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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 and 10-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Lim et al. (US Pub: 2021/0288117 A1~hereinafter “Lim”) of record.
Regarding claim 1, Lim discloses (in at least fig. 1) a display device comprising: a light emitting layer (OLED) including a light emitting element (303; [0054]); a transparent resin layer (400; [0057])) disposed on the light emitting layer (OLED) and including an opening part (410, 420, 430; [0060]; see at least fig. 1) corresponding to the light emitting layer (303), wherein the opening part (410, 420, 430) is a hole extending entirely through the transparent resin layer (400) and is centered over the light emitting element (303), the opening part including an inclined side surface (see fig. 1); a color converting layer (413, 423, 433; [0061]) disposed in the opening part; and a reflection plate (403; [0060]) positioned on the inclined side surface.
Regarding claim 2, Lim discloses (in at least fig. 1) the reflection plate (403) has a closed loop shape surrounding the color converting layer (413, 423, 433; [0061]) disposed in the opening part of the transparent resin layer (400).
Regarding claim 10, Lim discloses (in at least fig. 1) a display device comprising: a subpixel disposed on a substrate (see fig. 1), the subpixel including a light emitting part (OLED); a transparent layer (400) including a hole (410, 420, 430) extending entirely through the transparent layer and centered over the light emitting part of the subpixel (see fig. 1); a color converting part (415, 425, 435) disposed in the hole in the transparent layer; and a reflection plate (403) disposed in the hole, the reflection plate (403) being positioned between the color converting part and transparent layer (see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, Lim discloses (in at least fig. 1) the color converting part (413, 423, 433) is configured to covert a first color of light emitted from the light emitting part into a second color of light different than the first color (see claim 3).
Regarding claim 12, Lim discloses (in at least fig. 1) the reflection plate (403) is configured to reflect the second color of light out of the display device.
Regarding claim 13, Lim discloses (in at least fig. 1) the reflection plate (403) is disposed on an inclined side surface of the transparent layer (400).
Regarding claim 14, Lim discloses (in at least fig. 1) the reflection plate (403) includes: a first planarization part disposed inside the hole in the transparent layer (see fig. 1); a second planarization part disposed on the transparent layer in an area adjacent to the hole (see fig. 1); and an inclined part connected between the first planarization part with the second planarization part (see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15, Lim discloses (in at least fig. 1) the subpixel includes a first emission area (see fig. 1), a second emission area (see fig. 1), and a first non-emission area between the first emission area and the second emission area (see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 16, Lim discloses (in at least fig. 1) the first non-emission area has a first closed loop shape surrounding the first emission area (see fig. 1), and wherein the second emission area has a second closed loop shape surrounding the first non- emission area (see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 17, Lim discloses (in at least fig. 1) the first planarization part of the reflection plate (403) overlaps with the first non-emission area (see fig. 1), and wherein the inclined part of the reflection plate overlaps with the second emission area (see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 18, Lim discloses (in at least fig. 1) a color filter (413, 423, 433) disposed on the subpixel, wherein the color converting part (415, 425, 435) is disposed between the color filter and the light emitting part of the subpixel (see fig. 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (US Pub: 2021/0288117 A1~hereinafter “Lim”) of record.
Regarding claim 3, Lim discloses (in at least fig. 1) the reflection plate (403) includes: a first planarization part (i.e. the bottom portion of the reflection plate) disposed inside the opening part in the transparent resin layer (see fig. 1); and an inclined part (i.e. the inclined portion of the reflection plate 403) connecting the first planarization part, the inclined part (i.e. being disposed on the inclined side surface of the opening part in the transparent resin layer (see fig. 1).
Lim does not expressly disclose a second planarization part disposed adjacent to the opening part in the transparent resin layer (see fig. 1) and the inclined part also connected the second planarization part.
However, it is well-known in the art to form a display device comprised of, in part, a reflection plate comprised of, in part, a first planarization part, a second planarization part and a middle portion connected both the first and second planarization parts as evident by Lee et al. (US. Pub: 2020/0388663 A1~hereinafter “Lee”) at least fig. 5 which discloses “a reflection plate (RT; [0111]) includes a first planarization part (i.e. the portion of RT inside of the opening in the transparent resin (CCL), and a second planarization part (i.e. the portion of RT adjacent to the opening; see fig. ) and a middle portion connected both the first planarization part and the second planarization part.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the reflection plate of Lim with the second planarization part of Lee in order to reflect the emitted light to the desired location.
Regarding claim 4, Lim discloses (in at least fig. 1) a first light emitting area (see fig. 1); a second light emitting area spaced apart from the first light emitting area (see fig. 1); a second non-light emitting area between the first light emitting area and the second light emitting area (see fig. 1); and a first non-light emitting area outside of the second light emitting area (see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Lim discloses (in at least fig. 1) the second light emitting area corresponds with the inclined part of the reflection plate (403), and wherein the second non-light emitting area corresponds with the first planarization part of the reflection plate (see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Lim discloses (in at least fig. 1) the second non-light emitting area has a first closed loop shape surrounding the first light emitting area (see fig. 1), and the second light emitting has a second closed loop shape surrounding the second non-light emitting area (see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Lim discloses (in at least fig. 1) a first color filter (413) disposed on the color converting layer (415).
Regarding claim 8, Lim discloses (in at least fig. 1) a first color filter (413; [0061]) disposed on the transparent resin layer; a second color filter (423) disposed on the transparent resin layer; a third color filter (433) disposed on the transparent resin layer; but is silent about a color mixing preventing area including a first portion of the first color filter, a second portion of the second color filter, and a third portion of the third color filter, the first, second and third portions overlapping with each other, wherein the color mixing preventing area does not overlap with the reflection plate and does not overlap with the opening part in the transparent resin layer.
However, it is well-known in the art to form a display device comprised of, in part, a color mixing preventing area including a first portion of the first color filter, a second portion of the second color filter, and a third portion of the third color filter, the first, second and third portions overlapping with each other, wherein the color mixing preventing area does not overlap with the reflection plate and does not overlap with the opening part in the transparent resin layer as evident by Choi et al. (US. Pub: 2017/0077187 A1~hereinafter “Choi”) of record at least fig. 10 which discloses “color mixing preventing area (300) including a first color filter (GP; [0100]), a second portion of the second color filter (BP; [0100]), and a third portion of the third color filter (RP; [0100]), the first, second and third portions overlapping with each other (see fig. 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the display device of Lim with the color mixing preventing area teaching of Choi, wherein the color mixing preventing area does not overlap with the reflection plate and does not overlap with the opening part in the transparent resin layer in order to prevent color mixing between adjacent pixels. Furthermore, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 9, Lim discloses (in at least fig. 1) a first subpixel configured to emit a first color light (see fig. 1; claim 3), the first subpixel including a first reflection plate (403); a second subpixel configured to emit a second color light (see fig. 1; claim 3), the second subpixel including a second reflection plate (403); and a third subpixel configured to emit a third color light (see fig. 1; claim 3), the third subpixel including a third reflection plate (403), wherein the first reflection plate (403), and the second reflection plate (403), and the third reflection plate (403) respectively include a first planarization part, and an inclined part (see fig. 1), but is silent about a second planarization part, a width of the first planarization part of the second reflection plate is larger than a width of the first planarization part of the first reflection plate, and wherein a width of the first planarization part of the third reflection plate is larger than the width of the first planarization part of the second reflection plate.
However, it is well-known in the art to form a display device comprised of, in part, a reflection plate comprised of, in part, a first planarization part, a second planarization part and a middle portion connected both the first and second planarization parts as evident by Lee et al. (US. Pub: 2020/0388663 A1~hereinafter “Lee”) at least fig. 5 which discloses “a reflection plate (RT; [0111]) includes a first planarization part (i.e. the portion of RT inside of the opening in the transparent resin (CCL), and a second planarization part (i.e. the portion of RT adjacent to the opening; see fig. ) and a middle portion connected both the first planarization part and the second planarization part.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the display device of Lim with the second planarization part of Lee, wherein a width of the first planarization part of the second reflection plate is larger than a width of the first planarization part of the first reflection plate, and wherein a width of the first planarization part of the third reflection plate is larger than the width of the first planarization part of the second reflection plate, since it has been that a mere change in size of a component is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19-28 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 19, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest a display device, comprising: a plurality of subpixels disposed on a substrate, each of the plurality of subpixels including a first emission area, a second emission area, and a first non-emission area between the first emission area and the second emission area…; wherein the first emission area, the first non-emission area and the second emission area of a corresponding subpixel among the plurality of subpixels is located inside of an opening among the plurality of openings in the light blocking layer. Claims 20-28 are allowed due to their dependency upon claim 19.
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 Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-28 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELMITO BREVAL whose telephone number is (571)270-3099. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th~ 7:30-5:30.
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.
ELMITO BREVAL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2875
/ELMITO BREVAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights