Detailed Action
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, “…comprises a structure which has rotated with respect to a reference point.” is indefinite because it is unclear where this reference point is in cross section, or even if the reference point is with respect to any structure in the claim. For example, the reference point could be external to the entire structure, meaning that if the entire display apparatus were rotated on a surface with respect to a reference point on the surface, infringement becomes impossible to determine.
It is further unclear what “a structure” being rotated is; whether it is one of the previously enumerated structures or a different, unknown structure. The remaining claims are rejected as being dependent on an indefinite base claim.
Based on the specification and drawings, specifically Figs. 2-4 and the associated text, the following will be the interpretation for purposes of examination on the merits:
1. An organic light emitting display apparatus comprising:
a plurality of pixels on a substrate, each including a plurality of subpixels each including an emission area;
a planarization layer including a light extraction pattern overlapping the emission area of each of the plurality of subpixels and includes a plurality of concave portions; and
a light emitting device layer on the light extraction pattern,
wherein one or more of the plurality of subpixels comprise a plurality of pattern regions, and
wherein the light extraction pattern at each of the plurality of pattern regions is rotated with respect to a reference point on the substrate.
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- are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 113380862 to Li et al. (Li).
Regarding Claim 1, Le teaches an organic light emitting display apparatus comprising:
a plurality of pixels on a substrate, each including a plurality of subpixels each including an emission area (although not shown, inherent to a display which is taught throughout one subpixel shown in Fig. 1, display shown in Fig. 3);
a planarization layer 11 including a light extraction pattern overlapping the emission area of each of the plurality of subpixels and includes a plurality of concave portions 21; and
a light emitting device layer 40 on the light extraction pattern,
wherein one or more of the plurality of subpixels comprise a plurality of pattern regions (any of the grooves is considered to read on “pattern regions”), and
wherein the light extraction pattern at each of the plurality of pattern regions is rotated with respect to a reference point on the substrate (see Figs. 6a-7, grooves 21 are rotated).
Regarding Claim 2, Le teaches the organic light emitting display apparatus of Claim 1 wherein the light extraction pattern at each of the plurality of pattern regions has rotated by different angles (see Fig. 7, rotated at different angles).
Regarding Claim 3, Le teaches the organic light emitting display apparatus of Claim 1 wherein a rotation angle of the light extraction pattern is greater than 0 degrees and less than 60 degrees (Fig. 7 shows 45 degrees on the left).
Regarding Claim 5, Le teaches the organic light emitting display apparatus of Claim 1 wherein the light extraction pattern at one or more of the plurality of subpixels has rotated by an angle different from that of the light extraction pattern at each of the other subpixels (FIG. 7 shows that the inclination angle of the first groove 21 of each third sub-pixel 613 relative to the first direction is gradually reduced along the direction close to the first edge area 71).
Regarding Claim 8, Le teaches the organic light emitting display apparatus of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of subpixels comprises the plurality of pattern regions (each pattern reads on a “pattern region”).
Regarding Claim 13, Le teaches the organic light emitting display apparatus of claim 1, wherein a rotation angle of the light extraction pattern at each of the plurality of subpixels differs from each other by pixel units (FIG. 7 shows that the inclination angle of the first groove 21 of each third sub-pixel 613 relative to the first direction is gradually reduced along the direction close to the first edge area 71).
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 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 20140306241 to Hirakata et al. (Hirakata).
Regarding Claim 9, Le teaches the organic light emitting display apparatus of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach that the plurality of subpixels comprises a white subpixel; and the white subpixel includes the plurality of pattern regions.
However, in analogous art, Hirakata teaches the use of a white LED [0062] over a light extraction pattern 111/112/113. It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to include the teaching of Hirakata as white light is the most versatile and easily filtered into other desired colors.
Regarding Claim 20, Le teaches the organic light emitting display apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a color filter layer between the light extraction pattern and the substrate.
However, in analogous art, Hirakata teaches a color filter 181/182/183 over a light extraction pattern 111/112/113. It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to include the teaching of Hirakata to convert LED emission colors as desired.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6, 7, 10-12 and 14-19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include 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 cited prior art does not teach the limitations of the claims, in context with their superseding claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVREN SEVEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5666. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00- 5:00 Pacific.
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, Christine Kim can be reached at (571) 272-8458. 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.
/EVREN SEVEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812