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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/17/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
In view of Applicant’s amendments, the prior 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
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 1-2, 4-6, 10-11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae et al. (US 2018/0083088), Song et al. (US 2020/0161580), referred to as Song1 and Song et al. (US 2015/0311462), referred to as Song2, Mizuki et al. (US 2013/0214258), Shiobara et al. (US 2010/0090592), and Nishimura et al. (US 2015/0303391), all of record, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2009/0200544) referred to as Lee544, and Kim (US 2018/0151648) both newly cited.
(Re Claim 1) Bae teaches a light emitting display device comprising:
a plurality of first electrodes (each 710 within each pixel PX; Fig. 5-6, ¶¶83, 98) and a second electrode (730; Fig. 6, ¶¶83, 98) facing each other over a substrate (110; Fig. 1 and 6, ¶60); and
the substrate comprises a display area (DA; Fig. 1) and a non-display area (NDA; Fig. 1) the display area.
Bae does not explicitly teach a first stack emitting a first light and disposed between the plurality of first electrodes and a first charge generation layer; and
a second stack including first to third emission layers stacked on one another and disposed between the first charge generation layer and the second electrode,
wherein the first to third emission layers comprise phosphorescent dopants and emit lights such that wavelengths of the lights are gradually shortened in a direction moving away from the first stack,
wherein the phosphorescent dopants of the first to third emission layers have a difference in triplet level required for excitation,
wherein the first to third emission layers are continuously disposed over an entirety of a display area of the substrate to overlap all of the plurality of first electrodes and continuously extend from the display area to a portion of the non-display area around the display area,
wherein a thickness of the third emission layer is smaller than each of a thickness of the first emission layer and a thickness of the second emission layer, and
wherein the thickness of the third emission layer is 20% to 30% of a total thickness of the first to third emission layers.
Song1 teaches a light emitting display device comprising:a first electrode (320; Fig. 5) and a second electrode (346; Fig. 5) facing each other over a substrate (¶41);a first stack (ST1; Fig. 5) emitting a first light (Blue; Fig. 5, ¶95) and disposed between the first electrode and a first charge generation layer (CGL1; Fig. 5); anda second stack (ST2; Fig. 5) including first to third emission layers (336, 338, and 340 are the first, second, and third emission layers, respectively; Fig. 5) stacked on one another and disposed between the first charge generation layer and the second electrode, whereinthe first to third emission layers comprise phosphorescent dopants (RD, YGD, and GD respectively; Fig. 5, ¶¶103-104) and emit lights such that wavelengths of the lights are gradually shortened in a direction moving away from the first stack (Red to yellow-green to green; ¶97).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to form the emission material between the first and second electrode of Bae using the emission materials (ST1+CGL1+ST2) between the first and second electrode of Song1 to form pixels emitting white light in the display of Bae, as this predictably results in OLEDs emitting white light as allowed by Bae (Bae: “Alternatively, the OLEDs of all of the pixels PX may emit light of white”; ¶92). See Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 357 F.3d 1270, 69 USPQ2d 1686 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Therefore, layer 720 of Bae is replaced with the stack ST1+CGL1+ST2 of Song1, and modified Bae describes the device of Bae incorporating the stack of Song1.
Mizuki teaches a light emitting device using a host material doped with phosphorescent dopants emitting light in a blue to red range (“more preferably in a range of 490 nm to 650 nm”; ¶166).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to use phosphorescent dopants emitting red, yellow-green, and green light, respectively corresponding to RD, YGD, and GD dopants, in the host materials of the first to third emission layers of modified Bae, as taught by Mizuki, as phosphorescent dopants are suitable additives to the first to third emission layers (Song1: ¶¶103, 106), and predictably emit the appropriately colored light. See also Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 357 F.3d 1270, 69 USPQ2d 1686 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
As the phosphorescent dopants corresponding to RD, YGD, and GD dopants of modified Bae emit light of different colors, these phosphorescent dopants have a difference in triplet level required for excitation (Shiobara: “When light of a certain color is to be emitted, the lowest excited triplet state T1 of the phosphorescent light emitting material must be at an energy level corresponding to the color.”; ¶11), and the phosphorescent dopants of the first to third emission layers are independently different from each other (the dopants emit different colors; Song1: Fig. 5, ¶¶103-104).
Song1 teaches a range of thicknesses for each of the first (t1 may be 50-150Å), second (t2 may be 100-250Å) and third (t3 may be 100-250Å) emission layers (see ¶111). Though these ranges are presented with a constraint (¶¶110, 112), selecting values meeting this constraint is described as producing device maximizing emission efficiency or improving color reproducibility (¶112), not that the constraint itself is the only way to produce a working device.
See Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361, 47 USPQ2d 1516, 1522-23 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (The prior art was held to anticipate the claims even though it taught away from the claimed invention. "The fact that a modem with a single carrier data signal is shown to be less than optimal does not vitiate the fact that it is disclosed.").
Furthermore, according to Song2, the thickness of individual emission layers may be arbitrarily set while investigating device performance (e.g., “thicknesses of the EMLs…may be arbitrarily set for an experiment of the present invention”; ¶127).
As changing the thickness of emission layers changes the chromaticity, layer lifespan, and a driving voltage (Nishimura: ¶6), and individual layers may be altered (Song2: e.g., ¶127), the claimed thickness relationships would have been obvious to optimize and ascertainable through routine experimentation, through exploring the range of thickness values given in Song1 (¶111), as a consequence of balancing desired output color, device lifespan, and a driving voltage. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
From the thickness range of Song1 and the discussion above, values for the thickness of the first, second, and third emission layers are respectively t1=110Å, t2=150Å, and t3=100Å, resulting in Song1 teaching the thickness of the first to third emission layers is between 350Å and 450Å (e.g. 360Å if t1 is 110Å, t2 is 150Å and t3 is 100Å), and whereinthe thickness of the third emission layer is 20% to 30% of the total thickness of the first to third emission layers (27.8%).
Modified Bae has yet to explicitly teach a light emitting display device wherein the first to third emission layers are continuously disposed over an entirety of a display area of the substrate to overlap all of the plurality of first electrodes and continuously extend from the display area to a portion of a non-display area around from the display area.
Lee544 teaches forming emission layers (¶63) that are disposed over an entirety of a display area (Fig. 2-3) to overlap all of a plurality of first electrodes (192R, 192G, 192B, and 192W), and also that depositing over an entire display area may be achieved through use of an open mask (¶12).
A PHOSITA would find it obvious to form the emission layers such that they are continuously disposed over an entirety of the display area of the substrate of modified Bae to overlap all of the plurality of first electrodes, as taught by Lee544, as utilizing open mask deposition allows for easier deposition to form subpixels (Lee544: ¶¶11-12).
Kim teaches that utilizing a shadow mask deposition results in emission layers (520; Fig. 1-2) that continuously extend from a display area (AA; Fig. 1) to a portion of a non-display area (NA overlapping with 520; Fig. 1).
A PHOSITA would find it obvious that, in view of Kim, a natural consequence of utilizing a shadow mask deposition process, such as that taught by Lee544, will result in a portion of the non-display region also having the emission layers as a result of deposition shadow (Kim: ¶6).
The portion of the non-display region of modified Bae as claimed is then some amount of the non-display region that is near the top, bottom, left, and right of the display area in a plan view that overlaps with the emission layers of modified Bae, in view of Kim.
Therefore, modified Bae teaches the first to third emission layers are continuously disposed over an entirety of a display area of the substrate to overlap all of the plurality of first electrodes and continuously extend from the display area to a portion of a non-display area around from the display area.
(Re Claim 2) Modified Bae teaches the light emitting display device according to claim 1, wherein each of the first to third emission layers includes a phosphorescent emission layer (¶103), wherein the total thickness of the first to third emission layers is between 350Å and 450Å (e.g. 360Å if t1 is 110Å, t2 is 150Å and t3 is 100Å).
(Re Claim 4) Modified Bae teaches the light emitting display device according to claim 2, wherein the thickness of the first emission layer is 29.5% to 34.1% of the total thickness of the first to third emission layers (30.6%).
(Re Claim 5) Modified Bae teaches the light emitting display device according to claim 1, wherein the first emission layer emits a second light having an emission peak in a range from 590 nm to 650 nm (Song1: Red light; ¶97), whereinthe second emission layer emits a third light having an emission peak in a range from 540 nm to 590 nm (Song1: Yellow-green light; ¶97), whereinthe third emission layer emits a fourth light having an emission peak in a range from 510 nm to 560 nm (Song1: Green light; ¶97), and whereinthe fourth light has a wavelength longer than a wavelength of the first light (¶¶95,97).
(Re Claim 6) Modified Bae teaches the light emitting display device according to claim 1, whereinthe first light has an emission peak in a range from 430 nm to 490 nm (Song1: Blue light; ¶95), and wherein the first stack includes a fourth emission layer (Song1: 326; Fig. 5, ¶95) emitting the first light.
(Re Claim 10) Bae teaches a light emitting display device comprising:a substrate (110; Fig. 1 and 6, ¶60) comprising a plurality of subpixels (PX; Fig. 1 and 5; ¶83);
a plurality of first electrodes (each 710 within each pixel PX; Fig. 5-6, ¶¶83, 98) at the plurality of subpixels over the substrate;
a second electrode (730; Fig. 6, ¶¶83, 98) disposed over the plurality of subpixels to be opposite to the plurality of first electrodes; and
comprises a display area (DA; Fig. 1) including subpixels and a non-display area (NDA; Fig. 1) surrounding the display area.
Bae does not explicitly teach a light emitting display comprising:
a first stack disposed between the plurality of first electrodes and a first charge generation layer over the plurality of subpixels, the first stack emitting a first light; and
a second stack disposed between the first charge generation layer and the second electrode, the second stack including first to third emission layer stacked on one another,
wherein the first to third emission layers comprise phosphorescent dopants and emit lights such that wavelengths of the lights are gradually shortened in a direction moving away from the first stack,
wherein the phosphorescent dopants of the first to third emission layers have a difference in triplet level required for excitation,
wherein the first to third emission layers are continuously disposed over an entirety of a display area of the substrate to overlap all of the plurality of first electrodes and all of the plurality of subxpixels and continuously extend from the display are to a portion of a non-display area around the display area,
wherein a thickness of the third emission layer is smallest among thicknesses of the first to the third emission layers and a thickness of the second emission layer is largest among thicknesses of the first to the third emission layers.
Song 1 teaches a light emitting display device comprising: a first electrode (320; Fig. 5) at each of the plurality of subpixels over the substrate (¶41);a second electrode (346; Fig. 5) disposed over the plurality of subpixels to be opposite to the first electrode (¶41);a first stack (ST1; Fig. 5) disposed between the first electrode and a first charge generation layer (CGL1; Fig. 5) over the plurality of subpixels, the first stack emitting a first light (blue; ¶95); anda second stack (ST2; Fig. 5) disposed between the first charge generation layer and the second electrode, the second stack including first to third emission layers stacked on one another (336, 338, and 340 are the first, second, and third emission layers, respectively; Fig. 5), whereinthe first to third emission layers comprise phosphorescent dopants (RD, YGD, and GD respectively; Fig. 5, ¶¶103-104) independently different from each other and emit lights such that wavelengths of the lights are gradually shortened in a direction moving away from the first stack (Red to yellow-green to green; ¶97).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to form the emission material between the first and second electrode of Bae using the emission materials (ST1+CGL1+ST2) between the first and second electrode of Song1 to form pixels emitting white light in the display of Bae, as this predictably results in OLEDs emitting white light as allowed by Bae (Bae: “Alternatively, the OLEDs of all of the pixels PX may emit light of white”; ¶92). See Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 357 F.3d 1270, 69 USPQ2d 1686 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Therefore, layer 720 of Bae is replaced with the stack ST1+CGL1+ST2 of Song1, and modified Bae describes the device of Bae incorporating the stack of Song1.
Mizuki teaches a light emitting device using a host material doped with phosphorescent dopants emitting light in a blue to red range (“more preferably in a range of 490 nm to 650 nm”; ¶166).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to use phosphorescent dopants emitting red, yellow-green, and green light, respectively corresponding to RD, YGD, and GD dopants, in the host materials of the first to third emission layers of modified Bae, as taught by Mizuki, as phosphorescent dopants are suitable additives to the first to third emission layers (Song1: ¶¶103, 106), and predictably emit the appropriately colored light. See also Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 357 F.3d 1270, 69 USPQ2d 1686 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
As the phosphorescent dopants corresponding to RD, YGD, and GD dopants of modified Bae emit light of different colors, these phosphorescent dopants have a difference in triplet level required for excitation (Shiobara: “When light of a certain color is to be emitted, the lowest excited triplet state T1 of the phosphorescent light emitting material must be at an energy level corresponding to the color.”; ¶11), and the phosphorescent dopants of the first to third emission layers are independently different from each other (the dopants emit different colors; Song1: Fig. 5, ¶¶103-104).
Song1 teaches a range of thicknesses for each of the first (t1 = 50-150Å), second (t2 = 100-250Å) and third (t3 = 100-250Å) emission layers (see ¶111). Though these ranges are presented with a constraint (¶¶110, 112), selecting values meeting this constraint are described as producing devices maximizing emission efficiency or improving color reproducibility (¶112), not that the constraint itself is the only way to produce a working device.
Furthermore, according to Song2, the thickness of individual emission layers may be arbitrarily set while investigating device performance (e.g., “thicknesses of the EMLs…may be arbitrarily set for an experiment of the present invention”; ¶127).
As changing the thickness of emission layers changes the chromaticity, layer lifespan, and a driving voltage (Nishimura: ¶6), and individual layers may be altered (Song2: e.g., ¶127), the claimed thickness relationships would have been obvious to optimize and ascertainable through routine experimentation, through exploring the range of thickness values given in Song1 (¶111), as a consequence of balancing desired output color, device lifespan, and a driving voltage. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
From the thickness range of Song1 and the discussion above, values for the thickness of the first, second, and third emission layers are respectively t1=110Å, t2=150Å, and t3=100Å, resulting in Song1 teaching the thickness of the first to third emission layers is between 350Å and 450Å (e.g. 360Å if t1 is 110Å, t2 is 150Å and t3 is 100Å), and whereinthe thickness of the third emission layer is 20% to 30% of the total thickness of the first to third emission layers (27.8%).
Modified Bae has yet to explicitly teach a light emitting display device wherein the first to third emission layers are continuously disposed over an entirety of a display area of the substrate to overlap all of the plurality of first electrodes and all of the plurality of subpixels and continuously extend from the display area to a portion of a non-display area around from the display area
Lee544 teaches forming emission layers (¶63) that are disposed over an entirety of a display area (Fig. 2-3) to overlap all of a plurality of first electrodes (192R, 192G, 192B, and 192W), and also that depositing over an entire display area may be achieved through use of an open mask (¶12).
A PHOSITA would find it obvious to form the emission layers such that they are continuously disposed over an entirety of the display area of the substrate of modified Bae to overlap all of the plurality of first electrodes, as taught by Lee544, as utilizing open mask deposition allows for easier deposition to form subpixels (Lee544: ¶¶11-12).
Kim teaches that utilizing a shadow mask deposition results in emission layers (520; Fig. 1-2) that continuously extend from a display area (AA; Fig. 1) to a portion of a non-display area (NA overlapping with 520; Fig. 1).
A PHOSITA would find it obvious that, in view of Kim, a natural consequence of utilizing a shadow mask deposition process, such as that taught by Lee544, will result in a portion of the non-display region also having the emission layers as a result of deposition shadow (Kim: ¶6).
The portion of the non-display region of modified Bae as claimed is then some amount of the non-display region that is near the top, bottom, left, and right of the display area in a plan view that overlaps with the emission layers of modified Bae, in view of Kim.
Therefore, modified Bae teaches the first to third emission layers are continuously disposed over an entirety of a display area of the substrate to overlap all of the plurality of first electrodes and continuously extend from the display area to a portion of a non-display area around from the display area.
(Re Claim 11) Modified Bae teaches the light emitting display device according to claim 10, wherein each of the first to third emission layers includes a phosphorescent emission layer (Song1: ¶103), wherein a total thickness of the first to third emission layers is 350Å to 450Å (e.g. 360Å, see claim 10 discussed above), and wherein the thickness of the third emission layer is 20% to 30% of the total thickness of the first to third emission layers (27.8%).
(Re Claim 13) Modified Bae teaches the light emitting display device according to claim 11, wherein the thickness of the first emission layer is 29.5% to 34.1% of the total thickness of the first to third emission layers (30.6%).
(Re Claim 14) Modified Bae teaches the light emitting display device according to claim 10, wherein the first emission layer emits a second light having an emission peak in a range from 590 nm to 650 nm (Song1: Red light; ¶97), whereinthe second emission layer emits a third light having an emission peak in a range from 540 nm to 590 nm (Song1: Yellow-green light; ¶97), whereinthe third emission layer emits a fourth light having an emission peak in a range from 510 nm to 560 nm (Song1: Green light; ¶97), and whereinthe fourth light has a wavelength longer than a wavelength of the first light (¶¶95,97).
(Re Claim 15) Modified Bae teaches the light emitting display device according to claim 10, whereinthe first light has an emission peak in a range from 430 nm to 490 nm (Song1: Blue light; ¶95), and wherein the first stack includes a fourth emission layer (Song1: 326; Fig. 5, ¶95) emitting the first light.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Bae et al. (US 2018/0083088), Song et al. (US 2020/0161580), referred to as Song1 and Song et al. (US 2015/0311462), referred to as Song2, Mizuki et al. (US 2013/0214258), Shiobara et al. (US 2010/0090592), and Nishimura et al. (US 2015/0303391), all of record, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2009/0200544) referred to as Lee544, and Kim (US 2018/0151648) both newly cited, as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2010/0309150) referred to as Lee150, and Lim et al. (US 2015/0162392), both of record.
(Re Claim 17) Modified Bae teaches the light emitting display device according to claim 10, further comprising a color filter layer (¶92), and a thin-film transistor (each M2; Fig. 6),
and the thin-film transistor is between the substrate and the plurality of first electrodes, wherein the thin-film transistor is connected each of the plurality of first electrodes (Song1: ¶98-100).
However, modified Bae does not explicitly teach that the color filter layer is also between the substrate and the plurality of first electrodes.
Lee150 teaches forming top and bottom emission type displays as alternative configurations (Fig. 10-16).
Song1 teaches changing the reflectivity of the first and second electrode to arrive at a top or bottom emission device (¶158).
Lim teaches utilizing a color filter layer (260; Fig. 3) between a substrate (100; Fig. 3) and a first electrode (310; Fig. 3) when a light emitting display device is a bottom emission type display device (¶47).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to form the light emitting display device of modified Bae as a bottom emission type display device, as an alternative to a top emission type display device, in the manner taught by Song1 and Lee150, in order to take advantage of the easier, less complex manufacturing processes associated with bottom emission devices. See Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 357 F.3d 1270, 69 USPQ2d 1686 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Furthermore, a PHOSITA would find it obvious to dispose a color filter layer between the substrate and thin-film transistor of modified Bae as taught by Lim to allow for RGB display capability when utilizing white light emitting OLED stacks in a bottom emission type display configuration (Lim: ¶47; Song1: ¶¶100, 158).
Claims 8-9 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae et al. (US 2018/0083088), Song et al. (US 2020/0161580), referred to as Song1 and Song et al. (US 2015/0311462), referred to as Song2, Mizuki et al. (US 2013/0214258), Shiobara et al. (US 2010/0090592), and Nishimura et al. (US 2015/0303391), all of record, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2009/0200544) referred to as Lee544, and Kim (US 2018/0151648) both newly cited, as applied to claims 1 and 10, and further in view of Sim et al. (US 2020/0028094), of record.
(Re Claims 8 and 18) Modified Bae teaches the light emitting display device according to claim 1 and 10, wherein the thickness of the first emission layer is 65% to 75% of the thickness of the second emission layer, and wherein the thickness of the third emission layer is 45% to 55% of the thickness of the second emission layer.
See discussion above with respect to claims 1 and 10, other values within Song1’s disclosed ranges may be selected and, for example t1 at 130-140Å, t2 at 200Å and t3 at 100Å meets the claimed ratios. Noting Song2 teaches a thickness for the second emission layer 124 of 200Å (¶136), so as to increase the emission intensity of the device (¶¶185,187) of modified Bae, while also recognizing that 200Å is a suitable thickness to avoid substantially increasing the driving voltage (Sim: ¶182). A PHOSITA would also find it obvious to set the thickness of the first emission layer 336 of modified Bae to be 130-140Å, as this is still within the disclosed range of possible thicknesses (Song1: ¶111). As changing the thickness of emission layers changes the chromaticity, layer lifespan, and a driving voltage (Nishimura: ¶6), and individual layers may be altered (Song2: e.g., ¶127), the claimed thickness relationships would have been obvious to optimize and ascertainable through routine experimentation, through exploring the range of thickness values given in Song1 (¶111), as a consequence of balancing desired output color, device lifespan, and a driving voltage. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
(Re Claims 9 and 19) Modified Bae teaches the light emitting display device according to claim 1 and 10, whereinthe first emission layer is a red emission layer, the second emission layer is a yellowish-green emission layer, and the third emission layer is a green emission layer (Song1: ¶97), whereinthe thickness of the first emission layer is 65% to 75% of the thickness of the second emission layer, and wherein the thickness of the third emission layer is 45% to 55% of the thickness of the second emission layer.
See discussion above with respect to claims 1, 8, 10, and 18. Other values within Song1’s disclosed ranges may be selected and, for example t1 at 130-140Å, t2 at 200Å and t3 at 100Å meets the claimed ratios. Noting Song2 teaches a thickness for the second emission layer 124 of 200Å (¶136), so as to increase the emission intensity of the device (Song2: ¶¶185,187) of modified Bae, while also recognizing that 200Å is a suitable thickness to avoid substantially increasing the driving voltage (Sim: ¶182). A PHOSITA would also find it obvious to set the thickness of the first emission layer 336 of modified Bae to be 130-140Å, as this is still within the disclosed range of possible thicknesses (Song1: ¶111). As changing the thickness of emission layers changes the chromaticity, layer lifespan, and a driving voltage (Nishimura: ¶6), and individual layers may be altered (Song2: e.g., ¶127), the claimed thickness relationships would have been obvious to optimize and ascertainable through routine experimentation, through exploring the range of thickness values given in Song1 (¶111), as a consequence of balancing desired output color, device lifespan, and a driving voltage. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
(Re Claim 3) The prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to teach or reasonably suggest the following limitation when taken in context of the claim as a whole: “the thickness of the third emission layer at the central region is smaller than the thicknesses of the third emission layer at each of the top edge region, the bottom edge region, the left edge region and the right edge region”, as set forth in the claimed combination.
(Re Claim 12) The prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to teach or reasonably suggest the following limitation when taken in context of the claim as a whole: “the thickness of the third emission layer in the subpixels located at the central region of the display area is smaller than thicknesses of the third emission layer in subpixels located at each of the top edge region, the bottom edge region, the left edge region and the right edge region of the display area”, as set forth in the claimed combination.
Claims 20-23 are allowable.
The following is an Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim 20 is allowable for at least the reasons of “a thickness of the third emission layer at a central region of the display area is smaller than the thicknesses of the third emission layer at each of a top edge region, a bottom edge region, a left edge region and a right edge region of the display area, wherein the central region of the display area is disposed between the top edge region and the bottom edge region, and the central region of the display area is disposed between the left edge region and the right edge region.” as set forth in the claimed combination. These features of the light emitting display device of claim 20 are not anticipated or rendered obvious by the prior art known to the Examiner. Claims 21-23 depend from claim 20 and are allowable for at least these reasons.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Song1 has particular reasons for the thickness relationships disclosed by that reference. However, there is no indication that the thickness relationship for e.g., maximizing efficiency, is the only thickness relationship that produces a light emitting device when otherwise following Song1’s teachings, and the art teaches why other thickness values for each emission layer would be pursued. For example, changing the thickness of emission layers changes the chromaticity, layer lifespan, and a driving voltage (Nishimura: ¶6). See In re Urbanski, 809 F.3d 1237, 1244, 117 USPQ2d 1499, 1504 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (The patent claims were directed to a method of enzymatic hydrolysis of soy fiber to reduce water holding capacity, requiring reacting the soy fiber and enzyme in water for about 60-120 minutes. The claims were rejected over two prior art references, wherein the primary reference taught using a longer reaction time of 5 to 72 hours and the secondary reference taught using a reaction time of 100 to 240 minutes, preferably 120 minutes. The applicant argued that modifying the primary reference in the manner suggested by the secondary reference would forego the benefits taught by the primary reference, thereby teaching away from the combination. The court held that both prior art references "suggest[ed] that hydrolysis time may be adjusted to achieve different fiber properties. Nothing in the prior art teaches that the proposed modification would have resulted in an ‘inoperable’ process or a dietary fiber product with undesirable properties." (emphasis in original)).
Applicant argues that their claimed thickness range is critical (remarks, p. 7). However, sufficient evidence to demonstrate this criticality has not been presented. To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960). Furthermore, the evidence relied upon should establish "that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance." Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318, 1319 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) (Mere conclusions in appellants’ brief that the claimed polymer had an unexpectedly increased impact strength "are not entitled to the weight of conclusions accompanying the evidence, either in the specification or in a declaration.").
And though Applicant may have one reason why they have arrived at the claimed structure, or that the structure has some particular – even unexpected – advantage, this does not preclude finding a claimed invention obvious. “The fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious." Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985) (The prior art taught combustion fluid analyzers which used labyrinth heaters to maintain the samples at a uniform temperature. Although appellant showed that an unexpectedly shorter response time was obtained when a labyrinth heater was employed, the Board held this advantage would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art.). See also Lantech Inc. v. Kaufman Co. of Ohio Inc., 878 F.2d 1446, 12 USPQ2d 1076, 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1058 (1990) (unpublished — not citable as precedent) ("The recitation of an additional advantage associated with doing what the prior art suggests does not lend patentability to an otherwise unpatentable invention.").
The remainder of Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christopher A Schodde whose telephone number is (571)270-1974. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 1000-1800 EST.
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, Jessica Manno can be reached on (571)272-2339. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER A. SCHODDE/Examiner, Art Unit 2898
/JESSICA S MANNO/SPE, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights