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 .
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 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,952,740).
Regarding to claim 1, Kim teaches a display device, comprising:
a base substrate (Fig. 11, element 110);
a plurality of light-emitting units on the base substrate, wherein the light-emitting unit has a first electrode (Fig. 11, element 191; column 15, line 14), a second electrode (Fig. 11, element 270; column 15, line 40), and a light-emitting layer located between the first electrode and the second electrode (Fig. 11, element 470; column 15, line 28), and the first electrode is located between the light-emitting layer and the base substrate (Fig. 15, first electrode 191 is located between the light-emitting layer 470 and the base substrate 110);
an encapsulation layer covering the plurality of light-emitting units (Fig. 11, element 395; column 16, line 7); and
a color filter layer on a side of the encapsulation layer away from the base substrate (Fig. 11, element 325; column 13, line 48), wherein the color filter layer comprises a first surface and a second surface opposite to each other in a direction perpendicular to the base substrate, and a roughness of the first surface is greater than a roughness of the second surface (Fig. 11, bottom surface of filter layer 325 is rougher than its top surface).
Regarding to claim 31, Kim discloses a display panel comprising a plurality of display devices, wherein the display device is the display device according to claim 1 (column 1, lines 45-46).
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 1-2 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arakawa (U.S. Patent No. 11,997,863) in view of Wachi (U.S. Patent No. 6,924,857).
Regarding to claim 1, Arakawa teaches a display device, comprising:
a base substrate (Fig. 3, element 10);
a plurality of light-emitting units on the base substrate (column 12, lines 56-59), wherein the light-emitting unit has a first electrode (Fig. 3, element 33), a second electrode (Fig. 3, element 42), and a light-emitting layer located between the first electrode and the second electrode (Fig. 3, element 41), and the first electrode is located between the light-emitting layer and the base substrate (Fig. 3);
an encapsulation layer covering the plurality of light-emitting units (Fig. 3, element 50); and
a color filter layer on a side of the encapsulation layer away from the base substrate, wherein the color filter layer comprises a first surface and a second surface opposite to each other in a direction perpendicular to the base substrate (Fig. 3, element 51; column 13, lines 48).
Arakawa is silent about roughness of the surfaces of the color filter.
Wachi discloses a roughness of the first surface of a color filter is greater than a roughness of the second surface (Fig. 3, element 23, roughness of the first surface of a color filter 23 is greater than a roughness of the second surface). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Arakawa in view of Wachi to configure the roughness of the first surface of the color filter to be greater than a roughness of the second surface in order to enhance light diffusion.
Regarding to claim 2, Arakawa as modified discloses a distance between the first surface and the base substrate is greater than a distance between the second surface and the base substrate (Fig. 3).
Regarding to claim 31, Arakawa as modified discloses a display panel comprising a plurality of display devices, wherein the display device is the display device according to claim 1 (the title).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,952,740) in view of Sakai (U.S. Patent No. 5,861,930).
Regarding to claim 21, Kim teaches a display device, comprising:
a base substrate (Fig. 11, element 110);
a plurality of light-emitting units on the base substrate, wherein the light-emitting unit has a first electrode (Fig. 11, element 191; column 15, line 14), a second electrode (Fig. 11, element 270; column 15, line 40), and a light-emitting layer located between the first electrode and the second electrode (Fig. 11, element 470; column 15, line 28), and the first electrode is located between the light-emitting layer and the base substrate (Fig. 15, first electrode 191 is located between the light-emitting layer 470 and the base substrate 110);
an encapsulation layer covering the plurality of light-emitting units (Fig. 11, element 395; column 16, line 7); and
a color filter layer on a side of the encapsulation layer away from the base substrate (Fig. 11, element 325; column 13, line 48), wherein the color filter layer comprises a first surface and a second surface opposite to each other in a direction perpendicular to the base substrate (Fig. 11), the second surface has micro bumps, wherein the dimension of the micro bumps is a dimension of the micro bumps in the direction perpendicular to the base substrate (Fig. 11, bottom surface of filter layer 325 has micro bumps).
Kim does not disclose the first surface has micro bumps, a dimension of the micro bumps of the first surface is greater than a dimension of the micro bumps of the second surface.
Sakai discloses a first surface of a color filter has micro bumps, a dimension of the micro bumps of the first surface is greater than a dimension of the micro bumps of the second surface (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim in view of Sakai to comprise micro bumps in the first surface, a dimension of the micro bumps of the first surface is greater than a dimension of the micro bumps of the second surface, in order to enhance diffusion property.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 35-36 are allowed.
Claims 3-8, 12, 15, 22, 24-25, 27, 30, 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding to claim 3, the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed limitations including “at least a portion of a surface of at least one of the plurality of color filters on a side of the at least one of the plurality of color filters away from the base substrate has a roughness greater than a roughness of a surface of any of others of the plurality of color filters on a side of the any of others of the plurality of color filters away from the base substrate” in combination with the limitations recited in claim 1 and the rest of limitations recited in claim 3.
Regarding to claim 4, the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed limitations including “at least a portion of a surface of the first color filter on a side of the first color filter away from the base substrate has a roughness greater than a roughness of a surface of the second color filter on a side of the second color filter away from the base substrate and a roughness of a surface of the third color filter on a side of the third color filter away from the base substrate” in combination with the limitations recited in claim 1 and the rest of limitations recited in claim 4.
Regarding to claim 15, the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed limitations including “a thickness of the second planarization layer is less than the thickness of the first planarization layer, and a thickness difference between any two of the plurality of color filters is less than the thickness of the second planarization layer; wherein an average thickness of the color filter layer is less than 1.3 μm, and a thickness difference between any two of the plurality of color filters is less than 100 nm” in combination with the limitations recited in claim 1 and the rest of limitations recited in claim 15
Regarding to claim 22, the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed limitations including “the dimension of the micro bumps of the first surface is within a range of 5 nm to 20 nm” in combination with the limitations recited in claim 21 and the rest of limitations recited in claim 22.
Regarding to claim 24, the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed limitations including “the micro bumps of at least a portion of a surface of the first color filter on a side of the first color filter away from the base substrate have a dimension greater than a dimension of the micro bumps of a surface of the second color filter on a side of the second color filter away from the base substrate and a dimension of the micro bumps of a surface of the third color filter on a side of the third color filter away from the base substrate” in combination with the limitations recited in claim 21 and the rest of limitations recited in claim 24.
Regarding to claim 30, the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed limitations including “a ratio of a thickness of the first planarization layer to a width of an overlapping portion between any two of the plurality of color filters is within a range of 1 to 1.8; and a second planarization layer between the color filter layer and the encapsulation layer, wherein a thickness of the second planarization layer is less than the thickness of the first planarization layer, and a thickness difference between any two of the plurality of color filters is less than the thickness of the second planarization layer” in combination with the limitations recited in claim 1 and the rest of limitations recited in claim 30.
Regarding to claim 32, the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed limitations including “the surface of the top sub-layer on the side of the top sub-layer away from the base substrate has a fourth central region and a fourth edge region surrounding the fourth central region, and a roughness of the fourth central region is greater than a roughness of the fourth edge region; wherein the peripheral region surrounds the display region, and the light shielding layer extends along the peripheral region, so that a projection of the light shielding layer on the base substrate is in a shape of a circular strip” in combination with the limitations recited in claims 1 and 31, and the rest of limitations recited in claim 32.
Regarding to claim 35, the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed limitations including “coating a photosensitive material on the color filter material layer, so that the color filter material layer is completely covered by the photosensitive material; and removing the photosensitive material and a portion of the color filter material layer through an etch-back process to obtain a color filter layer, wherein the color filter layer comprises a first surface and a second surface opposite to each other in a direction perpendicular to the base substrate, and a roughness of the first surface is greater than a roughness of the second surface” in combination with the rest of limitations recited in claim 35.
Pertinent Art
For the benefits of the Applicant, US-20240407201-A1, US-10096647-B2, US-10388703-B2, US-11887899-B2, US-11818906-B2, US-10297792-B2, US-10916589-B2, and US-11621305-B2, are cited on the record as being pertinent to significant disclosure through some but not all claimed features of the defined invention. The references fail to disclose “the color filter layer comprises a first surface and a second surface opposite to each other in a direction perpendicular to the base substrate, each of the first surface and the second surface has micro bumps, a dimension of the micro bumps of the first surface is greater than a dimension of the micro bumps of the second surface, wherein the dimension of the micro bumps is a dimension of the micro bumps in the direction perpendicular to the base substrate.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VU A VU whose telephone number is (571)270-7467. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00AM - 5:00PM.
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, CHAD M DICKE can be reached at (571) 270-7996. 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.
/VU A VU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights