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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments 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 § 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 U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 20140131671 to Lee et al. (Lee).
Regarding Claim 1, Lee teaches a display apparatus comprising:
a substrate 10 on which a first display region is defined; and
a first pixel unit PA disposed on the substrate in the first display region, wherein the first pixel unit comprises a first pixel which emits light of a first color, wherein the first pixel comprises:
a planarization L3 insulating layer disposed on the substrate;
a pixel electrode E1 disposed on a flat surface of the planarization insulating layer;
a bank layer PDL disposed on the pixel electrode, wherein a pixel opening is defined in the bank layer to expose at least a portion of the pixel electrode;
a plurality of insulating members 30 disposed on the pixel electrode in the pixel opening, wherein the plurality of insulating members is arranged apart from each other;
an intermediate layer EML disposed on the bank layer to cover the plurality of insulating members; and
a common electrode E2 disposed on the intermediate layer.
Regarding Claim 2, Lee teaches the display apparatus of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of insulating members is provided to have a longitudinal direction in a first direction (in and out of page).
Regarding Claim 3, Lee teaches the display apparatus of claim 2, wherein the plurality of insulating members are apart from each other in a second direction crossing the first direction (see Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 5, Lee teaches the display apparatus of claim 1, wherein the plurality of insulating members are apart from the bank layer (see Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 11, Lee teaches a display apparatus comprising:
a substrate 10 on which a first display region is defined; and
a first pixel unit disposed on the substrate in the first display region, and comprising a first pixel which emits light of a first color (see Fig. 1), wherein the first pixel comprises:
a planarization insulating layer L3 disposed on the substrate;
a pixel electrode E1 disposed on a flat surface of the planarization insulating layer;
a bank layer PDL disposed on the pixel electrode, wherein a pixel opening is defined in the bank layer to expose at least a portion of the pixel electrode;
a plurality of insulating members 30 disposed on the pixel electrode in the pixel opening;
an intermediate layer EML disposed on the bank layer to cover the plurality of insulating members; and
a common electrode E2 disposed on the intermediate layer, and
a plurality of first openings are respectively defined between adjacent insulating members among the plurality of insulating members (see Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 12, Lee teaches the display apparatus of claim 11, wherein each of the plurality of first openings is provided to have a longitudinal direction in a first direction (see Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 13, Lee teaches the display apparatus of claim 12, wherein the plurality of first openings are apart from each other in a second direction crossing the first direction (see Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 15, Lee teaches the display apparatus of claim 11, wherein the plurality of insulating members are apart from the bank layer (see Fig. 1).
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 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to Claim 3.
Regarding Claims 4 and 15, Lee teaches the display apparatus of claims 3 and 14, but does not explicitly teach that in a plan view, the plurality of insulating members have a stripe pattern.
Lee is silent regarding the disposition of the insulating members in plan view. However, the configuration of a claim element a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claim element is significant. In this case, the record only states that the insulating members “may” have a stripe pattern with no explanation of any significance.
Claims 6, 7, 10, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to Claim 3 in view of U.S. Pat. No. 10490604 to Matsueda et al. (Matsueda).
Regarding Claims 6 and 16, Lee teaches the display apparatus of claims 1 and 11, but does not explicitly teach that the first pixel unit further comprises: a second pixel which emits light of a second color; and a third pixel which emits light of a third color, and the first color is red, the second color is green, and the third color is blue. However, in analogous art, Matsueda teaches red, green and blue throughout. It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to include the teaching of Matsueda to form a color display.
Regarding Claims 7 and 17, Lee and Matsueda teach the display apparatus of claims 6 and 16, wherein the second pixel is apart from the first pixel in a first direction, and the third pixel is apart from the first pixel in a second direction crossing the first direction (see Fig. 10 of Matsueda).
Regarding Claims 10 and 20, Lee teaches the display apparatus of claims 7 and 17, but does not explicitly teach that a length of the first pixel in the first direction is less than a length of the second pixel in the first direction, and the length of the second pixel in the first direction is less than a length of the third pixel in the first direction. However, this is a mere reconfiguration of the subpixels. the particular placement of a claim element is an obvious matter of design choice absent a showing that the reconfiguration would have modified the operation of the device (MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 9, 18 and 19 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 cited prior art does not teach differing distances between insulating members as required.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights