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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the first trench" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the first trench" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the second trench" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 6, 15, 16 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hong et al. (2022/0285657).
Re claim 1, Hong et al. disclose first, second and third subpixels (PX) (Fig. 6) disposed on a substrate (BS); first, second and third light emitting diodes (PX1/PX2/PX3) disposed in the first, second and third subpixels, respectively; a black matrix (BM2) disposed in boarder regions of the second subpixel (PX2) and the third subpixel (PX3); a first color filter (CF-1) disposed in the first subpixel (PX1) and overlapping with the first light emitting diode; and a transparent layer (CF-2/CF-3) disposed in at least one of the second and third subpixels between portions of the black matrix (CF-2/CF-3 are made of a photosensitive resin which are known to be transparent [0157]) (See Fig. 6 annotated below).
PNG
media_image1.png
544
776
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re claim 2, Hong et al. disclose wherein the first subpixel (PX1) excludes any portion of the black matrix (BM).
Re claim 3, Hong et al. disclose wherein a first width of a first portion of the black matrix (BM2) disposed between the second (PX2) and third subpixels (PX3) is greater than a second width of a second portion of the black matrix (BM1) disposed between the first (PX1) and second (PX2) subpixels (Fig. 6) ([0053-0054]).
Re claim 5, Hong et al. disclose further comprising a third color filter (CF-3) disposed in the third subpixel (PX3) between portions of the black matrix (BM) (Fig. 6).
Re claim 6, Hong et al. disclose wherein the black matrix (BM) is disposed in the first subpixel (PX1) and in border regions between the first (PX1), second (PX2) and third (PX3) subpixels (Fig. 6).
Re claim 15, Hong et al. disclose wherein portions of the black matrix (BM2/BM3) surrounding four sides of the third subpixel (PX3) have a first width in a plan view, wherein portions of the black matrix (BM2) surrounding three sides of the second subpixel (PX2) have the first width and a portion of the black matrix (BM 1) surrounding one side of the second subpixel (PX2) has a second width that is less than the first width in the plan view (Fig. 6), and wherein two portions of the black matrix surrounding two opposites of the first subpixel have the first width in the plan view ([0053-0054]).
Re claim 16, Hong et al. disclose first, second and third subpixels (PX1/PX2/PX3) (Fig. 6 annotated above) disposed on a substrate (BS); first, second and third light emitting layers disposed in the first, second and third subpixels, respectively (Fig. 6); a first black matrix (BM1) portion disposed between the first subpixel (PX1) and the second subpixel (PX2); and a second black matrix portion (BM2) disposed between the second subpixel (PX2) and the third subpixel (PX3), wherein a first width of the first black matrix portion (BM1) between the first subpixel and the second subpixel is less than a second width of the second black matrix (BM2) portion between the second subpixel and the third subpixel (Fig. 6).
Re claim 21, Hong et al. disclose wherein the first subpixel (PX1) is not overlapped by any portion of the black matrix (BM) (Fig. 6).
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.
Claim(s) 7 and 19 are is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al. as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 6, 15, 16 and 21 above, and further in view of Jo et al. (2023/0006007).
Re claim 7, Hong et al. does not disclose wherein the transparent layer covers the black matrix and the first color filter to planarize the black matrix and the first color filter.
Jo et al. disclose wherein the transparent layer (630) covers the black matrix (610) and the first color filter (620) to planarize the black matrix and the first color filter (Fig. 9) ([0149]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Hong et al. and Jo et al. to dispose a transparent layer that covers the black matrix and the first color filter as taught by Jo et al. into the teachings of Hong et al. to planarize the structure as taught in [0149] by Jo et al.
Re claim 19, Hong et al. disclose further comprising: a color filter (CF-1) disposed in the first subpixel (PX1) (Fig. 6).
Hong et al. does not disclose wherein at least one of the second subpixel and the third subpixel does not include any color filter.
Notwithstanding, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice bounded by well known manufacturing constraints and ascertainable by routine experimentation and optimization to choose these particular elements because applicant has not disclosed that the particular elements 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 particular elements. Indeed, it has been held that mere particular elements 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).
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al. as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 6, 15, 16 and 21 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (2023/0209886).
Hong et al. does not disclose further comprising: a microlens disposed in at least one of first, second and third subpixels.
Lee et al. disclose a microlens (230) disposed in at least one of first, second and third subpixels (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Hong et al. and Lee et al. to dispose a microlenses in Hong et al. as taught by Lee et al. to increase the effective light gathering area and focus light onto the diode.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 8-12, 17 and 18 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.
Pending the correction of issues outlined in the rejection above, the following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not disclose or fairly suggest the following in combination the remaining limitations called for in each claim:
further comprising: first, second and third reflecting layers respectively disposed between first, second and third light emitting diodes and the substrate, wherein each of the first, second and third light emitting diodes includes a first electrode, an emitting layer and a second electrode sequentially on the substrate, and wherein a first distance between the first reflecting layer and the second electrode in the first subpixel is greater than a second distance between the second reflecting layer and the second electrode in the second subpixel, and the second distance between the second reflecting layer and the second electrode in the second subpixel is greater than a third distance between the third reflecting layer and the second electrode in the third subpixel, as recited in claim 4;
further comprising: a first microlens on a top surface of the transparent layer; and a planarizing layer disposed on the first microlens, as recited in claim 8;
wherein a diameter of the first microlens is equal to or greater than a width of the transparent layer, as recited in claim 9;
further comprising a second microlens on the first color filter, wherein the second microlens includes a same material as the transparent layer, as recited in claim 10;
further comprising: a first microlens on a top surface of the transparent layer; a second microlens on a top surface of the first color filter; and a planarizing layer disposing on the first and second microlenses, as recited in claim 11;
further comprising: a first trench disposed between the first subpixel and the second subpixel; a second trench disposed between the second subpixel and the third subpixel; and an emitting layer disposed in the first, second and third subpixels,wherein a portion of the emitting layer overlapping with the first trench or the second trench is thinner than a portion of the emitting layer overlapping with a center of at least one of the first, second and third subpixels, or the emitting layer is disconnected by at least one of the first trench and the second trench, as recited in claim 12;
further comprising: a trench surrounding each of the first, second and third subpixels, wherein the trench is configured to disconnect or thin a portion of the first, second and third light emitting layers, as recited in claim 17;
further comprising: first, second and third reflecting layers overlapping with the first, second and third light emitting layers, respectively, wherein a first distance between the first reflecting layer and the first light emitting layer in the first subpixel is greater than a second distance between the second reflecting layer and the second light emitting layer in the second subpixel, and the second distance between the second reflecting layer and the second light emitting layer in the second subpixel is greater than a third distance between the third reflecting layer and the third light emitting layer in the third subpixel, as recited in claim 18.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 2023/0137278 A1, US 2022/0190045 A1 and US 2022/0085334 A1 disclose a similar configuration for an organic light emitting diode display device.
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 February 4, 2026