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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-20, and 28-29 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.
The primary reason for the allowance of the claims is the inclusion of the limitation, along with the other claimed features, “wherein a bank disposed on the reflective pattern and over the first void, and wherein a width of the bank is greater than a width of the reflective pattern”, as recited in claim 4.
The primary reason for the allowance of the claims is the inclusion of the limitation, along with the other claimed features, “wherein the plurality of subpixels include: an organic light emitting layer disposed on the light emission area and the non-light emission area;
a bank disposed on the reflective pattern and over the first void; and
a pixel electrode partially overlapping with the reflective pattern, the pixel electrode being disposed between the substrate and the reflective pattern,
wherein the organic light emitting layer is disposed on the pixel electrode and the bank, and
wherein the first void is located between the organic light emitting layer and the reflective pattern in an area under the bank”, as recited in claim 7.
The primary reason for the allowance of the claims is the inclusion of the limitation, along with the other claimed features, “wherein the at least one overhang portion of the bank includes a first overhang portion and a second overhang portion located on opposite sides of the reflective pattern, and
wherein a first undercut area is located under the first overhang portion and a second undercut area is located under the second overhang portion”, as recited in claim 28.
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) 1, 3, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/ 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (U.S. 2022/0208913 A1, hereinafter refer to Lee).
Regarding Claim 1: Lee discloses a display apparatus (see Lee, Figs.4-5 as shown below and ¶ [0001]) comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
513
530
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
552
838
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a plurality of subpixels (SP) disposed on a substrate (111) (see Lee, Figs.4-5 as shown above);
a pattern portion (PLN) disposed on the substrate (111), the pattern portion (PLN) forming a concave area between at least two subpixels (SP) among the plurality of subpixels (SP) (see Lee, Figs.4-5 as shown above); and
a reflective pattern (122/123) partially overlapping with a portion of the pattern portion (PLN) (note: the material of layer 122 and 123 were known to perform the functions of light reflection) (see Lee, Figs.4-5 as shown above, ¶ [0078], and ¶ [0121]),
wherein the plurality of subpixels (SP) include a light emission area (EA) and a non-light emission area (NEA) adjacent to the light emission area (EA), the reflective pattern (122/123) being disposed in the non-light emission area (NEA), and wherein the non-light emission area (NEA) includes a first void (UC) located between the light emission area (EA) and the reflective pattern (122/123) (see Lee, Figs.4-5 as shown above).
Regarding Claim 3: Lee discloses a display apparatus as set forth in claim 1 as above. Lee further teaches wherein the first void (UC) surrounds the light emission area (EA) (see Lee, Figs.4-5 as shown above).
Regarding Claim 21: Lee discloses a display apparatus as set forth in claim 1 as above. Lee further teaches wherein a width of the pattern portion (PLN) is reduced from the reflective pattern (122/123) toward the substrate or the pattern portion (PLN) has a reverse tapered shape relative to the substrate (111) (see Lee, Figs.4-5 as shown above).
NOTE: the configuration of the claimed pattern portion was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed pattern portion was significant.
Regarding Claim 22: Lee discloses a display apparatus as set forth in claim 1 as above. Lee further teaches wherein the pattern portion (PLN) surrounds the light emission area (EA) in a form of a groove, a depression, a slit or a trench (see Lee, Figs.4-5 as shown above).
Claim(s) 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Choi et al. (U.S. 2018/0190934 A1, hereinafter refer to Choi).
Regarding Claim 24: Choi discloses a display apparatus (see Choi, Fig.4 as shown below, Fig.1, and ¶ [0002]) comprising:
PNG
media_image3.png
425
749
media_image3.png
Greyscale
at least two subpixels disposed on a substrate (100) (see Choi, Fig.4 as shown above, Fig.1, and ¶ [0004]);
an overcoat layer (140) disposed between the substrate (100) and the at least two subpixels, the overcoat layer (140/440) including a depression located between the at least two subpixels (see Choi, Fig.4 as shown above);
a reflective pattern (310) disposed in the depression in the overcoat layer (440) (see Choi, Fig.4 as shown above and ¶ [0082]);
a bank (450) disposed between the at least two subpixels (see Choi, Fig.4 as shown above and Fig.1); and
a light emitting layer (320) disposed in the at least two subpixels, wherein the bank (450) includes at least one overhang portion (450p) disposed adjacent to an edge of the reflective pattern (310), and wherein a portion of the light emitting layer (320) is disposed under the at least one overhang portion of the bank (450p) (see Choi, Fig.4 as shown above).
Claim(s) 24-27 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Choi et al. (U.S. 2019/0172898 A1, hereinafter refer to Choi).
Regarding Claim 24: Choi discloses a display apparatus (see Choi, Figs.15 and 17A as shown below and ¶ [0002]) comprising:
PNG
media_image4.png
452
704
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
460
473
media_image5.png
Greyscale
at least two subpixels (SP) disposed on a substrate (110) (see Choi, Figs.15 and 17A as shown above);
an overcoat layer (119/118) disposed between the substrate (110) and the at least two subpixels (SP), the overcoat layer (119/118) including a depression located between the at least two subpixels (SP) (see Choi, Fig.15 as shown above);
a reflective pattern (116c) disposed in the depression in the overcoat layer (118/119) (note: the material of layer 116 is known as a reflective material layer) (see Choi, Fig.15 as shown above and ¶ [0080]);
a bank (121) disposed between the at least two subpixels (SP) (see Choi, Figs.15 and 17A as shown above); and
a light emitting layer (122a/122b) disposed in the at least two subpixels (SP), wherein the bank (121) includes at least one overhang portion disposed adjacent to an edge of the reflective pattern (116c), and wherein a portion of the light emitting layer (122b) is disposed under the at least one overhang portion of the bank (450p) (see Choi, Fig.15 as shown above).
Regarding Claim 25: Choi discloses a display apparatus as set forth in claim 24 as above. Choi further teaches wherein at least one undercut area (CU2) located between the at least one overhang portion of the bank (121) and the substrate (110) (see Choi, Fig.15 as shown above),
wherein the at least two subpixels (SP) include a light emission area (SPA) (see Choi, Fig.15 as shown above), and
wherein a first thickness of the of the light emitting layer (122b) adjacent to the undercut area (CU2) is thinner than a second thickness of the light emitting layer (122a) in the light emission area (SPA) (see Choi, Fig.15 as shown above).
Regarding Claim 26: Choi discloses a display apparatus as set forth in claim 24 as above. Choi further teaches wherein the reflective pattern (116c) is disposed on an inclined side surface of the overcoat layer (118/119) (see Choi, Fig.15 as shown above).
Regarding Claim 27: Choi discloses a display apparatus as set forth in claim 24 as above. Choi further teaches wherein the reflective pattern (116c) is disposed on a bottom surface of the depression in the overcoat layer (118/119) (see Choi, Fig.15 as shown above).
Regarding Claim 33: Choi discloses a display apparatus as set forth in claim 24 as above. Choi further teaches wherein a portion of the bank (121) is disposed between the light emitting layer (122a) and the reflective pattern (116c) (see Choi, Fig.15 as shown above).
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.
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) 2 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (U.S. 2022/0208913 A1, hereinafter refer to Lee).
Regarding Claim 2: Lee discloses a display apparatus as set forth in claim 1 as above. Lee further teaches wherein the plurality of subpixels (SP) include an organic light emitting layer (130) on the light emission area (EA) and the non-light emission area (NEA) (see Lee, Figs.4-5 as shown above).
Lee is silent upon explicitly disclosing wherein a thickness of the organic light emitting layer adjacent to the first void in the non-light emission area is thinner than a thickness of the organic light emitting layer in the light emission area.
However, Lee teaches wherein a thickness of the organic light emitting layer (130) adjacent to the first void (UC) in the non-light emission area (NEA) is equal to a thickness of the organic light emitting layer (130) in the light emission area (EA) (see Lee, Figs.4-5 as shown above).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of making semiconductor devices to determine the workable or optimal value for the thickness of the organic light emitting layer adjacent to the first void in the non-light emission area and the thickness of the organic light emitting layer in the light emission area through routine experimentation and optimization to obtain optimal or desired device performance because the thickness of the organic light emitting layer adjacent to the first void in the non-light emission area and the thickness of the organic light emitting layer in the light emission area is a result-effective variable and there is no evidence indicating that it is critical or produces any unexpected results and it has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable within given prior art conditions by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05
Regarding Claim 23: Lee discloses a display apparatus as set forth in claim 1 as above. Lee further teaches wherein the plurality of subpixels (SP) further include an organic light emitting layer (130) disposed on the light emission area (EA) and the non-light emission area (NEA) (see Lee, Figs.4-5 as shown above).
Lee is silent upon explicitly disclosing wherein a first thickness of the organic light emitting layer in an area adjacent to the first void is thinner than a second thickness of the organic light emitting layer on the reflective pattern.
However, Lee teaches wherein a first thickness of the organic light emitting layer (130) in an area adjacent to the first void (CU) is equal to a second thickness of the organic light emitting layer (130) on the reflective pattern (122/123) (see Lee, Figs.4-5 as shown above).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of making semiconductor devices to determine the workable or optimal value for the thickness of the organic light emitting layer adjacent to the first void in the non-light emission area and the thickness of the organic light emitting layer in the light emission area through routine experimentation and optimization to obtain optimal or desired device performance because the thickness of the organic light emitting layer adjacent to the first void in the non-light emission area and the thickness of the organic light emitting layer in the light emission area is a result-effective variable and there is no evidence indicating that it is critical or produces any unexpected results and it has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable within given prior art conditions by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05
Claim(s) 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (U.S. 2019/0172898 A1, hereinafter refer to Choi) as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (U.S. 2018/0006264 A1, hereinafter refer to Lee).
Regarding Claim 30: Choi discloses a display apparatus as applied to claim 24 above. Choi is silent upon explicitly disclosing wherein the overcoat layer includes a first layer and a second layer, wherein the first layer includes a plurality of concave depressions in a light emission area of the at least two subpixels, and wherein the second layer fills the plurality of concave depressions in the first layer.
Before effective filing date of the claimed invention the disclosed overcoat layer were known to includes a first layer and a second layer, wherein the first layer includes a plurality of concave depressions in a light emission area of the at least two subpixels, and wherein the second layer fills the plurality of concave depressions in the first layer in order to protect the source electrode and the drain electrode of the transistor.
For support see Lee, which teaches wherein the overcoat layer (107/108) includes a first layer (107) and a second layer (108), wherein the first layer (107) includes a plurality of concave depressions in a light emission area (EL) of the at least two subpixels, and wherein the second layer (108) fills the plurality of concave depressions in the first layer (107) (see Lee, Fig.4 and ¶ [0063]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Choi and Lee to enable the Choi overcoat layer to include a first layer and a second layer, wherein the first layer includes a plurality of concave depressions in a light emission area of the at least two subpixels, and wherein the second layer fills the plurality of concave depressions in the first layer as taught by Lee in order to protect the source electrode and the drain electrode of the transistor.
Regarding Claim 31: Choi as modified teaches a display apparatus as set forth in claim 30 as above. The combination of Choi and Lee further teaches wherein a depth of the depression in the overcoat layer is substantially equal to a depth of each of the plurality of concave depressions in the first layer of the overcoat layer (see Lee, Fig.4).
Claim(s) 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (U.S. 2019/0172898 A1, hereinafter refer to Choi) as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (U.S. 2022/0199708 A1, hereinafter refer to Lee).
Regarding Claim 32: Choi discloses a display apparatus as applied to claim 24 above. Choi is silent upon explicitly disclosing wherein the light emitting layer includes a plurality of layers, and wherein at least one of the plurality of layers of the light emitting layer is disconnected in an area corresponding to the at least one overhang portion of the bank.
Before effective filing date of the claimed invention the disclosed light emitting layer were known to include a plurality of layers, and wherein at least one of the plurality of layers of the light emitting layer to be disconnected in an area corresponding to the at least one overhang portion of the bank in order to emit different color of light.
For support see Lee, which teaches wherein the light emitting layer (220) includes a plurality of layers, and wherein at least one of the plurality of layers (221/222/225) of the light emitting layer is disconnected in an area corresponding to the at least one overhang portion of the bank (250) (see Lee, Figs.3 and 6 and ¶ [0070]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Choi and Lee to enable the light emitting layer of Choi to include a plurality of layers, and wherein at least one of the plurality of layers of the light emitting layer to be disconnected in an area corresponding to the at least one overhang portion of the bank as taught by Lee in order to emit different color of light.
Claim(s) 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (U.S. 2019/0172898 A1, hereinafter refer to Choi) as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (U.S. 2021/0408441 A1, hereinafter refer to Lee).
Regarding Claim 34: Choi discloses a display apparatus as applied to claim 24 above. Choi is silent upon explicitly disclosing wherein the overcoat layer is transparent.
Before effective filing date of the claimed invention the disclosed overcoat layer were known to be a transparent material for forming a planarized top surface.
For support see Lee, which teaches wherein the overcoat layer (130) is transparent (see Lee, Fig.2 and ¶ [0072]).
Choi discloses the claimed invention except for material of overcoat layer. Hence, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Choi and Lee to enable the known overcoat layer material as taught by Lee in order to form a planarized top surface, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the base of its suitability, for its intended use involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BITEW A DINKE whose telephone number is (571)272-0534. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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, Davienne Monbleau can be reached at (571)272-1945. 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.
/BITEW A DINKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812