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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment, filed on April 24, 2026, has been entered and acknowledged by the Examiner.
Claims 1-33 are pending in the instant application.
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.
Claims 24-27 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 20170110522 A1), Lee hereinafter.
Regarding claim 24, Lee discloses a display apparatus (100, Fig 1) comprising: a substrate (201, Fig 5) including a plurality of subpixels (SP; subpixels SP1-SP4, Fig 2) having a light emission area (EA: area directly above the topographical projection of the regions where anode 211 directly contacts organic layer 212) and a non-light emission area (NEA: area between EAs directly above regions where anode 211 does not directly contact organic layer 212) adjacent (shown adjacent) to the light emission area (EA); a pattern portion (208P: portion of 208 within the non-light emission area NEA: area between EAs directly above regions where anode 211 does not directly contact organic layer 212, Fig 5) formed to be concave (shown concave) on (shown on) the substrate (201), and surrounding (shown surrounding) the light emission area (EA) of the plurality of subpixels (SP); a reflective portion (213R: portion of cathode 213 on 212 overlapping bank 216 in the vertical direction of Fig 5) on (shown on) the pattern portion (208P); and a plurality of lines (VL: lines RVL/DVL/DL) configured to drive (driving each subpixel, [0066]) the plurality of subpixels (SP), wherein the non-light emission area (NEA, Fig 5) includes a first area (A1: portion of NEA directly adjacent to either side of EA; please see annotated figure below) adjacent (shown adjacent) to the light emission area (EA) and a second area (A2: portion of NEA between A1; please see annotated figure below) adjacent (shown adjacent) to the first area (A1) and spaced apart (shown spaced apart) from the light emission area (EA), and a line (DL, Fig 3A), which is disposed in (shown in) the first area (A1), among the plurality of lines (VL) is a reflective line (DL; shown as reflective).
PNG
media_image1.png
452
689
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 25, Lee discloses that each of the plurality of subpixels (SP, Fig 2) includes a bank (216, Fig 7) disposed in (shown in) the non-light emission area (NEA), the first area (A1) is an area in which the banks (216) of the respective subpixels (SP) are disposed (shown disposed in A1; please see annotated figure below), and the second area (A2) is an area between (shown between) the banks (216) of the respective subpixels (SP).
PNG
media_image2.png
556
566
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 26, Lee discloses that the plurality of subpixels (SP, Fig 2) include a first subpixel (SP1) and a second subpixel (SP2) disposed to be adjacent (shown adjacent) to the first subpixel (SP1), the first subpixel (SP1) further includes a color filter (230, Fig 3A) disposed between (shown between) the reflective line (DL) and the pattern portion (208P), and the color filter (230) does not overlap (shown not overlapping) the first area (A1) of the second subpixel (SP2).
Regarding claim 27, Lee discloses that the first area (A1, Fig 3A; please see annotated figure below) of the second subpixel (SP2) is an area between (shown as area between) the light emission area (EA) of the second subpixel (SP2, shown as white subpixel) and the second area (A2).
PNG
media_image3.png
498
520
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 30, Lee discloses a light emitting element layer (214, Fig 5) in (shown in) the plurality of subpixels (SP), wherein the light emitting element layer (214) includes: a pixel electrode (211) in (shown in) the light emission area (EA); a light emitting layer (212) on (shown on) the pixel electrode (211) and the non-light emission area (NEA); and a reflective electrode (213) on (shown on) the light emitting layer (212), and the reflective portion (213R) is a portion (shown as a portion) of the reflective electrode (213).
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20170110522 A1), Lee hereinafter, in view of Hwang et al. (US 20220069259 A1), Hwang hereinafter.
Regarding claim 28, Lee discloses the claimed invention according to claim 26, the plurality of lines (VL, Fig 5), the second area (A2), and the color filter (230).
However, Lee fails to exemplify that the plurality of lines further includes a line disposed in the second area, and the color filter partially overlaps the line disposed in the second area.
In the same field of endeavor, Hwang discloses a display apparatus where the plurality of lines further includes a line (DL, Fig 4; please see annotated figure below) disposed in (shown in) the second area, and the color filter partially overlaps (shown partially overlapping) the line (DL) disposed in (shown in) the second area.
PNG
media_image4.png
585
399
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Lee teaches a base product of two data lines disposed in area 1 of the non-light emission area which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement in that light can be reflected off the data lines to the reflective portion and emitted out of the emission area, increasing light emission efficiency. Huang teaches a known technique of data lines disposed in both area 1 and area 2 of the non-light emission area that is comparable to the base product.
Huang’s known technique, as cited above, would have been recognized by one skilled in the art as applicable to the base product of Lee and the results would have been predictable and resulted in the data lines being more central to the non-light emission area making them less likely to interfere with light emitted from the emission area, which results in an improved product.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Lee and Huang are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are from the same field of endeavor of semiconductor display devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the device of Lee with the features of Huang to create a device wherein the plurality of lines further include a line disposed in the second area, and the color filter partially overlaps the line disposed in the second area thereby suppressing light leakage between adjacent sub-pixel areas, and improving a lifetime (Huang, [Abs.]).
Regarding claim 29, Lee discloses the claimed invention according to claim 26, the plurality of lines (VL, Fig 5), the first area (A1), the second area (A2), and the color filter (230).
However, Lee fails to exemplify that the plurality of lines further includes a line formed over the first area and the second area, and a portion of the color filter overlaps the entire line in the second area.
In the same field of endeavor, Hwang discloses that the plurality of lines further includes a line (DL, Fig 4; please see annotated figure above) formed over (shown over) the first area and the second area, and a portion of the color filter overlaps the entire line (shown overlapping the entire line) in the second area.
Lee and Huang are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are from the same field of endeavor of semiconductor display devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the device of Lee with the features of Huang to create a device wherein the plurality of lines further include a line formed over the first area and the second area, and a portion of the color filter overlaps the entire line in the second area thereby suppressing light leakage between adjacent sub-pixel areas, and improving a lifetime (Huang, [Abs.]).
Claims 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20170110522 A1), Lee hereinafter, in view of Choi et al. (US 20210183900 A1), Choi hereinafter, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 20190131578 A1), Lee’ 578 hereinafter.
Regarding claim 32, Lee discloses the claimed invention according to claim 25, the plurality of subpixels (SP, Fig 2), the light emission area (EA), the pattern portion (208P), the first area (A1), and the second area (A2).
However, Lee fails to exemplify that the plurality of subpixels includes 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.
In the same field of endeavor, Choi discloses that the plurality of subpixels includes a light extraction portion (150, Fig 15) that overlaps (shown overlapping) the light emission area and includes a plurality of concave portions (153), the light extraction portion (150) is disposed to be adjacent (shown adjacent) to the pattern portion.
In the same field of endeavor, Lee’578 discloses that a pattern portion includes an inclined surface (SS1: inclined surface of pattern portion 108, Fig 3; please see annotated figure below) formed in (shown in) the first area and a bottom surface (BS2: bottom surface of pattern portion 108; please see annotated figure below) extended (shown extended) from the inclined surface (SS1) and formed up to (shown formed up to) the second area.
PNG
media_image5.png
574
812
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the device of Lee with the features of Choi and Lee’578 to create 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 because the light extraction portion has a shape that can maximize external extraction efficiency of light emitted from a pixel based on an effective light emission area of the light emitting device layer (Choi, [0119]) so the device has good characteristics in view of power consumption due to low voltage driving and have good characteristics for color realization, a response speed, a viewing angle, and a contrast ratio (Choi, [0003]) in order to improve light extraction efficiency of the light emitting display apparatus (Choi, [0008]) in which luminance and a color temperature of a display image can be improved (Choi, [0011]). The device has advantages of a viewing angle, a contrast ratio, and power consumption (Lee’578, [0006]), may be driven with a low direct current (DC) voltage and has rapid response speed (Lee’578, [0006]), has high durability against an external impact and has a wide available temperature range (Lee’578, [0006]), and improved light extraction efficiency (Lee’578, [0002]).
Regarding claim 33, the combination of Lee, Choi, and Lee’578 render obvious the display of claim 32. Choi teaches the plurality of concave portions (153, Fig 14). Lee’578 teaches the bottom surface (BS2, Fig 3; please see annotated figure above), and the inclined surface (SS1).
Lee goes on to teach wherein the plurality of subpixels (SP, Fig 2) include an overcoat layer (208, Fig 5) on (shown on) the substrate (201, Fig 5) and a pixel electrode (211) on (shown on) the overcoat layer (208), the overcoat layer (208) includes a first layer (OC1: first layer of overcoat layer 208; overcoat layer 208 is comprised of 2 parts, please see annotated figure below) including (when combined with Choi, the concave portions would reside in OC1) the plurality of concave portions, and a second layer (OC2) between (shown between) the first layer (OC1) and the pixel electrode (211), and the second layer (OC2) extends (shown extended) to the first area (A1) and is in contact (shown in indirect contact) with a portion of the bottom surface of the pattern portion (208P) while covering (shown covering) the inclined surface of the pattern portion (208P).
PNG
media_image6.png
466
664
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-23 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 1, the references of Prior Art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations as set forth in claim 1, and specifically comprising the limitation directed to a color filter disposed on the substrate; an overcoat layer disposed on the color filter; a pattern portion formed to be concave in an upper surface of a first layer of the overcoat layer between the plurality of subpixels; a reflective portion on the pattern portion; and a plurality of lines configured to drive the plurality of subpixels, wherein the plurality of subpixels include a light emission area and a non-light emission area adjacent to the light emission area, the first layer of the overcoat layer is integrally formed layer and extends into the light emission area of multiple subpixels, 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.
Regarding claims 2-23, the claims are allowable for the reasons given in claim 1 because of their dependency status from claim 1.
Claim 31 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.
Regarding claim 31, the references of Prior Art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations as set forth in claim 31, and specifically comprising the limitation directed to a color filter extending from the light emission area to at least a portion of the second area by passing through the first area, wherein a distance L from an end of the color filter to an end of the light emission area is provided to satisfy:
L > D*tan(arcsin(n1/n2)),
where D is a distance from the light emitting layer to a lower surface of the color filter, n1 is a refractive index of the light emitting layer, and n2 is a refractive index of the substrate.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 11, filed April 24, 2026, with respect to neither of Kim’s insulating layer (300) or pixel defining layer (500) are integrally formed and extend into the light emission area of multiple subpixels according to claim 1 as amended have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-23 has been withdrawn.
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
/JAMES R GREECE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights