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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
In view of Applicant’s amendments, the prior 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
Claims 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
(Re Claim 20) The scope of “unitary body” is unclear. The specification offers no clear definition, and no elements are described as a “unitary body”. The few mentions of “unitary body” are in the context of forming components “in a unitary body” (emphasis added; see e.g., ¶43). A “unitary body” does not necessarily describe a body that is everywhere and for all extents e.g., a complete, continuous whole; or a single unit.
During examination, “unitary body” was understood to require that the body is continuous to some extent.
Claims 21-23 inherit this rejection for indefiniteness.
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, Zheng et al. (US 2022/0123068), Mizuki et al. (US 2013/0214258), Shiobara et al. (US 2010/0090592), and Nishimura et al. (US 2015/0303391), all of record.
(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 at an entire region of the display area of the substrate on which the plurality of first electrodes are disposed and extended 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 = 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 with 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 at an entire region of a display area of the substrate on which the plurality of first electrodes are disposed and extended to a portion of a non-display area around from the display area.
Zheng teaches providing an emission layer (32; Fig. 1B, ¶¶86, 91) at a portion of a non-display area (2+3; Fig. 1A) around a display area (1; Fig. 1A and 1B).
A PHOSITA would find it obvious to form the first to third emission layers extend to a portion of the non-display area around the display area of modified Bae, using the mask process taught by Zheng, to achieve greater alignment efficiency (Zheng: ¶¶61-63) when depositing emission layers.
This results in a ring of dummy PX having the first to third emission layers around the display area of modified Bae, this ring resulting in the first to third emission layers extended to a portion of the non-display area around the display area, as taught by Zheng.
As each of the first to third emission layers of Song1 are disposed at each pixel PX of Bae (Bae: ¶¶83, 92), the first to third emission layer are continuously disposed (Bae: the emission layers are uninterrupted, and so are continuously disposed, with the boundary of each pixel PX; Fig. 5-6) at an entire region (coextensive with the location of the smallest of the first to third emission layers within the pixel PX seen in Fig. 5-6) of a display area (DA; “provided at an entire region” does not preclude this treatment; there is no requirement that the first to third emission layers are coextensive with the display area or extend from one edge to another. Rather, “provided at an entire region” only requires the presence of the first to third emission layers somewhere in or near the entirety of some distinct part of a display area, without a requirement of contiguity between all parts of the respective emission layers) of the substrate on which the plurality of first electrodes are disposed and extend to a portion of a non-display area around the display area (as taught by Zheng).
(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 at an entire region of a display area of the substrate on which the plurality of first electrodes are disposed and extended 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 with 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 device wherein the first to third emission layers are provided at an entire region of a display area and a portion of a non-display area extending from the display area.
Zheng teaches providing an emission layer (32; Fig. 1B, ¶¶86, 91) extended to a portion of a non-display area (2+3; Fig. 1A) around a display area (1; Fig. 1A and 1B).
A PHOSITA would find it obvious to form the first to third emission layers extended to a portion of the non-display area around the display area of modified Bae, using the mask process taught by Zheng, to achieve greater alignment efficiency (Zheng: ¶¶61-63) when depositing emission layers.
This results in a ring of dummy PX having the first to third emission layers around the display area of modified Bae, this ring resulting in the first to third emission layers extended to a portion of the non-display area around the display area, as taught by Zheng.
As each of the first to third emission layers of Song1 are disposed at each pixel PX of Bae (Bae: ¶¶83, 92), the first to third emission layer are continuously disposed (Bae: the emission layers are uninterrupted, and so are continuously disposed, within the boundary of each pixel PX; Fig. 5-6) at an entire region (coextensive with the smallest of the first to third emission layers within the pixel PX seen in Fig. 5-6) of a display area (DA; “provided at an entire region” does not preclude this treatment; there is no requirement that the first to third emission layers are coextensive with the display area or extend from one edge to another. Rather, “provided at an entire region” only requires the presence of the first to third emission layers somewhere in or near the entirety of some distinct part of a display area, without a requirement of contiguity between all parts of the respective emission layers) of the substrate on which the plurality of first electrodes are disposed and extend to a portion of a non-display area around the display area (as taught by Zheng).
(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.
Claims 3 and 12 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, Zheng et al. (US 2022/0123068), Mizuki et al. (US 2013/0214258), Shiobara et al. (US 2010/0090592), and Nishimura et al. (US 2015/0303391), all of record, as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Furuie et al. (US 2006/0114176), of record.
(Re Claim 3) Modified Bae teaches the light emitting display device according to claim 1, wherein the substrate comprises a display area and a non-display area surrounding the display area, wherein an edge region of the display area includes a top edge region and a bottom edge region opposing each other, and a left edge region and a right edge region opposing each other (“opposing” as the left and right edge region are on opposite sides of the display area; Fig. 1 markup), wherein a 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 (Fig. 1 markup).
Modified Bae does not explicitly teach the light emitting display device wherein the thickness of the third emission layer at the central region of the substrate 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.
Furuie teaches making emission layers (Fig. 16A-C) thicker the nearer they are towards an edge of a display having a power line (PPL; Fig. 15).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to gradually reduce the thickness of the third emission layer 340 of modified Bae as the distance of the emission layer from the closest power line 310 or 320 of Bae (Fig. 1, ¶¶79-80) increases, moving from the top or bottom edge region to a central
PNG
media_image1.png
904
548
media_image1.png
Greyscale
region of the substrate, in order to compensate for voltage drop (Furuie: ¶¶138, 147). This
PNG
media_image2.png
904
616
media_image2.png
Greyscale
results in the third emission layer of modified Bae being thicker above and below the central region, resulting in the thickness of the third emission layer at the central region being 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.
(Re Claim 12) Modified Bae teaches the light emitting display device according to claim 10, wherein the substrate comprises the display area and the non-display area, wherein an edge region of the display area includes a top edge region and a bottom edge region opposing each other, and a left edge region and a right edge region opposing each other (“opposing” as the left and right edge region are on opposite sides of the display area; Fig. 1 markup), wherein a 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 (Fig. 1 markup)
Modified Bae does not explicitly teach the light emitting display device wherein 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.
Furuie teaches making emission layers (Fig. 16A-C) thicker the nearer they are towards an edge of a display having a power line (PPL; Fig. 15).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to gradually reduce the thickness of the third emission layer 340 of Modified Bae as the distance of the emission layer from the closest power line 310 or 320 of Bae (Fig. 1, ¶¶79-80) increases, moving from the top or bottom edge region to a central region of the substrate, in order to compensate for voltage drop (Furuie: ¶¶138, 147). This results in the third emission layer of modified Bae being thicker above and below the central region, resulting in the thickness of the third emission layer at the central region being 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
904
548
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
904
616
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 17 is 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, Zheng et al. (US 2022/0123068), Mizuki et al. (US 2013/0214258), Shiobara et al. (US 2010/0090592), and Nishimura et al. (US 2015/0303391), all of record, as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2010/0309150) 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.
Lee 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 Lee, 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, Zheng et al. (US 2022/0123068), Mizuki et al. (US 2013/0214258), Shiobara et al. (US 2010/0090592), and Nishimura et al. (US 2015/0303391), all of record., 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).
Claims 20-22 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, Furuie et al. (US 2006/0114176), Zheng et al. (US 2022/0123068), and Nishimura et al. (US 2015/0303391), all of record.
(Re Claim 20) Bae teaches a light emitting display device comprising:
a plurality of anode electrodes (each 710 within each pixel PX; Fig. 5-6, ¶¶83, 98) and a cathode electrode (730; Fig. 6) spaced apart from each other; and
a display area (DA; Fig. 1) and a non-display area (NDA; Fig. 1), a central region of the display area, a top edge region, a bottom edge region, a left edge region, and a right edge region (Fig. 1 markup).
Bae does not explicitly teach a light emitting display device comprising:
a first hole-transport-related common layer disposed on the plurality of anode electrodes;
a blue emission layer including a first blue dopant and disposed on the first hole-transport-related common layer;
a first electron-transport-related common layer disposed on the blue emission layer;
a first charge generation layer disposed on the first electron-transport-related common layer; and
first to third emission layers disposed between the first charge generation layer and the cathode electrode,
wherein the third emission layer is thinnest among the first to third emission layers,
wherein each of the first to third emission layers is a unitary body in at least an entire region of a display area on which the plurality of first electrodes are disposed and extended to a portion of a non-display area, wherein 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 regions.
Song1 teaches a light emitting display device comprising: an anode electrode (320; Fig. 5) and a cathode electrode (346; Fig. 5) spaced apart from each other;a first hole-transport-related common layer (324; Fig. 5) disposed on the anode electrode;a blue emission layer (326; Fig. 5) including a first blue dopant (¶105) and disposed on the first hole-transport-related common layer;a first electron-transport-related common layer (328; Fig. 5) disposed on the blue emission layer;a first charge generation layer (CGL1; Fig. 5) disposed on the first electron-transport-related common layer; andfirst to third emission layers (336, 338, and 340 are the first, second, and third emission layers, respectively; Fig. 5) disposed between the first charge generation layer and the cathode electrode.
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 anode and cathode electrode of Song1 to form pixels emitting white light in the display of Bae (“Alternatively, the OLEDs of all of the pixels PX may emit light of white”; ¶92), to take advantage of the increased lifetime and decreased driving voltage offered by Song1’s OLED (Song1: ¶126).
Therefore, layer 720 of Bae is replaced with the stack ST1+CGL1+ST2 of Song1.
As each of the first to third emission layers of Song1 are disposed at each pixel PX of Bae, the first to third emission layer are provided at an entire region (coextensive with the smallest of the first to third emission layers within the pixel PX seen in Fig. 5-6) of a display area (DA; “provided at an entire region” does not preclude this treatment; there is no requirement that the first to third emission layers are coextensive with the display area or extend from one edge to another. Rather, “provided at an entire region” only requires the presence of the first to third emission layers somewhere in or near the entirety of some distinct part of a display area, without a requirement of contiguity).
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 with 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%).
Furuie teaches making emission layers (Fig. 16A-C) thicker the nearer they are towards an edge of a display having a power line (PPL; Fig. 15).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to gradually reduce the thickness of the third emission layer 340 of modified Bae as the distance of the emission layer from the closest power line 310 or 320 of Bae (Fig. 1, ¶¶79-80) increases, moving from the top or bottom edge region to a central region of the substrate, in order to compensate for voltage drop (Furuie: ¶¶138, 147). This results in the third emission layer of modified Bae being thicker above and below the central region, resulting in the thickness of the third emission layer at the central region being 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.
Zheng teaches providing an emission layer (32; Fig. 1B, ¶¶86, 91) extended to a portion of a non-display area (2+3; Fig. 1A) around a display area (1; Fig. 1A and 1B).
A PHOSITA would find it obvious to form the first to third emission layers extended to a portion of the non-display area of modified Bae, using the mask process taught by Zheng, to achieve greater alignment efficiency (Zheng: ¶¶61-63) when depositing emission layers.
This results in a ring of dummy PX having the first to third emission layers around the display area of modified Bae, this ring being in a portion of the non-display area around the display area, as taught by Zheng.
As each of the first to third emission layers of Song1 are disposed at each pixel PX of Bae (Bae: ¶¶83, 92), each of the first to third emission layers is a unitary body (Bae: each emission layer is provided at least within each pixel PX such that it is continuous; see the 112(b) rejection above) in at least an entire region (Bae: having the same extent as a corresponding pixel PX; Fig. 5-6) of a display area (DA; “provided at an entire region” does not preclude this treatment; there is no requirement that the first to third emission layers are coextensive with the display area or extend from one edge to another. Rather, “provided at an entire region” only requires the presence of the first to third emission layers somewhere in or near the entirety of some distinct part of a display area, without a requirement of contiguity) on which the plurality of first electrodes are disposed and extended to a portion of a non-display area (as taught by Zheng).
PNG
media_image2.png
904
616
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Re Claim 21) Modified Bae teaches the light emitting display device according to claim 20, wherein each of the first to third emission layers includes a phosphorescent emission layer (Song1: ¶103) and each of the first to third emission layers is continuously disposed at the display area (Bae: at least within each individual pixel PX; Fig. 5-6).
(Re Claim 22) Modified Bae teaches the light emitting display device according to claim 20, wherein wavelengths of lights emitted from the first to third emission layers are gradually shortened as being away from the blue emission layer (Red to yellow-green to green; Song1: ¶97).
Claim 23 is 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, Furuie et al. (US 2006/0114176), Zheng et al. (US 2022/0123068), and Nishimura et al. (US 2015/0303391), all of record, as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Mizuki et al. (US 2013/0214258), and Shiobara et al. (US 2010/0090592), both of record.
(Re Claim 23) Modified Bae teaches the light emitting display device according to claim 20, but does not explicitly teach wherein the first to third emission layers comprising phosphorescent dopants and wherein the phosphorescent dopants of the first to third emission layers have a difference in triplet level required for excitation.
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 first to third emission layers comprising phosphorescent dopants are independently different from each other (the first to third emission layers are separated and have different compositions; Song1: Fig. 5, ¶106).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claims 1 and 10
Applicant appears to argue a narrower interpretation of “continuously disposed at an entire region of a display area” than is supported by the specification and claim language (remarks, p. 10-11). This language does not require that the emission layers form an unbroken whole across the entire display area. “Continuously disposed at an entire region” requires that the emission layers demonstrate some kind of continuity while they are disposed at the entirety of a region; but “an entire region of a display area” does not require that the chosen region is coextensive with, or is larger than, the display area; all that is required is that the region is chosen from a part of the display area.
As an example, reciting “the discussion about emission layers is found at an entire part of a specification” does not necessarily describe a specification dedicated solely to emission layers.
Above, modified Bae is shown to teach the first to third emission layers are continuously disposed at an entire region, that is the region in the pixel PX that is coextensive with the smallest of the first to third emission layers. This satisfies the first identified requirement. The second requirement is met through each pixel PX being a part of the display area (Bae: Fig. 1, 5-6).
Claim 20
Applicant now describes each of the first to third emission layers as being a “unitary body” (remarks, p. 14). This language lacks clarity. The specification offers no clear definition, and no elements are described as a “unitary body”. The few mentions of “unitary body” are in the context of forming components “in a unitary body” (emphasis added; see e.g., ¶43). A “unitary body” does not necessarily describe a body that is everywhere and for all extents e.g., a complete, continuous whole; or a single unit. See the 112(b) rejection above.
As for interpreting “is a unitary body in at least an entire region of a display area”, that discussion is provided in the response to remarks concerning claims 1 and 10 above and the 112(b) rejection above.
The remainder of Applicant’s arguments are moot.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christopher A 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