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 .
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 examiner propose: DISPLAY WITH TWO SUBPIXELS SHARING A COMMON ANODE
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.
(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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim, US 2017/0294155 A1.
Claim 1: Kim discloses:
a substrate (111);
an anode conductive layer (131) disposed on the substrate;
a pixel defining layer (116) disposed on the substrate on which the anode conductive layer is disposed, the pixel defining layer defining a first opening, a second opening, a third opening, and a fourth opening (SB1 and/or SB2, SG, SR1, and SR2) penetrating the pixel defining layer in a thickness direction and respectively exposing different regions of the anode conductive layer;
and a light emitting layer (FIG. 3, 132, 142, 145, plus the layers for SB1 and/or SB2, not shown) disposed in the first opening, the second opening, the third opening, and the fourth opening exposing different regions of the anode conductive layer, wherein in a plan view, the first opening, the second opening, the third opening, and the fourth opening have a first width which is a width in a first direction (diagonal down) and a second width which is a width in a second direction (diagonal up) perpendicular to the first direction, and the first width is in a range of about 0.8 times to about 1.2 times the second width (FIG. 8, [0130]).
PNG
media_image1.png
492
402
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 2: the anode conductive layer includes a first pixel electrode (for SB1 and/or SB2, not shown), a second pixel electrode (131), and a third pixel electrode (447) separated from each other, the third pixel electrode includes a first region (SR1) and a second region (SR2) electrically connected to each other without overlapping each other, the first opening exposes the first pixel electrode, the second opening exposes the second pixel electrode, the third opening exposes the first region of the third pixel electrode, and the fourth opening exposes the second region of the third pixel electrode.
PNG
media_image2.png
353
603
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 3: the light emitting layer disposed in the third opening and the light emitting layer disposed in the fourth opening emit light of the same color (red, [0106]).
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 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Du, US 2019/0058017 A1.
Claim 4: the first opening, the second opening, the third opening, and the fourth opening have the same shape (Kim FIGS. 7 and 8) as one another in the plan view. Kim illustrates the subpixels as having the same size, but does not explicitly state that they are the same. However, pixels of the same size and shape were well known in the art. See e.g. Du [0005]. It would have been obvious to have had the same sized pixels as well-known in the art. Furthermore, it would have been within ordinary skill in the art to determine the appropriate size for the pixels.
Claim 5: the first opening, the second opening, the third opening, and the fourth opening have a square or circular shape in the plan view (FIGS. 7 and 8).
Claims 6 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim. Alternatively claims 6 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Yoo, US 2012/0049726 A1. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Yoo.
Claim 6: Kim discloses a plurality of first sub-pixels (SR1 and/or SR2), a plurality of second sub-pixels (SG), a plurality of third sub-pixels (SB1), and a plurality of fourth sub-pixels (SB2),
wherein the first sub-pixel, the second sub-pixel, and the third sub-pixel emit light of different colors (blue, green and red), and the fourth sub-pixel emit light of the same color as the third sub-pixel (blue),
wherein the plurality of first sub-pixels and the plurality of second sub-pixels are alternately arranged along a first direction and form first rows, the plurality of third sub-pixels and the plurality of fourth sub-pixels are alternately arranged along the first direction and form second rows, and the first rows and the second rows are alternately arranged,
PNG
media_image3.png
542
412
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein the plurality of first sub-pixels and the plurality of third sub-pixels are alternately disposed along a second direction perpendicular to the first direction and form first columns, the plurality of second sub-pixels and the plurality of fourth sub-pixels are alternately disposed along the second direction and form second columns, and the first columns and the second columns are alternately arranged,
PNG
media_image4.png
542
412
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein each of the plurality of first sub-pixels includes a first emission area (SB1 and/or SB2), each of the plurality of second sub-pixels includes a second emission area (SG), each of the plurality of third sub-pixels includes a third emission area (SR1), and each of the plurality of fourth sub-pixels includes a fourth emission area (SR2),
and wherein the first emission area, the second emission area, the third emission area, and the fourth emission area have the same shape in a plan view (FIG. 7 and 8).
Alternatively, it was known in the art to have this arrangement. See Yoo, FIG. 4, with first and second subpixels (R and G) alternating in the first (horizontal) direction, and two subpixels of the same color (B1 and B2) also alternating in the first direction,
PNG
media_image5.png
474
470
media_image5.png
Greyscale
And the first and third subpixels (R and B1) alternate and the second and four subpixels (G and B2) alternate in the second (vertical direction). It would have been obvious to have had this arrangement as known in the art. Rearrangement of subpixels on a display is not typically a source of patentable distinction absent unexpected results.
Claim 7: an imaginary extension line disposed between the first emission area and the second emission area and extending in the second direction extends across a space between the third emission area and the fourth emission area adjacent to the first emission area and the second emission area.
PNG
media_image6.png
474
470
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claim 8: the first sub-pixel, the second sub-pixel, the third sub-pixel, and the fourth sub-pixel constitute a pixel which is a minimum unit for displaying an image. Yoo, FIG. 4, pixel P1; Kim, P1+P2, which is the repeating pattern.
Claim 9: the first sub-pixel emits red light, the second sub-pixel emits green light, and the third sub-pixel and the fourth sub-pixel emit blue light.
Claim 10: in the plan view, each of the first emission area, the second emission area, the third emission area, and the fourth emission area has a first width which is a width in the first direction and a second width which is a width in the second direction, and the first width is in a range of about 1.0 times to about 1.2 times the second width (Kim FIG. 8, [0130]).
Claim 11: each of the first emission area, the second emission area, the third emission area, and the fourth emission area has one of a rectangular shape, a square shape, an elliptical shape, and a circular shape in the plan view (Kim FIGS. 7 and 8).
Claim 12: the first sub-pixel (SR1 and/or SR2) emits red light, the second sub-pixel (SG) emits green light, and the third (SB1) and fourth (SB2) sub-pixels emit blue light.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER BRADFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-1596. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30-6:30.
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.
/PETER BRADFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights