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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/11/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on 06/11/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-3, 9, 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 20190251895 A1) in view of Qiu et al. (US 20210359030 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses a display apparatus comprising:
a substrate (per [0036]) comprising quadrilateral unit areas (100) repeatedly arranged in a first direction (x), and in a second direction (y) perpendicular to the first direction;
a first subpixel (01) for emitting a first color, and comprising a first sub emission area (01) and a second sub emission (another 01) area spaced apart from each other at one of the unit areas;
a second subpixel (02) for emitting a second color, and comprising a second emission area adjacent to the first sub emission area in the first direction at the one of the unit areas; and
a third subpixel (03) for emitting a third color, and comprising a third emission area adjacent to the first sub emission area in the second direction at the one of the unit areas, wherein
the first sub emission area (01) comprises a 1st-1 edge that generally extends in the first direction (x) and that is concave,
Zhang does not disclose:
a 1st-2 edge that generally extends in the second direction and that is concave, and a first protrusion connecting the 1st-1 edge to the 1st-2 edge.
However, Qiu discloses:
a 1st-2 edge that generally extends in the second direction and that is concave, and a first protrusion (corner) connecting the 1st-1 edge to the 1st-2 edge. ([0066], Fig. 1-3)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Zhang and Qiu to have a 1st-2 edge that generally extends in the second direction and that is concave, and a first protrusion connecting the 1st-1 edge to the 1st-2 edge since it has been held that adjusting the shape of an article involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), see MPEP 2144.04, so as to “improve the service life of the display device.” (Qiu, [0066])
Regarding claim 2, Qiu discloses the display apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first protrusion (corner) is convex in a third direction (z) crossing the first direction and the second direction. (Fig. 1-3)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to use the teachings of Qiu for similar reasons mentioned beforehand.
Regarding claim 3, Qiu discloses the display apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first sub emission area (03) is less than the second emission area (01) and the third emission area (02). (Fig. 1-3)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to use the teachings of Qiu for similar reasons mentioned beforehand.
Regarding claim 9, Zhang discloses the display apparatus of claim 1, wherein a size of the second sub emission area (another 01) is substantially equal to a size of the first sub emission area (01). (Fig. 2)
Regarding claim 10, Zhang discloses the display apparatus of claim 1, wherein the second sub emission area (another 01) has a shape in which the first sub emission (01) area is rotated by 90 degrees. (Fig. 2)
Regarding claim 13, Zhang discloses the display apparatus of claim 1, wherein the unit areas (100) have a substantially square shape. (Fig. 2)
Claims 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 20190251895 A1) in view of Qiu et al. (US 20210359030 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li et al. (CN 114779537 A).
Regarding claim 4, Zhang discloses the display apparatus of claim 1, wherein the second emission area (02) comprises a 2nd-1 edge that generally extends in the first direction (x) and a 2nd-2 edge that generally extends in the second direction (y). (Fig. 2)
Zhang does not disclose the 2nd-1 edge and 2nd-2 edge to be convex.
However, Li discloses:
“Specifically, referring to FIG. 8, FIG. 8 is a local enlarged view of the white sub-pixel in the first display area in one embodiment of the application. the third curve edge 121 can be arc-shaped, such as arc, inferior arc, wave shape and so on. not limited, the specific edge of the third curve edge 121 can be designed, this embodiment is not specifically limited. Exemplary, the third curve edge 121 of the curved trend N11 or the second curve edge N21 similar to the first curve edge N11, such as the corresponding position of the first curve edge N11 is a convex curve, the third curve edge 121 also is convex curve, and the convex degree is similar to the first curve edge N11, preferably the same. by matching the third curve edge 121 with the first curve edge N11 or the second curve edge N21, it can make the white sub-pixel, the color sub-pixel obtain larger area ratio, secondly, the diffraction generated by the same curve structure is dispersed around, it will not form obvious overlapping diffraction problem.”
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Zhang and Li for the 2nd-1 edge and 2nd-2 edge to be convex since it has been held that adjusting the shape of an article involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), see MPEP 2144.04, so as to “reduce the number of diffraction fringe, improve the diffraction phenomenon when imaging, improve the imaging quality” (Li)
Regarding claim 5, Zhang discloses the display apparatus of claim 4, wherein the third emission area (03) comprises a 3rd-1 edge that generally extends in the first direction (x) and a 3rd-2 edge that generally extends in the second direction (y). (Fig. 2)
Zhang, in view of Qiu do not disclose the 3rd-1 edge and 3rd-2 edge to be convex.
However, Li discloses:
“Specifically, referring to FIG. 8, FIG. 8 is a local enlarged view of the white sub-pixel in the first display area in one embodiment of the application. the third curve edge 121 can be arc-shaped, such as arc, inferior arc, wave shape and so on. not limited, the specific edge of the third curve edge 121 can be designed, this embodiment is not specifically limited. Exemplary, the third curve edge 121 of the curved trend N11 or the second curve edge N21 similar to the first curve edge N11, such as the corresponding position of the first curve edge N11 is a convex curve, the third curve edge 121 also is convex curve, and the convex degree is similar to the first curve edge N11, preferably the same. by matching the third curve edge 121 with the first curve edge N11 or the second curve edge N21, it can make the white sub-pixel, the color sub-pixel obtain larger area ratio, secondly, the diffraction generated by the same curve structure is dispersed around, it will not form obvious overlapping diffraction problem.”
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Zhang and Li for the 3rd-1 edge and 3rd-2 edge to be convex since it has been held that adjusting the shape of an article involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), see MPEP 2144.04, so as to “reduce the number of diffraction fringe, improve the diffraction phenomenon when imaging, improve the imaging quality” (Li)
Regarding claim 6, Li discloses the display apparatus of claim 5, wherein a length of the 2nd-1 edge is substantially equal to a length of the 2nd-2 edge, and
wherein a length of the 3rd-1 edge is substantially equal to a length of the 3rd-2 edge. (when substituting the shape provided by Li’s disclosure of Fig. 8 to Zhang’s second and third submission areas (02 and 03) in Fig. 2)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to use the teachings of Li for similar reasons mentioned beforehand.
Regarding claim 7, Li discloses the display apparatus of claim 5, wherein the second emission area comprises a second protrusion (corner) at which the 2nd-1 edge and the 2nd-2 edge meet, and
wherein the third emission area comprises a third protrusion (corner) at which the 3rd-1 edge and the 3rd-2 edge meet. (when substituting the shape provided by Li’s disclosure of Fig. 8 to Zhang’s second and third submission areas (02 and 03) in Fig. 2)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to use the teachings of Li for similar reasons mentioned beforehand.
Regarding claim 8, Li discloses the display apparatus of claim 7, wherein the second protrusion (corner) and the third protrusion (corner) each have a pointed shape in a third direction (z) crossing the first direction and the second direction. (when substituting the shape provided by Li’s disclosure of Fig. 8 to Zhang’s second and third submission areas (02 and 03) in Fig. 2)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to use the teachings of Li for similar reasons mentioned beforehand.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 20190251895 A1) in view of Qiu et al. (US 20210359030 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Choi et al. (US 20220069015 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Zhang, in view of Qiu disclose the display apparatus of claim 1. Zhang in view of Qiu do not disclose further comprising a pixel-defining layer above the substrate, covering at least a portion of a pixel electrode of the first subpixel, and defining openings defining the first sub emission area and the second sub emission area.
However, Choi discloses:
a pixel-defining layer (190) above the substrate (110), covering at least a portion of a pixel electrode (170) of the first subpixel (B), and defining openings defining the first sub emission area (above CF-B) and the second sub emission area (above another CF-B). ([0081], Fig. 4-6)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Zhang, Qiu and Choi to have a pixel-defining layer above the substrate, covering at least a portion of a pixel electrode of the first subpixel, and defining openings defining the first sub emission area and the second sub emission area in order to have “an organic light emitting display device capable of improving light extraction efficiency.” (Choi, [0002])
Regarding claim 12, Choi discloses the display apparatus of claim 11, wherein the pixel electrode (170) of the first subpixel (B) comprises a first sub pixel electrode (170) corresponding to the first sub emission area (above CF-B), and a second sub pixel electrode (another 170) corresponding to the second sub emission area (above another CF-B), and
wherein the first sub pixel electrode (170) and the second sub pixel electrode (another 170) are electrically connected to each other. (Fig. 6)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Zhang, Qiu and Choi for similar reasons mentioned beforehand.
Claims 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji et al. (US 20210399061) in view of Li et al. (CN 114779537 A).
Regarding claim 14, Ji discloses a display apparatus comprising:
a substrate (per [0009]) comprising quadrilateral unit areas (100 annotated below) repeatedly arranged in a first direction (x), and in a second direction (y) perpendicular to the first direction; (Fig. 2A-4)
a first subpixel (12) for emitting a first color, and comprising a first sub emission area (120) and a second sub emission area (another 120) spaced apart from each other at one of the unit areas (100);
a second subpixel (110) for emitting a second color at the one of the unit areas, and comprising a second emission area having a size that is greater than a size of the first sub emission area; and
a third subpixel (130) for emitting a third color at the one of the unit areas, and comprising a third emission area having a size that is greater than a size of the first sub emission area, wherein
the first sub emission area (120) comprises a 1st-1 edge that generally extends in the first direction (x) and that is convex, and a 1st-2 edge that generally extends in the second direction (y) and that is convex, ([0021]-[0022], Fig. 2A) wherein
the second emission area (110) comprises a 2nd-1 edge that generally extends in the first direction, and a 2nd-2 edge that generally extends in the second direction, and wherein
the third emission area (130) comprises a 3rd-1 edge that generally extends in the first direction, and a 3rd-2 edge that generally extends in the second direction. (Fig. 2A)
PNG
media_image1.png
754
694
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ji does not disclose:
The edges of the second and third emission area’s to be convex.
However, Li discloses
“Specifically, referring to FIG. 8, FIG. 8 is a local enlarged view of the white sub-pixel in the first display area in one embodiment of the application. the third curve edge 121 can be arc-shaped, such as arc, inferior arc, wave shape and so on. not limited, the specific edge of the third curve edge 121 can be designed, this embodiment is not specifically limited. Exemplary, the third curve edge 121 of the curved trend N11 or the second curve edge N21 similar to the first curve edge N11, such as the corresponding position of the first curve edge N11 is a convex curve, the third curve edge 121 also is convex curve, and the convex degree is similar to the first curve edge N11, preferably the same. by matching the third curve edge 121 with the first curve edge N11 or the second curve edge N21, it can make the white sub-pixel, the color sub-pixel obtain larger area ratio, secondly, the diffraction generated by the same curve structure is dispersed around, it will not form obvious overlapping diffraction problem.”
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Ji and Li for the edges of the second and third emission areas to be convex since it has been held that adjusting the shape of an article involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), see MPEP 2144.04, so as to “reduce the number of diffraction fringe, improve the diffraction phenomenon when imaging, improve the imaging quality” (Li)
Regarding claim 15, Ji discloses the display apparatus of claim 14, wherein the first sub emission area (120) and the second sub emission area (another 120) are adjacent to each other in a third direction (z) crossing the first direction (x) and the second direction (y), and
wherein the second emission area (110) and the third emission area (130) are adjacent to each other in a fourth direction (another z direction) that is perpendicular to the third direction. (see annotated Fig. 2A above)
Regarding claim 16, Ji discloses the display apparatus of claim 14, wherein the second sub emission area (another 120) has a shape in which the first sub emission area (120) is rotated by 90 degrees. (Fig. 2A)
Regarding claim 17, Ji discloses the display apparatus of claim 14, wherein
the first sub emission area (120) comprises a first protrusion (corner) connecting the 1st-1 edge to the 1st-2 edge, wherein
the second emission area (110) comprises a second protrusion (corner) at which the 2nd-1 edge and the 2nd-2 edge meet, wherein
the third emission area (130) comprises a third protrusion (corner) at which the 3rd-1 edge and the 3rd-2 edge meet, wherein
the first protrusion (corner of 120) is convex in a third direction (z) crossing the first direction and the second direction, and wherein
the second protrusion (corner of 110) and the third protrusion (corner of 130) have a pointed shape in the third direction (z). (Fig. 2A)
Regarding claim 18, Ji discloses the display apparatus of claim 14, wherein a length of the 2nd-1 edge (of 110) is substantially equal to a length of the 2nd-2 edge (of 110), and
wherein a length of the 3rd-1 edge (of 130) is substantially equal to a length of the 3rd-2 edge (of 130). (Fig. 2A)
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji et al. (US 20210399061) in view of Li et al. (CN 114779537 A) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Choi et al. (US 20220069015 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Ji in view of Li disclose the display apparatus of claim 14. Ji in view of Lee do not disclose further comprising a pixel-defining layer above the substrate, covering at least a portion of a pixel electrode of the first subpixel, and defining openings defining the first sub emission area and the second sub emission area.
However, Choi discloses:
a pixel-defining layer (190) above the substrate (110), covering at least a portion of a pixel electrode (170) of the first subpixel (B), and defining openings defining the first sub emission area (above CF-B) and the second sub emission area (above another CF-B). ([0081], Fig. 4-6)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Ji, Li and Choi to have a pixel-defining layer above the substrate, covering at least a portion of a pixel electrode of the first subpixel, and defining openings defining the first sub emission area and the second sub emission area in order to have “an organic light emitting display device capable of improving light extraction efficiency.” (Choi, [0002])
Regarding claim 20, Choi discloses the display apparatus of claim 19, wherein the pixel electrode (170) of the first subpixel (B) comprises a first sub pixel electrode (170) corresponding to the first sub emission area (above CF-B), and a second sub pixel electrode (another 170) corresponding to the second sub emission area (above another CF-B), and
wherein the first sub pixel electrode (170) and the second sub pixel electrode (another 170) are electrically connected to each other. (Fig. 6)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Zhang, Qiu and Choi for similar reasons mentioned beforehand.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEY BLACKWELL whose telephone number is (703)756-1508. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-1600.
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.
/ASHLEY NICOLE BLACKWELL/Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/JACOB Y CHOI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights