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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 12-14 and 17-20 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.
Claims 12-14 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are:
Regarding dependent claim 12, the claim appears to cite limitations already disclosed in independent claim 1. For example, the “second light emitting diode”, “a second anode electrode”, and “a second lens” are all already disclosed in claim 1. It is not clear to the Examiner how the limitations of claim 12 are construed to be in relationship to the limitations of claim 1. While the entirety of claim 12 is not duplicating claim 1, it is not clear to the Examiner how the claim is also further limiting claim 1.
Due to their dependency, claims 13-14 are necessarily included in this rejection.
Regarding dependent claim 17, the claim appears to cite limitations already disclosed in independent claim 9. For example, the “a first bank”, “a second bank”, “a first opening”, “a second opening”, “a first anode”, a first cathode”, “an organic material layer”, and “an emission layer” are all already disclosed in claim 9. It is not clear to the Examiner how the limitations of claim 17 are construed to be in relationship to the limitations of claim 9. While the entirety of claim 17 is not duplicating claim 9, it is not clear to the Examiner how the claim is also further limiting claim 9.
Regarding claim 18, the claim cites “a fourth bank”, but no first through third banks and “a third opening” but no first or second opening. These limitations are also not taught by independent claim 15.
Regarding claim 18, in addition to its dependency to the above, claim 18 recites the limitation "the emission layer" in lines 5 and 6 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 recites the limitation "the first cathode electrode" in line 10 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 19, the claim cites “a fifth bank”, but no first through third banks in dependent claim 18 or independent claim 15.
Regarding claim 20, in addition to its dependency to claim 19 above, claim 20 recites the limitation "the second cathode" in line 2 and “the second bank” in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 18, the claim cites “a fourth bank”, but no first through third banks and “a third opening” but no first or second opening. These limitations are also not taught by independent claim 15.
Regarding claim 19, the claim cites “a fifth bank”, but no first through third banks in dependent claim 18 or independent claim 15.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11 and 15-16 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding independent claim 1, the prior art of record neither shows nor suggest a light emitting device comprised of, in part, a bank layer on the planarization layer and includes: a first opening extending through the bank layer and exposing a top surface of the first anode electrode; a second opening extending through the bank layer and exposing a top surface of the second anode electrode; and a third opening extending through the bank layer and exposing a top surface of the first anode electrode, in at least one of the plurality of sub pixels, an encapsulation layer on the first light emitting diode and the second light emitting diode, and a lens, along with the rest of the limitations of the claim.
Due to their dependency, claims 2-11 are necessarily allowable.
Regarding independent claim 15, the prior art of record neither shows nor suggest a display device comprised of, in part, a first subpixel, a second subpixel, and a third subpixel thereon, each of a different color, the first subpixel having an area smaller than that of the second and third subpixels; wherein each of the first, second, and third subpixels include: a first light emitting diode; a first lens disposed over the first light emitting diode; a second light emitting diode adjacent to the first light emitting diode; and a second lens disposed over the second light emitting diode; wherein, in operation, the display device selectively operates between a wide field of view mode and a narrow field of view mode, wherein the narrow field of view mode is implemented based on the first lens, wherein the wide field of view mode is implemented based on the second lens.
Due to its dependency, claim 16 is necessarily allowable.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 11,114,467 and US 2023/0113069 disclose the state of the art for a light emitting display device.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH L WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-2465. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:30 AM- 5:00 PM.
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, JAMES R. GREECE can be reached at (571) 272-3711. 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.
JOSEPH L. WILLIAMS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2875
/JOSEPH L WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875