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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-15, and 17-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US. Pub: 2022/0140060 A1~ hereinafter “Kim”) of record; Chen et al. (TW1481023 B~ hereinafter “Chen”) of record in view of Choi et al. (US. Pub: 2019/0189717 A1~ hereinafter “Choi”).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses (in at least figs. 9 and 10) a display device, comprising: a substrate (Sub); a plurality of subpixels (SP; [0047]) each of which includes an emitting area and a non-emitting area (see figs. 9 and 10); an overcoat layer (OC; [0100]) disposed over the substrate, and having a concave part (see figs. 9 and 10) located between emitting areas; a first electrode layer (210) disposed on a periphery of the concave part (see figs. 9 and 10); a metal pattern layer (215) disposed to cover a sloped portion of the concave part (see figs. 9 and 10); and a bank layer (BA) covering the concave part, and disposed on the metal pattern layer (215).
Kim does not expressly disclose at least a portion of the bank layer is disposed in the concave part at a height lower than an uppermost surface of the overcoat layer.
However, it is well-known in the art to form a display device comprised of, in part, a bank layer and an overcoat layer, wherein at least a portion of the bank layer is disposed in the concave part at a height lower than an uppermost surface of the overcoat layer as evident by Choi at least fig. 5 which discloses “a bank layer (BNK) and an overcoat layer (OC), wherein at least a portion of the bank layer (BNK) is disposed in the concave part at a height lower than an uppermost surface of the overcoat layer (OC).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to consider arranging the bank layer of Kim as taught by Choi, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, Kim discloses (in at least figs. 9 and 10) the first electrode layer (210) and the metal pattern layer (215) are disposed to be spaced apart from each other.
Regarding claim 3, Kim discloses (in at least figs. 9 and 10) the bank layer (BA) covers at least a part of the first electrode layer (210), and is located between the first electrode layer (210) and the metal pattern layer (215).
Regarding claim 4, Kim discloses (in at least figs. 9 and 10) an angle formed by a flat portion of the concave part and the sloped portion of the concave part is 45 degrees or more.
Regarding claim 5, Kim discloses (in at least figs. 9 and 10) a light emitting layer (230) disposed on the first electrode layer (210) and the bank layer (BA), wherein an angle formed by a tangent of the bank layer (BA) passing through a point where all of the first electrode layer (210), the light emitting layer (230) and the bank layer (BA) meet and the periphery of the concave part.
Kim does not expressly disclose the angle of 43 degrees or less.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to determine the angle of Kim to be in the range of 43 degrees or less through routine experiment.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Kim discloses (in at least figs. 9 and 10) the overcoat layer includes a first overcoat layer (PAS) which is disposed over the substrate (Sub) and a second overcoat layer (OC) which is disposed on the first overcoat layer (PAS) and includes the sloped portion of the concave part (see figs. 9 and 10), but is silent about a refractive index of the second overcoat layer is greater than a refractive index of the first overcoat layer, and a value obtained by dividing the refractive index of the first overcoat layer by the refractive index of the second overcoat layer is 0.7 or more.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to consider forming the display device of Kim such that a refractive index of the second overcoat layer is greater than a refractive index of the first overcoat layer, and a value obtained by dividing the refractive index of the first overcoat layer by the refractive index of the second overcoat layer is 0.7 or more so that the second overcoat layer may be more rigid than the first overcoat layer. Also, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to form a refractive index of the second overcoat layer Kim greater than a refractive index of the first overcoat layer, and a value obtained by dividing the refractive index of the first overcoat layer by the refractive index of the second overcoat layer is 0.7 or more through routine experimentation and optimization.
Regarding claim 9, Kim discloses (in at least fig. 8) a data line (see fig. 8) disposed on the substrate (Sub), and located below the concave part (see fig. 8).
Regarding claims 10 and 18, Kim discloses all the claimed limitations except for a color filter layer disposed over the substrate, and covering at least a partial area of the data line.
However, it is well-known in the art to form a display device comprised a color filter layer disposed over the substrate, and covering at least a partial area of the data line as evident by Kim et al. (US. Pat: 9,136,315 B1~hereinafter “Kim315”) at least fig. 8 col. 10, lines 9-18).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the display device of Kim with the color filter layer of Kim315 in order to convert light emitting from the light emitting layer to a specific color light or wavelength.
Regarding claims 11-13, Kim discloses (in at least figs. 9 and 10) a display device, comprising: a substrate (Sub); a plurality of subpixels (SP; [0047]) each of which includes an emitting area and a non-emitting area (see figs. 9 and 10); an overcoat layer (OC) disposed over the substrate, and having a concave part located between emitting areas (see figs. 9 and 10); a first electrode layer (210) disposed on a periphery of the concave part (see figs. 9 and 10); and a bank layer (BA) covering a sloped portion of the concave part, wherein the overcoat layer (OC) includes a first overcoat layer (PAS) which is disposed over the substrate and a second overcoat layer (OC) which is disposed on the first overcoat layer and includes the sloped portion of the concave part (see figs. 9 and 10), but is silent about a refractive index of the second overcoat layer is greater than a refractive index of the first overcoat layer; wherein the refractive index of the first overcoat layer is 1.14 or more and 1.46 or less, and the refractive index of the second overcoat layer is 1.63 or more and 1.65 or less; and a value obtained by dividing the refractive index of the first overcoat layer by the refractive index of the second overcoat layer is 0.7 or more, wherein at least a portion of the bank layer is disposed in the concave part at a height lower than an uppermost surface of the overcoat layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to consider forming the display device of Kim such that a refractive index of the second overcoat layer is greater than a refractive index of the first overcoat layer, and a value obtained by dividing the refractive index of the first overcoat layer by the refractive index of the second overcoat layer is 0.7 or more so that the second overcoat layer may be more rigid than the first overcoat layer. Also, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to form a refractive index of the second overcoat layer Kim greater than a refractive index of the first overcoat layer, and a value obtained by dividing the refractive index of the first overcoat layer by the refractive index of the second overcoat layer is 0.7 or more through routine experimentation and optimization.
However, it is well-known in the art to form a display device comprised of, in part, a bank layer and an overcoat layer, wherein at least a portion of the bank layer is disposed in the concave part at a height lower than an uppermost surface of the overcoat layer as evident by Choi at least fig. 5 which discloses “a bank layer (BNK) and an overcoat layer (OC), wherein at least a portion of the bank layer (BNK) is disposed in the concave part at a height lower than an uppermost surface of the overcoat layer (OC).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to consider arranging the bank layer of Kim as taught by Choi, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 14, Kim discloses (in at least figs. 9 and 10) the bank layer (BA) includes a groove part which exposes at least a partial area of the first overcoat layer (PAS).
Regarding claim 15, Kim discloses (in at least figs. 9 and 10) an angle formed by an upper surface of the first overcoat layer (PAS) and the bank layer (BA) in the groove part of the bank layer, but fails to disclose the angle is 45 degrees or less.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to determine the angle of Kim to be in the range of 45 degrees or less through routine experiment.
Regarding claim 17, Kim discloses (in at least fig. 8) a data line disposed on the substrate, and located below the concave part.
Regarding claim 19, Kim discloses (in at least figs. 9 and 10) a display device, comprising: a substrate (Sub); a plurality of subpixels (SP; [0047]) each of which includes an emitting area and a non-emitting area; an overcoat layer (OC) disposed over the substrate, and having a concave part located between emitting areas (see figs. 9 and 10); a first electrode layer (210) disposed on the overcoat layer; a bank layer (BA) covering at least a portion of the first electrode layer (210) and at least a portion of the concave part (see figs. 9 and 10); and a light emitting layer (230) covering at least a part of the first electrode layer (210) and at least a part of the bank layer (BA), wherein at least a part of the light emitting layer (230) overlaps the concave part.
Kim does not expressly disclose at least a portion of the bank layer is disposed in the concave part at a height lower than an uppermost surface of the overcoat layer.
However, it is well-known in the art to form a display device comprised of, in part, a bank layer and an overcoat layer, wherein at least a portion of the bank layer is disposed in the concave part at a height lower than an uppermost surface of the overcoat layer as evident by Choi at least fig. 5 which discloses “a bank layer (BNK) and an overcoat layer (OC), wherein at least a portion of the bank layer (BNK) is disposed in the concave part at a height lower than an uppermost surface of the overcoat layer (OC).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to consider arranging the bank layer of Kim as taught by Choi, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 20, Kim discloses (in at least figs. 9 and 10) a second electrode layer (220) disposed on the light emitting layer (230), wherein: the first electrode layer (210) does not overlap the concave part of the overcoat layer (OC, PAS); and at least a part of the second electrode layer (220) overlaps the concave part of the overcoat layer.
Regarding claim 21, Kim discloses (in at least figs. 16 and 17) a reflective area (430), wherein the reflective area overlaps the bank layer and does not overlap the first electrode layer.
Chen also discloses the claimed limitations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 16 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.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest a line segment connects, at a shortest distance, a boundary line of the first electrode layer and a boundary line where the sloped portion of the concave part and a flat portion of the concave part meet, and an angle formed by the line segment and the flat portion of the concave part is 39 degrees or more and 60 degrees or less.
Regarding claim 16, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest a line segment connects, at a shortest distance, a boundary line of the first electrode layer and a boundary line where the sloped portion of the concave part and a flat portion of the concave part meet, and an angle formed by the line segment and the flat portion of the concave part is 12 degrees or more and 36 degrees or less.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELMITO BREVAL whose telephone number is (571)270-3099. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th~ 7:30-5:30.
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, James R. Greece can be reached at 571-272-3711. 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.
ELMITO BREVAL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2875
/ELMITO BREVAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights