CTNF 17/769,582 CTNF 99399 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Election/Restrictions 08-25-01 AIA Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I and claims 1, 3-9, 11, 15 and 16 in the reply filed on 4/29/2026 is acknowledged. 08-06 Claims 10, 12-14, 18 and 19 were withdrawn by the applicant from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 4/29/2026. Information Disclosure Statement Acknowledgement is made of Applicant's Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) from PTO-1449. The IDS has been considered. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Claim 1 recites that “a red light-emitting layer configured to overlap the blue light-emitting layer in a plan view and emit red light; and a green light-emitting layer configured to overlap the blue Light-emitting layer in the plan view and emit green light”. However, there are no drawings showing a plan view of the blue light-emitting area and hence does not show the above overlapping features in relation to the blue light emitting-area in a plan view. Therefore, the features must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Claim 5 recites that “in the plan view, an entirety of the red light-emitting layer and an entirety of the blue light-emitting layer overlap each other, and an entirety of the green light-emitting layer and the entirety of the blue light-emitting layer overlap each other”. However, there are no drawings showing a plan view of the blue light-emitting area and hence does not show the above overlapping features in relation to the blue light emitting-area in a plan view. Therefore, the features must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. 06-22 Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claim 9 is 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 9 recites the limitation wherein, “first electrode and the second electrode are formed of an identical material and formed in an identical layer”. It is not clear what the applicant means by “identical layer”. The first electrode and the second electrode are layers “5” and “6” respectively in Figs. 1 and 2, and are different layers. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and rejected. For examination purposes, the limitation, “identical layer” will be treated as being “formed substantially at the same vertical height”. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-27-aia AIA Claim s 1, 3, 5-8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ito et al. (JP 2010-123286 A, citations from machine translated document, attached along with this office action) . 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; and 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). 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)) Re Claim 3, Ito teaches the display device according to claim 1, wherein the ratio (see Fig. 4, para [0033]) 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 5, Ito teaches the display device according to claim 1, wherein, in the plan view, an entirety of the red light-emitting layer and an entirety of the blue light-emitting layer overlap each other (see Fig. 4, para [0033]), and an entirety of the green light-emitting layer and the entirety of the blue light-emitting layer overlap each other (see Fig. 4, para [0033]). Re Claim 6, Ito 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]). Re Claim 7, Ito teaches the display device according to claim 1, further comprising: a common electrode (320, Fig. 3, para [0036]) 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]) 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]) having the second polarity and being electrically connected to the green light-emitting layer (330); and a third electrode (300, Fig. 3, para [0036]) 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 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) the first electrode (360). Re Claim 15, Ito teaches the display device according to claim 1, further comprising: a common electrode (320, Fig. 3, para [0036]) 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]) 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]) having the second polarity and being electrically connected to the green light-emitting layer (330); and a third electrode (300, Fig. 3, para [0036]) 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]) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 4 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) . Re Claim 4, Ito 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]). 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 . 07-22-aia AIA 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) 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 teaches the display device according to claim 7, wherein the first electrode (360) and the second electrode (340) are formed in an identical layer (both the electrodes 360 and 340 are formed at the same vertical height, Fig. 3, also see 112(b) rejection above on how this limitation was treated). Ito does not explicitly disclose that he 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 . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 11 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) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Choi et al. (US 2011/0163309 A1) . Re Claim 11, Ito teaches the display device according to claim 5, but does not disclose a partition disposed between the red light-emitting layer and the green light-emitting layer and having no transparency. However, in a related semiconductor art, Choi discloses an insulating pixel defining layer (160, Fig. 2, para [0047]) disposed between different light emitting layers (140, Fig. 2). The insulating layer 160 can be either transparent or opaque (para [0047]). 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 an insulating partition like an insulating pixel defining layer between the different light-emitting areas of the device of Ito as shown by Choi , which can either be transparent or opaque (para [0047], Choi). The insulating pixel defining layer will provide electrical insulation between different light emitting regions and will also provide mechanical support and protect the light-emitting area from damage, thus increasing reliability of the device . 07-22-aia AIA 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) , as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sato et al. (US 2017/0278894 A1) . Re Claim 16, Ito teaches the display device according to claim 1, further comprising: a substrate (101, Fig. 3, para [0034]) 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 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). Conclusion 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 Application/Control Number: 17/769,582 Page 2 Art Unit: 2898 Application/Control Number: 17/769,582 Page 3 Art Unit: 2898 Application/Control Number: 17/769,582 Page 4 Art Unit: 2898 Application/Control Number: 17/769,582 Page 5 Art Unit: 2898 Application/Control Number: 17/769,582 Page 6 Art Unit: 2898 Application/Control Number: 17/769,582 Page 7 Art Unit: 2898 Application/Control Number: 17/769,582 Page 8 Art Unit: 2898 Application/Control Number: 17/769,582 Page 10 Art Unit: 2898 Application/Control Number: 17/769,582 Page 11 Art Unit: 2898 Application/Control Number: 17/769,582 Page 12 Art Unit: 2898 Application/Control Number: 17/769,582 Page 13 Art Unit: 2898 Application/Control Number: 17/769,582 Page 14 Art Unit: 2898 Application/Control Number: 17/769,582 Page 15 Art Unit: 2898 Application/Control Number: 17/769,582 Page 16 Art Unit: 2898 Application/Control Number: 17/769,582 Page 17 Art Unit: 2898
Prosecution Insights