DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the Request for Continued Examination filed on 09 July 2026. Claims 13 and 15-28 are pending in the application, submitted on 14 January 2026. Claims 1-12 and 14 have been cancelled. Claims 15-28 are newly submitted.
This application is a US national stage application under 35 USC 371 of PCT/JP2020/008759, filed on 02 March 2020.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.
Allowable Subject Matter
The indicated allowability of claims 13 and 15-28 is withdrawn in view of the newly cited reference to Kubota et al., US 2016/0197310, cited by Applicant on the Information Disclosure Statement submitted on 09 July 2026. Rejections based on the newly cited reference(s) follow.
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 13, 21, and 24-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, US 2015/0001474, of record, in view of Kubota et al., US 2016/0197310, cited by Applicant on the Information Disclosure Statement submitted on 09 July 2026.
With respect to claim 13, Park discloses a display device, shown in Fig. 6, comprising:
a substrate 110; and
a light-emitting element provided on the substrate 110,
wherein the light-emitting element includes a light-emitting portion, and
a first light-exiting portion (shown in Fig. 6) adjacent to the light-emitting portion, the light-emitting portion includes, in order from the substrate side,
a first electrode 354,
a light-emitting layer 390,
a second electrode 410, and
a light absorption layer 450, and
the first light-exiting portion includes a first light-reflecting layer 364 provided as inclined on the substrate 110, and a first opening 450a in region E (on the right in Fig. 6) provided in the light absorption layer 450.
Although Park discloses an opening in the light absorption layer 450, Park lacks anticipation of the opening not overlapping the light-emitting layer 390. However, in the same field of endeavor, Kubota et al. discloses a display device, shown in Fig. 2, comprising a light-absorption layer 12, an opening 12a is provided in the light-absorption layer 12, and the opening 12a does not overlap the light-emitting layer of the light-emitting element 31, see paragraphs [0068]-[0074]. Kubota et al. disclose that each light emitting element 31 is preferably provided in each corresponding opening 12a, see paragraph [0074]. Park shows the opening in light absorption layer 450 overlaps the light-emitting layer 390 so that light is only emitted in light-emitting regions E, as shown in Fig. 6 of Park. Whereas Kubota et al. shows the opening in light absorption layer 12 does not overlap the light-emitting element 31 so light is emitted from the entire surface of light-emitting element 31. In light of the disclosure of Kubota et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try to remove the portion of the light absorption layer 450 overlapping light-emitting layer 390 in the known display device of Park so that light is emitted from the entire surface of the light-emitting layer 390. It has been well established that an obvious to try rationale can support a conclusion of obviousness. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) In the instant case, there is a choice of two solution: either providing the opening in the light absorption layer to overlap the light-emitting layer or providing the opening in the light absorption layer to not overlap the light-emitting layer, and both choices result in an operable display device, as evidenced by the Park and Kubota et al. references.
With respect to claim 21, in the display device of Kubota et al., the light absorption layer 12 has an uneven surface on a side opposite the light-emitting layer in light-emitting element 31 in order to diffuse light, see paragraph [0070], as shown in Fig. 2. In light of the disclosure of Kubota et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the light absorption layer 450 in the known method of Park with an uneven surface on a side opposite the light-emitting layer 390 in order to diffuse light.
With respect to claim 24, in the display device of Park, the first light-exiting portion surrounds the light-emitting layer 390, as shown in Fig. 6.
With respect to claim 25, in the display device of Park, an area between the first light reflecting layer 364 and the light-emitting portion is filled with an insulating layer 374, see Fig. 6 and paragraphs [0068]-[0069]. However, Park does not disclose that insulating layer 374 is a transparent resin. However, with respect to insulating layer 470, Park discloses that insulating layer 470 is a transparent resin, see paragraph [0056} In light of this disclosure of Park, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that insulating layer 374 could also be a transparent resin, since Park teaches transparent resins can be used as insulating layers in the display device.
With respect to claim 26, in the display device of Park, the insulating transparent resin 374 has an uneven surface, that is, the inclined surface, on a side of the opening, as shown in Fig. 6.
With respect to claim 27, in the display device of Park, at least one of the first electrode 354 (see paragraph [0035]) and the second electrode 410 (see paragraph [0044]) includes a transparent electrode, see paragraphs [0035] and [0044]. Park fails to disclose that a refractive index of the transparent electrode is lower than a refractive index of the light-emitting layer. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a refractive index of the transparent electrode is lower than a refractive index of the light-emitting layer, since a light-emitting layer having a high refractive index in a display is crucial for determining the efficiency and longevity of the display.
With respect to claim 28, in the display device of Park, in light of what is shown in Fig. 1 of Park, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the light-emitting portion has a quadrangular shape in a plan view, and the light-exiting portion is provided adjacent to either two or three sides of the light-emitting portion in light-emitting region E.
Claims 15-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, US 2015/0001474, in view of Kubota et al., US 2016/0197310, as applied to claim 13 above, further in view of Lee et al., US 2021/0119183, of record.
Park and Kubota et al. are applied as above. Park lacks anticipation of a second light-reflecting layer. In the same field of endeavor, Lee et al. disclose a display device in which at least one second light-reflecting layer 231 is provided between a first electrode 125 and the light-emitting layer 232, and a portion of light generated by the light-emitting layer 232 is reflected by the at least one second light-reflecting layer 231 and guided to the first light-exiting portion, as shown in Fig. 4. Therefore, with respect to claim 15, in the display device of Park, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include at least one second light-reflecting layer such as 231 between the first electrode 350 and the light-emitting layer 390 to enhance light extraction efficiency, and a portion of light generated by the light-emitting layer 390 is reflected by the at least one second light-reflecting layer 231 and guided toward the first light-exiting portion, as shown in Fig. 4 of Lee et al.,
With respect to claim 16, in the display device of Park in view of Lee et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the at least one second light-reflecting layer 231 is formed of a transparent material (see paragraphs [0187] and [0290]) has a refractive index lower than the refractive index of the light-emitting layer, since a light-emitting layer having a high refractive index in a display is crucial for determining the efficiency and longevity of the display.
With respect to claim 17, in the display device of Lee et al., the at least one second light-reflecting layer 231 is formed by a plurality of layers (see paragraphs [0187] and [0290]), the plurality of layers have a refractive index that decreases in order from a layer closest to the light-emitting layer to a layer farthest from the light-emitting layer (If the second light-reflecting layer includes a reflective layer (such as Al, refractive index of approximately 1.373 at a wavelength of 632.8 nm) and a transparent conductive layer (such as ITO, refractive index of approximately 1.858 at a wavelength of 632.8 nm) disposed on the reflective layer, the plurality of layers will have a refractive index that decreases in order from a layer closest to the light-emitting layer to a layer farthest from the light-emitting layer, see paragraphs [0090]-[0094]. Neither Park or Lee disclose the layer closest to the light-emitting layer (ITO) will have a refractive index lower than that of the light-emitting layer. However, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to choose a light emitting layer which has a higher refractive index than ITO, since the refractive index of the light emitting layer in a display is crucial for determining the efficiency and longevity of the display.
With respect to claim 18, in the display device of Lee et al., the at least one second light-reflecting layer 231 includes a metal layer formed of a metal material, see paragraphs [0089]-]0094], [0187] and [0290].
With respect to claim 20, in the display device of Lee et al., the at least one second light-reflecting layer 231 has unevenness 231” on a surface opposing the light-emitting layer 232, as shown in Fig. 4.The unevenness acts as a side mirror, allowing light which can be lost in the light emitting display device to be extracted toward the light emitting portion, thereby improving light extraction efficiency and reducing power consumption.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, US 2015/0001474, in view of Kubota et al., US 2016/0197310, further in view of Lee et al., US 2021/0119183, as applied to claim 15 above, further in view of Adachi et al., US 2004/0113550, of record.
Park, Kubota et al., and Lee et al. are applied as above. Neither teaches the at least one second light-reflecting layer includes a gas layer formed of a gas. However, in the same field of endeavor, Adachi et al. teach a gas-filled gap can reflect light in a display device, see paragraph [0012] and [0052]-[0056]. Given the disclosure of Adachi et al, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the at least one second light-reflecting layer in the known display device of Park in view of Kubota et al. and Lee et al. could have included a gas layer formed of a gas, since a gas-filled gap is known to reflect light from a light-emitting layer, as disclosed by Adachi et al.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, US 2015/0001474, in view of Kubota et al., US 2016/0197310, further in view of Lee et al., US 2021/0119183, as applied to claim 15 above, further in view of Imamura, US 2006/0158095, of record.
Park, Kubota et al., and Lee et al. are applied as above. Park lacks anticipation of a light-scattering layer provided on a surface of the light absorption layer 450 on a side opposite to the light-emitting layer 390 and configured to scatter light. In the same field of endeavor, Imamura discloses a light-scattering layer 80 disposed over a light emitting element 72, as shown in Fig. 4 (paragraph [0138]), which efficiently extracts light from the light-emitting element 72. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a light-scattering layer on a surface of the light absorption layer 450 on a side opposite to the light-emitting layer 390 and configured to scatter light in the known display of Park in order to efficiently extract light from the light-emitting element.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, US 2015/0001474, in view of Kubota et al., US 2016/0197310, as applied to claim 13 above, further in view of Kim et al., US 2021/0132723.
Park and Kubota et al. are applied as above. Park discloses side surfaces of the light-emitting layer 390 include a contact surface in contact with the first light-exiting portion, an opposite side surface opposite the contact surface, and an intersecting side surface that intersects the contact surface, as shown in annotated Fig. 6 below, . However, Park lacks anticipation of a second light-reflecting layer. In the same field of endeavor, Kim et al. disclose an insulating transparent layer 990 and a third light-reflecting layer 1010 are provided in this order on a light-emitting layer 760 (as shown in Figs. 11A and 11B). as shown in Fig. 12. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an insulating layer and a third light-reflecting layer in the known display device of Park, thereby allowing the light emitted from the organic light emitting diode (OLED) of Park to be reflected and extracted to the outside of the display device. Implementation of the third light-reflecting layer 1010 of Kim et al. in the known display device of Park would result in the third light-reflecting layer to be disposed in region E above the light absorption layer 450, resulting in a reflective surface of the second light-reflecting layer on the intersecting side surface intersects the first light-exiting portion at an intersection angle less than 90' in a plan view.
PNG
media_image1.png
718
842
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 13 and 15-28 have been considered but are moot in light of Kubota et al., US 2016/0197310, cited by Applicant on the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 09 July 2026.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additionally cited references disclose various display devices having light absorption layers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARY A WILCZEWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-1849. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 7:30 AM-5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. 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.
MARY A. WILCZEWSKI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2898
/MARY A WILCZEWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights