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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/10/26 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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, 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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al., CN 113380862 in view of Jang et al., US 2021/0183963.
Regarding claim 1, Li teaches (at least in Figures 1, 3 and 7) a light emitting display apparatus (Abstract), comprising: a substrate (13); a plurality of pixels including a plurality of subpixels on the substrate (see Figure 3; sub pixels 61 and 62 in pixel groups P1-P3), a light extraction portion (11) disposed on the substrate and in each of the plurality of subpixels; and a light emitting device layer (anode 22 and light emitting layer 40) on the light extraction portion, wherein: the light extraction portion comprises a plurality of concave portions and a convex portion between the plurality of concave portions (see concave and convex portions in layer 11); and a tilt line passing through a center portion of each of the plurality of concave portions at one or more of the plurality of subpixels is inclined from a straight line parallel to a length direction of the substrate (see Figure 7, tilt line has varying angle). Li is silent as to the outer periphery of each of the concave portions being a hexagonal structure and the concave portions having a curved surface shape.
However, in the same field of endeavor of display devices comprising light extraction portions, Jang teaches an outer periphery of each of the concave portions is arranged in a hexagonal structure (see pixels in Figure 4); and wherein the concave portions have a curved surface shape (see Figure 3). Further, it would have been well known to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that changing the shape and curvature of the light extraction portion would alter the light extraction and emission of the device in a predictable manner based on well known principals of light propagation. Therefore, lacking criticality and unexpected results, it is the position of the examiner that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to alter the shape of the pixel and the curvature of the concave portions to adjust the light emission of the display device in a predictable and desired manner.
Regarding claim 2, Li and Jang teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 1 and Li further teaches an angle between the straight line and the tilt line is more than 0 degrees and less than 60 degrees (see Figure 7, angles may include 15, 30 and 45).
Regarding claim 3, Li and Jang teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 1 and Li further teaches the light extraction portion has rotated with respect to a reference point within a corresponding subpixel (see Figure 7, reference point is the center of the subpixel).
Regarding claim 4, Li and Jang teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 1 and Li further teaches the light extraction portion has rotated by an angle of more than 0 degrees and less than 60 degrees with respect to the center portion of one of the plurality of concave portions of a corresponding subpixel (see Figure 7, angle may be 15, 30, 60).
Regarding claim 5, Li and Jang teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 1 and Li further teaches a tilt line passing through center portions of the plurality of concave portions in each of the plurality of subpixels is inclined by a different angle from the straight line (see Figure 7, tilt line passing through concave portions 21 is different from straight line across length of pixel).
Regarding claim 6, Li and Jang teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 5 and Li further teaches the tilt line passing through the center portions of the plurality of concave portions in each of the plurality of subpixels is inclined by a different angle within a range of more than 0 degrees and less than 60 degrees from the straight line (see Figure 7, angle may be 15, 30 or 60).
Regarding claim 7, Li and Jang teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 1 and Li further teaches the light extraction portions of the plurality of subpixels have rotated by different angles with respect to reference points within corresponding subpixels (see Figure 7, light extraction portions 21 are rotated 15, 30 or 60 degrees).
Regarding claim 8, Li and Jang teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 7 and Li further teaches the light extraction portions of the plurality of subpixels have rotated by different angles within a range of more than 0 degrees and less than 60 degrees with respect to the reference points within the corresponding subpixels (see Figure 7, light extraction portions are rotated 15, 30 or 60 degrees).
Regarding claim 9, Li and Jang teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 1 and Li further teaches a plurality of pixel blocks including a plurality of pixel groups, wherein each of the plurality of pixel groups comprises one or more of the plurality of pixels (see Figure 3, pixel groups P1-P3, comprising pixels 61, 63).
Regarding claim 10, Li and Jang teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 9 and Li further teaches the one or more of the plurality of pixels comprise one or more pixels (see Figure 3); the light extraction portion in each of the plurality of subpixels configuring each of the plurality of pixels has a rotation angle rotated by a same angle with respect to a reference point within a corresponding subpixel; and pixel-based rotation angles of the light extraction portions in the one or more pixels included in each of the plurality of pixel groups are equal to one another at a corresponding pixel group (see Figures 3 and 7, subpixels 613 are all one angle, subpixels 611 are all one angle).
Regarding claim 11, Li and Jang teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 10 and Li further teaches pixel group-based rotation angles of the light extraction portions in each of the plurality of pixel groups included in each of the plurality of pixel blocks differ from one another at a corresponding pixel block (see Figures 3 and 7, extraction portion angles in 613 differ from extraction portion angles in 611 in each corresponding pixel block P1-P3).
Regarding claim 12, Li and Jang teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 11 and Li further teaches the plurality of pixel groups comprise two adjacent pixel groups (see Figure 3); and pixel-based rotation angles of the light extraction portions of the two adjacent pixel groups in each of the plurality of pixel blocks is within a range of more than 0 degrees and less than 60 degrees and have a difference of 1 degree or more or 3 degrees or more (see Figure 7, angles range from 15, 30 and 60).
Regarding claim 13, Li and Jang teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 9 and Li further teaches pixel block-based rotation angles of the light extraction portions in each of the plurality of pixel blocks differ (see Figure 7, angles differ and are 15, 30 or 60).
Regarding claim 14, Li and Jang teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 1 and Li further teaches the light extraction portion in one of the plurality of subpixels and the light extraction portion of each of other subpixels of the plurality of subpixels have rotated by different angles with respect to a reference point within a corresponding subpixel (see Figure 7, light extraction portion 21 rotated by a different angle in the subpixels 613 and 611).
Regarding claim 15, Li and Jang teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 14 and Li further teaches the light extraction portions of the other subpixels of the plurality of subpixels have rotated by a same angle with respect to the reference point (each subpixel 613 is rotated by the same angle, each subpixel 611 is rotated by the same angle, see Figures 3 and 7).
Regarding claim 16, Li and Jang teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 14 and Li further teaches the light extraction portion of the one of the plurality of subpixels has rotated by an angle of more than 0 degrees and less than 60 degrees with respect to the reference point (see Figure 7, angles are 15, 30 and 60), and wherein the light extraction portions of the other subpixels of the plurality of subpixels have rotated by an angle of more than 0 degrees and less than 60 degrees with respect to the reference point (see Figure 7, angles are 15, 30 and 60).
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Jang and further in view of Kim et al., US 2017/0062769.
Regarding claim 17, Li and Jang teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 14, but are silent as to the colors of the pixels. However, in the same field of endeavor of display devices, Kim teaches the one of the plurality of subpixels is a white subpixel, and wherein the other subpixels of the plurality of subpixels comprise a red subpixel, a blue subpixel, and a green subpixel ([0046] red, green, blue and selectively may include white). Further, it would have been well known for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that an effective an efficient means of producing a full color display device would be to provide pixels in white, red, blue and green. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the Li device with the colored pixels of the Kim device as a reliable means of achieving full color display emission.
Regarding claim 18, Li, Jang and Kim teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 17, and further it is the position that in light of the teaching in Li that the rotation angles of light extraction portions (11) differ, that lacking criticality and unexpected results it would have been an obvious matter of design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the adjacent white pixel extraction portion angles to differ as well.
Regarding claim 19, Li, Jang and Kim teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 18 and further it is the position that in light of the teaching in Li that the rotation angles of light extraction portions (11) differ and are within a range of more than 0 degrees to less than 60 degrees and have a difference of more than 3 degrees (see Figure 7), that lacking criticality and unexpected results it would have been an obvious matter of design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the adjacent white pixel extraction portion angles to differ as well.
Regarding claim 20, Li and Jang teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 1 but are silent as to the convex portions of the extraction portion having a hexagonal shape in plan view. However, in the same field of endeavor of display devices having extraction portions, Kim teaches the convex portion surrounding one of the plurality of concave portions has a hexagonal shape in a plan view (see Figure 3, hexagonal shaped micro lenses). Further, it would have been well known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that such a lens could be in a number of various shapes to achieve a predetermined and desired emission angle. Therefore, it is the position of the examiner that lacking criticality and unexpected results, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the Li device with hexagonally shaped convex portions in order to achieve well known light emission angles based on said shape.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kim et al., US 2018/0006273 teaches a display device comprising a light extraction layer having convex portions and concave portions and a light emitting layer formed on the light extraction layer.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MARY-ELLEN BOWMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5383. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday; 7:00 am-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, James 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.
MARY ELLEN BOWMAN
Examiner
Art Unit 2875
/MARY ELLEN BOWMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights