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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, to claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 5/1/2026 is acknowledged.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55, which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/1/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/11/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 1/16/2024. These drawings are considered acceptable by Examiner.
Claim Objection(s)
Claim(s) 1 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 1, Examiner suggests modifying line 6 from “a reflective wall (LCP) disposed in boundary area of” to -- a reflective wall (LCP) disposed in a boundary area of -- in order to place the claim in better form.
Appropriate correction is required.
America Invents Act
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 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.
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.
1. Claim(s) 1, 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bae et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0013455).
Regarding Claim 1, Bae et al., teaches display apparatus, comprising: a substrate (410, substrate, Fig. 10) including a plurality of sub-pixels (PX1, PX2, PX3); a transistor disposed in each sub-pixel over the substrate (410); an organic light emitting device (430) disposed in each sub-pixel over the substrate (410); a metal patterning layer (440, encapsulation layer, ¶ [0213]) over the organic light emitting device (430, OLED); and a reflective wall (LCP, light control pattern, ¶ [0213]; see at least Fig. 10) disposed in boundary area of the sub-pixels (PX1, PX2, PX3) on the metal patterning layer (440).
Regarding Claim 5, Bae et al., teaches the display apparatus of claim 1, wherein the reflective wall (LCP) is formed of metal having getter characteristics (LCP [Wingdings font/0xE0] 512 + 513, where 513 includes molybdenum which intrinsically acts as a getter).
Regarding Claim 6, Bae et al., teaches the display apparatus of claim 5, wherein the reflective wall (LCP) is formed of at least one material selected from the group consisting of Al, Ag, rare-earth metal, and Ti (Al, ¶ [0213]).
Regarding Claim 7, Bae et al., teaches the display apparatus of claim 1, further comprising: a first encapsulation layer (501) between the organic light emitting device (430) and the metal patterning layer (440); a buffer layer (510) on the metal patterning layer (440) to cover the reflective wall (LCP); a second encapsulation layer (190) on the buffer layer (510); and a third encapsulation layer (multiple layers of 190, ¶ [0331]) on the second encapsulation layer (190).
Regarding Claim 8. The display apparatus of claim 1, further comprising: a plurality of color filter layers (130, color filters) disposed respectively in each sub-pixel over the reflective wall (LCP); and a black matrix (120, BM) between the color filter layers (130).
Regarding Claim 9, Bae et al., teaches the display apparatus of claim 1, wherein a height of the reflective wall (LCP) is proportional to an area of the organic light emitting device (430) of a corresponding sub-pixel.
Regarding Claim 10, Bae et al., teaches the display apparatus of claim 8, wherein the height of the reflective wall (LCP) is proportional to an area of the color filter layer of the corresponding sub-pixel (Fig. 10).
Regarding Claim 11, Bae et al., teaches the display apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a bank layer (120) made of black material in a boundary region of the plurality of sub-pixels (PX1, PX2, PX3), wherein a width of the reflective wall (LCP) is proportional to a width of the bank layer (Fig. 10).
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 of this title, 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.
2. Claim(s) 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Bae et al., in view of Makishima et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0266381 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Bae et al., teaches the invention set forth above (see rejection in the corresponding claim(s) above) and further teaches the metal patterning layer (440) includes: a first metal pattering layer (1st 440, region of 440 corresponding to Lb, Fig. 10, formed of an organic material, ¶ [0140]) formed of an organic material; and a second metal pattering layer (2nd 440, region corresponding to pattern 501) formed of the organic material. Bae et al., is silent regarding the second metal patterning layer being surface-reformed.
In the same field of endeavor, Makishima et al., teaches surface-reforming a layer via ultraviolet light for adhesion (adhesion, ¶ [0011]) in order to improve the affinity of the surface and greatly improve the adhesion (¶ [0011]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the surface of the second metal patterning layer, as suggested by Makishima et al., in the device of Bae et al., in order to improve the affinity of the surface and greatly improve the adhesion (¶ [0011]).
Regarding Claim 3, Bae et al., as modified by Makishima et al., teaches the display apparatus of claim 2, wherein the second metal patterning layer (440) is surface-reformed by a laser.
The applicant is claiming the product of the above element including a method (i.e. a process) of making by employing a laser, consequently, this claim is considered a “product-by-process” claim. In spite of the fact that the product-by-process claim may recite only process limitations, it is the product and not the recited process that is covered by the claim. Further, patentability of a claim to a product does not rest merely on the difference in the method by which the product is made. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process.
Furthermore, it is well established that a claimed apparatus cannot be distinguished over the prior art by a process limitation. Consequently, absent a showing of an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art, the subject product-by-process claim limitation is not afforded patentable weight (see MPEP 2113).
Motivation to combine would be the same as stated above.
Regarding Claim 4, Bae et al., as modified by Makishima et al., teaches the display apparatus of claim 2, wherein the reflective wall (LCP) is disposed on the second metal patterning layer (440).
Motivation to combine would be the same as stated above.
Other Prior Art Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pat. No. 10,903,297 B2 teaches a device similar to the claimed invention.
Examiner's Note
The Examiner cites particular figures, paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the reference(s), as applied to the claims above. Although the particular citations are representative teachings and are applied to specific limitations within the claims, other passages, internally cited references, and figures may also apply. In preparing a response, it is respectfully requested that the Applicant fully consider the references, in their entirety, as potentially disclosing or teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as fully consider the context of the passage as taught by the reference(s) or as disclosed by the Examiner.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner H. Featherly whose telephone number is 571-272-8654. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9 AM-4 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James Greece can be reached on 571-272-3711.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-272-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/H. Featherly/
Examiner Featherly
Art Unit 2875 Patent Examiner
/JAMES R GREECE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights