DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant Election filed on 10/07/2025.
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 Currently, claims 2 and 9 are withdrawn.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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I in the reply filed on 05/14/2024 is acknowledged. Claims 2 and 9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a non-selected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 1, 3-8, and 10 are examined in this Office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/27/2022 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the Examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 4, formulae (a) through (j) should correspondingly labeled (e.g., 2La1/λa1+φa1/2π=Na…(a), λa−150<λa1<λa+80…(b), etc).
In claim 5, formulae (k) through (t) should be correspondingly labeled (e.g., 2Lc1/λc1+φc1/2π=Nc…(k)).
In claim 5, formula (n) and formula (p) are identical.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 5 is 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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the microcavity structure”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. Therefore, the claim has an indefinite scope. For the purpose of examination, this limitation will be read as: “the interference structure”.
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 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 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, 3, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by FUKUDA (US Pub. No. 2019/0348639).
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 organic electroluminescent sections via the second reflective layer is extracted; and
a laminate section (Fig. 11, 15R + 15G + 15B + 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, 15R + 15G + 15B +17R + 17G + 17B + 18R + 18G + 18B) different from a metal reflective film (Fig. 11, 14R + 14G + 14B + 16R + 16G + 16B, ¶ [0043]) and is provided between each of the organic electroluminescent sections and the light extraction surface, wherein
the second reflective layer includes, from 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 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 the organic light-emitting layer side of the first reflective layer, a reflection interface B (Fig. 11, S2R + S2G + S2B, ¶ [0161]) on the 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 the light extraction surface side of the first metal layer, a reflection interface D (Fig. 11, S3R + S3G + S3B, ¶ [0161]) on the 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 within the laminate section.
Regarding claim 3, Fukuda 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 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 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.
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 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over FUKUDA (US Pub. No. 2019/0348639) in view of FUKUDA’2018 (US Pub. No. 2018/0151840).
Regarding claim 4, Fukuda 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 first organic electroluminescent sections and each of the 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 the first organic electroluminescent section,
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 reflection interface 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 reflection interface 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 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 teaches the light-emitting apparatus according to claim 4, and Fukuda teaches that in each of the first organic electroluminescent sections and each of the second organic electroluminescent sections, the microcavity 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], the Examiner notes that both λc2 and λc2′ are both wavelengths)
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 the second organic electroluminescent section,
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 reflection interface 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 reflection interface 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 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 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 first organic electroluminescent sections and each of the 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 reflection interface 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. ).
Regarding claim 7, Fukuda 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.).
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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pub No. 2019/0371233 by Fukuda discloses a display device.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pub No. 2014/0191226 by Yamae discloses a display device.
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