DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
A. Prior-art rejections based at least in part by Ha
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ha et al. (US 2015/0115253 A1, hereinafter “Ha”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Figures 5A-5B of Ha disclose a display device comprising:
a first light emitting area 581A (“light emitting area”- ¶0097);
a second light emitting area 582A (“light emitting area”- ¶0097) positioned outside the first light emitting area 581A, and positioned to be spaced apart from the first light emitting area 581A;
a third light emitting area 583A (“light emitting area”- ¶0097) positioned outside the second light emitting area 582A, and continuously positioned in indirect contact with the second light emitting area 582A;
a second non-light emitting area (i.e., the area between 581A and 582A) positioned between the first light emitting area 581A and the second light emitting area 582A; and
a first non-light emitting area (i.e., the area outside of 583A) positioned outside the third light emitting area 583A.
Regarding claim 2, Figures 5A-5B of Ha disclose wherein the second light emitting area 582A has a shape corresponding to a shape of an edge of the first light emitting area 581A.
Regarding claim 3, Figures 5A-5B of Ha disclose wherein the third light emitting area 583A has a shape corresponding to a shape of an edge of the second light emitting area 582A.
B. Prior-art rejections based at least in part by Kim
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1, 3-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2020/0194713 A1, hereinafter “Kim”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Figure 7B of Kim discloses a display device comprising:
a first light emitting area LEA1 (“light emitting area”- ¶0179, specifically the LEA1 in the top right corner shown in Fig. 7B);
a second light emitting area LEA1 (“light emitting area”- ¶0179, specifically the LEA1 in the top left corner shown in Fig. 7B) positioned outside the first light emitting area LEA1, and positioned to be spaced apart from the first light emitting area LEA1;
a third light emitting area LEA2 (“light emitting area”- ¶0179, specifically the LEA2 in the top left corner shown in Fig. 7B) positioned outside the second light emitting area LEA1, and continuously positioned in indirect contact with the second light emitting area LEA1;
a second non-light emitting area NEA2 (“non-light emitting area”- ¶0179, specifically the NEA1 in the top left corner shown in Fig. 7B) positioned between the first light emitting area LEA1 and the second light emitting area LEA1; and
a first non-light emitting area NEA1 (“non-light emitting area”- ¶0179) positioned outside the third light emitting area LEA2.
Regarding claim 3, Figure 7B of Kim discloses wherein the third light emitting area LEA2 has a shape corresponding to a shape of an edge of the second light emitting area LEA1.
Regarding claim 4, Figure 7B of Kim discloses wherein a width of the second light emitting area LEA1 is larger than a width of the third light emitting area LEA2.
Regarding claim 5, Figure 7B of Kim discloses wherein a size of an area of the second light emitting area LEA1 is greater than a size of an area of the third light emitting area LEA2.
Regarding claim 6, Figure 7B of Kim discloses wherein a luminance of the third light emitting area LEA2 is greater than a luminance of the second light emitting area LEA1 (¶¶0191, 0217).
Regarding claim 7, Figure 4 of Kim discloses the display device further comprising:
a planarization layer OC (“overcoat layer”- ¶0126) including a concave portion CONC (“concave area”- ¶0132), a first sloped surface SLO1 (“inclined surface”- ¶0312) positioned outside the concave portion CONC, and a second sloped surface (i.e., the inclined surface of layer OC in the via hole connecting ANO1 to D) positioned outside the first sloped surface SLO1;
an anode electrode ANO1 (“anode electrodes”- ¶0126) positioned on the planarization layer OC; and
a light emitting layer EL1 (“light emitting layer”- ¶0126) positioned on the anode electrode ANO1.
Regarding claim 9, Figure 4 of Kim discloses wherein an angle formed between the second sloped surface and the concave portion CONC of the planarization layer OC is greater than an angle formed between the first sloped surface SLO1 and the concave portion CONC of the planarization layer OC.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 10-14 are 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.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art of record including Ha and/or Kim, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the combination of limitations including, but not limited to, “wherein the second light emitting area is positioned in correspondence to the first sloped surface of the planarization layer, and the third light emitting area is positioned in correspondence to the second sloped surface of the planarization layer”.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art of record including Ha and/or Kim, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the combination of limitations including, but not limited to, “wherein the planarization layer includes a first planarization layer and a second planarization layer positioned on the first planarization layer, and the first planarization layer includes the first sloped surface, and the second planarization layer includes the second sloped surface.
Regarding claim 11, the prior art of record including Ha and/or Kim, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the combination of limitations including, but not limited to, “wherein a height of the second sloped surface of the planarization layer is greater than a height of the first sloped surface of the planarization layer”.
Regarding claim 12 (which claims 13-14 depend from), the prior art of record including Ha and/or Kim, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the combination of limitations including, but not limited to, “[the] display device… further comprising: a first subpixel configured to emit blue light; a second subpixel configured to emit green light; and a third subpixel configured to emit red light, wherein the first subpixel includes the first light emitting area, the second light emitting area, the third light emitting area, the first non-light emitting area and the second non-light emitting area”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lee at al. (US 2020/0203447 A1), which discloses a display device comprising a plurality of light emitting areas.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY C CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-6132. The examiner can normally be reached Mon- Fri 12pm-10pm.
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, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano can be reached at (571)-272-7925. 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.
/JAY C CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817