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, which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/8/2023 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 11/8/2023. These drawings are considered acceptable by Examiner.
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 § 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.
1. Claim(s) 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Heo et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0408163 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Heo et al., teaches a display device comprising: a pixel defining layer (150, a bank, ¶ [0034]; see at least Fig. 4) defining: a first pixel opening (R) exposing a first pixel electrode (110b); and a second pixel opening (B) exposing a second pixel electrode (110a) and spaced apart from the first pixel opening (R); a pattern part disposed on the pixel defining layer (150) between the first pixel opening (R) and the second pixel opening (B) and including a first pattern (1st elements immediately to left of 160c) and a second pattern (2nd elements immediately to right of 160c) spaced apart from each other; and a separator (160c, spacer structure, ¶ [0034]) including: a contact part (bottom-most part of 160c) directly contacting the pixel defining layer (150) between the first pattern (1st elements to left of 160c) and the second pattern (2nd elements to right of 160c); a first inclined part (inclined undercut of 160c) disposed on the contact part (bottom-most part of 160c), spaced apart from the pattern part to define an undercut space, and having a first average taper angle; and a second inclined part (top-most portion of 160c or element 180) disposed on the first inclined part (inclined undercut of 160c). Heo et al., is silent regarding the second inclined part having a second average taper angle smaller than the first average taper angle of the first inclined part.
However, Examiner reasonably contemplates that 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 second inclined part to have a second average taper angle smaller than the first average taper angle of the first inclined part, since optimization of workable ranges is considered within the skill of the art as it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would entertain the idea of providing the second inclined part to have a second average taper angle smaller than the first average taper angle of the first inclined part in order to provide greater structural integrity and stability by reducing the angle of the upper most portion of the spacer.
Regarding Claim 2, Heo et al., teaches as modified by optimization the display device of claim 1, wherein in a cross section, a width of the first inclined part (inclined undercut of 160c) gradually increases in a direction away from an upper surface of the pixel defining layer (150), and in the cross section, a width of the second inclined part (top-most portion of 160c or element 180) gradually increases in a direction away from an upper surface of the pixel defining layer (150).
Motivation to combine would be the same as stated above.
Regarding Claim 3, Heo et al., teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the undercut space defined by the first inclined part (inclined undercut of 160c) includes: a first undercut space defined by the first pattern (1st elements to left of 160c) and the first inclined part (inclined undercut of 160c) spaced apart from each other; and a second undercut space defined by the second pattern (2nd elements to right of 160c) and the first inclined part (inclined undercut of 160c) spaced apart from each other.
Regarding Claim 4, Heo et al., teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the first pattern (1st elements to left of 160c) is closer to the first pixel opening (R) than the second pattern (2nd elements to right of 160c), and the second pattern (2nd elements to right of 160c) is closer to the second pixel opening (B) than the first pattern (1st elements to left of 160c).
Regarding Claim 5, Heo et al., teaches the display device of claim 4, wherein the contact part (bottom-most part of 160c) covers an entirety of an upper surface of the pixel defining layer (150) between the first pattern (1st elements to left of 160c) and the second pattern (2nd elements to right of 160c) spaced apart from each other (as clearly depicted in Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 6, Heo et al., teaches the display device of claim 5, further comprising: a first emission layer (122b) disposed in the first pixel opening (R); a second emission layer (122a) disposed in the second pixel opening (B); and a common layer (180) electrically connected to each of the first emission layer (122b) and the second emission layer (122a).
Regarding Claim 7, Heo et al., teaches the display device of claim 6, wherein the common layer (180) includes: a first portion extending from within the first pixel opening (R) onto the pixel defining layer (150) adjacent to the first pixel opening (R); a second portion extending from within the second pixel opening (B) onto the pixel defining layer (150) adjacent to the second pixel opening (B); and a third portion disposed on the separator (160c).
Regarding Claim 8, Heo et al., teaches the display device of claim 7, wherein in an area between the first pixel opening (R) and the second pixel opening (B), each of the first portion of the common layer (180) and the second portion of the common layer (180) is spaced apart from the third portion of the common layer (180).
Regarding Claim 9, Heo et al., teaches the display device of claim 8, wherein in a connection area adjacent to the area between the first pixel opening (R) and the second pixel opening (B) and spaced apart from the separator (160c), each of the first portion of the common layer (180) and the second portion of the common layer (180) electrically contacts the third portion of the common layer (180).
Regarding Claim 10, Heo et al., teaches a display device comprising: a pixel defining layer (150) defining: a first pixel opening (R) exposing a first pixel electrode (110b); and a second pixel opening (B) exposing a second pixel electrode (110a) and spaced apart from the first pixel opening (R); and a separator (160c) including: a contact part (bottom-most part of 160c) directly contacting the pixel defining layer (150); a first inclined part (inclined undercut of 160c) disposed on the contact part (bottom-most part of 160c), spaced apart from the pixel defining layer (150) to define an undercut space, and having a first average taper angle; and a second inclined part (top-most portion of 160c or element 180) disposed on the first inclined part (inclined undercut of 160c).
Heo et al., is silent regarding the second inclined part having a second average taper angle smaller than the first average taper angle of the first inclined part.
However, Examiner reasonably contemplates that 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 second inclined part to have a second average taper angle smaller than the first average taper angle of the first inclined part, since optimization of workable ranges is considered within the skill of the art as it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would entertain the idea of providing the second inclined part to have a second average taper angle smaller than the first average taper angle of the first inclined part in order to provide greater structural integrity and stability by reducing the angle of the upper most portion of the spacer.
Regarding Claim 11, Heo et al., as modified by optimization teaches the display device of claim 10, wherein in a cross section, a width of the first inclined part (inclined undercut of 160c) gradually increases in a direction away from an upper surface of the pixel defining layer (150), and in the cross section, a width of the second inclined part (top-most portion of 160c or element 180) gradually increases in a direction away from an upper surface of the pixel defining layer (150).
Motivation to combine would be the same as stated above.
Regarding Claim 12, Heo et al., teaches the display device of claim 10, wherein the undercut space defined by the first inclined part (inclined undercut of 160c) includes: a first undercut space adjacent to the first pixel opening (R); and a second undercut space adjacent to the second pixel opening (B).
Regarding Claim 13, Heo et al., teaches the display device of claim 10, further comprising: a first emission layer (122b) disposed in the first pixel opening (R); a second emission layer (122a) disposed in the second pixel opening (B); and a common layer (180) electrically connected to each of the first emission layer (122b) and the second emission layer (122a).
Regarding Claim 14, Heo et al., teaches the display device of claim 13, wherein the common layer (180) includes: a first portion extending from within the first pixel opening (R) onto the pixel defining layer (150) adjacent to the first pixel opening (R); a second portion extending from within the second pixel opening (B) onto the pixel defining layer (150) adjacent to the second pixel opening (B); and a third portion disposed on the separator (160c).
Regarding Claim 15, Heo et al., teaches the display device of claim 14, wherein in an area between the first pixel opening (R) and the second pixel opening (B), each of the first portion of the common layer (180) and the second portion of the common layer (180) is spaced apart from the third portion of the common layer (180).
Regarding Claim 16, Heo et al., teaches the display device of claim 15, wherein in a connection area adjacent to the area between the first pixel opening (R) and the second pixel opening (B) and spaced apart from the separator (160c), each of the first portion of the common layer (180) and the second portion of the common layer (180) electrically contacts the third portion of the common layer (180).
Regarding Claim 17, Heo et al., teaches a display device comprising: a pixel defining layer (150) defining: a first pixel opening (R) exposing a first pixel electrode (110b); and a second pixel opening (B) exposing a second pixel electrode (110a) and spaced apart from the first pixel opening (R); a pattern part disposed on the pixel defining layer (150) between the first pixel opening (R) and the second pixel opening (B); and a separator (160c) including: a first inclined part (inclined undercut of 160c) disposed on the pattern part, spaced apart from the pixel defining layer (150) to define an undercut space, and having a first average taper angle; and a second inclined part (top-most portion of 160c or element 180) disposed on the first inclined part (inclined undercut of 160c). Heo et al., is silent regarding the second inclined part having a second average taper angle smaller than the first average taper angle of the first inclined part.
However, Examiner reasonably contemplates that 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 second inclined part to have a second average taper angle smaller than the first average taper angle of the first inclined part, since optimization of workable ranges is considered within the skill of the art as it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would entertain the idea of providing the second inclined part to have a second average taper angle smaller than the first average taper angle of the first inclined part in order to provide greater structural integrity and stability by reducing the angle of the upper most portion of the spacer.
Regarding Claim 18, Heo et al., as modified by optimization teaches the display device of claim 17, wherein in a cross section, a width of the first inclined part (inclined undercut of 160c) gradually increases in a direction away from an upper surface of the pixel defining layer (150), and in the cross section, a width of the second inclined part (top-most portion of 160c or element 180) gradually increases in a direction away from an upper surface of the pixel defining layer (150).
Motivation to combine would be the same as stated above.
Regarding Claim 19, Heo et al., teaches the display device of claim 17, wherein the first inclined part (inclined undercut of 160c) directly contacts the pattern part.
Regarding Claim 20, Heo et al., teaches the display device of claim 17, wherein the undercut space defined by the first inclined part (inclined undercut of 160c) includes: a first undercut space adjacent to the first pixel opening (R); and a second undercut space adjacent to the second pixel opening (B).
Regarding Claim 21, Heo et al., teaches the display device of claim 17, further comprising: a first emission layer (122b) disposed in the first pixel opening (R); a second emission layer (122a) disposed in the second pixel opening (B); and a common layer (180) electrically connected to each of the first emission layer (122b) and the second emission layer (122a).
Regarding Claim 22, Heo et al., teaches the display device of claim 21, wherein the common layer (180) includes: a first portion extending from within the first pixel opening (R) onto the pixel defining layer (150) adjacent to the first pixel opening (R); a second portion extending from within the second pixel opening (B) onto the pixel defining layer (150) adjacent to the second pixel opening (B); and a third portion disposed on the separator (160c).
Regarding Claim 23, Heo et al., teaches the display device of claim 22, wherein in an area between the first pixel opening (R) and the second pixel opening (B), each of the first portion of the common layer (180) and the second portion of the common layer (180) is spaced apart from the third portion of the common layer (180).
Regarding Claim 24, Heo et al., teaches the display device of claim 23, wherein in a connection area adjacent to the area between the first pixel opening (R) and the second pixel opening (B) and spaced apart from the separator (160c), each of the first portion of the common layer (180) and the second portion of the common layer (180) electrically contacts the third portion of the common layer (180).
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-. 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