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 .
Election/Restriction
Pursuant to the election without traverse on February 17, 2026 of invention I, nonelected claims 6-11 are withdrawn from consideration.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The examiner proposes: DISPLAY WITH A PIXEL HAVING MULTIPLE EMISSION REGIONS
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.
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 1-5 and 12-20 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
Claim 12 recites that “the first electrode is a single surface electrode.” The term “single surface electrode” is not a term of art, and is not explained in the specification. Its ordinary meaning is also not clear. For present purposes the examiner will assume that this means the first electrode as an unbroken, continuous surface.
Claim 13 recites that “the first electrode comprises a plurality of patterned sub-electrodes, wherein the sub-electrodes are electrically connected with one another, and wherein each of the sub-electrodes overlaps with at least one of the plurality of emissive layers in the plan view.” Claim 1, from which claim 13 depends, recites that “a plurality of emissive layers overlapping with a monolithic surface of the first electrode in a plan view and disposed in the plurality of open portions, respectively”. These seem to correspond to different embodiments of the present application: claim 1 corresponding to FIG. 1, claim 13 corresponding to FIG. 14. If these claims are not directed to different embodiments, it is not clear how a “monolithic” electrode can also comprise “a plurality of sub-patterned electrodes”, as the definition of “monolithic” is “consisting of one piece; solid or unbroken.” (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/monolithic). Thus there is uncertainty as to the scope of the claim 13, and also as to claim 1, as claims are interpreted in light of their dependent claims, and in light of claim 13, it is not clear what “monolithic” means. Claim 19 also uses the term “monolithic”, and thus has the same uncertainty.
The remaining claims are rejected based on their dependencies.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 13 recites that “the first electrode comprises a plurality of patterned sub-electrodes, wherein the sub-electrodes are electrically connected with one another, and wherein each of the sub-electrodes overlaps with at least one of the plurality of emissive layers in the plan view.” Claim 1, from which claim 13 depends, recites that “a plurality of emissive layers overlapping with a monolithic surface of the first electrode in a plan view and disposed in the plurality of open portions, respectively”. These seem to correspond to different embodiments of the present application: claim 1 corresponding to FIG. 1, claim 13 corresponding to FIG. 14. Thus it appears that claim 13 changes, rather than further limits, the scope of claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 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, 2, 12, 13, 15-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim, US 2017/0294155 A1.
Claim 1: Kim discloses
a substrate (111);
a first electrode (447) disposed on the substrate;
a pixel-defining film comprising a plurality of open portions (SR1, SR2) exposing the first electrode;
a plurality of emissive layers (442, 445) overlapping with a monolithic surface of the first electrode in a plan view and disposed in the plurality of open portions, respectively;
and a second electrode (443) disposed on the plurality of emissive layers.
PNG
media_image1.png
360
590
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 2: at least a portion of an upper surface of the first electrode overlapping with the open portions is flat (FIG. 4).
Claim 12: the first electrode is a single surface electrode (FIG. 4).
Claim 13: the first electrode comprises a plurality of patterned sub-electrodes (141, 144), wherein the sub-electrodes are electrically connected with one another, and wherein each of the sub-electrodes overlaps with at least one of the plurality of emissive layers in the plan view (FIG. 3):
PNG
media_image2.png
268
548
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 15: the second electrode is in direct contact with an upper surface of the pixel-defining film disposed on an area other than the open portions (the space between the pixels, FIGS. 3 and 4).
Claim 16: a shape of each of the open portions has a point symmetry with respect to its center in the plan view (FIG. 1). The opening portions are circular, which has point symmetry.
Claim 17: in an emissive layer of the plurality of emissive layers, a height of an upper surface of the emissive layer increases from a center to an edge of the emissive layer, and wherein the upper surface of the emissive layer has a shape concave toward the substrate (FIG. 4). Note that claim 4 does not require that the upper surface layer continuously increase from a center to an edge of the emissive layer.
Claim 19: Kim discloses
a substrate (111);
a first electrode (447) disposed on the substrate;
a plurality of emissive layers (442, 445) spaced apart from one another on a monolithic surface of the first electrode and comprising an organic material;
and a second electrode (446) disposed on the plurality of emissive layers, wherein each of the plurality of emission layers overlaps with the first electrode and the second electrode (FIG. 4).
Claim 20: the plurality of emissive layers is configured to diode-connect the first electrode with the second electrode. The emissive layers are “organic light emitting diodes 140a and 140b” ([0075]).
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 (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 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 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Sakakura, US 2006/0186804 A1.
Claim 3: Sakakura discloses a first electrode 18 that comprises a reference surface (top of 18b) located on the upper surface of the first electrode and protruding portions (top of 18d) that are higher than the reference surface, and wherein outermost boundaries of the protruding portions do not overlap with the exposed portion of the first electrode in the plan view.
PNG
media_image3.png
340
516
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to have used such a first electrode in Kim as an electrode known in the art as an OLED pixel electrode.
Claim 4: the protruding portion does not overlap with the exposed portion of the first electrode in the plan view (Sakakura FIG. 1).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Cho, US 2022/0173177 A1. Cho discloses protruding portions 211O that overlap with the exposed portion of the first electrode as well as other portions of the first electrode except for the exposed portion in the plan view (FIGS. 5A and 5B).
PNG
media_image4.png
236
334
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to have had such a structure in Kim as a natural effect of the formation of the device, that is, by use a etch to create the opening. “When forming the pixel defining layer 215 by etching the inorganic layer 215L, at least a portion of the central portion 211C of the first electrode 211 may be etched. The central portion 211C of the first electrode 211 may be over-etched when forming the opening portion OP of the pixel defining layer 215.” [0176].
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Park, US 2021/0398488 A1. Park discloses that the second electrode is in direct contact with the pixel-defining film at side surfaces of the open portions (FIG. 3).
PNG
media_image5.png
422
664
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Having the emitting layer below the top of the side surfaces of the opening, as Park discloses, or up to the top of the side surfaces, as Kim discloses, were both very well-known configurations in the art, and it would have been a matter of ordinary design choice to select one or the other, and not a source of patentable distinction.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim. The emissive layer comprises a light-emitting portion and a non-light-emitting portion (the portion not contacting the lower electrode) surrounding the light-emitting portion. Kim does not disclose any deviation between a minimum height and a maximum height of the emissive layer in the light-emitting portion. Furthermore, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed thicknesses or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon thicknesses or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the thicknesses are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Paek, US 2019/0207163 A1, showing a blue subpixel with multiple openings, FIG. 5.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER BRADFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-1596. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30-6:30.
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, Jacob Choi can be reached at 469.295.9060. 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.
/PETER BRADFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897