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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 5, 7-9 and 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on August 6, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-4, 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, the instant application cites “a plurality of inclined surfaces” see for example in Fig. 10A having an inclination angle (r2), which results in an inclined surface (ICN). Claim 1 further cites “inclination angles of the plurality of inclined surfaces in a central area”, which corresponds to the area PXLa shown in Figs. 8-9 having a substantially planar surface (PLN, shown Fig. 9) and an “inclination angle” (r1) being 0° (see also [0225] of the instant application). As such, it is unclear how the plurality of inclined surfaces is intended to be interpreted in the central area.
For examination purposes, the inclined surfaces of at least one of the overcoat layer and cover window are interpreted to be disposed in an edge area, while a corresponding surface in the central area is interpreted to be planar as shown in Figs. 8-9 and 10A.
Claims 2-4, 6 and 10 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as they require all limitations of claim 1 and lack further clarity.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20190371866 A1) in further view of Lee (US 20130037817 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Kim teaches a display panel (see Figs. 1 and 6) comprising:
a substrate (111);
a pixel circuit layer (a line layer, see also [0052-0053] describing a layer wherein thin-film transistors are disposed to be electrically connected to a pixel electrode layer 112) disposed on the substrate and including at least one switching element (thin film transistors, see [0052]);
a light emitting element layer (including pixel electrodes 112, pixel define layer 113, organic emission layer 120, common electrode 114) including a plurality of light emitting elements electrically connected to the pixel circuit layer and disposed on the pixel circuit layer (shown Fig. 1);
an overcoat layer (119) disposed on the light emitting element layer and having a first refractive index (see [0097]); and
a cover window (150) disposed on the overcoat layer (shown being in contact) and having a second refractive index greater than the first refractive index (see [0068-0069] which gives a second refractive index at a value between 1.5 and 2.5, wherein layer 150 “may show a relatively high refractive index than those of other constituent elements adjacent thereto”, see also [0097]),
wherein at least one of the overcoat layer and the cover window includes a plurality of inclined surfaces (see embodiment of Figs. 6-8, wherein elements 150a-150c may each be formed as a microprism having a tilting angle of 20-80 degrees, a planar lens, or a Fresnel lens, see also [0015]), and
wherein inclination angles of the plurality of inclined surfaces in a central area (corresponding to 150b and 150c, wherein 150b and 150c may be configured as a planar lens shown in Fig. 7, having an inclination angle of 0°) are different from those in an edge area (150a, which may be configured as a microprism, having inclination angles between 20°-80°, see [0015]).
Kim does not explicitly teach providing at least one storage element in the pixel circuit layer.
Lee teaches an OLED device wherein a pixel circuit layer (see defined in Figs. 3A-3C comprising TFT_R, Cvth_R, and CSt_R corresponding to a red sub-pixel), wherein a storage element (Cst_R) is provided to compensate for light-emitting efficiency (see Lee: [0027]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the pixel circuit of Kim to further comprise corresponding storage elements (i.e., storage capacitors) as taught by Lee as this would advantageously improve light-emitting efficiency and further improve brightness uniformity of the display device (see also Lee: [0027]).
Regarding Claim 2, Kim as modified by Lee teaches the display panel of claim 1, wherein the inclination angle (interpreted as an inclination angle in the central area) in the central area is smallest and the inclination angle in the edge area (interpreted as an inclination area in the edge area) is largest (see [0015]).
Regarding Claim 3, Kim as modified by Lee teaches the display panel of claim 2, wherein light emitted from a light emitting element in the central area is emitted in a normal direction to the substrate (shown Fig. 7), and wherein light emitted from a light emitting element in the edge area is emitted in an outer direction of the substrate to form a predetermined angle with the normal direction of the substrate (shown Fig. 6, see also [0084] and [0097] which describes the microprism as a “light focusing part” and the light focusing layer 150 being used to “control a light path”).
Regarding Claim 4, Kim as modified by Lee teaches the display panel of claim 1, wherein the overcoat layer includes the plurality of inclined surfaces (see Fig. 1, wherein the overcoat layer conforms to the shape of layer 150, thus having matching inclination surfaces of 150a-150c), and
wherein heights of the plurality of inclined surfaces increase as distances from the central area increase (see Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 6, Kim as modified by Lee teaches the display panel of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of inclined surfaces is disposed in an area corresponding to one light emitting element (shown Fig. 1).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20190371866 A1) in view of Lee (US 20130037817 A1) and further in view of Uchida (US 20230063966 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Kim as modified by Lee teaches the display panel of claim 1, wherein the overcoat layer includes an epoxy resin (described as a “sealing layer” which may also function as an “adhesive”, see also [0098]) whose refractive index is the first refractive index and the cover window includes glass (described as a “lens”, which is commonly formed of a glass material) whose refractive index is the second refractive index, and
wherein the first refractive index is lower than the second refractive index (see [0097]), and the second refractive index is 1.5 to 1.9 (see [0068] which substantially overlaps the claimed range).
Kim and Lee are silent regarding a refractive index value for an overcoat layer.
Uchida teaches a display panel (see Lee: Figs. 1 and 12 showing an embodiment comprising a Fresnel lens) comprising a pixel layer (110), a cover window (121) on an overcoat (122, shown Fig. 1), wherein the overcoat has a first refractive index between 1.2 and 1.4 (see Uchida: [0098]) and the cover window has a second refractive index between 1.5 and 1.9 (see Uchida: [0098]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to implement a material having a refractive index of 1.2 and 1.4 as the overcoat layer of Kim as this would provide an appropriately selected sealing layer (see Uchida: [0087]) meeting the design constraints described by Kim (see also Kim: [0097]) while maintaining predictable luminous efficiency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Zhou (US 20170285223 A1) teaches a display device (shown Fig. 3) comprising a Fresnel lens (301) wherein a central area has a convex/concave portion and edge areas have inclined surface with inclination angles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASEY PAUL BOATMAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4778. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM - 5:30 PM ET.
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, Britt Hanley can be reached at (571)270-3042. 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.
/C.P.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/Britt Hanley/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights