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 amendment filed on 3 April 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Li does not teach "each of the plurality of pixels has a light-emitting element, the light-emitting element including one first electrode, a light-emitting layer, a pixel bank covering an edge of the one first electrode, and a second electrode, and the light emitting element having a luminescent color different from another light-emitting element of another pixel" because Li’s pixels have three first electrodes, not one. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Li actually has six first electrodes per pixel, not three, but even so this does not contradict the claim language. Applicant uses the open ended ‘including one first electrode’, which does not limit the claim to only one. ‘Including one first electrode’ means that there could be one or there could be more than one; a pixel with six first electrodes does include one first electrode (and five others). Additionally, Lee teaches that a single first electrode 191 is sufficient to perform the function of a pixel electrode (Lee paragraph 49), thus showing the art recognized suitability of a single first electrode configuration for that purpose.
Applicant argues that Li does not teach "the pixel bank is disposed so as to partition neighboring pixels among the plurality of pixels, and has an opening defining a light-emitting region, the opening is formed in a rectangular shape having a long side and a short side" and "in the light-emitting element, both of two short sides of the opening face an opening of an adjacent light-emitting element of a different luminescent color." The examiner respectfully disagrees. Li teaches “the pixel bank (261) is disposed (see Figs. 3-4, 6) so as to partition neighboring pixels (paragraphs 40-41) among the plurality of pixels (see Figs. 3-4, 6), and has an opening (see Fig. 6) defining a light-emitting region (21a), the opening is formed in a rectangular shape (paragraph 40) having a long side and a short side (see Figs. 3, 4)”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2020/0075690 A1) in view of Lee (US 2015/0102297 A1).
With respect to claim 1: Li teaches “a display device (100) having a display region (Figs. 3-9) including a plurality of pixels (21a, 22a, 23a, 21b, 22b, 23b), wherein: each of the pixels has a light emitting element (211, 221, 231), the light-emitting element including one first electrode (2111, 2211, 2311), a light-emitting layer (2112, 2212, 2312), a pixel bank (261) covering the edge of the one first electrode (see Fig. 6); and a second electrode (cathode; see paragraph 30) and the light emitting element having a luminescent color different from another light-emitting element of another pixel (paragraph 30), the pixel bank is disposed so as to partition neighboring pixels among the plurality of pixels (paragraph 41; see Fig. 6), and has an opening defining a light-emitting region (see Fig. 6), the opening is formed in a rectangular shape (see Figs. 3, 4) having a long side (L3 side) and a short side (L4 side), the one first electrode is patterned in an island shape for the light-emitting element (see Fig. 6), in light-emitting elements that have a same luminescent color, openings of two light emitting elements adjacent to each other in the first direction (X), or a second direction orthogonal to the first direction (Y), are provided at positions rotated by 90° with respect to each other (see Figs. 3, 4), and in the light emitting elements, both of two short sides of each of the openings face an opening of an adjacent light emitting element of a different luminescent color (see Figs. 3-4)”.
Li does not teach that a long side direction of the opening is inclined at an angle predetermined with respect to a first direction predetermined in the display region or that the second electrode is formed across at least two of the light-emitting elements.
However, Lee teaches that a long side direction (D3 or D4; see Fig. 11) of the light-emitting region (R, G, B) is inclined at an angle (angle between D3, D4 and D1, D2; see Fig. 11) predetermined with respect to a first direction (D1 or D2) predetermined in the display region (see Fig. 11)” and “the second electrode (270) is formed across at least two of the plurality of light-emitting elements (see Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Li by inclining the light emitting regions as taught by Lee in order to optimize spatial use of the pixels (Lee paragraph 79) and to provide a common cathode due to the art recognized suitability of such an electrode to supply light emitting elements of a display device with a driving voltage (Lee paragraph 54).
With respect to claim 2: Li in view of Lee teaches “the display device according to claim 1 (see above)”.
Li further teaches “wherein one of a longitudinal direction of the display region and a lateral direction of the display region is the first direction (see Fig. 4), the other one of the longitudinal direction of the display region and the lateral direction of the display region is the second direction (see Fig. 4)”.
Li does not teach “the angle is 45°”.
However, Lee teaches “the angle is 45° (paragraph 72)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Li by inclining the light emitting regions as taught by Lee in order to optimize spatial use of the pixels (Lee paragraph 79).
With respect to claim 3: Li in view of Lee teaches “the display device according to claim 1 (see above)”.
Li further teaches “wherein the opening satisfies the following relationship
Wn> d/2;
where Wn is a length of the short side of the opening, and d is a distance between two of the openings adjacent to each other (L2 is the distance between the center of image points 51; the distance between two adjacent openings is necessarily less than this (see Fig. 6). Meanwhile, L3, corresponding to the length of the short side of the light-emitting region, is necessarily wider than this distance since the width of L3 includes within it two image points and is therefor wider than the separation between them (see Fig. 6))”.
With respect to claim 13: Li in view of Lee teaches “the display device according to claim 1 (see above)”.
Li further teaches “wherein the light-emitting element is one of a red light emitting element configured to emit red light, green light emitting element configured to emit green light, or blue light emitting element configured to emit blue light (paragraph 26)”.
With respect to claim 14: Li in view of Lee teaches “the display device according to claim 1 (see above)”.
Li further teaches “wherein a luminescent color of a light emitting element adjacent to one of two short sides of the opening and a luminescent color of a light emitting element adjacent to another one of the two short sides of the opening are different each other (see Figs. 3, 4)”.
Claims 15-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Lee and further in view of Hou (US 2016/0329384 A1).
With respect to claim 15: Li teaches “a display device (100) having a display region (Figs. 3-9) including a plurality of pixels (21a, 22a, 23a, 21b, 22b, 23b), wherein: each of the pixels has a light emitting element (211, 221, 231), the light-emitting elements including one first electrode (2111, 2211, 2311), a light-emitting layer (2112, 2212, 2312), a pixel bank (261) covering an edge of the one first electrode (see Fig. 6); and a second electrode (cathode; see paragraph 30) and the light emitting element having a luminescent color different from another light-emitting element of another pixel (paragraph 30), the pixel bank is disposed so as to partition neighboring pixels among the plurality of pixels (see Fig. 6), and has an opening defining a light-emitting region (see Fig. 6), the light-emitting element includes: a first light-emitting element (211) that in which the opening is formed in a rectangular shape having a long side and a short side (see Fig. 4), and a second light-emitting element (221) that has at least one luminescent color (paragraph 30) and includes a light-emitting region including a rectangular portion (see Fig. 4), the rectangular portion being formed in a rectangular shape having a long side and a short side (see Fig. 4), and wherein: the one first electrode is patterned in an island shape for the light-emitting element (see Fig. 6), in first light-emitting elements, including the first light-emitting element, the openings of two of first light-emitting elements adjacent to each other in the first direction, or a second direction orthogonal to the first direction, are provided at positions rotated by 90° with respect to each other (see Figs. 3, 4), and in the plurality of first light-emitting elements, both of two short sides of the opening face the light-emitting region of an adjacent light-emitting element of a different luminescent color (see Figs. 3, 4)”.
Li does not teach that a long side direction of the openings are inclined at an angle predetermined with respect to a first direction predetermined in the display region or that the second electrode is formed across at least two of the plurality of light-emitting elements.
However, Lee teaches that a long side direction (D3 or D4; see Fig. 11) of the light-emitting region (R, G, B) is inclined at an angle (angle between D3, D4 and D1, D2; see Fig. 11) predetermined with respect to a first direction (D1 or D2) predetermined in the display region (see Fig. 11)” and “the second electrode (270) is formed across at least two of the plurality of light-emitting elements (see Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Li by inclining the light emitting regions as taught by Lee in order to optimize spatial use of the pixels (Lee paragraph 79) and to provide a common cathode due to the art recognized suitability of such an electrode to supply light emitting elements of a display device with a driving voltage (Lee paragraph 54).
Li does not specifically teach a second light-emitting element that has a protrusion, the protrusion protruding from one short side in an orthogonal direction that is orthogonal to the long side of the rectangular portion.
However, Hou teaches a second light-emitting element (B) that has a protrusion (12), the protrusion protruding from one short side in an orthogonal direction that is orthogonal to the long side of the rectangular portion (see Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Li by forming the blue pixels in L shapes as suggested by Hou in order to reduce the current requirement of the blue pixels and thereby increase the blue pixels lifespan to be commensurate with the (usually longer lasting) green and red pixels (Hou paragraph 26).
With respect to claim 16: Li in view of Lee teaches “the display device according to claim 15 (see above)”.
Li further teaches the opening is rotated by 90° is line-symmetric with respect to the opening of an adjacent second light-emitting element in the first direction or the second direction (see Fig. 4)”.
Li does not teach that the adjacent second light emitting element has an L shape.
However, Hou teaches the adjacent second light emitting element has an L shape.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Li by forming the blue pixels in L shapes as suggested by Hou in order to reduce the current requirement of the blue pixels and thereby increase the blue pixels lifespan to be commensurate with the (usually longer lasting) green and red pixels (Hou paragraph 26).
With respect to claim 17: Li in view of Lee and Hou teaches “the display device according to claim 16 (see above)”.
Li does not specifically teach “wherein a protruding length of the protrusion is a value in a range from 0.1 times to 2 times a length of the short side of the light-emitting region”.
However, Hou teaches “wherein a protruding length of the protrusion (length of 12) is a value in a range from 0.1 times to 2 times (Fig. 2 and paragraphs 19, 21; the blue and red pixels are the same width (paragraph 19) and in contact with each other (paragraph 21), so the length of the protrusion is the same as the width of the short side) a length of the short side of the light-emitting region (width of 11)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Li by forming the blue pixels in L shapes as suggested by Hou in order to reduce the current requirement of the blue pixels and thereby increase the blue pixels lifespan to be commensurate with the (usually longer lasting) green and red pixels (Hou paragraph 26).
With respect to claim 18: Li in view of Lee and Hou teaches “the display device according to claim 17 (see above)”.
Li does not specifically teach “wherein the second light-emitting element has two luminescent colors, and protruding dimensions of the protrusions in the two luminescent colors are the same”.
However, Hou suggests “wherein the second light-emitting element has two luminescent colors, and protruding dimensions of the protrusions in the two luminescent colors are the same (Hou directly teaches forming the blue pixels in an L-shape to increase their area relative to the red pixels (see Fig. 2). Hou further suggests increasing the area of the green pixel relative to the red pixel to obtain a similar benefit (paragraph 33), thus suggesting the improvement made to the blue pixels of making them in an L shape would also be an improvement to the green pixels. The protrusion dimensions would reasonably be the same since the same benefit is being sought).
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Li by forming the blue and green pixels in L shapes as suggested by Hou in order to reduce the current requirement of the blue and green pixels and thereby increase the blue and green pixels lifespan to be commensurate with the (usually longer lasting) red pixels (Hou paragraphs 26, 33).
With respect to claim 19: Li in view of Lee and Hou teaches “the display device according to claim 18 (see above)”.
Li does not specifically teach “wherein, in the opening having the L shape of the second light-emitting element, a total dimension of protruding dimensions of two of the protrusions is identical to a width dimension of each of the two of the protrusions”.
However, Hou suggests “wherein, in the opening having the L shape of the second light-emitting element, a total dimension of protruding dimensions of two of the protrusions is identical to a width dimension of each of the two of the protrusions (Hou directly teaches forming the blue pixels in an L-shape to increase their area relative to the red pixels (see Fig. 2). Hou further suggests increasing the area of the green pixel relative to the red pixel to obtain a similar benefit (paragraph 33), thus suggesting the improvement made to the blue pixels of making them in an L shape would also be an improvement to the green pixels. The protrusion dimensions would reasonably be the same since the same benefit is being sought)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Li by forming the blue and green pixels in L shapes as suggested by Hou in order to reduce the current requirement of the blue and green pixels and thereby increase the blue and green pixels lifespan to be commensurate with the (usually longer lasting) red pixels (Hou paragraphs 26, 33).
With respect to claim 20: Li in view of Lee and Hou teaches “the display device according to claim 15 (see above)”.
Li further teaches “wherein the light-emitting element is one of a red light-emitting elements configured to emit red light, a green light-emitting elements configured to emit green light, or a blue light-emitting elements configured to emit blue light (paragraph 26).
With respect to claim 21: Li teaches “Li teaches “a display device (100) having a display region (Figs. 3-9) including a plurality of pixels (21a, 22a, 23a, 21b, 22b, 23b), wherein: each of the plurality of pixels has a light-emitting element (211, 221, 231), the light-emitting element including one first electrode (2111, 2211, 2311), a light-emitting layer (2112, 2212, 2312), a pixel bank (261) covering an edge of the one first electrode (see Fig. 6) and a second electrode (cathode; see paragraph 30) and the light emitting element having having a luminescent color different from another light-emitting element of another pixel (paragraph 30), the pixel bank is disposed so as to partition neighboring pixels among the plurality of pixels (paragraph 41), and has an opening defining a light-emitting region (see Fig. 6) the light-emitting elements include: a first light-emitting element (21) in which an opening is formed (see Fig. 6) in a rectangular shape having a long side and a short side (see Figs. 3, 4), and a second light-emitting element (22) that has at least one luminescent color (paragraph 30) and includes an opening including a rectangular portion (see Fig. 4), the rectangular portion being formed in a rectangular shape having a long side and a short side (see Fig. 4), and wherein: the first electrode is patterned in an island shape for the light-emitting element (see Fig. 6), including the light-emitting element, in first light-emitting elements, including the first light-emitting element, have a same luminescent color, the openings of two of first light-emitting elements adjacent to each other in the first direction, or a second direction orthogonal to the first direction, are provided at positions rotated by 90° with respect to each other (see Fig. 4), and in the plurality of first light-emitting elements, both of two short sides of the opening face an opening of an adjacent light-emitting element of a different luminescent color (see Fig. 4)”.
Li does not teach that a long side direction of the light-emitting region is inclined at an angle predetermined with respect to a first direction predetermined in the display region or that the second electrode is formed across at least two of the plurality of light-emitting elements.
However, Lee teaches that a long side direction (D3 or D4; see Fig. 11) of the light-emitting region (R, G, B) is inclined at an angle (angle between D3, D4 and D1, D2; see Fig. 11) predetermined with respect to a first direction (D1 or D2) predetermined in the display region (see Fig. 11)” and “the second electrode (270) is formed across at least two of the plurality of light-emitting elements (see Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Li by inclining the light emitting regions as taught by Lee in order to optimize spatial use of the pixels (Lee paragraph 79) and to provide a common cathode due to the art recognized suitability of such an electrode to supply light emitting elements of a display device with a driving voltage (Lee paragraph 54).
Li does not specifically teach “a second light-emitting element that has a light-emitting region having a Z shape, the light-emitting region having the Z shape including a first protrusion, and a second protrusion, the first protrusion protruding from one short side in one orthogonal direction of orthogonal directions that are orthogonal to the long side of the rectangular portion, the second protrusion protruding from another short side in another orthogonal direction of the orthogonal directions that are orthogonal to the long side of the rectangular portion”.
However, Hou suggests wherein pixels of at least one luminescent color of the plurality of pixels are provided with a light-emitting region having an Z shape including first and second protrusions extending from opposite sides of the light emitting region(Hou paragraph 28; Hou suggests extending a part of the blue pixels into the green pixel area and another part of the blue pixels into the red pixel area. As applied to the pixels in Li Fig. 4, the suggestion of Hou would reasonably result in blue pixels in an Z shape due to the zig-zag arrangement of Li’s pixels (see Lee Fig. 4)).
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Li by forming the blue pixels in Z shapes as suggested by Hou in order to reduce the current requirement of the blue pixels and thereby increase the blue pixels lifespan to be commensurate with the (usually longer lasting) green and red pixels (Hou paragraph 26).
With respect to claim 22: Li in view of Lee teaches “the display device according to claim 21 (see above)”.
Li further teaches “the opening is rotated by 90° is line-symmetric with respect to the opening of an adjacent second light-emitting element in the first direction or the second direction (see Fig. 4)”.
Li does not teach that the adjacent second light emitting element has a Z shape.
However, Hou suggests the adjacent second light emitting element has a Z shape (Fig. 2 and paragraph 26).
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Li by forming the blue pixels in Z shapes as suggested by Hou in order to reduce the current requirement of the blue pixels and thereby increase the blue pixels lifespan to be commensurate with the (usually longer lasting) green and red pixels (Hou paragraph 26).
With respect to claim 23: Li in view of Lee and Hou teaches “the display device according to claim 22 (see above)”.
Li does not specifically teach “wherein each of protruding lengths of the first protrusion and the second protrusion has a value in a range from 0.1 times to 2 times a length of the short side of the light-emitting region”.
However, Hou teaches “wherein each of protruding lengths of the first protrusion and the second protrusion (length of 12; the second protrusion suggested by paragraph 26 would reasonably be a duplicate of the first one) is a value in a range from 0.1 times to 2 times (Fig. 2 and paragraphs 19, 21; the blue and red pixels are the same width (paragraph 19) and in contact with each other (paragraph 21), so the length of the protrusion is the same as the width of the short side) a length of the short side of the light-emitting region (width of 11)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Li by forming the blue pixels in Z shapes as suggested by Hou in order to reduce the current requirement of the blue pixels and thereby increase the blue pixels lifespan to be commensurate with the (usually longer lasting) green and red pixels (Hou paragraph 26).
With respect to claim 24: Li in view of Lee and Hou teaches “the display device according to claim 23 (see above)”.
Li does not specifically teach “wherein a protruding length of the first protrusion and a protruding length of the second protrusion are the same”.
However, Hou suggests “wherein a protruding length of the first protrusion and a protruding length of the second protrusion are the same (Hou directly teaches forming the first protrusion and suggests a second protrusion for the same benefit. The protrusion dimensions would reasonably be the same since the same benefit is being sought).
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Li by forming the blue pixels in Z shapes as suggested by Hou in order to reduce the current requirement of the blue and green pixels and thereby increase the blue pixels lifespan to be commensurate with the (usually longer lasting) red and green pixels (Hou paragraphs 26, 33).
With respect to claim 25: Li in view of Lee and Hou teaches “the display device according to claim 21 (see above)”.
Li further teaches “wherein the light-emitting element includes a red light-emitting element configured to emit red light, a green light-emitting element configured to emit green light, or a blue light-emitting element configured to emit blue light (paragraph 26).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Han et al. (US 20190096962 A1), which teaches a pixel structure for an OLED display.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL J. LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-5721. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 EST 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, ABDULMAJEED AZIZ can be reached at (571)270-5046. 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.
/NATHANIEL J LEE/ Examiner, Art Unit 2875
/ABDULMAJEED AZIZ/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights