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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I (e.g., Figure 8) in the reply filed on July 30th, 2026, is acknowledged. Therefore, said restriction/election requirement is hereby made FINAL. As a result, Claims 7-8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Status of Claims
Pursuant to Applicant’s response to restriction/election requirement filed on July 30th, 2026, Claims 1-26 are pending, with Claims 7-8 being withdraw as stated above. Therefore, Claims 1-6 and 9-26 are subject to the within examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. However, should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e). Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on February 20th, 2025, is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
Figures 1, 2, 3A, and 3B should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The following title is suggested: “DISPLAY APPARATUS WITH A PLANARIZATION SURFACE THAT HAS A CONVEX PORTION AND A STAIRCASE PORTION”.
The specification is objected to as the section headings are in bold type. Pursuant to MPEP 608.01(a) and 37 C.F.R. 1.77(c), “The text of the specification sections defined in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(12) of this section, if applicable, should be preceded by a section heading in uppercase and without underlining or bold type” (emphasis added). The instant application has section headings with bold type. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hee (KR 20190070466 A; hereinafter referred to as Hee).
PNG
media_image1.png
541
703
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 18, Hee discloses a display device, comprising:
a substrate (substrate 500, [0061], Fig. 9) on which a plurality of subpixels is disposed ([0031]), each of the plurality of subpixels including a light emitting element (OLED 520, 530, and 550, [0032]); and
a planarization layer on the substrate (insulating layer 310, [0064], Fig. 9; “This insulating layer 310 may also be referred to as an overcoat layer or a planarizing film”), the planarization layer having a first portion and a second portion adjacent to the first portion (see Annotated Fig. 9),
wherein the first portion of the planarization layer includes a first surface (see Annotated Fig. 9), and
wherein the first surface of the first portion is curved such that a thickness of the first portion of the planarization layer is thickest at the center of the first portion of the planarization layer (see Annotated Fig. 9).
Regarding Claim 19, Hee discloses the display device of claim 18, wherein the light emitting element includes a first electrode (first electrode 520, [0061], Fig. 9), a second electrode (second electrode 550, [0061], Fig. 9), and a light emitting layer between the first and second electrodes (light emitting layer 530, [0061], Fig. 9),
wherein the light emitting layer overlaps with the first surface of the first portion of the planarization layer from a plan view (see Annotated Fig. 9).
Regarding Claim 20, Hee discloses the display device of claim 18, wherein the second portion of the planarization layer includes a second surface (see Annotated Fig. 9),
wherein the light emitting element includes a first electrode (first electrode 520, [0061], Fig. 9), a second electrode (second electrode 550, [0061], Fig. 9), and a light emitting layer between the first and second electrodes (light emitting layer 530, [0061], Fig. 9), and
wherein the first electrode is continuously and contiguously disposed on the second surface of the second portion of the planarization layer and the first surface of the first portion of the planarization layer (Fig. 9).
Regarding Claim 21, Hee discloses the display device of claim 20, wherein the light emitting layer is spaced apart from the second surface of the second portion of the planarization layer (Fig. 9; the light emitting layer is spaced apart from the second surface of the second portion of the planarization layer by the first electrode).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9-22 and 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, et al. (US 20230137666 A1; hereinafter referred to as Lee) and further in view of Hee.
Regarding Claim 1, Lee discloses a display device (display device 100, [0038], Fig. 2), comprising:
a substrate (substrate 110, [0038], Fig. 3) on which a plurality of subpixels is disposed (sub-pixels SP1, SP2, and SP3, [0042], Fig. 3), each of the plurality of subpixels including a first light emitting area (first light-emitting area EA1, [0071], Fig. 2) and a second light emitting area surrounding the first light emitting area (second light-emitting area EA2, [0071], Fig. 2);
a first planarization layer on the substrate (base portion 131, [0058], Fig. 2; overcoating layer 130 is a planarization layer and the base portion 131 is the first layer of the overcoating layer); and
a second planarization layer which is disposed on the first planarization layer (protruding portions 132, [0058], Fig. 2; overcoating layer 130 is a planarization layer and protruding portions 132 is the second layer of the overcoating layer).
Lee fails to disclose that the second planarization layer includes a first portion having a convex upper surface in a direction perpendicular to the first planarization layer in an area overlapping the first light emitting area and a second portion disposed around the first portion.
However, in analogous art, Hee discloses a planarization layer (Hee: insulating layer 310, Fig. 9) that includes a first portion having a convex upper surface in a direction perpendicular to the first planarization layer in an area overlapping the first light emitting area (Hee: [0116], see Annotated Fig. 9) and a second portion disposed around the first portion (Hee: see Annotated Fig. 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the shape of the upper surface of the top most planarization layer, which is a planar surface in Lee, to be a convex surface as disclosed by Hee. One would be motivated to do so because this structure makes it difficult to notice a color and brightness difference for a display area when viewed at an angle compared to a display device that is viewed in front of the user which, therefore, increases display clarity (Hee: [0119]).
Regarding Claim 2, Lee/Hee discloses the display device of claim 1, further comprising a first electrode disposed on a part of the first portion and the second portion (Lee: first electrode 141a, [0041], Fig. 2; Hee: first electrode 520, [0061], Fig. 9),
wherein the first electrode has a convex shape on the first portion (Hee: see Annotated Fig. 9).
Regarding Claim 3, Lee/Hee discloses the display device of claim 2, wherein the first electrode has an inclined portion in an area on the second portion (Lee: inclined surfaces SLO1 and SLO2, [0072], Fig. 2), and the area in which the inclined portion of the first electrode is disposed overlaps the second light emitting area (Lee: [0072], Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 4, Lee/Hee discloses the display device of claim 2, further comprising a light emitting layer disposed on the first electrode (Lee: organic layer 142a, [0041], Fig. 2; Hee: light emitting layer 530, [0061], Fig. 9),
wherein the light emitting layer has a convex shape in an area overlapping with the first portion (Hee: [0117], see Annotated Fig. 9).
Regarding Claim 5, Lee/Hee discloses the display device of claim 1, wherein a thickness of the first portion is greatest at the center of the first portion (Hee: see Annotated Fig. 9).
Regarding Claim 9, Lee/Hee discloses the display device of claim 1, wherein a thickness of the first portion gradually increases from an edge area of the first portion to a center of the first portion (Hee: see Annotated Fig. 9; the thickness of the convex portion gradually increases instead of abruptly increasing).
Regarding Claim 10, Lee/Hee discloses the display device of claim 1, wherein the plurality of subpixels includes a first subpixel emitting red (Lee: [0078]; “the first sub-pixel SP1 is configured as a red sub-pixel”), a second subpixel emitting green (Lee: [0078], “the second sub-pixel SP2 is configured as a green sub-pixel”), and a third subpixel emitting blue (Lee: [0078], “the third sub-pixel SP3 is configured as a blue sub-pixel”),
wherein horizontal widths of the first portions of the second planarization layer included in each of the first subpixel, the second subpixel and the third subpixel are different from each other (Lee: [0086], Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 11, Lee discloses a display device (display device 100, [0038], Fig. 2), comprising:
a substrate (substrate 110, [0038], Fig. 3) on which a plurality of subpixels is disposed (sub-pixels SP1, SP2, and SP3, [0042], Fig. 3), each of the plurality of subpixels including a light emitting area (first light emitting area EA1, [0071], Fig. 2);
a first planarization layer on the substrate (base portion 131, [0058], Fig. 2; overcoating layer 130 is a planarization layer and the base portion 131 is the first layer of the overcoating layer); and
a second planarization layer which is disposed on the first planarization layer (protruding portions 132, [0058], Fig. 2; overcoating layer 130 is a planarization layer and protruding portions 132 is the second layer of the overcoating layer).
Lee fails to disclose that the second planarization layer comprises at least a part of a convex portion located in an area overlapping at least a part of the light emitting area and having a convex upper surface in a direction opposite of the first planarization layer.
However, in analogous art, Hee discloses a planarization layer (Hee: insulating layer 310, Fig. 9) comprising at least a part of a convex portion located in an area overlapping at least a part of the light emitting area and having a convex upper surface in a direction opposite of the first planarization layer (Hee: [0116], see Annotated Fig. 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the shape of the upper surface of the top most planarization layer, which is a planar surface in Lee, to be a convex surface as disclosed by Hee. One would be motivated to do so because this structure makes it difficult to notice a color and brightness difference for a display area when viewed at an angle compared to a display device that is viewed in front of the user which, therefore, increases display clarity (Hee: [0119]).
Regarding Claim 12, Lee/Hee discloses the display device of claim 11, further comprising a first electrode disposed on the second planarization layer (Lee: first electrode 141a, [0041], Fig. 2; Hee: first electrode 520, [0061], Fig. 9),
wherein the first electrode has a convex shape on the convex portion (Hee: see Annotated Fig. 9).
Regarding Claim 13, Lee/Hee discloses the display device of claim 12, further comprising a light emitting layer disposed on the first electrode (Lee: organic layer 142a, [0041], Fig. 2; Hee: light emitting layer 530, [0061], Fig. 9),
wherein the light emitting layer has a convex shape in an area overlapping with the convex portion (Hee: [0117], see Annotated Fig. 9).
Regarding Claim 14, Lee/Hee discloses the display device of claim 11, wherein a thickness of the convex portion is greatest at a center of the convex portion (Hee: see Annotated Fig. 9).
Regarding Claim 15, Lee/Hee discloses the display device of claim 11, wherein a thickness of the convex portion gradually increases from an edge area of the convex portion to a center of the convex portion (Hee: see Annotated Fig. 9; the thickness of the convex portion gradually increases instead of abruptly increasing).
Regarding Claim 16, Lee/Hee discloses the display device of claim 11, wherein the plurality of subpixels includes a first subpixel emitting red (Lee: [0078]; “the first sub-pixel SP1 is configured as a red sub-pixel”), a second subpixel emitting green (Lee: [0078], “the second sub-pixel SP2 is configured as a green sub-pixel”), and a third subpixel emitting blue (Lee: [0078], “the third sub-pixel SP3 is configured as a blue sub-pixel”),
wherein horizontal widths of the convex portions of the second planarization layer included in each of the first subpixel, the second subpixel and the third subpixel are different from each other (Lee: [0086], Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 17, Lee/Hee discloses the display device of claim 11, wherein the first planarization layer and the second planarization layer are separate and distinct from each other (Lee: [0058]; While Lee states that the base portion and the protruding portions may be integrated, it also states that the disclosure is not limited thereto and, therefore, the two layers may be separate and distinct).
PNG
media_image2.png
577
869
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 18, Lee discloses a display device (display device 100, Fig. 2), comprising:
a substrate (substrate 110, [0038], Fig. 3) on which a plurality of subpixels is disposed (sub-pixels SP1, SP2, SP3, [0042], Fig. 3), each of the plurality of subpixels including a light emitting element (light-emitting elements 140, [0041], Fig. 3); and
a planarization layer on the substrate (overcoating layer 130, [0057], Fig. 2), the planarization layer having a first portion and a second portion adjacent to the first portion (see Annotated Fig. 2),
wherein the first portion of the planarization layer includes a first surface (see Annotated Fig. 2).
Lee fails to disclose wherein the first surface of the first portion is curved such that a thickness of the first portion of the planarization layer is thickest at the center of the first portion of the planarization layer.
However, in analogous art, Hee discloses wherein the first surface of the first portion (Hee: see Annotated Fig. 9) is curved such that a thickness of the first portion of the planarization layer is thickest at the center of the first portion of the planarization layer (Hee: see Annotated Fig. 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the first surface of the first portion of the planarization layer as disclosed by Lee such that it was curved such that a thickness of the first portion of the planarization layer is thickest at the center of the first portion of the planarization layer as disclosed by Hee. One would be motivated to do so because this curve creates a convex structure makes it difficult to notice a color and brightness difference for a display area when viewed at an angle compared to a display device that is viewed in front of the user which, therefore, increases display clarity (Hee: [0119]).
Regarding Claim 19, Lee/Hee discloses the display device of claim 18, wherein the light emitting element includes a first electrode (Lee: first electrode 141a, [0041], Fig. 2), a second electrode (Lee: second electrode 143a, [0041], Fig. 2), and a light emitting layer between the first and second electrodes (organic layer 142a, [0041], Fig. 2),
wherein the light emitting layer overlaps with the first surface of the first portion of the planarization layer from a plan view (Lee: Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 20, Lee/Hee discloses the display device of claim 18, wherein the second portion of the planarization layer includes a second surface (Lee: second inclined surface SLO2, [0064], Fig. 2),
wherein the light emitting element includes a first electrode (Lee: first electrode 141a, [0041], Fig. 2), a second electrode (Lee: second electrode 143a, [0041], Fig. 2), and a light emitting layer between the first and second electrodes (organic layer 142a, [0041], Fig. 2), and
wherein the first electrode is continuously and contiguously disposed on the second surface of the second portion of the planarization layer and the first surface of the first portion of the planarization layer (Lee: Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 21, Lee/Hee discloses the display device of claim 20, wherein the light emitting layer is spaced apart from the second surface of the second portion of the planarization layer (Lee: Fig. 2; spaced apart by bank 150).
Regarding Claim 22, Lee/Hee discloses the display device of claim 21, comprising a bank layer between the light emitting layer and the second surface of the second portion of the planarization layer (Lee: bank 150, [0070], Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 25, Lee/Hee discloses the display device of claim 20, wherein the display device includes a first light emitting area (Lee: first light-emitting area EA1, [0071], Fig. 2), a first non-emission area (Lee: a first non-light-emitting area NEA1, [0071], Fig. 2), and a second light emitting area from a plan view (Lee: second light-emitting area EA2, [0071], Fig. 2),
wherein the first light emitting area overlaps with the light emitting layer from a plan view (Lee: Fig. 2),
wherein the second light emitting area overlaps with the second surface of the second portion of the planarization layer from a plan view (Lee: Fig. 2; the second portion of the planarization layer is the inclined portion of the overcoating layer 130), and
wherein the first non-emission area is disposed between the first light emitting area and the second light emitting area from a plan view (Lee: Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 26, Lee/Hee discloses the display device of claim 25, wherein the first non-emission area surrounds the first light emitting area (Lee: Fig. 2; NEA1 surrounds EA1), and the second light emitting area surrounds the first non-emission area from a plan view (Lee: Fig. 2; EA2 surrounds NEA1).
Claim(s) 6 and 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee/Hee as applied to claims 1-5, 9-22 and 25-26 above, and further in view of Jun (US 20200044002 A1; hereinafter referred to as Jun).
PNG
media_image3.png
713
937
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 6, Lee/Hee discloses the display device of claim 1.
The combination of Lee/Hee fails to disclose wherein the second portion has a staircase structure.
However, in analogous art, Jun discloses a planarization layer with an inclined portion (insulating layer 4 with recessed portion 41, [0031], Fig. 2A; the inclined portion is analogous to the second portion of the instant application) wherein the second portion has a staircase structure (Fig. 2A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the second portion of the planarization layer as disclosed by the combination of Lee/Hee to be in a stepped portion as disclosed by Jun. One would be motivated to do so because this stepped structure is used to improve light efficiency by increasing the number of light emitting areas per sub-pixel (Jun: [0010]).
Regarding Claim 23, Lee/Hee discloses the display device of claim 20.
The combination of Lee/Hee fails to disclose wherein the second portion of the planarization layer includes a step having a first height.
However, in analogous art, Jun discloses a display device wherein the second portion of the planarization layer (Jun: see Annotated Fig. 2A) includes a step having a first height (Jun: [0053], see Annotated Fig. 2A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the second portion of the planarization layer as disclosed by Hee such that it includes a step having a first height as disclosed by Jun. One would be motivated to use a stepped structure for the second portion of the planarization layer as said stepped structure is used to improve light efficiency by increasing the number of light emitting areas per sub-pixel (Jun: [0010]).
Regarding Claim 24, Lee/Hee/Jun discloses the display device of claim 23.
The combination of Lee/Hee/Jun fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first height of the step is greater than a height of thickest portion at the center of the first portion of the planarization layer.
However, Jun states that the steps may be arranged at a multitude of different heights in order to optimize the aperture ratio (Jun: [0053]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the display device of Lee/Hee such that the first height of the step is greater than a height of the thickest portion at the center of the first portion of the planarization layer, as is explained in Jun as it would merely result in an optimization of a result effective variable. Jun teaches that the height of the first step is a result effective variable as one would have chosen the height of the first step by balancing the need for reducing device size to increase compactness of the device with the need to optimize aperture ratio of the display area. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to produce a first step height greater than the height of the thickest portion at the center of the first portion of the planarization layer by balancing those needs in order to achieve the desired aperture ratio while maintaining device functionality.
Claim(s) 22 and 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hee as applied to claims 18-21 above, and further in view of Lee.
Regarding Claim 22, Hee discloses the display device of claim 21, comprising a bank layer (bank 515, [0065], Fig. 9).
Hee fails to disclose that the bank layer is between the light emitting layer and the second surface of the second portion of the planarization layer.
However, in analogous art, Lee discloses a bank layer (Lee: bank 150, [0070], Fig. 2) between the light emitting layer (Lee: organic layer 142a, [0041], Fig. 2) and the second surface of the second portion of the planarization layer (Lee: second inclined surface SLO2, [0064]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the bank layer of Hee such that it was between the light emitting layer and the second surface of the second portion of the planarization layer as disclosed in Lee. One would be motivated to do so in order to create an additional light emitting area which can increase resolution of the light generated in the device which, therefore, increases device efficiency (Lee: [0071]).
Regarding Claim 25, Hee discloses the display device of claim 20.
Hee fails to disclose wherein the display device includes a first light emitting area, a first non-emission area, and a second light emitting area from a plan view, wherein the first light emitting area overlaps with the light emitting layer from a plan view, wherein the second light emitting area overlaps with the second surface of the second portion of the planarization layer from a plan view, and wherein the first non-emission area is disposed between the first light emitting area and the second light emitting area from a plan view.
However, in analogous art, Lee discloses a display device (Lee: display device 100, [0038], Fig. 2) wherein the display device includes a first light emitting area (Lee: first light-emitting area EA1, [0071], Fig. 2), a first non-emission area (Lee: a first non-light-emitting area NEA1, [0071], Fig. 2), and a second light emitting area from a plan view (Lee: second light-emitting area EA2, [0071], Fig. 2),
wherein the first light emitting area overlaps with the light emitting layer from a plan view (Lee: Fig. 2),
wherein the second light emitting area overlaps with the second surface of the second portion of the planarization layer from a plan view (Lee: Fig. 2; the second portion of the planarization layer is the inclined portion of the overcoating layer 130), and
wherein the first non-emission area is disposed between the first light emitting area and the second light emitting area from a plan view (Lee: Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the display device as disclosed by Hee such that it has a first light emitting area, second light emitting area, and first non-light-emitting area in the structure as disclosed by Lee. One would be motivated to do so in order to increase efficiency in light generation as the second light emitting area reflects incident light forward which increases brightness of the device (Lee: [0071]).
Regarding Claim 26, Hee/Lee discloses the display device of claim 25, wherein the first non-emission area surrounds the first light emitting area (Lee: Fig. 2; NEA1 surrounds EA1), and the second light emitting area surrounds the first non-emission area from a plan view (Lee: Fig. 2; EA2 surrounds NEA1).
Claim(s) 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hee as applied to claims 18-21 above, and further in view of Jun.
Regarding Claim 23, Hee discloses the display device of claim 20.
Hee fails to disclose wherein the second portion of the planarization layer includes a step having a first height.
However, in analogous art, Jun discloses a display device wherein the second portion of a planarization layer (Jun: see Annotated Fig. 2A) includes a step having a first height (Jun: [0053], see Annotated Fig. 2A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the second portion of the planarization layer as disclosed by Hee such that it includes a step having a first height as disclosed by Jun. One would be motivated to use a stepped structure for the second portion of the planarization layer as said stepped structure is used to improve light efficiency by increasing the number of light emitting areas per sub-pixel (Jun: [0010]).
Regarding Claim 24, Hee/Jun discloses the display device of claim 23.
The combination of Hee/Jun fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first height of the step is greater than a height of thickest portion at the center of the first portion of the planarization layer.
However, Jun states that the steps may be arranged at a multitude of different heights in order to optimize the aperture ratio (Jun: [0053]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the display device of Hee such that the first height of the step is greater than a height of the thickest portion at the center of the first portion of the planarization layer, as is explained in Jun as it would merely result in an optimization of a result effective variable. Jun teaches that the height of the first step is a result effective variable as one would have chosen the height of the first step by balancing the need for reducing device size to increase compactness of the device with the need to optimize aperture ratio of the display area. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to produce a first step height greater than the height of the thickest portion at the center of the first portion of the planarization layer by balancing those needs in order to achieve the desired aperture ratio while maintaining device functionality.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
(a) Baek, et al. (US 20210135166 A1); discloses an analogous display device not including the convex portion of the planarization layer
(b) Kim, et al. (US 20140312319 A1); discloses an analogous display device, failing to include two planarization layers
(c) Beak, et al. (US 20200194509 A1); discloses an analogous display device not including the convex portion of the planarization layer
(d) Kim, et al. (US 20200075699 A1); discloses an analogous display device
(e) Yeon, et al. (US 20200058719 A1); discloses an analogous display device
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Noah C. Robertson whose telephone number is (571) 317-0595. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM (Eastern Time Zone).
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, William B Partridge, can be reached at (571) 270-1402. 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.
/Noah C. Robertson/Examiner, Art Unit 2812
/William B Partridge/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights