DETAILED ACTION
This Notice is responsive to communication filed on 12/03/2025.
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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 12/03/2025 under 37 CFR 1.131(a) has been entered. Claims 1, 3-6, and 8-22 remain pending in the application.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 8-11, 13-20, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishikawa et al. (US 2008/0024402 A1), and further in view of Shim et al. (US 2020/0144342 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nishikawa teaches a display apparatus, comprising:
a substrate Fig. 1: 10 including a first sub-pixel area (see Fig. 1 annotation);
an overcoat layer Fig. 1: 30 on the substrate Fig. 1: 10 and having a plurality of concave portions Fig. 1: 34 in the first sub-pixel area; and
a bank layer Fig. 1: 140 on the overcoat layer Fig. 1: 30 and having a first opening (see Fig. 1 annotation) to define a first light-emitting area (see Fig. 1 annotation) in the first sub-pixel area,
wherein the overcoat layer Fig. 1: 30 includes two first flat areas (see Fig. 1 annotation) having a flat surface in the first light-emitting area, the concave portions Fig. 1: 34 being absent in the two first flat areas,
wherein, in a plan view, the two first flat areas are spaced apart from each other in a first direction with at least one of the concave portions Fig. 1: 34 interposed between the two first flat areas (see annotated Fig. 1 above, showing concave portions in between the two first flat areas labeled), and
wherein in the plan view, an edge of the bank layer Fig. 1: 140 extending in a second direction intersecting the first direction overlaps one of the two first flat areas, the one of the two first flat areas being interposed between two concave portions Fig. 1: 34 next to each other and entirely spaced apart from each other in the second direction among the two or more of the concave portions Fig. 1: 34 (annotated below).
PNG
media_image1.png
480
929
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
626
1134
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Nishikawa fails to explicitly teach wherein, in a plan view, an edge of the bank layer extending in a second direction intersecting the first direction overlaps two or more of the concave portions. However, Shim teaches in a plan view, an edge of the bank layer Fig. 2: 400+450 extending in a second direction intersecting the first direction overlaps two or more of the concave portions Fig. 2: G (para. 0055 teaches a plurality of grooves G; Fig. 2 shows the overlapping of the grooves by the bank portion). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Nishikawa and Shim for the purpose of preventing leakage from occurring between the subpixels (para. 0047).
Regarding claim 3, Nishikawa teaches the display apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a gate line Fig. 2, GL on the substrate Fig. 1: 10, the gate line extending in the first direction.
Regarding claim 4, Nishikawa teaches the display apparatus of claim 1, wherein the two first flat areas (see Fig. 1 annotation) are respectively disposed at two opposite ends of the first light-emitting area (see Fig. 1 annotation) in the first direction (see annotated Fig. 1 above, showing the two first flat areas at opposite ends of the first subpixel area annotated).
Regarding claim 5, Nishikawa teaches the display apparatus of claim 1, wherein each of the two first flat areas (see Fig. 1 annotation) extends out of the first light-emitting area and overlaps a portion of the bank layer adjacent to the first light-emitting area (see Fig. 2 annotated, the left portion of the left flat area annotated is overlapping item 140; the right portion of the right flat area annotated is overlapping a second item 140).
Regarding claim 8, Nishikawa teaches the display apparatus of claim 1, further comprising: a light-emitting element Fig. 1: 100 on the overcoat layer Fig. 1: 30 in the first light-emitting area (see Fig. 1 annotation), the light-emitting element Fig. 1: 100 including a first electrode Fig. 1: 200, a light-emitting layer Fig. 1: 120 on the first electrode Fig. 1: 200, and a second electrode Fig. 1: 240 on the light-emitting layer Fig. 1: 120.
Regarding claim 9, Nishikawa teaches display apparatus of claim 8, wherein the first electrode Fig. 1: 200 is on the two first flat areas and at least one of the concave portions in the first light -emitting area, and wherein the two first flat areas and the first electrode are partially disposed under a portion of the bank layer adjacent to the first light-emitting area (Fig. 1 shows the first electrode 200 is on the two first flat areas annotated and the left portion of the left flat area annotated and the left portion of the first electrode 200 are sitting under a portion of the bank layer 140).
Regarding claim 10, Nishikawa teaches the display apparatus of claim 1, wherein: the substrate Fig. 1: 10 further includes a second sub-pixel area (see Fig. 1 annotation) spaced apart from the first sub-pixel area, the overcoat layer Fig. 1: 30 further includes a plurality of concave portions Fig. 1: 34 in the second sub-pixel area, the bank layer Fig. 1: 140 further includes a second opening to define a second light-emitting area in the second sub-pixel area, and the overcoat layer Fig. 1: 30 includes a second flat area (see Fig. 1 annotation) having a flat surface in the second light- emitting area, the concave portions Fig. 1: 34 in the second sub-pixel area being absent in the second flat area.
Regarding claim 11, Nishikawa teaches the display apparatus of claim 10, wherein the second flat area (see Fig. 1 annotation) extends out of the second light-emitting area and overlaps a portion of the bank layer adjacent to the second light- emitting area (see annotated Fig. 1 above, second flat area sits under a portion of the bank layer 140 that is to the left of the second light emitting area).
Regarding claim 13, Nishikawa teaches the display apparatus of claim 10, further comprising a gate line Fig. 2: GL on the substrate Fig. 2: Panel substrate, the gate line Fig. 2: GL extending in a first direction (see Fig. 2), wherein the two first flat areas and the second flat area are located along a same straight line extending in the first direction (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 14, Nishikawa teaches the display apparatus of claim 10, wherein the substrate Fig. 1: 10 further includes a third sub-pixel area (see Fig. 1 annotation) being between the first sub-pixel area and the second sub-pixel area (see annotated Fig. 1 above), the overcoat layer Fig. 1: 30 further includes a plurality of concave portions Fig. 1: 34 in the third sub-pixel area (see Fig. 1 annotation), the bank layer Fig. 1: 140 further includes a third opening (see Fig. 1 annotation) to define a third light-emitting area in the third sub-pixel area, and wherein the third light-emitting area (see Fig. 1 annotation) of the third sub-pixel area does not have any flat area and is fully covered by a plurality of concave portions (Fig. 6b; para. 0051, “the layer may have a wavelike cross section with the concave portion 34 and the convex portion 36 linked very smoothly”).
Regarding claim 15, Nishikawa teaches a display apparatus (annotated Fig. 1 below), comprising:
a substrate Fig. 1: 10 including a first sub-pixel area (annotated below) and a second sub-pixel area (annotated below);
an overcoat layer Fig. 1: 30 on the substrate Fig. 1: 10 and having a plurality of concave portions Fig. 1: 34 in the first sub-pixel area (annotated below) and the second sub-pixel area (annotated below); and
a bank layer Fig. 1: 140 on the overcoat layer Fig. 1: 30 and including a first opening to define a first light- emitting area (annotated below) and a second opening to define a second light-emitting area (annotated below),
wherein the overcoat layer Fig. 1: 30 includes two first flat areas having a flat surface in the first light-emitting area, the concave portions being absent in the two first flat areas (see Fig. 1 annotation below where first flat areas are not inclusive of concave portions),
wherein, in a plan view, one of the two first flat areas in the first light-emitting area is interposed between two of the concave portions next to each other and entirely spaced apart from each other along an edge of the first opening.
PNG
media_image3.png
512
1006
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Nishikawa fails to explicitly teach wherein a lowermost part of at least one of the concave portions is disposed under the bank layer adjacent to the second light-emitting area in the second sub-pixel area. However, Shim teaches wherein a lowermost part of at least one of the concave portions (See Fig. 3 annotation below) is disposed under the bank layer Fig. 3: 400+450 adjacent to the second light-emitting area Fig. 3: 500 in the second sub-pixel area Fig. 3: P2. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Nishikawa and Shim for the purpose of preventing leakage from occurring between the subpixels (para. 0047).
PNG
media_image4.png
576
541
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Nishikawa teaches the display apparatus of claim 15, wherein the first sub-pixel area and the second sub-pixel area are adjacent to each other (see Fig. 1 annotation).
Regarding claim 17, Nishikawa teaches the display apparatus of claim 15, wherein the two first flat areas are disposed respectively at two opposite ends of the first light-emitting area, at least one of the concave portions being interposed between the two first flat areas (see Fig. 1 annotation above, the two first flat areas are shown to be positioned between two concave portions and are on opposite sides of the first light emitting area as annotated).
Regarding claim 18, Nishikawa teaches the display apparatus of claim 15, wherein the two first flat areas extend out of the first light-emitting area and overlaps a portion of the bank layer Fig. 1: 140 adjacent to the first light-emitting area (see annotated Fig. 1 above, left side of the annotated first flat area sits under a portion of the bank layer 140, and right side of the annotated first flat area sits under a second bank layer 140).
Regarding claim 19, Nishikawa teaches the display apparatus of claim 15, wherein: the substrate Fig. 1: 10 further includes a third sub-pixel area (Fig. 1 annotation), the second sub-pixel area being between the first sub-pixel area and the third sub-pixel area (shown in Fig. 1 annotation above), the overcoat layer Fig. 1: 30 further includes a plurality of concave portions Fig. 1: 34 in the third sub-pixel area (annotated), the bank layer Fig. 1: 140 further includes a third opening to define a third light-emitting area in the third sub-pixel area (see Fig. 1 annotation), and the overcoat layer Fig. 1: 30 includes a second flat area (see Fig. 1 annotation) with a flat surface in the third light-emitting area, the concave portions in the third sub-pixel area being absent in the second flat area (see Fig. 1 annotation above where second flat area is not inclusive of concave portions).
Regarding claim 20, Nishikawa teaches the display apparatus of claim 15, wherein the first sub- pixel area is a red sub-pixel area, and the second sub-pixel area is one of a blue sub-pixel area or a green sub-pixel area (Fig. 2 shows the pixel circuit and sub-pixel areas arranged accordingly, with the first sub-pixel area labeled R for Red, and the second sub-pixel area next to the first labeled G for Green).
Regarding claim 22, although Nishikawa teaches the substantial features of the claimed invention, Nishikawa fails to explicitly teach the display apparatus of claim 1, wherein at least one of the plurality of concave portions is disposed under the bank layer adjacent to the first light-emitting area. However, Shim teaches wherein at least one of the plurality of concave portions Fig. 3: G is disposed under the bank layer Fig. 3: 400+450 adjacent to the first light-emitting area Fig. 3: P1 (left portion of Fig. 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Nishikawa and Shim for the purpose of preventing leakage from occurring between the subpixels (para. 0047).
Claims 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishikawa et al. (US 2008/0024402 A1) and Shim et al. (US 2020/0144342 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yeon et al. (US 2020/0058719 A1).
Regarding claim 6, although Nishikawa and Shim teach substantial features of the display apparatus, and also teach the height of the concave portions is between 0 - 3µm, and the distance from one concave portion center to the next arrangement is 5 - 20μm (see Nishikawa para. 0051), Nishikawa and Shim fail to explicitly teach the display apparatus of claim 1, wherein each of the two first flat areas has an area size equal to or greater than 4 times an area size of one of the concave portions. However, Yeon teaches an area occupied by the concave/convex unit on the display area of the substrate is less than or equal to 20% of an area of the pixel area on the display area (para 0080, lines 1-4). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Nishikawa, Shim and Yeon for the purpose of further reducing the color shift according to the viewing angle (para. 0080). Furthermore, a change in size is a matter of design choice, which a person within the level of ordinary skill in the art would have found to be obvious about persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed areas was significant, and a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Regarding claim 12, although Nishikawa and Shim teach substantial features of the display apparatus, and also Nishikawa teaches the height of the concave portions is between 0 - 3µm, and the distance from one concave portion center to the next arrangement is 5 - 20μm (see para. 0051), they fail to explicitly teach the display apparatus of claim 10, wherein the second flat area has an area size equal to or greater than 4 times of an area size of one of the concave portions in the second sub- pixel area. However, Yeon teaches an area occupied by the concave/convex unit on the display area of the substrate is less than or equal to 20% of an area of the pixel area on the display area (para 0080, lines 1-4). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Nishikawa, Shim, and Yeon for the purpose of further reducing the color shift according to the viewing angle (para. 0080). Furthermore, a change in size is a matter of design choice, which a person within the level of ordinary skill in the art would have found to be obvious about persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed areas was significant, and a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishikawa et al. (US 2008/0024402 A1) and Shim et al. (US 2020/0144342 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Choi et al. (US 2019/0393448 A1).
Regarding claim 21, although Nishikawa and Shim teach the substantial features of the claimed invention, they fail to teach the display apparatus of claim 1, wherein two adjacent concave portions among the plurality of concave portions are connected to each other to form a pointed peak between two adjacent concave portions. However, Choi teaches wherein two adjacent concave portions Fig. 3: 183 among the plurality of concave portions are connected to each other to form a pointed peak Fig. 3: 181 between two adjacent concave portions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teaches of Nishikawa, Shim, and Choi for the purpose of creating a microlens that has a shape which can increase or maximize external extraction efficiency of light generated in the pixel (para. 0101).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1 and 15, applicant argues that Nishikawa fails to disclose the amended limitations of claim 1 and claim 15 “in a plan view”. Applicant also argues that Nishikawa teaches away from the alleged combination with Shim suggested by the examiner as “Nishikawa specifies not having the optical path length adjusting section 32… in the non-emissive region… for the purpose of maintaining flatness of the surface of the emitting element layer 120. Examiner notes that in para. 0047, Nishikawa teaches that the optical path length adjusting section 32 may also be formed in the non-emissive region, but may not have the same function as when formed in the emissive region. Nishikawa also teaches an overlap of the first two flat areas by the edge of the bank layer, which prompts the combination with Shim, who teaches the overlap of the first two flat areas F1 AND the overlap of the concave portions G by the edge of the bank layer (400+450) in Fig. 2, where the bank hole portion of the bank layer is used to prevent leakage current from occurring between subpixels adjacent to each other (see para. 0047, 0057).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NKECHINYERE ESIABA whose telephone number is (571)272-0720. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10am-5pm EST.
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, Kretelia Graham can be reached at (571) 272-5055. 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.
/Nkechinyere Esiaba/Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/Kretelia Graham/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817 January 9, 2026