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
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign benefit based on KR10-2022-0179768 filed on 12/20/2022.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) that forms the basis for the rejection set forth in this Office action:
(a) NOVELTY; PRIOR ART.—A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—
(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;
Notes: when present, semicolon separated fields within the parenthesis (; ;) represent, for example, as (30A; Fig 2B; [0128]) = (element 30A; Figure No. 2B; Paragraph No. [0128]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. These conventions are used throughout this document.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jo et al. (US 20200185655 A1 – hereinafter Jo).
Regarding Claim 1, Jo teaches an organic light-emitting diode display device (see the entire document; Figs. 2-4; specifically, ([0065] - [0089]), and as cited below), comprising:
a plurality of sub-pixels (PA1-PA3 and right most PA1 – Fig. 3 – [0068]) disposed over a substrate (100), each sub-pixel having an emission area (OP) and a non-emission area (CP);
a thin film transistor (DT – Fig. 2) in the non-emission area of each sub-pixel;
an overcoat layer (130 – [0065]) over the thin film transistor (DT) in each sub-pixel, and including a plurality of micro lenses (140 – [0089]) in the emission area (OP) of each sub-pixel; and
a light-emitting diode (De [162, 164, 166] – Fig. 2) in the emission area of each sub-pixel over the overcoat layer (130), and connected to the corresponding thin film transistor,
wherein for one sub-pixel among the plurality of sub-pixels, the emission area of the one sub-pixel has at least one flat portion (flat portion in the OP are where CP and OP meet – hereinafter FP) disposed at the overcoat layer (130) where a top surface of the overcoat layer is flat (portions of 130 has top flat portion as seen in Fig. 3), and the overcoat layer (130) has at least one lens pattern in the at least one flat portion (a portion of 140 is in the FP as seen in Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 2, Jo teaches the organic light-emitting diode display device of claim 1, wherein the at least one lens pattern has a same size and shape as at least one of the plurality of micro lenses ([0089]).
Regarding Claim 5, Jo teaches the organic light-emitting diode display device of claim 1, wherein for the one sub-pixel, the at least one flat portion in the emission area includes two flat portions and wherein the two flat portions are disposed at opposing sides of the emission area and are disposed on a same straight line (Fig. 3 shows two flat portions at two ends of OP).
Regarding Claim 7, Jo teaches the organic light-emitting diode display device of claim 1, wherein the plurality of sub- pixels include the one sub-pixel being a first sub-sub-pixel (left most PA1), a second sub-pixel (2nd PA1 from left), a third sub-pixel (third PA1 from left) and a fourth sub-pixel (fourth PA1 from left), which are provided over the substrate (100) along a one direction (x-direction), wherein the emission areas of the first, second, third, and fourth sub-pixels have at least one first, second, third, and fourth flat portions (as seen in Fig. 3), respectively, and wherein the overcoat layer (130) has at least one first, second, third, and fourth lens patterns in the first, second, third, and fourth flat portions (130 has a flat portion in each of pixels), respectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 6, 8-13 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 following is the Examiner’s Reasons for Allowance:
The prior art fails to disclose and would not have rendered obvious:
Regarding claim 3: The organic light-emitting diode display device of claim 2, wherein each of the plurality of micro lenses has a hexagonal shape in a top plan view, and a distance between the at least one lens pattern and one of the plurality of micro lenses adjacent thereto is equal to or greater than a side length of one micro lens among the plurality of micro lenses.
Regarding claim 4: The organic light-emitting diode display device of claim 1, wherein a distance between the at least one lens pattern and one of the plurality of micro lenses adjacent thereto is greater than a distance between two adjacent micro lenses among the plurality of micro lenses.
Regarding claim 6: The organic light-emitting diode display device of claim 5, further comprising a bank having an opening corresponding to the emission area of the one sub-pixel, wherein two side surfaces of the bank with the opening interposed therebetween and facing each other are disposed over part of the two flat portions, respectively.
Regarding claim 8: The organic light-emitting diode display device of claim 7, wherein at least one of the first, second, third, and fourth flat portions is disposed on a different straight line from another one of the first, second, third, and fourth flat portions.
Regarding claim 9: The organic light-emitting diode display device of claim 7, wherein the plurality of micro lenses in the first, second, third, and fourth sub-pixels are rotated so that lines connecting centers of the plurality of micro lenses adjacent to each other have first, second, third, and fourth angles with respect to the one direction, respectively.
Claims 10-12 depend from claim 9.
Regarding claim 13: The organic light-emitting diode display device of claim 1, wherein the plurality of micro lenses in the emission area of at least some of the plurality of sub-pixels are rotated at an angle greater than 0 degrees to 60 degrees.
REASON FOR ALLOWANCE
Claims 14-20 are allowed over prior art.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance, which paraphrases and summarizes the claimed invention without intending to be limiting, wherein the legally defined scope of the claimed invention is defined by the allowed claims themselves in view of the written description under 35 USC 112. This statement is not intended to necessarily state all the reasons for allowance or all the details why the claims are allowed and has not been written to specifically or impliedly state that all the reasons for allowance are set forth (MPEP 1302.14).
Regarding claim 14, the reference(s) of the Prior Art of record and considered pertinent to the applicant's disclosure and to the examiner’s knowledge do(es) not teach or render obvious, at least to the skilled artisan, the instant invention regarding a method in their entirety (the individual limitations may be found just not in combination with proper motivation).
The most relevant prior art reference(s) (US 20200185655 A1 to Jo) substantially teach(es) some of limitations in claim 14 as indicated in the rejection of claim 1, but not the limitations of “wherein the plurality of micro lenses in the emission area of at least one of the plurality of sub-pixels are rotated” as recited in claim 14. Therefore, the claim 14 is deemed patentable over the prior art.
Regarding claims 15-20, they are allowed due to their dependencies on claim 14.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD A. RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-0168 and email is mohammad.rahman5@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 PM.
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, Julio J. Maldonado can be reached on (571) 272-1864. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMMAD A RAHMAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights