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 .
Drawings
Prior objection to drawing is withdrawn in view of new drawing Fig. 2(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Prior rejection of Claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments to claim 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The 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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. (JP 2010-123286 A, citations from machine translated document, attached along with this office action, of record), and further in view of Lee et al. (US 20190198565 A1, newly cited).
Re Claim 1, Ito teaches a display device comprising:
a blue light-emitting layer (310, Figs. 1-4, para [0036]) configured to emit blue light;
a red light-emitting layer (350, Figs. 1-4, para [0039]) configured to overlap the blue light-emitting layer (310) in a plan view (see Fig. 4, para [0033]) and emit red light;
a green light-emitting layer (330, Figs. 1-4, para [0038]) configured to overlap the blue Light-emitting layer (310) in a plan view (see Fig. 4, para [0033]) and emit green light, wherein:
a light-emitting area of the blue light-emitting layer is greater than a light- emitting area of the red light-emitting layer, and the light-emitting area of the red light- emitting layer is greater than a light-emitting area of the green light-emitting layer (see Fig. 4, para [0033]) and;
a ratio of the light-emitting area of the red light-emitting layer, the light-emitting area of the green light-emitting layer, and the light-emitting area of the blue light-emitting layer (see Fig. 4, para [0033]) is determined based on a luminous efficiency of the red light-emitting layer and a luminosity factor of the red light, a luminous efficiency of the green light-emitting layer and a luminosity factor of the green light, and a luminous efficiency of the blue light-emitting layer and a luminosity factor of the blue light (see paras [0006], [0010], [0022] and [0040], also see Examiner notes below), and
in the plan view, an entirety of the red light-emitting layer and a part of the blue light-emitting layer overlap each other (see Figs. 1 and 4, para [0033]), and an entirety of the green light-emitting layer and another part of the blue light-emitting layer overlap each other (see Figs. 1 and 4, para [0033]).
Regarding the last limitation of the claim, the Applicant has optimized the ratio of the light-emitting areas using a luminous efficiency and a luminosity factor of the different light-emitting layers. Prior art Ito teaches a ratio of blue, red and green light-emitting areas as recited in the claim limitation, which has also been optimized for luminosity (paras [0006], [0010], [0022] and [0040]), and one of ordinary skill would realize that the ratio of the light-emitting areas can be optimized using the teachings of the prior art. Examiner notes that this limitation is a product-by-process claim, and will not be given patentable weight. A product-by-process claim is a product claim. Applicant has merely chosen to define the claimed product by the process by which it was made. It has been well established that process limitations do not impart patentability to an old/obvious product. Process limitations are significant only to the extent that they distinguish the claimed product over the prior art product. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir.1985). Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983))
Ito also does not disclose a partition covering side surfaces of the blue light-emitting layer, the red light-emitting layer, and the green light-emitting layer, and having no transparency.
However, in a related semiconductor art, Lee discloses insulating layers (83+85, Fig. 10, paras [0197] – [0198]) between light-emitting regions and covering the side surfaces of the light emitting layers (para [0197]). The insulating layers can function as non-transmitting layers, which absorb or reflect light to block the transmission of light (paras [0197] – [0198]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, absent unexpected results, to dispose a non-transmitting insulating layer on the side surfaces of the light-emitting areas of the device of Ito as shown by Lee, because the insulating layer not only protects the light-emitting regions from mechanical damage but also provide electrical isolation between the different light-emitting regions and also acts as non-transmitting layer to block stray light.
Thus, the device of Ito modified by Lee discloses a partition (marked “insulating layer” in annotated Fig. 3, E-E’ section below, which acts as a partition layer between light-emitting regions) covering the side surfaces of the blue light-emitting layer (side surfaces of 310), the red light-emitting layer (side surfaces of 350), and the green light-emitting layer (side surfaces of 330), and having no transparency (insulating layer is non-transmitting, paras [0197] – [0198], Lee).
PNG
media_image1.png
240
606
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re Claim 3, Ito modified by Lee teaches the display device according to claim 1,
wherein the ratio (see Fig. 4, para [0033], Ito) is determined based on according to a ratio of an inverse of a multiplication value of the luminous efficiency of the red light-emitting layer and the luminosity factor of the red light, an inverse of a multiplication value of the luminous efficiency of the green light-emitting layer and the luminosity factor of the green light, and an inverse of a multiplication value of the luminous efficiency of the blue light-emitting layer and the luminosity factor of the blue light.
With respect to the limitations of the claim, the Applicant has optimized the ratio of the light-emitting areas using a luminous efficiency and a luminosity factor of the different light-emitting layers. Prior art Ito teaches a ratio of blue, red and green light-emitting areas as recited in the claim limitation, which has also been optimized for luminosity (paras [0006], [0010], [0022] and [0040]), and one of ordinary skill would realize that the ratio of the light-emitting areas can be optimized using the teachings of the prior art. Examiner notes that this limitation is a product-by-process claim, and will not be given patentable weight. A product-by-process claim is a product claim. Applicant has merely chosen to define the claimed product by the process by which it was made. It has been well established that process limitations do not impart patentability to an old/obvious product. Process limitations are significant only to the extent that they distinguish the claimed product over the prior art product. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir.1985). Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983)).
Re Claim 4, Ito modified by Lee teaches the display device according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose that the light-emitting area of the green light-emitting layer is less than one-tenth of the light-emitting area of the blue light-emitting layer.
However, Ito discloses that the light-emitting area of blue light > light-emitting area of red light > light-emitting area of green light (see Fig. 4, para [0033], Ito). In Fig. 4, Ito discloses that the green light emitting area is about one-third the light-emitting of the blue light. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of invention, to optimize the light-emitting areas of the different colors, depending on the material properties of the light-emitting layers and the design of the display area, and arrive at the claimed limitation. With respect to the limitations of the claim, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). The optimization of the claimed light-emitting areas would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Re Claim 6, Ito modified by Lee teaches the display device according to claim 1,
wherein the red light-emitting layer and the green light-emitting layer do not overlap each other in the plan view (see Fig. 4, para [0033], Ito).
Re Claim 7, Ito modified by Lee teaches the display device according to claim 1, further comprising:
a common electrode (320, Fig. 3, para [0036], Ito) having a first polarity and being electrically connected to all of the red light-emitting layer (350), the green light-emitting layer (330), and the blue light-emitting layer (310);
a first electrode (360, Fig. 3, para [0039], Ito) having a second polarity opposite the first polarity and being electrically connected to the red light-emitting layer (350);
a second electrode (340, Fig. 3, para [0038], Ito) having the second polarity and being electrically connected to the green light-emitting layer (330); and
a third electrode (300, Fig. 3, para [0036], Ito) having the second polarity and being electrically connected to the blue light-emitting layer (310), wherein:
the common electrode (320) is sandwiched (see Fig. 3) between the blue light-emitting layer (310), and the red light-emitting layer (350) and the green light-emitting layer (330),
the red light-emitting layer (350, Fig. 3) is provided between the common electrode (320) and the first electrode (360), and the green light-emitting layer (330, Fig. 3) is provided between the common electrode (320) and the second electrode (340), and
the blue light-emitting layer (310, Fig. 3) is provided between the third electrode (300) and the common electrode (320).
Re Claim 8, Ito modified by Lee teaches the display device according to claim 7 wherein, in the plan view, the second electrode (340) does not overlap (see Figs. 2 and 4, Ito) the first electrode (360).
Re Claim 15, Ito modified by Lee teaches the display device according to claim 1, further comprising:
a common electrode (320, Fig. 3, para [0036], Ito) having a first polarity and being electrically connected to all of the red light-emitting layer (350), the green light-emitting layer (330), and the blue light-emitting layer (310);
a first electrode (360, Fig. 3, para [0039], Ito) having a second polarity opposite the first polarity and being electrically connected to the red light-emitting layer (350);
a second electrode (340, Fig. 3, para [0038], Ito) having the second polarity and being electrically connected to the green light-emitting layer (330); and
a third electrode (300, Fig. 3, para [0036], Ito) having the second polarity and being electrically connected to the blue light-emitting layer (310),
wherein, the common electrode and the first to third electrodes are formed of a transparent material (see paras [0024] and [0036] - [0037], Ito).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. (JP 2010-123286 A, citations from machine translated document, attached along with this office action) and Lee et al. (US 20190198565 A1, newly cited) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Ito et al. (US 2010/0127248 A1, hereinafter “Ito-2”).
Re Claim 9, Ito modified by Lee teaches the display device according to claim 7, further comprising:
a substrate (101, Fig. 3, para [0034], Ito);
wherein the first electrode (360) and the second electrode (340) are formed in a same plane parallel to the substrate (see Fig. 3, Ito).
Ito does not explicitly disclose that the first electrode (360) and the second electrode (340) are formed of an identical material. However, in a related display art, Ito-2 discloses that the two electrodes can be formed of a same transparent electrode like ITO or IZO (para [0119], Ito-2). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, absent unexpected results, to form the electrodes of the device of Ito by a same transparent electrode like ITO or IZO as disclosed by Ito-2 (para [0119], Ito-2), which will yield predictable result. The use of a known material for its known purpose to yield predictable results is prima facie obvious. Also see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). Additionally, the use of a same material for the electrodes will reduce cost and simplify the manufacturing process.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. (JP 2010-123286 A, citations from machine translated document, attached along with this office action) and Lee et al. (US 20190198565 A1, newly cited), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sato et al. (US 2017/0278894 A1).
Re Claim 16, Ito modified by Lee teaches the display device according to claim 1, further comprising:
a substrate (101, Fig. 3, para [0034], Ito) on which the red light-emitting layer (350), the green light-emitting layer (330), and the blue light-emitting layer (310) are mounted, wherein:
display is performed on a side of the display device opposite the substrate (see Fig. 3, Ito).
Ito does not disclose the following:
the red light-emitting layer and the green light-emitting layer include a quantum dot, and are disposed closer to the substrate than the blue light- emitting layer, and
display is performed on a side of the display device closer to the blue light-emitting layer.
However, in another embodiment in Fig. 5, Ito discloses that the orientations of the stack of the light-emitting layers and the connection electrodes, can be reversed such that the red light-emitting layer (350) and the green light-emitting layer (330) are closer to the substrate (101), than the blue light- emitting layer (310), and the display is performed on a side of the display device closer to the blue light-emitting layer (see Fig. 5, para [0020], and compare to Fig. 1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, absent unexpected results, that the light-emitting layers can be stacked either in the orientation in Fig. 1 or in a reverse orientation as shown in Fig. 5 as taught by Ito, and both orientations would perform the same functions. Thus, in the reverse orientation as shown in Fig. 5, the red light-emitting layer (350) and the green light-emitting layer (330) are closer to the substrate (101), than the blue light- emitting layer (310), satisfying the claim limitation.
Furthermore, prior art, Sato teaches that the light-emitting layers can be made of quantum dots because of their advantages of being higher in light emission efficiency than organic electroluminescence materials and, furthermore, being free of concentration quenching (para [0003]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, absent unexpected results, that the light-emitting layers of Ito can be made of quantum dots as disclosed by Sato because of their advantages of being higher in light emission efficiency than organic electroluminescence materials and, furthermore, being free of concentration quenching (para [0003], Sato).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 has 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.
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 PINAKI DAS whose telephone number is (703)756-5641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, JULIO MALDONADO can be reached at (571)272-1864. 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.
/P.D./Examiner, Art Unit 2898 /JULIO J MALDONADO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights