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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the application No. 18/521,814 filed on November 28, 2023.
Specification
3. 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.
The following title is suggested: “Display Apparatus Improving Light Extraction Efficiency of a Light Emitting Element Layer”.
Claims Corrections
4. Claims 1-2, 5, 7, 21-23 are objected to because of the following informalities: In the following, the claim should be recited to avoid indefiniteness due to lack of antecedent basis, and/or perform proper alignment along with the prior claim languages:
1. (Currently Amended) A display apparatus comprising:
at least one pixel on a substrate, and including a plurality of subpixels;
a pattern portion disposed on the substrate and formed to be concave between the plurality of subpixels; and
a reflective portion on the pattern portion,
wherein the plurality of subpixels includes a first layer including a plurality of concave portions adjacent to the reflective portion and an organic light emitting layer having a lower organic layer on the first layer and a light emitting layer on the lower organic layer, and
wherein a light efficiency of light emitted from the light emitting layer and an output to the substrate through a concave portion of the plurality of concave portions is proportional to a thickness change value of the lower organic layer.
2. (Currently Amended) The display apparatus of claim 1, wherein the light efficiency (ηbest) of light emitted from the light emitting layer and the output to the substrate through the concave portion satisfies a following equation:
ηbest = 0.7Δd - 2.37m + 97.684,
where Δd is a thickness change value of the lower organic layer, and 'm' is a hierarchical value of a light efficiency trend with respect to Δd.
5. (Currently Amended) The display apparatus of claim 4, wherein the plurality of subpixels includes a second layer on the first layer, and the aspect ratio of the concave portion is the radius of the concave portion with respect to a vertical distance from the center of the concave portion in the second layer to the first layer.
7. (Currently Amended) The display apparatus of claim 5, wherein the plurality of subpixels includes a light emission area overlapped with the plurality of concave portions, having a light emitting element layer, and a non-light emission area adjacent to the light emission area,
the light emitting element layer includes a pixel electrode between the second layer and the lower organic layer in the light emission area, and a reflective electrode on the light emitting layer and in the light emission area and the non-light emission area, and
the reflective portion is a portion of the reflective electrode.
21. (Currently Amended) A display apparatus comprising:
an encapsulation layer on a substrate;
a plurality of subpixels between the encapsulation layer and the substrate, each subpixel of the plurality of subpixels including an emission area and a non-light emission area; and
an overcoat layer between the substrate and the plurality of subpixels, and including a plurality of first concave portions overlapping the emission area and a second concave portion overlapping the non-light emission area.
22. (Currently Amended) The display apparatus of claim 21, wherein of the plurality of subpixels further includes:
a first electrode layer on the overcoat layer and overlapping the plurality of first concave portions;
a light emitting layer on the first electrode layer; and
a second electrode layer on the light emitting layer.
23. (Currently Amended) The display apparatus of claim 21, wherein the plurality of first concave portions includes a curved bottom surface, and the second concave portion includes a planar bottom surface.
Appropriate corrections are needed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2022/0199681 A1).
Regarding independent claim 21, Lee et al. teaches a display apparatus comprising (Figs. 1-2):
an encapsulation layer (200, para [0076]) on a substrate (100, para [0037]);
a plurality of subpixels (P, para [0040]) between the encapsulation layer (200) and the substrate (100), each subpixel (para [0040]) including an emission area (EA- see the annotated figure below) and a non-light emission area (NEA- see the annotated figure below); and
an overcoat layer (170 called planarization layer, para [0048]) between the substrate (100) and the plurality of subpixels (P), and including a plurality of first concave portions (181, para [0059]) overlapping the emission area (EA) and a second concave portion (see the annotated figure below) overlapping the non-light emission area (NEA).
PNG
media_image1.png
586
786
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 22, Lee et al. teaches wherein (Figs. 1-2), each subpixel further includes:
a first electrode layer (AE, para [0064]) on the overcoat layer (170) and overlapping the plurality of first concave portions (181, para [0059]);
a light emitting layer (EL, para [0064]) on the first electrode layer (AE); and
a second electrode layer (CE, para [0064]) on the light emitting layer (EL).
Regarding claim 23, Lee et al. teaches wherein (Figs. 1-2), the plurality of first concave portions (181) includes a curved bottom surface (see Fig. 2), and the second concave portion includes a planar bottom surface (see the annotated figure in claim 21).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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 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.
9. 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.
10. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
11. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
a. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
b. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
c. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
d. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
12. Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2022/0199681 A1) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of in view of Kim et al. (US 2018/0190719 A1).
Regarding claim 24, Lee et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 21 from which this claim depends.
Lee et al. is explicitly silent of disclosing wherein, the overcoat layer includes a first overcoat layer and a second overcoat layer on the first overcoat layer,
wherein the plurality of first concave portions and the second concave portion are included in the first overcoat layer, and
wherein the second overcoat layer includes a plurality of convex portions that fits into the plurality of first concave portions, respectively.
Kim et al. discloses wherein (Fig. 1), the overcoat layer (141a/160) includes a first overcoat layer (160) and a second overcoat layer (141a) on the first overcoat layer (160),
wherein the plurality of first concave portions (see Fig. 1) and the second concave portion are included in the first overcoat layer (160), and
wherein the second overcoat layer (141a) includes a plurality of convex portions (see Fig. 1) that fits into the plurality of first concave portions (160), respectively.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching as taught by Kim et al., and apply/include the reflection plate over the overcoat layer of Lee et al., in order to reflect light emitted from the organic light emitting layer 142 to improve top light emission efficiency (para [0037]).
Allowable Subject Matter
13. Claims 1-20 would be considered as allowable if the claim languages are rewritten/amended to avoid 112 issues as stated in the section 4.
14. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim 1 is allowed because all prior arts to include those on record either singularly or in combination fail to anticipate or render obvious of a display apparatus comprising:
.…light efficiency of light emitted from the light emitting layer and output to the substrate through a concave portion of the plurality of concave portions is proportional to a thickness change value of the lower organic layer.
15. Prior arts made of record in PTO-892 and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: the prior arts, Lee et al. (US 2022/0199681 A1) and Kim et al. (US 2018/0190719 A1) hereby are cited as close prior arts, wherein both these prior arts depict the similar structure of the display apparatus. However, the prior arts do not describe the light efficiency of light emitted from the light emitting layer and output to the substrate through a concave portion of the plurality of concave portions is proportional to a thickness change value of the lower organic layer, therefore, either by itself or in combination with other arts fail to disclose the above quoted limitation in the section 7.
Examiner’s Note
16. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. See MPEP 2111, 2123, 2125, 2141.02 VI, and 2182.
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns/lines in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
17. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIDARUL MAZUMDER whose telephone number is (571)272-8823. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
18. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Partridge can be reached at 571-270-1402. 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.
/DIDARUL A MAZUMDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights