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 § 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, 5-19 and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koo et al. (US. Pub: 2015/0380466 A1~hereinafter “Koo”) of record in view of Jang et al. (US. Pub: 2021/0183964 A1).
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 ( best seen in at least fig. 1B; i.e. the reflective portion of the electrode 143 A) on the pattern portion, a light emitting element (142A; [0042]) in the plurality of subpixels, 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); wherein the light emitting element layer 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 (see at least fig. 1A); and a reflective electrode (143A) on the light emitting layer, and wherein the reflective portion is a portion of the reflection electrode (143A; see 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; and wherein a portion of the reflective portion on the pattern portion is disposed closer to the substrate than the pixel electrode.
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, and wherein a portion of the reflective portion on the pattern portion is disposed closer to the substrate than the pixel electrode as evidence by Jang at least fig. 14 for the benefit of providing a display device with enhanced light extraction efficiency ([0008]).
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 Jang 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 Jang discloses (in at least fig. 14 Jang; figs. 1-3 Koo) the non-light emission area (NEP) includes a first area adjacent to the light emission area (EP) and a second area (EP; see fig. 14) adjacent to the first area and spaced apart from the light emission area (see at least fig. 14), wherein the light extraction portion is disposed to be adjacent to the pattern portion (best seen in at least fig. 14), and wherein the pattern portion (see at least fig. 14) 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 (see fig. 14).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Koo and Jang discloses (in at least figs. 1-3 Koo; fig. 14 Jang) 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 Jang 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 Jang 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 Jang 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 Jang 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 Jang 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 Jang 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; fig. 14 Jang) the inclined surface of the pattern portion forms an obtuse angle with respect to the bottom surface.
Regarding claim 13, Koo as modified by Jang 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 Jang 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 Jang 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 Jang 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 Jang 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), a light emitting element (142A) in the plurality of subpixels, 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); wherein the light emitting element layer 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 (see at least fig. 1A); and a reflective electrode (143A) on the light emitting layer, and wherein the reflective portion is a portion of the reflection electrode (143A; see fig. 1B).
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; and wherein a portion of the reflective portion on the pattern portion is disposed closer to the substrate than the pixel electrode.
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 and wherein a portion of the reflective portion on the pattern portion is disposed closer to the substrate than the pixel electrode as evidence by Jang at least fig. 14 for the benefit of providing a display device with enhanced light extraction efficiency ([0008]).
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 Jang for the benefit of providing a display device with enhanced light extraction efficiency ([0008]).
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 34, 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.
Claims 25-33 and 35 allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 25, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest a display apparatus comprised of, in part, a pattern portion disposed on the substrate and formed to be concave between the plurality of subpixels; and a reflective portion on the pattern portion, wherein the plurality of grooves overlaps with both the reflective electrode and the pixel electrode from a plan view, wherein 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 directions wherein the plurality of subpixels includes a light emission area and anon-light emission area adjacent to the light emission area, wherein the pixel electrode is disposed in the light emission area, wherein the light emitting layer is disposed on the pixel electrode and the non-light emission area, wherein the reflective electrode is disposed on the light emitting layer and is disposed in the light emission area and the non-light emission area, wherein the reflective portion is a portion of the reflective electrode, and wherein a portion of the reflective portion on the pattern portion in the non-light emission area is disposed closer to the substrate than the pixel electrode. Claims 26-33 and 35 are allowed due to their dependency upon claim 25.
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.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5, 7-19 and 21-35 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.
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 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
Prosecution Insights