DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The Office acknowledges receipt on 6 February 2026 of Applicants’ amendments in which claims 1 and 16 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments submitted on 6 February 2026 with respect to amended independent claim(s) 1 and 16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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, 2, 4-16, and 18-20 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.
Claim 1, lines 24 and 25, recites “the second charge generation layer is spaced apart from the first charge generation layer in a plan view,” which is indefinite because it is unclear whether “the first charge generation layer” refers to that of the 1-1 light-emitting device or the 1-2 light-emitting device recited in lines 3 and 4. For the purpose of compact prosecution and to better comport with the original application, the claim will be interpreted to recite “the second charge generation layer is spaced apart from the first charge generation layer of either the 1-1 light-emitting device or the 1-2 light-emitting device in a plan view.” Claims 2 and 4-15 are rejected due to their dependence from base claim 1.
Claim 16, lines 25 and 26, recites “the second intermediate layer is spaced apart from the first intermediate layer in a plan view,” which is indefinite because it is unclear whether “the first intermediate layer” refers to that of the 1-1 light-emitting device or the 1-2 light-emitting device recited in lines 3 and 4. For the purpose of compact prosecution and to better comport with the original application, the claim will be interpreted to recite “the second intermediate layer is spaced apart from the first intermediate layer of either the 1-1 light-emitting device or the 1-2 light-emitting device in a plan view.” Claims 18-20 are rejected due to their dependence from base claim 16.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7-10, 16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye (US20220019305A1) in view of Gong et al. (US20220209206A1).
Regarding claim 1, as interpreted in view of the indefiniteness rejection, Ye teaches in Figs. 2 and 6 a display apparatus comprising:
a substrate (200) {[0047]};
a 1-1 light-emitting device (2021-2023 of a 1st R/G/B) and a 1-2 light-emitting device (2021-2023 of a 2nd R/G/B) over the substrate (200) and each comprising a first emission layer (2022) {[0050]} {the 1-1 and 1-2 LEDS are different LEDS of same color};
a second light-emitting device (G/B/R) adjacent to the 1-1 light-emitting device (2021-2023 of a 1st R/G/B) and comprising a second emission layer (2022) comprising a material that emits light of a color (G/B/R) different from that of the first emission layer (2022 of R/G/B) {[0051]} {the 2nd LED is of a different color than 1-1 and 1-2 LEDS}; and
a pixel-defining layer (2019) comprising an opening (2019a) exposing a center portion of a pixel electrode (2021) of each of the 1-1 light-emitting device (2021-2023 of a 1st R/G/B), the 1-2 light-emitting device (2021-2023 of a 2nd R/G/B), and the second light-emitting device (G/B/R) {[0049, 0051]},
wherein the 1-1 light-emitting device (2021-2023 of a 1st R/G/B) and the 1-2 light-emitting device (2021-2023 of a 2nd R/G/B) are configured to emit light of a same color {Fig. 6, two LEDS of same color},
wherein the pixel-defining layer (2019) between the 1-1 light-emitting device (2021-2023 of a 1st R/G/B) and the 1-2 light-emitting device (2021-2023 of a 2nd R/G/B) comprises a first groove (50) having a concave shape toward the substrate (200), the concave shape and a bottom portion of the first groove (50) being defined within the pixel-defining layer (2019), the bottom portion being a portion of the first groove (50) closest to the substrate (2019) and facing the substrate (200) {[0061, 0062]},
wherein the first groove (50) has an inverted tapered shape in a cross-sectional view {[0063]}, and
wherein the first groove (50) has a portion that widens in a direction toward the substrate (200) {[0062]}.
Ye does not teach:
each of the 1-1 light-emitting device and the 1-2 light-emitting device comprising a first charge generation layer;
the second light-emitting device comprising a second charge generation layer;
wherein the first charge generation layer is cut off at the first groove;
wherein the second charge generation layer is spaced apart from the first charge generation layer of either the 1-1 light-emitting device or the 1-2 light-emitting device in a plan view.
In an analogous art, Gong teaches in Figs. 4 and 6 and paragraph [0052] each of a 1-1 light-emitting device (1st P1) and a 1-2 light-emitting device (2nd P1) comprising a first charge generation layer (422 of 1st P1, 422 of 2nd P1); a second light-emitting device (P2) comprising a second charge generation layer (422 of P2); wherein the first charge generation layer ([422 of 1st P1]/[422 of 2nd P1]) is cut off at a first groove (T); wherein the second charge generation layer (422 of P2) is spaced apart from the first charge generation layer ([422 of 1st P1]/[422 of 2nd P1]) of either the 1-1 light-emitting device (1st P1) or the 1-2 light-emitting device (2nd P1) in a plan view. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ye’s display apparatus based on the teachings of Gong – such that each of the 1-1 light-emitting device and the 1-2 light-emitting device comprising a first charge generation layer; the second light-emitting device comprising a second charge generation layer; wherein the first charge generation layer is cut off at the first groove; wherein the second charge generation layer is spaced apart from the first charge generation layer of either the 1-1 light-emitting device or the 1-2 light-emitting device in a plan view – for: (1) supplying electrons to the first stack … [and] supplying holes to the second stack {Jin [0053]} and (2) preventing a leakage current between the adjacent subpixels {Gong [0054]}. Moreover, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Gong) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Regarding claim 2, Ye as modified by Gong teaches the display apparatus of claim 1, and Ye further teaches wherein the first groove (50) has a closed shape in a plan view {Fig. 2}.
Regarding claim 7, Ye as modified by Gong teaches the display apparatus of claim 1, and Ye further teaches further comprising an opposite electrode (2023) arranged over the pixel-defining layer (2019), wherein the opposite electrode (2023) comprises a portion surrounding the first groove (50) {Fig. 2; [0052]}.
Regarding claim 8, Ye as modified by Gong teaches the display apparatus of claim 1, and Ye further teaches further comprising wherein the pixel-defining layer (2019) between the second light-emitting device (G/B/R) and the 1-1 light-emitting device (2021-2023 of a 1st R/G/B) comprises a second groove (50) having a concave shape toward the substrate (200) {Fig. 2}.
Regarding claim 9, Ye as modified by Gong teaches the display apparatus of claim 8, and Ye further teaches further comprising an opposite electrode (2023) arranged over the pixel-defining layer (2019), wherein the opposite electrode (2023) comprises a portion surrounding each of the first groove (50 between 1-1 and 1-2 light-emitting devices) and the second groove (50 between second and 1-1 light-emitting devices) {Fig. 2; [0052]}.
Regarding claim 10, Ye as modified by Gong teaches the display apparatus of claim 1, and Ye further teaches wherein an upper surface of the pixel-defining layer (2019) between the second light-emitting device (G/B/R) and the 1-1 light-emitting device (2021-2023 of a 1st R/G/B) is flat {Fig. 2}.
Regarding claim 16, as interpreted in view of the indefiniteness rejection, Ye teaches in Figs. 2 and 6 a display apparatus comprising:
a substrate (200) {[0047]};
a 1-1 light-emitting device (2021-2023 of a 1st R/G/B) and a 1-2 light-emitting device (2021-2023 of a 2nd R/G/B) over the substrate (200) and each comprising a first emission layer (2022) {[0050]} {the 1-1 and 1-2 LEDS are different LEDS of same color};
a second light-emitting device (G/B/R) adjacent to the 1-1 light-emitting device (2021-2023 of a 1st R/G/B) and comprising a second emission layer (2022) comprising a material that emits light of a color different from that of the first emission layer (2022 of G) {[0051]} {the 2nd LED is of a different color than 1-1 and 1-2 LEDS}; and
a pixel-defining layer (2019) comprising an opening (2019a) exposing a center portion of a pixel electrode (2021) of each of the 1-1 light-emitting device (2021-2023 of a 1st R/G/B), the 1-2 light-emitting device (2021-2023 of a 2nd R/G/B), and the second light-emitting device (G/B/R not illustrated in Fig. 2, but similar to 2021-2023 illustrated in Fig. 2) {[0049, 0051]},
wherein the 1-1 light-emitting device (2021-2023 of a 1st R/G/B) and the 1-2 light-emitting device (2021-2023 of a 2nd R/G/B) are configured to emit light of a same color {Fig. 6, two LEDS of same color},
wherein an upper surface of the pixel-defining layer (2019) between the 1-1 light-emitting device (2021-2023 of a 1st R/G/B) and the 1-2 light-emitting device (2021-2023 of a 2nd R/G/B) comprises a first groove (50) having a concave shape toward the substrate (200), the concave shape and a bottom portion of the first groove (50) being defined within the pixel-defining layer (2019), the bottom portion being a portion of the first groove (50) closest to the substrate (200) and facing the substrate (200) {[0061, 0062]},
wherein the first groove (50) has an inverted tapered shape in a cross-sectional view {[0063]}, and
wherein the first groove (50) has a portion that widens in a direction toward the substrate (200) {[0062]}.
Ye does not teach:
the 1-1 light-emitting device and the 1-2 light-emitting device comprising a first intermediate layer including a first functional layer;
the second light-emitting device comprising a second intermediate layer including a second functional layer;
wherein the first functional layer is cut off at the first groove,
wherein the second intermediate layer is spaced apart from the first intermediate layer of either the 1-1 light-emitting device or the 1-2 light-emitting device in a plan view.
Gong teaches in Figs. 4 and 6 and paragraph [0052] a 1-1 light-emitting device (1st P1) and a 1-2 light-emitting device (2nd P1) comprising a first intermediate layer (421 and/or 422 of 1st P1 and/or 2nd P1) including a first functional layer (e.g., [HTL/EML/ETL of 421]/[422] of 1st P1 and/or 2nd P1); a second light-emitting device (P2) comprising a second intermediate layer (421 and/or 422 of P2) including a second functional layer (e.g., [HTL/EML/ETL of 421]/[422] of P2); wherein the first functional layer (e.g., [HTL/EML/ETL of 421]/[422] of 1st P1 and/or 2nd P1) is cut off at a first groove (T), wherein the second intermediate layer (e.g., [HTL/EML/ETL of 421]/[422] of P2) is spaced apart from the first intermediate layer (e.g., [HTL/EML/ETL of 421]/[422] of 1st P1 and/or 2nd P1) of either the 1-1 light-emitting device (1st P1) or the 1-2 light-emitting device (2nd P1) in a plan view. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ye’s display apparatus based on the teachings of Gong – such that the 1-1 light-emitting device and the 1-2 light-emitting device comprise a first intermediate layer including a first functional layer; the second light-emitting device comprise a second intermediate layer including a second functional layer; wherein the first functional layer is cut off at the first groove, wherein the second intermediate layer is spaced apart from the first intermediate layer of either the 1-1 light-emitting device or the 1-2 light-emitting device in a plan view – for: (1) supplying electrons to the first stack and/or emitting light based on such received electrons {Jin [0053]} and (2) preventing a leakage current between the adjacent subpixels {Gong [0054]}. Moreover, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Gong) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Regarding claim 18, Ye as modified by Gong teaches the display apparatus of claim 16, and Ye further teaches wherein the pixel-defining layer (2019) is between the second light-emitting device (G/B/R) and the 1-1 light-emitting device (2021-2023 of a 1st R/G/B) and comprises a second groove (50) having a concave shape toward the substrate (200) {Fig. 2}.
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye in view of Gong as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bing (US20230131455A1).
Regarding claim 4, Ye as modified by Gong teaches the display apparatus of claim 1, but Ye does not teach further comprising
a third light- emitting device adjacent to the 1-1 light-emitting device and the second light-emitting device and configured to emit light of a color different from those of the 1-1 light-emitting device and the second light-emitting device,
wherein a distance between a center portion of the 1-1 light-emitting device and a center portion of the 1-2 light-emitting device is greater than a distance between a center portion of the second light-emitting device and a center portion of the third light-emitting device.
In an analogous art pertaining to a display apparatus having multiple light emitting devices (Fig. 2; ¶0056; 101-103) and pixel defining layers (Fig. 2; ¶0053; 21, 22), Bing teaches in Figs. 1 and 2 further comprising a third light-emitting device (102) adjacent to a 1-1 light-emitting device (103) and a second light-emitting device (101) and configured to emit light of a color different from those of the 1-1 light-emitting device (103) and the second light-emitting device (101) {¶0046, The first sub-pixels 101, the second sub-pixels 102 and the third sub-pixels 103 are one of red sub-pixels, green sub-pixels, and blue sub-pixels, respectively}. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ye’s display apparatus as modified by Gong based on the teachings of Bing – to include a third light-emitting device adjacent to the 1-1 light-emitting device and the second light-emitting device and configured to emit light of a color different from those of the 1-1 light-emitting device and the second light-emitting device – for the purpose of effectively increasing the number of the PPI. Bing ¶0028 and Abstract.
Bing further teaches in Figs. 1 and 2 wherein a distance between a center portion of the 1-1 light-emitting device (upper 103) and a center portion of the 1-2 light-emitting device (lower 103) is greater than a distance between a center portion of the second light-emitting device (101) and a center portion of the third light-emitting device (102) {¶0043}. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ye’s display apparatus as modified by Gong and Bing based on the further teachings of Bing – such that a distance between a center portion of the 1-1 light-emitting device and a center portion of the 1-2 light-emitting device is greater than a distance between a center portion of the second light-emitting device and a center portion of the third light-emitting device – for the purpose of effectively increasing the number of the PPI. Bing ¶0028 and Abstract.
Regarding claim 5, Ye as modified by Gong teaches the display apparatus of claim 1, but Ye does not teach wherein an area of an emission area of each of the 1-1 light-emitting device and the 1-2 light-emitting device is greater than an area of an emission area of the second light-emitting device.
Bing teaches in Figs. 1 and 2 wherein an area of an emission area of each of a 1-1 light-emitting device (upper 103) and a 1-2 light-emitting device (lower 103) is greater than an area of an emission area of a second light-emitting device (101) {¶0045, an area of each of the third sub-pixels 103 is twice the area of each of the first sub-pixels 101}. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ye’s display apparatus as modified by Gong based on the teachings of Bing – such that an area of an emission area of each of the 1-1 light-emitting device and the 1-2 light-emitting device is greater than an area of an emission area of the second light-emitting device –because a lifetime and luminous intensity of a light-emitting material of the blue sub-pixels are [sic] weaker, and an area of each of the blue sub-pixels can be designed to be larger. In the embodiment, the third sub-pixels … may be the blue sub-pixels. Bing ¶0046.
Regarding claim 6, Ye as modified by Gong and Bing teaches the display apparatus of claim 5, but Ye does not teach wherein the 1-1 light-emitting device and the 1-2 light-emitting device each comprise a material that emits light of a wavelength between 450 nm and 500 nm.
Bing teaches wherein a 1-1 light-emitting device (103) and a 1-2 light-emitting device (103) each comprises a material that emits light of a wavelength between 450 nm and 500 nm. The instant specification discloses in paragraph [0092] that “light of a wavelength between 450 nm and 500 nm” is blue light. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ye’s display apparatus as modified by Gong and Bing based on the further teachings of Bing – such that the 1-1 light-emitting device and the 1-2 light-emitting device each comprises a material that emits light of a wavelength between 450 nm and 500 nm – because a lifetime and luminous intensity of a light-emitting material of the blue sub-pixels are [sic] weaker, and an area of each of the blue sub-pixels can be designed to be larger. In the embodiment, the third sub-pixels … may be the blue sub-pixels. Bing ¶0046.
Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye in view of Gong as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ohsawa et al. (US20240065024A1).
Regarding claim 11, Ye as modified by Gong teaches the display apparatus of claim 1, but Ye does not teach wherein the first emission layer comprises a first sub-emission layer and a second sub-emission layer stacked on each other.
In an analogous art, Ohsawa teaches in Figs. 2B and 2D and paragraph [0072] a first emission layer (103a, 106, 103b) comprises a first sub-emission layer (103a) and a second sub-emission layer (103b) stacked on each other. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ye’s display apparatus as modified by Gong based on the teachings of Ohsawa – such that the first emission layer comprises a first sub-emission layer and a second sub-emission layer stacked on each other – to achieve higher reliability than a single-layer structure. Ohsawa [0075].
Regarding claim 12, Ye as modified by Gong and Ohsawa teaches the display apparatus of claim 11, but Ye does not teach wherein the first sub-emission layer and the second sub-emission layer comprise materials that emit light of a same color.
Ohsawa teaches in Figs. 2B and 2D and paragraph [0075] a first sub-emission layer (103a) and a second sub-emission layer (103b) comprise materials that emit light of a same color. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ye’s display apparatus as modified by Gong and Ohsawa based on the further teachings of Ohsawa – such that the first sub-emission layer and the second sub-emission layer comprise materials that emit light of a same color – to achieve higher reliability than a single-layer structure. Ohsawa [0075].
Claim(s) 13, 14, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye in view of Gong as applied to claim 1 (for claims 13 and 14) and claim 16 (for claim 20) above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US20220131104A1).
Regarding claim 13, Ye as modified by Gong teaches the display apparatus of claim 1, but Ye does not teach further comprising an auxiliary layer surrounding at least a portion of the first groove, wherein at least a portion of the auxiliary layer protrudes toward a center portion of the first groove.
Kim teaches in Figs. 8D and 8G and paragraph [0100] an auxiliary layer (105) surrounding at least a portion of a first groove (103a), wherein at least a portion of the auxiliary layer (105) protrudes toward a center portion of the first groove (103a). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ye’s display apparatus as modified by Gong based on the teachings of Kim – such that an auxiliary layer surrounds at least a portion of the first groove, wherein at least a portion of the auxiliary layer protrudes toward a center portion of the first groove – to prevent the undercut structure from being planarized. Kim [0202]. Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., auxiliary layer, groove) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Kim) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 14, Ye as modified by Gong and Kim teaches the display apparatus of claim 13, but Ye does not teach wherein the auxiliary layer comprises at least one of silicon oxynitride, silicon oxide, or silicon nitride.
Kim teaches in Fig. 6 and paragraph [0159] an auxiliary layer (105) comprises silicon oxide. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ye’s display apparatus as modified by Gong and Kim based on the further teachings of Kim – such that the auxiliary layer comprises at least one of silicon oxynitride, silicon oxide, or silicon nitride – to prevent the undercut structure from being planarized. Kim [0202]. Moreover, [t]he selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Regarding claim 20, Ye as modified by Gong teaches the display apparatus of claim 16, but Ye does not teach further comprising an auxiliary layer surrounding at least a portion of the first groove, wherein at least a portion of the auxiliary layer protrudes toward a center portion of the first groove.
Kim teaches in Figs. 8D and 8G and paragraph [0100] an auxiliary layer (105) surrounding at least a portion of a first groove (103a), wherein at least a portion of the auxiliary layer (105) protrudes toward a center portion of the first groove (103a). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ye’s display apparatus as modified by Gong based on the teachings of Kim – such that an auxiliary layer surrounding at least a portion of the first groove, wherein at least a portion of the auxiliary layer protrudes toward a center portion of the first groove – to prevent the undercut structure from being planarized. Kim [0202]. Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., auxiliary layer, groove) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Kim) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A).
Claim(s) 15 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye in view of Gong as applied respectively to claim 1 (for claim 15) and claim 16 (for claim 19) above, and further in view of Im et al. (US20230165087A1).
Regarding claim 15, Ye as modified by Gong teaches the display apparatus of claim 1, but Ye does not teach further comprising a first functional layer overlapping the first charge generation layer and cut off at the first groove and a second functional layer overlapping the second charge generation layer and spaced apart from the first functional layer.
In an analogous art, Im teaches in Figs. 1 and 2 and paragraph [0099] and [0100] a first functional layer (e.g., HTL of 63) overlapping a first charge generation layer (N-type portion of 62) and cut off at a first groove (T1) and a second functional layer (e.g., ETL of 63) overlapping a second charge generation layer (P-type portion of 62) and spaced apart from the first functional layer (e.g., HTL of 63). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ye’s display apparatus as modified by Gong based on the teachings of Im – such that a first functional layer overlaps the first charge generation layer and is cut off at the first groove and a second functional layer overlaps the second charge generation layer and is spaced apart from the first functional layer – because all the claimed elements (e.g., ETL, HTL, CGL, groove) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Im) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results (e.g., sub-pixel) to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Moreover, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Regarding claim 19, Ye as modified by Gong teaches the display apparatus of claim 18, but Ye does not teach further comprising a first charge generation layer overlapping the first functional layer and cut off at the first groove and a second charge generation layer overlapping the second functional layer and spaced apart from the first charge generation layer.
Im teaches in Figs. 1 and 2 and paragraph [0099] and [0100] a first charge generation layer (N-type portion of 62) overlapping a first functional layer (e.g., HTL/EML/ETL of 61) and cut off at a first groove (T1) and a second charge generation layer (P-type portion of 62) overlapping a second functional layer (e.g., ETL/HTL/EML of 61) and spaced apart from the first charge generation layer (N-type portion of 62). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ye’s display apparatus as modified by Gong based on the teachings of Im – such that a first charge generation layer overlaps the first functional layer and is cut off at the first groove and a second charge generation layer overlaps the second functional layer and is spaced apart from the first charge generation layer – because all the claimed elements (e.g., ETL, EML, HTL, CGL, groove) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Im) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results (e.g., sub-pixel) to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Moreover, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
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 DAVID WARD whose telephone number is (703)756-1382. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30-3:30 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, Matthew Landau can be reached at (571)-272-1731. 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.
/D.W.W./Examiner, Art Unit 2891
/MATTHEW C LANDAU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2891