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.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 9, 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lim et al. (US 2013/0001603 A1).
With respect to claim 1: Lim teaches “a display panel (throughout reference) comprising: a plurality (paragraph 41) of sub-pixels (Fig. 19), each of the plurality of sub-pixels including: a substrate (200); a first insulating layer (255) on the substrate (see Fig. 19) and protruding away from the substrate (see Fig. 19), the first insulating layer having two side surfaces (see Fig. 19); and a light emitting device (260+270+275) on the first insulating layer having a first electrode (260), a second electrode (275), and a light emitting layer (270), the first electrode at least partially covering the first insulating layer (see Fig. 19), wherein the second electrode is on the two side surfaces (see Fig. 19)”.
With respect to claim 4: Lim teaches “the display panel of claim 1 (see above), further comprising: a second insulating layer (245; see paragraph 121), wherein the first insulating layer has a first refractive index (inherent) and the second insulating layer has a second refractive index (inherent)”.
With respect to claim 6: Lim teaches “the display panel of claim 1 (see above), further comprising: a circuit element layer including a plurality of metal patterns (210, 220, 225)”.
With respect to claim 9: Lim teaches “the display panel of claim 1 (see above), wherein the two side surfaces are inclined (Fig. 19)”.
With respect to claim 11: Lim teaches “the display panel of claim 1 (see above), wherein the light emitting layer has a multi-layer structure (paragraph 127)”.
With respect to claim 12: Lim teaches “the display panel of claim 1 (see above), wherein the first electrode extends horizontally beyond the two side surfaces (see Fig. 19) and partially covering a top surface of a second insulating layer (see Fig. 19), the first insulating layer being on the second insulating layer (see Fig. 19)”.
With respect to claim 13: Lim teaches “the display panel of claim 6 (see above), wherein the plurality of metal patterns are in a non-emission area between two adjacent ones of the plurality of sub-pixels (see Fig. 19) and do not overlap with the first insulating layer and the first electrode (see Fig. 19)”.
With respect to claim 14: Lim teaches “the display panel of claim 1 (see above), wherein the first insulating layer is on a second insulating layer (see Fig. 19), the second insulating layer extending beyond a horizontal length of the first insulating layer to cover non-emission areas between adjacent ones of the plurality of sub-pixels (see Fig. 19)”.
With respect to claim 15: Lim teaches “the display panel of claim 14 (see above), wherein the second insulating layer has a first height from a top surface of the substrate in a first region and a second height from the top surface of the substrate in a second region (see Fig. 19)”.
With respect to claim 16: Lim teaches “the display panel of claim 15 (see above), wherein the first region is where the second insulating layer contacts the first insulating layer and the second region is where the second insulating layer covers the non-emission areas (see Fig. 19)”.
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 2-3, 10, 17-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Moon et al. (US 2013/0032803 A1) and Horio et al. (US 2005/0281303 A1).
With respect to claim 2: Lim teaches “the display panel of claim 1 (see above)”.
Lim does not specifically teach “further comprising: a reflective layer including a first layer on the first electrode, the first layer being formed of reflective material”.
However, Moon teaches “further comprising: a reflective layer (16) including a first layer (116) on the first electrode (114), the first layer being formed of reflective material (paragraph 75)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display panel of Lim with the reflective layer of Moon in order to increase the light emitting efficiency of the display (Moon paragraph 47).
Lim does not specifically teach “a second layer on the first layer and the second layer being formed of transparent material”.
However, Horio teaches “a second layer (106) on the first layer (104) and the second layer being formed of transparent material (paragraph 94)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the display panel of Lim by covering the reflective first layer with a transparent second layer in order to protect the first layer (Horio paragraph 59).
With respect to claim 3: Lim in view of Moon and Horio teaches “the display panel of claim 2 (see above)”.
Lim does not specifically teach “wherein a thickness of the second layer is smaller than a thickness of the first electrode”.
However, Horio teaches “wherein a thickness of the second layer (100-300 nm; paragraph 94) is smaller than a thickness of the first electrode (701 nm; see paragraph 91)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the display panel of Lim by forming the electrode and second layer at the thicknesses taught by Horio due to the art recognized suitability of layers of this thickness to serve the functions of an electrode and protective layer (Horio paragraphs 91, 94).
With respect to claim 10: Lim in view of Moon and Horio teaches “the display panel of claim 2 (see above)”.
Lim does not specifically teach “wherein the first layer contacts and covers the two side surfaces while partially covering a top surface of the first insulating layer”.
However, Moon teaches “wherein the first layer contacts and covers (see Fig. 9) the two side surfaces (sides of 131) while partially covering a top surface (top of 131) of the first insulating layer (131)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display panel of Lim with the reflective layer of Moon in order to increase the light emitting efficiency of the display (Moon paragraph 47).
With respect to claim 17: Lim in view of Moon and Horio teaches “the display panel of claim 2 (see above)”.
Lim further teaches “wherein the first electrode is horizontally disposed on a top surface of the first insulating layer (see Fig. 19)”.
With respect to claim 18: Lim in view of Moon and Horio teaches “the display panel of claim 17 (see above)”.
Lim further teaches “further comprising: a bank layer (265)”.
Lim doers not specifically teach that the bank layer is disposed between the first layer and each of the two side surfaces.
However, Moon teaches that the bank layer (17) is disposed between the first layer (116/216) and each of the two side surfaces (see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display panel of Lim with the reflective layer of Moon in order to increase the light emitting efficiency of the display (Moon paragraph 47).
With respect to claim 19: Lim in view of Moon and Horio teaches “the display panel of claim 18 (see above)”.
Lim does not specifically teach “wherein the first layer covers the bank layer and a portion of the first electrode”.
However, Moon teaches “wherein the first layer covers the bank layer (see Fig.1) and a portion of the first electrode (114)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display panel of Lim with the reflective layer of Moon in order to increase the light emitting efficiency of the display (Moon paragraph 47).
With respect to claim 20: Lim in view of Moon and Horio teaches “the display panel of claim 18 (see above)”.
Lim does not specifically teach “wherein the first layer contacts the portion of the first electrode through the bank layer via a contact hole”.
However, Moon teaches “wherein the first layer contacts the portion of the first electrode through the bank layer via a contact hole (see Fig. 9)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display panel of Lim with the reflective layer of Moon in order to increase the light emitting efficiency of the display (Moon paragraph 47).
With respect to claim 21: Lim teaches “the display panel of claim 1 (see above)”.
Lim further teaches “wherein each of the plurality of sub-pixels has an emission area including a first emission area (paragraph 126)”.
Lim does not specifically teach “and two side emission areas, the two side emission areas corresponding to the two side surfaces”.
However, Moon teaches “two side emission areas (G1 on left of Fig. 2, G1 on right of Fig. 2), the two side emission areas corresponding to the two side surfaces (see Fig. 2)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display panel of Lim with the additional emission areas taught by Moon in order to increase the light emitting efficiency of the display (Moon paragraph 47).
With respect to claim 22: Lim in view of Moon teaches “the display panel of claim 21 (see above)”.
Lim further teaches “wherein light is directly emitted in the first emission area (see Fig. 19)”.
With respect to claim 23: Lim in view of Moon teaches “the display panel of claim 21 (see above)”.
Lim does not specifically teach “wherein the light is emitted both directly and via reflection in the two side emission areas”.
However, Moon teaches “wherein the light is emitted both directly and via reflection in the two side emission areas (see Fig. 2)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display panel of Lim with the additional emission areas taught by Moon in order to increase the light emitting efficiency of the display (Moon paragraph 47).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim as applied to claims 1, 4 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 20130032802 A1).
With respect to claim 5: Lim teaches “the display panel of claim 4 (see above)”.
Lim does not specifically teach “wherein the first refractive index is greater than the second refractive index”.
However, Kim teaches “wherein the first refractive index (refractive index of 13; SiNx ~ 2.0; see paragraph 50) is greater than the second refractive index (refractive index of 11; SiO2 ~ 1.5; see paragraph 50)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display panel of Lim by selecting layers with different refractive indices as taught by Kim in order to increase optical efficiency (Kim paragraph 50).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim as applied to claims 1, 6 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (US 20200295099 A1).
With respect to claim 7: Lim teaches “the display panel of claim 6 (see above)”.
Lim does not specifically teach “further comprising: a color filter on the circuit element layer covering the plurality of metal patterns”.
However, Liu teaches “a color filter (20) on the circuit element layer (see Fig. 4) covering the plurality of metal patterns (23, 30)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display panel of Lim by using the color filter taught by Liu in order to provide red, green, and blue subpixels (Liu paragraph 46).
With respect to claim 8: Lim in view of Liu teaches “the display panel of claim 7 (see above)”.
Lim does not specifically teach “wherein the color filter corresponds to an emission area of a corresponding one of the plurality of sub-pixels”.
However, Liu teaches “wherein the color filter corresponds to an emission area of a corresponding one of the plurality of sub-pixels (see Fig. 4)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display panel of Lim by using the color filter taught by Liu in order to provide red, green, and blue subpixels (Liu paragraph 46).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Beak et al. (US 20140175393 A1), which teaches an OLED display.
Iga (US 20050168135 A1), which teaches an OLED display.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL J. LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-5721. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 EST M-F.
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, ABDULMAJEED AZIZ can be reached at (571)270-5046. 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.
/NATHANIEL J LEE/ Examiner, Art Unit 2875
/EVAN P DZIERZYNSKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights