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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 19 and 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (2022/0285463).
Re claim 19, Lee et al. disclose (Fig. 6) a substrate including a plurality of emission areas (EA) and a non-emission area (NDA) between the plurality of emission areas; a spacer (PW1) in the non-emission area; one or more protrusions(121 in the non-EA area) that protrude away from the substrate (100) in the non-emission area, the one or more protrusions (121) surrounding the spacer (PW1) in a plan view of the light emitting display apparatus; and a plurality of subpixels in the plurality of emission areas, the plurality of subpixels surrounding the spacer (PW1) and the one or more protrusions (121) in the plan view.
Re claim 23, Lee et al. disclose wherein the spacer (PW1) has a first height, and the one or more protrusions (121) have a second height that is less than the first height ([0147]).
Re claim 24, Lee et al. disclose (Fig. 6) a substrate (100) including an emission area (DA) and a non-emission area (NDA); a light emitting element (OLED) in the emission area (EA), the light emitting element including a first electrode (210), a light emitting layer (220) on the first electrode, and a second electrode (230), the light emitting layer (220) configured to emit light; a transistor (TFT) connected to the first electrode (210 through 120) of the light emitting element; a bank (119) in the non-emission area and on a portion of the first electrode that extends to the non-emission area, the bank (119) having a first protrusion (PW1) having a first height and one or more second protrusions (121) having a second height that is less than the first height, the one or more second protrusions (121)between the first protrusion (PW1) and the emission area (EA).
Re claim 25, Lee et al. disclose where the light emitting layer (220) and the second electrode (230) overlap the first protrusion (PW1) and the one or more second protrusions (121), and the first electrode (210) is non-overlapping with the one or more second protrusions (PW1) (Fig. 6).
Re claim 26, Lee et al. disclose wherein the one or more second protrusions (121) surround the first protrusion (PW1) in a plan view of the light emitting display apparatus (Fig. 6).
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) 20-22 and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. as applied to claims 19 and 23-26 above, and further in view of Hyun et al. (2023/0008148).
Re claim 20, Lee et al. does not disclose wherein the plurality of subpixels comprise a plurality of pairs of subpixels where each pair of subpixels emit light of a same color, and each pair of subpixels is symmetrically disposed on the substrate with respect to the spacer.
Hyun et al. disclose wherein the plurality of subpixels comprise a plurality of pairs of subpixels where each pair of subpixels emit light of a same color (e.g. green in Fig. 7), and each pair of subpixels is symmetrically disposed on the substrate with respect to the spacer (127) (Fig. 7).
It would have been within the scope of one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Lee et al. and Hyun et al. to enable the subpixels of Lee et al. to be the same according to the teachings of Hyun et al. because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to alternative suitable subpixel pairs for the disclosed emitting light of Lee et al. and art recognized suitability for an intended purpose has been recognized to be motivation to combine. See MPEP 2144.07.
Re claim 21, Hyun et al. disclose wherein the plurality of subpixels comprise a pair of red subpixels that emit red light, a pair of green subpixels that emit green light, and a pair of blue subpixels that emit blue light (depending on the elected pixel in Fig. 7).
Re claim 22, Hyun et al. disclose wherein each red (R) subpixel is between a green (G) pixel and a blue (B) pixel in the plan view, each green pixel is between a red pixel and a blue pixel in the plan view, and each blue pixel is between two red pixels or two green pixels in the plan view (Fig. 7).
Re claims 27 and 28, One of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited number of protrusions and height through routine experimentation to achieve a desired device dimension, device associated characteristics and device density on the finished wafer.
In addition, the selection of number of protrusions and height, it's obvious because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996)(claimed ranges or a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill or art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1995) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed number of protrusions and height or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen number of protrusions and height or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen number of protrusions and height are critical. In re Woodruf, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyun et al. (2023/0008148) in view of Lee et al. ((2022/0285463).
Re claim 1, Hyun et al. disclose (Figs. 7 and 9) a substrate (101) including a plurality of emission areas (EMA) and a non-emission area (NEM) between the plurality of emission areas ([0060]); a plurality of subpixels in the plurality of emission areas ([0060]); a first electrode (170) in a subpixel from the plurality of subpixels; a bank (126) on the first electrode (170), the bank in the non-emission area (NEM) (Fig. 9); a spacer (127) on the bank in the non-emission area; and at least one protrusion (128), wherein the plurality of subpixels surround the spacer, and wherein at least one pair of subpixels from the plurality of subpixels that emit a same color of light are symmetrically disposed with respect to the spacer ([0112]~ Figs. 7 & 8).
Hyun et al. does not disclose wherein the least one protrusion is between the spacer and the plurality of emission areas.
Lee et al. disclose wherein the least one protrusion (121) is between the spacer (PW1) and the plurality of emission areas (EA) (Fig. 6).
It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Hyun et al. and Lee et al. to enable the location of the at least one protrusion of Hyun et al. to be located between the spacer and the plurality of emission areas as taught in Lee et al. to prevent layers below the protrusion from being damaged by a mask in a process of forming intermediate layers ([0125] of Lee et al.).
Re claim 2, Lee et al. disclose wherein the at least one protrusion (121) surrounds the spacer in a plan view of the light emitting display apparatus (Fig. 6).
Re claim 3, Hyun et al. disclose wherein the at least one protrusion (128) includes a same material as at least one of the bank (126) or the spacer (127) ([0168]).
Re claim 4, Lee et al. disclose wherein the at least one protrusion is integrated with the bank ([0125]).
Re claim 5, Hyun et al. disclose wherein at least one of the bank or the spacer is transparent ([0133] ~ all organic materials mentioned in this paragraph are transparent).
Re claim 6, Hyun et al. disclose wherein a height of the at least one protrusion (128) from the substrate (101) is less than a height of the spacer (121) from the substrate (Fig. 9).
Re claim 7, Hyun et al. disclose wherein the height of the at least one protrusion (128) from the substrate (101) is equal to a height of the bank (121) from the substrate (Fig. 9).
Re claims 6-10, One of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited height, number of pixels and location of the spacer through routine experimentation to achieve a desired device dimension, device associated characteristics and device density on the finished wafer.
In addition, the selection of height, number of pixels and location, it's obvious because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996)(claimed ranges or a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill or art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1995) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed height, number of pixels and location or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen height, number of pixels and location or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen height, number of pixels and location are critical. In re Woodruf, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Re claim 9, Hyun et al. disclose wherein the spacer (127) is at a center of the plurality of subpixels in a plan view of the light emitting display apparatus (Fig. 7).
Re claim 11, Hyun et al. disclose further comprising: a light emitting element layer (175) on the first electrode (170), the bank (126), the at least one protrusion (128), and the spacer (127), the light emitting element layer including a plurality of emitting parts and a charge generation layer (hole transporting layer or electron transporting layer~ [0135]) between the plurality of emitting parts; and a second electrode (180) on the light emitting element layer.
Re claim 12, Hyun et al. disclose wherein each of the plurality of emitting parts includes a light emitting layer emitting a same color of light (Fig. 7).
Re claim 13, Hyun et al. disclose further comprising: an encapsulation layer (190) on the second electrode (180), wherein the encapsulation layer includes a first encapsulation layer (191), a second encapsulation layer (192), and a third encapsulation layer (193) (Fig. 9).
Re claim 14, Hyun et al. disclose wherein each of the first encapsulation layer (191) and third encapsulation layer (193) includes an inorganic material, and the second encapsulation layer (192) includes an organic material ([0139]).
Re claim 15, Lee et al. disclose further comprising: a data line (DL) and a power line (PL) (of the pixel circuit PC as shown in Fig. 4) under the bank or the spacer, wherein at least one of the data line and the power line overlap the at least one protrusion (121) or the spacer.
Re claim 16, wherein the at least one protrusion (121) protrudes from a top surface of a portion of the bank (126) between a first blue subpixel (EMA_B) of the plurality of subpixels. The remaining plurality of subpixels mentioned being blue is a matter of design choice bounded by well-known manufacturing constraints and ascertainable by routine experimentation and optimization to choose these particular dimensions/color because applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions/color are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension/color. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional/color limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Re claim 17, Hyun et al. disclose wherein the at least one protrusion includes a first protrusion (128_P1) and a second protrusion (128_P2), and the first protrusion and second protrusion have a same height from the substrate (101) (Fig. 9).
Re claim 18, One of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited height through routine experimentation to achieve a desired device dimension, device associated characteristics and device density on the finished wafer.
In addition, the selection of height, it's obvious because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996)(claimed ranges or a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill or art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1995) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed height or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen height or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen height is critical. In re Woodruf, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 12,514,076 B2 and US 2023/0146971 A1 disclose a similar configuration for a light emitting display apparatus with a bank with spacer and protrusions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE MANDALA whose telephone number is (571)272-1858. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 PM.
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, Sue Purvis can be reached at 571-272-1236. 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.
/MICHELLE MANDALA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893 January 7, 2026