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 .
Response to Amendments
The amended specification overcomes the objection.
The amended claims overcome the 112 rejections by clarifying claim 12, and by eliminating the contradiction between claims 1 and 13.
See the new rejections below.
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, 14-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Paek, US 2019/0207163 A1.
Claim 1: Paek discloses
a substrate (100);
a first electrode (330) disposed on the substrate;
a pixel-defining film (400) comprising a plurality of open portions exposing the first electrode (FIG. 5);
a plurality of emissive layers (531, 532) 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 (600) disposed on the plurality of emissive layers;
wherein, 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, wherein a maximum height of the emissive layer is smaller than a maximum height of the pixel-defining film.
PNG
media_image1.png
336
390
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. 5).
Claim 12: the first electrode is a single surface electrode (FIG. 5).
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 (FIG. 5).
Claim 16: a shape of each of the open portions has a point symmetry with respect to its center in the plan view (FIG. 6).
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 (100);
a first electrode (330) disposed on the substrate;
a plurality of emissive layers (531, 532) spaced apart from one another on a monolithic surface of the first electrode and comprising an organic material;
and a second electrode (600) 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. 5),
wherein, 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, wherein a maximum height of the emissive layer is smaller than a maximum height of the pixel-defining film (FIG. 5).
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 1, 2, 12, 13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, US 2017/0294155 A1, in view of Paek, US 2019/0207163 A1, or Kim 2, US 2019/0013371 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 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_image2.png
360
590
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 1 also recites that 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, wherein a maximum height of the emissive layer is smaller than a maximum height of the pixel-defining film. This is not disclosed by Kim, but was well-known in the art. See e.g. Paek, FIG. 5, the heights of the emissive layers B. It would have been obvious to have applied the invention of Kim to a device with the emissive layer shape of Paek, as this was well-known in the art and the pixel connection structure of Kim has no apparent connection to the shape of the emission layer and thus could be broadly applied.
Alternatively, it was also know to have an emission layer shape such as Kim 2 FIG. 18. Claim 1 does not require that the height of the emissive layer continuously increase from the center to the edge.
Claim 2: at least a portion of an upper surface of the first electrode overlapping with the open portions is flat (Kim FIG. 4; Kim 2 FIG. 18.).
Claim 12: the first electrode is a single, continuous 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_image3.png
268
548
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 14: the second electrode is in direct contact with the pixel-defining film at side surfaces of the open portions (Paek FIG. 5; Park FIG. 6).
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: the upper surface of the emissive layer has a shape concave toward the substrate (Paek FIG. 5).
Claim 18: 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. Changes in dimension are not typically a source of patentable distinction absent unexpected results. MPEP 2144.04(IV). 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).
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 19 also recites that 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, wherein a maximum height of the emissive layer is smaller than a maximum height of the pixel-defining film. This is not disclosed by Kim, but was well-known in the art. See e.g. Paek, FIG. 5, the heights of the emissive layers B. It would have been obvious to have applied the invention of Kim to a device with the emissive layer shape of Paek, as this was well-known in the art and the pixel connection structure of Kim has no apparent connection to the shape of the emission layer and thus could be broadly applied.
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]).
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Paek or Park and further 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_image4.png
340
516
media_image4.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 Paek or Park and further 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_image5.png
236
334
media_image5.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].
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights