DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
This Office action is in response to Amendments filed 7/23/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 32 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 32, Applicant states that the “pixel defining portion” comprises a “pixel defining layer” and “first [and] second spacer[s]”. Applicant also requires “a height of the pixel defining portion [to be] uniform”. This limitation was not disclosed in the Application as originally filed as the spacer (42 in Applicant’s Fig. 1) is designed to only overlap a portion of the pixel defining layer (41) such that the height of the pixel defining portion (which comprises both 41 and 42) is non-uniform.
Regarding claim 33, the claim requires the pixel electrodes to be arranged in “a plurality of columns”, the emission layer to be “disposed on the pixel electrodes”, and that the emission layer “not overlap[] a second column”. This combination of limitations was not disclosed in the Application as originally filed in which the only embodiments shown in which the emission layer is on pixel electrodes arranged in first and second columns has the emission layer overlap both the first and second column.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 19-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 19, the claim requires the pixel defining layer and the first and second spacers to be formed as “one body” but also requires the first spacer to have a first boundary directly contacting a top surface of the pixel defining layer (and similar requirements for the second spacer). It is unclear to one having ordinary skill in the art how to achieve these limitations because when the pixel defining layer and the spacers are formed as “one body” then there will not be such a boundary. For the purpose of this Office action, these limitations are interpreted as the first and second spacers are formed on top of the pixel defining layer.
Claims 20-31 depend from claim 19 and are, therefore, also rejected.
Regarding claim 32, Applicant states that the “pixel defining portion” comprises a “pixel defining layer” and “first [and] second spacer[s]”. Applicant also requires “a height of the pixel defining portion [to be] uniform”. It is unclear to one having ordinary skill in the art how to form the device of claim 32 as claim 32 also requires the emission layer to extend “onto a top surface of the pixel defining layer to extend toward a side surface of the first spacer” which requires pixel defining layer to have a top surface that is not coplanar with the top surface of the first spacer, which necessitates the pixel defining portion to have a non-uniform height.
Regarding claim 33, the claim requires the pixel electrodes to be arranged in “a plurality of columns”, the emission layer to be “disposed on the pixel electrodes”, and that the emission layer “not overlap[] a second column”. It is unclear to one having ordinary skill in the art how to form the device of claim 33 because if the emission layer is formed on the pixel electrodes and the pixel electrodes are formed in the second column then the emission layer would overlap the second column.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 19-26, 28, 30, and 31 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 2010/0148192 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Jung et al. disclose an organic light emitting diode (OLED) display device (see Title of Jung et al.), comprising:
a pixel electrode (710 in Fig. 8) electrically connected to a thin film transistor (20) disposed on a substrate (110); and
a pixel defining portion (combination of 190, 192, and 195) comprising a pixel defining layer (190) having a side surface defining a single opening (opening between 190 and adjacent 195 in Fig. 8) on the pixel electrode and a first spacer (192) protruding from the pixel defining layer at a first side of the opening (see Fig. 3), and a second spacer (not shown in Fig. 8 but corresponding to a spacer 192 in Fig. 7 on the other side of the area EA as the first spacer) protruding from the pixel defining layer at a second side of the opening;
a sealing layer (210 in Fig. 8; ¶ 0067) bonded to the substrate (¶ 0067);
an emission layer (720) disposed on the pixel electrode and the pixel defining layer (see Fig. 8);
a hole injection layer disposed between the emission layer and the pixel electrode (¶ 0088);
a common electrode (730) disposed on the emission layer and the pixel defining portion; and
wherein the first and second spacers are formed on top surfaces of the pixel defining layer (see Fig. 8);
the first spacer has a first boundary directly contacting a top surface of the pixel defining layer overlapping the first spacer (see Fig. 8), and the second spacer has a second boundary directly contacting a top surface of the pixel defining layer overlapping the second spacer (see Fig. 8),
the emission layer has a first portion in the opening, a second portion (portion to the left of the opening in Fig. 8) continuously extending from the first portion to across the side surface of the pixel defining layer and has a first end near the boundary between the first spacer and pixel defining layer but not overlapping the spacer in plan view (see Fig. 8), and a third portion (portion to the right of the opening) continuously extending from the first portion to across the side surface of the pixel defining layer and having a second end near a second boundary between the second spacer and the pixel defining layer but not overlapping the second spacer in the plan view (compare to the side shown in Fig. 8),
the pixel electrode and the hole injection layer are continuously in directly contact with each other in the single opening within an entirety of the single opening (see rendering, below; the pixel electrode and the hole injection layer are continuously in direct contact with each other between 190 and 195), and
the common electrode overlapping the first and second spacers directly contacts the sealing layer (see Fig. 8).
Although not shown in the figures, Jung et al. disclose that the layers which consist of the HIL, the HTL, and the ETL, may be disposed so as to be coextensive with the common electrode (¶ 0089; corresponding to being across the top of the spacer 192 in Fig. 8 [similar to the common electrode extending across the top of the spacer]). Specifically, Jung et al. disclose that out of the HIL, HTL, ETL, EIL, and emission layer, the HIL, HTL, ETL, and EIL may be deposited by means of an open mask “like the common electrode”. (¶ 0089).
One having ordinary skill in the art before the Application’s effective filing date would have found it obvious to use this deposition layout for the configuration in Fig. 8 for the benefit of ensuring ample coverage of the transport and injection layers. As such, the injection and/or transportation layers of Jung et al. will be coextensive with the common electrode while the emission layer is only within the opening as shown in Fig. 8 (see annotated copy of Jung’s Fig. 8, below). In this configuration, the hole injection layer and the common electrode continuously extend over the opening and the pixel defining portion, and overlap each other on top surfaces of the first and second spacers and the first end opposes a side surface of the first spacer with the hole injection layer between the first end and the side surface of the first spacer, and the second end opposes a side surface of the second spacer with the hole injection layer between the first end and the side surface of the first spacer.
PNG
media_image1.png
321
624
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, Jung further discloses wherein a light emitting area (portion between 190 and 195 in Fig. 8) overlapping the pixel electrode is a continuous emission region (see Fig. 8) in an individual pixel area (see Fig. 8), without any non-emitting areas (see Fig. 8) within the individual pixel area).
Regarding claim 21, Jung further discloses wherein the hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, and an electron transport layer are extended to a top surface of the spacer (see rendering, above), and the hole transport layer and the electron transport layer directly contact each other on the top surface of the first spacer (see rendering, above).
Regarding claim 22, Jung further discloses wherein the hole injection layer and the hole transport layer are at a first side of the emission layer and the electron transport layer are at a second side of the emission layer at an area overlapping the pixel electrode in a plan view, and each of the hole injection layer, the hole transport layer, and the electron transport layer are between the first spacer and the sealing layer at an area overlapping the first spacer (see rendering, above).
Regarding claim 23, Jung further discloses wherein the common electrode is disposed between the top surface of the first spacer and the sealing layer (see Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 24, Jung further discloses wherein an electron transport layer directly contacts the common electrode at the top surface of the first spacer (see rendering, above).
Regarding claim 25, Jung further discloses wherein the first spacer does not overlap the pixel electrode in a plan view (see rendering, above).
Regarding claim 26, Jung further discloses wherein a common layer includes at least one of the hole injection layer, a hole transport layer and an electron transport layer (the common layer of Jung may be considered to be the electron transport layer).
Regarding claim 28, Jung further discloses wherein the first spacer is positioned between adjacent pixel electrodes along a diagonal direction (see Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 30, Jung further discloses wherein the emission layer is not positioned on an upper surface of the first spacer, and the common layer and the common electrode are positioned on the upper surface of the first spacer (see rendering, above).
Regarding claim 31, Jung further discloses wherein the common layer and the common electrode positioned on the upper surface of the first spacer are electrically connected to the common layer and the common electrode overlapping the pixel electrode (as they are electrically connected to themselves).
Claim 27 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 2010/0148192 A1) as applied to claim 26, above, and further in view of Shih (US 2011/0007012 A1).
Regarding claim 27, Jung et al. does not disclose the transparency of the common layer.
Shih, in the same field of endeavor, discloses forming electron transport layer (corresponding to the common layer of Jung) to be transparent (The electron transport layer 430 is made of a transparent material”, ¶ 0024). There was a benefit in forming the electron transport layer to be transparent in that it increases the overall amount of light emitted from the device. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to form the common layer of Jung to be transparent for this benefit. With regards to the comparative transparency with respect to “a light-emitting layer”, the Examiner notes that Applicant has not claimed that this light-emitting layer is a component in the display device. As such, as long as there is some light-emitting layer in existence which is not transparent, the common layer in the device of the combination will have a higher transparency than “a light-emitting layer” which is not required to be in the device itself.
Claim 29 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 2010/0148192 A1) as applied to claim 19, above, and further in view of Kimura (US 2007/0035340 A1).
Regarding claim 29, Jung et al. does not disclose wherein pixel electrodes have different sizes in a plan view depending on a color emitted from the emission layer.
Kimura, in the same field of endeavor, discloses forming pixel electrodes to have different sizes in a plan view depending on a color emitted from the emission layer (¶ 0375). There was a benefit to such a configuration in that it allows for control of the color balance (¶ 0375). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to form the pixel electrodes of Jung to have different sizes in a plan view depending on a color emitted from the emission layer for this benefit.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has mapped the previously claimed “individual pixel area” to the newly added limitation of “a single opening”. This argument is not persuasive as the opening between 190 and an adjacent 195 as seen in Fig. 8 of Jung may also be considered “a single opening”, as discussed in the rejection above.
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 CHRISTOPHER A CULBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-4893. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Joshua Benitez can be reached at (571) 270-1435. 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.
/C.A.C/ Examiner, Art Unit 2815
/MONICA D HARRISON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815
Prosecution Insights