DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claim(s) 1, 2, 4-6, 12 and 13 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 § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohta (US 20120217521) in view of Kim (US 20180095195), in further view of Ueda (US 20210399264).
Regarding claim 1, Ohta discloses an organic light emitting display device, in figure 2, comprising:
a substrate 24 having first, second and third subpixels R/G/B;
a light emitting layer 11 disposed in each of the first, second and third subpixels R/G/B on the substrate 24;
a black matrix 25 disposed in a border region between the first, second and third subpixels R/G/B on the light emitting layer 11;
first, second and third color filters 21 disposed in the first, second and third subpixels R/G/B, respectively, on the light emitting layer 11,
a thickness of each of the first, second and third color filters 21 is smaller than a thickness of the black matrix 25 (note figure 2; black matrix 25 spans from the bottom of the substrate 24 and top of layer 30 while filters 21 spans less than black matrix); and
a microlens 22 disposed on each of the first, second and third color filters 21.
Ohta does not disclose the layer is a diode, and wherein a top surface of the black matrix is disposed to be higher than a top surface of each of the first, second and third color filters, and wherein an apex of the microlens is disposed to be higher than the top surface of the black matrix.
Kim discloses an organic light emitting diode display device, in figure 5, having a diode 260.
Ueda discloses a light emitting device, in figure 36, having a top surface of the black matrix BW is disposed to be higher than a top surface of each of the first, second and third color filters 50R/50G/50B, and wherein an apex of the microlens 381 is disposed to be higher than the top surface of the black matrix BW.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have a diode as disclosed by Kim and a top surface of the black matrix is disposed to be higher than a top surface of each of the first, second and third color filters, and an apex of the microlens is disposed to be higher than the top surface of the black matrix as disclosed by Ueda in the device disclosed by Ohta, for the purpose of improving light emissivity, and light output.
Regarding claim 2, Ohta discloses the first, second and third color filters respectively have first, second and third thicknesses, and the black matrix has a fourth thickness,
wherein the first, second and third thicknesses are a same as each other, and
wherein the fourth thickness is equal to or greater than the first thickness.
Ohta in view of Kim does not disclose the fourth thickness is equal to or greater than 1.2 times of the first thickness and is equal to or smaller than 2.0 times of the first thickness.
However, it is well known in the art to optimize the thickness of the black matrix to achieve a balance between maximizing optical density to prevent light leakage while minimizing step-height to ensure uniform planarization and cell gap, which is a routine optimization of a result-effective variable.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the fourth thickness is equal to or greater than 1.2 times of the first thickness and is equal to or smaller than 2.0 times of the first thickness in the device disclosed by Ohta in view of Kim, in further view of Ueno, for the purpose of achieving a balance between maximizing optical density to prevent light leakage while minimizing step-height to ensure uniform planarization and cell gap, which is a routine optimization of a result-effective variable.
Regarding claim 4, Ohta in view of Kim in further view of Ueno discloses the first, second and third color filters have first, second and third thicknesses, respectively, the black matrix has a fourth thickness, and the microlens has a fifth thickness being the maximum thickness thereof.
Ohta in view of Kim in further view of Ueno does not disclose a sum of each of the first, second and third thicknesses and the fifth thickness is equal to or greater than 1.5 times of the fourth thickness.
However, it is well known in the art to optimize the thickness of the black matrix to achieve a balance between maximizing optical density to prevent light leakage while minimizing step-height to ensure uniform planarization and cell gap, which is a routine optimization of a result-effective variable.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the first, second and third color filters have first, second and third thicknesses, respectively, the black matrix has a fourth thickness, and the microlens has a fifth thickness being the maximum thickness thereof, and wherein a sum of each of the first, second and third thicknesses and the fifth thickness is equal to or greater than 1.5 times of the fourth thickness in the device disclosed by Ohta in view of Kim, in further view of Ueno, for the purpose of achieving a balance between maximizing optical density to prevent light leakage while minimizing step-height to ensure uniform planarization and cell gap, which is a routine optimization of a result-effective variable. Also, adjusting the height and curvature of a microlens relative to an aperture layer to optimize focal length and maximize the optical fill factor is a routine engineering optimization in the art of display optics.
Regarding claim 5, Ohta in view of Kim, in further view of Ueno does not the microlens has a microlens width, and wherein the fifth thickness is equal to or greater than 0.3 times of the microlens width and is equal to or smaller than 2.0 times of the microlens width.
However, it is well known in the art to optimize the microlens width to achieve a balance between maximizing optical density to prevent light leakage while minimizing step-height to ensure uniform planarization and cell gap, which is a routine optimization of a result-effective variable.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have a microlens width, and wherein the fifth thickness is equal to or greater than 0.3 times of the microlens width and is equal to or smaller than 2.0 times of the microlens width in the device disclosed by Ohta in view of Kim, in further view of Ueno, for the purpose of achieving a balance between maximizing optical density to prevent light leakage while minimizing step-height to ensure uniform planarization and cell gap, which is a routine optimization of a result-effective variable. Also, adjusting the height and curvature of a microlens relative to an aperture layer to optimize focal length and maximize the optical fill factor is a routine engineering optimization in the art of display optics.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohta in view of Kim, in further view Ueno, in further view of Lewis (US 20140350397).
Regarding claim 6, Ohta in view of Kim, in further view Ueno does not disclose the microlens has one of a half cylindrical shape and a half spherical shape.
Lewis discloses in an analogous art having the lens has one of a half cylindrical shape and a half spherical shape (paragraph 187), for the purpose of matching a rectangular sub-pixel layout and maximize the optical fill factor along one axis yields predictable results.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the microlens has one of a half cylindrical shape and a half spherical shape in the device disclosed by Ohta in view of Kim, in further view Ueno for the purpose of matching a rectangular sub-pixel layout and maximize the optical fill factor along one axis yields predictable results.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohta in view of Kim, in further view Ueno, in further view of Shimatsu (US 20220085335).
Regarding claim 12, Ohta in view of Kim, in further view Ueno does not disclose an overcoat layer on the microlens and having a refractive index smaller than a refractive index of the microlens.
Shimatsu discloses a light emitting display device having an overcoat layer 35/36 on the microlens 50 and having a refractive index smaller than a refractive index of the microlens [0003].
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have an overcoat layer on the microlens and having a refractive index smaller than a refractive index of the microlens as disclosed by Shimatsu in the device disclosed by Ohta in view of Kim, in further view Ueno, for the purpose of planarizing the display surface for subsequent layer deposition while simultaneously maintaining the optical power of the microlens.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohta in view of Kim, in further view of Ueno, in further view of Nendai (US 20160172423).
Regarding claim 13, Ohta in view of Kim, in further view of Ueno does not disclose a bank layer having an opening exposing an emission area of each of the first, second and third subpixels, wherein each of the first, second and third color filters is disposed to correspond to the opening of the bank layer and the black matrix is disposed to correspond to the bank layer.
Nendai discloses, in figure 10, a bank layer 105S having an opening exposing an emission area (area where 113i and 123i exist) of each of the first, second and third subpixels, wherein each of the first, second and third color filters [0205] is disposed to correspond to the opening of the bank layer 105S and the black matrix 105F is disposed to correspond to the bank layer 105S.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have a bank layer having an opening exposing an emission area of each of the first, second and third subpixels, wherein each of the first, second and third color filters is disposed to correspond to the opening of the bank layer and the black matrix is disposed to correspond to the bank layer as disclosed by Nendai in the device disclosed by Ohta in view of Kim, in further view of Ueno, for the purpose of improving the contrast ratio and color purity of the display device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-11 and 19 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.
Regarding claim 7, the prior art does not disclose or render obvious an organic light emitting diode display device having an irregular reflection pattern disposed on the black matrix, along with other claim limitations. Claim 8 is objected to due to claim dependency.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art does not disclose or render obvious an organic light emitting diode display device having an auxiliary lens at a periphery of the microlens, along with other claim limitations. Claims 10 and 11 are objected to due to claim dependency.
Regarding claim 19, the prior art does not disclose or render obvious an organic light emitting diode display device having an edge portion of the microlens contacts each of the first, second and third color filters and is spaced apart from the black matrix, along with other claim limitations.
Claims 14-18 are allowed.
Regarding claim 14, the prior art does not disclose or render obvious an organic light emitting diode display device having a thickness of one of the first, second and third color filters is greater than a thickness of each of other two of the first, second and third color filters, and wherein an edge portion of the microlens on each of the other two of the first, second and third color filters contacts a side surface of the one of the first, second and third color filters exposed over the other two of the first, second and third color filters, along with other claim limitations. Claims 15-18 are allowed due to claim dependency.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BUMSUK WON whose telephone number is (571)272-2713. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7 AM - 5 PM EST.
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, Allana L Bidder can be reached at (571) 272-5560. 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.
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights