose of optimizing the luminous efficiency and voltage drop (Zhao, [0137]).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Kim, Kim2014, and Lee teaches wherein the first electronic element comprises a first anode, the first anode is electrically connected to the first anode through the first via, and the second electronic element comprises a second anode, the second anode is electrically connected to the second conductive element through the second via, the first anode and the first via have a first overlapping area, the second anode and the second via have a second overlapping area (Kim, Fig. 1, Fig. 9) but does not explicitly teach wherein a width of the first overlapping area is greater than a width of the second overlapping area.
Zhao teaches wherein the size of the via is changed between different light-emitting elements according to the luminous efficiency of the light-emitting device and to control the voltage drop ([0137], [0125]-[0127]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Zhao with Kim, Kim2014, and Lee such that a width of the first overlapping area is greater than a width of the second overlapping area for the purpose of optimizing the luminous efficiency and voltage drop (Zhao, [0137]).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Kim, Kim2014, and Lee teaches wherein the first electronic element comprises a first anode, the first anode is electrically connected to the first anode through the first via, and the second electronic element comprises a second anode, the second anode is electrically connected to the second conductive element through the second via, the first anode and the first via have a first overlapping area, the second anode and the second via have a second overlapping area (Kim, Fig. 1, Fig. 9) but does not explicitly teach wherein an area of the first overlapping area is larger than an area of the second overlapping area.
Zhao teaches wherein the size of the via is changed between different light-emitting elements according to the luminous efficiency of the light-emitting device and to control the voltage drop ([0137], [0125]-[0127]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Zhao with Kim, Kim2014, and Lee such that an area of the first overlapping area is larger than an area of the second overlapping area for the purpose of optimizing the luminous efficiency and voltage drop (Zhao, [0137]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (U.S. PGPub 2018/0166519) in view of Kim2014 (U.S. PGPub 2014/0117324), Lee (U.S. PGPub 2019/0341428), and Song (U.S. PGPub 2020/0212113).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Kim, Kim2014, and Lee does not explicitly teach wherein a width of the first anode is greater than a width of the second anode.
Song teaches wherein different light-emitting elements have different widths including anode widths (Fig. 16).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Song with Kim, Kim2014, and Lee such that a width of the first anode is greater than a width of the second anode such that color gamut can be improved (Song, [0192]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ALIA SABUR whose telephone number is (571)270-7219. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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, Christine S. Kim can be reached at 571-272-8458. 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.
/ALIA SABUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812