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.
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) 8-12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bok et al (US PG Pub. No. 2023/0276674).
Regarding Claim 8, Bok discloses in figures 3 and 20, A light emitting display device (¶ [0003]), comprising: a light emitting diode that (¶ [0052]) is in each of a plurality of pixel regions (P31/P32, ¶ [0043]) arranged in a display region (¶ [0043]) on a substrate (100, ¶ [0043]), and includes an emission layer (332, ¶ [0056]) forming an interface of a cardioid-shaped structure (the sub-pixels include heart-shaped as shown in figure 20, the side of the bank does not have to be heart-shaped) with a side surface of a bank (150, fig. 3, ¶ [0043]); and an inclined reflective portion (the pixel electrode can be reflective (¶ [0054]) and is in the via in an inclined state and is outside the interface) that is below the bank (150) and disposed outside the interface, wherein the plurality of pixel regions includes a pixel region in which the cardioid-shaped structure is located in a first azimuth, and a pixel region in which the cardioid-shaped structure is located in a second azimuth opposite to the first azimuth (figure 20 shows heart-shaped sub-pixels (P11 and P31) in the same pixel area (dotted line) with opposite azimuthal orientations).
Regarding Claim 9, Bok discloses in figure 20: wherein within the display region, a number of the pixel region in the first azimuth and a number of the pixel region in the second azimuth are the same (there are two P11’s and two P31’s in each pixel area).
Regarding Claim 10, Bok discloses in figure 20: wherein the pixel region in the first azimuth and the pixel and the pixel region in the second azimuth are arranged alternately along one direction (vertically).
Regarding Claim 11, Bok discloses in figure 20: wherein the plurality of pixel regions includes red, green, and blue pixel regions (¶ [0090]), and wherein the red, green, and blue pixel regions (within the dotted lines) each include the pixel region in the first azimuth (P11) and the pixel region in the second azimuth (P31).
Regarding Claim 12, Bok fails to disclose: wherein the cardioid-shaped structure is defined as r = r0*(1+ε*cos(θ/2)), where θ is an azimuth angle, r0 is a radius at a cusp of the cardioid-shaped structure, r is a radius at θ, and ε is a deformation parameter.
Regarding Claim 15, Bok discloses in paragraph [0052]) wherein the light emitting diode includes a first electrode and a second electrode respectively disposed below and on the emission layer, and wherein the reflective portion (the pixel electrode is reflective) extends from the first electrode (331, fig. 3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 and 16-17 are allowed.
Claims 13-14 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 1, the references of the Prior Art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations as set forth in Claim 1, and specifically comprising the limitation of “the corresponding opening and reflective portion have a cardioid-shaped structure with a cusp, and wherein the plurality of pixel regions includes a pixel region in which the cardioid-shaped structure is located in a first azimuth, and a pixel region in which the cardioid-shaped structure is located in a second azimuth opposite to the first azimuth” including the remaining limitations.
Claims 2-7 are allowable, at least, because of their dependencies on claim 1.
Examiner Note: Bok et al (US PG Pub. No. 2023/0276674) teaches in figure 20 cardioid-shaped pixels with a cusp within the same pixel area (dotted line) with opposite azimuthal directions. However, Bok does not disclose a cardioidal shaped reflective layer and the fact that the pixel is heart-shaped does not necessarily imply that the reflective layer and opening, as claimed, are also heart-shaped (a mask could place a heart-shaped pixel in a rectangular opening).
Regarding Claim 13, the references of the Prior Art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations as set forth in Claim 13, and specifically comprising the limitation of “wherein the cardioid-shaped structure of the interface is configured to implement resonance for light in a horizontal direction of the corresponding pixel region” including the remaining limitations.
Examine Note: The cardioid structure surrounded by a reflective structure, as in applicant figure 4, creates a micro-cavity effect for horizontally traveling light improving light extractions. (not found in Prior Art).
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 the reflective portion has the same cardioid-shaped structure as the interface of the corresponding pixel region” including the remaining limitations.
Regarding Claim 16, the references of the Prior Art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations as set forth in Claim 16, and specifically comprising the limitation of “wherein at least two of the concave groove, the reflective portion, and the opening are configured in a cardioid-shaped structure with a cusp” including the remaining limitations.
Claim 17 is allowable, at least, because of its dependency on claim 16.
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