DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s Remarks filed on 02/19/2026.
Currently, claims 1-40 are pending in the application. Currently, claims 7-8, 16-28, and 32-39 are withdrawn.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/19/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6, 9-15, 29-31, and 40 have been considered. Applicant argues that the cited prior art does not teach all of the limitations of amended claims 1 and 10. This argument is not found persuasive because the cited prior art does teach all of the limitations of amended claims 1 and 10 (see prior art rejections below).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/16/2026 and 02/12/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the Examiner.
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 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, 2, 4-6, 9-15, and 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over OMURA et al. (US Pub. No. 2005/0280364) in view of HUH et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0119310).
Regarding independent claim 1, Omura teaches a light emitting device (Fig. 1) in which (1) a reflective film (Fig. 1, 36, ¶ [0036]), a first electrode (Fig. 1, 26, ¶ [0033]), an organic film (Fig. 1, 34, ¶ [0038]) including a light emitting layer (Fig. 1, 126, ¶ [0038]), a second electrode (Fig. 1, 32, ¶ [0036), are arranged in this order on a principal surface of a substrate (Fig. 1, top surface of substrate 10, ¶ [0031]) and (2) there is provided a bank (Fig. 1, 28, ¶ [0034]) configured to cover a peripheral portion of the first electrode and having an opening (Fig. 1, area in between sections of planarizing film 28) which defines a light emitting region (Fig. 1, area of 34 in-between sections of planarizing film 28) within the opening,
wherein the light emitting region includes (1) a first region (Figs. 1 & 7, 26a , ¶¶ [0042] & [0060] teaches a thinner portion of electrode 26 corresponding to the area of 26a that is not covered by 26b), and (2) a second region (Figs. 1 & 7, 26b, ¶¶ [0042] & [0060] teaches a thicker portion of electrode 26 corresponding to the area of 26b) arranged between the bank and the first region (Fig. 7, ¶ [0060] teaches that some portions of 26b are vertically or horizontally in-between some portions of 26a and the periphery of the electrode 26. ¶ [0034] teaches that planarizing film 28 is formed on the periphery of the electrode 26. Therefore, at least some portions of 26b would be vertically or horizontally in-between planarizing film 28 and at least some portions of 26a),
wherein, in a planar view (the Examiner notes that Omura’s device would have a planar view consistent with the views of Figs. 1 & 7) of the principal surface, the bank does not overlap the second region (Figs. 1 & 7, planarizing film 28 does not cover the thicker portions of 26 in the opening in-between the sections of planarizing film 28),
wherein the reflective film, the first electrode, the organic film, and the second electrode form a resonator structure configured to resonate, between the reflective film and the second electrode, light generated in the organic film (¶¶ [0039]-[0042] teaches a microcavity structure between 36 and 32), and
wherein an optical path length in the first region is different from an optical path length in the second region (¶ [0042] teaches that an optical length of the thicker portions of electrode 26 is greater than an optical length of the thinner portions of 26.).
However, Omura does not explicitly teach an optical member.
However, Huh is a pertinent art that teaches an optical member (Fig. 3, MLA, ¶ [0065]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Omura’s device to further include a microlens array according to the teaching of Huh (¶ [0065]) in order to collimate light emitted from the display panel and provide a high display quality image (Huh ¶¶ [0081]-[0082]).
Regarding claim 2, Omura modified by Huh teaches the device according to claim 1, and Omura teaches that the optical path length in the second region (Figs. 1 & 7, 26b, ¶¶ [0042] & [0060] teaches a thicker portion of electrode 26 corresponding to the area of 26b) is longer (¶ [0042] teaches that optical length of thicker portions of electrode 26 is greater than the optical length of thinner portions of 26) than the optical path length in the first region (Figs. 1 & 7, 26a , ¶¶ [0042] & [0060] teaches a thinner portion of electrode 26 corresponding to the area of 26a that is not covered by 26b).
Regarding claim 4, Omura modified by Huh teaches the device according to claim 2.
However, Omura modified by Huh does not explicitly teach that an area of the first region falls within a range of not less than 10% and not more than 90% of a sum of the area of the first region and an area of the second region.
However, Omura recognizes that the size of the thicker portion of their electrode in relation to a total size of their pixel impacts display uniformity (Omura ¶ [0060]). Omura further recognizes the need to improve display uniformity when different resonance wavelengths exist within the same pixel (Omura ¶ [0060]). It would be obvious that a proportional size of the thicker portion of Omura’s electrode would impact the proportional size of the thinner portion of Omura’s electrode. Therefore, the proportional sizes of the thicker and thinner portions of Omura’s electrodes are art recognized variables. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive within the range of the claim 4 limitations, in order to achieve the desired balance between the impact of different resonance wavelengths of the first and second regions on display uniformity and the need for improving display uniformity as taught by Omura. MPEP 2144.05.
Furthermore, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence of the criticality of the claimed range (i.e., the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range).
Regarding claim 5, Omura modified by Huh teaches the device according to claim 2.
However, Omura modified by Huh does not explicitly teach that an area of the first region is smaller than an area of the second region.
However, Omura recognizes that the size of the thicker portion of their electrode in relation to a total size of their pixel impacts display uniformity (Omura ¶ [0060]). Omura further recognizes the need to improve display uniformity when different resonance wavelengths exist within the same pixel (Omura ¶ [0060]). It would be obvious that a proportional size of the thicker portion of Omura’s electrode would impact the proportional size of the thinner portion of Omura’s electrode. Therefore, the proportional sizes of the thicker and thinner portions of Omura’s electrodes are art recognized variables. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive within the range of the claim 5 limitations, in order to achieve the desired balance between the impact of different resonance wavelengths of the first and second regions on display uniformity and the need for improving display uniformity as taught by Omura. MPEP 2144.05.
Furthermore, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence of the criticality of the claimed range (i.e., the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range).
Regarding claim 6, Omura modified by Huh teaches the device according to claim 2.
However, Omura modified by Huh does not explicitly teach that an area of the first region falls within a range of not less than 10% and not more than 50% of a sum of the area of the first region and an area of the second region.
However, Omura recognizes that the size of the thicker portion of their electrode in relation to a total size of their pixel impacts display uniformity (Omura ¶ [0060]). Omura further recognizes the need to improve display uniformity when different resonance wavelengths exist within the same pixel (Omura ¶ [0060]). It would be obvious that a proportional size of the thicker portion of Omura’s electrode would impact the proportional size of the thinner portion of Omura’s electrode. Therefore, the proportional sizes of the thicker and thinner portions of Omura’s electrodes are art recognized variables. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive within the range of the claim 5 limitations, in order to achieve the desired balance between the impact of different resonance wavelengths of the first and second regions on display uniformity and the need for improving display uniformity as taught by Omura. MPEP 2144.05.
Furthermore, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence of the criticality of the claimed range (i.e., the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range).
Regarding claim 9, Omura modified by Huh teaches the device according to claim 1, and Omura teaches that the first electrode (Fig. 1, 26, ¶ [0033]), the organic film (Fig. 1, 34, ¶ [0038]), and the second electrode (Fig. 1, 32, ¶ [0036) are arranged to define the plurality of different optical path lengths (¶¶ [0039]-[0042] teaches a microcavity structure between 36 and 32 and that different optical path lengths exit due to differences in film thickness).
Regarding independent claim 10, Omura teaches a light emitting device in which a first electrode (Fig. 1, 26, ¶ [0033]), an organic film (Fig. 1, 34, ¶ [0038]) including a light emitting layer (Fig. 1, 126, ¶ [0038]), a second electrode (Fig. 1, 32, ¶ [0036) are arranged in this order on a principal surface of a substrate (Fig. 1, top surface of substrate 10, ¶ [0031]) and which has a resonator structure film (¶¶ [0039]-[0042] teaches a microcavity structure between 36 and 32) configured to resonate light of the light emitting layer,
wherein the first electrode includes (1) a first region (Figs. 1 & 7, 26a , ¶¶ [0042] & [0060] teaches a thinner portion of electrode 26 corresponding to the area of 26a that is not covered by 26b) including a central portion of the first electrode (Fig. 7, central portion of 26a horizontally in-between left and right sections of 26b) in a planar view of the principal surface (Fig. 7), and (2) a second region (Figs. 1 & 7, 26b, ¶¶ [0042] & [0060] teaches a thicker portion of electrode 26 corresponding to the area of 26b) arranged outside the first region (Fig. 7, 26b is outside of the portions of 26a not covered by 26b) in the planar view,
wherein a bank (Fig. 1, 28, ¶ [0034]) is provided that covers a peripheral portion of the first electrode (Fig. 1, ¶ [0034] teaches that planarizing film 28 is formed on the periphery of the electrode 26) and that has an opening defining a light emitting region (Fig. 1, area in between sections of planarizing film 28) within the opening,
wherein, in the planar view, the bank does not overlap the second region (Figs. 1 & 7, planarizing film 28 does not cover the thicker portions of 26 in the opening in-between the sections of planarizing film 28), and
wherein an optical path length of the resonator structure in the second region is longer than an optical path length of the resonator structure in the first region (¶ [0042] teaches that an optical length of the thicker portions of electrode 26 is greater than an optical length of the thinner portions of 26.).
However, Omura does not explicitly teach an optical member.
However, Huh is a pertinent art that teaches an optical member (Fig. 3, MLA, ¶ [0065]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Omura’s device to further include a microlens array according to the teaching of Huh (¶ [0065]) in order to collimate light emitted from the display panel and provide a high display quality image (Huh ¶¶ [0081]-[0082]).
Regarding claim 11, Omura modified by Huh teaches the device according to claim 10, and Omura teaches a reflective film (Fig. 1, 36, ¶ [0036]) is provided between the principal surface of the substrate (Fig. 1, top surface of substrate 10, ¶ [0031]) and the first electrode (Fig. 1, 26, ¶ [0033]).
Regarding claim 12, Omura modified by Huh teaches the device according to claim 10.
However, Omura modified by Huh does not explicitly teach that an area of the first region falls within a range of not less than 10% and not more than 90% of a sum of the area of the first region and an area of the second region.
However, Omura recognizes that the size of the thicker portion of their electrode in relation to a total size of their pixel impacts display uniformity (Omura ¶ [0060]). Omura further recognizes the need to improve display uniformity when different resonance wavelengths exist within the same pixel (Omura ¶ [0060]). It would be obvious that a proportional size of the thicker portion of Omura’s electrode would impact the proportional size of the thinner portion of Omura’s electrode. Therefore, the proportional sizes of the thicker and thinner portions of Omura’s electrodes are art recognized variables. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive within the range of the claim 12 limitations, in order to achieve the desired balance between the impact of different resonance wavelengths of the first and second regions on display uniformity and the need for improving display uniformity as taught by Omura. MPEP 2144.05.
Furthermore, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence of the criticality of the claimed range (i.e., the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range).
Regarding claim 13, Omura modified by Huh teaches the device according to claim 10.
However, Omura modified by Huh does not explicitly teach that an area of the first region is smaller than an area of the second region.
However, Omura recognizes that the size of the thicker portion of their electrode in relation to a total size of their pixel impacts display uniformity (Omura ¶ [0060]). Omura further recognizes the need to improve display uniformity when different resonance wavelengths exist within the same pixel (Omura ¶ [0060]). It would be obvious that a proportional size of the thicker portion of Omura’s electrode would impact the proportional size of the thinner portion of Omura’s electrode. Therefore, the proportional sizes of the thicker and thinner portions of Omura’s electrodes are art recognized variables. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive within the range of the claim 13 limitations, in order to achieve the desired balance between the impact of different resonance wavelengths of the first and second regions on display uniformity and the need for improving display uniformity as taught by Omura. MPEP 2144.05.
Furthermore, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence of the criticality of the claimed range (i.e., the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range).
Regarding claim 14, Omura modified by Huh teaches the device according to claim 10.
However, Omura modified by Huh does not explicitly teach that an area of the first region falls within a range of not less than 10% and not more than 50% of a sum of the area of the first region and an area of the second region.
However, Omura recognizes that the size of the thicker portion of their electrode in relation to a total size of their pixel impacts display uniformity (Omura ¶ [0060]). Omura further recognizes the need to improve display uniformity when different resonance wavelengths exist within the same pixel (Omura ¶ [0060]). It would be obvious that a proportional size of the thicker portion of Omura’s electrode would impact the proportional size of the thinner portion of Omura’s electrode. Therefore, the proportional sizes of the thicker and thinner portions of Omura’s electrodes are art recognized variables. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive within the range of the claim 14 limitations, in order to achieve the desired balance between the impact of different resonance wavelengths of the first and second regions on display uniformity and the need for improving display uniformity as taught by Omura. MPEP 2144.05.
Furthermore, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence of the criticality of the claimed range (i.e., the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range).
Regarding claim 15, Omura modified by Huh teaches the device according to claim 1, and Huh teaches that the optical member (Fig. 3, MLA, ¶ [0065]) includes a collimator (¶ [0081] teaches that microlens array MLA collimates light).
Regarding claim 29, Omura modified by Huh teaches the device according to claim 1, and Omura teaches that an upper surface of the reflective film (Fig. 1, 36, ¶ [0036]) is parallel to the principal surface of the substrate ((Fig. 1, top surface of substrate 10, ¶ [0031]) in the light emitting region (Fig. 1, area of 34 in-between sections of planarizing film 28).
Regarding claim 30, Omura modified by Huh teaches the device according to claim 1, and Omura teaches that the organic film generates white light (¶ [0055] teaches that Omura’s emissive layer can emit white light and that light color can be selected by varying the resonance wavelength of the microcavity).
Regarding claim 31, Omura modified by Huh teaches the device according to claim 10, and Omura teaches that the organic film generates white light (¶ [0055] teaches that Omura’s emissive layer can emit white light).
Claims 3 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over OMURA et al. (US Pub. No. 2005/0280364) in view of HUH et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0119310) and further in view of KANO et al. (US Pub. No. 2024/0040908).
Regarding claim 3, Omura modified by Huh teaches the display device of claim 2.
However, Omura modified by Huh does not explicitly teach a difference between a physical film thickness that defines the optical path length in the second region and a physical film thickness that defines the optical path length in the first region falls within a range of not less than 4 nm and not more than 53 nm.
However, Kano is a pertinent art that recognizes that the difference between optical distances of the first and second regions impacts color shift in those regions (Kano ¶ [0104]). Kano further recognizes the need to reduce color shift (Kano ¶ [0104]). Therefore, the difference between optical distances of the first and second regions is an art recognized variable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive within the range of the claim 3 limitations, in order to achieve the desired balance between the impact of the difference between optical distances of the first and second regions on color shift and the need for reducing color shift as taught by Kano. MPEP 2144.05.
Furthermore, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence of the criticality of the claimed range (i.e., the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range).
Regarding claim 40, Omura modified by Huh teaches the device according to claim 1.
However, Omura modified by Huh does not explicitly teach that in a planar view to the principal surface, the second region surrounds the entire periphery of the first region.
However, Kano is a pertinent art that teaches that in a planar view to the principal surface (Fig. 4A ), the second region (Figs. 4A & 6, Sp, ¶ [0113] teaches a thicker portion of a transparent electrode corresponding to 26b in Omura’s device) surrounds the entire periphery of the first region (Figs. 4A & 6, Sc, ¶ [0113] teaches a thinner portion of a transparent electrode corresponding to 26a in Omura’s device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thicker portions of Omura’s transparent electrode to surround the thinner portions Omura’s transparent electrode in a similar manner to Kano (Figs. 4A & 6) in order to have greater control over the electric field within the device (Kano ¶ [0118]).
Cited Prior Art
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RHYS P. SHEKER whose telephone number is (703)756-1348. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am to 5 pm.
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 B Gauthier can be reached on 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.
/R.P.S./
Examiner, Art Unit 2813
/STEVEN B GAUTHIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights