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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 13 January 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 13 January 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 13 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that as described in paragraph [0132] of Nimura, both pixel electrodes 23a and 23b are transparent electrodes, whereas the claimed reflective anode layer is expressly made of a non-transparent material. The examiner disagrees. Nimura states “also, since the light-shielding layer 71 formed in the first pixel electrode 23a and the light-shielding layer 72 formed in the cathode electrode 50 have a light-reflecting property, it is possible to improve light-emitting efficiency to display an image with a high luminance” (paragraph 174, emphasis added). Pixel electrode 23a is expressly stated to be non-transparent due to the presence of the light shielding layer 71 formed therein, and this is expressly stated to be a benefit to light-emitting efficiency. This is also shown in Nimura Fig. 4, where light beam 74a goes through electrode 23b, demonstrating that that electrode is transparent, but light beam 73a is reflected off electrode 23a, demonstrating that that electrode is reflective.
Applicant argues that as shown in FIG. 1 and described in paragraphs [0027] and [0048] of Yan, the third light-emitting unit 300 includes portions of two different light-emitting layers of different colors (green and blue). In contrast, the claimed first portion belongs exclusively to the red pixel light-emitting layer and emits light of a single color. The examiner disagrees. Yan’s light-emitting element 300 is the red pixel (paragraph 84), and is not disclosed as emitting any other color, and in any case, the claims use the open ended “comprising” formulation and thus cannot reasonably held to require that the claimed first portion belongs exclusively to the red pixel light-emitting layer and emits light of a single color.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-9, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2016/0027859 A1) in view of Hirakata et al. (US 2010/0176719 A1) and Nimura (US 2006/0066229 A1).
With respect to claim 1: Kim teaches “a dual-sided display panel (10), comprising: a first organic light-emitting unit (PX1) and a second organic light-emitting unit (PX2) disposed in a stacked arrangement (see Figs. 1, 3); wherein the first organic light-emitting unit comprises a plurality of first pixel definition layers (160) and a plurality of blue (paragraph 41) pixel light-emitting layers (140), a first gap is defined between any two adjacent ones of the first pixel definition layers (see Fig. 7), with each of the blue pixel light-emitting layers (paragraph 41) filled in a respective first gap (see Fig. 7); wherein the plurality of first pixel definition layers are made of transparent materials (see Fig. 3); wherein the second organic light-emitting unit comprises a plurality of second pixel definition layers (260), a plurality of red (paragraph 43) pixel light-emitting layers (240), and a plurality of green (paragraph 43) pixel light-emitting layers (240), a second gap is defined between any two adjacent ones of the second pixel definition layers (see Fig. 8), and the red pixel light-emitting layers and the green pixel light-emitting layers are each filled in a respective one of the second gaps (see Fig. 8) and are arranged alternately and spaced apart from each other in a direction along which the first pixel definition layers and the blue pixel light- emitting layers are arranged (see Fig. 3); wherein each of the red pixel light-emitting layers comprises a first portion (240), each of the green pixel light-emitting layers comprises a third portion (240), the first portion and the third portion are disposed corresponding to the first pixel definition layers (see Fig. 3), the first portion is configured to emit red light through a corresponding one of the first pixel definition layers (see Fig. 3), the third portion is configured to emit green light through a corresponding one of the first pixel definition layers (see Fig. 3), wherein the second organic light-emitting unit further comprises a plurality of second anode layers (241) and a second cathode layer (242), each second anode layer is disposed on a side of a respective red pixel light-emitting layer or green pixel light-emitting layer away from the first organic light-emitting unit (see Fig. 3), and the second cathode layer is disposed at least on a side of the red pixel light-emitting layers and the green pixel light-emitting layers adjacent to the first organic light-emitting unit (see Fig. 3)”.
Kim does not teach “wherein each of the red pixel light-emitting layers comprises a first portion and a second portion adjoining each other, each of the green pixel light-emitting layers comprises a third portion and a fourth portion adjoining each other, the first portion and the third portion are disposed corresponding to the first pixel definition layers, and the second portion and the fourth portion are disposed corresponding to the blue pixel light-emitting layers”.
However, Hirakata teaches “wherein each of the red pixel light-emitting layers (501) comprises a first portion (508) and a second portion (507) adjoining each other (see Fig. 9a), each of the green pixel light-emitting layers (500) comprises a third portion (505) and a fourth portion (504) adjoining each other (see Fig. 9a), the first portion and the third portion are disposed corresponding to the first pixel definition layers (unlabeled layer surrounding 502; see Figs. 9a, 9c), and the second portion and the fourth portion are disposed corresponding to the blue pixel light-emitting layers (502)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the dual-sided display panel of Kim with the pixel arrangement taught by Hirakata in order to improve an image quality of the display (Hirakata abstract).
Kim in view of Hirakata does not explicitly teach “wherein each second anode layer comprises a reflective anode layer and a transparent anode layer adjoining each other, the first portions and the third portions are disposed corresponding to the reflective anode layers, and the second portions and the fourth portions are disposed corresponding to the transparent anode layers; wherein the transparent anode layers are made of transparent materials, and the reflective anode layers are made of non-transparent materials; and wherein light emitted by the first portions and the third portions exits through the first pixel definition layers along a direction from the second organic light-emitting unit to the first organic light-emitting unit, and light emitted by the second portions and the fourth portions exits through the transparent anode layers along a direction from the first organic light-emitting unit to the second organic light-emitting unit”.
However, Nimura teaches a dual sided display (1) wherein each second anode layer (243) comprises a reflective anode layer (243a, which includes 71; see paragraph 174) and a transparent anode layer (243b) adjoining each other, the first portions and the third portions are disposed corresponding to the reflective anode layers (see Fig. 4; only one sub-pixel is fully shown but one of ordinary skill would recognized that the third and fourth pixel portions are present in the next pixel over, which has exactly the same structure except for being a different color; see Fig. 1), and the second portions and the fourth portions are disposed corresponding to the transparent anode layers (see Fig. 4); wherein the transparent anode layers are made of transparent materials (paragraph 132), and the reflective anode layers (71) are made of non-transparent materials (paragraph 133); and wherein light emitted by the first portions and the third portions exits through the first pixel definition layers along a direction from the second organic light-emitting unit to the first organic light-emitting unit (see Fig. 4), and light emitted by the second portions and the fourth portions exits through the transparent anode layers along a direction from the first organic light-emitting unit to the second organic light-emitting unit (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 further modify the dual-sided display panel of Kim by using reflective and transparent anodes as taught by Nimura in order to independently display different images on the two sides of the display (Nimura paragraph 12).
With respect to claim 2: Kim in view of Hirakata and Nimura teaches “The dual-sided display panel of claim 1 (see above)”.
Kim teaches “wherein the first organic light- emitting unit further comprises a first anode layer (141) and a first cathode layer (143), the first anode layer is disposed on a side of the blue pixel light-emitting layer away from the second organic light-emitting unit (see Fig. 3), and the first cathode layer is disposed on a side of the blue pixel light-emitting layer adjacent to the second organic light-emitting unit (see Fig. 3)”.
With respect to claim 3: Kim in view of Hirakata and Nimura teaches “The dual-sided display panel of claim 2 (see above)”.
Kim does not specifically teach “a side of the second cathode layer adjacent to the first organic light-emitting unit overlaps a side of the first cathode layer adjacent to the second organic light-emitting unit”.
However, Hirakata teaches “a side of the second cathode layer (607) adjacent to the first organic light-emitting unit (613) overlaps (see Fig. 10a) a side of the first cathode layer (612) adjacent to the second organic light-emitting unit (609)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the dual-sided display panel of Kim with the pixel arrangement taught by Hirakata in order to improve an image quality of the display (Hirakata abstract).
With respect to claim 6: Kim in view of Hirakata and Nimura teaches “The dual-sided display panel of claim 3 (see above)”.
Kim does not specifically teach “wherein the first organic light- emitting unit further comprises a first encapsulation layer disposed on a side of the first cathode layer away from the first anode layer, the second organic light-emitting unit further comprises a second encapsulation layer disposed on a side of the second cathode layer away from the second anode layer”.
However, Hirakata teaches “wherein the first organic light- emitting unit further comprises a first encapsulation layer (1642) disposed on a side of the first cathode layer away from the first anode layer (see Fig. 24), the second organic light-emitting unit further comprises a second encapsulation layer (1643) disposed on a side of the second cathode layer away from the second anode layer (see Fig. 24)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the dual-sided display panel of Kim with the encapsulation layers of Hirakata in order to protect the light-emitting units (Hirakata paragraphs 340, 344)
With respect to claim 7: Kim in view of Hirakata and Nimura teaches “The dual-sided display panel of claim 6 (see above)”.
Hirakata teaches “further comprising an adhesion layer (1607) disposed between the first encapsulation layer and the second encapsulation layer (see Fig. 24)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the dual-sided display panel of Kim with the adhesion layer of Hirakata in order to attach the light emitting units to each other (Hirakata paragraph 345).
With respect to claim 8: Kim in view of Hirakata and Nimura teaches “The dual-sided display panel of claim 1 (see above)”.
Kim teaches “wherein each of the first pixel definition layer and the second pixel definition layer is made of colorless polyimide (paragraphs 74, 64)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to select polyimide as the material of the first and second pixel definition layers as suggested by Kim due to the art recognized suitability of polyimide for the purposes of both insulation and light transmittance (Kim paragraph 64).
With respect to claim 9: Kim in view of Hirakata and Nimura teaches “The dual-sided display panel of claim 1 (see above)”.
Kim does not teach “wherein the reflective anode layer has a length less than or equal to a length of the transparent anode layer”.
Nimura teaches “wherein the reflective anode layer has a length less than or equal to a length of the transparent anode layer (see Fig. 3)”.
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 dual-sided display panel of Kim by making the transparent and reflective anode layers the same length in light of the precedent that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)). In the present case one would reasonably expect two identically sized anode layers to function the same, except for emitting in opposite directions, and nothing in the application indicates otherwise.
With respect to claim 20: Kim teaches “a method of manufacturing a dual-sided display panel (method of making 10), comprising: forming a first organic light-emitting unit (PX1), and the first organic light- emitting unit comprising a first surface (top) and a second surface (bottom) disposed opposite to each other (see Fig. 3), and a plurality of first pixel definition layers (160), and a plurality of blue (paragraph 41) pixel light-emitting layers (140), and a first gap defined between any two adjacent ones of the first pixel definition layers (see Fig. 7), wherein the blue pixel light- emitting layers are filled in a respective first gap (see Fig. 7); wherein the plurality of first pixel definition layers are made of transparent materials; forming a second organic light-emitting unit (PX2), and the second organic light-emitting unit comprising a plurality of second pixel definition layers (260), a plurality of red (paragraph 43) pixel light-emitting layers (240), a plurality of green (paragraph 43) pixel light- emitting layers (240), and a second gap defined between any two adjacent ones of the second pixel definition layers (see Fig. 8), wherein the red pixel light-emitting layers and the green pixel light-emitting layers are filled in the second gaps and are arranged alternately and spaced apart from each other in a direction along which the first pixel definition layers and the blue pixel light-emitting layers are arranged (see Fig. 8); wherein the second organic light-emitting unit further comprises a plurality of second anode layers (241) and a second cathode layer (242), each second anode layer is disposed on a side of a respective red pixel light-emitting layer or green pixel light-emitting layer away from the first organic light-emitting unit (see Fig. 3), and the second cathode layer is disposed at least on a side of the red pixel light-emitting layers and the green pixel light-emitting layers adjacent to the first organic light- emitting unit (see Fig. 3); and attaching the first organic light-emitting unit to the second organic light-emitting unit such that the first organic light-emitting unit and the second organic light-emitting unit are staggered (see Fig. 3), so that the first organic light-emitting unit and the second organic light-emitting unit are disposed in a stacked arrangement (see Fig. 3); wherein each of the red pixel light-emitting layers comprises a first portion (240), each of the green pixel light-emitting layers comprises a third portion (240), the first portion and the third portion are disposed corresponding to the first pixel definition layers (see Fig. 3), and so that light emitted by the first portions and the third portions exits through the first pixel definition layers along a direction from the second organic light-emitting unit to the first organic light-emitting unit (see Fig. 3), and light emitted by the second portions and the fourth portions exits through the transparent anode layers along a direction from the first organic light-emitting unit to the second organic light-emitting unit (see Fig. 3)”.
Kim does not specifically teach “wherein each of the red pixel light-emitting layers comprises a first portion and a second portion adjoining each other, and each of the green pixel light- emitting layers comprises a third portion and a fourth portion adjoining each other; the first portion and the third portion are disposed corresponding to the first pixel definition layers, and the second portion and the fourth portion are disposed corresponding to the blue pixel light-emitting layers”.
However, Hirakata teaches “wherein each of the red pixel light-emitting layers (501) comprises a first portion (508) and a second portion (507) adjoining each other (see Fig. 9a), and each of the green pixel light- emitting layers (500) comprises a third portion (505) and a fourth portion (504) adjoining each other (see Fig. 9a); the first portion and the third portion are disposed corresponding to the first pixel definition layers (see Fig. 9a), and the second portion and the fourth portion are disposed corresponding to the blue pixel light-emitting layers (see Fig. 9a)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the dual-sided display panel of Kim with the pixel arrangement taught by Hirakata in order to improve an image quality of the display (Hirakata abstract).
Kim in view of Hirakata does not explicitly teach “wherein each second anode layer comprises a reflective anode layer and a transparent anode layer adjoining each other, the first portions and the third portions are disposed corresponding to the reflective anode layers, and the second portions and the fourth portions are disposed corresponding to the transparent anode layers; wherein the transparent anode layers are made of transparent materials, and the reflective anode layers are made of non-transparent materials; and wherein light emitted by the first portions and the third portions exits through the first pixel definition layers along a direction from the second organic light-emitting unit to the first organic light-emitting unit, and light emitted by the second portions and the fourth portions exits through the transparent anode layers along a direction from the first organic light-emitting unit to the second organic light-emitting unit”.
However, Nimura teaches a dual sided display (1) wherein each second anode layer (243) comprises a reflective anode layer (243a, which includes 71; see paragraph 174) and a transparent anode layer (243b) adjoining each other, the first portions and the third portions are disposed corresponding to the reflective anode layers (see Fig. 4; only one sub-pixel is fully shown but one of ordinary skill would recognized that the third and fourth pixel portions are present in the next pixel over, which has exactly the same structure except for being a different color; see Fig. 1), and the second portions and the fourth portions are disposed corresponding to the transparent anode layers (see Fig. 4); wherein the transparent anode layers are made of transparent materials (paragraph 132), and the reflective anode layers (71) are made of non-transparent materials (paragraph 133); and wherein light emitted by the first portions and the third portions exits through the first pixel definition layers along a direction from the second organic light-emitting unit to the first organic light-emitting unit (see Fig. 4), and light emitted by the second portions and the fourth portions exits through the transparent anode layers along a direction from the first organic light-emitting unit to the second organic light-emitting unit (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 further modify the dual-sided display panel of Kim by using reflective and transparent anodes as taught by Nimura in order to independently display different images on the two sides of the display (Nimura paragraph 12).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Hirakata and Nimura as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lu (US 2003/0222576 A1).
With respect to claim 5: Kim in view of Hirakata and Nimura teaches “the dual-sided display panel of claim 1 (see above)”.
Kim does not specifically teach “further comprising a conversion layer disposed on a side of the transparent anode layer away from the first organic light-emitting unit and provided corresponding to the transparent anode layer”.
However, Lu teaches “further comprising a conversion layer (330) disposed on a side of the transparent anode layer (344) away from the first organic light-emitting unit (340) and provided corresponding to the transparent anode layer (see Fig. 3)”.
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 dual-sided display panel of Kim with the conversion layer of Lu in order to provide a full color OLED device to harmonize the luminescent efficiency of the pixels of the colors, reduce difference in luminescent efficiency between various colors, improve luminescent efficiency, enhance color resolution, and be applicable to large-sized displays (Lu paragraph 10).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Hirakata and Nimura as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ghosh et al. (US 2021/0066407 A1).
With respect to claim 10: Kim in view of Hirakata teaches “the dual-sided display panel of claim 1 (see above)”.
Kim does not specifically teach “wherein each of the blue pixel light-emitting layer, the red pixel light-emitting layer, and the green pixel light-emitting layer has a length between 20 microns (µm) and 25 µm”.
However, Ghosh teaches a display panel “wherein each of the blue pixel light-emitting layer, the red pixel light-emitting layer, and the green pixel light-emitting layer has a length between 20 microns (µm) and 25 µm (paragraph 18)”.
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 dual-sided display panel of Kim with the small pixel sizes taught by Ghosh in order to provide high resolution (Ghosh paragraph 3).
Claims 11-13, 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Hirakata, Ghosh, Nimura and Yan (US 2017/0012230 A1).
With respect to claim 11: Kim teaches “a dual-sided display panel (10), comprising: a first organic light-emitting unit (PX1) and a second organic light-emitting unit (PX2) disposed in a stacked arrangement (see Fig. 3); wherein the first organic light-emitting unit comprises a plurality of first pixel definition layers (160) and a plurality of blue (paragraph 41) pixel light-emitting layers (140), a first gap is defined between any two adjacent ones of the first pixel definition layers (see Fig. 7), with each of the blue pixel light-emitting layers filled in a respective one of the first gaps (see Fig. 7); wherein the second organic light-emitting unit comprises a plurality of second pixel definition layers (260), a plurality of red (paragraph 43) pixel light-emitting layers (240), and a plurality of green (paragraph 43) pixel light-emitting layers (240), a second gap is defined between adjacent ones of the second pixel definition layers (see Fig. 8), and the red pixel light-emitting layers and the green pixel light-emitting layers are filled in the second gaps (see Fig. 8) and are arranged alternately and spaced apart from each other in a direction along which the first pixel definition layers and the blue pixel light- emitting layers are arranged (see Fig. 3), the first portion is configured to emit red light through a corresponding one of the first pixel definition layers (see Fig. 3), the third portion is configured to emit green light through a corresponding one of the first pixel definition layers (see Fig. 3); and wherein each of the first pixel definition layer and the second pixel definition layer is made of colorless polyimide (paragraphs 74, 64), wherein the second organic light-emitting unit further comprises a plurality of second anode layers (241) and a second cathode layer (242), each second anode layer is disposed on a side of a respective red pixel light-emitting layer or green pixel light-emitting layer away from the first organic light-emitting unit (see Fig. 3), and the second cathode layer is disposed at least on a side of the red pixel light-emitting layers and the green pixel light-emitting layers adjacent to the first organic light-emitting unit (see Fig. 3)”.
Kim does not specifically teach “wherein each of the red pixel light-emitting layers comprises a first portion and a second portion adjoining each other, each of the green pixel light-emitting layers comprises a third portion and a fourth portion adjoining each other, the first portion and the third portion are disposed corresponding to the first pixel definition layers, and the second portion and the fourth portion are disposed corresponding to the blue pixel light-emitting layers”.
However, Hirakata teaches “wherein each of the red pixel light-emitting layers (501) comprises a first portion (508) and a second portion (507) adjoining each other (see Fig. 9a), each of the green pixel light-emitting layers (500) comprises a third portion (505) and a fourth portion (504) adjoining each other (see Fig. 9a), the first portion and the third portion are disposed corresponding to the first pixel definition layers (unlabeled layer surrounding 502; see Figs. 9a, 9c), and the second portion and the fourth portion are disposed corresponding to the blue pixel light-emitting layers (502)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the dual-sided display panel of Kim with the pixel arrangement taught by Hirakata in order to improve an image quality of the display (Hirakata abstract).
Kim does not specifically teach “wherein each of the blue pixel light-emitting layer, the red pixel light-emitting layer, and the green pixel light-emitting layer has a length between 20 microns (µm) and 25 µm”.
However, Ghosh teaches a display panel “wherein each of the blue pixel light-emitting layer, the red pixel light-emitting layer, and the green pixel light-emitting layer has a length between 20 microns (µm) and 25 µm (paragraph 18)”.
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 dual-sided display panel of Kim with the small pixel sizes taught by Ghosh in order to provide high resolution (Ghosh paragraph 3).
Kim does not specifically teach “wherein a length of the first portion is equal to half of a length of a corresponding one of the plurality of blue pixel light-emitting layers, and a length of the third portion is equal to half of a length of a corresponding one of the plurality of blue pixel light- emitting layers”.
However, Yan teaches “wherein a length of the first portion (300) is equal to half of a length (length of 6) of a corresponding one of the plurality of blue pixel light-emitting layers (6), and a length of the third portion (200) is equal to half of a length (length of 5) of a corresponding one of the plurality of blue pixel light- emitting layers (5)”.
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 dual-sided display panel of Kim by adjusting the lengths of the first and third portions to be half the lengths of their respective blue light emitting layers as taught by Yan in order to obtain twice the resolution which would otherwise be possible with a given manufacturing process (Yan paragraph 67).
Kim in view of Hirakata does not explicitly teach “wherein each second anode layer comprises a reflective anode layer and a transparent anode layer adjoining each other, the first portions and the third portions are disposed corresponding to the reflective anode layers, and the second portions and the fourth portions are disposed corresponding to the transparent anode layers; wherein the transparent anode layers are made of transparent materials, and the reflective anode layers are made of non-transparent materials; and wherein light emitted by the first portions and the third portions exits through the first pixel definition layers along a direction from the second organic light-emitting unit to the first organic light-emitting unit, and light emitted by the second portions and the fourth portions exits through the transparent anode layers along a direction from the first organic light-emitting unit to the second organic light-emitting unit”.
However, Nimura teaches a dual sided display (1) wherein each second anode layer (243) comprises a reflective anode layer (243a, which includes 71; see paragraph 174) and a transparent anode layer (243b) adjoining each other, the first portions and the third portions are disposed corresponding to the reflective anode layers (see Fig. 4; only one sub-pixel is fully shown but one of ordinary skill would recognized that the third and fourth pixel portions are present in the next pixel over, which has exactly the same structure except for being a different color; see Fig. 1), and the second portions and the fourth portions are disposed corresponding to the transparent anode layers (see Fig. 4); wherein the transparent anode layers are made of transparent materials (paragraph 132), and the reflective anode layers (71) are made of non-transparent materials (paragraph 133); and wherein light emitted by the first portions and the third portions exits through the first pixel definition layers along a direction from the second organic light-emitting unit to the first organic light-emitting unit (see Fig. 4), and light emitted by the second portions and the fourth portions exits through the transparent anode layers along a direction from the first organic light-emitting unit to the second organic light-emitting unit (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 further modify the dual-sided display panel of Kim by using reflective and transparent anodes as taught by Nimura in order to independently display different images on the two sides of the display (Nimura paragraph 12).
With respect to claim 12: Kim in view of Hirakata, Ghosh, Nimura, and Yan teaches “The dual-sided display panel of claim 11 (see above)”.
Kim teaches “wherein the first organic light- emitting unit further comprises a first anode layer (141) and a first cathode layer (143), the first anode layer is disposed on a side of the blue pixel light-emitting layer away from the second organic light-emitting unit (see Fig. 3), and the first cathode layer is disposed on a side of the blue pixel light-emitting layer adjacent to the second organic light-emitting unit (see Fig. 3)”.
With respect to claim 13: Kim in view of Hirakata, Ghosh, Nimura and Yan teaches “The dual-sided display panel of claim 12 (see above)”.
Kim does not specifically teach “a side of the second cathode layer adjacent to the first organic light-emitting unit overlaps a side of the first cathode layer adjacent to the second organic light-emitting unit”.
However, Hirakata teaches “a side of the second cathode layer (607) adjacent to the first organic light-emitting unit (613) overlaps (see Fig. 10a) a side of the first cathode layer (612) adjacent to the second organic light-emitting unit (609)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the dual-sided display panel of Kim with the pixel arrangement taught by Hirakata in order to improve an image quality of the display (Hirakata abstract).
With respect to claim 16: Kim in view of Hirakata, Ghosh, Nimura and Yan teaches “The dual-sided display panel of claim 13 (see above)”.
Kim does not specifically teach “wherein the first organic light- emitting unit further comprises a first encapsulation layer disposed on a side of the first cathode layer away from the first anode layer, the second organic light-emitting unit further comprises a second encapsulation layer disposed on a side of the second cathode layer away from the second anode layer”.
However, Hirakata teaches “wherein the first organic light- emitting unit further comprises a first encapsulation layer (1642) disposed on a side of the first cathode layer away from the first anode layer (see Fig. 24), the second organic light-emitting unit further comprises a second encapsulation layer (1643) disposed on a side of the second cathode layer away from the second anode layer (see Fig. 24)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the dual-sided display panel of Kim with the encapsulation layers of Hirakata in order to protect the light-emitting units (Hirakata paragraphs 340, 344)
With respect to claim 17: Kim in view of Hirakata, Ghosh, Nimura, and Yan teaches “The dual-sided display panel of claim 16 (see above)”.
Hirakata teaches “further comprising an adhesion layer (1607) disposed between the first encapsulation layer and the second encapsulation layer (see Fig. 24)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the dual-sided display panel of Kim with the adhesion layer of Hirakata in order to attach the light emitting units to each other (Hirakata paragraph 345).
With respect to claim 18: Kim in view of Hirakata, Ghosh, Nomura and Yan teaches “The dual-sided display panel of claim 11 (see above)”.
Kim does not specifically teach “wherein the reflective anode layer has a length less than or equal to a length of the transparent anode layer”.
Nimura teaches “wherein the reflective anode layer has a length less than or equal to a length of the transparent anode layer (see Fig. 3)”.
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 dual-sided display panel of Kim by making the transparent and reflective anode layers the same length in light of the precedent that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)). In the present case one would reasonably expect two identically sized anode layers to function the same, except for emitting in opposite directions, and nothing in the application indicates otherwise.
With respect to claim 19: Kim in view of Hirakata, Ghosh, Nimura and Yan teaches “The dual-sided display panel of claim 11 (see above)”.
Kim does not specifically teach “wherein a thickness of the blue pixel light-emitting layer is between 250 angstroms and 1000 angstroms, a thickness of the red pixel light-emitting layer is between 500 angstroms and 2000 angstroms, and a thickness of the green pixel light- emitting layer is between 400 angstroms and 1000 angstroms”.
Nimura teaches “wherein a thickness of the blue pixel light-emitting layer is between 250 angstroms and 1000 angstroms, a thickness of the red pixel light-emitting layer is between 500 angstroms and 2000 angstroms, and a thickness of the green pixel light- emitting layer is between 400 angstroms and 1000 angstroms (paragraph 141)”.
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 dual-sided display panel of Kim by forming the light emitting layers at the thickness of about 1000 angstroms as taught by Nimura due to the art recognized suitability of organic layers of this thickness for acting as the light emitting layers of an OLED (Nimura paragraph 141).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Hirakata, Ghosh, Yan and Nimura as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Lu.
With respect to claim 15: Kim in view of Hirakata, Ghosh, Yan, and Nimura teaches “the dual-sided display panel of claim 11 (see above)”.
Kim does not specifically teach “further comprising a conversion layer disposed on a side of the transparent anode layer away from the first organic light-emitting unit and provided corresponding to the transparent anode layer”.
However, Lu teaches “further comprising a conversion layer (330) disposed on a side of the transparent anode layer (344) away from the first organic light-emitting unit (340) and provided corresponding to the transparent anode layer (see Fig. 3)”.
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 dual-sided display panel of Kim with the conversion layer of Lu in order to provide a full color OLED device to harmonize the luminescent efficiency of the pixels of the colors, reduce difference in luminescent efficiency between various colors, improve luminescent efficiency, enhance color resolution, and be applicable to large-sized displays (Lu paragraph 10).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Hirakata and Nimura as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yan.
With respect to claim 21: Kim in view of Hirataka and Nimura teaches “The dual-sided display panel of claim 1 (see above)”.
Kim further teaches “wherein a length of each first portion defines an opening of a respective red pixel light-emitting layer (see Fig. 3), and a length of each third portion defines an opening of a respective green pixel light-emitting layer (see Fig. 3)”.
Kim does not specifically teach “wherein a length of each reflective anode layer is equal to a length of a respective transparent anode layer”.
Nimura teaches “wherein the reflective anode layer has a length less than or equal to a length of the transparent anode layer (see Fig. 3)”.
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 dual-sided display panel of Kim by making the transparent and reflective anode layers the same length in light of the precedent that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)). In the present case one would reasonably expect two identically sized anode layers to function the same, except for emitting in opposite directions, and nothing in the application indicates otherwise.
Kim does not specifically teach “wherein an opening of each blue pixel light-emitting layer is twice the opening of each of the red pixel light-emitting layers”.
However, Yan teaches a display device where the blue light emitting layers (5, 6) are twice the size of the red light emitting layers (7).
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 dual-sided display panel of Kim by making the blue light emitting layers twice as big as the red light emitting layers as taught by Yan so that half of the blue layer can be used as pump light for color conversion in green or red pixels and half used to provide blue pixels (Yan paragraph 66).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cok (US 20040262615 A1), which teaches an OLED display.
Sung et al. (US 20090066236 A1), which teaches an organic light emitting 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
/ABDULMAJEED AZIZ/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875