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 response filed 07/25/2025 is accepted, in which, claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 12-20, and 25 are amended, claims 2 and 4 are canceled, and claim 26 is newly added. Claims 1 and 25 are independent with claims 1, 3, 6, 7, and 12-26 awaiting an action on the merits as follows.
The objection to the specification is withdrawn in view of the amended title.
The rejection of claim 17 under U.S.C. 112b is withdrawn in view of the amended claim.
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6, and 25 under U.S.C. 101 is withdrawn in view of the canceled claims and Applicant’s arguments.
Response to Arguments
Regarding claim 1, on page 17 of the response, Applicant argues,
"However, Chung and Lee, either singly or in any combination thereof, do not describe the relationship between different wavelengths (as defined by λ1, λt2, and λ2), which are recited in amended independent claim 1. Specifically, Chung and Lee, either singly or in any combination thereof, fail to disclose, teach or suggest, at least, the features of “a relationship λ1 < λt2 < λ2 is satisfied.” Thus, Lee also fails to disclose, teach, or suggest all the features recited in unamended independent claim 1, including, the above recited features."
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The equation cited above is added to amended claim 1 in the claim set of 07/25/2025, and was not present in unamended claim 1 from 09/06/2022.
Chung teaches quantum dots comprised of the same materials listed in paragraph [0032] of the instant application’s disclosure (Chung, [0081-0083]). The limitations above would therefore be inherent to Chung’s device. Section 2112.I of the MEPEP states, "The discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus, the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable.
Furthermore, Lee teaches the selective film transmits blue and green light while reflecting red does describe wavelength relationships since these colors are known to have wavelength values that would meet the limitations of the above equation.
Applicant’s remaining arguments are moot in view of the new rejection.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to for minor informalities.
Claim 6 recites, "λ0 + δ_ is less than 1%." Examiner believes there is a typo in the formula since there is no antecedent for "δ _". To further prosecution, Examiner will assume the claim should read, "λ0 +δX is less than 1%." Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3, 6, 13, 14, 15, 25, and 26 are rejected for indefiniteness.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 13, 14, 15, 25, and 26 are directed to a light-emitting element and to the light emitted therefrom. The claims are directed to, inter alia, a light-emitting element containing a selectively reflective layer, or in the case of claim 25, two selectively reflective layers that satisfy specific outcomes for the emitted light.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 13, 14, 15, 25, and 26 are directed to the wavelengths of light produced by the selectively reflective layer, wherein:
Claim 1: “a relationship λ1<λt2 <λ2 is satisfied”
Claim 3: “a relationship λ0 < λt2 is further satisfied”
Claim 6: “when δX is defined as λ2 - λ1, an optical absorption rate of the selective reflective layer at a wavelength represented by λ0 - δX is less than 1% and an optical absorption rate of the selective reflective layer at a wavelength represented by λ0 + δX is less than 1%.”
Claim 13: “λ0 is equal to or greater than 400 nm and equal to or less than 500 nm”
Claim 14: “λ0 is equal to or greater than 500 nm and equal to or less than 600 nm”
Claim 15: “λ0 is equal to or greater than 600 nm and equal to or less than 780 nm”
Claim 25: “relationships λ1 < λa < λ2 and λ1 < λb < λ2 are satisfied”
Claim 26: “a relationship λa = λb is further satisfied”
While claims 1, 3, 6, 13, 14, 15, 25, and 26 require a light-emitting layer that contains quantum dots, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to explain the creation of the light emitted because the claims merely require emitted light from the light-emitting layer to enter the selectively reflective layers, which allegedly produces light that fulfills the above equations. There is no structure provided to explain how the selectively reflective layers will create the reflection band with wavelength characteristics cited above, which results in the claims being indefinite.
Additionally, for claim 6, there is no structure provided to explain how the selectively reflective layers will absorb less than 1% of the light with the above cited characteristics, which results in the claim being indefinite.
The additional limitations of the claims that are not indefinite do not integrate the complete claims into a novel practical application. Please see 103 rejections of claims below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3, 7, 12-15, 17-22, 25, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung (US 20200328368 A1), in view of Lee (US 20180374409 A1), and further in view of Kahen (US 6690697 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Chung teaches a light-emitting element (100, Fig 1) comprising:
a reflective electrode (10);
a transparent electrode (20);
a light-emitting layer (30) provided between (shown between) the reflective electrode (10) and the transparent electrode (20),
the light-emitting layer including quantum dots (3); and
a selectively reflective layer (60) provided at an opposite (shown opposite) side to the light-emitting layer (30) with respect to the transparent electrode (20).
Chung fails to explicitly teach wherein a relationship λ1<λt2 <λ2 is satisfied, where λ0 is defined as a peak wavelength of a light emission spectrum due to electroluminescence of the quantum dots, λ1 is defined as a wavelength at which the light emission spectrum due to the electroluminescence of the quantum dots has a half value of a peak value of the light emission spectrum due to the electroluminescence of the quantum dots, at a shorter wavelength side than λ0, λ2 is defined as a wavelength at which the light emission spectrum due to the electroluminescence of the quantum dots has the half value of the peak value, at a longer wavelength side than λ0, and λt2 is defined as a wavelength at a long wavelength end in a reflective band of the selectively reflective layer, at the shorter wavelength side than λ0.
However, as discussed above, these limitations are indefinite.
Nonetheless, Lee teaches the selectively reflective layer having a reflection band (red, 610-760 nm, [0110]) having a higher reflectivity (reflects red) than a reflectivity of another band (blue/green, 440-550 nm).
Chung teaches a base process/product of quantum dots being used to obtain light in a desirable wavelength region by adjusting the size of the quantum dots, [0003] which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement in that allows adjustment of the device so the quantum dots can emit light at half peak values consistent with the claim. Lee teaches a known technique that the selective reflection film can be configured to transmit blue and green light and reflect red light, [0110] (all of which correspond to wavelength values consistent with the claim), and the configuration of the display can be changed in various ways, [0112], that is comparable to the base process/product.
Lee’s known technique, as cited above, would have been recognized by one skilled in the art as applicable to the base process/product of Chung, adjusting the size of the quantum dots to adjust the selective reflection film to reflect and transmit various wavelengths of light, and the results would have been predictable and resulted in a relationship λ1<λt2 <λ2 is satisfied, where λ0 is defined as a peak wavelength of a light emission spectrum due to electroluminescence of the quantum dots, λ1 is defined as a wavelength at which the light emission spectrum due to the electroluminescence of the quantum dots has a half value of a peak value of the light emission spectrum due to the electroluminescence of the quantum dots, at a shorter wavelength side than λ0, λ2 is defined as a wavelength at which the light emission spectrum due to the electroluminescence of the quantum dots has the half value of the peak value, at a longer wavelength side than λ0, and λt2 is defined as a wavelength at a long wavelength end in a reflective band of the selectively reflective layer, at the shorter wavelength side than λ0 which results in an improved process/product.
Furthermore, Chung teaches quantum dots comprised of the same materials listed in paragraph [0032] of the instant application’s disclosure (Chung, [0081-0083]). The limitations above would therefore be inherent to Chung’s device. Section 2112.I of the MEPEP states, "The discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus, the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable.
The reflection and transmission of the selectively reflected layer can be adjusted to optimize the range of light emitted as discussed above. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Chung and Lee are considered analogous to the claimed invention because all are from the same field of endeavor of semiconductor display devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the device of Chung with the features of Lee to create the selectively reflective layer having a reflection band having a higher reflectivity than a reflectivity of another band to create a device having a wide viewing angle, excellent contrast, high response speed, superior characteristics in terms of a driving voltage, luminance, etc., which are capable of generating multiple colors (Lee, [0003]), having excellent performance (Lee, [0007]), high efficiency, and excellent color characteristics (Lee, [0008]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Chung and Lee discloses the light-emitting element of claim 1. However, as discussed above, the limitations of claim 3 are indefinite.
Nonetheless, Chung teaches the quantum dots (3, Fig 1). Lee goes on to teach a relationship λ0 (500 nm) < λt2 (760 nm) is further satisfied.
As discussed in the Non-Final rejection, Lee teaches the wavelength (760 nm) at the long wavelength end in the reflection band (red, 610-760 nm) of the selectively reflective layer (65) is longer (longer) than the peak wavelength (500nm) of the light emission spectrum (380-500 nm) due to the electroluminescence of the quantum dots.
Furthermore, Chung teaches quantum dots comprised of the same materials listed in paragraph [0032] of the instant application’s disclosure (Chung, [0081-0083]). The limitations above would therefore be inherent to Chung’s device. Section 2112.I of the MEPEP states, "The discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus, the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Chung and Lee discloses the light-emitting element of claim 1. Chung teaches the selectively reflective layer (60, Fig 1). Lee goes on to teach wherein the selectively reflective layer comprises a dielectric multilayer film (DBR, [0111]), and
the dielectric multilayer film (DBR) comprises a layered body of a first dielectric (first dielectric, [0111]) film and a second dielectric (second dielectric, [0111]) film having a dielectric constant (second) different from a dielectric constant (first) of the first dielectric film (first dielectric).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Chung and Lee discloses the light-emitting element of claim 7. Chung teaches the transparent electrode (20, Fig 1). Lee goes on to teach wherein a dielectric film (second dielectric, [0111]) closest to the transparent electrode, among dielectric films included in the dielectric multilayer film (DBR), is the second dielectric (second dielectric) film.
Lee goes on to teach the configuration of the selective reflection film is not limited and the configuration of the display can be changed in various ways [0111, 0112]. Lee also teaches when repeatedly stacking a first dielectric layer and a second dielectric layer, by adjusting the material, thickness, and number of stacked layers, reflectance or transmittance in a desired wavelength range may be improved, [0111].
MPEP 2144.05, Section II.A. states, ""It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions." See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to adjust the selectively reflective layer in such a way to have a dielectric film closest to the transparent electrode, among dielectric films included in the dielectric multilayer film, is the second dielectric film so that reflectance or transmittance in a desired wavelength range may be improved (Le, [0111]).
Regarding claims 13-15, the combination of Chung and Lee discloses the light-emitting element of claim 7. Chung teaches the quantum dots (3, Fig 1). Lee teaches the light emission spectrum (380-500 nm) due to the electroluminescence of the quantum dots and the configuration of the display can be changed in various ways, [0112].
Chung goes on to teach wherein λ0 (blue light, [0136]; 453 nm, [0201]) is equal to or greater (greater) than 400 nm and equal to or less (less) than 500 nm (claim 13);
wherein λ0 (green light, [0136]; it is well known in the art that the range of green light wavelengths is within 500-600 nm) is equal to or greater than 500 nm (equal to or greater) and equal to or less than 600 nm (equal to or less) (claim 14); and
wherein λ0 (630 nm, [0212]) is equal to or greater (greater) than 600 nm and equal to or less (less) than 780 nm (claim 15).
The combination fails to explicitly teach a thickness of the first dielectric film is equal to or greater than 126 nm and equal to or less than 157 nm, and a thickness of the second dielectric film is equal to or greater than 194 nm and equal to or less than 242 nm; or a thickness of the first dielectric film is equal to or greater than 157 nm and equal to or less than 189 nm, and a thickness of the second dielectric film is equal to or greater than 242 nm and equal to or less than 291 nm; or a thickness of the first dielectric film is equal to or greater than 189 nm and equal to or less than 246 nm, and a thickness of the second dielectric film is equal to or greater than 291 nm and equal to or less than 378 nm.
However, Chung teaches a base process/product of quantum dots can be used to obtain light in a desirable wavelength region by adjusting the size of the quantum dots, [0003], which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement wherein the peak wavelength of the light emission spectrum due to the electroluminescence of the quantum dots and thicknesses of the dielectric films, is consistent with the claims. Lee teaches a known technique that the selective reflection film can be configured to transmit blue and green light and reflect red light, [0110], and the configuration of the display can be changed in various ways, [0112]. Lee also teaches when repeatedly stacking a first dielectric layer and a second dielectric layer, by adjusting the material, thickness, and number of stacked layers, reflectance or transmittance in a desired wavelength range may be improved, [0111], that is comparable to the base process/product.
Lee’s known technique, as cited above, would have been recognized by one skilled in the art as applicable to the base process/product of Chung and the results would have been predictable and resulted in the peak wavelength of the light emission spectrum due to the electroluminescence of the quantum dots is equal to or greater than 400 nm and equal to or less than 500 nm, a thickness of the first dielectric film is equal to or greater than 126 nm and equal to or less than 157 nm, and a thickness of the second dielectric film is equal to or greater than 194 nm and equal to or less than 242 nm (claim 13), or the peak wavelength of the light emission spectrum due to the electroluminescence of the quantum dots is equal to or greater than 500 nm and equal to or less than 600 nm, a thickness of the first dielectric film is equal to or greater than 157 nm and equal to or less than 189 nm, and a thickness of the second dielectric film is equal to or greater than 242 nm and equal to or less than 291 nm (claim 14), or the peak wavelength of the light emission spectrum due to the electroluminescence of the quantum dots is equal to or greater than 600 nm and equal to or less than 780 nm, a thickness of the first dielectric film is equal to or greater than 189 nm and equal to or less than 246 nm, and a thickness of the second dielectric film is equal to or greater than 291 nm and equal to or less than 378 nm (claim 15) which results in an improved process/product.
Furthermore, Chung teaches quantum dots comprised of the same materials listed in paragraph [0032] of the instant application’s disclosure (Chung, [0081-0083]). The limitations regarding the quantum dots’ emission spectrum above would therefore be inherent to Chung’s device. Section 2112.I of the MEPEP states, "The discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus, the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Chung and Lee discloses the light-emitting element of claim 1. Chung teaches the selectively reflective layer (60, Fig 1), the transparent electrode (20), and the light-emitting layer (30).
Lee goes on to teach a photoluminescence layer (70a, Fig 1) provided between (the selectively reflective layer of Chung is on the outside of the OLED stack, Lee's photoluminescence layer is outside the transparent electrode, so when combined, Lee's photoluminescence layer could be placed between the transparent electrode and the selectively reflective layer. This would allow the reflected light to further excite the photoluminescence layer and improve Chung's device leading to improved luminous efficiency by improving light extraction efficiency, (Chung, [0006])) the selectively reflective layer and the transparent electrode, wherein the photoluminescence layer (70a) is configured to be excited by light emitted from the light-emitting layer and configured to emit light of a color similar to a color (convert light generated from the OLED substrate into green light, [0084]) of the light emitted (green light is emitted by layer 30 of the OLED substrate 100) from the light-emitting layer.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Chung and Lee discloses the light-emitting element of claim 1. Chung goes on to teach a display device (1000, Fig 3) comprising:
a first light-emitting element (100R) including a transparent electrode (20R), a reflective electrode (10R), and a light-emitting layer (30R),
the first light-emitting element (100R) serving as a red pixel (red, [0136]);
a second light-emitting element (100G) including a transparent electrode (20G), a reflective electrode (10G), and a light-emitting layer (30G),
the second light-emitting element (100G) serving as a green pixel (green, [0136]); and
the light-emitting element (100B) according to claim 1, serving as a blue pixel (blue, [0136]),
wherein the selectively reflective layer (60) of the blue pixel (100B) is formed across (shown formed across all three) the red pixel (100R), the green pixel (100G), and the blue pixel (100B).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Chung and Lee discloses the light-emitting element of claim 1. Chung goes on to teach a display device (1000, Fig 3) comprising:
a first light-emitting element (100R) including a transparent electrode (20R), a reflective electrode (10R), and a light-emitting layer (30R),
the first light-emitting element (100R) serving as a red pixel (red, [0136]);
a second light-emitting element (100G) including a transparent electrode (20G), a reflective electrode (10G), and a light-emitting layer (30G),
the second light-emitting element (100G) serving as a green pixel (green, [0136]); and
the light-emitting element (100B) according to claim 1, serving as a blue pixel (blue, [0136]).
Lee goes on to teach wherein the selectively reflective layer of the blue pixel is formed only in (the selective reflection film may be formed under the second color control element [blue] only, [0110]) the blue pixel.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Chung and Lee discloses the light-emitting element of claim 1. Chung goes on to teach a display device (1000, Fig 3) comprising:
a red pixel; a blue pixel; and a green pixel, (red, blue, green, [0136]) each of which being the light-emitting element (100) of claim 1.
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Chung and Lee discloses the display device of claim 18. Chung teaches the transparent electrode (20B, Fig 3) of the blue pixel (blue), and the transparent electrodes (20R/20G) of the red pixel (red) and the green pixel (green).
Lee goes on to teach wherein the transparent electrode of the blue pixel is formed integrally (shown formed integrally, Fig 11) with the transparent electrodes of the red pixel and the green pixel.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Chung and Lee discloses the display device of claim 19. Chung goes on to teach wherein the transparent electrode (20B, Fig 3) of the blue pixel (blue) is formed separately (shown formed separately) from the transparent electrodes (20R/20G) of the red pixel (red) and the green pixel (green).
Regarding claim 25, Chung teaches a light-emitting element (100, Fig 1) comprising:
a reflective electrode (10);
a transparent electrode (20);
a light-emitting layer (30) provided between (shown between) the reflective electrode (10) and the transparent electrode (20), the light-emitting layer including quantum dots (3);
a first selectively reflective layer (60) provided at an opposite (shown opposite) side to the light-emitting layer (30) with respect to the first transparent electrode (20).
Chung fails to explicitly teach the first selectively reflective layer having a reflection band having a higher reflectivity than a reflectivity of another band; and a second selectively reflective layer provided at an opposite side to the light-emitting layer with respect to the second transparent electrode, the second selectively reflective layer having a reflection band having a higher reflectivity than a reflectivity of another band, wherein relationships λ1 < λa < λ2 and λ1 < λb < λ2 are satisfied, where λ0 is defined as a peak wavelength of a light emission spectrum due to electroluminescence of the quantum dots, λ1 is defined as a wavelength at which the light emission spectrum due to the electroluminescence of the quantum dots has a half value of a peak value of the light emission spectrum due to the electroluminescence of the quantum dots, at a shorter wavelength side than λ0, λ2 is defined as a wavelength at which the light emission spectrum due to the electroluminescence of the quantum dots has the half value of the peak value, at a longer wavelength side than λ0, λa is defined as a wavelength at a long wavelength end in a reflective band of the first selectively reflective layer, at the shorter wavelength side than λ0, and
λb is defined as a wavelength at a long wavelength end in a reflective band of the second selectively reflective layer, at the shorter wavelength side than λ0.
However, as discussed above, these limitations are indefinite.
Nonetheless, Lee teaches the first selectively reflective layer having a reflection band (red, 610-760 nm, [0110]) having a higher reflectivity (reflects red) than a reflectivity of another band (blue/green, 440-550 nm).
Chung teaches a base process/product of quantum dots being used to obtain light in a desirable wavelength region by adjusting the size of the quantum dots, [0003] which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement in that allows adjustment of the device so the quantum dots can emit light at half peak values consistent with the claim. Lee teaches a known technique that the selective reflection film can be configured to transmit blue and green light and reflect red light, [0110], and the configuration of the display can be changed in various ways, [0112], that is comparable to the base process/product.
Lee’s known technique, as cited above, would have been recognized by one skilled in the art as applicable to the base process/product of Chung, adjusting the size of the quantum dots to adjust the selective reflection film to reflect and transmit various wavelengths of light, and the results would have been predictable and resulted in relationships λ1 < λa < λ2 and λ1 < λb < λ2 are satisfied, where λ0 is defined as a peak wavelength of a light emission spectrum due to electroluminescence of the quantum dots, λ1 is defined as a wavelength at which the light emission spectrum due to the electroluminescence of the quantum dots has a half value of a peak value of the light emission spectrum due to the electroluminescence of the quantum dots, at a shorter wavelength side than λ0, λ2 is defined as a wavelength at which the light emission spectrum due to the electroluminescence of the quantum dots has the half value of the peak value, at a longer wavelength side than λ0, λa is defined as a wavelength at a long wavelength end in a reflective band of the first selectively reflective layer, at the shorter wavelength side than λ0, and λb is defined as a wavelength at a long wavelength end in a reflective band of the second selectively reflective layer, at the shorter wavelength side than λ0 which results in an improved process/product.
Furthermore, Chung teaches quantum dots comprised of the same materials listed in paragraph [0032] of the instant application’s disclosure (Chung, [0081-0083]). The limitations above would therefore be inherent to Chung’s device. Section 2112.I of the MEPEP states, "The discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus, the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Additionally, Section 2144.04 of the MPEP, Subsection VI, states the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result it produced. Paragraph [0105] of the instant application states "The optical characteristics of the first selectively reflective layer 44 and the second selectively reflective layer 46 are preferably equivalent so that the light-emission characteristics of the display device are equivalent on both sides. The optical characteristics include the wavelength at the short wavelength end in the reflection band and the wavelength at the long wavelength end."
Paragraph [0008] of the instant application states, "an object of the present invention is to narrow a light emission line width of a light-emitting element." Since the invention employs a selectively reflective layer on top of the light emitting element to work toward this goal, adding a second selectively reflective layer on the bottom that has the same characteristics as the first simply increases the effect accomplished by one selectively reflective layer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effect filing date of the invention to add a second selectively reflective layer provided at an opposite side to the light-emitting layer with respect to the second transparent electrode in order to narrow a light emission line width of a light-emitting element (instant application, [008]).
Since the first and second selectively reflective layers are the same, the above discussion regarding the selectively reflective layer's wavelengths would apply to the first and second selectively reflective layers.
Chung and Lee are considered analogous to the claimed invention because all are from the same field of endeavor of semiconductor display devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the device of Chung with the features of Lee to create the selectively reflective layer having a reflection band having a higher reflectivity than a reflectivity of another band to create a device having a wide viewing angle, excellent contrast, high response speed, superior characteristics in terms of a driving voltage, luminance, etc., which are capable of generating multiple colors (Lee, [0003]), having excellent performance (Lee, [0007]), high efficiency, and excellent color characteristics (Lee, [0008]).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Chung and Lee discloses the light-emitting element of claim 25. However, as discussed above, the limitations of claim 26 are indefinite.
Nonetheless, Chung teaches the quantum dots (3, Fig 1), and as discussed in the Non-Final rejection, Lee teaches the wavelength (760 nm) at the long wavelength end in the reflection band (red, 610-760 nm) of the selectively reflective layer (65) is longer (longer) than the peak wavelength (500nm) of the light emission spectrum (380-500 nm) due to the electroluminescence of the quantum dots.
Chung teaches a base process/product of quantum dots being used to obtain light in a desirable wavelength region by adjusting the size of the quantum dots, [0003] which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement in that allows adjustment of the device so the quantum dots can emit light at half peak values consistent with the claim. Lee teaches a known technique that the selective reflection film can be configured to transmit blue and green light and reflect red light, [0110], and the configuration of the display can be changed in various ways, [0112], that is comparable to the base process/product.
Furthermore, Chung teaches quantum dots comprised of the same materials listed in paragraph [0032] of the instant application’s disclosure (Chung, [0081-0083]). The limitations above would therefore be inherent to Chung’s device. Section 2112.I of the MEPEP states, "The discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus, the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable.
Lee’s known technique, as cited above, would have been recognized by one skilled in the art as applicable to the base process/product of Chung, adjusting the size of the quantum dots to adjust the selective reflection film to reflect and transmit various wavelengths of light, and the results would have been predictable and resulted in a relationship λa = λb is further satisfied, which results in an improved process/product.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung (US 20200328368 A1), in view of Lee (US 20180374409 A1), in view of Kahen (US 6690697 B1).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Chung and Lee discloses the light-emitting element of claim 1. Chung teaches the quantum dots (3, Fig 1) and the selectively reflective layer (60). Lee teaches the peak wavelength (500nm) of the light emission spectrum (380-500 nm) due to the electroluminescence of the quantum dots, the configuration of the selective reflection film is not limited, and the configuration of the display can be changed in various ways [0111, 0112].
The combination fails to explicitly teach when δX is defined as λ2 - λ1, an optical absorption rate of the selective reflective layer at a wavelength represented by λ0 - δX is less than 1% and an optical absorption rate of the selective reflective layer at a wavelength represented by λ0 + δX is less than 1%.
However, Kahen teaches a DBR of alternating high and low refractive index layers of TiO2 and SiO2 respectively. The resulting dielectric mirror had a measured peak reflectance of 99.98% at 560 nm [Col 6, Ln 36-38]. Kahen goes on to teach it is common to add additional layers to the dielectric stack, [Col 5, Ln 56-58]. Lee also teaches when repeatedly stacking a first dielectric layer and a second dielectric layer, by adjusting the material, thickness, and number of stacked layers, reflectance or transmittance in a desired wavelength range may be improved, [0111].
Furthermore, Kahen teaches a DBR of alternating high and low refractive index layers of TiO2 and SiO2 respectively, which are the same materials of the first and second dielectric films cited by the instant application in paragraphs [0076-0077] of the disclosure. The limitations above would therefore be inherent to Kahen’s device. Section 2112.I of the MEPEP states, "The discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus, the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable.
Since the reflection and transmission of the selectively reflected layer can be adjusted to optimize the range of light emitted as discussed above, and the DBR can be adjusted to reflect greater than 99% of the light as taught by Kahen, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to adjust the selectively reflective layer in such a way to meet the limitations of claim 6, when δX is defined as λ2 - λ1, an optical absorption rate of the selective reflective layer at a wavelength represented by λ0 - δX is less than 1% and an optical absorption rate of the selective reflective layer at a wavelength represented by λ0 + δX is less than 1% to improve power conversion efficiency (Kahen, [Col 2, Ln 42-43]) and have excellent performance (Lee, [0007]), high efficiency, and excellent color characteristics (Lee, [0008]).
Chung, Lee, and Kahen are considered analogous to the claimed invention because all are from the same field of endeavor of semiconductor display devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the device of Chung and Lee with the features of Kahen to create a light-emitting element that meets the limitations of claim 6 to improve power conversion efficiency (Kahen, [Col 2, Ln 42-43]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung (US 20200328368 A1), in view of Lee (US 20180374409 A1), and further in view of Nakayama (US 20030184215 A1).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Chung and Lee discloses the light-emitting element of claim 7. Lee teaches the first dielectric (first dielectric, [0111]) film, the second dielectric film (second dielectric, [0111]), and the dielectric multilayer film (DBR).
The combination fails to explicitly teach a sum of a number of layers of the first dielectric film and a number of layers of the second dielectric film included in the dielectric multilayer film is equal to or greater than three.
However, Nakayama teaches wherein a sum (6-layer, [0039]) of a number of layers of the first dielectric film and a number of layers of the second dielectric film included in the dielectric multilayer film is equal to or greater (greater) than three.
Chung, Lee, and Nakayama are considered analogous to the claimed invention because all are from the same field of endeavor of semiconductor display devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the device of Chung and Lee with the features of Nakayama to create a sum of a number of layers of the first dielectric film and a number of layers of the second dielectric film included in the dielectric multilayer film is equal to or greater than three wherein a classical or quantum effect (correction of light emission enhancement due to the transition probability mechanism) is brought about by the confinement or resonance of light (Nakayama, [0009]).
Claims 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung (US 20200328368 A1), in view of Lee (US 20180374409 A1), and further in view of Adachi (US 20040113550 A1).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Chung and Lee discloses the display device of claim 22. Chung teaches the transparent electrode (20B, Fig 3) of the blue pixel (blue).
The combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the transparent electrode of the blue pixel is surrounded by a light-blocking body configured to block light of the blue pixel.
However, Adachi teaches wherein the transparent electrode of the blue pixel is surrounded by a light-blocking body (500, Fig 1) configured to block light of the blue pixel.
Chung, Lee, and Adachi are considered analogous to the claimed invention because all are from the same field of endeavor of semiconductor display devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the device of Chung and Lee with the features of Adachi to create the transparent electrode of the blue pixel is surrounded by a light-blocking body configured to block light of the blue pixel in order to realize low consumption power, bright OLED, reduce the light guiding loss, and raise the external coupling efficiency (Adachi, [0003]).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Chung, Lee, and Adachi discloses the display device of claim 23. Chung teaches the selectively reflective layer (60, Fig 1) of the blue pixel (blue).
Adachi goes on to teach wherein the selectively reflective layer of the blue pixel is surrounded (shown surrounded, Fig 2) by the light-blocking body (500, Fig 1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bessho (US 20150003040 A1) - dielectric film thickness = 200 nm.
Skarp (4486487) - dielectric film, thickness 3-1000 angstroms
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Jeremy D Watts whose telephone number is (703)756-1055. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 8:00am-4:30pm, F 8:00-3pm 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, Chad Dicke can be reached at (571) 270-7996. 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.
/JEREMY DANIEL WATTS/Examiner, Art Unit 2897 /CHAD M DICKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897