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.
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 1, 2, 6, 12, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cui, CN 110010646.
Regarding claim 1, Cui teaches a display device (see at least Figure 7) comprising: a main area (FA) located in a display area; a bend area (BA) located in the display area and outside the main area; a first subpixel located in the bend area (see subpixel above theta1 in BA, Figure 7); a planarization layer (250 and 264, may be formed by the same material) including a first concave portion (created by edge of layer 264 in BA, where electrode 261 is formed) located in the first subpixel and a first slope portion (creating theta1 in BA region) extending from the first concave portion (see Figure 7); a first electrode (261) located on the first concave portion and the first slope portion of the first subpixel (id); and an emitting layer (262) located on the first electrode, wherein the first slope portion is located so that light emitted by the emitting layer is reflected towards a front viewing angle direction by the first electrode (see Figure 7, light emitted by the organic layer in the BA of the display would emit toward the front area, in the same direction as light emitted from the organic layer in the FA).
Regarding claim 2, Cui teaches the invention as explained above regarding claim 1 and further teaches the first slope portion is located more peripheral than the first concave portion in the display area (see Figure 7, concave portion is where planarization layer 264 slopes down toward planarization layer 250, and then slope portion is theta1, which is more peripheral than the first concave portion).
Regarding claim 6, Cui teaches the invention as explained above regarding claim 1 and further teaches the first subpixel comprises a first emitting area, a second emitting area located outside the first emitting area, and a non-emitting area (see Figure 7, non-emitting areas are layer 264 not including the concave regions, and see Abstract explaining a plurality of light emitting areas in the BA of the display).
Regarding claim 12, Cui teaches the invention as explained above regarding claim 1 and further teaches a second subpixel located in the main area (FA, Figure 7), wherein a height of a portion of the planarization layer (250 and 264) in the first subpixel (subpixel in BA part of display) with respect to the emitting layer of the first subpixel is larger than a height of a portion of the planarization layer in the second subpixel with respect to an emitting layer of the second subpixel (see larger heigh created by angle theta1 in Figure 7).
Regarding claim 14, Cui teaches a display device (see at least Figure 7) comprising: a display panel (id) including a display area and a non-display area adjacent to the display area (see Figure 4 showing display area and thin non-display area surrounding), wherein the display area includes a main area and a bend area adjacent to the main area (FA, Figure 7), and a plurality of subpixels disposed in the main area (Abstract) and the bend area (BA), the plurality of subpixels include a first subpixel disposed in the bend area (see Figure 7) and a second subpixel disposed in the main area (see Figure 7), a planarization layer (250 and 264) is disposed in the first and second subpixels, and at least one of a height and a thickness of the planarization layer in the first subpixel of the bend area is respectively different from at least one of a height and a thickness of the planarization layer in the second subpixel of the main area (height and thickness of planarization layer 250 is greater in first subpixel, BA part of display, in order to create angle theta1).
Regarding claim 15, Cui teaches the invention as explained above regarding claim 14 and further teaches the height of the planarization layer (250 and 264 in Figure 7) in the first subpixel (subpixel in BA area of display) of the bend area where light is emitted is greater than the height of the planarization layer in the second subpixel of the main area (FA) where light is emitted (thickness is greater to create angle theta1 in BA part of display).
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 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui in view of Kimura et al., US 2015/0206928.
Regarding claim 7, Cui teaches the invention as explained above regarding claim 6, and further teaches that the first emitting area is the sloped portion (see theta1, Figure 7). Cui is silent as to the first and second emitting area being the concave portion and the sloped portion, respectively.
However, in the same field of endeavor of display devices, Kimura teaches the planarization layer has a concave area (see at least Figure 6, concave area created by planarization layer 146 and convex portions 142b) and the first emitting area is the sloped portion of the electrode and organic layer (see Figure 6), and the second emitting area is the bottom of the concave portion (see Figure 6). Further, it would have been well known to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a concave portion in the planarization layer in order to allow for less stress on the organic layer by providing a more gradual slope, thereby increasing manufacturing efficiency as well as ensuring a longer display life. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a concave planarization layer with the pixel electrode sloping up the side of the concavity in order to alleviate stress on the organic layer and increase manufacturing efficiency, which would have resulted in a first emission area on the concave portion in the Cui display and a second emission area on the bottom of the concave portion that would be sloping as set forth in the Cui display.
Regarding claim 9, Cui and Kimura teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 6, and Kimura further teaches a second electrode located on the planarization layer in the second subpixel (flat area of display, see Figure 6), wherein the planarization layer further comprises a second concave portion (concave portion in 146 created by convex portions 142b, see Figure 6) located in the second subpixel and a second slope portion extending from the second concave portion (sloping edges created by convex portions 142b), the second electrode (134) is located on the second concave portion and the second slope portion (see Figure 6), and the emitting layer (132) is located on the second electrode, the second subpixel comprises a first emitting area (see Figure 6, emitting area associated with pixel electrode), a second emitting area located outside and spaced apart from the first emitting area (see Figure 1, multiple emitting areas), a first non-emitting area located outside the second emitting area (periphery of display, see Figure 1), and a second non-emitting area located between the first emitting area and the second emitting area (area between pixels, see Figure 1). Further, it would have been well known to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a concave portion in the planarization layer in order to allow for less stress on the organic layer by providing a more gradual slope, thereby increasing manufacturing efficiency as well as ensuring a longer display life. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a concave planarization layer in order to alleviate stress on the organic layer and increase manufacturing efficiency. Although Cui and Kimura fail to specifically teach the width of the emitting area in the first subpixel is larger than the emitting area of the second subpixel, 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 have the larger pixels in the bending area due to a smaller portion of the surface area facing front, thereby having a lower percentage of light reaching the viewer.
Claims 3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui in view of Song et al., CN 110767815.
Regarding claim 3, Cui teaches the invention as explained above regarding claim 1, but is silent as to a thickness of the planarization layer in an area of a second pixel is larger than a thickness of the planarization layer in the area of the first pixel.
However, in the same field of endeavor of bending display devices, Song teaches a second subpixel located in the main area, wherein a second thickness of a portion of the planarization layer corresponding to an emitting layer of the second subpixel in the main area is larger than a first thickness of a portion of the planarization layer corresponding to the emitting layer of the first subpixel in the bend area (see Figures 3 and 4). Further, 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 alter the structure of the Cui device to provide a thinner planarization layer in parts of the bending area instead of a thicker planarization layer, while still achieving the same comparative result in that the angle of the bending portion electrodes is altered compared to the flat portion electrodes. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a thicker planarization layer in the flat portion of the display in order to allow for removal of some of the planarization layer to achieve the desired electrode angle, as an alternate means of achieving the same objective achieved by adding planarization material in the Cui display device.
Regarding claim 16, Cui teaches the invention as explained above regarding claim 14, but is silent as to a thickness of the planarization layer in an area of a second pixel is larger than a thickness of the planarization layer in the area of the first pixel.
However, in the same field of endeavor of bending display devices, Song teaches a second subpixel located in the main area, wherein a second thickness of a portion of the planarization layer corresponding to an emitting layer of the second subpixel in the main area is larger than a first thickness of a portion of the planarization layer corresponding to the emitting layer of the first subpixel in the bend area (see Figures 3 and 4). Further, 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 alter the structure of the Cui device to provide a thinner planarization layer in parts of the bending area instead of a thicker planarization layer, while still achieving the same comparative result in that the angle of the bending portion electrodes is altered compared to the flat portion electrodes. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a thicker planarization layer in the flat portion of the display in order to allow for removal of some of the planarization layer to achieve the desired electrode angle, as an alternate means of achieving the same objective achieved by adding planarization material in the Cui display device.
Claims 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui in view of Song and further in view of Kimura et al., US 2015/0206928.
Regarding claim 4, Cui and Song teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 3, but are silent as to the second concave portion. In the same field of endeavor of display devices, Kimura teaches a second electrode located on the planarization layer in the second subpixel (flat area of display, see Figure 6), wherein the planarization layer further comprises a second concave portion (concave portion in 146 created by convex portions 142b, see Figure 6) located in the second subpixel and a second slope portion extending from the second concave portion (sloping edges created by convex portions 142b), the second electrode (134) is located on the second concave portion and the second slope portion (see Figure 6), and the emitting layer (132) is located on the second electrode. Further, it would have been well known to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a concave portion in the planarization layer in order to allow for less stress on the organic layer by providing a more gradual slope, thereby increasing manufacturing efficiency as well as ensuring a longer display life. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a concave planarization layer in order to alleviate stress on the organic layer and increase manufacturing efficiency.
Regarding claim 8, Cui, Song and Kimura teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 4, and Cui further teaches the second subpixel comprises a first emitting area (see for example 120 in Figure 7, emitting area surrounded by pixel defining layer 264), a second emitting area located outside and spaced apart from the first emitting area (see Abstract, a plurality of light emitting regions in the flat area), a first non-emitting area located outside the second emitting area (examiner considers this to be an area of the pixel defining layer 264 where the flat area meets the bending area, see Figure 7), and a second non-emitting area located between the first emitting area and the second emitting area (any area of pixel defining layer 264 between light emitting devices in the flat area, see Abstract and Figure 7).
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui in view of Jeon, US 2019/0197924.
Regarding claim 10, Cui teaches the invention as explained above regarding claim 1, but is silent as to an encapsulation layer having alternated refractive indexes. However, in the same field of endeavor of display devices, Jeon teaches (at least in Figures 3 and 4) an encapsulation layer (2100)located on the emitting layer, wherein the encapsulation layer comprises a first refractive index layer (2101) and a second refractive index layer (2102) located on the first refractive index layer, and a refractive index of the first refractive index layer is higher than a refractive index of the second refractive index layer ([0051 and 0053]). Further, it would have been well known to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that an alternating refractive index layer stack would increase light extraction efficiency and improve contrast. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide alternating low and high refractive index layers in the bending area of the Cui display in order to improve light extraction efficiency and improve contrast.
Regarding claim 19, Cui teaches the invention as explained above regarding claim 14, but is silent as to an encapsulation layer having alternated refractive indexes. However, in the same field of endeavor of display devices, Jeon teaches (at least in Figures 3 and 4) an encapsulation layer (2100)located on the emitting layer, wherein the encapsulation layer comprises a first refractive index layer (2101) and a second refractive index layer (2102) located on the first refractive index layer, and a refractive index of the first refractive index layer is higher than a refractive index of the second refractive index layer ([0051 and 0053]). Further, it would have been well known to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that an alternating refractive index layer stack would increase light extraction efficiency and improve contrast. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide alternating low and high refractive index layers in the bending area of the Cui display in order to improve light extraction efficiency and improve contrast.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui in view of Hu et al., CN 114023897.
Regarding claim 20, Cui teaches the invention as explained above regarding claim 14, but is silent as to the heights of the first electrodes in the bend area increase as the subpixels get closer to a peripheral end of the bend area.
However, in the same field of endeavor of bending display devices, Hu teaches each of the plurality of subpixels in the bend area includes a first electrode disposed on the planarization layer, and heights of the first electrodes in the bend area increase as the subpixels get closer to a peripheral end of the bend area (see Figure 3, electrode 4 comprises a steeper angle and therefore a higher edge portion as the pixels move toward a peripheral edge). Further, it would have been well known to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that as the curvature of the bending portion increased the height of the electrode would need to proportionally increase in order to ensure light propagation toward the viewer. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to increase the height of the electrode toward the peripheral edge in order to ensure even emission toward the viewer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 11, 13, 17 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art fails to teach or suggest an angle between the first slope portion and the first concave portion in the bend area is equal to an angle obtained by subtracting a first angle between the first concave portion and the second concave portion from a second angle between the second slope portion and the second concave portion. The prior art further fails to teach the refractive index of an area of the second refractive index layer adjacent to a central portion of the display area is higher than the refractive index of an area of the second refractive index layer adjacent to a peripheral portion of the display area. The prior art further fails to teach or suggest a second subpixel located in the main area and a second electrode located on the planarization layer in the second subpixel, wherein the first electrode surrounds a part of the emitting layer of the first subpixel to form a half side mirror and the second electrode surrounds entirely an emitting layer of the second subpixel to form a full side mirror structure.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Fan, US 10886481 teaches a display having bending areas on the periphery and further teaches a planarization layer that is thicker toward the periphery of the bending areas in order to direct light forward toward a viewer. Beak et al., US 11355565 teaches a display device comprising a planarization layer having a concave portion and an electrode extending up the edges of the concave portion.
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