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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/13/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 15 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection do not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant asserts (Applicant’s Remarks pages 8-10) that the new limitations “the two or more emissive regions emit blue light with the same spectrum from a first emissive layer” and “a spatial density of the more than one independently addressable sub-pixel configured to emit red light and the more than one independently addressable sub-pixel configured to emit green light are arranged to have a periodic displacement within an array of the OLED display to have a perturbation with a higher spatial period component and lower spatial frequency component within the array” added to the independent claims overcome the teachings of prior art documents of record US 20200035761 A1 (Hack et al), US 20180033839 A1 (Hack 2 et al), and US 20090295283 A1 (Kim et al).
Regarding the limitation “the two or more emissive regions emit blue light with the same spectrum from a first emissive layer”, Applicant points to Hack disclosing both light blue and deep blue emission in the same metapixel, Applicant points to Hack 2’s blue anode contacts 450 and the overlying emissive layers being silent as to whether the blue lights are of the same emission spectrum, and Applicant points to Kim’s blue emission layers 14B being silent as to whether the blue lights from different regions 14B are of the same emission spectrum. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with each of these assertions of overcoming the teaching of the prior art. In Hack, it is true that the identified metapixels include emissive regions of both light blue and deep blue (FIG. 5, ¶ [0071-0075]). However, the light blue subpixels considered exclusively as the claimed “two or more emissive regions” would satisfy the new limitation, as there is no indication in Hack that light blue subpixels, being characterized as the same feature repeatedly disposed in the device, have differing emission spectra from one another (beyond manufacturing tolerances). In Hack 2, the blue-light emission is produced by a blanket emissive layer 360 deposited over all of the blue light-emitting sub-pixels (emissive material 360, ¶ [0052]), and there is no indication in Hack 2 that the blue emissive layer is nonuniform such that different sections of it produce different emission spectra (beyond manufacturing tolerances). In Kim, the claimed “two or more emissive regions” are understood to be represented by two instances of blue emissive layers 14B (FIG. 3); as they are provided the same reference characters and no indication is stated in Kim that different emissive layers 14B have different emission spectra (beyond manufacturing tolerances), it is understood that they have the same emission spectrum.
Regarding the limitation “a spatial density of the more than one independently addressable sub-pixel configured to emit red light and the more than one independently addressable sub-pixel configured to emit green light are arranged to have a periodic displacement within an array of the OLED display to have a perturbation with a higher spatial period component and lower spatial frequency component within the array”, this limitation is indefinite and introduces new matter. In the context of the sub-pixels “configured to emit red light”, the limitations appear to have support in a comparison of FIGS. 5-6, and ¶ [0085-0087] of the present application. However, the sub-pixels “configured to emit green light” are not discussed as having these claimed elements, neither in the context of the specification nor illustrated in FIGS. 5-6 (which are labeled and described as illustrating red pixels). Additionally, there is no clear basis of comparison between the claimed spatial “period” and “frequency” components as being “higher” or “lower” than some sort of baseline, rendering the scope of the limitations indefinite. Based on applicant’s arguments, it appears to be intended to set forth that the red and green sub-pixel layout does not include uniform-spacing between them. However, the current language of the claim does not do so, as the phrase “a perturbation with a higher spatial period component and lower spatial frequency component within the array” is unclear as to what the “higher” and “lower” spatial period and frequency components are being compared to as the baseline of comparison. The prior art documents of record are each considered to include this limitation in their arrays due to limitations on the precision of manufacturing causing small perturbations in the layout of the sub-pixels, as the terms “higher” and “lower” are not accompanied by quantitative disparities to define a minimum difference required to satisfy the limitations.
The Examiner respectfully invites Applicant to consider scheduling an interview to discuss and clarify the scope of Applicant’s disclosure to more clearly define the features intended to be presented in the claims.
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. Therefore, the “a spatial density of… the more than one independently addressable sub-pixel configured to emit green light are arranged to have a periodic displacement within an array of the OLED display to have a perturbation with a higher spatial period component and lower spatial frequency component within the array” 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.
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.
Claims 1-20 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 15 recite the limitations “a spatial density of the more than one independently addressable sub-pixel configured to emit red light and the more than one independently addressable sub-pixel configured to emit green light are arranged to have a periodic displacement within an array of the OLED display to have a perturbation with a higher spatial period component and lower spatial frequency component within the array”. In the context of the sub-pixels “configured to emit red light”, the limitations appear to have support in a comparison of FIGS. 5-6, and ¶ [0085-0087] of the present application. However, the sub-pixels “configured to emit green light” are not discussed as having these claimed elements, neither in the context of the specification nor illustrated in FIGS. 5-6 (which are labeled and described as illustrating red pixels). Therefore, the limitations “the more than one independently addressable sub-pixel configured to emit green light are arranged to have a periodic displacement within an array of the OLED display to have a perturbation with a higher spatial period component and lower spatial frequency component within the array” include new matter and are rejected on that basis.
Due to their dependence on claims 1 and 15, claims 2-14 and 16-20 are also rejected on this basis.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The terms “higher” and “lower” in claims 1 and 15 are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “a higher spatial period component and lower spatial frequency component” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In particular, there is no clear basis of comparison between the claimed spatial period and frequency components as being “higher” or “lower” than some sort of baseline, rendering the scope of the limitations indefinite.
As best understood in the present Office action, the terms will be interpreted to be comparing the “higher spatial period component” and “lower spatial frequency component” of the “spatial density” of “the more than one independently addressable sub-pixel configured to emit red light and the more than one independently addressable sub-pixel configured to emit green light” to a very low spatial period component and a very high spatial frequency component as baselines for comparison, and the broad terms “higher” and “lower” indicate that even a very small disparity (e.g. as a result of differences due to limitations to the precision of manufacturing) is sufficient to satisfy the limitation.
Due to their dependence on claims 1 and 15, claims 2-14 and 16-20 are also rejected on this basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-5, 7-11, 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US patent publication US 20200035761 A1 (Hack et al hereinafter Hack).
Regarding claim 1, Hack discloses a device (the device of FIG. 5 ¶ [0032]) comprising: an organic light emitting device (OLED) display (FIG. 5’s device is an OLED device ¶ [0032]) comprising a plurality of metapixels (annotated FIG. 5 below, a metapixel is formed by a cluster of 4 pixels which all share a common deep blue subpixel ¶ [0075]), each metapixel of the plurality of metapixels comprising: two or more sets of emissive regions (annotated FIG. 5, a total of 17 emissive regions are present in each metapixel: four for each of red, yellow, green, and light blue, and one deep blue ¶ [0074-0076]) that are configured by at least one selected from the group (in this case, option (i)) consisting of:
(i) to emit blue light that is a combination of light from the two or more sets of emissive regions that are configured to emit the blue light for that metapixel (FIG. 5, the emissive regions of the four light blue subpixels all emit blue light in combination ¶ [0074-0076]), wherein the two or more emissive regions emit blue light with the same spectrum from a first emissive layer (FIG. 5, light blue subpixels of the subpixels emit the same light blue light from a first emissive layer ¶ [0071-0075], therefore having the same spectrum of emission), and
(ii) that are addressable by the same drive circuit, and
wherein the metapixel includes more than one independently addressable sub-pixel configured to emit green light (FIG. 5, the metapixel includes four green subpixels which each are addressed by their own TFT and data line ¶ [0075]) and more than one independently addressable sub-pixel configured to emit red light (FIG. 5, the metapixel includes four red subpixels which each are addressed by their own TFT and data line ¶ [0075]), and wherein a spatial density of the more than one independently addressable sub-pixel configured to emit red light and the more than one independently addressable sub-pixel configured to emit green light are arranged to have a periodic displacement within an array of the OLED display to have a perturbation with a higher spatial period component and lower spatial frequency component within the array (due to limitations to the precision of manufacturing, while not explicitly stated to be present, Hack FIG. 5 is found to have perturbations in the spatial period and frequency components in the array of red and green subpixels that satisfy the limitation).
PNG
media_image1.png
834
634
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Hack discloses the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above, and further discloses that at least some of the emissive regions of each metapixel are configured to emit blue light (FIG. 5, four light blue subpixels all emit blue light ¶ [0074-0076]), and border neighboring metapixels in the OLED display (annotated FIG. 5 above, the light blue subpixels line the borders of the metapixels).
Regarding claim 3, Hack discloses the limitations of claim 2 as detailed above, and further discloses that the at least some emissive regions of the each metapixel that border neighboring metapixels are adjacent to emissive regions of the neighboring metapixels that are configured to emit blue light (annotated FIG. 5 above, each metapixel’s borders are lined by the light blue subpixels which emit blue light ¶ [0074-0076]).
Regarding claim 4, Hack discloses the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above, and further discloses that a border perimeter of the emissive regions of each metapixel configured to emit blue light (FIG. 5, border perimeters of the light blue subpixels) is longer than a border perimeter of any of the sub-pixels configured to emit green light or red light (FIG. 5, because the surface areas of the light blue subpixels wholly overlap the surfaces areas of the red and green subpixels and then further widen past them, the border perimeters of the light blue subpixels are inherently longer than the border perimeters of any of the red or green subpixels).
Regarding claim 5, Hack discloses the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above, and further discloses that each metapixel of the plurality of metapixels further comprises: more than one independently addressable sub-pixel configured to emit yellow light (annotated FIG. 5 above, each metapixel includes four yellow subpixels which are each addressed by their own TFT and data line ¶ [0075]).
Regarding claim 7, Hack discloses the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above, and further discloses that the emissive regions configured to emit blue light are at least one selected from the group consisting of: greater than 15%, greater than 25%, greater than 50%, and greater than 75% of a region that surrounds the sub-pixels configured to emit green light or red light (FIG. 5, a sub-region of the light blue subpixels surrounds both the red and green subpixels; therefore, the entire light blue and deep blue subpixels’ emissive region is inherently greater than 100% of its own sub-region which surrounds the red and green subpixels).
Regarding claim 8, Hack discloses the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above, and further discloses that a border perimeter of the emissive regions of each metapixel configured to emit blue light are at least one selected from the group consisting of: greater than 15%, greater than 25%, greater than 50%, and greater than 75% of a region that surrounds the sub-pixels configured to emit green light or red light (FIG. 5, the total border perimeter of the emissive regions of each metapixel configured to emit blue light is 100% of itself, since a region of the light blue emissive regions surrounds the subpixels that emit green and/or red light).
Regarding claim 9, Hack discloses the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above, and further discloses that each metapixel comprises four or more sub-pixels to emit green light (annotated FIG. 5 above, each metapixel includes four green subpixels) and four or more sub-pixels to emit red light (annotated FIG. 5 above, each metapixel includes four red subpixels).
Regarding claim 10, Hack discloses the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above, and further discloses that each metapixel comprises two or more sub-pixels to emit red light (annotated FIG. 5 above, each metapixel includes four red subpixels), and four or more sub-pixels to emit green light (annotated FIG. 5 above, each metapixel includes four green subpixels).
Regarding claim 11, Hack discloses the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above, and further discloses that each metapixel comprises two or more sub-pixels to emit green light (annotated FIG. 5 above, each metapixel includes four green subpixels), and four or more sub-pixels to emit red light (annotated FIG. 5 above, each metapixel includes four red subpixels).
Regarding claim 14, Hack discloses the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above, and further discloses that each metapixel is based on one unpatterned OLED deposition (a light blue emitting unpatterned OLED deposition ¶ [0076]), and at least one selected from the group consisting of: color altering layers, and downconversion films (downconversion films including photoemissive quantum dots ¶ [0076]) are disposed on the unpatterned OLED deposition and are configured to produce light of other colors from the light output from the unpatterned OLED deposition (¶ [0076] states that red and green light may be output by means of the quantum dots).
Regarding claim 15, Hack discloses a consumer electronic device (¶ [0013, 0045] teaches that the disclosed invention of Hack may be applied in a consumer product and/or electronic component module) comprising: a device (the device of FIG. 5 ¶ [0032]) comprising: an organic light emitting device (OLED) display (FIG. 5’s device is an OLED device ¶ [0032]) comprising a plurality of metapixels (annotated FIG. 5 above, a metapixel is formed by a cluster of 4 pixels which all share a common deep blue subpixel ¶ [0075]), each metapixel of the plurality of metapixels comprising: two or more sets of emissive regions (annotated FIG. 5, a total of 17 emissive regions are present in each metapixel: four for each of red, yellow, green, and light blue, and one deep blue ¶ [0074-0076]) that are configured by at least one selected from the group (in this case, option (i)) consisting of:
(i) to emit blue light that is a combination of light from the two or more sets of emissive regions that are configured to emit the blue light for that metapixel (FIG. 5, the emissive regions of the four light blue subpixels all emit blue light in combination ¶ [0074-0076]) wherein the two or more emissive regions emit blue light with the same spectrum from a first emissive layer (FIG. 5, light blue subpixels of the subpixels emit the same light blue light from a first emissive layer ¶ [0071-0075], therefore having the same spectrum of emission), and
(ii) that are addressable by the same drive circuit, and
wherein the metapixel includes more than one independently addressable sub-pixel configured to emit green light (FIG. 5, the metapixel includes four green subpixels which each are addressed by their own TFT and data line ¶ [0075]) and more than one independently addressable sub-pixel configured to emit red light (FIG. 5, the metapixel includes four red subpixels which each are addressed by their own TFT and data line ¶ [0075]), and wherein a spatial density of the more than one independently addressable sub-pixel configured to emit red light and the more than one independently addressable sub-pixel configured to emit green light are arranged to have a periodic displacement within an array of the OLED display to have a perturbation with a higher spatial period component and lower spatial frequency component within the array (due to limitations to the precision of manufacturing, while not explicitly stated to be present, Hack FIG. 5 is found to have perturbations in the spatial period and frequency components in the array of red and green subpixels that satisfy the limitation).
Regarding claim 16, Hack discloses the limitations of claim 15 as detailed above, and further discloses that the device is at least one type selected from the group consisting of: a flat panel display, a curved display, a computer monitor, a medical monitor, a television, a billboard, a light for interior or exterior illumination and/or signaling, a heads-up display, a fully or partially transparent display, a flexible display, a rollable display, a foldable display, a stretchable display, a laser printer, a telephone, a cell phone, tablet, a phablet, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a wearable device, a laptop computer, a digital camera, a camcorder, a viewfinder, a micro-display that is less than 2 inches diagonal, a 3-D display, a virtual reality or augmented reality display, a vehicle, a video walls comprising multiple displays tiled together, a theater or stadium screen, and a sign (many of the claimed options are taught in Hack ¶ [0045] as applications of their invention).
Claims 1, 12, 15, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US patent publication US 20180033839 A1 (Hack et al hereinafter Hack 2).
Regarding claim 1, Hack 2 discloses a device (the device of FIGS. 3A-4 ¶ [0024-0025, 0059]) comprising: an organic light emitting device (OLED) display (the device of FIGS. 3A-4 is an OLED display ¶ [0025]) comprising a plurality of metapixels (annotated FIG. 4 below, the device includes metapixels), each metapixel of the plurality of metapixels comprising: two or more sets of emissive regions (annotated FIG. 4, four blue subpixels 410 in the metapixel ¶ [0059]) that are configured by at least one (in this case, option (i)) selected from the group consisting of:
(i) to emit blue light that is a combination of light from the two or more sets of emissive regions that are configured to emit the blue light for that metapixel (FIG. 4, each of the four blue subpixels 410 emit blue light ¶ [0059]), wherein the two or more emissive regions emit blue light with the same spectrum from a first emissive layer (a blue emissive layer is used for the blue subpixels ¶ [0052-0055, 0060-0064]; there is no stated indication that different instances of blue subpixel 410 have differences in emission spectra beyond manufacturing tolerances, and they include the same emissive layer material), and
(ii) that are addressable by the same drive circuit, and
wherein the metapixel includes more than one independently addressable sub-pixel configured to emit green light (FIGS. 3A-4, green subpixels 430 are independently addressable ¶ [0057-0059]) and more than one independently addressable sub-pixel configured to emit red light (FIGS. 3A-4, red subpixels 420 are independently addressable ¶ [0057-0059]), and wherein a spatial density of the more than one independently addressable sub-pixel configured to emit red light and the more than one independently addressable sub-pixel configured to emit green light are arranged to have a periodic displacement within an array of the OLED display to have a perturbation with a higher spatial period component and lower spatial frequency component within the array (due to limitations to the precision of manufacturing, while not explicitly stated to be present, Hack 2 FIG. 4 is found to have perturbations in the spatial period and frequency components in the array of red and green subpixels that satisfy the limitation).
PNG
media_image2.png
459
572
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Hack 2 discloses the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above, and further discloses that each metapixel that includes the emissive regions configured to output blue light are within a plane of blue sub-pixels (FIGS. 3A-4 and annotated 4 above, the metapixels are within a same plane), and wherein the emissive regions are deposited in two or more deposition operations (FIGS. 3A-3H, yellow emissive layer 315 and blue emissive layer 360 were deposited in two deposition operations ¶ [0050-0052]).
Regarding claim 15, Hack 2 discloses a consumer electronic device (the device of Hack 2 can be applied as a consumer electronic device ¶ [0040]) comprising: a device (the device of FIGS. 3A-4 ¶ [0024-0025, 0059]) comprising: an organic light emitting device (OLED) display (the device of FIGS. 3A-4 is an OLED display ¶ [0025]) comprising a plurality of metapixels (annotated FIG. 4 above, the device includes metapixels), each metapixel of the plurality of metapixels comprising: two or more sets of emissive regions (annotated FIG. 4, four blue subpixels 410 in the metapixel ¶ [0059]) that are configured by at least one (in this case, option (i)) selected from the group consisting of:
(i) to emit blue light that is a combination of light from the two or more sets of emissive regions that are configured to emit the blue light for that metapixel (FIG. 4, each of the four blue subpixels 410 emit blue light ¶ [0059]), wherein the two or more emissive regions emit blue light with the same spectrum from a first emissive layer (a blue emissive layer is used for the blue subpixels ¶ [0052-0055, 0060-0064]; there is no stated indication that different instances of blue subpixel 410 have differences in emission spectra beyond manufacturing tolerances, and they include the same emissive layer material), and
(ii) that are addressable by the same drive circuit, and
wherein the metapixel includes more than one independently addressable sub-pixel configured to emit green light (FIGS. 3A-4, green subpixels 430 are independently addressable ¶ [0057-0059]) and more than one independently addressable sub-pixel configured to emit red light (FIGS. 3A-4, red subpixels 420 are independently addressable ¶ [0057-0059]), and wherein a spatial density of the more than one independently addressable sub-pixel configured to emit red light and the more than one independently addressable sub-pixel configured to emit green light are arranged to have a periodic displacement within an array of the OLED display to have a perturbation with a higher spatial period component and lower spatial frequency component within the array (due to limitations to the precision of manufacturing, while not explicitly stated to be present, Hack 2 FIG. 4 is found to have perturbations in the spatial period and frequency components in the array of red and green subpixels that satisfy the limitation).
Regarding claim 19, Hack 2 discloses the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above, and further discloses that the two or more sets of emissive regions emit the same color blue light (the same blue emissive layer is used for all blue subpixels ¶ [0062]).
Regarding claim 20, Hack 2 discloses the limitations of claim 15 as detailed above, and further discloses that the two or more sets of emissive regions emit the same color blue light (the same blue emissive layer is used for all blue subpixels ¶ [0062]).
Claims 1 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US patent publication US 20090295283 A1 (Kim et al hereinafter Kim).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a device (the device of FIGS. 1 and 3 ¶ [0032-0034, 0053]) comprising: an organic light emitting device (OLED) display comprising a plurality of metapixels (FIG. 3, a pair of unit pixels 40 may constitute a metapixel ¶ [0053]), each metapixel of the plurality of metapixels comprising: two or more sets of emissive regions (FIG. 3, two instances of blue light transmission area 30B in the metapixel ¶ [0055-0057]) that are configured by at least one (in this case, option (i)) selected from the group consisting of:
(i) to emit blue light that is a combination of light from the two or more sets of emissive regions that are configured to emit the blue light for that metapixel (blue light transmission area 30B in the two unit pixels of the metapixel both emit blue light ¶ [0057]), wherein the two or more emissive regions emit blue light with the same spectrum from a first emissive layer (FIG. 3, a blue emission layer 14B of one of the two unit pixels 40 emits blue light ¶ [0053]; there is no stated indication that different instances of blue emission layer 14B have different emission spectra beyond minor differences due to manufacturing tolerances), and
(ii) that are addressable by the same drive circuit, and
wherein the metapixel includes more than one independently addressable sub-pixel configured to emit green light (FIGS. 1 and 3, two green sub-pixels 40G of the metapixel ¶ [0051-0053]) and more than one independently addressable sub-pixel configured to emit red light (FIGS. 1 and 3, two red sub-pixels 40G of the metapixel ¶ [0051-0053]), and wherein a spatial density of the more than one independently addressable sub-pixel configured to emit red light and the more than one independently addressable sub-pixel configured to emit green light are arranged to have a periodic displacement within an array of the OLED display to have a perturbation with a higher spatial period component and lower spatial frequency component within the array (due to limitations to the precision of manufacturing, while not explicitly stated to be present, Kim FIG. 3 is found to have perturbations in the spatial period and frequency components in the array of red and green subpixels that satisfy the limitation).
Regarding claim 13, Kim discloses the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above, and further discloses that each metapixel includes only two patterned OLED depositions (two patterned OLED depositions suffice to deposit emission layers 14B and 14Y, patterning being employed to ensure that each of layers 14B and 14Y are deposited in their respective regions as can be seen in FIGS. 1 and 3; ¶ [0009-0010, 0055]) that include a first emissive layer configured to emit blue light (FIG. 3, blue emission layer 14B ¶ [0053]) and a second emissive layer configured to emit yellow light (FIG. 3, yellow emission ayer 14Y ¶ [0053]), wherein the device further comprises at least one color altering layer (FIG. 1, either of red light conversion region 30R or green light conversion region 30G ¶ [0055]) configured to emit at least one of green light, and red light based on a conversion of yellow light from the second emissive layer (FIGS. 1 and 3, yellow light from yellow emission layer 14Y is converted into red or green light by conversion regions 30R and 30G ¶ [0057]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent publication US 20200035761 A1 (Hack et al hereinafter Hack) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US patent publication US 20190280055 A1 (Hack et al hereinafter Hack 3).
Hack discloses the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above, but does not explicitly state that an area of the emissive regions of each metapixel configured to emit blue light are at least one selected from the group consisting of: greater than 1.5 times, greater than 2 times, greater than 3 times, greater than 4 times, greater than 6 times, and greater than 8 times an emissive area of sub-pixels configured to emit green light or red light. While ratios of surface areas for the light blue, deep blue, red, and green subpixels portrayed in FIG. 5 are ostensibly in agreement with the claimed limitation, the drawing was not stated to be to scale (¶ [0037]), and the area of the emissive region of the blue subpixels was not directly compared to an emissive area of the green or red subpixel, since that was not a parameter of particular importance to the disclosure of their invention.
However, Hack 3 discloses a display device comprising a metapixel (the embodiment of FIG. 25) wherein a blue light emitting region is significantly greater than an emissive area of sub-pixels configured to emit green light or red light (FIG. 25, ¶ [0190]). Hack 3 also teaches that “the human eye typically has relatively poor spatial resolution in the blue region of the spectrum and thus is relatively insensitive to the luminance of the blue sub-pixel” (¶ [0190]), motivating increasing the size of the blue light emitting area relative to that of the other colored subpixels.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary, through routine optimization, the size of the emissive regions of each metapixel configured to emit blue light as said size influences how much blue light a human viewer’s eye will see. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at an area of at least one selected from the group consisting of: greater than 1.5 times, greater than 2 times, greater than 3 times, greater than 4 times, greater than 6 times, and greater than 8 times an emissive area of sub-pixels configured to emit green light or red light, in order to achieve a suitable balance of light emission for the red, green, yellow, and blue emitted by the device of Hack (FIG. 5) to ensure the blue light is sufficient to account for human eye’s natural insensitivity to light of that color as taught by Hack 3 (¶ [0190]). (See MPEP 2144.05).
Furthermore, the applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed difference of size/area is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e., that the invention would not work without the specific claimed dimensions).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent publication US 20180033839 A1 (Hack et al hereinafter Hack 2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US patent publication US 20240251624 A1 (Wu et al hereinafter Wu).
Hack 2 discloses the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above, and further discloses that the metapixel includes a non-emissive border (FIG. 3H, which has a cross-sectional view that is applicable to the device of FIG. 4, has non-emissive border areas between the subpixel electrodes 301-304 ¶ [0048, 0059]) that separates the emissive regions configured to emit the blue light from the more than one independently addressable sub-pixel configured to emit green light and from the more than one independently addressable sub-pixel configured to emit red light (each emission region is defined by the subpixel electrodes 301-304, and the unlabeled border-gaps between the electrodes separate the emissive regions of each respective color subpixel ¶ [0048-0051, 0054]).
Hack 2 does not further disclose that the separation is by a distance between 10-50 µm, the scaling of that feature of the device not being of particular importance to the disclosure of their invention.
However, Wu discloses a display device (the device of FIG. 1 ¶ [0041]) wherein a non-emissive border (FIG. 1, unlabeled pixel defining layer between the RGB subpixels ¶ [0050]) between different colored subpixel emission areas (FIG. 1, RGB subpixels ¶ [0050]) separates the emission areas by a distance between 10-50 µm (the pixel defining layer can have a minimum width D of 10 µm ¶ [0050, 0092]). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found such a configuration obvious as Wu has demonstrated such a separation allows for an aperture ratio of the subpixels to be improved (¶ [0092]).
Hack 2 and Wu both pertain to the field of display devices, placing them in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the device of Hack 2 in view of Wu to provide the separation between the claimed emissive regions and independently addressable subpixels by a distance between 10-50 µm, since such a separation allows for an aperture ratio of the subpixels to be improved as taught by Wu.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hack 2 as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Wu.
Hack 2 discloses the limitations of claim 15 as detailed above, and further discloses that the metapixel includes a non-emissive border (FIG. 3H, which has a cross-sectional view that is applicable to the device of FIG. 4, has non-emissive border areas between the subpixel electrodes 301-304 ¶ [0048, 0059]) that separates the emissive regions configured to emit the blue light from the more than one independently addressable sub-pixel configured to emit green light and from the more than one independently addressable sub-pixel configured to emit red light (each emission region is defined by the subpixel electrodes 301-304, and the unlabeled border-gaps between the electrodes separate the emissive regions of each respective color subpixel ¶ [0048-0051, 0054]).
Hack 2 does not further disclose that the separation is by a distance between 10-50 µm, the scaling of that feature of the device not being of particular importance to the disclosure of their invention.
However, Wu discloses a display device (the device of FIG. 1 ¶ [0041]) wherein a non-emissive border (FIG. 1, unlabeled pixel defining layer between the RGB subpixels ¶ [0050]) between different colored subpixel emission areas (FIG. 1, RGB subpixels ¶ [0050]) separates the emission areas by a distance between 10-50 µm (the pixel defining layer can have a minimum width D of 10 µm ¶ [0050, 0092]). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found such a configuration obvious as Wu has demonstrated such a separation allows for an aperture ratio of the subpixels to be improved (¶ [0092]).
Hack 2 and Wu both pertain to the field of display devices, placing them in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the device of Hack 2 in view of Wu to provide the separation between the claimed emissive regions and independently addressable subpixels by a distance between 10-50 µm, since such a separation allows for an aperture ratio of the subpixels to be improved as taught by Wu.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD RHETT CHEEK whose telephone number is (571)272-3461. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30am - 5pm, Every other Friday 8:30am - 5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven Gauthier can be reached at 571-270-0373. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/E.R.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2813
/STEVEN B GAUTHIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights