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. (AIA status) Priority Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 05/01/2025 and 11/15/2023 have been considered by the examiner. Specification The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 s1/a2 as being anticipated by Jang et al. ( US 20210183964 A ) (Jang, hereafter). . Regarding claim 31 , Jang teaches (Figure 3) a substrate (100a) having an emission area (EP) and a non-emission area (NEP) adjacent to the emission area,(EP) an overcoat layer(140) in the emission area, the overcoat layer(140) having a first layer(150) and a light extraction portion(153) on the first layer, the first layer having a plurality of concave portions (153); and a reflective portion on the light extraction portion(CE). 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) 19 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al, ( EP 3151281 B1 ) (Lim, hereafter) . Regarding claim 19, Lim discloses a display apparatus (Figures 1-23 and corresponding text) comprising: a substrate (100a) having a plurality of pixels (P) , each pixel (P) having a plurality of subpixels (SP) ; a pattern portion (131) disposed on the substrate (100a) and having a concave structure between subpixels (SP) of the plurality of subpixels (π46) ; and a reflective portion (Figure 3:141) on the pattern portion (π82) , wherein the plurality of subpixels (SP) include an overcoat layer (130a, protective layer) having a first layer on the substrate (110a) and a light extraction portion on the first layer and adjacent to the reflective portion (141 ) , the first layer having a plurality of concave portions (131a) Lim fails to explicitly disclose wherein a radius of a concave portion is related to a refractive index of the first layer. However it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the display apparatus of Lim wherein a radius of a concave portion is related to a refractive index of the first layer , since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. in re Boesch , 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Regarding claim 24, Lim teaches the display apparatus set forth above except wherein a depth of the concave structure of the pattern portion is same as or greater than a depth of the concave portion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the display apparatus of LIM, since it has been held that it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 . Claim (s) 19 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al, ( US 20210183964 A1 ) ( Jang , hereaf ter ) . Regarding claim 19 , Jang teaches (Figure 1-19 and corresponding text(Figure 3) display apparatus comprising: a substrate (100) having a plurality of p ixels (P) , each pixel (SPA) having a plurality of subpixels; a pattern portion (140) disposed on the substrate (100) and having a concave structure )(153) between subpixels (SPA) of the plurality of subpixels; and a reflective portion (RL) on the pattern portion (140) , wherein the plurality of subpixels (SPA) include an overcoat layer (140) having a first layer (150, patte4rn portion) on the substrate (100) and a light extraction portion (153) on the first layer (150) and adjacent to the reflective portion (RL) , the first lay er (150) having a plurality of concave portions (153)) , Jang fails to explicitly disclose wherein radius of a concave portion is related to a refractive index of the first layer. it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the display apparatus of Lim wherein a radius of a concave portion is related to a refractive index of the first layer, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. in re Boesch , 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Regarding claim 25 , Jang teaches (Figure 3) wherein the plurality of subpixels includes a light emission area (EP) and a non-light emission area (NEP) adjacent to the light emission area (EP) , the light extraction portion (153) overlaps the light emission area (RP) , and the pattern portion is adjacent to the light extraction portion (π118) . Regarding claim 2 6 , Jang teaches (Figure 3) wherein the plurality of subpixels (SPA1,SPA2,SPA3) each includes a light emitting element layer (EDL) , the light emitting element layer (EDL) includes: a pixel electrode (AE) in the light emission area (EP) ; a light emitting layer (SED) on the pixel electrode ( AE) and the non-light emission area (NEP) ; and a reflective electrode (CE) disposed on the light emitting layer (SED) , wherein the reflective portion is a portion of the reflective electrode (π236) . Regarding claim 32, the limitation a trench portion in the non-emission area, the trench portion at least partially surrounding the emission area do not appear to contain any additional features which define more than slight constructional changes which come within the scope of the customary (design) practice followed by persons skilled in the art, especially as the advantages thus achieved can be readily contemplated in advance. Alternatively, these limitations are not deemed patentable since the applicant’s disclosure fails to show such limitations to solve any problems or to yield any unobvious advantage that is not within the scope of the teachings applied. Therefore, such limitations would be a matter of design alternative it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the display apparatus of Jang wherein a trench portion in the non-emission area, the trench portion at least partially surrounding the emission area , dine matters of design choice require only routine skill. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 20 is 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. Claims 21-23 and 27-29 are objected to due to their dependence on claim 20. Claim 1-18 allowed. The following is an examiner' s statement of reasons for allowance: Regarding claim 1 the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of limitations set forth in claim 1 ;specifically, the prior art fails to teach or suggest Display Apparatus “ wherein a radius R BEST of a second concave portion satisfies R BEST =0.15 sin 4π(AR+0.05)+1.5n oc +0.5m−0.59, wherein ‘π’ is a circumferential rate, AR is an aspect ratio of the second concave portion, ‘ n oc ’ is a refractive index of the first layer, and ‘m’ is a variable valu . ” in combination with other features of the present claimed invention. Regarding claims 2-18, these claims are allowable for the reasons given for claim 1 and because of their dependency status on claim 1 Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the 893 enclosed with this office action and below: US 20210183900 A1 -Same Assignee- 103 reference for claims US 20180197929 A1 -Same Assignee-103 reference for claims Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT TRACIE Y GREEN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3104 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Thursday, 10am-8pm . 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT TRACIE Y. GREEN Primary Examiner Art Unit 2875 /TRACIE Y GREEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875