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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a bank layer on the protective layer and having a first recess and a second recess overlapping the first light emitting area and the second light emitting area, respectively; a first light emitting element including a first pixel electrode, a first light emitting layer, and a common electrode on the bank layer to correspond to the first recess; a second light emitting element including a second pixel electrode, a second light emitting layer, and a common electrode on the bank layer to correspond to the second recess; and a pixel definition layer defining a light emitting area on the bank layer, wherein the first pixel electrode has a single-layer inclined portion, wherein the second pixel electrode has a multi-layer inclined portion, and the multi-layered inclined portion includes a first sloped portion having a first inclination, and a second sloped portion above the first sloped portion and having a second inclination different from the first inclination, wherein a horizontal width of the first sloped portion is wider than a horizontal width of the second sloped portion” as cited in claim 11 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-7 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (US. Pub: 2016/0190217 A1~hereinafter “Park”); Kimura et al. (US. Pub: 2015/0206928 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses (in at least figs. 3-6) a display device comprising: a substrate (not labeled; see fig. 3); a thin film transistor (T; [0030]) on the substrate; a protective layer (101) on the thin film transistor; a bank layer (102; [0036]) on the protective layer and having a plurality of recesses (see fig. 3); a plurality of light emitting elements ([0030]-[0033]) including a pixel electrode (103), a light emitting layer (105), and a common electrode (106) corresponding to each of the plurality of recesses on the bank layer (see at least fig. 3); and a pixel definition layer (104) defining a light emitting area on the bank layer, wherein a recess from among the recesses has a multi-stage slope (see figs. 3-6), and the pixel electrode (103) includes a first sloped portion (best seen in fig. 5; i.e. the Y slope) having a first inclination along the multi-stage slope of the recess (see at least figs. 3-6), and a second sloped portion (X; best seen in at least fig. 5) above the first sloped portion and having a second inclination different from the first inclination (as evident by at least fig. 5), wherein a horizontal width of the first sloped portion is wider than a horizontal width of the second sloped portion (see figs. 3-6).
Regarding claim 3, Park discloses (in at least figs. 3-6) the second inclination is smaller than the first inclination (see fig. 5).
Regarding claim 5, Park discloses (in at least figs. 3-6) the pixel electrode (103) further comprises a bottom portion connected to a bottom of the first sloped portion (see figs. 3-6), and a top portion connected to a top of the second sloped portion and on a top surface of the bank layer (see figs. 3-6).
Regarding claim 6, Park discloses (in at least figs. 3-6) the pixel definition layer (104) partially overlaps the top portion.
Regarding claim 7, Park discloses (in at least figs. 3-6) the light emitting layer (105) overlaps a bottom portion, a first sloped portion, and a second sloped portion of the pixel electrode (see figs. 3 and 6).
Regarding claim 10, Park discloses (in at least figs. 3-6) the recess has a multi-stage inclined structure.
Note: Kimura also discloses the claimed limitations.
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) 2-4 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US. Pub: 2016/0190217 A1~hereinafter “Park”); Kimura et al. (US. Pub: 2015/0206928 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Park discloses all the claimed limitations except for the horizontal width of the first sloped portion is in a range of 3 micrometers (μm) to 5 μm, wherein the horizontal width of the second sloped portion is in a range of 1 μm to 3 μm.
However, Park discloses (in at least figs. 3-6) the horizontal width of the first sloped (Y) is bigger than the horizontal width of the second sloped portion (X) (best seen in fig. 5).
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 horizontal width of the first sloped portion of Park in a range of 3 micrometers (μm) to 5 μm, and the horizontal width of the second sloped portion is in a range of 1 μm to 3 μm through routine experimentation and optimization.
Regarding claim 4, Park discloses (in at least figs. 3-6) the first inclination is in a range of 20° to 30° ([0041]; [0048]), but is silent about the second inclination is in a range of 5° to 15°.
However, Park discloses (in at least figs. 3-6) a second inclination portion (X).
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 second inclination portion of Park in a range of 5° to 15° through routine experimentation and optimization.
Regarding claim 8, Park does expressly disclose the second inclination is greater than the first inclination.
However, Park discloses (in at least fig. 3-6) the second inclination (X) is smaller than the first inclination (Y) (see fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to form the second inclination of Park than the first inclination, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 9, Park discloses (in at least figs. 3-6) the first inclination is in a range of 10° to 30° ([0041]), but is silent about the second inclination is in a range of 30° to 60°.
However, Park discloses (in at least figs. 3-6) a second inclination portion (X).
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 second inclination portion of Park in a range of 30° to 60° through routine experimentation and optimization.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 11, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest a display device comprised of, in part, a bank layer on the protective layer and having a first recess and a second recess overlapping the first light emitting area and the second light emitting area, respectively; a first light emitting element including a first pixel electrode, a first light emitting layer, and a common electrode on the bank layer to correspond to the first recess; a second light emitting element including a second pixel electrode, a second light emitting layer, and a common electrode on the bank layer to correspond to the second recess; and a pixel definition layer defining a light emitting area on the bank layer, wherein the first pixel electrode has a single-layer inclined portion, wherein the second pixel electrode has a multi-layer inclined portion, and the multi-layered inclined portion includes a first sloped portion having a first inclination, and a second sloped portion above the first sloped portion and having a second inclination different from the first inclination, wherein a horizontal width of the first sloped portion is wider than a horizontal width of the second sloped portion. Claims 12-20 are allowed due to their dependency upon claim 11.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
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