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 .
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, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (WO 2018179213 A1 using US 20190363290 A1 for ease of reference), in view of Lee et. al. (US 20210217739 A1), hereinafter Lee.
Regarding claim 1, Watanabe teaches a light-emitting element (Fig 1 organic EL elements 24, [0047]), comprising: a first light-emitting layer (Fig 1 organic EL layer 22 for blue, [0067]) containing first quantum dots ([0161]) and configured to emit first light (Fig 1 light from blue subpixel 3B, [0056]) including a first peak wavelength (wavelength for blue); a second light-emitting layer (Fig 1 organic EL layer 22 for green, [0067]) containing second quantum dots ([0161]) and configured to emit a second light (Fig 1 light from green subpixel 3G, [ 0056]) including a second peak wavelength (wavelength for green) that is greater (wavelength for green greater than blue) than the first peak wavelength (wavelength for blue); a third light-emitting layer (Fig 1 organic EL layer 22 for red, [0067]) containing third quantum dots ([0161]) and configured to emit third light (Fig 1 light from red subpixel 3R, [0056]) including a third peak wavelength (wavelength for red greater than green) that is greater than the second peak wavelength (wavelength for green); a substrate (Fig 1 TFT substrate 10, [0047]) having the first light-emitting layer (Fig 1 organic EL layer 22 for blue, [0067]), the second light-emitting layer (Fig 1 organic EL layer 22 for green, [0067]), and the third light-emitting layer (Fig 1 organic EL layer 22 for red, [0067]) arranged in a first direction (Fig 4 up-down direction); a first bank (Fig 1 bank BK1A, [0078]) provided on the substrate (Fig 1 TFT substrate 10, [0047]) between (See annotated figure, shaded region) the first light-emitting layer (Fig 1 organic EL layer 22 for blue, [0067]) and the second light-emitting layer (Fig 1 organic EL layer 22 for green, [0067]) and between (See annotated figure, shaded region) the first-light emitting layer (Fig 1 organic EL layer 22 for blue, [0067]) and the third-light-emitting layer (Fig 1 organic EL layer 22 for red, [0067]); and a reflective bank (Fig 1 bank BK1A, [0078]; Examiner considers the bank of Watanabe to have reflective properties in addition to transparent properties, that is, the bank can be mostly transparent but still reflective, an example would be glass used for windows; the glass is mostly transparent but is still reflective) provided on the substrate (Fig 1 TFT substrate 10, [0047]) between (See annotated figure, BK1A between left most 3R and 3G in shaded area) the second light-emitting layer (Fig 1 organic EL layer 22 for green, [0067]) and the third-light-emitting layer (Fig 1 organic EL layer 22 for red, [0067]), wherein the first bank (Fig 1 bank BK1A, [0078]) is transparent (polyimide resin, [0106] same as instant application, [0032]) to the first light traveling from the first light-emitting layer (Fig 1 organic EL layer 22 for blue, [0067]) toward the second light-emitting layer (Fig 1 organic EL layer 22 for green, [0067]) and from the first light-emitting layer (Fig 1 organic EL layer 22 for blue, [0067]) towards the third light-emitting layer (Fig 1 organic EL layer 22 for red, [0067]), the reflective bank (See annotated figure, BK1A between left most 3R and 3G in shaded area) has an angled side face (Fig 1 bank BK1A is angled) that is reflective (as previously mentioned the bank is reflective) to the second light (Fig 1 light from green subpixel 3G, [0056]) and third light (Fig 1 light from red subpixel 3R, [0056]).
Watanabe fails to teach the first bank includes a color filter transparent to the first light and absorptive of the second light.
However, Lee teaches a bank that includes a color filter material for blocking light of colors and/or wavelengths from light emitting elements ([0021] and [0190]). Further, Lee teaches using color filter material would allow for cleaner processing of the bank by not having to use black material ([0193]). One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have combined, using routine experimentation, variations of color filter material and the result from the combination of different color filter material would have been predictable. Thus, by combining the different color filter material in the bank of Watanabe, the first bank would have a color filter that is transparent to the first light and absorptive of the second light. MPEP 2143(I)(G)
PNG
media_image1.png
538
602
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Watanabe as modified in claim 1 teaches on a surface (Fig 1 left side of TFT substrate 10) of the substrate (Fig 1 TFT substrate 10, [0047]), a plurality of first light-emitting layers (Fig 1 organic EL layer 22, [0067]), including the first light-emitting layer (Fig 1 organic EL layer 22 for blue, [0067]), is arranged in a second direction (Fig 4 left-right direction) different from the first direction (Fig 4 up-down direction), the light-emitting element (Fig 1 organic EL elements 24, [0047]) further comprises a second bank (Fig 4 BK1 between sub pixels in a left-right direction) and the second bank (Fig 4 BK1 between sub pixels in a left-right direction) is transparent (polyimide resin, [0106] same as instant application, [0032]) to the first light (Fig 1 light from blue subpixel 3B, [0056]) incident to each of the first light-emitting layers (Fig 1 organic EL layer 22 for blue, [0067]).
Watanabe fails to teach dividing the plurality of first light-emitting layers arranged side-by-side.
Regarding the dividing the plurality of first light-emitting layers arranged side-by-side. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have plurality of first light-emitting layers arranged side-by-side, as a matter of design choice, as the placement of the first light-emitting layers side-by-side would not have modified the operation of the device. Further, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would know of many different pixel geometries, wherein subpixels of one wavelength are arranged side-by-side. MPEP 2144.05(VI)(C). In arranging the plurality of first light-emitting layers arranged side-by-side, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize that the second bank would be transparent to the first light incident to each of the first light-emitting layers arranged side-by-side.
It is noted for clarity of the record that, Examiner notes that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) and MPEP 2112.01
Regarding claim 12, Watanabe as modified in claim 1 further teaches a light emitting device (Fig 4 flexible display 1, [0044]), comprising: a thin-film transistor (Fig 1 TFT 18, [0055]); and the light-emitting element (Fig 1 organic EL elements 24, [0047]) according to claim 1, wherein the light-emitting element (Fig 1 organic EL elements 24, [0047]) is electrically connected (Fig 1) to the thin-film transistor (Fig 1 TFT 18, [0055]).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (WO 2018179213 A1 using US 20190363290 A1 for ease of reference), in view of Lee et. al. (US 20210217739 A1), hereinafter Lee, in further view of Suzuki et. al. (US 20180226016 A1), hereinafter Suzuki.
Regarding claim 4, Watanabe as modified in claim 1 fails to teach the first bank has an optical waveguide layer provided between the first light-emitting layer and the second light-emitting layer and guiding the first light.
However, Suzuki teaches the first bank (Fig 8 partition 60 not labeled consisting of material layer 61,62, and 63, [0097] corresponds to Watanabe: Fig 1 bank BK1A, [0078]) has an optical waveguide layer (Fig 8 middle layer part 62, [0097]) provided between the first light-emitting layer (Fig 8 organic layer 71 on bottom, [0095] corresponds to Watanabe: Fig 1 organic EL layer 22, [0067]) and the second light-emitting layer (Fig 8 organic layer 71 on top, [0095] corresponds to Watanabe: Fig 1 organic EL layer 22, [0067]) and guiding the first light (Fig 8 stray light from organic layer 71 corresponds to Watanbe: Fig 1 light from blue subpixel 3B, [0056]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Watanabe and Lee to incorporate the teachings of Suzuki by having the first bank has an optical waveguide layer provided between the first light-emitting layer and the second light-emitting layer and guiding the first light. This would allow for the correction of light being emitted from the subpixel ([0091]).
Regarding claim 5, Watanabe as modified in claim 4 teaches a refractive index (Fig 8 n3, [0113]) of the optical waveguide layer (Fig 8 middle layer part 62, [0097]) is higher (the middle layer part includes a material having a refractive index higher than that of the material of the upper layer part and the lower layer part , [0112]) than a refractive index of a member surrounding an outer periphery (Fig 8 upper layer part 63 and lower layer part 61, [0113]) of the optical waveguide layer (Fig 8 middle layer part 62, [0097]).
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (WO 2018179213 A1 using US 20190363290 A1 for ease of reference), in view of Lee et. al. (US 20210217739 A1), hereinafter Lee, in further view of Huang et. al. (US 20240016006 A1) hereinafter Huang.
Regarding claim 6, Watanabe as modified in claim 1 fails to teach the first bank includes a dielectric multilayer film transparent to the first light and reflective to the second light.
However, Huang teaches the first bank (Fig 2 pixel defining layer 110, [0041] corresponds to Watanabe: Fig 1 bank BK1A, [0078]) includes a dielectric multilayer film (Fig 2 first, second, and third pixel defining layers 111,112, and 113, respectively) transparent to the first light and reflective to the second light.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Watanabe and Lee to incorporate the teachings of Huang by having the first bank including a dielectric multilayer film transparent to the first light and reflective to the second light. This would reduce the effects of light crosstalk ([0043]).
It is noted for clarity of the record that, Examiner notes that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) and MPEP 2112.01. Further, Huang teaches the number of layers of the pixel defining layer can be adjusted as desired according to needs ([0050]).
Regarding claim 7, Watanabe as modified in claim 6 teaches the dielectric multilayer film (Huang: Fig 2 first, second, and third pixel defining layers 111,112, and 113, respectively) comprises a multilayer stack (Huang: Fig 2) including a combination of two or more layers (Huang: Fig 2) that include a first refractive index layer (Huang: Fig 2 first pixel defining layer 111, [0049]) and a second refractive index layer (Huang: Fig 2 third pixel defining layer 113, [0049]), the first refractive index layer (Huang: Fig 2 first pixel defining layer 111, [0049]) being a dielectric film (Huang: made of titanium dioxide, [0049]) having a first refractive index (Huang: n=2.2, [0049]), and the second refractive index layer (Huang: Fig 2 third pixel defining layer 113, [0049]) being a dielectric film (Huang: made of silicon dioxide, [0049]) having a second refractive index (Huang: n=1.5, [0049]) lower (1.5<2.2) than the first refractive index (Huang: n=2.2, [0049]).
Regarding claim 8, Watanabe as modified in claim 7 teaches the first refractive index layer (Huang: Fig 2 first pixel defining layer 111, [0049]) contains at least one of TiO2 (Huang: made of titanium dioxide, [0049]), Nb2O5, or Ta2O5, and the second refractive index layer (Huang: Fig 2 third pixel defining layer 113, [0049]) contains at least one of SiO2 (Huang: silicon dioxide, [0049]), MgF2, or Al203
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see 35 USC §103 section beginning on page 4, filed March 02, 2026, with respect to the 35 USC §103 rejection of claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of a different interpretation of Lee.
Conclusion
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALVIN L LEE whose telephone number is (703)756-1921. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5 pm (ET).
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, STEVEN GAUTHIER can be reached at (571)270-0373. 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.
/ALVIN L LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2813
/STEVEN B GAUTHIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights