DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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
Claim #34 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention/species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on November 27, 2025.
Claims #1, 4, 6-9, 11-15, 18, 19, 25, 26, 30-33 are under examination in the present Office Action.
IDS
The IDS document(s) filed on June 30, 2023 has been considered. Copies of the PTO-1449 documents are herewith enclosed with this office action.
Specifications
The title is objected to because a more descriptive title is requested.
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)
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.
Claims 1, 6, 7, 11, 14, 25, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0306210 A1), as cited in the IDS and hereafter “Lee”.
As to claim 1, Lee teaches:
A first electrode 10 serving as an anode. See Lee, FIG. 2.
A second electrode 50 serving as a cathode.
A light-emitting layer 40 positioned between the first electrode and the second electrode.
A first insulator (right most 60) positioned facing toward a first side surface of the light-emitting layer with respect to the light-emitting layer.
A third electrode (right most 20) included in the first insulator, and positioned, such that a first portion of the first insulator is sandwiched between the third electrode and the first side surface of the light-emitting layer.
As to claim 6, Lee teaches a second insulator (left most 60) positioned facing toward a second side surface across from the first side surface of the light-emitting layer with respect to the light-emitting layer; and a fourth electrode (left most 20) included in the second insulator, and positioned so that a first portion of the second insulator is sandwiched between the fourth electrode and the second side surface of the light-emitting layer.
As to claim 7, Lee teaches a second insulator but does not specify a specific material. However, the Examiner notes that the second insulator must necessarily comprise a first material.
As to claim 11, Lee teaches the light-emitting layer is positioned between the third electrode and the fourth electrode. Id.
As to claim 14, Lee teaches wherein a surface of the first electrode and a surface of the second electrode that face toward the light-emitting layer are positioned between the third electrode and the fourth electrode. Id.
As to claim 25, Lee teaches a plurality of the light-emitting elements, wherein the first insulator comprises a bank formed between the plurality of light-emitting elements, and divides the plurality of light-emitting elements from one another. Id. at FIG. 1, FIG. 2.
As to claim 26, Lee teaches the second insulator (left most 60) comprises a bank formed between the plurality of light-emitting elements and divides the plurality of light-emitting elements from one another. Id.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
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 of this title, 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 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to claim 1.
As to claim 4, Lee does not teach the claimed thickness of the first insulator.
On the other hand, shape, size, and dimension differences are considered obvious design choices and are not patentable unless unobvious or unexpected results are obtained from these changes. It appears that these changes produce no functional differences and therefore would have been obvious. Note In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
As to claim 9, Lee does not teach the claimed thickness of the second insulator.
On the other hand, shape, size, and dimension differences are considered obvious design choices and are not patentable unless unobvious or unexpected results are obtained from these changes. It appears that these changes produce no functional differences and therefore would have been obvious. Note In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Yokoyama et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0175470 A1), hereafter “Yokoyama”.
As to claim 12, Lee teaches the light emitting structure further includes hole transport and electron transport layers, but does not teach the claimed relative positions of the hole transport layer. See Lee, ¶¶ [0057], [0059].
On the other hand, Yokoyama teaches a light emitting structure comprising a hole transport layer 105 positioned between a first electrode 102 and a light-emitting layer 106. See Yokoyama, FIG. 5A. The combination of Lee and Yokoyama forms the hole transport layer between horizontally opposed third and fourth electrodes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the hole transport layer as taught by Yokoyama into the light emitting structure as taught by Lee in order to yield the predictable benefit of enabling organic light emitting functionality.
As to claim 13, Lee teaches the light emitting structure further includes hole transport and electron transport layers, but does not teach the claimed relative positions of the electron transport layer. See Lee, ¶¶ [0057], [0059].
On the other hand, Yokoyama teaches a light emitting structure comprising an electron transport layer 107 positioned between a second electrode 110 and a light-emitting layer 106. See Yokoyama, FIG. 5A. The combination of Lee and Yokoyama forms the electron transport layer between horizontally opposed third and fourth electrodes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the electron transport layer as taught by Yokoyama into the light emitting structure as taught by Lee in order to yield the predictable benefit of enabling organic light emitting functionality.
Claims Allowable If Rewritten in Independent Form
Claims 8, 15, 18, 19, and 30-33 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As to claim 8, prior art does not teach “a second material different from the first material…at least the second material”.
As to claim 15, prior art does not teach “a first edge of the third electrode…and the second angle or smaller”.
As to claims 18 and 19, Lee does not teach a first wire capable of applying a first voltage to the third electrode and no other prior art was found.
As to claim 30, prior art does not teach “the fourth electrode of the fourth subpixel…positioned between the third subpixel and the fifth subpixel”.
As to claim 31, prior art does not teach “the respective third electrodes of the fourth subpixel…are positioned between the third subpixel and the fifth subpixel”.
As to claim 32, prior art does not teach “the third electrode of the first subpixel…are positioned between the fourth subpixel and the fifth subpixel”.
As to claim 33, prior art does not teach “the respective fourth electrodes of the first subpixel…are positioned between the fourth subpixel and the fifth subpixel”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUBERR CHI whose telephone number is (571)270-3955. The examiner can normally be reached 10am to 6pm.
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, Sue Purvis can be reached on (571) 272-1236. 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.
/SUBERR L CHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights