DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Remarks filed on 04/10/2026.
Currently, claims 1-10 are pending in the application. Currently, claims 2 and 9 are withdrawn.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 .
Response to Amendments
Applicant' s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-8, and 10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/26/2026 is 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, 3, 7, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over FUKUDA (US Pub. No. 2019/0348639) in view of FUKUDA’2019 et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0371233).
Regarding independent claim 1, Fukuda teaches a light-emitting apparatus (Figs. 1 & 11) comprising:
a plurality of organic electroluminescent sections (Figs. 1 & 11, 10R + 10G + 10B, ¶ [0160]) that each include a first reflective layer (Fig. 11, 12R + 12G + 12B, ¶ [0032]), an organic light-emitting layer (Fig. 11, 13R + 13G + 13B, ¶ [0036]), and a second reflective layer (Fig. 11, 14R + 14G + 14B + 15R + 15G + 15B + 16R + 16G + 16B, ¶¶ [0041]-[0044], & [0138]), in this order;
a light extraction surface (Fig. 11, SDR + SDG + SDB, ¶¶ [0047]-[0049]) from which light emitted from each of the plurality of organic electroluminescent sections via the second reflective layer is extracted; and
a laminate section (Fig. 11, 16R + 16G + 16B +17R + 17G + 17B + 18R + 18R + 18G + 18B, ¶¶ [0041]-[0044], & [0138]) that includes a plurality of types of transparent material layers (Fig. 11, 17R + 17G + 17B + 18R + 18G + 18B) different from a metal reflective film (Fig. 11, 16R + 16G + 16B, ¶ [0043]) and is provided between each of the plurality of organic electroluminescent sections and the light extraction surface, wherein
the second reflective layer includes, from a side of the organic light-emitting layer side, a first metal layer (Fig. 11, 14R + 14G + 14B), a transparent layer (Fig. 11, 15R + 15G + 15B), and a second metal layer (Fig. 11, 16R + 16G + 16B, ¶ [0041] teaches that 14R, 14G, and 14B are thicker than 16R, 16G, and 16B) thinner than the first metal layer, in this order, and,
in each of the plurality of organic electroluminescent sections, an interference structure (¶ [0161] teaches that a microcavity structure if formed) is formed according to a structure that includes a reflection interface A (Fig. 11, S1R + S1G + S1B, ¶ [0161]) on an organic light-emitting layer side of the first reflective layer, a reflection interface B (Fig. 11, S2R + S2G + S2B, ¶ [0161]) on an organic light-emitting layer side of the first metal layer, a reflection interface C (Fig. 11, top facing surface of 14R, 14G, and 14B ) on a light extraction surface side of the first metal layer, a reflection interface D (Fig. 11, S3R + S3G + S3B, ¶ [0161]) on an organic light-emitting layer side of the second metal layer, and one or more reflection interfaces E (Fig. 11, S4R + S4G + S4B, ¶ [0161]) formed according to differences in refractive indexes of the plurality of types of transparent material layers (¶ [0040] teaches that reflective interfaces S4R, S4G, and S4B have a refractive index difference of not less than 0.15. 16R, 16G, 16B, 17R, 17G, and 17B are all transparent material layers. Therefore, reflective interfaces S4R, S4G, and S4B are formed due to a difference in refractive indexes of the 16R, 16G, 16B, 17R, 17G, and 17B, which is caused by a difference in transparent material type).
However, Fukuda does not explicitly teach that each of the plurality of types of transparent material layers includes a different transparent dielectric material.
However, Fukuda’2019 is a pertinent art that teaches that each of the plurality of types of transparent material layers includes a different transparent dielectric material (Fig. 11, 16R + 16G + 16B + 17R + 17G + 17B, ¶ [0034] teaches that 16R/16G/16B and 17R/17G/17B can each include transparent dielectric materials such as silicon oxide, silicon oxynitride, or silicon nitride. ¶ [0040] teaches that a reflective interface S4R/S4G/S4B is formed between 16R/16G/16B and 17R/17G/17B due to a difference in refractive index of not less than 0.15. Differences in refractive index are caused by different materials. Therefore, in the case that 16R/16G/16B and 17R/17G/17B are transparent dielectric materials, then 16R/16G/16B and 17R/17G/17B are different transparent dielectric materials).
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 Fukuda’s transparent material layers in their laminate section to be transparent dielectric materials according to the teaching of Fukuda’2019 (Fig. 11) in order to reduce manufacturing costs.
Regarding claim 3, Fukuda modified by Fukuda’2019 teaches the light-emitting apparatus according to claim 1, and Fukuda teaches that an optical distance between the reflection interface B (Fig. 11, S2R + S2G + S2B, ¶ [0161]) and the reflection interface D (Fig. 11, S3R + S3G + S3B, ¶ [0161]) is less than or equal to a central wavelength (¶ [0082] teaches that the optical path between S2R, S2G, S2B and S3R,S3G, S3B is not more than the center wavelength of emitted light) of light emitted from the corresponding organic light-emitting layer (Fig. 11, 13R + 13G + 13B, ¶ [0036]).
Regarding claim 7, Fukuda modified by Fukuda’2019 teaches the light-emitting apparatus according to claim 1, and Fukuda teaches that a total thickness of the first metal layer (Fig. 11, 14R + 14G + 14B, ¶ [0041]) and the second metal layer (Fig. 11, 16R + 16G + 16B, ¶ [0041]) is less than or equal to 44 nm (¶ [0041] teaches that 14R, 14G, and 14B are thicker than 16R, 16G, and 16B and that 14R, 14G, and 14B can be 5 nm. Therefore, a combined thickness of Fukuda’s metal layers can be approximately 10 nm. The thickness range taught by Fukuda overlaps with the range claimed. “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05.).
Regarding claim 8, Fukuda teaches the light-emitting apparatus according to claim 1, and Fukuda teaches that the transparent layer (Fig. 11, 15R + 15G + 15B, ¶ [0042]) is formed using a transparent electrical conductor material (¶ [0042]), and the first metal layer (Fig. 11, 14R + 14G + 14B), the transparent layer (Fig. 11, 15R + 15G + 15B), and the second metal layer (Fig. 11, 16R + 16G + 16B, ¶ [0041] teaches that 14R, 14G, and 14B are thicker than 16R, 16G, and 16B) are electrically connected to each other and function as an electrode on a side of the light extraction surface side (Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 10, Fukuda teaches the light-emitting apparatus according to claim 1, and Fukuda teaches that the organic light-emitting layer (Fig. 11, 13R + 13G + 13B, ¶ [0099] teaches that Fukuda’s organic light emitting layers can be printed) is a printed layer.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over FUKUDA (US Pub. No. 2019/0348639) in view of FUKUDA’2019 et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0371233) and further in view of FUKUDA’2018 (US Pub. No. 2018/0151840).
Regarding claim 4, Fukuda modified by Fukuda’2019 teaches the light-emitting apparatus according to claim 1, and Fukuda teaches the plurality of organic electroluminescent sections include a plurality of first organic electroluminescent sections and a plurality of second organic electroluminescent sections, and,
in each of the plurality of first organic electroluminescent sections and each of the plurality of second organic electroluminescent sections, the interference structure is configured to satisfy the following formulae (a) through (j) ():
La1/λa1+φa1/2π=Na …(a) (see expression (1), ¶ [0054])
λa−150<λa1<λa+80…(b) (see expression (2), ¶ [0054])
2La2/λa2+φa2/2π=Ma…(c) (see expression (7), ¶ [0068])
λa−80<λa2<λa+80…(d) (see expression (8), ¶ [0068])
λa−80<λa2′<λa+80…(f) (see expression (8), ¶ [0068], the Examiner notes that λa2 and λa2′ are both wavelengths)
2La3/λa3+φa3/2π=Ka+1/2…(g) (see expression (13), ¶ [0083])
λa−150<λa3<λa+150…(h) (see expression (14), ¶ [0083])
2La4/λa4+φa4/2π=Kd+1/2…(i) (see expression (25), ¶ [0143], the Examiner notes that Kd and Ja are both integers greater than or equal to 0)
λa−150<λa4<λa+150…(j) (see expression (32), ¶ [0155])
La1: an optical distance between the reflection interface A and a light emission center of the organic light-emitting layer in a first organic electroluminescent section of the plurality of first organic electroluminescent sections,
La2: an optical distance between the reflection interface B and the light emission center of the organic light-emitting layer in the first organic electroluminescent section,
La2′: an optical distance between the reflection interface C and the light emission center of the organic light-emitting layer in the first organic electroluminescent section,
La3: an optical distance between the reflection interface D and the light emission center of the organic light-emitting layer in the first organic electroluminescent section,
La4: an optical distance between the one or more reflection interfaces E and the light emission center of the organic light-emitting layer in the first organic electroluminescent section,
φa1: a phase change when light emitted from the organic light-emitting layer is reflected by the reflection interface A in the first organic electroluminescent section,
φa2: a phase change when light emitted from the organic light-emitting layer is reflected by the reflection interface B in the first organic electroluminescent section,
φa2′: a phase change when light emitted from the organic light-emitting layer is reflected by the reflection interface C in the first organic electroluminescent section,
φa3: a phase change when light emitted from the organic light-emitting layer is reflected by the reflection interface D in the first organic electroluminescent section,
φa4: a phase change when light emitted from the organic light-emitting layer is reflected by the one or more reflection interfaces E in the first organic electroluminescent section,
λa: a central wavelength of an emission spectrum for the organic light-emitting layer in the first organic electroluminescent section,
λa1: a wavelength that satisfies formula (b),
λa2: a wavelength that satisfies formula (d),
λa2′ : a wavelength that satisfies formula (f),
λa3: a wavelength that satisfies formula (h),
λa4: a wavelength that satisfies formula (j), and
Na, Ma, Ka, and Kd: integers that are greater than or equal to 0.
However, Fukuda modified by Fukuda’2019 does not explicitly teach that 2La2′/λa2′+φa2′/2π=Ma+1/2 (formula (e)).
However, Fukuda recognizes that the optical distance between a reflection interface of a metal layer and the light emission center impacts the transmittance of a predetermined wavelength (Fukuda ¶ [0080]). It is known in the art that the transmittance of a predetermined wavelength impacts light extraction efficiency (as evidence, see ¶ [0120] of Fukuda’2018). Therefore, the optical distance between a reflection interface of a metal layer and the light emission center of an organic emission layer is an art recognized variable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to adjust Fukuda’s optical distance to arrive within the claim 4 limitations, in order to achieve the desired balance between the impact of the optical distance on transmittance and the desire to improve display effect as taught by Fukuda. 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, Fukuda modified by Fukuda’2019 teaches the light-emitting apparatus according to claim 4, and Fukuda teaches that in each of the plurality of first organic electroluminescent sections and each of the plurality of second organic electroluminescent sections, the interference structure is configured to satisfy the following formulae (k) through (t):
2Lc1/λc1+φc1/2π=Nc…(k) (see expression (G), ¶ [0240])
λc−150<λc1<λc+80…(l) (see expression (6), ¶ [0054])
2Lc2/λc2+φc2/2π=Mc…(m) (see expression (11), ¶ [0068])
λc−80<λc2<λc+80…(n) (see expression (12), ¶ [0068])
λc−80<λc2′<λc+80…(p) (see expression (12), ¶ [0068], the Examiner notes that both λc2 and λc2′ are both wavelengths)
2Lc3/λc3+φc3/2π=Kc…(q) (see expression (17), ¶ [0083])
λc−150<λc3<λc+150…(r) (see expression (18), ¶ [0083])
2Lc4/λc4+φc4/2π=Kf…(s) (see expression (29), ¶¶ [0143] & [0153])
λc−150<λc4<λc+150…(t) (see expression (30), ¶ [0143])
Lc1: an optical distance between the reflection interface A and a light emission center of the organic light-emitting layer in a second organic electroluminescent section of the plurality of second organic electroluminescent sections,
Lc2: an optical distance between the reflection interface B and the light emission center of the organic light-emitting layer in the second organic electroluminescent section,
Lc2′: an optical distance between the reflection interface C and the light emission center of the organic light-emitting layer in the second organic electroluminescent section,
Lc3: an optical distance between the reflection interface D and the light emission center of the organic light-emitting layer in the second organic electroluminescent section,
Lc4: an optical distance between the one or more reflection interfaces E and the light emission center of the organic light-emitting layer in the second organic electroluminescent section,
φc1: a phase change when light emitted from the organic light-emitting layer is reflected by the reflection interface A in the second organic electroluminescent section,
φc2: a phase change when light emitted from the organic light-emitting layer is reflected by the reflection interface B in the second organic electroluminescent section,
φc2′: a phase change when light emitted from the organic light-emitting layer is reflected by the reflection interface C in the second organic electroluminescent section,
φc3: a phase change when light emitted from the organic light-emitting layer is reflected by the reflection interface D in the second organic electroluminescent section,
φc4: a phase change when light emitted from the organic light-emitting layer is reflected by the one or more reflection interfaces E in the second organic electroluminescent section,
λc: a central wavelength of an emission spectrum for the organic light-emitting layer in the second organic electroluminescent section,
λc1: a wavelength that satisfies formula (l),
λc2: a wavelength that satisfies formula (n), λc2′: a wavelength that satisfies formula (p),
λc3: a wavelength that satisfies formula (r),
λc4: a wavelength that satisfies formula (t), and
Nc, Mc, Kc, and Kf: integers that are greater than or equal to 0.
However, Fukuda modified by Fukuda’2019 does not explicitly teach that 2Lc2′/λc2′+φc2′/2π=Mc+1/2 (formula (o)).
However, Fukuda recognizes that the optical distance between a reflection interface of a metal layer and the light emission center impacts the transmittance of a predetermined wavelength (Fukuda ¶ [0080]). It is known in the art that the transmittance of a predetermined wavelength impacts light extraction efficiency (as evidence, see ¶ [0120] of Fukuda’2018). Therefore, the optical distance between a reflection interface of a metal layer and the light emission center of an organic emission layer is an art recognized variable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to adjust Fukuda’s optical distance to arrive within the claim 5 limitations, in order to achieve the desired balance between the impact of the optical distance on transmittance and the desire to improve display effect as taught by Fukuda. 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, Fukuda modified by Fukuda’2019 teaches the light-emitting apparatus according to claim 1, and Fukuda teaches that the plurality of organic electroluminescent sections (Figs. 1 & 11, 10R + 10G + 10B, ¶ [0160]) include a plurality of first organic electroluminescent sections that emit light (Figs. 1 & 11, 10R, ¶ [0030] teaches a plurality of red light emitting sections) in a first wavelength band and a plurality of second organic electroluminescent sections (Figs. 1 & 11, 10B, ¶ [0030] teaches a plurality of blue light emitting sections) that emit light in a second wavelength band having shorter wavelengths than the first wavelength band, and
in each of the plurality of first organic electroluminescent sections and each of the plurality of second organic electroluminescent sections, the interference structure is configured such that the reflection interface A (Fig. 11, S1R + S1G + S1B, ¶ [0161]) and the reflection interface B (Fig. 11, S2R + S2G + S2B, ¶ [0161]) strengthen light (¶¶ [0053] & [0067] teaches that optical paths La1, Lc1, La2, and Lc2, corresponding to S1R, S1B, S2R, and S2B respectively, strengthen the interference in the red and blue light emitting sections) in each of the first wavelength band and the second wavelength band, and is configured such that the reflection interface D (Fig. 11, S3R + S3G + S3B, ¶ [0161]) and the one or more reflection interfaces E (Fig. 11, S4R + S4G + S4B, ¶ [0161]) weaken (¶¶ [0082] & [0142] teaches that optical paths La3 and La4, corresponding to S3R and S4R respectively, weaken the interference in the red light emitting section) light in the first wavelength band and strengthen light (¶¶ [0082] & [0142] teaches that optical paths Lc3 and Lc4, corresponding to S3B and S4B respectively, strengthens the interference in the blue light emitting section) in the second wavelength band.
However, Fukuda does not explicitly teach that the interference structure is configured such that the reflection interface C (Fig. 11, top facing surface of 14R, 14G, and 14B) weakens light in each of the first wavelength band and the second wavelength band.
However, the material, arrangement, connections, and relative dimensions of Fukuda’s light emitting layer, metal layers, and transparent layers are the same or similar to those disclosed by Applicant. Therefore, it would be obvious that top facing surface of 14R, 14G, and 14B weakens light in the red and blue wavelength bands. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Mpep §2112.01. ).
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
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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