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 .
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Choi et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0408496)
Regarding claim 1, Choi teaches a display device comprising:
a substrate (Fig. 15, PI1/PI2) having a plurality of subpixels (see Fig. 3, subpixels R/G/B), each subpixel including an emission area and a non-emission area (see Fig. 3, emission area where pixel is located, and non-emission are where blank squares are located and surrounding pixels);
a polarization layer (polarization layer 18) disposed on the substrate, and including a first area (18b) and a second area (18d) having single transmittances (inherent quality of any polarizer); and
an organic light emitting element (OLED at EL) disposed in the emission area (see Fig. 3 and 15),
wherein a single transmittance of the second area is higher than a single transmittance of the first area from among the single transmittances (18d is transparent, and 18b is polarizing, therefore 18d inherently has a higher single transmittance than 18b).
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 2-4 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Hatanaka et al. (WO 2021/020264).
Regarding claim 2, Choi teaches the display device of claim 1, but does not teach wherein:
the polarization layer has a single transmittance of about 40% to 50%, and
the single transmittance of the second area is higher by about 0.1% or more than the single transmittance of the first area.
Choi does not teach the specific single transmission values. However, Hatanaka teaches a similar polarizer with a transparent section, wherein the first area has a single transmittance of 40-50% (Hatanka translation page 7, 30-55%), and the second area has a single transmittance of 60& or more, i.e. 0.1% higher or more (Hatanka translation page 7, up to 100%). It would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date that the polarizing layer of Choi could have been replaced with the polarizing layer of Hatanaka because Hatanaka teaches that the single transmittance change is done gradually, reducing the visible conspicuousness of the change to a user (Hatanaka translation page 7).
Regarding claim 3, Choi teaches the display device of claim 1, but does not teach wherein:
the polarization layer includes a third area between the first area and the second area, and a single transmittance of the third area is equal to or higher than the single transmittance of the first area and is equal to or lower than the single transmittance of the second area.
However, Hatanaka teaches the polarization layer includes a third area (Hatanaka Fig. 4, area 3) between the first area and the second area (see Hatanaka Fig. 4), and a single transmittance of the third area is equal to or higher than the single transmittance of the first area and is equal to or lower than the single transmittance of the second area (see Hatanaka translation page 5 and Fig. 5). It would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date that the polarizing layer of Choi could have been replaced with the polarizing layer of Hatanaka because Hatanaka teaches that the single transmittance change is done gradually in steps by utilizing 3 regions, reducing the visible conspicuousness of the change to a user (Hatanaka translation page 7).
Regarding claim 4, Choi in view of Hatanaka teaches the display device of claim 3, wherein the single transmittance of the third area decreases from that of the single transmittance of the second area to that of the single transmittance of the first area in a direction from the second area to the first area (Hatanaka Fig. 4-5).
Regarding claim 17, Choi teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein a shape of the second area and a shape of the emission area of at least one of the plurality of subpixels is the same (see Choi Fig. 4, second area and are least one pixel can both be circles).
Regarding claim 18, Choi teaches the display device of claim 1, further comprising a bank (Fig. 15, bank BNK)to define the emission area of at least one of the plurality subpixel,
wherein the second area overlaps the bank (see Fig. 15, overlaps a portion of the bank).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-16 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 5-6, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest wherein the second area is positioned in an area of the polarization layer which overlaps with the organic light emitting element.
Regarding claims 7-13, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest the second area is positioned in the emission area of the first subpixel, and the first area is positioned in an area of the polarization layer other than the second area.
Regarding claim 14, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest wherein the second area extends from the non-emission area to the emission area of at least one of the plurality of subpixels.
Regarding claims 15-16, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest wherein the second area at least partially overlaps the emission area of at least one of the plurality of subpixels.
Claims 19-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claims 19-20, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest wherein the bleach area of the polarization layer at least partially overlaps the emission area of at least one of the plurality of subpixels and does not overlap the non-emission area of the at least one of the plurality of subpixels..
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Evan G Clinton whose telephone number is (571)270-0525. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday at 8:30am to 5:30pm.
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, Zandra Smith can be reached at 571-272-2429. 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.
/EVAN G CLINTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899