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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-37 are pending.
Claim 15 is withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(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.
Claims 1-7, 10-14, 16-19, 25-31, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2021/0183963 A1 Jang et al (herein “Jang”).
Regarding Claim 1, Jang discloses:
A display apparatus (see generally top-down view in Fig. 2 and profile views in Figs. 3 5, and 6, reference made to Fig. 3 showing cross section of pixel structure unless otherwise specified, see also annotated Fig. 2 below) comprising:
a substrate (#100) having a plurality of pixels (see Fig. 2, includes subpixel areas SPA1, SPA2, SPA3, and SPA4, each corresponding to subpixels 12a, 12b, 12c and 12d respectively), each of the plurality of pixels having a plurality of subpixels (#12a, #12b, #12c and #12d);
a pattern portion (#150, includes pattern on underside of light emitting structure EDL and top-side of overcoat layer 140) on the substrate (#100);
a reflective portion (#CE, [0138]) on the pattern portion (#150); and
a plurality of lines (#PL, #DL, #GL, #RL, [0053]-[0057]) provided below the pattern portion, for driving the plurality of subpixels (lines referenced as #DL, i.e. driving lines, unless specified further),
wherein the plurality of subpixels (#12a, #12b, #12c and #12d) includes a light emission area (not explicitly labelled, see annotated Fig. 2 below, [0057]) and a non-light emission area (not explicitly labelled, see annotated Fig. 2 below, [0057]) adjacent to the light emission area,
wherein the non-light emission area (not explicitly labelled, see annotated Fig. 2 below) includes a first area (not explicitly labelled, see annotated Fig. 2 below) adjacent to the light emission area (not explicitly labelled, see annotated Fig. 2 below) and a second area (not explicitly labelled, see annotated Fig. 2 below) adjacent to the first area, and the first area is between the second area and the light emission area, and
wherein at least one of the plurality of lines (#PL) at least partially overlap the second area (see annotated Fig. 2 below, see also Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
826
1099
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Jang Fig. 2 – Annotated by Examiner
Regarding Claim 2, Jang discloses:
The display apparatus of claim 1, wherein the pattern portion (#150) surrounds the light emission area (see annotated Fig. 2 above), and at least a portion of the reflective portion (#CE) surrounds the light emission area (see annotated Fig. 2 above).
Regarding Claim 3, Jang discloses:
The display apparatus of claim 2, wherein the pattern portion (#150) includes a concave shape (#153) and is between the plurality of subpixels (#12a, #12b, #12c and #12d), and the reflective portion (#CE) is disposed along a profile of the pattern portion (#150) including a concave shape (#153).
Regarding Claim 4, Jang discloses:
The display apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one of the plurality of lines (#PL) overlaps the second area (see annotated Fig. 2 above) of one subpixel (#12a, #12b, #12c and #12d) of the plurality of subpixels (see overlap in Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 5, Jang discloses:
The display apparatus of claim 4, wherein the plurality of lines (#PL) include:
a first line (#PL2j-1) having a first width;
a second line (#DL4i-3) having a second width wider than the first width; and
a third line (#DL4i-2) having a third width wider than the second width, and
wherein the first line (#PL2j-1) and the third line (#DL4i-2) overlap the second area (see annotated Fig. 2 above, bottom portion of each of the first line and third line overlap the second area from a top-down view) of the one subpixel (#12a, #12b, #12c and #12d).
Note, the width of each of the electrically conductive lines directly affects the current carrying capability of the line, and is therefore a result effective variable that may be optimized by the person of ordinary skill to meet the needs of a specific device, see MPEP 2144.05(II)(B).
Additional note, see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C), The arrangement of data lines, power supply lines, and reference voltage lines of the currently cited prior art are a result of design choice to form a functional display device. Although replicated in the prior art consistent with the limitation as claimed, adjustments may be made to meet specific design choices.
Regarding Claim 6, Jang discloses:
The display apparatus of claim 5, wherein the second line (#DL4i-3) and the third line (#DL4i-2) overlap the first area (see annotated Fig. 2 above, second and third lines overlap the first area from a top-down view) and a portion of the light emission area (see annotated Fig. 2 above, specifically plane of overlap, second and third lines overlap the first area from a side profile view) of another subpixel (#12b) of the plurality of subpixels (#12a, #12b, #12c and #12d).
Regarding Claim 7, Jang discloses:
The display apparatus of claim 6, wherein a length of the second line (#DL4i-3) overlapped with the light emission area of the another subpixel (#12b) is the same (see Fig. 2) as that of the third line (#DL4i-2) overlapped with the light emission area of the another subpixel (#12b).
Regarding Claim 10, Jang discloses:
The display apparatus of claim 4, wherein the plurality of subpixels include: a first subpixel emitting red light ([0064]);
a second subpixel adjacent to the first subpixel and emitting white light ([0064]);
a third subpixel adjacent to the second subpixel and emitting blue light ([0064]); and
a fourth subpixel adjacent to the third subpixel and emitting green light ([0064]), and
wherein the plurality of lines overlaps the second area in the first subpixel and the third subpixel (see planes of overlap in annotated Fig. 2 above).
Regarding Claim 11, Jang discloses:
The display apparatus of claim 10, wherein the plurality of lines overlaps the first area and a portion of the light emission area in the second subpixel and the fourth subpixel (see planes of overlap in annotated Fig. 2 above).
Regarding Claim 12, Jang discloses:
The display apparatus of claim 11, wherein each of the plurality of subpixels further include an opening area partitioned by the plurality of lines, and wherein a width of the opening area of the first subpixel is greater than that of the opening area of the second subpixel (see annotated Fig. 2 above, leftmost opening area corresponding to first subpixel is larger than adjacent opening area corresponding to second subpixel).
Note, paragraph [0006] states: “[0006] Although the light emitting display apparatus that includes the white opening can improve luminance and a color temperature of a display image through the white opening, a trade off relation is formed between the luminance of a pure color such as red, green and blue and the luminance of a white color. For example, if the luminance and the color temperature of the white opening are increased, efficiency in the red and green openings can be reduced, whereby total performance of the light emitting display apparatus can be deteriorated.” Additionally, paragraph [0105] states “[0105] The light emission portions EP of the first to fourth subpixel areas SPA1 to SPA4 can have different sizes to each other for improving luminance and a color temperature of a display image. For example, the light emission portions EP of each of the first to fourth subpixel areas SPA1 to SPA4 can be have different sizes to each other based on a color temperature of 6500K or more to be implemented in the light emitting display apparatus or the second subpixel 12b.”
Therefore, the sizes of the openings per subpixel can be adjusted to meet the needs of a specific targeted output color, luminescence, and performance characteristics, which is therefore a result effective variable that can be adjusted to meet the needs of a specific device.
Regarding Claim 13, Jang discloses:
The display apparatus of claim 12, wherein a width of the opening area of the third subpixel is greater than that of the opening area of the fourth subpixel (see annotated Fig. 2 above, leftmost opening area corresponding to the first subpixel is larger than rightmost opening area corresponding to the fourth subpixel).
Note, paragraph [0006] states: “[0006] Although the light emitting display apparatus that includes the white opening can improve luminance and a color temperature of a display image through the white opening, a trade off relation is formed between the luminance of a pure color such as red, green and blue and the luminance of a white color. For example, if the luminance and the color temperature of the white opening are increased, efficiency in the red and green openings can be reduced, whereby total performance of the light emitting display apparatus can be deteriorated.” Additionally, paragraph [0105] states “[0105] The light emission portions EP of the first to fourth subpixel areas SPA1 to SPA4 can have different sizes to each other for improving luminance and a color temperature of a display image. For example, the light emission portions EP of each of the first to fourth subpixel areas SPA1 to SPA4 can be have different sizes to each other based on a color temperature of 6500K or more to be implemented in the light emitting display apparatus or the second subpixel 12b.”
Therefore, the sizes of the openings per subpixel can be adjusted to meet the needs of a specific targeted output color, luminescence, and performance characteristics, which is therefore a result effective variable that can be adjusted to meet the needs of a specific device.
Regarding Claim 14, Jang discloses:
The display apparatus of claim 12, wherein the width of the opening area of the first subpixel is the same as that of the opening area of the third subpixel, and
wherein the width of the opening area of the second subpixel is the same as that of the opening area of the fourth subpixel.
Note, paragraph [0006] states: “[0006] Although the light emitting display apparatus that includes the white opening can improve luminance and a color temperature of a display image through the white opening, a trade off relation is formed between the luminance of a pure color such as red, green and blue and the luminance of a white color. For example, if the luminance and the color temperature of the white opening are increased, efficiency in the red and green openings can be reduced, whereby total performance of the light emitting display apparatus can be deteriorated.” Additionally, paragraph [0105] states “[0105] The light emission portions EP of the first to fourth subpixel areas SPA1 to SPA4 can have different sizes to each other for improving luminance and a color temperature of a display image. For example, the light emission portions EP of each of the first to fourth subpixel areas SPA1 to SPA4 can be have different sizes to each other based on a color temperature of 6500K or more to be implemented in the light emitting display apparatus or the second subpixel 12b.”
Therefore, the sizes of the openings per subpixel can be adjusted to meet the needs of a specific targeted output color, luminescence, and performance characteristics, which is therefore a result effective variable that can be adjusted to meet the needs of a specific device.
Regarding Claim 16, Jang discloses:
The display apparatus of claim 4, further comprising a bank (#160) in each of the plurality of subpixels (#12a, #12b, #12c and #12d), wherein the bank is disposed in the first area, and wherein the second area is between the banks in the respective subpixels (see Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 17, Jang discloses:
The display apparatus of claim 4, further comprising a light emitting element layer (#EDL) in the plurality of subpixels,
wherein the light emitting element layer (#EDL) includes:
a pixel electrode (#AEr) in the light emission area;
a light emitting layer (#SED) on the pixel electrode and the non-light emission area; and
a reflective electrode (#CE) on the light emitting layer, and wherein the reflective portion is a portion of the reflection electrode.
Regarding Claim 18, Jang discloses:
The display apparatus of claim 4, wherein the pattern portion is spaced apart (top portion of overcoat layer spaced apart from portions of light emitting structure EDL) from the light emission area (see Fig. 5).
Note, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the light emission area includes all elements within the light emitting structure EDL as viewed from a profile. In this case, the pattern portion of the overcoat layer is vertically spaced apart from the bottom surfaces of both the light reflective element CE and the light emitting layer SED, which therefore reads on the limitation as claimed.
Regarding Claim 19, Jang discloses:
The display apparatus of claim 4, wherein a width of the pattern portion is reduced from the reflection portion toward the substrate (see concave structures in Fig. 3, each respective width decreases with distance towards substrate).
Regarding Claim 25, Jang discloses:
A display apparatus (see generally top-down view in Fig. 2 and profile views in Figs. 3 5, and 6, reference made to Fig. 3 showing cross section of pixel structure unless otherwise specified, see also annotated Fig. 2 below) comprising:
a substrate (#100) having a plurality of pixels (see Fig. 2, includes subpixel areas SPA1, SPA2, SPA3, and SPA4, each corresponding to subpixels 12a, 12b, 12c and 12d respectively), each of the plurality of pixels having a plurality of subpixels (#12a, #12b, #12c and #12d);
a pattern portion (#150, includes pattern on underside of light emitting structure EDL and top-side of overcoat layer 140) on the substrate (#100);
a reflective portion (#CE, [0138]) on the pattern portion (#150); and
a plurality of lines (#PL, #DL, #GL, #RL, [0053]-[0057]) provided below the pattern portion, for driving the plurality of subpixels (lines referenced as #DL, i.e. driving lines, unless specified further),
wherein the plurality of subpixels (#12a, #12b, #12c and #12d) includes a light emission area (not explicitly labelled, see annotated Fig. 2 below, [0057]) and an opening area (see annotated Fig. 2 below) overlapped with the light emission area between the plurality of lines, and
wherein a width of the opening area of one subpixel of the plurality of subpixels is wider than that of the light emission area of the one subpixel.
