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 Amendments
Acknowledgment is made of the amendment filed 06/08/2026 (“A...”), in which: claims 1 and 26 are amended; no new claims are added; claims 27 – 28 are canceled; and the rejection of the claims are traversed. Claims 1 – 8, 11 – 26, and 30, are currently pending an Office Action on the merits as follows, wherein claims 15 – 25 are withdrawn from consideration due to a restriction requirement.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 06/08/2026 (“REM”) with respect to claims 1 – 8, 11 – 26, and 30, wherein claims 15 – 25 are withdrawn from consideration due to a restriction requirement, have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant’s arguments filed 06/08/2026 (“REM”) have been fully considered but are not persuasive (Claims 1 – 8, 11 – 26, and 30, wherein claims 15 – 25 are withdrawn from consideration).
Rejections
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 – 8, 11 – 14, 26, and 30 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation " a bank surrounding light-emitting units of the first to third subpixels" in line 15 of claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for light-emitting units of the first to third subpixels in this limitation of claim 1. Applicant does not define light-emitting units of the first to third subpixels nor provide a location for light-emitting units of the first to third subpixels. There is ambiguity to what exactly the light-emitting units are; however, examiner will interpret the light-emitting units to be the material between the first and second electrodes of sub-pixels, i.e., examiner will interpret light-emitting units of the first to third subpixels to be effectively the same as the “white organic stack” as claimed in line 12 of claim 1. Claims 2 – 8, 11 – 14, 26, and 30 depend from claim 1 and are rejected by virtue. Further correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 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.
Claims 1 –5, 7, 11 – 14, 26 – 27, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mollard et al. (US 20200066808 A1) and further in view of Song et al. (US 20140159022 A1), Pieh (US 20100078631 A1), Choi et al. (US 20150137097 A1), Kobayashi et al. (US 20100051973 A1), Lim et al. (US 20130001603 A1), and Nishikawa et al. (US 20050067945 A1).
Regarding independent Claim 1, Mollard teaches a display panel comprising:
a substrate (Fig. 2; substrate 1) having first to third subpixels (Fig. 2; red, green, and blue subpixels, respectively, PR, PV, and PB. See [0083]. For brevity, examiner notes that the blue subpixel is considered the first subpixel and the red subpixel is considered the third subpixel), the substrate including a base substrate (Fig. 2; structured dielectric layer 5. See [0089] – [0091]), ... and a respective reflective electrode (Fig. 2; reflector 2) at each of the first to third subpixels (Fig. 2);
a first transparent inorganic layer (Fig. 2; spacing layer 3 includes first portion 30, i.e., a first transparent inorganic layer, that is formed of inorganic materials and is transparent. See [0088]) and a second transparent inorganic layer (Fig. 2; spacing layer 3 includes second portion 31, i.e., a second transparent inorganic layer, that is formed of inorganic materials and is transparent. See [0088]) in contact with an upper surface of the reflective electrode at the second subpixel (Fig. 2) and the third subpixel (Fig. 2), respectively, the second transparent inorganic layer higher than the first transparent inorganic layer (See Fig. 2 of Mollard compared to applicant’s instant Fig. 1);
a first electrode (Fig. 2; first electrode E1) provided at each of the first to third subpixels (Fig. 2), the first electrode in contact with the upper surface of the reflective electrode at the first subpixel (Fig. 2), in contact with an upper surface of the first transparent inorganic layer at the second subpixel (Fig. 2) and in contact with an upper surface of the second transparent inorganic layer at the third subpixel (Fig. 2);
a white organic stack (Fig. 2; stack 4. See [0081] teaching stack 4 configured to emit white light) on the first electrode at each of the first to third subpixels (Fig. 2);
a second electrode (Fig. 2; second electrode E2) on the white organic stack (Fig. 2), the second electrode having reflectivity and transmittance (Mollard teaches in at least [0129] that the second electrode E2 and the reflector 2 forms an optical resonator. Second electrode E2 is also taught to be semitransparent. Mollard also teaches metallic materials, e.g., Al and Ag, that are known to be very reflective. Examiner asserts that Mollard teaches the second electrode having both properties of reflectivity and transmittance);
...
a transparent protective layer (Fig. 2; encapsulation layer 7) ...
wherein the first electrode comprises a transparent oxide including at least one selected from the group consisting of indium (indium tin oxide taught in [0101]), zinc, and tin, and the second electrode comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of magnesium, a magnesium alloy, silver, and a silver alloy ([0101]),
wherein the first electrode respectively provided at each of the first to third subpixels is flat (Fig. 2),
...
wherein the transparent protective layer is in contact with air ([0104] teaches that encapsulation layer 7 protects from air and moisture).
However, Mollard does not explicitly teach the display panel comprising:
... the substrate including ... , a passivation layer,
...
a bank surrounding light-emitting units of the first to third subpixels, wherein a trench is disposed to penetrate the bank to a depth through the bank and into a portion of the passivation layer to be deeper than the first electrode, the trench being disposed between adjacent subpixels to separate the subpixels from one another; ...
a capping layer on the second electrode; and ...
with the transparent protective layer ... on the capping layer,
wherein the white organic stack comprises a first stack including a first light-emitting layer to emit light of a blue wavelength and a second stack including a second light-emitting layer to emit light of a red wavelength and a third light-emitting layer to emit light of a green wavelength, and a charge generation layer between the first stack and the second stack,
wherein the first stack is adjacent to the first electrode and the second stack is adjacent to the second electrode,
wherein the second electrode has a thickness of more than 20nm to 50nm, ...
the first light-emitting layer, the second light-emitting layer and the third light-emitting layer are parallel to the first electrode at the first to third subpixels, and ...
wherein the reflective electrode at each of the first to third subpixels is directly on an upper surface the passivation layer and is a same distance from an upper surface from the base substrate,
wherein the reflective electrode is connected to a drain electrode of a driving thin-film transistor through a contact hole in the passivation layer at each of the first to third subpixels,
wherein ...
wherein a portion of the second electrode is disposed in the trench, and
...
However, in the same field of endeavor, Song teaches an OLED display device including a drive layer 1 (Fig. 3). Song demonstrates a common practice within the art to include a passivation layer 14 between the drive layer/base substrate and the pixel layer/reflective electrode. This common practice may be implemented in display device of Mollard, yielding the substrate including a passivation layer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the display device of Mollard to include Song’s passivation layer, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Song’s combination of pixels and circuitry is comparable to Song’s combination of pixels and circuitry because they disclose pixels that are connected to device circuitry for driving the pixels. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Mollard to include Song’s passivation layer, with the predictable result of protecting the circuitry of the display device.
Further, in the same field of endeavor, Pieh teaches a similar display panel (Fig. 7) including a bank pattern BNK surrounding light-emitting units of the first to third subpixels (Pieh: [0048] and Fig. 7), wherein a trench is disposed (Fig. 7; see trench structures included in the banks BNK). Examiner asserts that pixel connectivity of Mollard may be modified further in view of Pieh, such that Mollard’s first electrode may be connected to the thin film transistor, landed from Pieh, through a peripheral connective scheme (See Fig. 2 of Mollard and Fig 7 of Pieh and [0048] of Pieh).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Mollard’s connectivity, further in view of Song’s passivation layer, between the first electrode and the reflective electrode to include Pieh’s teaching of a bank surrounding light-emitting units of the first to third subpixels, wherein a trench is disposed, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Pieh’s teaching of a bank surrounding light-emitting units of the first to third subpixels, wherein a trench is disposed is comparable to the connectivity between Mollard’s first electrode and CMOS circuitry because driving signals can be applied to the first electrode or second electrode through peripheral vias. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Mollard’s connectivity, further in view of Song’s passivation layer, to include Pieh’s teaching of a bank surrounding light-emitting units of the first to third subpixels, wherein a trench is disposed, with the predictable result of not obstructing light’s path along the optical distance of the display panel cavity structure aided by modified peripheral connection scheme between the light-emitting unit and the drive layer.
Further, regarding the display device feature wherein the trench is disposed to penetrate the bank to a depth through the bank and into a portion of the passivation layer to be deeper than the first electrode, the trench being disposed between adjacent subpixels to separate the subpixels from one another, while Examiner see’s that the trench being disposed between adjacent subpixels to separate the subpixels from one another (Pieh: Fig. 7) as being obvious as taught by Pieh; the combined device of Mollard, Song, and Pieh, would have to yield the feature wherein trench is disposed to penetrate the bank to a depth through the bank and into a portion of the passivation layer to be deeper than the first electrode, because of what is taught by Pieh in at least [0048], wherein the conductive column spacer allows the drain electrode or source electrode of the TFT to be electrically connected to the anode electrode or cathode electrode of the white OLED.
In conjunction with Pieh’s disclosure, and in the same field of endeavor, Choi teaches a display device with connectivity similar to that shown in Pieh’s Fig. 7 (Fig. 1); wherein the top electrode (Fig. 1; cathode electrode 270) is disposed in a trench in a bank (Fig. 1; pixel defining layer 230), i.e., wherein a portion of the second electrode is disposed in the trench. Further, Choi’s first insulating layer 150 and second insulating layer 170 may be considered a passivation layer (Fig. 1; first insulating layer 150 and second insulating layer 170 and [0053]); such that Choi teaches the trench is disposed to penetrate the bank to a depth through the bank and into a portion of the passivation layer to be deeper than the first electrode. Examiner asserts that Choi’s teaching supplements deficiencies in Pieh’s disclosure for how a cathode electrode may be disposed in a trench and deeper than the first electrode (Fig. 1; anode electrode 210). Thus, the combination of Mollard, in view of Song, Pieh, and further in view of Choi present explicit teaching for forming the display device structure wherein a bank surrounding light-emitting units of the first to third subpixels, wherein a trench is disposed to penetrate the bank to a depth through the bank and into a portion of the passivation layer to be deeper than the first electrode, the trench being disposed between adjacent subpixels to separate the subpixels from one another and wherein a portion of the second electrode is disposed in the trench.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the display device of Mollard and Song to include Pieh’s bank structure, further in view of Choi, wherein a bank surrounding light-emitting units of the first to third subpixels, wherein a trench is disposed to penetrate the bank to a depth through the bank and into a portion of the passivation layer to be deeper than the first electrode, the trench being disposed between adjacent subpixels to separate the subpixels from one another and wherein a portion of the second electrode is disposed in the trench, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, the combined bank, trench, and second electrode structure of Pieh, further in view of Choi, is comparable to the bank and trench, structure of Mollard and Song because of their banks between include trenches as well (Mollard: Fig. 7). Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Mollard and Song to include Pieh’s bank structure, further in view of Choi, wherein a bank surrounding light-emitting units of the first to third subpixels, wherein a trench is disposed to penetrate the bank to a depth through the bank and into a portion of the passivation layer to be deeper than the first electrode, the trench being disposed between adjacent subpixels to separate the subpixels from one another and wherein a portion of the second electrode is disposed in the trench with the predictable result of preventing damage to a cathode during use of the display device and isolating the subpixels of the display device.
Additionally, regarding the further features of the white organic stack, Pieh teaches (Fig. 1) a white OLED structure ([0028]), wherein the white OLED structure comprises:
... a first stack (Fig. 1; first stack 1STST) including a first light-emitting layer (Fig. 1; blue emission layer BEML) to emit light of a blue wavelength and a second stack (Fig. 1; second stack 2NDST) including a second light-emitting layer (Fig. 1; red emission layer REML) to emit light of a red wavelength and a third light-emitting layer (Fig. 1; green emission layer GEML) to emit light of a green wavelength, and a charge generation layer (Fig. 1; charge generation layer CGL) between the first stack and the second stack (Fig. 1),
wherein the first stack is adjacent to the first electrode and the second stack is adjacent to the second electrode (Fig. 1), ...
Examiner asserts that Mollard teaches a generalized white stack, which may be modified by the specific ordering of layers as disclosed by Pieh; such that Mollard further in view of Pieh not only yields the same structure of the instant white organic stack, but also yields the feature wherein the first light-emitting layer, the second light-emitting layer and the third light-emitting layer are parallel to the first electrode at the first to third subpixels. Examiner asserts that keeping these layers coplanar is necessitated by Mollard’s disclosure (also shown in Fig. 2), as the color purity of the subpixels is dependent on the cavity length; wherein the cavity length is determined by the first and second transparent inorganic layers.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Mollard’s display panel, including a white stack, to include Pieh’s white stack, because such a modification is the result of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. More specifically, Pieh’s white stack permits a high number of layers which leads to increasing efficiency in energy consumption ([0031] and [0034] of Pieh). This known benefit of Pieh’s white stack is applicable to Mollard’s display panel, specifically Mollard’s white stack, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to OLED display devices using white stacks. Therefore, it would have been recognized that modifying Mollard’s white stack to include the white stack structure as disclosed by Pieh would have yielded predictable results because (i) the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate Pieh’s white stack in OLED display panels using a white stack and (ii) the benefits of such a combination would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art.
Further, regarding the feature related to the thickness of the second electrode, Mollard teaches a range of 10 nm – 20 nm for their second electrode E2. However, examiner understands the newly amended limitation of claim 1 that recites the second electrode has a thickness of more than 20nm to 50nm to mean the instant second electrode has a thickness between 20 nm to 50 nm that excludes 20 nm and includes 50 nm.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kobayashi teaches a display panel including a second electrode 20, that is both transparent and reflective ([0099]), having a thickness from 10 nm to 30 nm ([0020] – [0021]), comparable to applicant’s claimed second electrode with wherein the second electrode has a thickness of more than 20nm to 50nm. Further, it is known in the art that a lower density and reduced thickness for cathode structures, and similar OLED components, allow for controlled transmission and reflection, a topic subject to routine optimization within the instant field of endeavor. Further, Kobayashi details throughout their disclosure why the cathode/opposite/second electrode cannot be made too thin or too thick, with relevancy to the electrode’s resistivity and light enhancing characteristics. It is the examiner’s opinion that Kobayashi’s discussion presented in at least [0132] of their disclosure regarding the opposite electrode 20 raising a purity of color with regards to light emitted via resonance is applicable to the device disclosed by Mollard.
Thus, the thickness of the second electrode with wherein the second electrode has a thickness of more than 20nm to 50nm would have been obvious, from at least (0020] – [0021] of Kobayashi, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention because absent evidence or disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d454, 105 USQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1995).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Further, in the same field of endeavor, Lim discloses a second protection layer 145, i.e., a capping layer (Fig. 13; second protection layer 145); wherein the capping layer is on the second electrode (Fig. 13; second electrode 140). Lim’s materials taught in [0097] lend towards examiner’s understanding that second protection layer 145 is a capping layer; which may be combined with Mollard’s display panel in order to protect the second electrode. For further context, Lim’s second substrate functions the same as Mollard’s transparent protective layer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Mollard’s display panel to include Lim’s capping layer, because such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. More specifically, Mollard’s display panel as modified by Lim’s capping layer can yield a predictable result of protecting the second electrode of an OLED since the capping layer is formed of materials that may protect the layers beneath. Since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same.
Further, Song teaches wherein the reflective electrode at each of the first to third subpixels is directly on an upper surface the passivation layer. This would have been an obvious structural relationship in view of Song’s disclosure when implementing Song’s passivation layer to the display device of Mollard.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the display device of Mollard, Song, Pieh, Choi, Kobayashi, Lim, to include Song’s teaching wherein the reflective electrode at each of the first to third subpixels is directly on an upper surface the passivation layer, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Song’s display panel layer over a circuit layer is comparable to Mollard’s display panel layer over a circuit layer because they provide similar layers and connectivity to form a device with display function. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Mollard, Song, Pieh, Choi, Kobayashi, Lim, to include Song’s teaching wherein the reflective electrode at each of the first to third subpixels is directly on an upper surface the passivation layer with the predictable result of combing a display panel with a circuit layer.
Additionally, Kobayashi teaches in Fig. 1 that light-reflecting layers 14 are a same distance from an upper surface from the base substrate. Examiner asserts that his structural relationship may be implemented to the display device of Mollard, further in view of Song, Pieh, Choi, Kobayashi, and Lim, such that the reflective electrode at each of the first to third subpixels is ... a same distance from an upper surface from the base substrate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the display device of Mollard, Song, Pieh, Choi, Kobayashi, Lim, to include Kobayashi’s teaching the reflective electrode at each of the first to third subpixels is ... a same distance from an upper surface from the base substrate, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Kobayashi’s display panel layer over a circuit layer is comparable to Mollard’s display panel layer over a circuit layer because they provide similar layers and connectivity to form a device with display function. Further, as a reflection layer is the bottom layer of a display panels in the art of discussion, it would be obvious that an even bottom surface of the display panel lends itself to create a better contact area for combing the display panel and drive layer, with the natural result being the reflective electrode at each of the first to third subpixels is ... a same distance from an upper surface from the base substrate. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Mollard, Song, Pieh, Choi, Kobayashi, Lim, to include Kobayashi’s teaching the reflective electrode at each of the first to third subpixels is ... a same distance from an upper surface from the base substrate with the predictable result of combing a display panel with a circuit layer.
Further, in the same field of endeavor, Nishikawa teaches wherein the reflective electrode (Nishikawa: Fig. 4; metal reflective layer 93) is connected to a drain electrode (Nishikawa: Fig. 4; drain electrode 22d) of a driving thin-film transistor through a contact hole (Nishikawa: [0026]) in the passivation layer at each of the first to third subpixels (Nishikawa: Fig. 4). This connective structure may be readily combined with the display device of Mollard, further in view of Song, Pieh, Kobayashi, Lim, and Choi, to yield the display device wherein the reflective electrode is connected to a drain electrode of a driving thin-film transistor through a contact hole in the passivation layer at each of the first to third subpixels.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the display device of Mollard, further in view of Song, Pieh, Kobayashi, Lim, and Choi, to include Nishikawa’s display device structure wherein the reflective electrode is connected to a drain electrode of a driving thin-film transistor through a contact hole in the passivation layer at each of the first to third subpixels, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Nishikawa’s pixel to transistor connectivity is comparable to the pixel to transistor connectivity of Mollard, further in view of Song, Pieh, Kobayashi, Lim, and Choi, because they also have a display panel layer combined with a drive layer and similar structures to Nishikawa that facilitate connection between the display panel layer and drive layer. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Mollard, further in view of Song, Pieh, Kobayashi, Lim, and Choi, to include Nishikawa’s display device structure wherein the reflective electrode is connected to a drain electrode of a driving thin-film transistor through a contact hole in the passivation layer at each of the first to third subpixels, with the predictable result of connecting the sub-pixels of the display device to the driving circuitry.
Regarding dependent Claim 2, Mollard, further in view of Song, Pieh, Choi, Kobayashi, Lim, and Nishikawa teach the display panel according to claim 1, wherein
in the white organic stack, the first stack further comprises a first common layer (Yielded through the combination of Mollard’s common white stack 4 and Pieh’s white stack structure. Pieh’s Fig. 1; a hole transport layer HTL1) under the first light-emitting layer, and a second common layer (Pieh: Fig. 1; a first electron transport layer ETL1) on the first light-emitting layer,
wherein the charge generation layer contacts the second common layer (Pieh: Fig. 1), and
wherein the second stack further comprises a third common layer (Pieh: Fig. 1; second hole transport layer HTL2) under the second light-emitting layer; and a fourth common layer on the third light-emitting layer (Pieh: Fig. 1; electron blocking layer EBL).
Regarding dependent Claim 3, Mollard, further in view of Song, Pieh, Choi, Kobayashi, Lim, and Nishikawa teach the display panel according to claim 1, wherein the panel is configured to emit light such that:
light emitted from the first light-emitting layer at the first subpixel is emitted in a single strong cavity mode through the second electrode (Mollard teaches, “The range of filtered wavelengths is determined by the thicknesses of the first, second and third portions of the spacing layer, allowing the thickness of the optical cavity (delimited by the reflector and the second electrode) to be adjusted such that the optical resonator allows, respectively, the transmission of red, green and blue light from the white light emitted by the stack of organic light-emitting layers” in [0012]. See Mollard’s Fig. 2),
light emitted from the third light-emitting layer at the second subpixel is emitted in a single strong cavity mode through the second electrode (Mollard teaches, “The range of filtered wavelengths is determined by the thicknesses of the first, second and third portions of the spacing layer, allowing the thickness of the optical cavity (delimited by the reflector and the second electrode) to be adjusted such that the optical resonator allows, respectively, the transmission of red, green and blue light from the white light emitted by the stack of organic light-emitting layers” in [0012]. See Mollard’s Fig. 2), and
light emitted from the second light-emitting layer at the third subpixel is emitted in a single strong cavity mode through the second electrode (Mollard teaches, “The range of filtered wavelengths is determined by the thicknesses of the first, second and third portions of the spacing layer, allowing the thickness of the optical cavity (delimited by the reflector and the second electrode) to be adjusted such that the optical resonator allows, respectively, the transmission of red, green and blue light from the white light emitted by the stack of organic light-emitting layers” in [0012]. See Mollard’s Fig. 2).
Regarding dependent Claim 4, Mollard, further in view of Song, Pieh, Choi, Kobayashi, Lim, and Nishikawa teach the display panel according to claim 1, wherein:
a difference in wavelengths of emission peaks of the first light-emitting layer and the second light-emitting layer is from 135 nm to 174 nm (Pieh: Fig. 10).
Pieh teaches an emission peaks of the first light-emitting layer to be about 455 nm (Fig. 10), and emission peaks of the second light-emitting layer to be about 615 nm (Fig. 10); thus, the difference between the above emission peaks is about 160 nm.
The difference in wavelengths between emission peaks of the first light-emitting layer and the second light-emitting layer would have been obvious, from at least Fig. 10 of Pieh, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention because absent evidence or disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d454, 105 USQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1995). Furthermore, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the dimensions claimed or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the claimed dimensions or variable are critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ 2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding dependent Claim 5, Mollard, further in view of Song, Pieh, Choi, Kobayashi, Lim, and Nishikawa teach the display panel according to claim 1, wherein:
the second electrode has a thickness more than 20 nm and not more than 35 nm (Kobayashi: [0020] – [0021]. The thickness of the second electrode would have been obvious, from at least [0020] – [0021] of Kobayashi, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention because absent evidence or disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d454, 105 USQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1995)),
the first light-emitting layer has an emission peak at a wavelength not less than 446 nm and not more than 464 nm (Pieh teaches an emission peak of the first light-emitting layer to be about 455 nm. See Fig. 10), and
the second light-emitting layer has an emission peak at a wavelength not less than 612 nm and not more than 620 nm (Pieh teaches an emission peak of the second light-emitting layer to be about 615 nm. See Fig. 10).
PNG
media_image1.png
304
450
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Provided is annotated excerpt of Pieh’s Fig. 10 below:
The emission peak at a wavelength for the first and second light-emitting layer would have been obvious, from at least Fig. 10 of Pieh, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention because absent evidence or disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d454, 105 USQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1995). Furthermore, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the dimensions claimed or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the claimed dimensions or variable are critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ 2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding dependent Claim 7, Mollard, further in view of Song, Pieh, Choi, Kobayashi, Lim, and Nishikawa teach the display panel according to claim 1, wherein
the first light-emitting layer has an emission peak at a wavelength not less than 450 nm and not more than 470 nm (Pieh teaches an emission peak of the first light-emitting layer to be about 455 nm. See Fig. 10), and
the second light-emitting layer has an emission peak at a wavelength not less than 600 nm and not more than 619 nm (Pieh teaches an emission peak of the second light-emitting layer to be about 615 nm. See Fig. 10).
The emission peak at a wavelength for the first and second light-emitting layer would have been obvious, from at least Fig. 10 of Pieh, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention because absent evidence or disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d454, 105 USQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1995). Furthermore, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the dimensions claimed or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the claimed dimensions or variable are critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ 2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding dependent Claim 11, Mollard, further in view of Song, Pieh, Choi, Kobayashi, Lim, and Nishikawa teach the display panel according to claim 1, wherein:
the transparent protective layer comprises an encapsulation layer (Mollard: Fig. 2; encapsulation layer 7).
Regarding dependent Claim 12, Mollard, further in view of Song, Pieh, Choi, Kobayashi, Lim, and Nishikawa teach the display panel according to claim 1, wherein
there is no member limiting a color of emitted light on the transparent protective layer (Mollard: [0012]).
Regarding dependent Claim 13, Mollard, further in view of Song, Pieh, Choi, Kobayashi, Lim, and Nishikawa teach the display panel according to claim 1; however, Mollard remains silent on the display panel further comprising:
a thin-film transistor at each of the first to third subpixels connected to the first electrode.
However, in at least [0041], [0044], and [0094], Mollard discusses a CMOS circuit connected through vias connected to lateral edges 500 of the first, second and third patterns 50, 51, 52 of the structured dielectric layer 5, which is connected to the first electrode E1 (Mollard: Fig. 2 and [0092]).
Regardless, in the same field of endeavor, Pieh teaches a display panel (Fig. 7) wherein a thin-film transistor is provided at each of the first to third subpixels and connected to the first electrode. Examiner asserts that Mollard’s display panel substrate can be redesigned such that a TFT may be used instead of a CMOS circuit. Thus, Pieh’s teaching may be used to modify Mollard’s teaching of CMOS circuitry.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Mollard’s display panel to include a thin-film transistor at each of the first to third subpixels connected to the first electrode, as disclosed by Pieh, because such a modification is taught, suggested, or motivated by the art. More specifically, the motivation to Mollard’s display panel to include a thin film transistor connected to the first electrode for each pixel, as disclosed by Pieh, is implicitly provided by Pieh, because the device yielded through the combination of Mollard and Pieh includes Pieh’s white stack structure, which is taught to be driven by TFT circuitry. Further, it is the examiner’s opinion that Mollard’s device structure regarding the layers above the first electrode E1 is generalized, because these layers remain the same across the embodiments shown in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2, wherein the variation is shown in the cavity structure. Therefore, it would be obvious to include Pieh’s TFT substrate over the generalized structure of Mollard when including Pieh’s white stack in Mollard’s overall structure. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of a driving thin film transistor configured to contact the first electrode and drive the organic light-emitting device array in the display panel yielded through the combination of Mollard and Pieh.
Regarding dependent Claim 14, Mollard, further in view of Song, Pieh, Choi, Kobayashi, Lim, and Nishikawa teach the display panel according to claim 1, wherein
the substrate comprises any one of a transparent glass substrate, a transparent plastic substrate, and a silicon substrate (Mollard: [0056]).
Regarding dependent Claim 26, Mollard, further in view of Song, Pieh, Choi, Kobayashi, Lim, and Nishikawa teach the display panel according to claim 13; however, Mollard remains silent on the display panel
wherein the bank overlaps a contact portion between the first electrode and the thin-film transistor.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Pieh teaches a similar display panel (Fig. 7) including a bank pattern BNK wherein the bank is surrounding light-emitting units of the first to third subpixels, wherein the bank overlaps a contact portion between the first electrode and the thin-film transistor (Pieh: [0048] and Fig. 7). Examiner asserts that pixel connectivity of Mollard may be modified further in view of Pieh, such that Mollard’s first electrode may be connected to the thin film transistor, landed from Pieh, through a peripheral connective scheme (See Fig. 2 of Mollard and Fig 7 of Pieh).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Mollard’s connectivity between the first electrode and the reflective electrode to include Pieh’s teaching of the bank overlaps a contact portion between the first electrode and the thin-film transistor, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Pieh’s teaching of the bank overlaps a contact portion between the first electrode and the thin-film transistor is comparable to the connectivity between Mollard’s first electrode and CMOS circuitry because driving signals can be applied to the first electrode through peripheral vias. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Mollard’s connectivity include Pieh’s teaching of a bank surrounding light-emitting units of the first to third subpixels, wherein the bank overlaps a contact portion between the first electrode and the thin-film transistor, with the predictable result of not obstructing light’s path along the optical distance of the display panel cavity structure.
Regarding dependent Claim 30, Mollard, further in view of Song, Pieh, Choi, Kobayashi, Lim, and Nishikawa teach the display panel according to claim 12, wherein
the member limiting the color of emitted light includes a color filter or a color conversion layer (Mollard: [0012]).
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mollard et al. (US 20200066808 A1) and further in view of Song et al. (US 20140159022 A1), Pieh (US 20100078631 A1), Choi et al. (US 20150137097 A1), Kobayashi et al. (US 20100051973 A1), Lim et al. (US 20130001603 A1), Nishikawa et al. (US 20050067945 A1), and Kinoshita (US 20100052524 A1).
Regarding dependent Claim 6, Mollard, further in view of Song, Pieh, Choi, Kobayashi, Lim, and Nishikawa teach the display panel according to claim 1, wherein
...
the first light-emitting layer has an emission peak at a wavelength not less than 452 nm and not more than 467 nm (Pieh teaches an emission peak of the first light-emitting layer to be about 455 nm. See Fig. 10), and
the second light-emitting layer has an emission peak at a wavelength not less than 602 nm and not more than 623 nm (Pieh teaches an emission peak of the second light-emitting layer to be about 615 nm. See Fig. 10).
The emission peak at a wavelength for the first and second light-emitting layer would have been obvious, from at least Fig. 10 of Pieh, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention because absent evidence or disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d454, 105 USQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1995). Furthermore, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the dimensions claimed or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the claimed dimensions or variable are critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ 2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
However, Mollard remains silent regarding the display panel wherein:
... the second electrode has a thickness more than 35 nm and not more than 50 nm, ...
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kinoshita teaches a similar display panel with a cathode/second electrode, with a thickness of 20 nm to 500 nm ([0143]).
The thickness of the second electrode would have been obvious, from at least [0143] of Kinoshita, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention because absent evidence or disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d454, 105 USQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1995).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mollard et al. (US 20200066808 A1) and further in view of Song et al. (US 20140159022 A1), Pieh (US 20100078631 A1), Choi et al. (US 20150137097 A1), Kobayashi et al. (US 20100051973 A1), Lim et al. (US 20130001603 A1), Nishikawa et al. (US 20050067945 A1), and Kamatani et al. (US 20140225968 A1).
Regarding dependent Claim 8, Mollard, further in view of Song, Pieh, Choi, Kobayashi, Lim, and Nishikawa teach the display panel according to claim 1; however, Mollard remains silent wherein:
at the third subpixel, a full width at half maximum of light emitted to the second light-emitting layer through the second electrode is not less than 10 nm and not more than 24 nm.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kamatani teaches an organic compound 4, suitable for green light emission ([0042]), to be used in a light emitting stack; wherein compound 4 is reported to have a full width half maximum of 30 nm or less. As the third subpixel emits green light, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have a third subpixel with a full width at half maximum of light emitted to the second light-emitting layer through the second electrode is not less than 10 nm and not more than 24 nm.
The full width at half maximum of light emitted at the third sub-pixel would have been obvious, from at least [0042] of Kamatani, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention because absent evidence or disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d454, 105 USQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1995). Furthermore, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the dimensions claimed or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the claimed dimensions or variable are critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ 2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Conclusion
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant's disclosure:
US 20150187858 A1 – teaches similar display device features.
US 20100200875 A1 – previously relied upon.
US 11910639 B2 – teaches in col. 9; lines 53 – 62 that a “to improve light efficiency and image quality of a display device, it is desirable for a spectrum of light emitted from the organic light-emitting diode OLED to have a narrow full width at half maximum. To amplify light of a desired specific wavelength, for example, the first wavelength λ1, and reduce an intensity of light of the other wavelengths, it is desirable for the distance between the first pixel electrode LE1 and the opposite electrode UE to satisfy a resonance condition for amplifying the first wavelength λ1.”
US 20170025484 A1 – teaches full-width-half-max (FWHM) of about 16.5 nm.
US 20180151630 A1 – teaches full-width-half-max (FWHM) of blue to be about 15 nm.
US 20070129613 A1 – teaches that a sharp FWHM is about 20 nm ([0114]).
US 20100224248 A1 – teaches that a resonant cavity can achieve a FWHM of 1nm – 20 nm ([0068])
US 20190081120 A1 – previously relied on.
US 20160043146 A1 – previously relied on.
JP 2012248517 A – previously relied on.
US 20210028243 A1 – previously relied on.
US 20200027932 A1 – teaches a similar display device.
US 20150001499 A1 – teaches a similar order of layers between a first and second electrode for an OLED.
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 whose telephone number is (571)270-0059. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am - 5 pm.
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, Chad Dicke can be reached on (571) 270-7996. 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.
MARIO A. AUTORE JR.
Examiner
Art Unit 2897
/MARIO ANDRES AUTORE JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2897 /CHAD M DICKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights