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 .
Response to Arguments
The amendments to claims 15 and 29 overcome the objections.
The applicant argues that “In rejecting claims 11 and 24, the Office action cited Figure 4 of Park (reproduced below). However, as can be seen in Figure 4 of Park, the cited convex and concave portions are only on the two long sides of the organic emission layer 52 and are not on the two short sides thereof. See Park, para. [0069]. Thus, even if the recess portions 54 and the convex portions 55 are equated with the recited concave portions and convex portions, respectively, the recess portions 54 and the convex portions 55 of Park do not ‘extend continuously along the closed-shape edge of the first organic emission layer.’ Rather, in Park, the recess portions 54 and the convex portions 55 are only on the opposite long sides of the organic emission layer 52.” However, as seen in present FIG. 1, a convex shape can have flat sections. Indeed, all of the applicant’s convex and concave sections are made of up of flat portions. The entire ends of Park can be considered respective single convex portions, which reads on the claim language.
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.
(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.
Claims 11-17 and 24-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and as being anticipated by Park, US 2011/0163318.
Claim 11: Park discloses
a substrate (10);
an electrode layer (51) comprising a first electrode, a second electrode, and a third electrode spaced apart from each other and disposed on the substrate (FIG. 1; the electrodes 51 in any three of the pixels can correspond to the first, second and third pixels having the first, second, and third electrodes, and corresponding structures below);
a pixel defining layer (18) positioned on the electrode layer, wherein the pixel defining layer includes a first opening overlapping to the first electrode in a plan view, a second opening overlapping to the second electrode in the plan view, and a third opening overlapping to the third electrode in the plan view (FIGS. 1 and 3);
and a first organic emission layer (52), a second organic emission layer, and a third organic emission layer respectively overlapping the first opening, the second opening, and the third opening in the plan view (FIGS. 1 and 3),
wherein an edge of the first organic emission layer includes a first convex portion (55) and a first concave portion (54) connected to the first convex portion in the plan view (FIG. 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
668
638
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 12: the first convex portion is disposed adjacent to a first corner of the first opening, and the first concave portion is disposed adjacent to a first side connecting two first corners of the first opening in the plan view.
PNG
media_image2.png
668
640
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 13: the first convex portion is disposed between the first opening and the second opening, and the first concave portion is disposed between the first side of the first opening and the third opening facing the first side in the plan view.
PNG
media_image3.png
636
406
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Note that Park discloses the emission layer (including its convex and concave portions) exists outside the opening:
PNG
media_image4.png
424
722
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Thus the convex and concave portions will be between the openings.
Claim 14: the first convex portion has a convex shape from the first corner of the first opening toward the second opening, and wherein the first concave portion has a concave shape from the third opening toward the first side of the first opening.
PNG
media_image5.png
449
419
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Note on interpretation: the phrase “from … toward”, in discussing the convex and concave portions, defines the direction toward the point or end of the convex or concave portion.
Claim 15: the edge of the first organic emission layer comprises four first convex potions and four first concave portions, and the four first concave portions are respectively disposed between adjacent two first convex portions.
PNG
media_image6.png
491
408
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claim 16: the first opening comprises four first corners, and the four first convex portions are arranged to be respectively adjacent to the four first corners of the first opening. As the emission layer (and its convex portions) extend beyond the openings, the four corners of the opening will be adjacent to four convex portions of the emission layer.
Claim 17: the first convex portion is disposed on a first virtual line connecting a central point of the first opening and the first corner of the first opening.
PNG
media_image7.png
491
388
media_image7.png
Greyscale
As the edge of the emission layer is just beyond the opening, the convex region of the emission layer will be along this line.
Claim 24: Park discloses
a substrate (10);
an electrode layer (51) comprising a first electrode, a second electrode, and a third electrode spaced apart from each other and disposed on the substrate (FIG. 1; the electrodes 51 in any three of the pixels can correspond to the first, second and third pixels having the first, second, and third electrodes, and corresponding structures below);
a pixel defining layer (18) positioned on the electrode layer, wherein the pixel defining layer includes a first opening overlapping to the first electrode, a second opening overlapping to the second electrode, and a third opening overlapping to the third electrode (FIGS. 1 and 3);
and a first organic emission layer (52), a second organic emission layer, and a third organic emission layer respectively overlapping the first opening, the second opening, and the third opening in the plan view (FIGS. 1 and 3),
wherein an edge of the first organic emission layer comprises a first convex portion (55) and a first concave portion (54) connected to the first convex portion in the plan view, and wherein the first convex portion and the first concave portion are bent with different curvatures (FIG. 7).
PNG
media_image8.png
317
396
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Claim 25: the first convex portion is disposed adjacent to a first corner of the first opening, and the first concave portion is disposed adjacent to a first side connecting two first corners of the first opening in the plan view.
PNG
media_image9.png
495
641
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Claim 26: the first convex portion is disposed between the first opening and the second opening, and the first concave portion is disposed between the first side of the first opening and the third opening facing the first side in the plan view.
PNG
media_image3.png
636
406
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Note that Park discloses the emission layer (including its convex and concave portions) exists outside the opening:
PNG
media_image4.png
424
722
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Thus the convex and concave portions will be between the openings.
Claim 27: the first convex portion has a convex shape from the first corner of the first opening toward the second opening, and wherein the first concave portion has a concave shape from the third opening toward the first side of the first opening.
PNG
media_image5.png
449
419
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Note on interpretation: the phrase “from … toward”, in discussing the convex and concave portions, defines the direction toward the point or end of the convex or concave portion.
Claim 28: the first convex portion and the first concave portion are curved shape (FIGS. 4 and 7).
Claim 29: the edge of the first organic emission layer comprises four first convex potions and four first concave portions, and the four first concave portions are respectively disposed between adjacent two first convex portions.
PNG
media_image6.png
491
408
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claim 30: the first opening comprises four first corners, and the four first convex portions are arranged to be respectively adjacent to the four first corners of the first opening. As the emission layer (and its convex portions) extend beyond the openings, the four corners of the opening will be adjacent to four convex portions of the emission layer.
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 18, 19, 21, 23, 31, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Lee, US 2013/0234917. Note on interpretation: first, second, and third emission layers are interpreted to be three different kinds (here, colors) of emission layers.
Claims 18 and 31: Miyashita discloses that
the first organic emission layer (R) and the second organic emission layer (B) are alternately disposed in a first direction (vertical), wherein the first organic emission layer and the second organic emission layer are alternately disposed in a second direction (horizontal) perpendicular to the first direction, wherein the first organic emission layer and the third organic emission layer (G) are alternately disposed in a third direction (diagonal) different from the first direction and the second direction, and wherein a second virtual line connecting a central point of the first opening and a central point of the third opening is parallel to the third direction.
PNG
media_image10.png
610
536
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Park discloses that the combination of convex and concave portions is to prevent interference effects in making a transparent display ([0009], [0072]). It would have been obvious to use such portions in making a transparent display having the pixel arrangement of Lee (which can have higher manufacturing reliability ([0047]), as the pixels of Lee have many straight edges facing each other, and thus would benefit from the same reduction in interference effects.
Claim 19: the second virtual line passes through central points of at least two first openings and central points of at least two third openings. See annotated FIG. 1 of Lee above.
Claims 21 and 33 recite that the first opening comprises four (first) corners, and two of the (first) corners of the four first corners are opposite to each other disposed along the first direction, and the remaining two of the first corners of the four first corners are opposite to each other disposed along the second direction. The sides of the R and B pixels of Lee in the first and second directions can be considered chamfered corners that read on claim 21.
Claim 23: Park does not disclose that areas of the first opening, the second opening, and the third opening decrease in the order of the second opening, the first opening, and the third opening. However, Lee discloses that areas of the first opening, the second opening, and the third opening decrease in the order of the second opening (B), the first opening (R), and the third opening (G, FIG. 2, [0052]). It would have been obvious to have had this combination of pixel sizes as known the art; it also would have been within ordinary skill in the art to determine the appropriate relative pixel sizes in any given application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20, 22, and 32 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.
With respect to claims 20 and 32, the examiner did not find a display in which there where convex portions in both of the claimed perpendicular directions in a device with all the features of these claims, nor did the examiner find a reason this would have been obvious.
With respect to claim 22, the examiner did not find in the prior art the claimed convex portions from adjacent pixels overlapping each other as claimed in light of the overall claimed device.
Conclusion
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, Jacob Choi can be reached at 469.295.9060. 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.
/PETER BRADFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897