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
Applicant’s amendment dated 09/29/2025, in which claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-10, 12-20 were amended, claim 5 was cancelled, has been entered.
Abstract
The amendment to the Abstract received on 09/29/205 has been entered.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) to foreign application JP2020152566 filed on 09/11/2020. The foreign application is not in English. The certified copy of the foreign priority application JP2020152566 has been received.
Filing Dates for the Claims — All Claims Not Entitled to Priority Date
To be entitled to the filing date of the foreign priority application JP2020152566 that is not in English, an English translation of the non-English language foreign application JP2020152566 and a statement that the translation is accurate in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55 is required to perfect the claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The foreign application must adequately support the claimed subject matter, meaning satisfy the written description and enablement requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a). See MPEP §§ 215 and 216. 37 C.F.R. 1.55(g)(3)(ii)-(iii). To demonstrate compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(a), applicant should point to support for their claimed subject matter in their translations.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Amended claims 1, 2 direct to an embodiment shown in Fig. 6 or Fig. 12. However, Fig. 6 and Fig. 12 does not show any insulating layer between the oxide layer [24] and the plurality of reflective layers [13]. Therefore, the “an insulating layer between the oxide layer and the plurality of reflective layers” of claim 9 which depends on claims 1, 2 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: claim 9 recites the limitation “an insulating layer provided between the oxide layer and the plurality of reflective layers”. However, the specification and the drawing does not describe the above claimed subject matter of claim 9 in combination with the claimed subject matter of claim 1 on which claim 9 depends. Specifically, the specification does not describe any embodiment having “a groove is in the plurality of reflective layers, the isolating portion comprises: a covering portion that covers a peripheral portion of a main surface of the plurality of reflective layers, and a recess in the groove” in combination with “an insulating layer provided between the oxide layer and the plurality of reflective layers” as required by claim 9.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 1. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 recites the limitation “an insulating layer provided between the oxide layer and the plurality of reflective layers”. However, the specification does not describe any embodiment having “a groove is in the plurality of reflective layers, the isolating portion comprises: a covering portion that covers a peripheral portion of a main surface of the plurality of reflective layers, and a recess in the groove” in combination with “an insulating layer provided between the oxide layer and the plurality of reflective layers” as required by claim 9. Accordingly, claim 9 was not in possession of Applicant at the time of filing.
Applicant is remined that MPEP 2163 (I)(B) requires “newly added claims or claim limitations must be supported in the specification through express, implicit, or inherent disclosure” thus, applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims. See, e.g., Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1370, n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing MPEP § 2163.04 which provides that a "simple statement such as ‘applicant has not pointed out where the new (or amended) claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation’ ‘in the application as filed’ may be sufficient where the claim is a new or amended claim, the support for the limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where the limitation is supported."); see also MPEP §§ 714.02 and 2163.06 ("Applicant should ... specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure."); and MPEP § 2163.04 (“If applicant amends the claims and points out where and/or how the originally filed disclosure supports the amendment(s), and the examiner finds that the disclosure does not reasonably convey that the inventor had possession of the subject matter of the amendment at the time of the filing of the application, the examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims.").
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 9-15, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Koshihara (US Pub. 20170229677).
Regarding claim 1, Koshihara discloses in Fig. 4, Fig. 5A-5B, Fig. 7, paragraph [0059]-[0076] a display device comprising:
an oxide layer [29, 39, 38 and 31] including:
a plurality of first electrodes [31]; and
an isolating portion [See annotated drawing] configured to electrically isolates adjacent electrodes of the plurality of first electrodes [31];
a second electrode [33] that faces a first surface [top surface] of the oxide layer [29 and 31];
a plurality of reflective layers [35] facing a second surface [bottom surface] of the oxide layer [29 and 31],
wherein
a groove is in the plurality of reflective layers [35],
the isolating portion [See annotated drawing] comprises:
a covering portion that covers a peripheral portion of a main surface of the plurality of reflective layers [35], and
a recess [portion of 39] is provided in the groove; and
an organic light-emitting layer [32] between the oxide layer [29 and 31] and the second electrode [33].
PNG
media_image1.png
311
722
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
684
574
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 2-4, 6-7, Koshihara discloses in Fig. 4, Fig. 5A-5B, Fig. 7, paragraph [0059]-[0076]
wherein each reflective layer of the plurality of reflective layers [35] faces the plurality of first electrodes [31];
wherein each reflective layer of the plurality of reflective layers [35] is adjacent to the plurality of first electrodes [31].
wherein the plurality of reflective layers [35] has the main surface that faces the organic light-emitting layer [32] with the plurality of first electrodes [31] interposed therebetween, and
the isolating portion [See annotated drawing] has the recess that has a concave shape [portion of 39] with respect to the main surface, and a groove is provided between adjacent reflective layers [35],
wherein the groove has a depth equal to or greater than a thickness of the plurality of reflective layers [35];
an insulating portion [portion of 38] within the recess [portion of 39].
PNG
media_image1.png
311
722
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Koshihara discloses in Fig. 4, Fig. 5A-5B, Fig. 7, paragraph [0079]
an insulating layer [38] provided between the oxide layer [29 and 31] and the plurality of reflective layers [35].
Regarding claims 10-11, Koshihara discloses in Fig. 4, Fig. 5A-5B, Fig. 7, paragraph [0059]-[0076]
wherein an electrical resistance of the isolating portion [See annotated drawing] is higher than an electrical resistance of the plurality of first electrodes [31][insulating material(s) of layer 29, 38 and/or 39 inherently has higher electrical resistance than conductive material of electrode layer 31];
wherein the isolating portion is an insulating portion.
PNG
media_image1.png
311
722
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 12-15, Koshihara discloses in Fig. 4, Fig. 5A-5B, Fig. 7, paragraph [0060]
wherein the plurality of first electrodes [31] comprises a transparent conductive oxide [indium tin oxide (ITO)];
wherein the transparent conductive oxide comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of a transparent conductive oxide containing indium, a transparent conductive oxide containing tin, and a transparent conductive oxide containing zinc [indium tin oxide (ITO)];
wherein the plurality of first electrodes [31] is a transparent electrode [conductive material which has light permeability, indium tin oxide (ITO)];
wherein the plurality of first electrodes [31] comprises a transparent conductive oxide [indium tin oxide (ITO)], and
the isolating portion [See annotated drawing] comprises an insulating oxide [a silicon oxide (SiO2) film with, for example, a film thickness of 25 nm is formed as the pixel separation layer 29].
Regarding claim 18, Koshihara does not explicitly disclose
wherein crystallinity of the plurality of first electrodes [35] is higher than crystallinity of the isolating portion.
However, the above limitation directs to properties of the first electrode and the isolating portion. Koshihara discloses the claimed first electrode and the claimed isolating portion. Thus, the first electrode and the isolating portion disclosed by Koshihara would have the claimed property of “crystallinity of the plurality of first electrodes is higher than crystallinity of the isolating portion.” WHEN THE STRUCTURE RECITED IN THE REFERENCE IS SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE CLAIMS, CLAIMED PROPERTIES OR FUNCTIONS ARE PRESUMED TO BE INHERENT. MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 19, Koshihara discloses in Fig. 4, Fig. 5A-5B, Fig. 7, paragraph [0059]-[0076] a light emitting device, comprising:
an oxide layer [29, 39, 38 and 31] including:
a plurality of first electrodes [31]; and
an isolating portion [See annotated drawing] configured to electrically isolates adjacent electrodes of the plurality of first electrodes [31];
a second electrode [33] that faces a first surface [top surface] of the oxide layer [29 and 31];
a plurality of reflective layers [35] facing a second surface [bottom surface] of the oxide layer [29 and 31],
wherein
a groove is in the plurality of reflective layers [35],
the isolating portion [See annotated drawing] comprises:
a covering portion that covers a peripheral portion of a main surface of the plurality of reflective layers [35], and
a recess [portion of 39] is provided in the groove; and
an organic light-emitting layer [32] between the oxide layer [29 and 31] and the second electrode [33].
PNG
media_image1.png
311
722
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
684
574
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, Koshihara discloses in Abstract
an electronic apparatus comprising the display device according to claim 1.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8, 10-15, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Arakawa (WO2020105433A1), hereafter (US Pub. 20220006040) is used as English translation.
Regarding claim 1, Arakawa discloses in Fig. 35 a display device comprising:
an oxide layer [33 and 40] including:
a plurality of first electrodes [33][paragraph [0154]]; and
an isolating portion [40] configured to electrically isolates adjacent electrodes of the plurality of first electrodes [33][paragraph [0157]];
a second electrode [42] that faces a first surface [top surface] of the oxide layer [33 and 40][paragraph [0153]];
a plurality of reflective layers [31] facing a second surface [bottom surface] of the oxide layer [33 and 40][paragraph [0154]],
wherein
a groove is in the plurality of reflective layers [31],
the isolating portion [40] comprises:
a covering portion that covers a peripheral portion of a main surface of the plurality of reflective layers [31], and
a recess is provided in the groove; and
an organic light-emitting layer [41] between the oxide layer [33 and 40] and the second electrode [42].
PNG
media_image3.png
477
671
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 2-4, 6, 8, 10-15, Arakawa discloses in Fig. 35
wherein each reflective layer of the plurality of reflective layers [31] faces the plurality of first electrodes [33].
wherein each reflective layer of the plurality of reflective layers [31] is adjacent to the plurality of first electrodes [33];
wherein the plurality of reflective layers [31] has the main surface that faces the organic light-emitting layer [41] with the plurality of first electrodes [33] interposed therebetween, and
the isolating portion [40] has the recess that has a concave shape with respect to the main surface,
wherein the groove has a depth equal to or greater than a thickness of the plurality of reflective layers [31];
wherein the organic light-emitting layer [41] follows the recess;
wherein an electrical resistance of the isolating portion [See annotated drawing] is higher than an electrical resistance of the plurality of first electrodes [33][insulating material(s) of layer 40 inherently has higher electrical resistance than conductive material of electrode layer 33];
wherein the isolating portion [40] is an insulating portion;
wherein the plurality of first electrodes [33] comprises a transparent conductive oxide [ITO][paragraph [0154]];
wherein the transparent conductive oxide comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of a transparent conductive oxide containing indium, a transparent conductive oxide containing tin, and a transparent conductive oxide containing zinc [ITO][paragraph [0154]];
wherein the plurality of first electrodes [33] is a transparent electrode [paragraph [0154]];
wherein the plurality of first electrodes [33] comprises a transparent conductive oxide, and the isolating portion [40] comprises an insulating oxide [paragraph [0154], [0157]].
PNG
media_image3.png
477
671
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, Arakawa does not explicitly disclose
wherein crystallinity of the plurality of first electrodes is higher than crystallinity of the isolating portion.
However, the above limitation directs to properties of the first electrode and the isolating portion. Arakawa discloses the claimed first electrode and the claimed isolating portion. Thus, the first electrode and the isolating portion disclosed by Arakawa would have the claimed property of “crystallinity of the plurality of first electrodes is higher than crystallinity of the isolating portion.” WHEN THE STRUCTURE RECITED IN THE REFERENCE IS SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE CLAIMS, CLAIMED PROPERTIES OR FUNCTIONS ARE PRESUMED TO BE INHERENT. MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 19, Arakawa discloses in Fig. 35 a light-emitting device comprising:
an oxide layer [33 and 40] including:
a plurality of first electrodes [33][paragraph [0154]]; and
an isolating portion [40] configured to electrically isolates adjacent electrodes of the plurality of first electrodes [33][paragraph [0157]];
a second electrode [42] that faces a first surface [top surface] of the oxide layer [33 and 40][paragraph [0153]];
a plurality of reflective layers [31] facing a second surface [bottom surface] of the oxide layer [33 and 40][paragraph [0154]],
wherein
a groove is in the plurality of reflective layers [31],
the isolating portion [40] comprises:
a covering portion that covers a peripheral portion of a main surface of the plurality of reflective layers [31], and
a recess is provided in the groove; and
an organic light-emitting layer [41] between the oxide layer [33 and 40] and the second electrode [42].
PNG
media_image3.png
477
671
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, Arakawa discloses in Fig. 56-58, paragraph [0338]-[0348] an electronic apparatus, comprising the display device according to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arakawa (WO2020105433A1), hereafter (US Pub. 20220006040) is used as English translation as applied to claim 1 above in view of Koshihara (US Pub. 20170229677).
Regarding claim 7, Arakawa fails to disclose
an insulating portion provided within the recess.
However, Arakawa discloses in Fig. 12-Fig. 13 that insulating material 40 within the groove can be formed thicker.
Koshihara discloses in Fig. 5A, Fig. 5B, Fig. 7, paragraph [0078], [0102]
an insulating portion [portion of 40 or 38a, 38b] provided within the recess formed in a groove [35CT].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Koshihara into the method of Arakawa to include an insulating portion provided within the recess. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Arakawa in the above manner for the purpose of enabling to form a protective layer having flattened upper surface; achieve a further improvement in yield since it is possible to avoid a short between the power supply line and the pixel electrode [paragraph [0092], [0102], [0109] of Koshihara].
Regarding claim 9, Arakawa fails to disclose
an insulating layer provided between the oxide layer and the plurality of reflective layers.
Koshihara discloses in Fig. 5A, Fig. 5B, Fig. 7, paragraph [0078], [0102]
an insulating portion [36] provided between the oxide layer [38, 29 and 31] and the plurality of reflective layers [35].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Koshihara into the method of Arakawa to include an insulating layer provided between the oxide layer and the plurality of reflective layers. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Arakawa in the above manner for the purpose of performing optical path adjustment according to the optical distance between the reflective electrode and the counter electrode; increasing reflectivity [paragraph [0077], [0080] of Koshihara].
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arakawa (WO2020105433A1), hereafter (US Pub. 20220006040) is used as English translation as applied to claim 1 above in view of Kojima (US Pat. 4792500).
Regarding claims 16, and 17, Arakawa discloses in paragraph [0154], [0157]
wherein the plurality of first electrodes [33] comprises first electrode contains a first oxide, and the isolating portion [40] comprises contains a second oxide;
wherein the plurality of first electrodes [33] comprises first electrode contains a first oxide of a plurality of oxides, the isolating portion [40] comprises contains a second oxide of the plurality of oxides.
Arakawa fails to disclose
the second oxide obtained by adding an impurity to the first oxide;
the first oxide and the second oxide have different composition ratios.
Kojima discloses in Fig. 1, column 3, lines 20-30
the second oxide [impurity-added ITO] obtained by adding an impurity to the first oxide [ITO];
the first oxide [ITO] and the second oxide [impurity-added ITO] have different composition ratios.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Kojima into the method of Arakawa to include the second oxide obtained by adding an impurity to the first oxide; the first oxide and the second oxide have different composition ratios. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Arakawa in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable materials and method for forming the first electrode and the isolating portion [column 3, lines 20-30 of Kojima].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4, 6-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In addition, Applicant's arguments filed 09/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Per MPEP 2131, The elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In this case, as shows in annotated drawings, Koshihara discloses every limitation of claim 1 including the limitation “a groove is in the plurality of reflective layers [35], the isolating portion comprises: a covering portion that covers a peripheral portion of a main surface of the plurality of reflective layers [35], and a recess [portion of 39] is provided in the groove; and an organic light-emitting layer [32] between the oxide layer [29 and 31] and the second electrode [33].
PNG
media_image1.png
311
722
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Overall, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The claims stand rejected and the Action is made FINAL.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOPHIA T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1686. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am -5:00 pm, Monday-Friday.
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, BRITT D HANLEY can be reached at (571)270-3042. 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.
/SOPHIA T NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893