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 .
Double Patenting
Claim 1 to 33 of this application is patentably indistinct from claim 1 to 33 of Application No. 18/397,456. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1-5, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (20140061605), Kim hereinafter.
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a display apparatus comprising: a substrate (100, ¶ [37], fig. 2) including a plurality of pixels having a plurality of subpixels (red, green and blue, ¶ [58]); a pattern portion (PA, hereinafter as denoted on the figure below) on the substrate (100) and formed to be concave between the plurality of subpixels; a reflective portion (701, 702, ¶ [32], fig. 2) on the pattern portion (PA); and a plurality of lines (110, ¶ [38], fig. 2) configured to drive the plurality of subpixels, wherein the plurality of subpixels include a light emission area (LEA, hereinafter as denoted on the figure below) and a non-light emission area (NLEA, hereinafter as denoted on the figure below) adjacent to the light emission area (LEA), the plurality of lines (110) are disposed in the non-light emission area (NLEA), the pattern portion (PA) surrounds the light emission area (LEA), and at least one of the plurality of lines (110) partially overlaps the pattern portion (PA).
PNG
media_image1.png
399
809
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Kim discloses that the non-light emission area (NLEA) includes a first area (A1, hereinafter as denoted on the figure above) adjacent to the light emission area (LEA) and a second area (A2, hereinafter as denoted on the figure above) adjacent to the first area (A1) and spaced apart from the light emission area (LEA), and the plurality of lines (110) are disposed in the first area and/or the second area of the non-light emission area (NLEA) (see fig. 2 above).
Regarding claim 3, Kim discloses that the second area (A2) overlaps a boundary portion between the plurality of subpixels (see fig. 2 above).
Regarding claim 4, Kim discloses that each of the plurality of subpixels includes a bank (500, ¶ [37], fig. 2) disposed in the non-light emission area (NLEA), and the banks (500) of the plurality of subpixels are disposed in the first area (A1) and are spaced apart from each other based on the second area (A2).
Regarding claim 5, Kim discloses that the reflective portion (701, 702) includes a flat surface disposed in the second area (A2), and a curved surface connected to the flat surface (see fig. 2 above).
Regarding claim 18, Kim discloses that the pattern portion (PA) is spaced apart from the light emission area (LEA) (see fig. 2 above).
Regarding claim 19, Kim discloses that the pattern portion (PA) has a width that decreases from the reflective portion (701, 702) toward the substrate (100) (see fig. 2 above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-17 and 20-23 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if at least one the limitations indicated below were included in the base claim and the Double Patenting issue resolved.
Regarding claim 6, the references of Prior Art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations as set forth in claim 6, and specifically comprising the limitation directed to a color filter between the plurality of lines and the pattern portion.
Regarding claim 7, the references of Prior Art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations as set forth in claim 7, and specifically comprising the limitation directed to the plurality of subpixels include: a first subpixel configured to emit red light; a second subpixel adjacent to the first subpixel, and configured to emit white light; a third subpixel adjacent to the second subpixel, and configured to emit blue light; and a fourth subpixel adjacent to the third subpixel, and configured to emit green light, the plurality of lines include a first data line configured to drive the first subpixel and a second data line spaced apart from the first data line and configured to drive the second subpixel, the first data line is disposed in the first area, and the second data line is disposed in the second area.
Regarding claims 8-11 and 23, the claims are allowable for the reasons given in claim 7 because of their dependency status from claim 7.
Regarding claim 12, the references of Prior Art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations as set forth in claim 12, and specifically comprising the limitation directed to a light emitting layer on the pixel electrode (400) and the non-light emission area.
Regarding claims 13-14, the claims are allowable for the reasons given in claim 12 because of their dependency status from claim 12.
Regarding claim 16, the references of Prior Art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations as set forth in claim 16, and specifically comprising the limitation directed to the plurality of subpixels include a light extraction portion that overlaps the light emission area and includes a plurality of concave portions, the light extraction portion is disposed to be adjacent to the pattern portion, and the pattern portion includes an inclined surface formed in the first area and a bottom surface extended from the inclined surface and formed up to the second area.
Regarding claims 17 and 20-22, the claims are allowable for the reasons given in claim 16 because of their dependency status from claim 16.
Claims 24-33 are objected to as being rejected base on the ground of double patenting, but would be allowable if the double patenting rejection is overcome.
Regarding claim 24, the references of Prior Art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations as set forth in claim 24, and specifically comprising the limitation directed to a plurality of lines configured to drive the plurality of subpixels, wherein the non-light emission area includes a first area adjacent to the light emission area and a second area adjacent to the first area and spaced apart from the light emission area, and a line, which is disposed in the first area, among the plurality of lines is a reflective line, in combination with the remaining limitations. This limitation has not been found, taught, suggested or render obvious by the prior art of the record with a reasonable expectation of success, which it makes this claim allowable over the prior art if the double patenting rejection is overcome.
Regarding claims 25-33, the claims would be allowable if the double patenting rejection is overcome for the reasons given in claim 24 because of their dependency status from claim 24.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE M. DIAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9822. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00.
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, James R Greece can be reached at (571) 272-3711. 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.
/JOSE M DIAZ/ Examiner, Art Unit 2875
/ANNE M HINES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875