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 .
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 final rejection. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/02/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-18 and 20-22 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendments
Applicant's response of 03/02/2026 has been acknowledged. Claims 1, 3, 11, and 16 have been amended. Claim 19 is canceled. Claims 21-22 are added. No new matter has been added.
This office action considers claims 1-18 and 20-22 pending for prosecution and are examined on their merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments of 03/02/2026 with respect to the rejections of claims have
been fully considered, and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of claims 1, 11, and 17 have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Sakamoto et al. (US 20170279084 A1 – hereinafter Sakamoto).
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.
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.
Notes: when present, hyphen separated fields within the hyphens (- -) represent, for example, as (30A - Fig 2B - [0128]) = (element 30A - Figure No. 2B - Paragraph No. [0128]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. The same conventions apply to Column and Sentence, for example (19:14-20) = (column19:sentences 14-20). These conventions are used throughout this document.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakamoto et al. (US 20170279084 A1 – hereinafter Sakamoto) in view of Yoo et al. (US 20170294493 A1 – hereinafter Yoo), Yang et al. (US 20170373124 A1 – hereinafter Yang), and Lee et al. (US 11744116 B2 – hereinafter Lee).
Regarding independent claim 1, Sakamoto teaches:
(Currently Amended) An electroluminescent ([0002] – “The present
invention relates to a display device, and particularly to a display device using an organic EL (Electro-luminescence) element”) device (PNL – Fig. 1 – [0032] – “display panel PNL”), comprising:
a plurality of pixels ([0032] – “plurality of pixels in the display”), each pixel
(PIX – Fig. 1 – [0032] – “the pixel PIX” of the plurality of pixels) of the plurality of pixels comprising:
a pixel defining layer (BANK – Fig. 6 – [0044] – “the insulating bank BANK”)
including a pixel opening (OPN – Fig. 6 – [0044] – “opening region OPN where the insulating bank BANK is not arranged is arranged inside a region where the anode AD is arranged”) to a bottom electrode (AD – Fig. 6 – [0043] – “the anode AD of the light emitting element LEE”);
an additional structure disposed
on at least a portion of the pixel defining layer;
an organic emitting unit disposed over at least a portion of the bottom electrode and a portion of the additional structure or ; and
a filler layer (FIL – Fig. 6 – [0037] – “filling layer FIL formed of translucent resin”) disposed over at least a portion of the organic emitting unit (LEE – Fig. 6 shows this), wherein a refractive index of the pixel defining layer is lower than a refractive index of the filler layer and lower than a refractive index of the one or more layers of the organic emitting unit,
wherein a refractive index of the additional structure is higher than the refractive index of the pixel defining layer to increase a refractive-index contrast therebetween,
wherein each pixel (PIX) of the plurality of pixels is isolated from the other pixels of the plurality of pixels (Fig. 2 shows this, PX is each pixel and is mislabeled, it should be PIX), and
wherein an intersection angle of the pixel defining layer with [[a]] the bottom electrode is about 40° to about 70°.
Sakamoto does not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 1.
However, in an analogous art, Yoo teaches
wherein a refractive index of the pixel defining layer (255 – Fig. 4 – [0076] – “The emission parts RE may be divided by a bank 255”) is lower ([0012] – “refractive index of the bank is lower than a refractive index of the organic light emitting layer and a refractive index of the encapsulation layer”) than a refractive index of the filler layer (260 – Fig. 4 – [0085] – “the encapsulation layer 260 is illustrated as including a first inorganic layer 261, an organic layer 262, and a second inorganic layer 263” – this serves as a filler layer) and lower (yoo ([0012] – “refractive index of the bank is lower than a refractive index of the organic light emitting layer and a refractive index of the encapsulation layer”) than a refractive index of the one or more layers of the organic emitting unit (250 – Fig. 4 – [0109] – “organic light emitting devices 250 may each include a first electrode 251, an organic light emitting layer 252, and a second electrode 253. The emission parts RE may be divided by a bank 255”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the refractive index of the layer structure as taught by Yoo into Sakamoto.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Yoo in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result of [0008] – “a loss of the light emitted from the organic light emitting device is reduced, a lifetime of the organic light emitting device increases, and moreover, consumption power of the organic light emitting display device is reduced.”
Sakamoto and Yoo do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 1.
However, in an analogous art, Yang teaches
an additional structure (542 – Fig. 10 – [0189] – “a second bank layer 142” –
this is an additional structure) disposed
on at least a portion of the pixel defining layer (541 – Fig. 10 – [0189] – “a first bank layer 541” – this corresponds to the pixel defining layer);
an organic emitting unit (150 – Fig. 10 – [0067] – “the light emitting layer of the
emission structure 150”) disposed over at least a portion of the bottom electrode (140 – Fig. 10 – [0067] – “the first electrode 140”) and a portion of the additional structure (542 – Fig. 10 shows this) or (150) comprising one or more layers ([0068] – “the emission structure 150 may include a plurality of light emitting layers depending on a structure of the electroluminescence display device” – Fig. 2 shows this),
wherein a refractive index of the additional structure (542) is higher than the refractive index of the pixel defining layer (541 – [0189] – “the second bank layer 542 may have a higher refractive index than the first bank layer 541”) to increase a refractive-index contrast therebetween.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the additional structure as taught by Yang into Sakamoto and Yoo.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Yang in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result of [0182] – “the present disclosure may be formed of a material that reduces reflection of external light” and thus increasing the amount of internal light that is extracted from the device.
To do so would have merely been to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143 I. D.
Sakamoto, Yoo, and Yang do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 1.
However, in an analogous art, Lee teaches
wherein an intersection angle of the pixel defining layer (PDL – Fig. 6 – – [51 = 9:28-30] – “the pixel-defining layer PDL”) with [[a]] the bottom electrode (EL1 – Fig. 6 – [9:26] – “first diode electrode EL1”) is about 40° to about 70° (θ1 – Fig. 6 – [9:28-30] – “the taper angle θ1 of the side surface of the pixel-defining layer PDL may be in a range of about 40° to about 70°”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the intersection angle of the pixel defining layer structure as taught by Lee into Sakamoto, Yoo, and Yang.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Lee in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result to promote reflection of the light rays in an outward direction thus reducing the internal reflectance and transmission loss.
To do so would have merely been to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143 I. D.
Regarding claim 2, Sakamoto as modified by Yoo, Yang, and Lee, teaches claim 1 from which claim 2 depends. Sakamoto further teaches
(Original) The electroluminescent device of claim 1, wherein the
organic emitting unit (LEE) has a first surface, a second surface that lies at an angle relative to the first surface, and a third surface substantially parallel to the first surface (Fig. 6 annotated shows this).
PNG
media_image1.png
662
755
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Sakamoto as modified by Yoo, Yang, and Lee, teaches claim 1 from which claim 3 depends. Sakamoto further teaches
(Currently Amended) The electroluminescent device of claim 1,
further comprising a top electrode (CD – Fig. 6 – [0043] – “The cathode CD of the light emitting element LEE is provided to be common among the pixels PIX”), the top electrode (CD) disposed over at least a portion of the organic emitting unit (LEE – Fig 6 shows this), the filler layer (FIL) disposed [[over]] on at least a portion of the top electrode (CD – Fig. 6 shows this) in the pixel opening (OPN – Fig. 6 shows this).
Regarding claim 4, Sakamoto as modified by Yoo, Yang, and Lee, teaches claim 3 from which claim 4 depends. Sakamoto further teaches
(Original) The electroluminescent device of claim 3, wherein the top
electrode (CD) comprises a transparent conductive oxide material, a semi-transparent conductive oxide material, a metal, a metal alloy, or a combination thereof ([0048] – “cathode CD is formed to be able to up and down direction transmit light, and is formed of a thin film metal such as Ag or MgAg or a transparent metal oxide conductive layer such as ITO or IZO”).
Regarding claim 5, Sakamoto as modified by Yoo, Yang, and Lee, teaches claim 1 from which claim 5 depends. Sakamoto further teaches
(Previously Presented) The electroluminescent device of claim 1,
wherein the pixel defining layer (BANK) is disposed over at least a portion of the bottom electrode (AD – Fig. 6 – [0043] – “the anode AD of the light emitting element LEE” – Fig. 6 shows this).
Regarding claim 6, Sakamoto as modified by Yoo, Yang, and Lee, teaches claim 1 from which claim 6 depends. Sakamoto, Yang, and Lee do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 6.
However, in an analogous art, Yoo teaches
(Original) The electroluminescent device of claim 1, wherein the refractive
index of the pixel defining layer (255 – Fig. 4 – [0078] – “bank 255”) is from about 1.0 to about 1.6 at a wavelength or wavelength range ([0078] – “for totally reflecting light L emitted from the organic light emitting layer 252. For example, the bank 255 may be formed of an organic material having a refractive index of 1.6 or less”) of a light emitted by the electroluminescent device (250 – Fig. 4 – [0076] – “organic light emitting devices 250”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the refractive index of the layer structure as taught by Yoo into Sakamoto, Yang, and Lee.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Yoo in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result as stated above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Sakamoto as modified by Yoo, Yang, and Lee, teaches claim 1 from which claim 7 depends. Sakamoto, Yang, and Lee do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 7.
However, in an analogous art, Yoo teaches
(Original) The electroluminescent device of claim 1, wherein the refractive
index of the one or more layers of the organic emitting unit (252 – Fig. 4 – [0082] – “organic light emitting layer 252 may be formed of an organic material having a refractive index of about 1.8 or more”) is from about 1.3 to about 2.4 at a wavelength or wavelength range ([0078] – “for totally reflecting light L emitted from the organic light emitting layer 252” – indexes are for light L emitted from 252) of a light emitted by the electroluminescent device (250).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the refractive index of the layer structure as taught by Yoo into Sakamoto, Yang, and Lee.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Yoo in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result as stated above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Sakamoto as modified by Yoo, Yang, and Lee, teaches claim 1 from which claim 8 depends. Sakamoto, Yang, and Lee do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 8.
However, in an analogous art, Yoo teaches
(Original) The electroluminescent device of claim 1, wherein the refractive
index of the filler layer (260 – Fig. 3 – {[0085] – “the encapsulation layer 260 is illustrated as including a first inorganic layer 261, an organic layer 262, and a second inorganic layer 263”}, {[0087] – “the first and second inorganic layers 261 and 263 may be formed of silicon nitride, aluminum nitride, zirconium nitride, titanium nitride, hafnium nitride, tantalum nitride, silicon oxide, aluminum oxide, titanium oxide, and/or the like. The first inorganic layer 261 may be formed of an organic material having a refractive index of about 1.8 or more”}, {[0089] – “organic layer 262 may be formed of an organic material having a refractive index of about 1.8 or more”} – 260 has a refreactive index of 1.8 or more) is greater than about 1.6 at a wavelength or wavelength range ([0078] – “for totally reflecting light L emitted from the organic light emitting layer 252” – indexes are for light L emitted from 252) of a light emitted by the electroluminescent device (250).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the refractive index of the layer structure as taught by Yoo into Sakamoto, Yang, and Lee.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Yoo in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result as stated above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, Sakamoto as modified by Yoo, Yang, and Lee, teaches claim 1 from which claim 9 depends. Sakamoto, Yang, and Lee do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 9.
However, in an analogous art, Yoo teaches
(Original) The electroluminescent device of claim 1, wherein the refractive
index of the filler layer (260) is greater than or equal (260 – Fig. 3 – {[0085] – “the encapsulation layer 260 is illustrated as including a first inorganic layer 261, an organic layer 262, and a second inorganic layer 263”}, {[0087] – “the first and second inorganic layers 261 and 263 may be formed of silicon nitride, aluminum nitride, zirconium nitride, titanium nitride, hafnium nitride, tantalum nitride, silicon oxide, aluminum oxide, titanium oxide, and/or the like. The first inorganic layer 261 may be formed of an organic material having a refractive index of about 1.8 or more”}, {[0089] – “organic layer 262 may be formed of an organic material having a refractive index of about 1.8 or more”} – 260 has a refractive index of 1.8 or more) to the refractive index of the one or more layers (252 – [0082] – “organic light emitting layer 252 may be formed of an organic material having a refractive index of about 1.8 or more”) of the organic emitting unit (250).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the refractive index of the layer structure as taught by Yoo into Sakamoto, Yang, and Lee.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Yoo in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result as stated above in claim 1.
Claims 10 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakamoto in view of Yoo, Yang, Lee, and Nojima (JP 2004258364 A – hereinafter Nojima).
Regarding claim 10, Sakamoto, as modified by Yoo, Yang, and Lee, teaches claim 1 from which claim 10 depends. Sakamoto, Yoo, and Yang do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 10.
However, in an analogous art, Lee teaches
(Previously Presented) The electroluminescent device of claim 1, wherein:
an angle of the pixel defining layer (Θ.sub.B – fig 3B) (θ1 – Fig. 5 – [9:29]
– “the taper angle θ1 of the side surface of the pixel-defining layer PDL may be in a range of about 40° to about 70°”) is from about 45° to about 65° ([9:28-30] – “the taper angle θ1 of the side surface of the pixel-defining layer PDL may be in a range of about 40° to about 70°”);
an aspect ratio (H/Wi) of a height (H) from an upper edge of the filler layer to a
top edge of the bottom electrode to a width (W1) of the bottom electrode not covered by the pixel defining layer is larger than about 0.01; or
a combination thereof.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the intersection angle of the pixel defining layer structure as taught by Lee into Sakamoto, Yoo, and Yang.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Lee in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result as stated above in claim 1.
Sakamoto, Yoo, Yang, and Lee, do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 10.
However, in an analogous art, Nojima teaches
an aspect ratio (H/Wi) of a height (H) (h – Fig. 3 – [9:20-21] – “the fine
structures 31 are formed as elongated cones or pyramids with a diameter φ of 50 μm and a height h of 50 nm”) from an upper edge of the filler layer to a top edge of the bottom electrode to a width (W1) ([15:11-12] – “it is possible to leave resist 89 having a width of 40 nm” – Fig. 8 shows this, 31 is formed from 89) of the bottom electrode not covered by the pixel defining layer is larger than about 0.01 (Fig. 2 – [4:21] – “fine structure is elongated and has an aspect ratio of 1 or more” – this demonstrates aspect ratio, H/W = 50/40=1.25 this is larger that 0.01); or
a combination thereof.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the intersection angle of the pixel defining layer structure as taught by Nojima into Sakamoto, Yoo, Yang, and Lee.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Nojima in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result of [5:1] - "forming a stable, non-reflective surface on an optical element".
Regarding claim 12, Sakamoto, as modified by Yoo, Yang, Lee, and Nojima, teaches claim 10 from which claim 12 depends. Sakamoto further teaches
(Original) The electroluminescent device of claim 10, wherein the
organic emitting unit (LEE) has a first surface, a second surface that lies at an angle relative to the first surface, and a third surface substantially parallel to the first surface (Fig. 6 annotated shows this – OLED is a part of LEE outside of the marked boundaries).
PNG
media_image1.png
662
755
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Sakamoto, as modified by Yoo, Yang, Lee, and Nojima, teaches claim 10 from which claim 13 depends. Sakamoto, Yang, Lee, and Nojima do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 13.
However, in an analogous art, Yoo teaches
(Original) The electroluminescent device of claim 10, wherein the refractive
index of the pixel defining layer (255 – [0078] – “bank 255”) is from about 1.0 to about 1.6 at a wavelength or wavelength range of a light emitted by the electroluminescent device (255 – [0078] – “for totally reflecting light L emitted from the organic light emitting layer 252. For example, the bank 255 may be formed of an organic material having a refractive index of 1.6 or less”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the refractive index of the layer structure as taught by Yoo into Sakamoto, Yang, Lee, and Nojima.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Yoo in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result as stated above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, Sakamoto, as modified by Yoo, Yang, Lee, and Nojima, teaches claim 10 from which claim 14 depends. Sakamoto, Yang, Lee, and Nojima do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 14.
However, in an analogous art, Yoo teaches
(Original) The electroluminescent device of claim 10, wherein:
the refractive index of the one or more layers of the organic emitting unit
(252) is from about 1.3 to about 2.4 at a wavelength or wavelength range of a light emitted by the electroluminescent device ([0078] – “for totally reflecting light L emitted from the organic light emitting layer 252” – indexes are for light L emitted from 252);
the refractive index of the filler layer is greater than (260 – Fig. 3 – {[0085] – “the encapsulation layer 260 is illustrated as including a first inorganic layer 261, an organic layer 262, and a second inorganic layer 263”}, {[0087] – “the first and second inorganic layers 261 and 263 may be formed of silicon nitride, aluminum nitride, zirconium nitride, titanium nitride, hafnium nitride, tantalum nitride, silicon oxide, aluminum oxide, titanium oxide, and/or the like. The first inorganic layer 261 may be formed of an organic material having a refractive index of about 1.8 or more”}, {[0089] – “organic layer 262 may be formed of an organic material having a refractive index of about 1.8 or more”} – 260 has a refreactive index of 1.8 or more) about 1.6 at a wavelength or wavelength range of a light emitted by the electroluminescent device ([0078] – “for totally reflecting light L emitted from the organic light emitting layer 252” – indexes are for light L emitted from 252); or a combination thereof.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the refractive index of the layer structure as taught by Yoo into Sakamoto, Yang, Lee, and Nojima.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Yoo in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result as stated above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, Sakamoto, as modified by Yoo, Yang, Lee, and Nojima, teaches claim 1 from which claim 15 depends. Sakamoto, Yang, and Yoo do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 15.
However, in an analogous art, Lee teaches
(Previously Presented) The electroluminescent device of claim 1, wherein:
an angle of the pixel defining layer (θ1 – Fig. 5 – [9:28:30] – “the taper angle
θ1 of the side surface of the pixel-defining layer PDL may be in a range of about 40° to about 70°”) is from about 45° to about 65° ([9:28-30] – “the taper angle θ1 of the side surface of the pixel-defining layer PDL may be in a range of about 40° to about 70°”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the intersection angle of the pixel defining layer structure as taught by Lee into Sakamoto, Yoo, and Yang.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Lee in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result as stated above in claim 1.
Sakamoto, Yoo, Yang, and Lee do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 10.
However, in an analogous art, Nojima teaches
an aspect ratio (H/Wi) of a height (H) (h – Fig. 3 – [9:20-21] – “the fine
structures 31 are formed as elongated cones or pyramids with a diameter φ of 50 μm and a height h of 50 nm”) from an upper edge of the filler layer to a top edge of the bottom electrode to a width (W1) ([15:11-12] – “it is possible to leave resist 89 having a width of 40 nm” – Fig. 8 shows this, 31 is formed from 89) of the bottom electrode not covered by the pixel defining layer is larger than about 0.01 (Fig. 2 – [4:21] – “fine structure is elongated and has an aspect ratio of 1 or more” – this demonstrates aspect ratio, H/W = 50/40=1.25 this is larger that 0.01); or
a combination thereof.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the intersection angle of the pixel defining layer structure as taught by Nojima into Sakamoto, Yoo, Yang, and Lee.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Nojima in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result as stated above in claim 10.
Claims 11 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakamoto in view of Yoo, Yang, Lee, and Ito et al. (US 20040183436 A1 – hereinafter Ito).
Regarding independent claim 11, Sakamoto teaches:
(Currently Amended) An electroluminescent ([0002] – “The present
invention relates to a display device, and particularly to a display device using an organic EL (Electro-luminescence) element”) device (PNL – Fig. 1 – [0032] – “display panel PNL”), comprising:
a plurality of pixels ([0032] – “plurality of pixels in the display”), each pixel of
the plurality of pixels (PIX – Fig. 1 – [0032] – “the pixel PIX” of the plurality of pixels) comprising:
a pixel defining layer (BANK – Fig. 6 – [0044] – “the insulating bank BANK”) including a pixel opening (OPN – Fig. 6 – [0044] – “opening region OPN where the insulating bank BANK is not arranged is arranged inside a region where the anode AD is arranged”) to a bottom electrode (AD – Fig. 6 – [0043] – “the anode AD of the light emitting element LEE”) and the pixel defining layer (saka (BANK) is disposed over at least a portion of a bottom electrode (AD – Fig. 6 shows this);
an additional structure disposed on at least a portion of the pixel defining layer;
an organic emitting unit disposed over at least a portion of the additional structure and a portion of the bottom electrode, the organic emitting unit comprising one or more layers;
a top electrode (CD – Fig. 6 – [0043] – “The cathode CD of the light emitting element LEE is provided to be common among the pixels PIX”) disposed over at least a portion of the organic emitting unit (LEE – Fig 6 shows this); and
a filler layer (FIL – Fig. 6 – [0037] – “filling layer FIL formed of translucent resin disposed [[over]] on at least a portion of the top electrode (CD – Fig. 6 shows this) in the pixel opening (OPN),
wherein:
a refractive index of the pixel defining layer is lower than a refractive index of the filler layer,
the refractive index of the pixel defining layer (BANK) is lower than a refractive index of the one or more layers of the organic emitting unit ([0059] – “the refractive index of the insulating bank BANK is lower than the refractive index of the organic EL layer OLED”),
a refractive index of the additional structure is higher than the refractive index of the pixel defining layer to increase a refractive-index contrast therebetween,
the refractive index of the filler layer is greater than or equal to the refractive index of the one or more layers of the organic emitting unit, and
the top electrode (CD) comprises a transparent conductive oxide material, a semi-transparent conductive oxide material, a metal, a metal alloy, or a combination thereof ([0048] – “cathode CD is formed to be able to up and down direction transmit light, and is formed of a thin film metal such as Ag or MgAg or a transparent metal oxide conductive layer such as ITO or IZO”),
each filler layer of each pixel is isolated from the filler layer of the other pixels, and
an intersection angle of the pixel defining layer with a bottom electrode is about 40° to about 70°.
Sakamoto does not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 11.
However, in an analogous art, Yoo teaches
a refractive index of the pixel defining layer (255 – Fig. 4 – [0076] – “The emission parts RE may be divided by a bank 255”) is lower (yoo ([0012] – “refractive index of the bank is lower than a refractive index of the organic light emitting layer and a refractive index of the encapsulation layer”) than a refractive index of the filler layer (260 – Fig. 4 – [0085] – “the encapsulation layer 260 is illustrated as including a first inorganic layer 261, an organic layer 262, and a second inorganic layer 263” – this serves as a filler layer),
the refractive index of the filler layer (260 – Fig. 4 – [0085] – “the encapsulation layer 260 is illustrated as including a first inorganic layer 261, an organic layer 262, and a second inorganic layer 263” – this serves as a filler layer) is greater than or equal ([0082] – “organic light emitting layer 252 may be formed of an organic material having a refractive index of about 1.8 or more”) to the refractive index of the one or more layers (252 – Fig. 4 – [0082] – “organic light emitting layer 252”) of the organic emitting unit (250 – Fig. 4 – [0109] – “organic light emitting devices 250 may each include a first electrode 251, an organic light emitting layer 252, and a second electrode 253. The emission parts RE may be divided by a bank 255”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the refractive index of the layer structure as taught by Yoo into Sakamoto.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Yoo in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result of [0008] – “a loss of the light emitted from the organic light emitting device is reduced, a lifetime of the organic light emitting device increases, and moreover, consumption power of the organic light emitting display device is reduced.”
Sakamoto and Yoo do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 11.
However, in an analogous art, Yang teaches
an additional structure (542 – Fig. 10 – [0189] – “a second bank layer 142” –
this is an additional structure) disposed on at least a portion of the pixel defining layer (541 – Fig. 10 – [0189] – “a first bank layer 541” – this corresponds to the pixel defining layer);
an organic emitting unit (150 – Fig. 10 – [0067] – “the light emitting layer of the
emission structure 150”) disposed over at least a portion of the additional structure (542) and a portion of the bottom electrode (140 – Fig. 10 – [0067] – “the first electrode 140” – Fig. 10 shows this), the organic emitting unit (150) comprising one or more layers ([0068] – “the emission structure 150 may include a plurality of light emitting layers depending on a structure of the electroluminescence display device” – Fig. 2 shows this),
a refractive index of the additional structure (542) is higher than the refractive index of the pixel defining layer (541 – [0189] – “the second bank layer 542 may have a higher refractive index than the first bank layer 541”) to increase a refractive-index contrast therebetween.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the additional structure as taught by Yang into Sakamoto and Yoo.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Yang in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result of [0182] – “the present disclosure may be formed of a material that reduces reflection of external light” and thus increasing the amount of internal light that is extracted from the device.
To do so would have merely been to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143 I. D.
Sakamoto, Yoo, and Yang do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 11.
However, in an analogous art, Lee teaches
an intersection angle of the pixel defining layer (PDL – Fig. 6 – – [9:28-30] – “the pixel-defining layer PDL”) with a bottom electrode is about 40° to about 70° (θ1 – Fig. 6 – [9:28-30] – “the taper angle θ1 of the side surface of the pixel-defining layer PDL may be in a range of about 40° to about 70°”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the intersection angle of the pixel defining layer structure as taught by Lee into Sakamoto, Yoo, and Yang.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Lee in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result to promote reflection of the light rays in an outward direction thus reducing the internal reflectance and transmission loss.
To do so would have merely been to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143 I. D.
Sakamoto, Yoo, Yang, and Lee do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 11.
However, in an analogous art, Ito teaches
each filler layer (PSL – Fig. 1 – [0068] – “resin seal PSL” this corresponds to a filler layer) of each pixel ([0031] – “FIG. 3 is a plan view showing one embodiment of a pixel of the organic EL display device according to the present invention” – hereinafter ‘PIX’) is isolated from the filler layer (PSL) of the other pixels ([0029] – “FIG. 1 is a constitutional view showing one embodiment of an organic EL display device according to the present invention and also is a cross-sectional view taken along a line I-I in FIG. 3”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the filler layer structure as taught by Ito into Sakamoto, Yoo, Yang, and Lee.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Ito in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result [0014] – “organic EL display device having such a constitution, the enhancement of light take-out efficiency is strongly desired while miniaturizing pixel regions.”
Regarding claim 21, Sakamoto, as modified by Yoo, Yang, and Lee, teaches claim 3 from which claim 21 depends. Sakamoto, Yoo, Yang, and Lee do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 21.
However, in an analogous art, Ito teaches
(New) The electroluminescent device of claim 3, wherein the filler layer
(PSL – Fig. 1 – [0068] – “resin seal PSL” this corresponds to a filler layer) comprises an upper edge having the same height as the top electrode (CT – Fig. 1 – [0068] – “common (cathode) electrode CT” – this corresponds to the top electrode, Fig. 1 shows this).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the filler layer structure as taught by Ito into Sakamoto, Yoo, Yang, and Lee.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Ito in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result as stated above in claim 11.
Regarding claim 22, Sakamoto, as modified by Yoo, Yang, Lee, and Ito, teaches claim 11 from which claim 22 depends. Sakamoto, Yoo, Yang, and Lee do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 22.
However, in an analogous art, Ito teaches
(New) The electroluminescent device of claim 11, wherein the filler layer
(PSL – Fig. 1 – [0068] – “resin seal PSL” this corresponds to a filler layer) comprises an upper edge having the same height as the top electrode (CT – Fig. 1 – [0068] – “common (cathode) electrode CT” – this corresponds to the top electrode, Fig. 1 shows this).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the filler layer structure as taught by Ito into Sakamoto, Yoo, Yang, and Lee.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Ito in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result as stated above in claim 11.
Claims 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakamoto in view of Yoo, Yang, Lee, Ito, and Bok et al. (US 10338712 B2 – hereinafter Bok).
Regarding independent claim 16, Sakamoto teaches:
(Currently Amended) A display device (PNL – Fig. 1 – [0032] – “display
panel PNL”), comprising:
a substrate (TFT-S – Fig. 6 – [0033] – “substrate TFT-S”);
a thin film transistor (D-TFT – Fig. 6 – [0042] – “driving transistor D-TFT”)
formed on the substrate (TFT-S – Fig. 6 shows this);
an interconnection (CNT-1 – Fig. 6 – [0045] – “CNT1 serves as a source and a
drain of the driving transistor D-TFT”) electrically coupled to the thin film transistor (D-TFT); and
an electroluminescent device (PNL – Fig. 1 – {[0032] – “display panel PNL”},
{(LEE – Fig. 6 – [0044] – “the light emitting element LEE” – is a part of PNL) electrically coupled to the interconnection (CNT-1 – Fig. 6 shows this), the electroluminescent device (PNL) comprising:
a plurality of pixels ([0032] – “plurality of pixels in the display”), each pixel (PIX – Fig. 1 – [0032] – “the pixel PIX” of the plurality of pixels) of the plurality of pixels comprising:
a pixel defining layer (BANK – Fig. 6 – [0044] – “the insulating bank BANK”) including a pixel opening (OPN – Fig. 6 – [0044] – “opening region OPN where the insulating bank BANK is not arranged is arranged inside a region where the anode AD is arranged”) to a bottom electrode (AD – Fig. 6 – [0043] – “the anode AD of the light emitting element LEE”);
an additional structure disposed on at least a portion of the pixel defining layer;
an organic emitting unit disposed over at least a portion of the additional structure and a portion of the bottom electrode, the organic emitting unit comprising one or more layers;
a top electrode (CD – Fig. 6 – [0043] – “The cathode CD of the light emitting element LEE is provided to be common among the pixels PIX”) disposed over at least a portion of the emitting unit (LEE – Fig 6 shows this); and
a filler layer (FIL – Fig. 6 – [0037] – “filling layer FIL formed of translucent resin”) disposed [[over]] on at least a portion of the (LEE – Fig. 6 shows this) top electrode in the pixel opening (OPN), wherein a refractive index of the pixel defining layer is lower than a refractive index of the filler layer and lower than a refractive index of the one or more layers of the organic emitting unit, and wherein a refractive index of the additional structure is higher than the refractive index of the pixel defining layer to increase a refractive-index contrast therebetween,
wherein each filler layer of each pixel is isolated from the filler layer of the other pixels, [[and]]
an intersection angle of the pixel defining layer with a bottom electrode is about 40° to about 70°, and
wherein the filler layer comprises an upper edge having the same height as the top electrode.
Sakamoto does not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 16.
However, in an analogous art, Yoo teaches
wherein a refractive index of the pixel defining layer (255 – [0078] – “bank 255”) is lower ([0012] – “refractive index of the bank is lower than a refractive index of the organic light emitting layer and a refractive index of the encapsulation layer”) than a refractive index of the filler layer (260 – Fig. 4 – [0085] – “the encapsulation layer 260 is illustrated as including a first inorganic layer 261, an organic layer 262, and a second inorganic layer 263” – this serves as a filler layer) and lower ([0012] – “refractive index of the bank is lower than a refractive index of the organic light emitting layer and a refractive index of the encapsulation layer”) than a refractive index of the one or more layers of the organic emitting unit (250 – Fig. 4 – [0109] – “organic light emitting devices 250 may each include a first electrode 251, an organic light emitting layer 252, and a second electrode 253. The emission parts RE may be divided by a bank 255”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the refractive index of the layer structure as taught by Yoo into Sakamoto.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Yoo in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result of [0008] – “a loss of the light emitted from the organic light emitting device is reduced, a lifetime of the organic light emitting device increases, and moreover, consumption power of the organic light emitting display device is reduced.”
Sakamoto and Yoo do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 16.
However, in an analogous art, Yang teaches
an additional structure (542 – Fig. 10 – [0189] – “a second bank layer 142” – this is an additional structure) disposed on at least a portion of the pixel defining layer (541 – Fig. 10 – [0189] – “a first bank layer 541” – this corresponds to the pixel defining layer);
an organic emitting unit (150 – Fig. 10 – [0067] – “the light emitting layer of the emission structure 150”) disposed over at least a portion of the additional structure (542) and a portion of the bottom electrode (140 – Fig. 10 – [0067] – “the first electrode 140” – Fig. 10 shows this), the organic emitting unit (150) comprising one or more layers ([0068] – “the emission structure 150 may include a plurality of light emitting layers depending on a structure of the electroluminescence display device” – Fig. 2 shows this),
wherein a refractive index of the additional structure (542) is higher than the refractive index of the pixel defining layer (541 – [0189] – “the second bank layer 542 may have a higher refractive index than the first bank layer 541”) to increase a refractive-index contrast therebetween.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the additional structure as taught by Yang into Sakamoto and Yoo.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Yang in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result of [0182] – “the present disclosure may be formed of a material that reduces reflection of external light” and thus increasing the amount of internal light that is extracted from the device.
To do so would have merely been to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143 I. D.
Sakamoto, Yoo, and Yang do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 16.
However, in an analogous art, Lee teaches
an intersection angle of the pixel defining layer with a bottom electrode is about 40° to about 70° (θ1 – Fig. 6 – [9:29] – “the taper angle θ1 of the side surface of the pixel-defining layer PDL may be in a range of about 40° to about 70°”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the intersection angle of the pixel defining layer structure as taught by Lee into Sakamoto, Yoo, and Yang.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Lee in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result to promote reflection of the light rays in an outward direction thus reducing the internal reflectance and transmission loss.
To do so would have merely been to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143 I. D.
Sakamoto, Yoo, Yang, and Lee do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 16.
However, in an analogous art, Ito teaches
wherein the filler layer (PSL – Fig. 1 – [0068] – “resin seal PSL” this corresponds to a filler layer) comprises an upper edge having the same height as the top electrode (CT – Fig. 1 – [0068] – “common (cathode) electrode CT” – this corresponds to the top electrode, Fig. 1 shows this).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the filler layer structure as taught by Ito into Sakamoto, Yoo, Yang, and Lee.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Ito in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result of [0014] – “organic EL display device having such a constitution, the enhancement of light take-out efficiency is strongly desired while miniaturizing pixel regions.”
Sakamoto, Yoo, Yang, Lee, and Ito do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 16.
However, in an analogous art, Bok teaches
wherein each filler layer (2004 – Fig. 20 – [16:27] – “second bank 2004” – this corresponds to a filler layer) of each pixel (301 – Fig. 20 – [15:60] – “sub-pixel area 301”) is isolated ({[1:44-49] – “a bank separating the sub-pixel areas, where each of the plurality of the sub-pixel areas may include a first area in which the LED is disposed and a second area in which the touch sensor electrode is disposed”}, {[16:6] – “first bank 2003”} – Fig. 20 shows 2004 isolated by 2003) from the filler layer (2004) of the other pixels (301).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the filler layer structure as taught by Bok into Sakamoto, Yoo, Yang, Lee, and Ito.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Bok in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result to prevent light from leaking into the other pixel structure and degrading the pixel’s light brilliance.
To do so would have merely been to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143 I. D.
Regarding claim 17, Sakamoto, as modified by Yoo, Yang, Lee, Ito, and Bok, teaches claim 16 from which claim 17 depends. Sakamoto further teaches
(Previously Presented) The display device of claim 16, wherein the
bottom electrode (AD – Fig. 6 – [0043] – “the anode AD of the light emitting element LEE”) is electrically coupled to the interconnection (CNT-1 – Fig. 6 shows this).
Regarding claim 18, Sakamoto, as modified by Yoo, Yang, Lee, Ito, and Bok, teaches claim 16 from which claim 18 depends. Sakamoto, Yang, Lee, Ito, and Bok do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 18.
However, in an analogous art, Yoo teaches
(Original) The display device of claim 16, wherein the refractive index of the
filler layer (260 – Fig. 3 – {[0085] – “the encapsulation layer 260 is illustrated as including a first inorganic layer 261, an organic layer 262, and a second inorganic layer 263”}, {[0087] – “the first and second inorganic layers 261 and 263 may be formed of silicon nitride, aluminum nitride, zirconium nitride, titanium nitride, hafnium nitride, tantalum nitride, silicon oxide, aluminum oxide, titanium oxide, and/or the like. The first inorganic layer 261 may be formed of an organic material having a refractive index of about 1.8 or more”}, {[0089] – “organic layer 262 may be formed of an organic material having a refractive index of about 1.8 or more”} – 260 has a refreactive index of 1.8 or more) is greater than or equal to a refractive index of the organic emitting unit (252 – [0082] – “organic light emitting layer 252 may be formed of an organic material having a refractive index of about 1.8 or more”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the refractive index of the filler layer structure as taught by Yoo into Sakamoto, Yang, Lee, Ito, and Bok.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Yoo in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result as stated above in claim 16.
Regarding claim 20, Sakamoto, as modified by Yoo, Yang, Lee, Ito, and Bok, teaches claim 16 from which claim 20 depends. Sakamoto further teaches
(Original) The display device of claim 16, wherein the organic
emitting unit (LEE) has a first surface, a second surface that lies at an angle relative to the first surface, and a third surface substantially parallel to the first surface (Fig. 6 annotated shows this – OLED is a part of LEE outside of the marked boundries).
PNG
media_image1.png
662
755
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Pertinent Art
For the benefits of the Applicant, US 20080012473 A1 and US 20150090992 A1 are cited on the record as being pertinent to significant disclosure through some but not all claimed features of the defined invention. These references fail to disclose the combination of limitations including the combination of limitations including the refractive indices of the layers.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to GARY ABEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-0246. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm (Eastern).
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 M DICKE can be reached on (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 ttps://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.
/GRA/
Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/CHAD M DICKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights