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) 1-2, 10-11,15, 17-18 20-21 and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Jeon et al (US PG Pub. No. 2021/0005687). Regarding Claim 1 , Jeon discloses, at least in figure 7 and figure 2 : A display device (title) , comprising: a plurality (one shown in fig. 7, see fig. 12 which has 2) of pixel electrodes (210, [0125]) spaced apart from each other (see fig. 12) ; a first definition layer (11 7 , ¶ [012 6 ]) defining a plurality of reflective openings (plurality in fig. 12) exposing a first area (in the via) of each of the plurality of pixel electrodes (210) ; a plurality of reflective electrodes disposed on the first area of each of the plurality of pixel electrodes (210) (paragraph [0128], last line discloses the pixel electrode may have a structure of ito/ag/ito, silver is reflective on the ito layer) , extending from the first area of each of the plurality of pixel electrodes (210) to the first definition layer (11 7 ) , and spaced apart from each other (fig. 12, the pixel electrodes (210a, 210b) are spaced apart) ; a second definition layer (11 8 , ¶ [01 29 ]) disposed on the first definition layer (11 7 ) and defining a plurality of pixel openings exposing a second area (left o f 118 in fig. 7) of each of the plurality of ( reflective electrodes (part of 210) ; a plurality (fig. 12) of light emitting layers (220, ¶ [0131]) disposed on the second area (of 118) of each of the plurality of reflective electrodes (part of 210) within the plurality of pixel openings (as shown in fig. 12) ; a common electrode (230, ¶ [0130) overlapping the plurality of light emitting layers (220) and the second definition layer (118) in a plan view (see fig. 13) ; an encapsulation layer (310, ¶ [0070] , fig. 2 ) overlapping the common electrode ( 230)(see fig. 2, common electrode (230) is part of the OLED) in the plan view; a capping layer (320, ¶ [0070], silicon nitride , figure 2 ) disposed on the encapsulation layer (310) ; and a low refractive index layer (330, ¶ [0070], silicon oxide is low refractive index (1.5)) disposed on the capping layer (320) . Regarding Claim 2 , Jeon discloses: wherein a refractive index of the low refractive index layer (330) (Silicon oxide) is lower than a refractive index of the capping layer (320) ( silicon nitride, 1.7-2.1) Regarding Claim 10 , Jeon discloses in figure 2: wherein the low refractive index layer (330) defines a plurality of transmission openings corresponding to the plurality of pixel openings (since silicon oxide is a transparent material) . Regarding Claim 1 1, Jeon discloses, at least in figure s 7 and 2 : A display device (title) , comprising: a plurality of pixel electrodes (210) spaced apart from each other; a first definition layer (117) defining a plurality of reflective openings (of 210) opening a first area of each of the plurality of pixel electrodes (210) ; a plurality of reflective electrodes (part of 210) disposed on the first area of each of the plurality of pixel electrodes (210) , extending from the first area of each of the plurality of pixel electrodes (210) to the first definition layer (117) , and spaced apart from each other; a second definition layer (118) disposed on the first definition layer (117) and defining a plurality of pixel openings opening a second area of each of the plurality of reflective electrodes (part of 210) ; a plurality of light emitting layers (220) disposed on the second area of each of the plurality of reflective electrodes (part of 210) within the plurality of pixel openings; a common electrode (230) overlapping the plurality of light emitting layers (220) and the second definition layer (118) in a plan view; an encapsulation layer (310 ,fig. 2 ) overlapping the common electrode (230) in the plan view; and a low refractive index layer (330 , fig.2 ) disposed on the encapsulation layer (310) . Regarding Claim 1 5 , Jeon discloses in figure 7: further comprising: a capping layer (320) disposed on the low refractive index layer (330). Regarding Claim 1 7 , Jeon discloses in figures 7 and 2: A display device (title), comprising: a pixel electrode including: a first pixel electrode (210a); and a second pixel electrode(210b) spaced apart from the first pixel electrode(210a); a first definition layer (117) defining a first reflective opening exposing a first area of the first pixel electrode (210a) and a second reflective opening exposing a first area of the second pixel electrode(210b); a reflective electrode (part of 210) including: a first reflective electrode (part of first 210) disposed on the first area of the first pixel electrode (210); and a second reflective electrode (part of second 210) disposed on the first area of the second pixel electrode (210); a second definition layer (118) defining a first pixel opening exposing a second area of the first reflective electrode and a second pixel opening exposing a second area of the second reflective electrode (see fig. 12 for multiple subpixels); a light emitting layer (220) including: a first light emitting layer (220) disposed on the second area of the first reflective electrode (left subpixel in figure 12); and a second light emitting layer (220) disposed on the second area of the second reflective electrode (right subpixel in figure 12) ; a common electrode (230) overlapping the first and second light emitting layers (220) and the second definition layer (118) in a plan view; an encapsulation layer (310) overlapping the common electrode (230) in the plan view; a capping layer (320) disposed on the encapsulation layer (310); and a low refractive index layer (330, silicon oxide, 1.5) disposed on the capping layer (320). Regarding Claim 1 8 , Jeon discloses: wherein a refractive index of the low refractive index layer (330) (Silicon oxide) is lower than a refractive index of the capping layer (320) ( 320) ( silicon nitride, 1.7-2.1). Regarding Claim 20 , Jeon discloses in figures 7 and 12: wherein an area of the first reflective opening is greater than an area of the first pixel opening in a plan view (the pixel electrode, which is reflective, extends beyond the borders of the opening and goes under the banks), and an area of the second reflective opening is greater than an area of the second pixel opening in the plan view (same for other subpixel shown in figure 12). Regarding Claim 21 , Jeon discloses in figure 7: wherein the first reflective electrode (in left 210, see fig. 12 ) further extends from on the first area of the first pixel electrode (210, left) to on the first definition layer (117) adjacent to the first area of the first pixel electrode to define a first extension portion, the second reflective electrode (of 210 right in fig. 12) further extends from on the first area of the second pixel electrode (210 right) to on the first definition layer (117) adjacent to the first area of the second pixel electrode to define a second extension portion, and the first reflective electrode and the second reflective electrode (of the two subpixels) are spaced apart from each other (the extension portions run under the banks (definition layers) on both sides). Regarding Claim 24 , Jeon discloses in figure 13: wherein, the second definition layer (118 center) is disposed between the first extension portion (right end of 210 in left subpixel) and the first light emitting layer (220a), and between the second extension portion (left end of 210 in right subpixel) and the second light emitting layer (220b), and the second definition layer (118) includes a transparent organic material (acryl resin (¶ [0129]) is transparent), Regarding Claim 25 , Jeon discloses in figure 13: further comprising: a spacer (119 a, ¶ [0130]) disposed between the first pixel opening (left subpixel) and the second pixel opening (right subpixel) in a plan view, and disposed between the second definition layer (118) and the common electrode (230) in a cross-sectional view. Regarding Claim 26 , Jeon discloses in paragraph [0130], wherein the spacer (119a) includes a light blocking material (phenol resin is colored and opaque). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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) 3 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon (687). Regarding Claim 3 , Jeon fails to disclose: wherein the refractive index (N RL ) of the low refractive index layer (330) and the refractive index (N CPL ) of the capping layer (320) satisfy the equation 0 < N CPL – N RL ≤ 0.1. However, it is well known that it is important to closely match the refractive indices of adjacent layers to prevent reflections of light at the interface of the two layers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the claimed relationship between the refractive indices of the capping and low refractive index layer (330) , to prevent reflections of light at the interface of the two layers. Furthermore, applicant has not shown how limiting the difference in indices to less than or equal to 0.1 (and not zero), produces any novel or unexpected result. In fact, it is obvious that a zero difference would produce the best result. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the claimed relationship between the refractive indices of the capping and low refractive index layer, as a matter of obvious design choice. Regarding Claim 19 , Jeon fails to disclose: wherein the refractive index (N RL ) of the low refractive index layer (330) and the refractive index (N CPL ) of the capping layer (320) satisfy the equation 0 < N CPL – N RL ≤0.1. However, it is well known that it is important to closely match the refractive indices of adjacent layers to prevent reflections of light at the interface of the two layers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the claimed relationship between the refractive indices of the capping and low refractive index layer (330) , to prevent reflections of light at the interface of the two layers. Claim(s) 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon (687) in view of Kurata (US PG Pub. No. 2020/0152905) . Regarding Claim 1 2 , Jeon discloses in figure 2: wherein the encapsulation layer (310) includes: a first encapsulation layer (310) overlapping the common electrode (230, in the OLED). in the plan view and including an inorganic insulating material (¶ [0070], silicon oxide); a second encapsulation layer (320, ¶ [0070]) overlapping the first encapsulation layer (310) in the plan view and including an organic insulating material (¶ [0070]; Jeon fails to disclose: and a third encapsulation layer overlapping the second encapsulation layer (320) in the plan view and including an inorganic insulating material. Kurata teaches in paragraph [0057] placing a 3 layer encapsulation structure on a common electrode to prevent the entry of moisture from the outside and deterioration of the organic layer. The structure is inorganic/organic/inorganic, as claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the 3 layer encapsulation, as claimed, on the common electrode of Jeon, as taught by Kurata, to prevent the entry of moisture from the outside and deterioration of the organic layer. Regarding Claim 13 , Jeon, as modified by Kurata, teach: wherein a refractive index of the low refractive index layer (330) is lower (silicon oxide, 1.5) than a refractive index of the third encapsulation layer (142c of Kurata , ¶ [0058], silicon nitride, 1.7-2.1). Motivation in claim 12. Regarding Claim 14 , Jeon, as modified by Kurata, fails to teach: wherein the refractive index (N RL ) of the low refractive index layer (330) and the refractive index (N NE3 ) of the third encapsulation layer ( of Kurata ) satisfy the equation 0 < N NE3 – N RL ≤0.1. However, it is well known that it is important to closely match the refractive indices of adjacent layers to prevent reflections of light at the interface of the two layers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the claimed relationship between the refractive indices of the third encapsulation layer and low refractive index layer (330) , to prevent reflections of light at the interface of the two layers. Furthermore, applicant has not shown how limiting the difference in indices to less than or equal to 0.1 (and not zero), produces any novel or unexpected result. In fact, it is obvious that a zero difference would produce the best result. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the claimed relationship between the refractive indices of the third encapsulation layer (of Kurata) and the low refractive index layer, of Jeon, as a matter of obvious design choice. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 4-9, 16 ,22-23 and 27-28 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 4 , the references of the Prior Art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations as set forth in Claim 4 , and specifically comprising the limitation of “ further comprising: a plurality of lens portions disposed on the low refractive index layer and overlapping the plurality of reflective openings in the P lan view; and a bank disposed on the low refractive index layer and partitioning the plurality of lens portions ” including the remaining limitations . Claims 5-9 are allowable, at least, because of their dependencies on claim 4. 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 “ further comprising: a plurality of lens portions disposed on the capping layer and overlapping the plurality of reflective openings in the plan view; and a bank disposed on the capping layer and partitioning the plurality of lens portions ” including the remaining limitations. Regarding Claim 22 , the references of the Prior Art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations as set forth in Claim 22 , and specifically comprising the limitation of “ wherein, the first extension portion surrounds the first reflective opening in the plan view, and the second extension portion surrounds the second reflective opening in the plan view ” including the remaining limitations. Claim 23 is allowable, at least, because of its dependency on claim 22 . Regarding Claim 27 , the references of the Prior Art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations as set forth in Claim 27 , and specifically comprising the limitation of “ further comprising: a lens portion disposed on the low refractive index layer and including: a first lens portion overlapping the first reflective opening in the plan view; and a second lens portion overlapping the second reflective opening in the plan view; and a bank disposed on the low refractive index layer and partitioning the first lens portion and the second lens portion ” including the remaining limitations . Claim 28 is allowable, at least, because of its dependency on claim 27. CONTACT INFORMATION Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JAMES R. GREECE whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)27 2-3711 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT James R. Greece can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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