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.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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) 1-2, 7, 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al (WIPO Pub. No. WO 2022/025395, equivalent US PG Pub. No. 2023/0275197, used as English translation).
Regarding Claim 1, Kim discloses, at least in figures 6--7: A display device (title), comprising: a substrate (11, ¶ [0076])) having a plurality of subpixels (3 shown); an overcoat layer (BNL, ¶ [0077]) disposed on the substrate (11), the overcoat layer (BNL) including a recess disposed between the subpixels (see fig. 7); and a transparent inorganic bank layer (51, ¶ [0145, SiO2 is transparent) and an opaque bank layer (40, ¶ [0112], polyimide and it is reflective), disposed in the recess.
Regarding Claim 2, Kim discloses in figure 6: wherein the transparent inorganic bank layer (51) is disposed on an inclined surface and a lower surface of the recess.
Regarding Claim 7, Kim discloses in figure 6: wherein the overcoat layer (BNL) includes: a first overcoat layer (BNL), and a second overcoat layer (CPL, ¶ [0158]) positioned on the first overcoat layer (BNL) in an area corresponding to the subpixels.
Regarding Claim 11, Kim discloses: wherein the transparent inorganic bank layer (51) includes at least one selected from the group consisting of silicon nitride, silicon oxide¶ [0145), silicon oxynitride, aluminum oxide, and aluminum oxynitride.
Regarding Claim 13, Kim discloses in figure 7: wherein the plurality of subpixels includes at least one colored subpixel among red, green, and blue subpixels (¶ [0074]), and wherein a color filter (CF1-3, ¶ [0076]) having a color corresponding to the colored subpixel is disposed between the substrate (11) and the overcoat layer (BNL).
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) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (395) in view of Shin et al (US PG Pub. No. 2021/0391395).
Regarding Claim 12, Kim fails to disclose: wherein the opaque bank layer (40) includes at least one selected from the group consisting of carbon black, black pigment, black dye, black resin, graphite powder, gravure ink, black spray, and black enamel.
Shin teaches in the abstract, using a black pigment in a bank layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to try a black pigment in the opaque bank layer (40) of Kim, as taught by Shin, since it involves use of a known technique (and material) to improve similar devices in the same way to create an opaque bank layer (MPEP 2143 1C).
Claim(s) 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (395) in view of Yamazaki et al (US PG Pub. No. 2004/0056855).
Regarding Claim 19. Kim discloses in figure 7: A display device (title), comprising: a plurality of subpixels (3 shown) including an emission area (above EL1-3) and a non-emission area (outside of those areas); and a substrate (11) on which a plurality of signal lines (DTL, ¶ [0093], only one labeled) defining the plurality of subpixels are disposed (directly under (54) on each side of sub-pixel), wherein the emission area includes a recess (see fig. 7) positioned between the subpixels, and wherein the non-emission area includes: an overcoat layer (17,¶ [0099]) disposed on the plurality of signal lines (DTL) and the substrate (11);
a transparent inorganic bank layer (19 ¶ [0103) disposed on the overcoat layer (17);
an opaque bank layer (40, ¶ [0112], it is reflective) disposed on the transparent inorganic bank layer (19); and a second electrode (27 ¶ [0110]) disposed on the opaque bank layer (40).
Kim fails to disclose that the planarization layer (19) is transparent but discloses that it can be polyimide which can be transparent or opaque, as desired.
Yamazaki teaches in paragraph [0045] that a planarization layer can comprise either organic polyimide or inorganic silicon oxide (which is transparent).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice, In re Leshin,125USPQ 416.
Regarding Claim 20, Kim discloses: wherein the plurality of signal lines includes a plurality of data lines (DTL), a plurality of driving voltage lines (the drain side of SD connecting to drive the pixel electrode), and a reference voltage line (the source side of the SD connecting to the fixed voltage source) (¶ [0093]).
Regarding Claim 21, Kim discloses in figures 6-7: wherein a thickness of the opaque bank layer (40) is not smaller than a thickness of the transparent inorganic bank layer (19).
Regarding Claim 22, Kim discloses in figure 6-7:A display device (title), comprising: a plurality of subpixels (EL1-) on a substrate (11); a plurality of signal lines (DTL) on the substrate (11); an overcoat layer (17) disposed on the plurality of signal lines (DTL) and the substrate (11); a plurality of organic light emitting diodes ( [0067]) on the overcoat layer (17), each including: a first electrode (22); a second electrode (27) on the first electrode (22); and an organic light emitting layer (30, ¶ [0012], para. 67 says they may be OLEDS with organic light emitting layers) between the first (22) and second electrodes (27); and a transparent inorganic bank layer (19) disposed on the overcoat layer (17) in an area between adjacent organic light emitting diodes of the plurality of organic light emitting diodes, wherein at least a portion of the transparent inorganic bank layer (19) contacts the overcoat layer (17)
Kim fails to disclose that the planarization layer (19) is transparent but discloses that it can be polyimide which can be transparent or opaque, as desired.
Yamazaki teaches in paragraph [0045] that a planarization layer can comprise either organic polyimide or inorganic silicon oxide (which is transparent).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice, In re Leshin,125USPQ 416.
Regarding Claim 23, Kim discloses: wherein the overcoat layer (17) includes a first overcoat layer (17) and a second overcoat layer (17) (¶ [0099], double layer) on the first overcoat layer (17),
wherein the second overcoat layer (top of double layer 17) has an upper surface and an inclined side surface (at CT2) that extends from the upper surface, and wherein the first overcoat layer (bottom layer of double layer 17) has an upper surface that converges with the inclined side surface of the second overcoat layer (17) (so that it is not noticeable).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6, 8-9, 10, 14-18 and 24-30 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 opaque bank layer is disposed on an upper surface of the transparent inorganic bank layer to be spaced apart from the inclined surface of the recess in an area corresponding to the lower surface of the recess.” including the remaining limitations
Regarding Claim 4, the references of the Prior Art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations as set forth in Claim 4, and specifically comprising the limitation of “: wherein the transparent inorganic bank layer (51) is disposed to be disconnected on the lower surface of the recess.” including the remaining limitations
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 ““wherein the transparent inorganic bank layer extends on a portion of an upper surface of the overcoat layer” including the remaining limitations.
Claim 6 is allowable, at least, because of its dependency on claim 5.
Regarding Claim 8, the references of the Prior Art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations as set forth in Claim 8, and specifically comprising the limitation of “wherein the recess is disposed between the second overcoat layers positioned in the area corresponding to the subpixels” 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 “wherein the opaque bank layer contacts the first overcoat layer on the lower surface of the recess” including the remaining limitations.
Regarding Claim 14, the references of the Prior Art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations as set forth in Claim 14, and specifically comprising the limitation of “wherein a first electrode, an organic light emitting layer, and a second electrode disposed on the overcoat layer” including the remaining limitations.
Claims 15-18 are allowable, at least, because of their dependencies on claim 14.
Examiner Note: (only insulating layer (54) in Kim (197) above, extends to the overcoat layer (BNL)). Extending the other elements claimed, would demand a major (non-obvious) reconstruction of the Kim device.
Regarding Claim 24, the references of the Prior Art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations as set forth in Claim 24, and specifically comprising the limitation of “wherein the first electrode extends from the upper surface of the second overcoat layer and the inclined side surface of the second overcoat layer to the upper surface of the first overcoat layer, and wherein the transparent inorganic bank layer is on the upper surface of the second overcoat layer and continuously extends towards the upper surface of the first overcoat layer and contacts the upper surface of the first overcoat layer” including the remaining limitations.
Claims 25-28 are allowable, at least, because of their dependencies on claim 24.
Regarding Claim 29, the references of the Prior Art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations as set forth in Claim 29 and specifically comprising the limitation of “wherein at least a portion of the opaque bank layer contacts the overcoat layer” including the remaining limitations.
Claim 30 is allowable, at least, because of its dependency on claim 29.
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