Note, paragraph [0006] states: “[0006] Although the light emitting display apparatus that includes the white opening can improve luminance and a color temperature of a display image through the white opening, a trade off relation is formed between the luminance of a pure color such as red, green and blue and the luminance of a white color. For example, if the luminance and the color temperature of the white opening are increased, efficiency in the red and green openings can be reduced, whereby total performance of the light emitting display apparatus can be deteriorated.” Additionally, paragraph [0105] states “[0105] The light emission portions EP of the first to fourth subpixel areas SPA1 to SPA4 can have different sizes to each other for improving luminance and a color temperature of a display image. For example, the light emission portions EP of each of the first to fourth subpixel areas SPA1 to SPA4 can be have different sizes to each other based on a color temperature of 6500K or more to be implemented in the light emitting display apparatus or the second subpixel 12b.”
Therefore, the sizes of the openings per subpixel can be adjusted to meet the needs of a specific targeted output color, luminescence, and performance characteristics, which is therefore a result effective variable that can be adjusted to meet the needs of a specific device.
PNG
media_image1.png
826
1099
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Jang Fig. 2 – Annotated by Examiner
Regarding Claim 26, Jang discloses:
The display apparatus of claim 25, wherein the pattern portion (#150) surrounds the light emission area (see annotated Fig. 2 above), and at least a portion of the reflective portion (#CE) surrounds the light emission area (see annotated Fig. 2 above).
Regarding Claim 27, Jang discloses:
The display apparatus of claim 26, wherein the pattern portion (#150) includes a concave shape (#153) and is between the plurality of subpixels (#12a, #12b, #12c and #12d), and the reflective portion (#CE) is disposed along a profile of the pattern portion (#150) including a concave shape (#153).
Regarding Claim 28, Jang discloses:
The display apparatus of claim 25, wherein the width of the opening area of another subpixel of the plurality of subpixels is narrower than that of the light emission area of the another subpixel.
Note, paragraph [0006] states: “[0006] Although the light emitting display apparatus that includes the white opening can improve luminance and a color temperature of a display image through the white opening, a trade off relation is formed between the luminance of a pure color such as red, green and blue and the luminance of a white color. For example, if the luminance and the color temperature of the white opening are increased, efficiency in the red and green openings can be reduced, whereby total performance of the light emitting display apparatus can be deteriorated.” Additionally, paragraph [0105] states “[0105] The light emission portions EP of the first to fourth subpixel areas SPA1 to SPA4 can have different sizes to each other for improving luminance and a color temperature of a display image. For example, the light emission portions EP of each of the first to fourth subpixel areas SPA1 to SPA4 can be have different sizes to each other based on a color temperature of 6500K or more to be implemented in the light emitting display apparatus or the second subpixel 12b.”
Therefore, the sizes of the openings per subpixel can be adjusted to meet the needs of a specific targeted output color, luminescence, and performance characteristics, which is therefore a result effective variable that can be adjusted to meet the needs of a specific device.
Regarding Claim 29, Jang discloses:
The display apparatus of claim 28, wherein the one subpixel and the another subpixel are disposed to be adjacent to each other (see adjacent subpixels in Figs. 3 and 5).
Regarding Claim 30, Jang discloses:
The display apparatus of claim 4, wherein the plurality of lines (#PL) include:
a first line (#PL2j-1) having a first width;
a second line (#DL4i-3) having a second width wider than the first width; and
a third line (#DL4i-2) having a third width wider than the second width, and
wherein the opening area of the one subpixel is between the first line and the third line (see annotated Fig. 2 above), and
wherein the opening area of the another subpixel is between the second line and the third line (see annotated Fig. 2 above).
Note, the width of each of the electrically conductive lines directly affects the current carrying capability of the line, and is therefore a result effective variable that may be optimized by the person of ordinary skill to meet the needs of a specific device, see MPEP 2144.05(II)(B).
Additional note, paragraph [0006] states: “[0006] Although the light emitting display apparatus that includes the white opening can improve luminance and a color temperature of a display image through the white opening, a trade off relation is formed between the luminance of a pure color such as red, green and blue and the luminance of a white color. For example, if the luminance and the color temperature of the white opening are increased, efficiency in the red and green openings can be reduced, whereby total performance of the light emitting display apparatus can be deteriorated.” Additionally, paragraph [0105] states “[0105] The light emission portions EP of the first to fourth subpixel areas SPA1 to SPA4 can have different sizes to each other for improving luminance and a color temperature of a display image. For example, the light emission portions EP of each of the first to fourth subpixel areas SPA1 to SPA4 can be have different sizes to each other based on a color temperature of 6500K or more to be implemented in the light emitting display apparatus or the second subpixel 12b.”
Therefore, the sizes of the openings per subpixel can be adjusted to meet the needs of a specific targeted output color, luminescence, and performance characteristics, which is therefore a result effective variable that can be adjusted to meet the needs of a specific device.
Additional note, see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C), The arrangement of data lines, power supply lines, and reference voltage lines of the currently cited prior art are a result of design choice to form a functional display device. Although replicated in the prior art consistent with the limitation as claimed, adjustments may be made to meet specific design choices.
Regarding Claim 31, Jang discloses:
The display apparatus of claim 30, wherein a length of the second line (#DL4i-3) overlapped with the light emission area of the another subpixel (#12b) is the same (see Fig. 2) as that of the third line (#DL4i-2) overlapped with the light emission area of the another subpixel (#12b).
Regarding Claim 34, Jang discloses:
The display apparatus of claim 28, wherein the plurality of subpixels include: a first subpixel emitting red light ([0064]);
a second subpixel adjacent to the first subpixel and emitting white light ([0064]);
a third subpixel adjacent to the second subpixel and emitting blue light ([0064]); and
a fourth subpixel adjacent to the third subpixel and emitting green light ([0064]), and
wherein the one subpixel is either the first subpixel or the third subpixel (see Figs. 3 and 5, #12a, #12c), and
wherein the another subpixel is either the second subpixel or the fourth subpixel (see Figs. 3 and 5, #12b, #12d).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 8 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 2021/0183963 A1 Jang et al in view of US 2021/0202643 A1 Lee et al (herein “Lee”).
Regarding Claim 8, Jang discloses The display apparatus of claim 6,
Jang does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the second line and the third line have light reflectance of 90% or more.
However, in analogous art, Lee teaches:
See [0058], specifically: “For example, the plurality of high potential power lines VDD, the plurality of data lines DL, and the reference line RL may be configured by a conductive material such as copper (Cu), aluminum (Al), molybdenum (Mo), nickel (Ni), titanium (Ti), chrome (Cr), or an alloy thereof, but are not limited thereto.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider combining the teachings of Lee to the device disclosed by Jang and form the lines using a conductive metallic material like aluminum. Paragraph [0069] of the instant application discloses “The second line 152 and the third line 153 according to one example may include any one of silver (Ag), aluminum (Al) and their alloy, but the present disclosure is not limited thereto.” Jang is silent as to the material used to form the conductive lines, therefore motivating a person skilled in the art to seek the teachings of Lee in order to form the device. Although Lee does not explicitly disclose the lines having a high reflectance, specifically 90% or more, reflectance is an inherent property of aluminum, which therefore reads on the claimed limitation, see MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding Claim 32, Jang discloses The display apparatus of claim 30,
Jang does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the second line and the third line have light reflectance of 90% or more.
However, in analogous art, Lee teaches:
See [0058], specifically: “For example, the plurality of high potential power lines VDD, the plurality of data lines DL, and the reference line RL may be configured by a conductive material such as copper (Cu), aluminum (Al), molybdenum (Mo), nickel (Ni), titanium (Ti), chrome (Cr), or an alloy thereof, but are not limited thereto.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider combining the teachings of Lee to the device disclosed by Jang and form the lines using a conductive metallic material like aluminum. Paragraph [0069] of the instant application discloses “The second line 152 and the third line 153 according to one example may include any one of silver (Ag), aluminum (Al) and their alloy, but the present disclosure is not limited thereto.” Jang is silent as to the material used to form the conductive lines, therefore motivating a person skilled in the art to seek the teachings of Lee in order to form the device. Although Lee does not explicitly disclose the lines having a high reflectance, specifically 90% or more, reflectance is an inherent property of aluminum, which therefore reads on the claimed limitation, see MPEP 2112.01.
Claims 9, 33, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 2021/0183963 A1 Jang et al.
Regarding Claim 9, Jang discloses:
The display apparatus of claim 5, wherein the first line is a pixel driving voltage line, the second and third lines are data lines.
Jang does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the first line and the second line are data lines, and the third line is a pixel power line or a reference line.
However, the particular placement of a claim element is an obvious design choice absent a showing that the particular arrangement changes the operation of the device (MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)). In this case, nothing on the record indicates that the mode of operation of the claimed arrangement and the cited prior art is different, as the presence of the claimed elements exist in the prior art, however, they are laid out in a different manner. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider rearranging the order of the lines in order to form the device for its intended purpose. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Regarding Claim 33, Jang discloses:
The display apparatus of claim 30, wherein the first line is a pixel driving voltage line, the second and third lines are data lines.
Jang does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the first line and the second line are data lines, and the third line is a pixel power line or a reference line.
However, the particular placement of a claim element is an obvious design choice absent a showing that the particular arrangement changes the operation of the device (MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)). In this case, nothing on the record indicates that the mode of operation of the claimed arrangement and the cited prior art is different, as the presence of the claimed elements exist in the prior art, however, they are laid out in a different manner. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider rearranging the order of the lines in order to form the device for its intended purpose. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Regarding Claim 37, Jang discloses the display apparatus of claim 1
Jang does not explicitly disclose:
wherein based on the light emission area of each of the plurality of subpixels, the plurality of lines is disposed in a symmetric position.
However, the particular placement of a claim element is an obvious design choice absent a showing that the particular arrangement changes the operation of the device (MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)). In this case, nothing on the record indicates that the mode of operation of the claimed arrangement and the cited prior art is different, as the presence of the claimed elements exist in the prior art, however, they are laid out in a different manner. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider rearranging the order of the lines in a symmetric manner with respect to the light emission area of the device in order to form the device for its intended purpose. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Claims 20-24 and 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 2021/0183963 A1 Jang et al in view of KR 2015/0077279 A Koo et al (herein “Koo”).
Regarding Claim 20, Jang discloses: The display apparatus of claim 1,
Jang does not explicitly disclose:
further comprising a light extraction portion in each of the plurality of subpixels, wherein the light extraction portion overlaps the light emission area and includes a plurality of concave portions, wherein the light extraction portion is adjacent to the pattern portion, and wherein the pattern portion includes an inclined surface disposed in the first area and a bottom surface extended from the inclined surface and disposed up to the second area.
However, in analogous art, Koo teaches:
further comprising a light extraction portion (#170A) in each of the plurality of subpixels, wherein the light extraction portion (#170A) overlaps the light emission area (overlaps light emitting element 142A) and includes a plurality of concave portions (see concave portions of #170A in Fig. 1), wherein the light extraction portion is adjacent to the pattern portion (pattern portion includes #143A, #142A, and #141A), and wherein the pattern portion includes an inclined surface (inclined surface on left and right ends in Fig. 1) disposed in the first area and a bottom surface (bottom horizontal surface) extended from the inclined surface and disposed up to the second area.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider combining the teachings of Koo and include a step difference mitigation layer having a specific refractive index different than the overcoat layer in order to tune the reflected light within the device. See Koo [0032]-[0037]. Doing so would mitigate the step difference caused by a plurality of concave portions (Koo 161A) of the overcoat layer [0033], which in simple terms would smooth out the curvature of the surface on which the organic light-emitting element (140A) is formed.
Note, paragraph numbers used above originate from espacenet translation of KR 2015/0077279 A.
Regarding Claim 21, Jang in view of Koo discloses:
The display apparatus of claim 20, wherein the inclined surface of the pattern portion forms an obtuse angle with the bottom surface of the pattern portion (see annotated Fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
678
835
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Koo Fig. 1 – Annotated by Examiner
Regarding Claim 22, Jang in view of Koo discloses: The display apparatus of claim 20,
Jang further discloses:
further comprising an overcoat layer on the substrate and a pixel electrode on the overcoat layer in each of the plurality of subpixels,
wherein the overcoat layer includes a first layer including the plurality of concave portions (#170), and a second layer (layer included/substituted in from Koo #170A) between the first layer and the pixel electrode (#AEr), and
wherein the second layer is extended to the first area and is in contact with only a portion of the bottom surface of the pattern portion while covering the inclined surface of the pattern portion (see cross-sections of Jang Fig. 5 and included layer from Koo Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 23, Jang in view of Koo discloses: The display apparatus of claim 20,
Jang further discloses:
further comprising a bank (#160) covering an edge of the pixel electrode (#AEr), wherein the bank covers the second layer (layer included/substituted in from Koo #170A) covering the inclined surface and is in contact with only a portion of the bottom surface of the pattern portion (see Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 24, Jang in view of Koo discloses: The display apparatus of claim 20,
Jang further discloses:
The display apparatus of claim 23, wherein each of the second layer (layer included/substituted in from Koo #170A) and the bank (#160) on the bottom surface of the pattern portion is discontinuous (see-cross sections of Jang Fig. 5 and included layer from Koo Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 35, Jang discloses: The display apparatus of claim 25,
Jang does not explicitly disclose:
further comprising a light extraction portion in each of the plurality of subpixels, wherein the light extraction portion overlaps the light emission area and includes a plurality of concave portions, wherein the light extraction portion is adjacent to the pattern portion, and wherein the pattern portion includes an inclined surface disposed in a first area adjacent to the light emission area and a bottom surface extended from the inclined surface and disposed up to a second area adjacent to the first area and spaced apart from the light emission area.
However, in analogous art, Koo teaches:
further comprising a light extraction portion (#170A) in each of the plurality of subpixels, wherein the light extraction portion (#170A) overlaps the light emission area (overlaps light emitting element 142A) and includes a plurality of concave portions (see concave portions of #170A in Fig. 1), wherein the light extraction portion is adjacent to the pattern portion (pattern portion includes #143A, #142A, and #141A), and wherein the pattern portion includes an inclined surface (inclined surface on left and right ends in Fig. 1) disposed in a first area adjacent to the light emission area and a bottom surface (bottom horizontal surface) extended from the inclined surface and disposed up to a second area adjacent to the first area and spaced apart from the light emission area.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider combining the teachings of Koo and include a step difference mitigation layer having a specific refractive index different than the overcoat layer in order to tune the reflected light within the device. See Koo [0032]-[0037]. Doing so would mitigate the step difference caused by a plurality of concave portions (Koo 161A) of the overcoat layer [0033], which in simple terms would smooth out the curvature of the surface on which the organic light-emitting element (140A) is formed.
Note, paragraph numbers used above originate from espacenet translation of KR 2015/0077279 A.
Regarding Claim 36, Jang in view of Koo discloses: The display apparatus of claim 35,
Jang further discloses:
further comprising an overcoat layer on the substrate and a pixel electrode on the overcoat layer in each of the plurality of subpixels,
wherein the overcoat layer includes a first layer including the plurality of concave portions (#170), and a second layer (layer included/substituted in from Koo #170A) between the first layer and the pixel electrode (#AEr), and
wherein the second layer is extended to the first area and is in contact with only a portion of the bottom surface of the pattern portion while covering the inclined surface of the pattern portion (see cross-sections of Jang Fig. 5 and included layer from Koo Fig. 1).
Citation of Other Unused Pertinent Prior Art
US 20210183900 A1
US 20230189556 A1
US 20220140291 A1
US 20200144342 A1
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew V. Prostor whose telephone number is (571) 272-2686. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00a-4:30p.
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 S 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.
/ANDREW VICTOR PROSTOR/Examiner, Art Unit 2812 /CHRISTINE S. KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights