weNotice 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 .
Information Disclosure Statements
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted recently have been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The specification submitted 12/20/2023 has been accepted by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on 12/20/2023 have been accepted by the examiner.
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 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.
(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 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jo (US # 20200185655).
Regarding Claim 1, Jo (US # 20200185655) teaches an organic light-emitting diode display device (see Fig. 4A and corresponding text), comprising:
a display area (12) and a non-display area (areas of the display panel that aren’t 12 as shown in Fig. 1) outside the display area;
a plurality of sub-pixels in the display area, each sub-pixel having an emission area (OP) and a non-emission area (CP); and
an overcoat layer (130) including a plurality of micro lenses in the emission area of each sub-pixel ([0089] describes the bumpy top-surface shape as of 130 “light emission pattern 140 may be expressed as a micro lens, a texturing pattern, a light extraction pattern, light scattering pattern a corrugated micro lens or similar shape”),
PNG
media_image1.png
365
458
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein for an outermost sub-pixel (corresponds to the farthest left edge OP feature, PA1(12a), in Fig. 4A) among the plurality of sub-pixels, the overcoat layer has a first flat portion (see dashed oval region in annotated drawing included here) where some micro lenses are removed from the emission area (since this is a device claim, the structure implied by the processing recited is the important feature to be found here; the structure implied is that there is not a micro lens in the dashed oval).
Regarding Claim 2, Jo teaches the organic light-emitting diode display device of claim 1, wherein the first flat portion is provided in the outermost sub-pixel at each of first and second sides of the display area (this is a four-sided square unit, and this flat portion is on each peripheral side, so the first and second sides are the left and right edges, respectively, from a top-down perspective).
Regarding Claim 3, Jo teaches the organic light-emitting diode display device of claim 1, further comprising a first line (DL to the left of 12a) disposed in a direction parallel to first and second sides of the display area,
wherein for the outermost sub-pixel, the plurality of micro lenses are spaced apart from the first line (DL is not shown immediately adjacent to the micro-lenses).
PNG
media_image2.png
391
367
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5, Jo teaches the organic light-emitting diode display device of claim 1, wherein the first flat portion is provided at a first side of an outermost sub-pixel at a first side of the display area (see diamond-ended segment) and at a second side of an outermost sub-pixel at a second side of the display area (see circle-ended segment).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding Claim 8, although the prior art shows substantial features of the claimed invention, the prior art reviewed by the examiner neither teaches nor reasonably suggests all the claimed limitations, including wherein for the first sub-pixel, the plurality of micro lenses are spaced apart from the first side surface of the bank and overlap the second side surface of the bank, and wherein for the nth sub-pixel, the plurality of micro lenses overlap the first side surface of the bank and are spaced apart from the second side surface of the bank.
Regarding Claim 18, although the prior art shows substantial features of the claimed invention, the prior art reviewed by the examiner neither teaches nor reasonably suggests all the claimed limitations, including an arrangement of the plurality of micro lenses for the first sub-pixel is different from an arrangement of the plurality of micro lenses for the second sub-pixel in that: for the first sub-pixel, the plurality of micro lenses do not extend to the first side of the emission area; and for the second sub-pixel, the plurality of micro lenses extend at least to the first side of the emission area.
All claims dependent on claims 8 and 18 and are allowable at least based on that dependency.
Claims 4 and 6-7 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:
Regarding Claim 4, although the prior art shows substantial features of the claimed invention, the prior art reviewed by the examiner neither teaches nor reasonably suggests all the claimed limitations, including wherein for the sub-pixel adjacent to the outermost sub-pixel along the first direction, the plurality of micro lenses overlap the second line.
Regarding Claim 6, although the prior art shows substantial features of the claimed invention, the prior art reviewed by the examiner neither teaches nor reasonably suggests all the claimed limitations, including wherein for each of the plurality of sub-pixels, the overcoat layer has a second flat portion where some micro lenses are removed at a corner of the emission area.
All claims dependent on claims 4 and 6 and are allowable at least based on that dependency.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20170155094 A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER A JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9475. The examiner can normally be reached on normally working Monday-Friday between 9 am and 6 pm Pacific Time.
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, Brent Fairbanks can be reached at (408) 918-7532. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTOPHER A JOHNSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899