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) 1-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sim et al. (US. Pub: 2020/0365776 A1~ hereinafter “Sim”) in view of Funamoto et al. (US. Pub: 2005/0285509 A1~ hereinafter “Funamoto”).
Regarding claims 1 and 19, Sim discloses (in at least figs. 2 and 3) a light emitting device, comprising: a bank (150) disposed on a substrate (110) and including an opening which corresponds to an emission region of a pixel region (see at least figs. 2 and 3); an inclined reflective portion (i.e. the inclined portion of 141; see fig. 3) below the bank and disposed in the pixel region (see figs. 2 and 3); a light emitting diode (140; [0048]) disposed in the emission region and including an emission layer (142) and a first electrode (141) disposed below the emission layer (142) and a second electrode (143) disposed on the emission layer.
Sim does not expressly disclose a plurality of light reflectors disposed within the light emitting diode and having a lower refractive index than a refractive index of the emission layer, wherein a first interface between the emission layer and the bank is non-linear in a plan view, and a first light reflector of the plurality of light reflectors forms a second interface with the emission layer, the second interface being linear in the plan view, and wherein at least a portion of the light reflector is disposed in a caustic region along the first interface.
Funamoto in the same field of a light-emitting device discloses (in at least figs. 3 and 12) a plurality of light reflectors (149a) disposed within the light emitting diode (200) and having a lower refractive index than a refractive index of the emission layer ([0065]-[0066]), wherein a first interface between the emission layer (140) and the bank (149, 150) is non-linear in a plan view (see at least fig. 3A), and a first light reflector (149a) of the plurality of light reflectors forms a second interface with the emission layer (140), the second interface being linear in the plan view (see at least fig. 3A), and wherein at least a portion of the light reflector (149a) is disposed in a caustic region along the first interface in order to improve the emission efficiency of the light-emitting device ([0066]-[0067]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the light-emitting device of Sim with the reflector teachings of Funamoto in order to improve the emission efficiency of the light-emitting device.
Regarding claims 2, 4-5 and 11-14, Sim as modified by Funamoto does not expressly disclose the first light reflector and a second light reflector of the plurality of light reflectors have different normal directions; the light reflector has a height equal to or greater than that of a portion of the emission layer around the light reflector; the height of the light reflector is less than a height of the bank.
However, Funamoto discloses (in at least fig. 3) a first light reflector (149a) and a second light reflector (149a) of the plurality of light reflectors. Funamoto further discloses ([0068]) “although the present embodiment has been described about the case in which the convex portions 149a are substantially as high as the inorganic bank 149, the height of the convex portions 149a is not limited hereto but can be adjusted appropriately.”
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to consider forming the reflectors of Funamoto such that the reflectors have different normal directions; the light reflector has a height equal to or greater than that of a portion of the emission layer around the light reflector; and the height of the light reflector is less than a height of the bank, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Sim and Funamoto discloses (in at least figs. 2 and 3 Sim; fig. 3 Funamoto) light incident to the first light reflector is configured to be reflected to the inclined reflective portion.
Regarding claim 6, Sim as modified by Funamoto does not expressly disclose the light reflector includes: a first portion having a height equal to or greater than a height of the portion of the emission layer and having a side surface which has a first inclination angle; and a second portion located on the first portion and having a side surface which has a second inclination angle smaller than the first inclination angle.
However, Funamoto discloses (in at least [0068]) “although the present embodiment has been described about the case in which the convex portions 149a are substantially as high as the inorganic bank 149, the height of the convex portions 149a is not limited hereto but can be adjusted appropriately.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the light-emitting device of Sim as modified by Funamoto such that the light reflector includes: a first portion having a height equal to or greater than a height of the portion of the emission layer and having a side surface which has a first inclination angle; and a second portion located on the first portion and having a side surface which has a second inclination angle smaller than the first inclination angle, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 7, Sim as modified by Funamoto discloses (in at least fig. 3 both refs) the inclined reflective portion (of 141) has a circular or elliptical shape corresponding to a shape of the first interface.
Regarding claim 8, Sim as modified by Funamoto discloses (in at least fig. 3 both refs) the inclined reflective portion extends from the first electrode.
Regarding claim 9, Sim as modified by Funamoto discloses (in at least fig. 2 ) the light emitting diode is configured in a top emission type.
Regarding claim 10, Sim discloses (in at least figs. 2 and 3) a light emitting device, comprising: a bank (150) on a substrate (110) and including an opening which corresponds to an emission region of a pixel region (see at least fig. 2); an inclined reflective portion (i.e. the inclined portion of item 141) on the bank and disposed in the pixel region (see fig. 2); a light emitting diode (140; [0048]) at the emission region and including an emission layer (142) and first and second electrode (143) which are disposed below and on the emission layer (142), respectively.
Sim does not expressly disclose a plurality of light reflectors inside the light emitting diode and having a lower refractive index than that of the emission layer, wherein a first interface between the emission layer and the bank is circular or elliptical in a plan view, and the inclined light reflector forming a second interface with the emission layer is linear in the plan view, and wherein at least a portion of the light reflector is disposed in a caustic region which is a total reflection optical path region made by total reflection along the first interface.
Funamoto in the same field of a light-emitting device discloses (in at least figs. 3 and 12) a plurality of light reflectors (149a) disposed within the light emitting diode (200) and having a lower refractive index than a refractive index of the emission layer ([0065]-[0066]), wherein a first interface between the emission layer (140) and the bank (149, 150) is rectangular in a plan view (see at least figs. 3 and 13), and the light reflector (149a) forming a second interface with the emission layer (140) is linear in the plan view (see at least fig. 3), and wherein at least a portion of the light reflector (149a) is disposed in a caustic region which is a total reflection optical path region made by a total reflection along the first interface (see at least fig. 3) in order to improve the emission efficiency of the light-emitting device ([0066]-[0067]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the light-emitting device of Sim with the reflector teachings of Funamoto in order to improve the emission efficiency of the light-emitting device.
As noted, Funamoto discloses (in at least figs. 3 and 13) the first interface between the emission layer (140) and the bank (129, 150) is rectangular in a plan view instead of circular or elliptical.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to consider forming the first interface between the emission layer and the bank of Funamoto circular or elliptical, since it has been held that simple substitution of one shape for another to obtain predictable results is obvious.
Regarding claim 15, Sim as modified by Funamoto discloses (in at least figs. 2 and 3) an overcoat layer (130) disposed below a first electrode (141), wherein the overcoat layer (130) includes an accommodation groove into which the light reflector is inserted (see figs. 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 16, Sim as modified by Funamoto discloses all the claimed limitations except for the inclined reflective portion has a circular or elliptical shape corresponding to a shape of the first interface.
However, Sim as modified by Funamoto discloses (in at least figs. 2 and 3) the inclined reflective portion has a rectangular shape corresponding to a shape of the first interface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the rectangular inclined reflective portion of Sim as modified by Funamoto with circular or elliptical shape, since it has been held that simple substitution of one known shape for another to obtain predictable results is obvious.
Regarding claim 17, Sim as modified by Funamoto discloses (in at least figs. 2 and 3) the inclined reflective portion is a portion of a second electrode (143).
Regarding claim 18, Sim as modified by Funamoto discloses (in at least fig. 3; [0098] Funamoto) the light emitting diode (200) is configured in a bottom emission type.
Regarding claim 20, Sim as modified by Funamoto discloses (in at least figs. 2 and 3) the light emitting diode (140) is configured in a top emission type, and wherein the inclined reflective portion extends from the first electrode (141) and are disposed below the bank (150).
Regarding claim 21, Sim as modified by Funamoto discloses (in at least fig. 3, 7 and 8; Funamoto) the light emitting diode (200) is configured in a bottom emission type ([0098]), and wherein the inclined reflection portion from the second electrode (143) and are disposed on the bank (150).
Regarding claim 22, Sim as modified by Funamoto discloses (in at least figs. 2 and 3) light entering the caustic region is reflected along an outer boundary of the caustic region that prevents the light from leaving the caustic region (see at least figs. 2 and 3 Sim), and wherein a portion of the light reflector disposed in the caustic region causes light to exit the caustic region (see at least figs. 2 and 3 Sim).
Regarding claim 23, Sim discloses (in at least figs. 2 and 3) a light emitting device, comprising: an emission region (see fig. 2) disposed on a substrate (110) and configured to emit light in a normal direction; a bank (150) on the substrate and including an opening which corresponds to the emission region (see fig. 2).
Sim does not expressly disclose a plurality of light reflectors configured to change a direction of light traversing a lateral path; and a boundary light reflector disposed around the pixel region and configured to reflect the light traversing the lateral path towards a color filter, wherein a first interface between an emission layer in the emission region and the bank is non-linear in a plan view, and the light reflector forms a second interface with the emission layer, the second interface being linear in the plan view.
Funamoto discloses (in at least fig. 3) a plurality of light reflectors (149a) configured to change a direction of light traversing a lateral path (see fig. 12); and a boundary light reflector (149a) disposed around the pixel region and configured to reflect the light traversing the lateral path towards a color filter ([0137]-[0143]), wherein a first interface between an emission layer (140) in the emission region and the bank (149, 150) is non-linear in a plan view (see fig. 3A), and the light reflector forms a second interface with the emission layer (140), the second interface being linear in the plan view (see fig. 3A) in order to improve the emission efficiency of the light-emitting device ([0066]-[0067]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the light-emitting device of Sim with teachings of Funamoto in order to improve the emission efficiency of the light-emitting device ([0066]-[0067]). See also Yoo et al. (EP:3232488 A1~ hereinafter “Yoo”) of record.
Regarding claim 24, Sim as modified by Funamoto discloses (in at least figs. 2 and 3) at least a portion of a first light reflector of the plurality of light reflectors (149a) is disposed in a caustic region along the first interface.
Regarding claim 25, Sim as modified by Funamoto discloses (in at least figs. 2 and 3) the plurality of light reflectors (149a) are configured to redirect light towards the boundary light reflector.
Regarding claim 26, Funamoto discloses (in at least fig. 3, 7 and 8) the plurality of light reflectors (149a) are disposed in the opening.
Regarding claim 27, Funamoto discloses (in at least fig. 3, 7 and 8) the plurality of light reflectors (149a) are separated from the bank (149, 150).
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