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 .
Response to Amendment(s)
The Amendment, filed on 8/12/2026, has been entered and acknowledged by the Examiner.
Claim(s) 1-20 are pending in the instant application.
Claim(s) 11-20 are withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55, which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 8/22/2023. These drawings are considered acceptable by Examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/10/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's argument(s) filed on 8/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection, as necessitated by Applicant's amendment(s).
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites an element “configured to” perform a function. It has been held that the recitation that an element is “adapted to” perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. Hence, it does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. In this case, is “configured to be individually addressable” here the prior art is only required to teach structure capable of performing the function as claimed.
Claim(s) 2-10 are rejected at least for their dependency on Claim 1.
America Invents Act
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.
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 of this title, 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.
1. Claim(s) 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Choi et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0084870 A1) as previously cited in view of Jo et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0185655 A1) as previously cited in further view of Raring et al., (U.S. Pat. No. 9,653,642 B1).
Regarding Claim 1, Choi et al., teaches a display device comprising: a substrate (BS, a base substrate, ¶ [0100]-¶ [0110]; see at least Fig. 6A); a transistor (SM2, a second semiconductor layer) above the substrate (BS); a first pixel electrode (RAL, metal, formed of Ag or Al, ¶ [0112]) connected to the transistor (SM2); a scattering layer (SL, a scattering layer comprised of SP + RL) above the first pixel electrode (RAL); a second pixel electrode (AN, anode) above the scattering layer (SL), and connected with the first pixel electrode (RAL); an emission layer (EML, emission layer) above the second pixel electrode (AN); and a common electrode (CAT, cathode) above the emission layer (EML). Choi et al., is silent regarding the scattering layer further defining repeating protrusions and depressions.
In the same field of endeavor, Jo et al., teaches a display device including a scattering layer (130 [Wingdings font/0xE0] 140, scattering external light, ¶ [0118]; Fig. 4A) defining repeating protrusions and depressions (143, plurality of concave portions, ¶ [0092]) in order to resolve the problem of luminance being lower than the light generated and power consumption is increased to provide a certain output from the display device due to low light emission efficiency (¶ [0006]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the scattering layer, as disclosed by Jo et al., in the device of Choi et al., in order to resolve the problem of luminance being lower than the light generated and power consumption is increased to provide a certain output from the display device due to low light emission efficiency (¶ [0006]).
It should be noted that both scattering layer(s) of Choi et al., and Jo et al., are formed immediately beneath an anode, hence, locationally are therefore similar in structure. Jo et al., is merely introduced to include the added benefit of protrusions and depressions to the existing scattering layer of Choi et al.
Choi et al., is silent regarding the pixel electrodes being individually addressable.
In the same field of endeavor of display device(s), Raring et al., teaches pixel electrode that may be individually addressable (Col. 49, lines 45-65) in order to yield an image that can be formed by cycling through rows of light emitting pixels, resulting in greater control, greater rates, thereby significantly improving the image quality (Col. 49, lines 45-65).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the pixel electrode driving, as disclosed by Raring et al., in the display device of Choi et al., in order to yield an image that can be formed by cycling through rows of light emitting pixels, resulting in greater control, greater rates, thereby significantly improving the image quality (Col. 49, lines 45-65).
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to using individually addressable pixel electrodes as a matter of choice. Applicant(s) has not disclosed that the materials is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected or significant result, or are otherwise critical and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another configuration (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
Regarding Claim 2, Choi et al., as modified by Jo et al., teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the scattering layer (130 of Joe et al.,) defines grooves, and wherein at least one of the second pixel electrode (E1), the emission layer (ED), and the common electrode (E2) defines protrusions and depressions (as clearly depicted in Fig. 4A).
Motivation to combine would be the same as stated above.
Regarding Claim 3, Choi et al., as modified by Jo et al., teaches the display device of claim 2, wherein a depth of the grooves is less than or equal to a maximum thickness of the scattering layer (130, as clearly depicted in Fig. 4A).
Motivation to combine would be the same as stated above.
Regarding Claim 4, Choi et al., as modified by Jo et al., teaches the display device of claim 3, wherein the depth of the grooves is half of the maximum thickness of the scattering layer (130, as clearly depicted via the groove appears to be about half of the max thickness of 130).
Motivation to combine would be the same as stated above.
Regarding Claim 5, Choi et al., as modified by Jo et al., teaches the display device of claim 2, wherein the protrusions and the depressions correspond to convex portions between the grooves or to the grooves (Fig. 4A).
Motivation to combine would be the same as stated above.
Regarding Claim 6, Choi et al., as modified by Jo et al., teaches the display device of claim 5, wherein an interval of the protrusions and the depressions is constant (constant grooves and depressions, Fig. 4A of Jo et al.,).
Motivation to combine would be the same as stated above.
Regarding Claim 7, Choi et al., teaches the claimed invention (see rejection in the claim above) except for the specific limitation of a width of one of the protrusions or one of the depressions is about 1.0 μm or more and about 10 μm or less, and wherein an interval between centers of adjacent ones of the protrusions or adjacent ones of the depressions is greater than about 3 μm and less than about 30 μm.
However, Examiner reasonably contemplates that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify a width of one of the protrusions or one of the depressions to be about 1.0 μm or more and about 10 μm or less, and wherein an interval between centers of adjacent ones of the protrusions or adjacent ones of the depressions is greater than about 3 μm and less than about 30 μm, since optimization of workable ranges is considered within the skill of the art as it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would entertain the idea of providing a width of one of the protrusions or one of the depressions to be about 1.0 μm or more and about 10 μm or less, and wherein an interval between centers of adjacent ones of the protrusions or adjacent ones of the depressions is greater than about 3 μm and less than about 30 μm in order to the capabilities of the scattering layer overall, during operation.
Regarding Claim 8, Choi et al., teaches the display device of claim 2, wherein the scattering layer (SL) overlaps an upper surface and side surfaces of the first pixel electrode (RAL), and defines an opening, and wherein the second pixel electrode (AN) is connected to the first pixel electrode (RAL) through the opening of the scattering layer (SL).
Regarding Claim 9, Choi et al., teaches the display device of claim 2, wherein the scattering layer (SL) has a same flat shape as the first pixel electrode (RAL), and wherein the second pixel electrode (AN) is in contact with a side of the first pixel electrode (RAL).
Regarding Claim 10, Choi et al., teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the scattering layer (SL) comprises: a photosensitive resin; and scatterers in the photosensitive resin (photoresist resin, ¶ [0050]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment(s) necessitates the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action, therefore:
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner H. Featherly whose telephone number is 571-272-8654. The examiner can normally be reached on M-. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James R. Greece can be reached on 571-272-3711.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-272-8300. 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).
/H. Featherly/
Examiner Featherly
Art Unit 2875 Patent Examiner
/JAMES R GREECE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875
