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.
Claims 13-14 and 17-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Claim 17 recites: “a filling layer filling the empty space”
Claim 18, which depends on claim 17 recites: “where the empty space includes an air layer”; these two claims are contradictory. If the filling layer filled the empty space there would no space for an air layer. It is suggested to amend claim 17 to recite “a filling layer partially filling the empty space” or else change the dependency of claim 18. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 recites: further comprising: black matrix disposed between the first color filter and the second color filter on the substrate,
or a link portion connecting the first transparent layer and the second transparent layer.
Because of the “or”, the second portion of claim 13 was not chosen and not examined. Therefore, claim 14 which recites: “wherein the link portion has a width of approximately 20% to 30% compared to a length of sides of the first transparent layer and the second transparent layer facing each other” refers only to the second portion which was not examined. If you wish all of 13 and 14 to be examined separate claims are required to recite the two embodiments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takagi (US PG Pub. No. 2023/0086115).
Regarding Claim 20, Takagi discloses, at least in figure 2: A light emitting display device (title) comprising: a pixel (¶ [0071], 3 sub-pixels shown in fig. 2) disposed on a substrate (100, ¶ [0078])); a driving element layer including a thin film transistor (Tr) disposed in the pixel (▄ [0065], not shown in fig. 2); a light emitting element layer (ELP,¶ [0078]) connected to the thin film transistor (¶ [0065])); an encapsulation layer (122,¶ [0079]) disposed on the light emitting element layer (ELP); a color filter (130, ¶ [0081]) disposed on the encapsulation layer (122) at the pixel; and a transparent layer (140, ¶ [0082]) disposed on the color filter (130), wherein a length of the transparent layer (140) is equal to or less than a length of the color filter (130) in a same direction.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al (US PG Pub. No. 2018/0151842) in view of Takagi et al (US PG Pub. No. 2023/0086115).
Regarding Claim 1, Park discloses, at least in figure 3: A light emitting display device (title, OLED) comprising: a pixel (EA, ¶ [0058]) disposed on a substrate (100,¶ [0056]) ; a driving element layer (103, ¶ [0056]) including a thin film transistor (Tr) (Tr, ¶ [0056]) disposed in the pixel; a light emitting element layer (EL, ¶ [0064]) disposed in the pixel on the driving element layer (103), and connected to the thin film transistor (Tr)(see via in fig. 3 with TFT connecting to pixel electrode (170,¶ [0061]); an encapsulation layer (226, ¶ [0065]) disposed on the light emitting element layer (EL); a color filter (202, ¶ [0044]) having a lens shape and disposed on the encapsulation layer (226) at the pixel, wherein an empty space (251, ¶ [0070]) is located at a side (left side) of the color filter (202); and a transparent layer (200, ¶ [0030, see light arrow going through it) disposed on the color filter (202).
Park fails to disclose that the color filter has a lens shape.
Takagi teaches in figure 11, the color filter (130, ¶ [0102]) has a lens shape (convex curved) to match the interface with adjacent layers (¶ [0102]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a lens shaped color filter in the device of Takagi to match the interface of adjacent layers.
Regarding Claim 2, Park fails to disclose: wherein the color filter (202) has any one of a trapezoidal shape, a semi-circular shape and a semi-elliptical shape in which a lower surface is wider than an upper surface.
Takagi teaches in figure 2, wherein the color filter (202) has any one of a trapezoidal shape, in which a lower surface is wider than an upper surface (¶ [0104]).
However, it is considered that the particular claimed configuration is just one of numerous configurations a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of providing mating surfaces. In re Dailey 149 USPQ 47, 50 (CCPA 1966). See also Glue Co. v. Upton 97 US 3,24 (USSC 1878).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a trapezoidal shaped color filter in the device of Park, as a matter of obvious design engineering, in order to properly interface with adjacent surfaces.
Regarding Claim 6, Park discloses in figure 1: further comprising: a black matrix (210) but fails to disclose: overlapping a lower edge side of the color filter (202) on the encapsulation layer (226).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to overlap the lower edge side of the color filter to ensure that there is no light leakage.
Regarding Claim 8, Park discloses in figure 3: further comprising: an upper protection layer (230) disposed on the transparent layer (200) (¶ [0067], it blocks the reflectance of external light).
Claim(s) 11-13 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takagi (US PG Pub. No. 2023/0086115) in view of Park et al (US PG Pub. No. 2018/0151842).
Regarding Claim 11, Takagi discloses, at least in figure 2,A light emitting display device (title) comprising: a first pixel (ELP right, ¶ [0078])) and a second pixel (ELP left) disposed adjacent to each other on a substrate (100); a first color filter (130g) disposed at the first pixel on the substrate (100); a second color filter (130b) disposed at the second pixel (ELP left) on the substrate (100), and spaced apart (at the upper parts) from the first color filter (130g; a first transparent layer (140, right ¶ [0081]) disposed on the first color filter (130g); and a second transparent layer (140, center) disposed on the second color filter (130b),
Takagi fails to disclose: wherein an empty space (251) is located between the first color filter (202) and the second color filter (202).
Park teaches in figure 3: wherein an empty space (251) is located between the first color filter (202) and the second color filter (202) to increase the amount of reflected light and the amount extracted from the device (¶ [0079]- [0080], reflections occur at the air interface where n=1.0)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide an empty space (air gap) between the color filters of Takagi, to increase reflections and light extraction.
Regarding Claim 12, Takagi fails to disclose: wherein the first transparent layer (140 right) and the second transparent layer (140, left) have refractive indices between refractive indices of the first color filter (130g) and the second color filter (130b and a refractive index of the empty space (251). (air=1.0).
However, since 140 is not air, then n> 1.0 (air) and it needs to be less than that of the color filter in order for the desired reflections to occur.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the claimed index relationships in the device of Takagi to ensure that reflections occur improving light extraction.
Regarding Claim 13, Takagi discloses in figure 17: further comprising: a black matrix (BM, ¶ [0111]) disposed between the first color filter (130g) and the second color filter (130b) on the substrate (100),
Regarding Claim 16, Takagi discloses: further comprising: an upper protection layer (160, ¶ [0082]) continuously disposed over upper surfaces of the first transparent layer (140right) and the second transparent layer (140 center).
Regarding Claim 17, Takagi, discloses in figure 14: further comprising: a filling layer (160, ¶ [0082]) filling the empty space located between the first color filter (130g) and the second color filter (130b), and under the first transparent layer (140, right) and the second transparent layer (140, center)
Regarding Claim 18, Takagi fails to disclose: wherein the empty space includes an air layer, and wherein the filling layer has a refractive index between refractive indices of the first transparent layer and the second transparent layer and a refractive index of the air.
Park teaches the air layer in claim 11 and reason for using.
However, since the filling layer is not air, then n> 1.0 (air) and n of the filling layer needs to be less than that of the transparent layers in order for the desired reflections to occur.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the claimed index relationships in the device of Takagi to ensure that reflections occur improving light extraction.
Regarding Claim 19, Takagi discloses in figure 2: further comprising: an encapsulation layer (122,¶ [0079]) disposed between the substrate (100) and the first color filter (130g), and between the substrate (100) and the second color filter (130b); a trench (ELP points to it) disposed at the encapsulation layer (122) between the first pixel green) and the second pixel (blue); and a recessed dam (112, ¶ [0080]) disposed at a bottom surface and an inside side surface of the trench.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 7,9-10,15 and 21-22 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 3, the references of the Prior Art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations as set forth in Claim 3 and specifically comprising the limitation of “wherein the color filter includes: a first surface contacting the encapsulation layer, and having a first area; and a second surface contacting the transparent layer, and having a second area smaller than the first area” including the remaining limitations.
Examiner Note: Park discloses the air gap, as claimed, but cannot be modified, as claimed.
Claim 4 is allowable, at least, because of its dependency on claim 3.
Regarding Claim 5, the references of the Prior Art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations as set forth in Claim 5, and specifically comprising the limitation of “and wherein the transparent layer has a refractive index between a refractive index of the color filter and a refractive index of the air layer “including the remaining limitations.
Regarding Claim 9, the references of the Prior Art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations as set forth in Claim 9, and specifically comprising the limitation of “wherein the empty space includes an air layer, and wherein the upper protection layer has a refractive index between a refractive index of transparent layer and a refractive index of the air layer “including the remaining limitations.
Regarding Claim 10, the references of the Prior Art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations as set forth in Claim 10, and specifically comprising the limitation of “further comprising: a filling layer filling an inside of the empty space, wherein the filling layer has a refractive index less than refractive indices of the color filter and the transparent layer.
Examiner Note: since the air layer (and filling layer) are not in line with the color filter and transparent layer (or an upper protection layer) there is no motivation for this.
Regarding Claims 7 and 15, the references of the Prior Art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations as set forth in Claims 7 and 15, and specifically comprising the limitation of “wherein the first transparent layer and the second transparent layer include at least one of a light scattering pattern and a light scattering material.
Examiner Note: since Takagi discloses in paragraph [0057] placing particles in the color filter layer that would scatter light, there is no motivation to also place them in two additional layers.
Regarding Claim 21, the references of the Prior Art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations as set forth in Claim 21, and specifically comprising the limitation of “wherein the transparent layer includes a main part in contact with the color filter and wing parts overhanging the color filter, and the wing parts are located at a periphery of the main part” including the remaining limitations.
Claims 22 is allowable, at least, because of its dependency on claim 21.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DONALD L RALEIGH whose telephone number is (571)270-3407. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7AM -3 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.
/DONALD L RALEIGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875