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). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities: “first and second portions” in line 3. For the sake of compact prosecution, claim 24 is interpreted in the instant Office action as follows: “first and second portions” is found to be a typographical error and is believed to be equivalent to “the first and second portions” based on antecedence for this term in claim 21, line 4; however, no actual change to the claim language has been applied during examination of the instant set of claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is not objected to here, but the examiner is noting this claim depends from claim 11. The examiner finds no specific issue with the claim and has examined it as written. However, the examiner is noting the dependency of this claim because: 1) a substantially similar claim already exists in the same claim set as claim 11 (See claim 12, dependent from claim 1); and 2) there is no similar claim within the claim set of claim 13. The examiner has considered an alternative dependency of claim 20 from claim 13 and finds no issue for this unclaimed situation (i.e., if dependency were changed from 11 to 13).
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8, 10, 15, 16 (and dependent claims 17-19 dependent therefrom), 17, 18 (and dependent claim 19 dependent therefrom), and 19 are each rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the blocking layers” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because this term is plural, while this limitation has only previously been recited as singular (See Claim 7, line 1). For the sake of compact prosecution, claim 8 is interpreted in the instant Office action as follows: “the blocking layers” is referring to features substantially similar and horizontally mirrored of the singular feature recited in claim 7. This interpretation is based at least upon Fig. 6 of Applicant’s disclosure and is to be confirmed by applicant in the next office action; however, no actual change to the claim language has been applied during examination of the instant set of claims.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the metal layers” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because this term is plural, while this limitation has only previously been recited as singular (See Claim 9, line 1). For the sake of compact prosecution, claim 10 is interpreted in the instant Office action as follows: “the metal layers” is referring to features substantially similar and horizontally mirrored of the singular feature recited in claim 9. This interpretation is based at least upon Fig. 6 of Applicant’s disclosure and is to be confirmed by applicant in the next office action; however, no actual change to the claim language has been applied during examination of the instant set of claims.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the inclined portions” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because this term is plural, while this limitation has only previously been recited as singular (See Claim 14, line 3). For the sake of compact prosecution, claim 15 is interpreted in the instant Office action as follows: “the inclined portions” is referring to features substantially similar and horizontally mirrored of the singular feature recited in claim 14. This interpretation is based at least upon Fig. 6 of Applicant’s disclosure and is to be confirmed by applicant in the next office action; however, no actual change to the claim language has been applied during examination of the instant set of claims.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the second light emitting area” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the sake of compact prosecution, claim 16 is interpreted in the instant Office action as follows: “the second light emitting area” is equivalent to “the portion having the inclined surface” as recited in parent claim 13. This interpretation is to be confirmed by applicant in the next office action.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the blocking layers” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because this term is plural, while this limitation has only previously been recited as singular (See Claim 16, line 1). For the sake of compact prosecution, claim 17 is interpreted in the instant Office action as follows: “the blocking layers” is referring to features substantially similar and horizontally mirrored of the singular feature recited in claim 16. This interpretation is based at least upon Fig. 6 of Applicant’s disclosure and is to be confirmed by applicant in the next office action; however, no actual change to the claim language has been applied during examination of the instant set of claims.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the second light emitting area” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the sake of compact prosecution, claim 18 is interpreted in the instant Office action as follows: “the second light emitting area” is equivalent to “the portion having the inclined surface” as recited in parent claim 13. This interpretation is to be confirmed by applicant in the next office action.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the metal layers” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because this term is plural, while this limitation has only previously been recited as singular (See Claim 18, line 1). For the sake of compact prosecution, claim 19 is interpreted in the instant Office action as follows: “the metal layers” is referring to features substantially similar and horizontally mirrored of the singular feature recited in claim 16. This interpretation is based at least upon Fig. 6 of Applicant’s disclosure and is to be confirmed by applicant in the next office action; however, no actual change to the claim language has been applied during examination of the instant set of claims.
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)(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 1-8, 12-17, 20-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Son (US 20240196710 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Son discloses a display device (Fig. 2), comprising:
a substrate (SUB) on which a plurality of subpixels (Fig. 1: PXA) is disposed, each of the plurality of subpixels including a first light emitting area (Fig. 2: area of PO1) and a second light emitting area (area of RO1. Note: the areas cited are based on structural shapes substantially similar to Applicant’s disclosure, Fig. 6: dotted reference lines) adjacent to the first light emitting area (“adjacent” in the DR1 direction);
a first planarization layer (CIR) on the substrate;
a second planarization layer (DL1) which is disposed on the first planarization layer, and is open (“open” in the D3 direction) in an area overlapping (“overlapping” in the D3 direction) the first light emitting area, and includes a first portion (See annotated figure) inclined while overlapping with the second light emitting area and a second portion (See annotated figure) surrounding the first portion;
a bank layer (DL2) which is located on the second planarization layer and is open (“open” in the D3 direction) in the first light emitting area; and
a lens (MLA1) which is located on the bank layer and disposed to at least partially overlap (“overlap” in the D3 direction) with an area including the first portion.
Illustrated below is Fig. 1 and a marked and annotated figure of Fig. 2 of Son.
PNG
media_image1.png
590
456
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
516
823
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Son discloses the display device of claim 1 (Fig. 2), further comprising a first electrode (LEE1 with PXE1) disposed on at least a partial area on the first planarization layer and the second planarization layer,
wherein the first electrode comprises an inclined portion (See annotated figure) disposed on the first portion of the second planarization layer.
Regarding claim 3, Son discloses the display device of claim 2 (Fig. 2), wherein the inclined portion overlaps (“overlaps” in the DR3 direction) with the second light emitting area.
Regarding claim 4, Son discloses the display device of claim 3 (Fig. 2), wherein a maximum horizontal distance (DR1 “distance”) between the inclined portion is less than or equal to a maximum width (DR1 “width”) of the lens in a horizontal direction (designating DR1 as “horizontal”).
Regarding claim 5, Son discloses the display device of claim 1 (Fig. 2), further comprising a first non-emission area (See annotated figure. Note: the areas cited are based on structural shapes substantially similar to Applicant’s disclosure, Fig. 6: dotted reference lines) located between (“between” in the DR1 direction) the first light emitting area and the second light emitting area.
Regarding claim 6, Son discloses the display device of claim 5 (Fig. 2), wherein the first non-emission area overlaps (“overlaps” in the D3 direction) with the lens.
Regarding claim 7, Son discloses the display device of claim 1 (Fig. 2), further comprising a blocking layer (SPC; [0116]: “light blocking material”) disposed spaced apart below the lens (“spaced apart below” in the DR3 direction) and disposed in an area other than the second light emitting area (SPC is separate and distinct from “the second light emitting area”, thus it is “disposed in an area other than…”).
Regarding claim 8 as noted in the 112(b) rejection, Son discloses the display device of claim 7 (Fig. 2), wherein a separation distance (“separation distance” in the DR1 direction) between the blocking layers is less than or equal to a maximum width of the lens in a horizontal direction (See dashed reference lines for “maximum width of the lens”).
Regarding claim 12, Son discloses the display device of claim 1 (Fig. 2), wherein the first planarization layer and the second planarization layer are separate and distinct from each other (layers CIR and DL1 are illustrated as “separate and distinct” layers).
Regarding claim 20, Son discloses the display device of claim 11 (Fig. 2), wherein the first planarization layer and the second planarization layer are separate and distinct from each other (layers CIR and DL1 are illustrated as “separate and distinct” layers).
Regarding independent claim 13, Son discloses a display device (Fig. 2), comprising:
a first planarization layer (CIR) on a substrate (SUB);
a second planarization layer (DL1) which is disposed on the first planarization layer, and includes at least one opening area (“opening area” overlapping at least RO1 ), and includes at least a portion (1st portion, See annotated figure) having an inclined surface (“surface” facing DR1) around the opening area;
a bank layer (DL2) located on the second planarization layer; and
a lens (MLA1) located on the bank layer and disposed to overlap (“overlap” in the D3 direction) at least partially with an area including the portion having the inclined surface.
Regarding claim 14, Son discloses the display device of claim 13 (Fig. 2), further comprising a first electrode (LEE1 with PXE1) disposed on at least a partial area on the first planarization layer and the second planarization layer,
wherein the first electrode comprises an inclined portion (See annotated figure) disposed on the portion having the inclined surface of the second planarization layer.
Regarding claim 15 as noted in the 112(b) rejection, Son discloses the display device of claim 14 (Fig. 2), wherein a maximum horizontal distance (DR1 “distance”) between the inclined portions is less than or equal to a maximum width (DR1 “width”) of the lens in a horizontal direction (designating DR1 as “horizontal”).
Regarding claim 16 as noted in the 112(b) rejection, Son discloses the display device of claim 13 (Fig. 2), further comprising a blocking layer (SPC; [0116]: “light blocking material”) disposed spaced apart below the lens (“spaced apart below” in the DR3 direction) and disposed in an area other than the portion having the inclined surface (SPC is separate and distinct from “the inclined surface”, thus it is “disposed in an area other than…”).
Regarding claim 17 as noted in the 112(b) rejection, Son discloses the display device of claim 16 (Fig. 2), wherein a separation distance (“separation distance” in the DR1 direction) between the blocking layers is less than or equal to a maximum width of the lens in a horizontal direction (See dashed reference lines for “maximum width of the lens”).
Regarding independent claim 21, Son discloses a display device (Fig. 2), comprising:
a first planarization layer (CIR) on a substrate (SUB), the first planarization layer having a first surface (“surface” facing the DR3 direction);
a second planarization layer (DL1) on the first planarization layer, the second planarization layer having a first portion (one of 1st portion, See annotated figure) and a second portion (another of 1st portion, See annotated figure) opposite and facing the first portion (“opposite and facing” in the DR1 direction), the first portion and the second portion being spaced apart from each other (“spaced apart” in the DR1 direction);
a light emitting element including a first electrode (LEE1 with PXE1), a second electrode (CE), and a light emitting layer (EL1) between the first and second electrodes;
a bank layer (DL2) on the first and second portions of the second planarization layer; and
a lens (MLA1) located on the bank layer, the lens overlaps (“overlaps” in the DR3 direction) the at least one of the first portion or the second portion of the second planarization layer.
Regarding claim 22, Son discloses the display device of claim 21 (Fig. 2), wherein the first electrode is on and contacts (directly “on and contacts”) the first surface of the first planarization layer.
Regarding claim 23, Son discloses the display device of claim 21 (Fig. 2), wherein the first portion of the second planarization layer includes a first side surface (Left “side surface”, See annotated figure for direction designation) and the second portion of the second planarization layer includes a second side surface (Right “side surface”, See annotated figure for direction designation) opposite and facing the first side surface (“opposite and facing” in the DR1 direction), and
wherein the first electrode is on and contacts (directly “on and contacts”) the first side surface of the second planarization layer, the first surface of the first planarization layer (directly “on and contacts”), and the second side surface of the second planarization layer (directly “on and contacts”).
Regarding claim 24, Son discloses the display device of claim 21 (Fig. 2), wherein the light emitting layer is disposed between (“between” in the DR1 direction) the first portion of the second planarization layer and the second portion of the second planarization layer and the light emitting layer is spaced apart (“spaced apart” at least by bank DL2) from both first and second portions of the second planarization layer.
Regarding claim 25, Son discloses the display device of claim 21 (Fig. 2), wherein the display device includes a first light emitting area (Fig. 2: area of PO1), a first non-emission area (See annotated figure. Note: the areas cited are based on structural shapes substantially similar to Applicant’s disclosure, Fig. 6: dotted reference lines), and a second light emitting area (area of RO1. Note: the areas cited are based on structural shapes substantially similar to Applicant’s disclosure, Fig. 6: dotted reference lines) from a plan view,
wherein the first portion of the second planarization layer includes a first side surface (Left “side surface”, See annotated figure for direction designation) and the second portion of the second planarization layer includes a second side surface (Right “side surface”, See annotated figure for direction designation) opposite and facing the first side surface (“opposite and facing” in the DR1 direction),
wherein the first light emitting area overlaps (“overlaps” in the DR3 direction) with the light emitting layer from a plan view,
wherein the second light emitting area overlaps (“overlaps” in the DR3 direction) with the at least one of the first side surface of the first portion of the second planarization layer and the second side surface of the second portion of the second planarization layer, and
wherein the first non-emission area is disposed between (“between” in the DR1 direction) the first light emitting area and the second light emitting area from a plan view.
Regarding claim 26, Son discloses the display device of claim 25 (Fig. 2), wherein the first non-emission area surrounds (“surrounds” in the DR1 direction) the first light emitting area, and the second light emitting area surrounds (“surrounds” in the DR1 direction) the first non-emission area from a plan view.
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.
Rejection Note: Italicized claim limitations indicate limitations that are not explicitly disclosed in the primary reference (or combination of references), but are disclosed or rendered obvious by secondary references or remarks.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son as applied to claims 7 and 1 above, and further in view of Kim (US 20220199715 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Son discloses the display device of claim 7 (Fig. 2), but fails to teach “further comprising a metal layer disposed to be spaced apart between the lens and the blocking layer and disposed in an area other than the second light emitting area”.
Kim teaches a metal layer (Fig. 2: layer 511; [0052]: “metal”) disposed to be spaced apart between the lens (610) and the blocking layer (underlying encapsulant 420 is relied upon here, without citing the blocking layer, See additional remarks below) and disposed in an area other than the second light emitting area (511 is separate and distinct from “the second light emitting area” of 300, thus it is “disposed in an area other than…”).
Modifying the display device (of Son) by including “a metal layer” in substantially the same arrangement (of Kim), by arranging it between the lens (of Son) and an underlying encapsulant (Son: Fig. 2: encapsulant EN2) would arrive at the claimed “metal layer” configuration. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have had a reasonable expectation of success doing so because in each situation the display device includes a lens overlapping an encapsulant (Son: Fig. 2: lens MLA1, encapsulant EN2; Kim: lens 610, encapsulant 420). Kim provides a teaching to motivate one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include “a metal layer” in that it would enable a display device with enhanced device capability, by enabling detection of touch on the device (Kim: [0051]: “may detect a touch of a user and/or a tool”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the claimed “metal layer” configuration because it would enable a display device with enhanced capability. MPEP 2143 (I)(G).
Illustrated below is a marked and annotated figure at Fig. 2 of Kim.
PNG
media_image3.png
502
504
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10 as noted in the 112(b) rejection, Son in view of Kim discloses the display device of claim 9 (Kim: Fig. 2), wherein a separation distance (“separation distance” in the Horizontal direction) between the metal layers is less than or equal to a maximum width of the lens in a horizontal direction (See dashed reference lines for “maximum width of the lens”).
Regarding claim 11, Son in view of Kim discloses the display device of claim 9 (Kim: Fig. 2), wherein the metal layer is formed of the same material as a touch electrode ([0051]: “touch electrodes”).
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son as applied to claims 16 and 13 above, and further in view of Kim.
Regarding claim 18 as noted in the 112(b) rejection, Son discloses the display device of claim 16 (Fig. 2), but fails to teach “further comprising a metal layer disposed to be spaced apart between the lens and the blocking layer and disposed in an area other than the portion having the inclined surface”.
Kim teaches a metal layer (Fig. 2: layer 511; [0052]: “metal”) disposed to be spaced apart between the lens (610) and the blocking layer (underlying encapsulant 420 is relied upon here, without citing the blocking layer, See additional remarks below) and disposed in an area other than the portion having the inclined surface (511 is separate and distinct from “the portion having the inclined surface” of 300, thus it is “disposed in an area other than…”).
Modifying the display device (of Son) by including “a metal layer” in substantially the same arrangement (of Kim), by arranging it between the lens (of Son) and an underlying encapsulant (Son: Fig. 2: encapsulant EN2) would arrive at the claimed “metal layer” configuration. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have had a reasonable expectation of success doing so because in each situation the display device includes a lens overlapping an encapsulant (Son: Fig. 2: lens MLA1, encapsulant EN2; Kim: lens 610, encapsulant 420). Kim provides a teaching to motivate one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include “a metal layer” in that it would enable a display device with enhanced device capability, by enabling detection of touch on the device (Kim: [0051]: “may detect a touch of a user and/or a tool”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the claimed “metal layer” configuration because it would enable a display device with enhanced capability. MPEP 2143 (I)(G).
Regarding claim 19, Son in view of Kim discloses the display device of claim 18 (Kim: Fig. 2), wherein a separation distance (“separation distance” in the Horizontal direction) between the metal layers is less than or equal to a maximum width of the lens in a horizontal direction (See dashed reference lines for “maximum width of the lens”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM H ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2534. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00-5:00.
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, Kretelia Graham can be reached at (571) 272-5055. 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 H ANDERSON/ Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights