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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/24/2023 is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Note applicable to all claims being rejected in this Office action: Examiner notes that the limitations "overlap", "layer", "portion" “on” are being interpreted broadly in accordance with MPEP. Per MPEP 2111 and 2111.01, the claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation and the words of the claims are given their plain meaning consistent with the specification without importing claim limitations from the specification. The claim presently disclose a structural limitation (i.e. overlap, layer, portion, contact) that is taught by prior art of record, therefore, the limitation is considered met by the prior art of record. Additionally, Merriam Webster dictionary defines the above limitations as “to occupy the same area in part”, “one thickness lying over or under another”, “an often limited part of a whole” “used as a function word to indicate position in close proximity with” respectively. Further note the limitation “contact” is being interpreted to include "direct contact" (no intermediate materials, elements or space disposed there between) and "indirect contact" (intermediate materials, elements or space disposed there between).
Claim(s) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al (US 2019/0129539 A2 hereinafter Kim).
Regarding Claim 1, Kim discloses in Fig 8: A display device, comprising:
a substrate (111) divided into a plurality of unit areas (See Fig 1 and 2);
a plurality of sub-pixels in each of the plurality of unit areas of the substrate;
an encapsulation unit (140) on the plurality of sub-pixels (PXL);
a black matrix (194) on the encapsulation unit, the black matrix having an open area (See Fig 8) corresponding to an emission area of each of the plurality of sub-pixels (See Fig 8); and
at least one touch electrode (152) on an upper surface and a side surface of the black matrix (194) [0082-0087]. See note above for the definition of the limitation “on”.
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) 2-7, 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 2019/0129539 A2 hereinafter Kim) in view of Kim et al (US 2020/0194713 A2 hereinafter Kim713).
Regarding Claim 2, Kim discloses: The display device of claim 1.
Kim does not disclose: wherein each of the plurality of sub-pixels includes a light emitting element, the light emitting element including:
an anode within a first open area in a planarization layer on the substrate;
a light emitting layer within a second open area in a bank on the anode; and
a cathode on the light emitting layer, and
wherein the anode includes a first area on a bottom surface of the first open area, a second area on a side surface of the first open area, and a third area on the planarization layer.
However Kim713 in a similar device teaches in Fig 4 that each of the plurality of sub-pixels includes a light emitting element, the light emitting element including:
an anode (ANO1) within a first open area in a planarization layer (OC) on the substrate (SUB);
a light emitting layer (EL1) within a second open area in a bank (BNK) on the anode; and
a cathode (CAT) on the light emitting layer, and
wherein the anode includes a first area on a bottom surface of the first open area, a second area on a side surface of the first open area, and a third area on the planarization layer (See Fig 4) [0126-0129].
References Kim and Kim713 are analogous art because they both are directed to display devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify device of Kim with the specified features of Kim713 because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing of the invention to combine teachings of Kim and Kim713 so that each of the plurality of sub-pixels includes a light emitting element, the light emitting element including: an anode within a first open area in a planarization layer on the substrate;
a light emitting layer within a second open area in a bank on the anode; and a cathode on the light emitting layer, and wherein the anode includes a first area on a bottom surface of the first open area, a second area on a side surface of the first open area, and a third area on the planarization layer as taught by Kim713 in Kim’s device since, this provides a display panel with high luminous efficiency [0041].
Regarding Claim 3, Kim and Kim713 disclose: The display device of claim 2.
Kim does not disclose: wherein the cathode is on a side surface of the second open area.
However Kim713 in a similar device teaches in Fig 4 that wherein the cathode is on a side surface of the second open area [0126-0129].
References Kim and Kim713 are analogous art because they both are directed to display devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify device of Kim with the specified features of Kim713 because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing of the invention to combine teachings of Kim and Kim713 so that the cathode is on a side surface of the second open area as taught by Kim713 in Kim’s device since, this provides a display panel with high luminous efficiency [0041].
Regarding Claim 4, Kim and Kim713 disclose: The display device of claim 2.
Kim does not disclose: wherein the first open area and the second open area correspond to the emission area of each of the plurality of sub-pixels, and a first width of
the first open area is greater than a second width of the second open area.
However Kim713 in a similar device teaches in Fig 4 wherein the first open area and the second open area correspond to the emission area of each of the plurality of sub-pixels, and a first width of the first open area is greater than a second width of the second open area [0126-0129].
References Kim and Kim713 are analogous art because they both are directed to display devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify device of Kim with the specified features of Kim713 because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing of the invention to combine teachings of Kim and Kim713 so that the first open area and the second open area correspond to the emission area of each of the plurality of sub-pixels, and a first width of the first open area is greater than a second width of the second open area as taught by Kim713 in Kim’s device since, this provides a display panel with high luminous efficiency [0041].
Regarding Claim 5, Kim and Kim713 disclose: The display device of claim 4, Kim further discloses: wherein the black matrix (194) includes a third open area corresponding to the emission area of each of the plurality of sub-pixels (PXL) See Fig 8.
Regarding Claim 6, Kim and Kim713 disclose: The display device of claim 5, Kim further discloses: wherein a third width of the third open area is greater than the first width of the first open area (See Fig 8 where opening of the BM layer is wider than opening of the anode.
Regarding Claim 7, Kim and Kim713 disclose: The display device of claim 5, Kim further discloses in Fig 8: wherein a color filter (192) is within the third open area of the black matrix (194).
Regarding Claim 9, Kim and Kim713 disclose: The display device of claim 2, wherein the at least one touch electrode (152) comprises a plurality of touch electrodes that each includes:
a plurality of first touch electrodes (152b) on the side surface of the black matrix; and
a plurality of second touch electrodes (152e) on the upper surface of the black matrix (See note above for interpretation of limitation “on”).
Regarding Claim 10, Kim and Kim713 disclose: The display device of claim 9, wherein each of the plurality of first touch electrodes contacts (indirect contact) a boundary of each of the plurality of sub-pixels, and each of the plurality of second touch electrodes connects the plurality of first touch electrodes (See Fig 8).
Regarding Claim 11, Kim and Kim713 disclose: The display device of claim 9, wherein the plurality of first touch electrodes (152b) and the plurality of second touch electrodes (152e) in each of the plurality of unit areas constitute one touch electrode (152).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 12-15 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: With respect to claim 8, the primary reason for indication of allowable subject matter is that the prior art of record either singularly or in combination fails to teach or suggest the limitation “wherein an external light antireflection layer in which color filters of different colors are stacked is on the at least one touch electrode” as recited in claim 8 in combination with the remaining features.
The most relevant prior art references, Kim and Kim713 above, substantially teach the limitations of the claim 8, with the exception of the limitations described in the preceding paragraph. None of the references disclose a light antireflection layer.
With respect to claim 12, the primary reason for indication of allowable subject matter is that the prior art of record either singularly or in combination fails to teach or suggest the limitation “wherein the emission area includes a main emission area and a plurality of reflective emission areas, wherein the plurality of reflective emission areas include a first reflective emission area outside the main emission area, a second reflective emission area outside the first reflective emission area, and a third reflective emission area outside the second reflective emission area” as recited in claim 12 in combination with the remaining features.
Dependent claims 13-15 are indicated as containing allowable subject matter based on virtue of their dependencies
The most relevant prior art references, Kim and Kim713 above, substantially teach the limitations of the claim 12, with the exception of the limitations described in the preceding paragraph. None of the references disclose the various light emission areas.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NISHATH YASMEEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7564. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM-6PM.
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, Lynne Gurley can be reached at 571-272-1670. 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.
/NISHATH YASMEEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2811