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 .
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
In claim 12, the limitation of “wherein a height of the convex portion increases as the convex portion is disposed in the outward direction” is not disclosed in the specification. Appropriate correction is needed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 16, the limitation of “wherein in an area in which a thickness of the protective layer increases in an inward direction, and a peak point of the convex portion is located away from a center of the convex portion in an outward direction” is unclear language. It is not clear what is meant by this limitation.
In claim 17, the limitation of “wherein in an area in which a thickness of the protective layer increases in an outward direction, and a peak point of the convex portion is located away from a center of the convex portion in an inward direction” is unclear language. It is not clear what is meant by this limitation.
Appropriate correction is needed.
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.
Claims 1,8,20-22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (KR 20150057739 A)
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches an organic light emitting display device, comprising: an insulating layer (150 and 120) on a substrate 100 (claim 1 of Lee); and an organic light emitting diode 200 on the insulating layer, the organic light emitting diode including a first electrode, an emission layer on the first electrode, and a second electrode on the emission layer (210,220,230), wherein the insulating layer includes a convex portion (protruding portion) in a curved area protruding towards a direction of the organic light emitting diode, wherein the emission layer is in an emission area, and the emission area is included in the curved area as at least a part of the curved area, wherein the organic light emitting diode is on the convex portion and has a shape corresponding to a surface shape of the convex portion in the emission area.
Regarding claim 8, Lee teaches an organic light emitting display device, wherein the convex portion includes an outer curved surface and an inner curved surface, wherein the outer curved surface and the inner curved surface are divided based on a peak point at which a height of the convex portion is greatest, wherein the outer curved surface is positioned in an outward direction of the substrate, compared to the inner curved surface.
PNG
media_image1.png
235
434
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, Lee teaches an organic light emitting display device, wherein convex portions 150 are connected to each other by connection portions 120 surrounding the convex portions respectively (Fig.3 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
259
605
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 21, Lee teaches an organic light emitting display device,, wherein the connection portions 120 are integrally formed with the convex portions 150.
(dictionary meaning of Integral in “ INTEGRAL Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster “ is:
PNG
media_image3.png
76
431
media_image3.png
Greyscale
)
Regarding claim 22, Lee teaches an organic light emitting display device, comprising: an insulating layer (150 and 120) on a substrate 100; and an organic light emitting diode 200 on the insulating layer, the organic light emitting diode including a first electrode, an emission layer on the first electrode, and a second electrode on the emission layer (210-230), wherein the insulating layer includes a convex portion 150 protruding towards a direction of the organic light emitting diode, and a part of the first electrode covering the convex portion has a shape corresponding to the convex portion.
Regarding claim 24, Lee teaches an organic light emitting display device, wherein an area of the insulating layer 150 with the convex portion is a curved area, and an area of the insulating layer with the emission layer 220 is an emission area, and the curved area includes the emission area 200.
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.
Claims 2, 3 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Lee (KR 20150057739 A) in view of KR (KR 101202352 B1)
Regarding claim 2, Lee teaches an organic light emitting display device, wherein the emission area is defined by a bank 130 disposed on the insulating layer and the first electrode, and the emission layer has a shape corresponding to the surface shape of the convex portion but does not teach: at least a portion of the bank is on the curved area.
KR teaches a convex curved layer 128 on which an emission layer 121/123/124 is disposed and a bank 122 wherein: at least a portion of the bank is on the curved area
PNG
media_image4.png
186
298
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
282
449
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, from the teachings of KR, it would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the bank, in the device of Lee in order to achieve an efficient manufacturing steps (Abstract of KR).
Regarding claim 3, Lee in view of KR teaches an organic light emitting display device, wherein the convex portion (right below 121/123/124 of KR) comprises a same material as the insulating layer 128.
Regarding claim 23, Lee teaches the organic light emitting display device, further comprising: a bank 130 on the insulating layer, the bank extending to one side or two sides of the part of the first electrode 210, but does not teach the emission layer is at a position of the part of the first electrode exposed by the bank 130.
PNG
media_image5.png
282
449
media_image5.png
Greyscale
KR teaches a convex portion wherein, the emission layer 123 is at a position of the part of the first electrode 121 exposed by the bank 122; Therefore, from the teachings of KR, it would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the light emitting portion, in the device of Lee in order to achieve an efficient manufacturing steps (Abstract of KR).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Lee (KR 20150057739 A) in view of Lee2 (US 20170352692 A1, herein after Lee2)
Regarding claim 4, Lee teaches the invention set forth in claim 1 above, but is silent regarding the organic light emitting display device includes a plurality of outer areas and an inner area between the plurality of outer areas, and the convex portion is in the plurality of outer areas but not the inner area.
Lee2 teaches convex portions in the outer areas (UEW in Fig.12, 20 and 21); and it would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to add the portions in the outer areas, from the teachings of Lee2, in the device of Lee in order to reduce tensile strength caused by bending of the substrate in the outer areas ([0114]).
Regarding claim 5, Lee in view of Lee2 teaches the organic light emitting display device, wherein the organic light emitting display device includes a plurality of outer areas and an inner area between the plurality of outer areas, and the convex portion is in the plurality of outer areas and the inner area (from the combined teachings of Lee in view of Lee2).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Lee (KR 20150057739 A) in view of Lee2 (US 20170352692 A1, herein after Lee2) and further in view of Oh (US 20190074331 A1)
Regarding claim 6, Lee in view of Lee2 teaches the organic light emitting display device, wherein a portion of the insulating layer, that is in the inner area comprises a flat
shape (120 and lower portion of 150 in Lee
PNG
media_image6.png
144
155
media_image6.png
Greyscale
), and a portion of the organic light emitting diode, that is in the inner area is flat along a surface
shape of the insulating layer.
Lee in view of Lee2 teaches an organic 160 ([0103]) that is in an outer area from the plurality of outer areas is in a shape bending along the surface shape of the convex portion but does not teach the same for a portion of the organic light emitting diode.
However, Oh teaches convex OLED sections both in the inner and outer areas (CA1 and PA1 regions; see Fig.7-9 and Fig,2) and it would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to form the convex portions in the inner and outer areas, as disclosed in Oh, in the device of Lee in view of Lee2 in order to distribute the pixels in the flat inner and curved outer areas.
Regarding claim 7, Lee in view of Lee2 teaches the invention set forth in claim 4 above, but is silent regarding the plurality of outer areas include a first outer area on one side of the inner area and a second outer area on another side of the inner area, wherein the convex portion in the first outer area is symmetrical with the convex portion in the second outer area with respect to the inner area.
Oh teaches convex OLED sections both in the inner and outer areas (CA1 and PA1 regions; see Fig.7-9 and Fig,2) , wherein the plurality of outer areas include a first outer area on one side of the inner area and a second outer area on another side of the inner area, wherein the convex portion in the first outer area is symmetrical with the convex portion in the second outer area with respect to the inner area (Fig.2) and it would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to form the convex portions in the inner and outer areas, as disclosed in Oh, in the device of Lee in view of Lee2 in order to distribute the pixels in the flat inner and curved outer areas.
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Lee (KR 20150057739 A) in view of Kim (US 20140312319 A1)
Regarding claim 9, Lee teaches the invention set forth in claim 8 above, but is silent regarding the peak point of the convex portion is further away from a center of the convex portion in the outward direction as the convex portion is disposed in the outward direction.
Kim teaches a convex portion wherein the peak point of the convex portion is further away from a center of the convex portion in the outward direction as the convex portion is disposed in the outward direction (60C and 60D) ([0068],[0069]) and it would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the convex portion, in the device of Lee in order to optimize the luminance.
Regarding claim 10, Lee in view of Kim teaches an organic light emitting display device, wherein the inner curved surface has a larger radius of curvature than a radius of curvature of the outer curved surface ([0068], [0069] in Kim and Drawing below)
PNG
media_image7.png
467
323
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Lee in view of Kim teaches organic light emitting display device, wherein a radius of curvature of the outer curved surface (60C) decreases as the convex portion is disposed in the outward direction (towards the left side).
Regarding claim 12, Lee teaches organic light emitting display device, wherein a height of the convex portion increases as the convex portion is disposed in the outward direction (see Objection to Specification above).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Lee (KR 20150057739 A) in view of Kim2 (US 20180358581 A1)
Regarding claim 13, Lee teaches the invention set forth in claim 1 above, but is silent regarding a convexity of the convex portion is different according to a color of light generated through the organic light emitting diode.
Kim2 teaches a convex portion wherein a convexity of the convex portion is different according to a color of light generated through the organic light emitting diode (Fig.9 and [0111]) and it would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the convex portions, from the teachings of Kim2, in the device of Lee in order to improve the efficiency.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Lee (KR 20150057739 A) and further in view of Oh (US 20190074331 A1)
Regarding claim 14, Lee teaches the invention set forth in claim 1 above, but is silent regarding the substrate includes a bending area, and the curved area is at least included in a part of the bending area.
Oh teaches a display device wherein the substrate includes a bending area, and the curved area is at least included in a part of the bending area (see the bending areas which are large sized bending sections in which the pixels are shown in Fig.18,19,20,21: Fig.10-13 and Fig.7;also see Abstract, [0019],[0020],[0022],[0081],[0114],[0121]) and it would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to add OLED pixels in the regions that bend/curved, as disclosed in Oh, in the device of Lee in order to resolve such a color failure in an image displayed on the curved portions.
Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Lee (KR 20150057739 A) and further in view of Wano (JP 2007311046)
Regarding claim 15, Lee teaches the invention set forth in claim 1 above, but is silent regarding a protective layer on the organic light emitting diode, wherein the protective layer has different thicknesses according to areas.
Wano teaches a protective layer 35 on the organic light emitting diode, wherein the protective layer has different thicknesses according to areas (Fig.3) and it would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use the undulating protective layer, in accordance with the OLED sections, as disclosed in Wano, in the device of Lee in order to suppress total internal reflection (see in Wano: Therefore, conventionally, an uneven structure or a fine periodic structure is formed at any interface of the laminated thin films to express a scattering effect, a diffraction effect, a photonic crystal effect, and to suppress the total reflection amount of emitted light).
Regarding claim 16, Lee in view of Wano teaches the organic light emitting display device, wherein in an area in which a thickness of the protective layer increases in an inward direction, and a peak point of the convex portion is located away from a center of the convex portion in an outward direction (see 112 rejections above).
Regarding claim 17, Lee in view of Wano teaches the organic light emitting display device, wherein in an area in which a thickness of the protective layer increases in an outward direction, and a peak point of the convex portion is located away from a center of the convex portion in an inward direction (see 112 rejection above).
Regarding claim 18, Lee in view of Wano teaches the organic light emitting display device, wherein the convex portion is not in an area in which a thickness of the protective layer is uniform, and the convex portion is in an area in which the thickness of the protective layer varies in an inward direction or an outward direction (since the varying thickness of the protective layer overlaps with the OLED sections of Wano, therefore it would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use the same undulating section of the protective layer on top of the convex OLED sections of Lee, from the teachings of Wano, in order to suppress the total internal reflection).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Lee (KR 20150057739 A) in view of Sugimoto (JP 2011018468 A)
Regarding claim 19, Lee teaches the invention set forth in claim 1 above, but is silent regarding the convex portion has a shape of dots or shape of lines.
Sugimoto teaches convex portions 15 (Fig.3) wherein the convex portion has a shape of dots or shape of lines (15 in Fig.10d) and it would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use the shapes, from the teachings of Sugimoto, in the device of Lee in order to improve viewing angle characteristics (Abstract of Sugimoto).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fatima Farokhrooz whose telephone number is (571)-272-6043. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday, 9 am - 5 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James Greece can be reached on (571) 270-3711. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. 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).
/Fatima N Farokhrooz/
Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights