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 .
Election/Restriction
The applicant argues that the species restriction should be withdrawn because “[t]he species are not sufficiently distinct and claims directed to the species recite mutually non-exclusive characteristics.” However, the applicant does not explain why the differences are insignificant. The restriction is maintained.
Claim Objections
The first clause of claim 8 ends in a period.
Claims 9 and 11 have the same problem.
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites “a red subpixel, a white subpixel, a blue subpixel and a green subpixel disposed in the unit pixel area … wherein the light emission portion of the white subpixel includes a first light emission portion and a second light emission portion spatially spaced apart from each other”. Claims 15 and 16, which depend from claim 1, recite “a color filter in the second light emission portion”, “the color filter disposed in the second light emission portion is a blue color filter or a red color filter.” That is, the second portion of the white subpixel can have a blue or red color filter. The term “white subpixel”, as commonly used in the art, means a subpixel that emits white light. This is clearly not the definition here, as a subpixel with a white emission layer and a blue or red filter will emit blue or red light. Perhaps the applicant means a subpixel with a white emission layer is a “white subpixel”, regardless of the emitted light color? That definition is not consistent with the specification, which sets forth at [0145]-[0146] that “the display panel according to the present disclosure can further include a color filter layer CFL. The color filter layer CFL can be applied when each of the plurality of subpixel areas SPA1 to SPA4 emits white light.” That is, the red, green and blue subpixels can be subpixels with white emission layers and red, green, and blue filters.
It is not clear what a white subpixel is if it is not a subpixel that emits white light.
The remaining claims are rejected based on their dependencies.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, CN 109976054 A, in view of Kim, US 2017/0125738 A1.
Claim 1: Chen discloses
a substrate having a unit pixel area;
and a red subpixel (R), a white subpixel (W), a blue subpixel (B) and a green subpixel (G) disposed in the unit pixel area, the white subpixel having a light emission portion and a non-light emission portion (the division line between Wm and Ws),
wherein the light emission portion of the white subpixel includes a first light emission portion (Wm) and a second light emission portion (Ws) spatially spaced apart from each other,
wherein the first light emission portion and the second light emission portion are configured to have different sizes from each other (FIG. 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
264
622
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
172
434
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 1 also recites a light extraction structure. This was well-known in the art. See e.g. Kim, which discloses light extraction structure 110 ([0055]). It would have been obvious to have such a structure in Chen in order to increase the light extracted from the pixels. In Chen in view of Kim, and the first light emission portion and the second light emission portion of the white subpixel have light extraction structures different from each other in that they are in different locations.
Claim 2: the second light emission portion (Ws) is configured to have a size smaller than a size of the first light emission portion (Wm).
Claim 4: the first light emission portion and the second light emission portion are configured to include a plurality of concave portions (Kim, 111). As the area of Ws is smaller than Wm, the number of the concave portions disposed in the second light emission portion in Chen in view of Kim will be different (fewer) from the number of the concave portions disposed in the first light emission portion.
Claim 5: the number of the concave portions disposed in the second light emission portion is more than or smaller than (fewer than) the number of the concave portions disposed in the first light emission portion. As the second light emission portion is smaller (Chen FIGS. 1-4), it will have fewer concave portions.
Claim 9: Chen in view of Kim discloses
wherein each of the red subpixel, the blue subpixel and the green subpixel has the light emission portion (center of each pixel, Chen FIG. 1) and a non-light emission portion (periphery).
wherein the light emitting display apparatus further comprises a light emitting device layer (Kim, 130) disposed in the light emission portion of each of the red subpixel, the white subpixel, the blue subpixel and the green subpixel,
and wherein the light emitting device layer disposed in the first light emission portion is configured to have a surface morphology of an uneven shape (Kim FIGS. 1 and 2).
Claim 10: the light emitting device layer disposed in the second light emission portion is configured to have any one surface morphology of a flat shape (Kim FIG. 1), a concave shape (Kim FIG. 1), and an uneven shape different from the light emitting device layer disposed in the first light emission portion.
Claim 11: each of the red subpixel, the blue subpixel and the green subpixel has the light emission portion (center of each pixel, Chen FIG. 1) and a non-light emission portion (periphery). wherein the light emitting display apparatus further comprises an overcoat layer (160, Kim FIG. 1) disposed in the light emission portion of each of the red subpixel, the white subpixel, the blue subpixel and the green subpixel, and wherein the overcoat layer is configured to include an uneven pattern portion (bottom surface over the light emitting area) disposed in each of the light emission portion of the red subpixel, the light emission portion of the blue subpixel, the light emission portion of the green subpixel and the first light emission portion.
Claim 12: the overcoat layer is configured to further include a non-pattern portion or a concave pattern portion (Kim FIG. 1) disposed in the second light emission portion.
Claim 13: the overcoat layer is configured to further include a concave pattern portion disposed in the second light emission portion (Kim FIG. 1), the uneven pattern portion is configured to include a plurality of concave portions, the concave pattern portion is configured to include a bottom surface and an inclined surface (Kim FIG. 1).
Claim 13 also recites that a distance between the substrate and the bottom surface of the concave pattern portion [in the second light emission portion of the white subpixel] is shorter than the substrate and each of the plurality of concave portions. Kim, FIG. 14 discloses that a color filter can be placed between the substrate 100 and the concave portions. Thus in a case in which color filters are used, which generally involves a white emission color, the white subpixel will not use a color filter, and thus the white subpixel’s concave patterns will be closer to the substrate that for the colors.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Kim and Matsumoto, US 2005/0116615 A1. Chen does not disclose that the first light emission portion is configured to have a size greater than a light emission portion of each of the red subpixel, the blue subpixel and the green subpixel. It would have been obvious to select the desired size for each subpixel for any particular application as an obvious design choice. Changes in dimensions are not typically a source of patentable distinction absent unexpected results. MPEP 2144.04(IV). Matsumoto [0073] shows that it was known in the art for the white subpixel to be the largest subpixel.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Kim and Guo, US 2020/0227669 A1. Chen in view of Kim discloses that each of the red subpixel, the blue subpixel and the green subpixel has the light emission portion (center of each pixel, Chen FIG. 1) and a non-light emission portion (periphery). wherein the light emitting display apparatus further comprises an overcoat layer having an uneven pattern portion (Kim FIG. 1) disposed in the light emission portion of each of the red subpixel, the white subpixel, the blue subpixel and the green subpixel.
Claim 14 also recites that the uneven pattern portion disposed in the light emission portion of each of the red subpixel, the white subpixel, the blue subpixel and the green subpixel is configured to have a structure or surface morphology different from each other. However, this was known in the art. See Guo, FIG. 1; it would have been obvious to have had different structures in order to improve light extraction ([0077]). While Guo does not illustrate an embodiment with a white subpixel, the teachings of Guo can be used to determine an appropriate structure for the white subpixel ([0035]).
PNG
media_image3.png
230
645
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is listed in the attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER BRADFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-1596. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30-6:30.
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, Jacob Choi can be reached at 469.295.9060. 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.
/PETER BRADFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897