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
The amendment filed by the Applicant on 7/20/26 is acknowledged.
Claim Objection with allowable subject matter
Claims 3,5-8, 14-16 and 22-24 are objected 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, provided the claim objection regarding the first pattern line/second pattern line in the dependent claims are resolved (see their claim objection below).
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 3, Sim teaches a display apparatus, wherein the plurality of subpixels include a pixel electrode (551b in [0150]) on the overcoat layer, and the pattern portion is concave in the overcoat layer,
However, the prior art of record neither shows nor suggests the limitation of:
and the bottom surface of the pattern portion is disposed to be closer to the substrate than the pixel electrode in the light emission area nor would it be obvious to modify the reference to include such limitation.
The allowable subject matter refers to the features of Applicant’s Figure 3, wherein the bottom surface of the pattern portion 120b is disposed to be closer to the substrate 110 than the pixel electrode 114 in the light emission area.
Claims 5-8 and 14-16 are allowable because of their dependency status from claim 3.
Furthermore, the claim objection regarding the first pattern line/second pattern line in the dependent claims should be resolved (see their claim objection below).
For claims 22, the prior art of record neither shows nor suggests the limitation of: bank covering an edge of the pixel electrode, wherein the bank is extended to cover an inclined surface of the second layer covering the inclined surface of the pattern portion and is in contact with a portion of the bottom surface of the pattern portion, wherein the plurality of subpixels include a first subpixel and a second subpixel for emitting light of a color different from that of the first subpixel, and the bank disposed between the first subpixel and the second subpixel is disconnected from the pattern portion. .
For claims 23, the prior art of record neither shows nor suggests the limitation of: a bank covering an edge of the pixel electrode, wherein the bank is extended to cover an inclined surface of the second layer covering the inclined surface of the pattern portion and is in contact with a portion of the bottom surface of the pattern portion, and the light emitting layer is in contact with an inclined surface of the second layer covering the inclined surface of the pattern portion and is partially in contact with the bottom surface of the pattern portion.
The allowable subject matter refers to the features of the bank layer 115 in Applicant’s Figure 3.
For claims 24, the prior art of record neither shows nor suggests the limitation of: wherein the plurality of subpixels include a light extraction portion overlapped with the light emission area, having a plurality of concave portions, and a depth of the pattern portion is deeper than that of each of the plurality of concave portions
The allowable subject matter refers to the features of light extraction portion 141 in Applicant’s Figure 3, such that the pattern portion 120 is deeper than the concave portions of the light extraction portion.
Claim Objection
Claims 4 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 4, the limitation of “a width of the pattern portion is reduced from the reflective portion toward the substrate” is unclear language. It is not clear what is the width, and how it is reduced?
In claim 16, the limitation of “an upper surface of the bank on the first pattern line is flat” is unclear language. It is not clear what is meant by this limitation. Appropriate correction is needed.
Further, the first and second pattern lines, throughout the claims are unclear language. Appropriate correction is needed.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the:
first pattern line in claim 16. Further, the first and second pattern lines throughout the claims are not shown in the drawings.
They must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 17 and claims that depend on it, 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.
In claim 17, many of the recitations are provided without a comma, and are therefore unclear and incorrect.
For example: and includes a reflective portion provided in the light emitting element layer in the peripheral area of each of the plurality of subpixel areas.
Therefore, the above continuous sentence makes the limitation unclear.
The same applies to the recitation of:
and the light emitting element layer is concave on a pattern portion that is concave in the peripheral areas the plurality of subpixels include an overcoat layer on the substrate;
which is long and unclear.
Appropriate correction is needed.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4,17-18 ,26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sim (US 20200373366 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Sim teaches a display apparatus, comprising: a substrate 110 (Fig.9,1-4) having a plurality of pixels having a plurality of subpixels ([0055]); a pattern portion (171 in A2) disposed on the substrate and is concave (171 in A2, its flat and inclined portions) between the plurality of subpixels; and a reflective portion (132a in [0080]) on the pattern portion, wherein: the plurality of subpixels include a light emission area A1 and a non-light emission area A2 ([0083]) adjacent to the light emission area; the pattern portion is disposed in a periphery of the non-light emission area; the plurality of subpixels include an overcoat layer on the substrate; the overcoat layer includes a first layer and a second layer on the first laver (171 and 172 in A1); the first layer includes the pattern portion (171 in A2); the pattern portion includes a bottom surface and an inclined surface connected to the bottom surface; and the second layer partially covering the inclined surface of the pattern portion.
Regarding claim 17, Sim teaches a display apparatus (Fig.9,1-4), comprising: a substrate including a plurality of subpixel areas; and a light emitting element layer in the plurality of subpixel areas, wherein: each of the plurality of subpixel areas includes a light emission area A1 and a peripheral area A2 in the periphery of the light emission area, and includes a reflective portion provided in the light emitting element layer 151a (A1) in the peripheral area 132a (A2) of each of the plurality of subpixel areas; the light emitting element layer is concave on a pattern portion that is concave in the peripheral areas the plurality of subpixels include an overcoat layer on the substrate; the overcoat layer includes a first layer 171 and a second layer 172 on the first layer; the first layer (171 in A2) includes the pattern portion; the pattern portion includes a bottom surface and an inclined surface connected to the bottom surface; and the second layer partially covers the inclined surface of the pattern portion (inclined and flat portion of 171 in A2; see 112 rejection above).
Regarding claim 2, Sim teaches a display apparatus, wherein the pattern portion surrounds the light emission area in the form of a slit or a trench (371 with A2 in Fig.3).
Regarding claim 4, Sim teaches a display apparatus, wherein a width of the pattern portion is reduced from the reflective portion toward the substrate (see claim objection above).
Regarding claim 18, Sim teaches a display apparatus, wherein the pattern portion surrounds the light emission area in the form of a slit or a trench (Fig.9 and 1-4).
Regarding claims 26 and 28, Sim teaches a display apparatus, further comprising: an encapsulation layer 140 on the reflective portion; and a pixel electrode on the overcoat layer, wherein: the encapsulation layer is disposed on the pattern portion; and a portion of the encapsulation layer disposed on the pattern portion is disposed closer to the substrate than to the pixel electrode.
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 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sim and further in view of Takakuwa (US 20060007552)
Regarding claim 9, Sim teaches the plurality of subpixels include an overcoat layer on the substrate and a pixel electrode on the overcoat layer, but does not teach the plurality of subpixels include a light extraction portion overlapped with the light emission area, and the pattern portion is disposed to be adjacent to the light extraction portion, wherein the plurality of subpixels include a pixel electrode on the overcoat layer, and the light extraction portion is disposed on the overcoat layer and includes a plurality of concave portions.
Takakuwa teaches a display device wherein a light extraction portion 309 (Fig.6D), and the light extraction portion is disposed on the overcoat layer and includes a plurality of concave portions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the application was filed, to use a light extraction portion on the overcoat layer, from the teachings of Takakuwa, such that the pattern portion is disposed to be adjacent to the light extraction portion and the light extraction portion is overlapped with the light emission area in the device of Sim in order to increase the focal performance.
Regarding claim 10, Sim in view of Takakuwa teaches the display apparatus, wherein the inclined surface of the pattern portion surrounds the plurality of concave portions (from the combined teachings of Sim in view of Takakuwa).
Regarding claim 11, Sim in view of Takakuwa teaches the display apparatus, wherein the first layer includes the plurality of concave portions; and the second layer is located between the first layer and the pixel electrode (in the combined structure of Sim in view of Takakuwa).
Regarding claim 12, Sim in view of Takakuwa teaches the display apparatus, wherein the second layer is partially overlapped with the light emission area, and an upper surface of the second layer is flat (in the combined structure of Sim in view of Takakuwa).
Regarding claim 13, Sim in view of Takakuwa teaches the display apparatus, wherein the inclined surface is located between the bottom surface and the light extraction portion, and an end of the second layer is in contact with the bottom surface (inclined surface is inclined line of 171 in Sim, in the A2 region).
Claims 19-21, 25 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sim and Takakuwa and further in view of Koo (US 20150380466 A1)
Regarding claim 19, Sim in view of Takakuwa teaches the display apparatus, wherein the light emitting element layer includes: a pixel electrode in the light emission area; a light emitting layer on the pixel electrode and the peripheral area; and the reflective portion is a portion of the reflection electrode wherein the overcoat layer is located between the substrate and the pixel electrode, and the pattern portion is formed to be concave in the overcoat layer but does not teach a reflective electrode on the light emitting layer.
Koo teaches a display apparatus wherein a reflective electrode on the light emitting layer ([0065]) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the application was filed, to use a reflective cathode, in the device of Sim in view of Takakuwa in order to achieve bottom emission ([0065] of Koo).
Regarding claim 20, Sim in view of Takakuwa and Koo teaches the display apparatus, wherein the inclined surface forms an obtuse angle with the bottom surface (inclined surface of 171 in A2 region of Sim).
Regarding claim 21, Sim in view of Takakuwa and Koo teaches the display apparatus, wherein the second layer 172 (in Sim) is located between the first layer and the pixel electrode, wherein the second layer in contact with a portion of the bottom surface of the pattern portion 171.
Regarding claims 25 and 27, Sim in view of Takakuwa and Koo teaches the display apparatus, wherein the display apparatus is a bottom emission display apparatus, and each subpixel comprises a pixel electrode that is flat in the light emission area (from the teachings of Takakuwa).
Other art
US 11997873 B2/US 20200373366 A1/US 20200365776 A1
US 20210202889 A1
US 20210202460 A1
US 10021741 B2
US 9461098 B2
US 20180151842 A1
US 20160190497 A1
US 20140183472 A1
US 20210202890 A1
US 20210193954 A1
US 20200373366 A1
US 20200365776 A1
US 20200212336 A1
US 20200168670
Response to Arguments
The arguments filed by the Applicant on 7/20/26 is acknowledged, however it is moot in light of new grounds of rejection for the amended claims. The arguments and clarification is not persuasive regarding the first pattern line for claim 16. The objection applies to all the claims wherein the first pattern line and the second pattern line is recited, as these elements are not indicated/described in the specification nor in the drawings. It is not clear what elements they pertain to?
Applicant did provide paragraph number for the objection of claim 16, but did not provide a drawing that showed “the first pattern line” feature. Appropriate correction is needed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fatima Farokhrooz whose telephone number is (571)-272-6043. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday, 9 am - 5 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s Supervisor, James Greece can be reached on (571) 272-3711.
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.
/Fatima N Farokhrooz/
Examiner, Art Unit 2875
