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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-9 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.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant asserts (Applicant’s Remarks pages 4-5) that the disclosures of US 20170123542 A1 (Xie et al) in view of US 20170330920 A1 (Tanaka et al) do not teach the newly-claimed limitation “the light-receiving device comprises a photoelectric conversion layer over and in contact with the first common layer”. The Examiner agrees with Applicant’s analysis. However, after further search and consideration, the Examiner found the disclosure of US 20130075761 A1 (Akiyama) to present information which renders the newly-claimed limitations obvious. See rejection section below for further detail.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent publications US 20170123542 A1 (Xie et al hereinafter Xie) in view of US 20170330920 A1 (Tanaka et al hereinafter Tanaka) and US 20130075761 A1 (Akiyama).
Regarding claim 1, Xie discloses a display device (the display device illustrated in FIG. 5 ¶ [0049]; FIG. 5 does not include labels for every element, but the same features are labeled in FIG. 3, the only difference being their shapes and relative positions ¶ [0074]) comprising a first sub-pixel (the red sub-pixel ¶ [0074]), a second sub-pixel (the infrared sub-pixel ¶ [0074]), and a third sub-pixel (the infrared detection unit ¶ [0074]), wherein the first sub-pixel comprises a first light-emitting device (FIG. 5, red OLED 112/R ¶ [0073]), wherein the second sub-pixel comprises a second light-emitting device (FIG. 5, infrared OLED 142/IR ¶ [0073]), wherein the third sub-pixel comprises a light-receiving device (FIG. 5, infrared detector 143/IR SENSOR ¶ [0073]), wherein the first light-emitting device is configured to emit visible light (red OLED 112/R emits red light ¶ [0073]), wherein the second light-emitting device is configured to emit near-infrared light (infrared OLED 142/IR emits near-infrared light ¶ [0073]), wherein the light-receiving device is configured to detect the near-infrared light (infrared detector 143/IR SENSOR detects near infrared light ¶ [0073]).
Xie does not disclose that each of the first light-emitting device, the second light-emitting device, and the light-receiving device comprises a first common layer, a second common layer over the first common layer, and a common electrode over the second common layer, and wherein the first light-emitting device comprises a first light-emitting layer over and in contact with the first common layer, the second light emitting device comprises a second light-emitting layer over and in contact with the first common layer, and the light-receiving device comprises a photoelectric conversion layer over and in contact with the first common layer, the configuration of the light emitting layers not being of particular importance to the disclosure of the invention of Xie.
However, Tanaka discloses a display device (the display device of FIGS. 5-6 ¶ [0014-0015]) wherein each of a first light-emitting device (FIG. 5, red light emitting pixel 110aR ¶ [0067]), a second light-emitting device (FIG. 5, blue light emitting pixel 110aB ¶ [0067]), and a light-receiving device (FIG. 5, light receiving pixel 110b ¶ [0067]) comprises a first common layer (FIG. 6, first organic layer 156 ¶ [0066]), a second common layer (FIG. 6, third organic layer 160 is above layer 156 ¶ [0066]) over the first common layer, and a common electrode (FIG. 6, opposing electrode 162/second electrode 164 is above layer 160 ¶ [0066, 0078-0079]) over the second common layer, the first light-emitting device comprises a first light-emitting layer (FIG. 6, second organic layer 158 in the red light emitting pixel 110aR ¶ [0074]) over and in contact with the first common layer, the second light emitting device comprises a second light-emitting layer (FIG. 6, second organic layer 158 in the blue light emitting pixel 110aB ¶ [0074]) over and in contact with the first common layer. Tanaka also discloses that the common layers may be hole injection/transport and electron injection/transport layers (¶ [0073-0075]), and that their HOMO and LUMO gaps ought to be as large as possible to avoid a drop in signal strength of the light receiver (¶ [0083]).
Xie and Tanaka both pertain to the field of display devices which include light detecting elements, placing them in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the device of Xie in view of Tanaka such that each of the first light-emitting device, the second light-emitting device, and the light-receiving device comprises a first common layer, a second common layer over the first common layer, and a common electrode over the second common layer, the first light-emitting device comprises a first light-emitting layer over and in contact with the first common layer, the second light emitting device comprises a second light-emitting layer over and in contact with the first common layer, in order to provide hole/electron injection/transport layers with HOMO/LUMO parameters which avoided a drop in signal strength for the light receiver.
Xie in view of Tanaka does not disclose that the light-receiving device comprises a photoelectric conversion layer over and in contact with the first common layer.
However, Akiyama discloses a device comprising a photoelectric conversion layer (FIG. 3, photoelectric conversion layer 305 ¶ [0050]) over and in contact with a first common layer (FIG. 3, hole injection layer 203/303, formed of a common PEDOT:PSS material ¶ [0050, 0082]), and the device further comprises a second common layer (FIG. 3, electron injection layer 206/306 ¶ [0052]), a common electrode (FIG. 3, common electrode 207/307 ¶ [0052]), and a light emitting device portion (FIG. 3, light emitting layer 205 ¶ [0051]). Akiyama also teaches that including the photoelectric conversion layer over and in contact with the first common layer can reduce a dark current in the photodetector, and suggests a range of thicknesses to achieve this reduced dark current while also balancing against noise from stray light (¶ [0081]).
Xie, Tanaka, and Akiyama all pertain to semiconductor devices having both light-emitting and light-receiving functionality, placing them in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the device of Xie in view of Tanaka further in view of Akiyama such that the light-receiving device comprises a photoelectric conversion layer over and in contact with the first common layer, in order to achieve a reduced dark current in the device while balancing against noise from stray light as taught by Akiyama.
Regarding claim 2, Xie in view of Tanaka and Akiyama discloses the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above, and they further disclose that the first light-emitting device is configured to emit light of any of red, green, blue, or white (Xie, red OLED 112/R emits red light ¶ [0073]).
Regarding claim 4, Xie in view of Tanaka and Akiyama discloses the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above, and they further disclose that the first light-emitting device, the second light-emitting device, and the light-receiving device comprise a structure of a diode (Xie FIGS. 3 and 5, red OLED 112/R, infrared OLED 142/IR, and infrared detector 143/IR SENSOR have diode structures ¶ [0072-0073]), and a cathode of the first light-emitting device, a cathode of the second light-emitting device, and an anode of the light-receiving device are electrically connected to one another (Tanaka FIG. 6, opposing electrode 162/second electrode 164 are electrically connected ¶ [0078-0079], and first electrode 152 is an anode electrically connected to electrode 164 to form the light-receiving device ¶ [0069, 0080]).
Regarding claim 5, Xie in view of Tanaka and Akiyama discloses the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above, and they further disclose that the first light-emitting device, the second light-emitting device, and the light-receiving device comprise a structure of a diode (Xie FIGS. 3 and 5, red OLED 112/R, infrared OLED 142/IR, and infrared detector 143/IR SENSOR have diode structures ¶ [0072-0073]), and a cathode of the first light-emitting device, a cathode of the second light-emitting device, and a cathode of the light-receiving device are electrically connected to one another (Tanaka FIG. 6, opposing electrode 162/second electrode 164 are electrically connected ¶ [0078-0079]).
Regarding claim 9, Xie in view of Tanaka and Akiyama discloses the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above, and they further disclose that a length of the third sub-pixel in a direction (Xie FIG. 5, the length of IR SENSOR along the horizontal direction) is larger than each of a width of the first sub-pixel and a width of the second sub-pixel in the direction (FIG. 5, the widths of red OLED 112/R and infrared OLED 142/IR along the horizontal direction are less than the length of IR SENSOR along the horizontal direction).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie in view of Tanaka and Akiyama as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US patent publication US 20210151524 A1 (Tang et al hereinafter Tang).
Xie in view of Tanaka and Akiyama discloses the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above, but they do not further disclose that it comprises an organic compound in the photoelectric conversion layer. Xie does teach that the photoelectric conversion layer may be formed of silicon and germanium (¶ [0072]). However, Akiyama also suggests that the photoelectric conversion layer may comprise an organic semiconductor (¶ [0050]).
Further, Tang discloses a light-receiving device (FIG. 3, first photosensitive device 140 which may be a PIN photodiode ¶ [0075]) wherein the light receiving device (being a photodiode) may interchangeably comprise inorganic germanium-base or silica-base materials, or an organic compound (¶ [0075]).
Xie, Tanaka, Akiyama, and Tang all pertain to the field of display devices having both light-emitting and light-receiving properties. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the device of Xie in view of Tanaka further in view of Tang such that the light-receiving device comprises an organic compound in the photoelectric conversion layer, since Tang has demonstrated that organic compounds are suitable materials for such a purpose, and one would do so based on materials cost and/or desired performance characteristics.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie in view of Tanaka and Akiyama as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US patent publication US 20150331508 A1 (Nho et al hereinafter Nho).
Xie in view of Tanaka and Akiyama disclose the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above, but they do not further disclose a visible-light cut-off filter is provided in a position overlapping with the light-receiving device.
However, Nho discloses a display device (display and touch sensor panel ¶ [0004]) comprising a plurality of light-emitting devices (FIG. 10A, pixels defined in OLED stack 1050 and pixel location 1054, ¶ [0100]) and a light-receiving device (FIG. 10A, near infrared detector 1011 in touch location 1056, ¶ [0102]), wherein a visible-light cut-off filter (FIG. 10A, near infrared color filter N-IR CF 1027 disposed in touch location 1056, ¶ [0102]) is provided in a position overlapping with the light-receiving device (FIG. 10A, N-IR CF overlaps NIR detector 1011). A person of ordinary skill in the art would also find that the inclusion of a visible-light cut-off filter would reduce the amount of light from the visible range incident on the NIR detector, improving its effectiveness by eliminating noise.
Xie, Tanaka, Akiyama, and Nho all pertain to the field of display devices having both light-emitting and light-receiving properties. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the device of Xie in view of Tanaka and Akiyama further in view of Nho such that a visible-light cut-off filter is provided in a position overlapping with the light-receiving device, in order to improve the effectiveness of the light-receiving device by eliminating noise.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie in view of Tanaka and Akiyama as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20200083302 A1 (Park et al hereinafter Park).
Xie in view of Tanaka and Akiyama discloses the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above, and they further disclose that each of the first to third sub-pixel comprises a transistor (Xie, red OLED 112/R and infrared OLED 142/IR comprise a first transistor, infrared detector 143/IR SENSOR comprises a third transistor ¶ [0056-0057, 0084]), but they do not explicitly disclose that the transistor comprises a metal oxide in a channel formation region, wherein the metal oxide comprises In, Zn, and M, and wherein M is Al, Ti, Ga, Ge, Sn, Y, Zr, La, Ce, Nd, or Hf.
However, Park discloses a transistor for an OLED pixel circuit (FIG. 7A, OLED driving transistor 210 of visible-light emitting OLED 310, ¶ [0170-0173]), wherein the transistor comprises a metal oxide in a channel formation region, and the metal oxide comprises In, Zn, and one of Ga, Sn, or Hf (an XIZO layer wherein X can be one of Ga, Sn, or Hf in semiconductor layer 216, ¶ [0173]).
Xie, Tanaka, Akiyama, and Park all pertain to the field of display devices having both light-emitting and light-receiving properties. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the device of Xie in view of Tanaka and Akiyama further in view of Park such that the transistor comprises a metal oxide in a channel formation region, wherein the metal oxide comprises In, Zn, and M, and wherein M is Al, Ti, Ga, Ge, Sn, Y, Zr, La, Ce, Nd, or Hf (the XIZO layer of Park), in order to provide a channel forming region having suitable electrical properties for the transistors, and one would do so based on materials cost and/or desired performance characteristics.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie in view of Tanaka and Akiyama as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US patent publication US 20180348936 A1 (He).
Xie in view of Tanaka discloses the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above, but does not disclose an electronic device comprising the display device according to claim 1, and a camera.
However, He discloses a display device (FIG. 6, device 600, ¶ [0074]) comprising a plurality of light-emitting devices (FIG. 3A, OLED sub-pixels 11, ¶ [0030]) and a plurality of light-receiving devices (FIG. 3A, photoelectric detectors, ¶ [0030]), and further comprising a camera (FIG. 6, multimedia component 608 may be a camera, ¶ [0079]).
Xie, Tanaka, Akiyama, and He all pertain to the field of display devices having both light-emitting and light-receiving properties. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the device of Xie in view of Tanaka and Akiyama further in view of He to make an electronic device comprising the display device according to claim 1, and a camera, in order to add camera-functionality to the device of Park.
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 EDWARD RHETT CHEEK whose telephone number is (571)272-3461. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30am - 5pm, Every other Friday 8:30am - 5pm.
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, Steven Gauthier can be reached at 571-270-0373. 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.
/E.R.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2813
/JOSEPH C. NICELY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2813