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
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) 1-4, 6-7, and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2018/0151645).
[claim 1] Lee discloses a display device (fig. 1-2), comprising: a substrate (101, fig. 2) including a plurality of subpixels (each of RGB as can be seen in fig. 1); an overcoat layer (128, optionally 142 could be part of the overcoat layer, fig. 2) disposed on the substrate; and having a recess (filled in by 132/144/138, fig. 2) positioned between the subpixels (fig. 2 shows red subpixel which would be adjacent to a blue pixel to the let in fig. 1); a first electrode (132, fig. 2, [0039]) disposed to cover an upper surface of the overcoat layer and an inclined surface of the recess (fig. 2), the first electrode including a transparent conductive material [0039]; a reflection layer (144, fig. 2, [0051]) disposed on the first electrode on the inclined surface of the recess, the reflection layer including a metal or metal alloy [0051]; and a bank layer (138, fig. 2), positioned in the recess and disposed on the reflection layer (fig. 2), wherein the reflection layer is disposed in area overlapping the first electrode (fig. 2). Lee, however, does not expressly disclose that the stack of the first electrode 132 and reflection layer 144 has a disconnected shape configuration (e.g. rectangular shape with trench therebetween or ring shape).
Nevertheless it would have been obvious to have made the stack of the first electrode and reflection layer has disconnected shape configuration, since it has been held that a particular shape configuration (a disconnected shape configuration such as a rectangular shape with trench therebetween or ring shape) was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing would have found obvious absent evidence that the particular configuration was critical. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
With this modification Lee discloses:
[claim 1] wherein the first electrode is disposed to be disconnected on a lower surface of the recess (upon modification), wherein the reflection layer is disposed to be disconnected together with the first electrode on the lower surface of the recess to expose a portion of the overcoat layer (upon modification), and wherein the bank layer directly contacts the exposed portion of the overcoat layer (upon modification).
[claim 2] The display device of claim 1, wherein the reflection layer includes a first portion and a second portion, the first portion of the reflection layer disposed to extend over a portion of the upper surface of the overcoat layer (the protruding portion outside of the recess on 142 where 142 is part of the overcoat layer fig. 2).
[claim 3] The display device of claim 2, wherein the first portion of the reflection layer is covered by the bank layer (fig. 2).
[claim 4] The display device of claim 2, wherein the first portion of the reflection layer includes a protrusion (protrusion is the extension of 144 on the upper surface of 142, fig. 2) exposed to an outside of the bank layer (exposed from the bottom surface of 114 via the electrode 132, fig. 2).
[claim 6] The display device of claim 2, wherein the second portion of the reflection layer is on the inclined surface of the recess, and wherein, when projected onto a plane a width of the first portion is larger than a width of the second portion (if the first portion extends from the protruding to a signification portion of the reflection layer in the recess with the remainder being the second portion).
[claim 7] The display device of claim 2, wherein, when projected onto a plane, a width of the first portion is smaller than a width of the second portion (if the first portion extends from the protruding to a very small portion of the reflection layer in the recess with the remainder being the second portion).
[claim 9] The display device of claim 1, wherein the first electrode includes at least one of indium tin oxide (ITO) [0039], indium zinc oxide (IZO), or indium tin zinc oxide (ITZO), and wherein the reflection layer includes any one selected from the group consisting of silver (Ag), aluminum (Al), magnesium (Mg), chromium (Cr), titanium (Ti), nickel (Ni), tungsten (W), gold (Au), tantalum (Ta), copper (Cu), cobalt (Co), iron (Fe), molybdenum (Mo), platinum (Pt), and an alloy thereof.
[claim 10] The display device of claim 1, further comprising an organic light emitting layer (organic emitting layer EML in 134, fig. 2, [0040]) and a second electrode (136, fig. 2) disposed on the first electrode and the bank layer.
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2018/0151645).
[claim 11] Lee discloses a display device (fig. 1, 2), comprising: a substrate (101, fig. 2) including a display area (pixel area of AA, fig. 1) including a subpixel (RGB, fig. 1) and a non-display area (PA and non-pixel area of AA, fig. 2) adjacent to the display area; an overcoat layer (128, 142, fig. 2) disposed on the substrate and including an upper surface having an X zone (upper surface of 128 outside of the recess, fig. 2) and a Z zone (upper surface of 142 under 144 outside of the recess, fig. 2) and an inclined surface having a Y zone (recess where the sides are inclined between zones X and Z, fig. 2) adjacent to the Z zone; an organic light emitting element (130, fig. 2) disposed in the X zone and including a first electrode (132, fig. 2), an organic light emitting layer (organic emitting layer EML in 134, fig. 2, [0040]), and a second electrode (136, fig. 2); and a reflection layer (144, fig. 2) disposed in a portion of the Z zone and the Y zone (fig. 2), wherein when the subpixel emits light, emission widths of the X, Y, and Z zones produced on a plane have a relationship of X zone > Y zone > Z zone (the Z zone is completely under the reflector 144 and would have thus have a very narrow emission width, the Y zone is partially under the reflector and thus would have a less narrow emission width, while X zone has no reflector and thus has the widest emission widths) wherein the reflection layer is disposed in an area overlapping the first electrode in the Y zone and the Z zone (fig. 2). Lee, however, does not expressly disclose that the stack of the first electrode 132 and reflection layer 144 has a disconnected shape configuration (e.g. rectangular shape with trench therebetween or ring shape).
Nevertheless it would have been obvious to have made the stack of the first electrode and reflection layer has disconnected shape configuration, since it has been held that a particular shape configuration (a disconnected shape configuration such as a rectangular shape with trench therebetween or ring shape) was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing would have found obvious absent evidence that the particular configuration was critical. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
With this modification Lee discloses:
[claim 11] wherein the first electrode is disposed to be disconnected on a lower region of the inclined surface adjacent to the Y zone (upon modification), wherein the reflection layer is disposed to be disconnected together with the first electrode on the lower region of the inclined surface adjacent to the Y zone to expose a portion of the overcoat layer (upon modification), and wherein a bank layer directly contacts the exposed portion of the overcoat layer (upon modification).
[claim 12] The display device of claim 11, wherein the first electrode (132, fig. 2) is disposed to extend from the X zone to the Z zone and the Y zone (fig. 2).
[claim 13] The display device of claim 11, further comprising a bank layer (138, fig. 2) on the overcoat layer, wherein the bank layer is disposed to cover one end of the reflection layer in the Z zone.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2018/0151645).
[claim 17] A display device (fig. 1, 2), comprising: a plurality of subpixels (RGB, fig. 1) including an emission area (right side of fig. 2 starting from the beginning of reflector 144 to the right end of fig. 2) and a non-emission area (left side of fig. 2 starting from the beginning of reflector 144 to the left end of fig. 2 ); and a substrate (101, fig. 2) where a bank layer (138, fig. 2) defining an opening of each of the plurality of subpixels is disposed (the bank 138 defines the light emitting regions as shown in fig. 1,2, [0039]), wherein the emission area includes: a first overcoat layer (128, 118, fig. 2) disposed on the substrate; a second overcoat layer (142, fig. 2) positioned in an area corresponding to the opening and disposed on the first overcoat layer (fig. 2); and a first electrode (132, fig. 2) disposed on the second overcoat layer, and wherein the non-emission area includes: a thin film transistor (TD, fig. 2) disposed on the substrate; the first overcoat layer disposed on the thin film transistor (fig. 2); the first electrode disposed on the first overcoat layer (fig. 2); and a reflection layer (144, fig. 2) disposed on the first electrode, wherein the reflection layer is disposed in area overlapping the first electrode (fig. 2). Lee, however, does not expressly disclose that the stack of the first electrode 132 and reflection layer 144 has a disconnected shape configuration (e.g. rectangular shape with trench therebetween or ring shape).
Nevertheless it would have been obvious to have made the stack of the first electrode and reflection layer has disconnected shape configuration, since it has been held that a particular shape configuration (a disconnected shape configuration such as a rectangular shape with trench therebetween or ring shape) was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing would have found obvious absent evidence that the particular configuration was critical. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
With this modification Lee discloses:
[claim 17] wherein the first electrode is disposed to be disconnected on a lower surface of the recess (upon modification), wherein the reflection layer is disposed to be disconnected together with the first electrode on the lower surface of the recess to expose a portion of the overcoat layer (upon modification), and wherein the bank layer directly contacts the exposed portion of the overcoat layer (upon modification).
Claim(s) 22-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2018/0151645).
[claim 22] A display device (fig. 1, 2), comprising: a substrate (101, fig. 2); an overcoat layer (128, 142, 118, fig. 2) disposed on the substrate, the overcoat layer having an upper surface and an inclined side surface extending from the upper surface (fig. 2); a light emitting element (130, fig. 2) having a first electrode (132, fig. 2) on the overcoat layer, a second electrode (136, fig. 2), and an organic light emitting layer (organic emitting layer EML in 134, fig. 2, [0040]) between the first and second electrodes, the first electrode on the upper surface of the overcoat layer and extending over the inclined side surface of the overcoat layer (fig. 2); and a reflection layer (144, fig. 2) on the first electrode at the inclined side surface of the overcoat layer, the reflection layer spaced apart from the organic light emitting layer (fig. 2), wherein the reflection layer is disposed in area overlapping the first electrode (fig. 2). Lee, however, does not expressly disclose that the stack of the first electrode 132 and reflection layer 144 has a disconnected shape configuration (e.g. rectangular shape with trench therebetween or ring shape).
Nevertheless it would have been obvious to have made the stack of the first electrode and reflection layer has disconnected shape configuration, since it has been held that a particular shape configuration (a disconnected shape configuration such as a rectangular shape with trench therebetween or ring shape) was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing would have found obvious absent evidence that the particular configuration was critical. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
With this modification Lee discloses:
[claim 22] wherein the first electrode is disposed to be disconnected on a lower surface of the recess (upon modification), wherein the reflection layer is disposed to be disconnected together with the first electrode on the lower surface of the recess to expose a portion of the overcoat layer (upon modification), and wherein the bank layer directly contacts the exposed portion of the overcoat layer (upon modification).
[claim 23] The display device of claim 22, wherein the overcoat layer includes a first overcoat layer (128/118, fig. 2) and a second overcoat layer (142, fig. 2) on the first overcoat layer, wherein the first electrode contacts an inclined side surface of the second overcoat layer and an upper surface of the second overcoat layer (fig. 2), wherein the inclined side surface of the second overcoat layer is the inclined side surface of the overcoat layer (fig. 2), and wherein the upper surface of the second overcoat layer is the upper surface of the overcoat layer (fig. 2).
[claim 24] The display device of claim 22, comprising: a bank layer (138, fig. 2) on the overcoat layer and adjacent to the light emitting element (fig. 2); wherein the organic light emitting layer extends over the bank layer (fig. 2), and wherein the second electrode extends over the light emitting layer at the bank layer (fig. 2).
[claim 25] The display device of claim 24, comprising: a trench (trench is formed by adjacent bank layers 138 between separate subpixels in fig. 1, one side of the trench formed in 138 is shown in fig. 2 where 136/134 is formed on the sidewall) included in the bank layer, wherein the organic light emitting layer extends over the bank layer and into the trench (fig. 2), and wherein the second electrode extends over the light emitting layer at the trench (fig. 2).
[claim 26] The display device of claim 25, wherein the trench does not overlap with the reflection layer (fig. 2).
[claim 27] The display device of claim 22, wherein an X zone (upper surface of 128 outside of the recess, fig. 2) includes a zone where the upper surface of the overcoat layer contacts the organic light emitting layer, a Y zone (recess where the sides are inclined between zones X and Z, fig. 2) includes a zone where the inclined side surface of the overcoat layer is located, and a Z zone (upper surface of 142 under 144 outside of the recess, fig. 2) is between the X zone and the Y zone, wherein emission widths of the X zone produced as the display device emits light on a plane has greater emission widths than that of the Y zone (the Z zone is completely under the reflector 144 and would have thus have a very narrow emission width, the Y zone is partially under the reflector and thus would have a less narrow emission width, while X zone has no reflector and thus has the widest emission widths).
[claim 28] The display device of claim 27, wherein emission widths of the Y zone produced as the display device emits light on a plane has greater emission widths than that of the Z zone (the Z zone is completely under the reflector 144 and would have thus have a very narrow emission width, the Y zone is partially under the reflector and thus would have a less narrow emission width, while X zone has no reflector and thus has the widest emission widths).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2018/0151645) in view of Tsai (US 2007/0290221).
Lee discloses the display devices of claim 4 but does not expressly disclose that the reflector is made of a metal oxide (metals are disclosed instead).
Tsai discloses a display device wherein a reflector may be made of either a metal or metal oxide [0018].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to have made Lee’s reflector out of a metal oxide since it has been held that simple substitution of one known element (metal oxide) for another (a metal) to obtain predictable results (a reflector) is obvious. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2018/0151645) in view of Kim (US 2016/0155791).
Lee discloses the display devices of claim 17 but does not expressly disclose a repair line between the substrate and the drain electrode of the TFT.
Kim discloses a display device wherein a repair line (RLm, fig. 3, [0036]) between the substrate (SUB, fig. 3) and the drain electrode (DE,CL1 fig. 3) of the TFT (TFT, fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to have used Kim’s repair line in Lee’s device in order to provide a means to detect and/or repair faulty device .
With this modification Lee discloses
[claim 21] The display device of claim 17, wherein the non-emission area includes: a repair line disposed on the substrate (upon modification); the first overcoat layer disposed on the repair line (upon modification the repair line would be under the drain electrode 110, fig. 2 and separated by insulation 116) and including a contact hole (120, fig 2); and the first electrode disposed in the contact hole and the reflection layer disposed on the first electrode (fig. 2), and wherein at least one insulation layer (116, fig. 2) is disposed between the repair line and the first electrode.
Claim(s) 14-16 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2018/0151645) in view of Kim2 (US 2009/0002304).
Lee discloses the display devices of claims 11 and 17 but does not expressly disclose using a plurality of clock lines in the in the display device.
Kim2 discloses a display device wherein a plurality of clock lines (CLK1, CLKB1, CLK2, CLKB2, fig. 3, [0080][0085]) that connect to pixel electrode (VLC, fig. 3, [0080][0085] to provide synchronization and to include a pixel memory structure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to have used Kim2’s clock lines in Lee’s device in order to provide synchronization across the pixels and to include a pixel memory structure ([0085][0080] of Kim2).
With this modification Lee discloses:
[claim 14] The display device of claim 11, wherein the non-display area includes a clock line portion (CLK1, CLKB1, CLK2, CLKB2, fig. 3, Kim2) including first clock lines (CLK1, CLKB1, fig. 3) and second clock lines (CLK2, CLKB2, fig. 3, Kim2) disposed on different layers, and wherein the second clock lines are multi-layer lines of the first electrode and the reflection layer disposed on the first electrode (the clock lines are connected to the first electrode and reflection layers hence they part of clock lines in Kim2).
[claim 15] The display device of claim 14, wherein the non-display area further includes a gate driving unit (TD, fig. 2), wherein the first clock lines (clock lines are part of 132/144, fig. 3, upon modification) are disposed on the substrate, and wherein the second clock lines (clock lines are part of 132/144, fig. 3, upon modification) are disposed on the gate driving unit.
[claim 16] The display device of claim 15, wherein the overcoat layer is disposed between the gate driving unit and the second clock lines (fig. 2, 142 is between TD and 144).
[claim 18] The display device of claim 17, wherein the non-emission area includes a clock line portion (CLK1, CLKB1, CLK2, CLKB2, fig. 3, Kim2) including first clock lines (CLK1, CLKB1, fig. 3) and second clock lines (CLK2, CLKB2, fig. 3, Kim2) disposed on different layers, and wherein the second clock lines are multi-layer lines of the first electrode and the reflection layer disposed on the first electrode (the clock lines are connected to the first electrode and reflection layers hence they part of clock lines in Kim2). .
[claim 19] The display device of claim 18, wherein the non-emission area further includes a gate driving unit (TD, fig. 2), wherein the gate driving unit includes: a gate thin film transistor (TD, fig. 2) disposed on the substrate; and the first overcoat layer disposed on the gate thin film transistor (fig. 2) wherein the first clock lines are disposed on the substrate (clock lines are part of 132/144, fig. 3, upon modification), and wherein the second clock lines are disposed on the gate driving circuit (clock lines are part of 132/144, fig. 3, upon modification).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any interpretation 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 AMAR MOVVA whose telephone number is (571)272-9009. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, Julio Maldonado can be reached at 571-272-1864. 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.
/AMAR MOVVA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights