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 .
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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "‘S’ is smaller than ‘V’ and greater or smaller than ‘H’" in claim 1 does not recite “’S’ and ‘V’. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 is 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.
Claim 5 which depends on claim 1 recites “‘S’ is smaller than ‘V’ and greater or smaller than ‘H’", and claim 1 does not recite any “S, V and H” elements. Thus, the claim is unclear and indefinite. For purpose of examination, the claim will be interpreted to depend on claim 4.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 6-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KOO et al. (US. Pub: 2015/0380466 A1~ hereinafter “Koo”) in view of Son et al. (US. Pub: 2021/0091154 A1~ hereinafter “Son”).
Regarding claim 1, Koo discloses (in at least figs. 1-3) a display apparatus comprising: a substrate (110A) having a plurality of pixels having a plurality of subpixels (see at least figs. 1-3; [0042]); a pattern portion (see at least fig. 1A) disposed on the substrate and formed to be concave between the plurality of subpixels (see at least figs. 1-3); and a reflective portion (143 A; best seen in at least fig. 1B) on the pattern portion, wherein the plurality of subpixels includes a light emission area (see at least fig. 1A; i.e. the X region) and a non-light emission area (i.e. the region outside the X) the adjacent to the light emission area, and a light extraction portion (best seen in at least fig. 1B) that overlaps the light emission area and includes a plurality of concave portions (see at least fig. 1B).
Koo does not expressly the reflective portion is adjacent to the light extraction portion in the non-light emission area and is disposed to be spaced apart from the light emission area.
However, it is well-known in the art to form a display apparatus comprised of, in part, a reflective portion adjacent to the light extraction portion in the non-light emission area and is disposed to be spaced apart from the light emission area as evidence by Son at least fig. 6 for the benefit of providing a display device with enhanced light extraction efficiency ([0005]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the display apparatus of Koo with the reflective portion arrangement of Son in the display apparatus of Koo for the benefit of providing a display device with enhanced light extraction efficiency. Also, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, Koo as modified by Son discloses (in at least figs. 3-8 Son; figs. 1-3 Koo) the non-light emission area (NEA) includes a first area (NEA1) adjacent to the light emission area (EA) and a second area (NEA2) adjacent to the first area and spaced apart from the light emission area (see at least fig. 3), wherein the light extraction portion is disposed to be adjacent to the pattern portion (best seen in at least figs. 4 and 6), and wherein the pattern portion (see at least fig. 1A) includes an inclined surface formed in the first area and a bottom surface extended from the inclined surface and formed up to the second area.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Koo and Son discloses (in at least figs. 1-3 Koo; figs. 3-8 Son) the plurality of subpixels further includes an overcoat layer (160A fig. A Koo) on the substrate and a pixel electrode (141A) on the overcoat layer, wherein the overcoat layer (160A) includes: a first layer including the plurality of concave portions (see at least fig. 1A); and a second layer (170A) between the first layer and the pixel electrode (140A), and wherein the second layer (170A) is extended to the first area and is in contact with a portion of the bottom surface of the pattern portion while covering the inclined surface of the pattern portion (See at least fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 6, Koo as modified by Son discloses (in at least figs. 1-3 Koo) a light emitting element layer (142A) in the plurality of subpixels, wherein the light emitting element layer (142A) includes: a pixel electrode (141A) in the light emission area; a light emitting layer (141A) on the pixel electrode and the non-light emission area; and a reflective electrode (143A) on the light emitting layer, and wherein the reflective portion is a portion of the reflection electrode (best seen in at least fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 7, Koo as modified by Son discloses (in at least figs. 1-3 Koo) the pattern portion surrounds the light emission area (see at least fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 8, Koo as modified by Son discloses (in at least figs. 1-3 Koo) the pattern portion is formed to be concave on the first layer (see at least fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 9, Koo as modified by Son discloses (in at least figs. 1-3 Koo) the pattern portion is disposed to be spaced apart from the light emission area (see at least fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 10, Koo as modified by Son discloses (in at least figs. 1-3 Koo) a width of the pattern portion is reduced in a direction that is directed toward the substrate from the reflective portion (see at least fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 11, Koo as modified by Son discloses (in at least figs. 1-3 Koo) the bottom surface of the pattern portion is disposed to be closer to the substrate than the pixel electrode in the light emission area (see at least fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 12, Koo as modified by Son discloses (in at least figs. 1-3 Koo; figs. 4-8 Son) the inclined surface of the pattern portion forms an obtuse angle with respect to the bottom surface.
Regarding claim 13, Koo as modified by Son discloses (in at least figs. 1-3 Koo) a bank (136A) covering an edge of the pixel electrode (141A), wherein the bank (136A) is disconnected on the bottom surface of the pattern portion.
Regarding claim 14, Koo as modified by Son discloses (in at least figs. 1-3 Koo; abstract) a refractive index of the second layer (170A) is greater than that of the first layer (160).
Regarding claim 15, Koo as modified by Son discloses (in at least figs. 1-3 Koo) an upper surface of the second layer is provided to be flat (see at least fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 16, Koo as modified by Son discloses (in at least figs. 1-3 Koo) a bank (136a) covering an edge of the pixel electrode (141A), wherein the bank (136a) is extended to cover an inclined surface of the second layer (170a) covering an inclined surface of the pattern portion (see fig. 1A) and is in contact with a portion of the bottom surface of the pattern portion (see at least fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 17, Koo as modified by Son discloses (in at least figs. 1-3 Koo) each of the second layer (170a) and the bank (136a) on the bottom surface of the pattern portion is discontinuous.
Regarding claim 18, Koo discloses (in at least figs. 1-3) a display apparatus comprising: a substrate (110A) having a plurality of pixels having a plurality of subpixels ([0070]); a pattern portion (see at least fig. 1A) disposed on the substrate and formed to be concave between the plurality of subpixels (see at least fig. 1A); and a reflective portion on the pattern portion (best seen in at least fig. 1B), wherein the plurality of subpixels includes a light emission area and a non-light emission area adjacent to the light emission area (see at least fig. 1A).
Koo does not expressly disclose a depth of the reflective portion disposed in the non-light emission area is greater than a horizontal distance from an end of the light emission area to the reflective portion.
However, it is well-known in the art to form a display device comprised of, in part, a depth of the reflective portion disposed in the non-light emission area is greater than a horizontal distance from an end of the light emission area to the reflective portion as evident by Son at least figs. 6 and 7 for the benefit of providing a display device with enhanced light extraction efficiency ([0005]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the display device of Koo with the reflective portion depth teaching of Son for the benefit of providing a display device with enhanced light extraction efficiency ([0005]).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Koo and Son discloses (in at least figs. 1-3 Koo; figs. 3-8 Son) the plurality of subpixels further includes a light emitting layer (142A) that is provided in the light emission area and the non-light emission area below the reflective portion (see at least fig. 1A), wherein the pattern portion (see at least fig. 1A) includes an inclined surface formed in a first area of the non-light emission area adjacent to the light emission area and a bottom surface extended from the inclined surface and formed up to a second area adjacent to the first area (see at least fig. 1A), and wherein a depth of the reflective portion disposed in the non-light emission area is a vertical distance from a lower surface of the reflective portion on an upper surface of the light emitting layer (best seen in at least figs. 6 and 7 Son), which is in contact with the bottom surface of the pattern portion, to a highest point of the reflective portion in the non-light emission area (see at least figs. 6 and 7).
Regarding claim 20, Koo as modified by Son discloses (in at least figs. 1-3 Koo; figs. 3-8 Son) a light emitting element layer (142A) in the plurality of subpixels, wherein the light emitting element layer (142A) includes: a pixel electrode (141A) in the light emission area; a light emitting layer (142A) on the pixel electrode and the non-light emission area; and a reflective electrode (143A) on the light emitting layer, and wherein the reflective portion is a portion of the reflection electrode (see at least fig. 1B).
Claim(s) 25-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KOO et al. (US. Pub: 2015/0380466 A1~ hereinafter “Koo”).
Regarding claim 25, Koo discloses (in at least figs. 1-3) a display apparatus comprising: a substrate (110A) having a plurality of pixels ([0070]), each pixels of the plurality including a plurality of subpixels ([0070]); a first overcoat layer (160A) on the substrate, the first overcoat layer (160A) having a first surface; a plurality of grooves at the first surface of the first overcoat layer (see at least fig. 1A); a light emitting element (142A) including a pixel electrode (141A), a reflective electrode (143A), and a light emitting layer (142A) between the pixel electrode and the reflective electrode, the light emitting element on the plurality of grooves (see at least fig. 1A), wherein the plurality of grooves (161a) overlaps with both the reflective electrode and the pixel electrode from a plan view (see at least fig. 1A).
Koo does not expressly disclose the pixel electrode has a first width in a first direction, and wherein the first width of the pixel electrode is greater than a second width of the plurality of grooves in the first direction.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited width through design choice. Applicant has not disclosed that the recited pixel electrode width is for a particular unobvious purpose produces unexpected result, or is otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would process utility using the pixel electrode width of Koo.
Regarding claim 26, Koo discloses (in at least figs. 1-3) a second overcoat layer (170a) on the first overcoat layer (160a), wherein the second overcoat layer (170a) includes a first end and a second end opposite the first end (see at least fig. 1A), the second overcoat layer (170a) has a third width in the first direction between the first end and the second end, wherein the third width of the second overcoat layer is greater than the first width of the pixel electrode (see at least fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 27, Koo discloses (in at least figs. 1-3) a bank layer (136a) on the second overcoat layer (170a) and the pixel electrode (141a), wherein the bank layer (136a) is disposed along an inclined surface of the second overcoat layer (170a), and wherein the inclined surface of the second overcoat layer (170a) is adjacent to the plurality of grooves (see at least fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 28, Koo discloses (in at least figs. 1-3) the bank layer (136A) extends towards the substrate (110A) and contacts the first overcoat layer (160A).
Regarding claim 29, Koo discloses (in at least figs. 1-3) a surface of the bank layer (136A) that contacts the first overcoat layer (160A) and a surface of the second overcoat layer (170A) that contacts the first overcoat layer are coplanar with each other.
Regarding claim 30, Koo discloses (in at least figs. 1-3) the light emitting layer (142A) continuously and contiguously extends from the light emitting element and contacts the first overcoat layer (160A).
Regarding claim 31, Koo discloses (in at least figs. 1-3) the light emitting layer (142A) contacts the first overcoat layer (160A) at a location adjacent to the plurality of grooves (161A).
Regarding claim 32, Koo discloses (in at least figs. 1-3) a surface of the bank layer (136A) that contacts the first overcoat layer (160A), a surface of the second overcoat layer (170A) that contacts the first overcoat layer, a surface of the light emitting layer (142A) that contacts the first overcoat layer are coplanar with each other.
Regarding claim 33, Koo discloses (in at least figs. 1-3) the bank layer (136A) includes a bump portion adjacent to one end of the pixel electrode (141A), wherein the bump portion has a round surface that protrudes in an opposite direction of the substrate (see at least fig. 1A), and wherein the light emitting layer (142A) continuously and contiguously extends from the light emitting element and extends over the bump portion of the bank layer (see at least fig. 1A).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 and 21-24 are 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 4, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest the plurality of subpixels further includes a first layer on the substrate, a second layer on the first layer, and a light emitting layer on the second layer, wherein a horizontal distance ‘H’ from an end of the light emission area of each of the plurality of subpixels to the reflective portion satisfies H=aebnh×V-S, where ‘a’ is an aspect ratio constant of the concave portion, ‘e’ is a natural log, ‘b’ is an effective refractive index of the light emitting layer, ‘n.sub.h’ is a refractive index of the second layer, ‘V’ is a vertical distance from a lower surface of the reflective portion on an upper surface of the light emitting layer, which is in contact with the bottom surface of the pattern portion, to a highest point of the reflective portion in the non-light emission area, and ‘S’ is a horizontal distance from a crossing point, at which a horizontal extension line of the upper surface of the light emitting layer in the light emission area crosses the reflective portion, to an inflection point at which the reflective portion is inflected in the second area. Claim 5 is objected due to its dependency upon claim 4.
Regarding claim 21, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest the plurality of subpixels further includes a first layer on the substrate, including a light extraction portion having a plurality of concave portions, a second layer on the first layer, and a light emitting layer on the second layer, a horizontal distance ‘H’ from an end of the light emission area of each of the plurality of subpixels to the reflective portion satisfies H=aebnh×V-S, where ‘a’ is an aspect ratio constant of the concave portion, ‘e’ is a natural log, ‘b’ is an effective refractive index of the light emitting layer, ‘n.sub.h’ is a refractive index of the second layer, ‘V’ is a depth of the reflective portion, and ‘S’ is a horizontal distance from a crossing point, at which a horizontal extension line of the upper surface of the light emitting layer in the light emission area crosses the reflective portion, to an inflection point at which the reflective portion is inflected in the second area. Claims 22-24 are objected due to their dependency upon claim 21.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELMITO BREVAL whose telephone number is (571)270-3099. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th~ 7:30-5:30.
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.
ELMITO BREVAL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2875
/ELMITO BREVAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875