DETAILED ACTION
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 Amendment filed July 8, 2025 has been entered. Applicant' s amendment to the Title of the Specification has overcome the objection set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed April 9, 2025, and the objection is hereby withdrawn.
Applicant' s amendment to claim 13 has been considered, and the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Claims 1 and 4-15 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-12, filed July 8, 2025, with respect to the prior art rejection of claims 1 and 4-15 have been fully considered in view of the Amendment and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly identified additional prior art Akimoto; Keiko et al. (US 2011/0068330; Akimoto) in combination with the previously cited prior art including updated interpretation(s). Please see the claim rejections below.
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 6-11 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 6 recites, “at least one second light-reflecting portion is provided between”…” the first electrode and the light-emitting layer, between the light-emitting layer and the second electrode, and between the second electrode and the light absorption layer”. It is unclear exactly how many second light-reflecting portions are required by the limitation, in at least two aspects: (1) it is unclear whether each of the plurality (from claim 4) of the first electrodes and second electrodes must have a second light-reflecting portion between it and the light-emitting layer, and (2), because the claim recites “at least one” of a series of locations where a second light-reflecting portion is required, and joins the series with “and”, it is unclear whether the second light-reflecting portion is required between each of the locations or only one (at least one) of the locations. For example, if only one of the locations is required, the Examiner would find it clearer to join the series of locations with “or”; if each location must have a second light-reflecting portion, the Examiner finds the scope of “at least one” unclear.
Regarding claims 7-11, note the dependent claims necessarily inherit the indefiniteness of the claims on which they depend.
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.
Claims 1, 4, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim; Hak Sun et al. (US 2015/0123952; hereinafter Kim) in view of Akimoto; Keiko et al. (US 2011/0068330; Akimoto).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a display device comprising:
a substrate (110; Fig 3; ¶ [0069]); and
a pixel (PX; Figs 2-3; ¶ [0051-52]) provided on the substrate,
wherein the pixel includes
a light-emitting portion (L, comprising emission layer 370; Figs 2-3; ¶ [0055-66]) including a plurality of light-emitting elements (layered red, green, and blue organic emission layers; ¶ [0081]) and configured to generate light, and
a light-exiting portion (O; Figs 2-3; ¶ [0055-66]) adjacent to the light-emitting portion,
the light-exiting portion includes
a first light-reflecting portion (271; Fig 2, ¶ [0088-92]); and see the included, annotated Fig 3 below) provided on an incline on the substrate and configured to receive and reflect the light from the light-emitting portion,
PNG
media_image1.png
483
800
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and
an opening configured to emit the light reflected by the first light-reflecting portion to the outside (as labeled in the included Fig 3 above; ¶ [0092]), and
at least some of the plurality of light-emitting elements are formed by being layered (emission layer 370 may have a structure in which a plurality of organic material layers…are layered; ¶ [0081]),
the plurality of light-emitting elements comprises:
a red light-emitting element configured to emit red light (red organic emission layer; ¶ [0081]),
a green light-emitting element configured to emit green light (green organic emission layer; ¶ [0081]), and
a blue light-emitting element configured to emit blue light (blue organic emission layer; ¶ [0081]).
Kim does not disclose that the plurality of light-emitting elements comprises:
the green light-emitting element, the red light-emitting element, and the blue light-emitting element are formed in this order from a substrate side.
In the same field of endeavor, Akimoto discloses a stacked OLED structure (Fig. 2; ¶ [0010-36, 0057-58]) comprising a green light-emitting element (10G; Fig. 2; ¶ [0015]), a red light-emitting element (10R; Fig. 2; ¶ [0015]), and a blue light-emitting element (10B; Fig. 2; ¶ [0015]) formed in this order from a substrate side. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have combined the structure of Akimoto’s stacked OLED with the pixel of Kim’s display device. One would have been motivated to do this (1) because, while Kim discloses that green, red, and blue light-emitting elements may be layered, Kim does not disclose the detailed structure, and (2) in order to utilize the independent control of 10G,10R,10B disclosed by Akimoto for the stacked OLED structure (¶ [0034-35]).
Regarding claim 4, Kim in view of Akimoto discloses the display device according to claim 1,
wherein each of the plurality of light-emitting elements (Akimoto; 10G,10R,10B; Fig 1B) includes a first electrode (Akimoto; 10a; Fig 2; ¶ [0026]), a light-emitting layer (Akimoto; 10gl,10rl,10bl, respectively; Fig 2; ¶ [0026]), and a second electrode (Akimoto; 10c; Fig 2; ¶ [0026]) in this order from the substrate side.
Regarding claim 15, Kim in view of Akimoto discloses the display device according to claim 4, wherein the opening (Kim; within O; Figs 3,16) does not overlap the light-emitting layer (Kim; 370 {the portion within L}; Figs 3, 16) in a plan view (Kim; O does not overlap L; Fig 16; ¶ [0125-126]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim; Hak Sun et al. (US 2015/0123952; hereinafter Kim) in view of Akimoto; Keiko et al. (US 2011/0068330; Akimoto), and further in view of Park; Won Sang (US 2015/0001474; hereinafter Park).
Regarding claim 5, Kim in view of Akimoto discloses the display device according to claim 4,
wherein the light-emitting portion (Kim; L; Fig 3) further includes a light absorption layer (Kim; 220; Fig 3; ¶ [0095]),
but does not disclose
the light absorption layer is in an upper layer overlying the second electrode.
In the same field of endeavor, Park discloses a similar device wherein light is output to the side opposite the substrate (substrate 110; output as labeled {Light} in Fig 6, after emission from light-emitting layer 390 [¶ [0022]} and reflectance from reflective barrier rib 364 {¶ [0067-71]}), comprising a first electrode (350; Fig 6; ¶ [0022]), the light-emitting layer 390, and a second electrode (410; Fig 6; ¶ [0022]) in this order from the substrate side, and
a light absorption layer (450; Fig 6; ¶ [0022, 0095]) in an upper layer overlying the second electrode.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have combined the light absorption layer structural location with the display device according to claim 4. One would have been motivated to do this, in order to configure the device for light output to the side of the emission portion opposite the substrate, which may be desirable for a number of reasons, since both “top” emission (as disclosed by Park) and “bottom” emission (as disclosed by Kim) light-emitting structures are well-known in the art. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success because of the similar materials and elements disclosed in the similar endeavor by each reference.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim; Hak Sun et al. (US 2015/0123952; hereinafter Kim) in view of Akimoto; Keiko et al. (US 2011/0068330; Akimoto), further in view of Park; Won Sang (US 2015/0001474; hereinafter Park), and still further in view of Akutagawa; Nobuyuki et al. (US 2023/0058907 A1; hereinafter Akutagawa).
Regarding claim 12, Kim in view of Akimoto, further in view of Park, and still further in view of Akutagawa discloses the display device according to claim 5,
but does not disclose
wherein the light absorption layer has unevenness on a surface on a side opposite to the light-emitting layer.
In the same field of endeavor, Akutagawa discloses antiglare layers for prevention of reflection of external light (¶ [0003]), having an unevenness on a side opposite a light-emitting surface (¶ [0004]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to include an unevenness in the light absorption layer of the display device according to claim 5. One would have been motivated do this in order to prevent reflection of external light and to prevent contrast reduction of a display device (Akutagawa; ¶ [0003]). One would have had a reasonable expectation of success because an unevenness for this purpose is well-known in the art.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim; Hak Sun et al. (US 2015/0123952; hereinafter Kim) in view of Akimoto; Keiko et al. (US 2011/0068330; Akimoto), and further in view of Ohmae; Akira et al. (US 2019/0140154; hereinafter Ohmae).
Regarding claim 13, Kim discloses the display device according to claim 1,
wherein the opening (Kim; as labeled in the Fig 3 included under claim 1 above; ¶ [0092]) comprises a waveguide (light is guided through the opening in the light exiting portion to the outside; Figs 2-3.)
Kim does not disclose a surface of the waveguide on a side where the light reflected by the first light-reflecting portion is emitted to the outside has an unevenness.
In the same field of endeavor, Ohmae discloses a display apparatus (¶ [0035-83]) wherein an opening comprises a waveguide (233,41; Fig 6A; ¶ [0007,0080]), and a surface of the waveguide on a side where light is emitted to the outside (top face of 41; Fig 6A; ¶ [0080,0062]) has an unevenness. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to configure the display device of Kim such that a surface of the waveguide on a side where the light reflected by the first light-reflecting portion is emitted to the outside has an unevenness. One would have been motivated do this in order to improve the radiation distribution of emitted light (Ohmae; ¶ [0002-21]), and would have had a reasonable expectation of success because use of an unevenness for light diffusion (improved radiation distribution) is well-known in the art, and has a number of adaptable methods of formation (for example, Ohmae; ¶ [0062]).
Claims 1 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi; Man-Seob et al. (US 2015/0372066; hereinafter Choi) in view of Akimoto; Keiko et al. (US 2011/0068330; Akimoto).
Regarding claim 1 (Second Interpretation), Choi discloses a display device comprising:
a substrate (110; Fig 1; ¶ [0041]); and
a pixel (100, as shown below; Fig 1; ¶ [0007-0026]) provided on the substrate,
PNG
media_image2.png
426
915
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the pixel includes
a light-emitting portion (EMA1; Fig 1; ¶ [0041]) including a plurality of light-emitting elements (comprising 130, 140, 150; Fig 1; ¶ [0041-59]) and configured to generate light, and
a light-exiting portion (EXA1; Fig 1; ¶ [0041]) adjacent to the light-emitting portion,
the light-exiting portion includes
a first light-reflecting portion (150a; Fig 1; ¶ [0051-52]) provided on an incline on the substrate and configured to receive and reflect the light from the light-emitting portion (Figs 1-2; ¶ [0051-52]; note: 121 is mislabeled as 122 and 122 is mislabeled as 121 in Fig 2 {Fig 1 is correctly labeled, in correspondence with the description}), and
an opening (comprising 122; Fig 1; ¶ [0041]) configured to emit the light reflected by the first light-reflecting portion to the outside (¶ [0053-59]), and
at least some of the plurality of light-emitting elements are formed by being layered (140 may have a structure in which red-, green-, and blue-emitting emission materials are sequentially stacked; ¶ [0046]).
Choi does not disclose:
the plurality of light-emitting elements comprises: a red light-emitting element configured to emit red light, a green light-emitting element configured to emit green light, and a blue light-emitting element configured to emit blue light, and
the green light-emitting element, the red light-emitting element, and the blue light-emitting element are formed in this order from a substrate side.
In the same field of endeavor, Akimoto discloses a stacked OLED structure (Fig. 2; ¶ [0010-36, 0057-58]) comprising a green light-emitting element configured to emit green light (10G; Fig. 2; ¶ [0015]), a red light-emitting element configured to emit red light (10R; Fig. 2; ¶ [0015]), and a blue light-emitting element configured to emit blue light (10B; Fig. 2; ¶ [0015]) formed in this order from a substrate side. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have combined the structure of Akimoto’s stacked OLED with the pixel of Kim’s display device. One would have been motivated to do this (1) because, while Choi discloses that red-, green-, and blue-emitting emission materials are sequentially stacked, Choi does not disclose the detailed structure, and (2) in order to utilize the independent control of 10G,10R,10B disclosed by Akimoto for the stacked OLED structure (¶ [0034-35]).
Regarding claim 14, Choi in view of Akimoto discloses the display device according to claim 1, wherein the light-exiting portion is disposed surrounding the light-emitting portion (the second refractive index layer portion {high refractive index layer 122, which EXA1 comprises; Fig 1; ¶ [0042]} may surround the first refractive index layer portion {low refractive index layer 121, which EMA1 comprises; Fig 1; ¶ [0042]} (¶ [0011-12]; 122/EXA1 surrounds 121/EMA1 in a plan view {not shown}).
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 BRAD KNUDSON whose telephone number is (703)756-4582. The examiner can normally be reached Telework 9:30 -18:30 ET; M-F.
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, Eliseo Ramos Feliciano can be reached at 571-272-7925. 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.
/B.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/RATISHA MEHTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817