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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 03/15/2024 has been considered.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 03/15/2024 are acceptable.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure and the specification filed on 03/15/2024 are acceptable.
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.
Claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2021/0359048) in view of Jung (US 2023/0363211).
PNG
media_image1.png
448
638
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
406
698
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses:
A display apparatus comprising:
a substrate (100, ¶0082);
a pixel circuit layer (PCL, ¶0082) located on the substrate and comprising at least one thin-film transistor (TFT, ¶0082), a planarization layer (119) located on the at least one thin-film transistor, and a first bank layer (BL1) located on the planarization layer (119) and defining a first opening;
a display element comprising a pixel electrode (121, ¶0104) located to correspond to the first opening, a counter electrode (123, ¶0104), and an emission layer (122, ¶0104) located between the pixel electrode (121) and the counter electrode (123);
a second bank layer (BL2) located between the pixel electrode (121) and the counter electrode (123) to cover an edge of the pixel electrode (121) and defining a pixel opening overlapping the first opening;
wherein the pixel electrode (121) comprises an inclined surface located on a side surface of the first bank layer (BL1) defining the first opening and a flat surface located on a top surface of the planarization layer exposed through the first opening, wherein the inclined surface of the pixel electrode is inclined by 15° to 25° with respect to the flat surface of the pixel electrode (¶0098).
Kim does not disclose “a light-blocking layer located on the display element and defining a second opening overlapping the pixel opening”.
PNG
media_image3.png
472
546
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In a similar device, however, Jung discloses a display apparatus (figure 6) comprising a light-blocking layer (BM, ¶0175) located on the display element (ED1, ¶0091) and defining a second opening (OPT1, ¶0098) overlapping the pixel opening (OPE1, ¶0122, figure 6). Jung discloses that a device as taught provides protection from unwanted visible light infiltration providing an improved display (¶0175). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kim, including providing a light-blocking layer located on the display element and defining a second opening overlapping the pixel opening in order to provide an improved display as taught by Jung.
Regarding claim 2, Kim further discloses:
wherein in a plan view, a distance between a boundary of the inclined surface of the pixel electrode and a boundary of the flat surface of the pixel electrode ranges from 1 µm to 5 µm (¶0113).
Regarding claim 3, Kim in view of Jung does not disclose “wherein a thickness of the first bank layer ranges from 0.5 µm to 2.3 µm”. However, a change in size or shape or both is an unpatentable modification when it results in optimum conditions that differ from the prior art in degree but not in kind. In Re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237, In reDailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47). In the instant case the prior art device would not perform differently if modified to the claimed shape or size. Therefore the claimed limitations are considered met.
Regarding claim 4, Kim in view of Jung does not disclose “wherein a width of the second opening is the same as a width of the pixel opening”. However, a change in size or shape or both is an unpatentable modification when it results in optimum conditions that differ from the prior art in degree but not in kind. In Re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237, In reDailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47). In the instant case the prior art device would not perform differently if modified to the claimed shape or size. Therefore the claimed limitations are considered met.
Regarding claim 5, the modification of Jung further discloses:
a color filter layer (CF1 ¶0067) located on the display element (ED1) to correspond to the second opening.
Regarding claim 6, Kim discloses:
A display apparatus comprising:
a substrate (100);
a pixel circuit layer (PCL) located on the substrate (100) and comprising at least one thin-film transistor (TFT), a planarization layer (119) located on the at least one thin-film transistor, and a first bank layer (BL1) located on the planarization layer and defining a 1-1th opening (OP1, ¶0097, figure 5);
a first display element comprising a first pixel electrode (121) located to correspond to the 1-1th opening, a counter electrode (123), and a first emission layer (122) located between the first pixel electrode and the counter electrode;
a second display element spaced apart from the first pixel electrode, and comprising a second pixel electrode (121), the counter electrode (123), and a second emission layer (122) located between the second pixel electrode (121) and the counter electrode (123);
a second bank layer (BL2) covering an edge of each of the first pixel electrode (121) and the second pixel electrode (121), and defining a first pixel opening corresponding to the first pixel electrode (121) and a second pixel opening corresponding to the second pixel electrode (121, figure 5 discloses multiple openings);
wherein the first pixel electrode (121) comprises an inclined surface located on a side surface of the first bank layer defining the 1-1th opening (OP1) and a flat surface located on a top surface of the planarization layer (119) exposed through the 1-1th opening (OP1), and wherein the inclined surface of the first pixel electrode is inclined by 15° to 25° with respect to the flat surface of the first pixel electrode (¶0098).
Kim does not disclose “a light-blocking layer located on the first display element and the second display element, and defining a 2-1th opening overlapping the first pixel opening and a 2-2th opening overlapping the second pixel opening”.
In a similar device, however, Jung discloses a display apparatus (figure 6) comprising a light-blocking a light-blocking layer (BM) located on the first display element (ED2) and the second display element (ED3), and defining a 2-1th opening (OPT2) overlapping the first pixel opening and a 2-2th opening (OPT3) overlapping the second pixel opening
Jung discloses that a device as taught provides protection from unwanted visible light infiltration providing an improved display (¶0175). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kim, including providing “a light-blocking layer located on the first display element and the second display element, and defining a 2-1th opening overlapping the first pixel opening and a 2-2th opening overlapping the second pixel opening in order to provide an improved display as taught by Jung.
Regarding claim 7, Jung further discloses:
wherein, in a plan view, a distance between a boundary of the inclined surface of the pixel electrode and a boundary of the flat surface of the pixel electrode ranges from 1 µm to 5 µm (¶0113).
Regarding claim 8, Kim in view of Jung does not disclose “wherein a thickness of the first bank layer ranges from 0.5 µm to 2.3 µm”. However, a change in size or shape or both is an unpatentable modification when it results in optimum conditions that differ from the prior art in degree but not in kind. In Re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237, In reDailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47). In the instant case the prior art device would not perform differently if modified to the claimed shape or size. Therefore the claimed limitations are considered met.
Regarding claim 9, Kim in view of Jung does not disclose “wherein a width of the 2-1th opening is same as a width of the first pixel opening”. However, a change in size or shape or both is an unpatentable modification when it results in optimum conditions that differ from the prior art in degree but not in kind. In Re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237, In reDailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47). In the instant case the prior art device would not perform differently if modified to the claimed shape or size. Therefore the claimed limitations are considered met.
Regarding claim 10, the modification of Jung further discloses:
wherein the first bank layer (BL1) further defines a 1-2th opening corresponding to the second pixel electrode (OP1 over pixel electrode 121 to the right of TFT in figure 5), wherein the second pixel electrode comprises an inclined surface located on a side surface of the first bank layer defining the 1-2th opening and a flat surface located on a top surface of the planarization layer exposed through the 1-2th opening.
Regarding claim 11, Kim in view of Jung does not disclose “wherein, in a plan view, a 1-1th distance between a boundary of the inclined surface of the first pixel electrode and a boundary of the flat surface of the first pixel electrode is different from a 1-2th distance between a boundary of the inclined surface of the second pixel electrode and a boundary of the flat surface of the second pixel electrode. However, a change in size or shape or both is an unpatentable modification when it results in optimum conditions that differ from the prior art in degree but not in kind. In Re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237, In reDailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47). In the instant case the prior art device would not perform differently if modified to the claimed shape or size. Therefore the claimed limitations are considered met.
Regarding claim 12, Kim in view of Jung does not disclose “wherein, in a plan view, the 1-2th distance between the boundary of the inclined surface of the second pixel electrode and the boundary of the flat surface of the second pixel electrode ranges from 1 µm to 5 µm”. However, a change in size or shape or both is an unpatentable modification when it results in optimum conditions that differ from the prior art in degree but not in kind. In Re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237, In reDailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47). In the instant case the prior art device would not perform differently if modified to the claimed shape or size. Therefore the claimed limitations are considered met.
Regarding claim 13, Kim in view of Jung does not disclose “wherein a width of the 2-2th opening is same as a width of the second pixel opening”. However, a change in size or shape or both is an unpatentable modification when it results in optimum conditions that differ from the prior art in degree but not in kind. In Re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237, In reDailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47). In the instant case the prior art device would not perform differently if modified to the claimed shape or size. Therefore the claimed limitations are considered met.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-20 allowed.
Regarding claim 14, the prior art does not disclose “a second display element located on the planarization layer to be spaced apart from the first pixel electrode, the second display element comprising a second pixel electrode, the counter electrode, and a second emission layer located between the second pixel electrode and the counter electrode” and “wherein the first pixel electrode comprises an inclined surface located on a side surface of the first bank layer defining the 1-1th opening and a flat surface located on a top surface of the planarization layer exposed through the 1-1th opening, and wherein the second pixel electrode comprises only a flat surface located on a top surface of the planarization layer”. In combination with the remaining claimed features” in combination with the remaining claimed features.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM A HARRISTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3897. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9AM-5PM.
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, Brent Fairbanks can be reached at (408) 918-7532. 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.
/WILLIAM A HARRISTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights