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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-13, 18-20 in the reply filed on 5/11/26 is acknowledged. Claims 14-17 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 C.F.R. 1.142(b) as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 3/27/24 have been considered.
Oath/Declaration
Oath/Declaration filed on 10/6/23 has been considered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CAI (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0202885).
Referring to figures 3-17, CAI teaches a display panel (10), comprising: a substrate (see paragraph# 4) comprising a first display area (11) and a second display area (12) at least partially surrounding the first display area (11), the first display area (12) being configured for image display and light transmission, the second display area being configured for image display (see figures 5-17); and a light-emitting functional layer (11) on a side of the substrate, comprising an organic electroluminescent layer (see paragraph# 3); wherein each of the first display area (11) and the second display area (12) comprises a plurality of sub-pixels emitting light of different colors, and light-emitting functional layer of respective sub-pixels of the plurality of sub-pixels in the first display area emit light of a same color (see paragraphs# 53-55, 59-60, figures 3-17).
Regarding to claim 2, the plurality of sub-pixels in the first display area comprise at least a first sub-pixel and a second sub-pixel, a color of light emitted from the first sub-pixel being different from a color of light emitted from the second sub- pixel; and the organic electroluminescent layer of the first sub-pixel and the organic electroluminescent layer of the second sub-pixel are formed by a first light-emitting material, wherein a light-emitting color of the first light-emitting material is the same as the color of the light emitted from the first sub-pixel, a light-emitting efficiency of the first light-emitting material is greater than a light-emitting efficiency of a second light-emitting material, and a light-emitting color of the second light-emitting material is the same as the color of the light emitted from the second sub-pixel (see paragraphs# 53-55, 59-60, figures 3-17).
Regarding to claim 3, the plurality of sub-pixels in the first display area comprise an R sub-pixel emitting red light, a G sub-pixel emitting green light, and a B sub-pixel emitting blue light; and the organic electroluminescent layers of the respective sub-pixels of the plurality of sub-pixels in the first display area emit green light (see paragraphs# 53-55, 59-60, figures 3-17).
Regarding to claim 18, a display device, comprising a display panel, wherein the display panel comprises: a substrate comprising a first display area (11) and a second display (12) area at least partially surrounding the first display area, the first display area being configured for image display and light transmission, the second display area being configured for image display display (see figures 5-17); and a light-emitting functional layer (11b) on a side of the substrate, comprising an organic electroluminescent layer; wherein each of the first display area and the second display area comprises a plurality of sub-pixels emitting light of different colors, and organic electroluminescent layers of respective sub-pixels of the plurality of sub-pixels in the first display area emit light of a same color (see paragraphs# 53-55, 59-60, figures 3-17).
Regarding to claim 19, the plurality of sub- pixels in the first display area comprise at least a first sub-pixel and a second sub-pixel, a color of light emitted from the first sub-pixel being different from a color of light emitted from the second sub-pixel; and the organic electroluminescent layer of the first sub-pixel and the organic electroluminescent layer of the second sub-pixel are formed by a first light-emitting material, wherein a light-emitting color of the first light-emitting material is the same as the color of the light emitted from the first sub-pixel, a light-emitting efficiency of the first light-emitting material is greater than a light-emitting efficiency of a second light-emitting material, and a light-emitting color of the second light-emitting material is the same as the color of the light emitted from the second sub-pixel (see paragraphs# 53-55, 59-60, figures 3-17).
Regarding to claim 20, the plurality of sub-pixels in the first display area comprise an R sub-pixel emitting red light, a G sub-pixel emitting green light, and a B sub-pixel emitting blue light; and the organic electroluminescent layers of the respective sub-pixels of the plurality of sub- pixels in the first display area emit green light (see paragraphs# 53-55, 59-60, figures 3-17).
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 4-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CAI (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0202885) as applied to claims 1-3 above, in view of ZHANG et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0225949) and further in view of Cho et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0208863).
Referring to figures 1-17, CAI teaches a display panel (10), comprising: a substrate (see paragraph# 4) comprising a first display area (11) and a second display area (12) at least partially surrounding the first display area (11), the first display area (12) being configured for image display and light transmission, the second display area being configured for image display (see figures 5-17); and a light-emitting functional layer (11) on a side of the substrate, comprising an organic electroluminescent layer (see paragraph# 3); wherein each of the first display area (11) and the second display area (12) comprises a plurality of sub-pixels emitting light of different colors, and light-emitting functional layer of respective sub-pixels of the plurality of sub-pixels in the first display area emit light of a same color (see paragraphs# 53-55, 59-60, figures 3-17).
However, the reference does not clearly teach the specific thickness of the light emitting functional layer and adjustment layer (in claims 4-6), the pixel resolution and the specific ratio of the resolution(in claim 7-8).
The specific thickness of the light emitting functional layer and adjustment layer, the specific ratio of the resolution is obvious because it is a matter of determining optimum process condition by routine experimentation with a limited number of species. ln re Jones, 162 USPQ 224 (CCPA 1955)(the selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious) and In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)(discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in a known process is obvious). In such a situation, applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to prior art range. See M.P.E.P 2144.05 III. In particular, Zhang et al. suggest that the specific length of the microcavity, the peak wavelength can be optimized (see paragraphs# 49, 53).
Cho et al. teaches a pixel resolution of the first display area is the same as a pixel resolution of the second display area (see paragraph# 83, meeting claim 7), The specific ratio of the resolution is obvious because it is a matter of determining optimum process condition by routine experimentation with a limited number of species. ln re Jones, 162 USPQ 224 (CCPA 1955)(the selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious) and In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)(discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in a known process is obvious). In such a situation, applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to prior art range. See M.P.E.P 2144.05 III. In particular, Cho et al. suggest that the specific resolution ratio can be optimized (see paragraphs# 117, 159, 164).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the requisite art at the time of the invention was filed would form the specific thickness for the layer in CAI as taught by CHO et al. because it is known in the art to maintain image quality while providing the light-transmitting/component area.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CAI (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0202885) as applied to claims 1-3 above, in view of ZHANG et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0225949).
Referring to figures 1-17, CAI teaches a display panel (10), comprising: a substrate (see paragraph# 4) comprising a first display area (11) and a second display area (12) at least partially surrounding the first display area (11), the first display area (12) being configured for image display and light transmission, the second display area being configured for image display (see figures 5-17); and a light-emitting functional layer (11) on a side of the substrate, comprising an organic electroluminescent layer (see paragraph# 3); wherein each of the first display area (11) and the second display area (12) comprises a plurality of sub-pixels emitting light of different colors, and light-emitting functional layer of respective sub-pixels of the plurality of sub-pixels in the first display area emit light of a same color (see paragraphs# 53-55, 59-60, figures 3-17).
However, the reference does not clearly teach a first organic layer between the organic electroluminescent layer and the substrate; a light-emitting adjustment layer between the organic electroluminescent layer and the first organic layer; and a second organic layer on a side of the organic electroluminescent layer away from the substrate, covering the organic electroluminescent layer (in claim 9).
Zhang et al. teaches the light-emitting functional layer (6) further comprises: a first organic layer (61/62) between the organic electroluminescent layer (63/64/65) and the substrate (1); a light-emitting adjustment layer between the organic electroluminescent layer and the first organic layer (see paragraph# 53); and a second organic layer on a side of the organic electroluminescent layer away from the substrate, covering the organic electroluminescent layer; (see figure 2, paragraphs# 53) and wherein the display panel further comprises: a first electrode layer (5) between the substrate and the first organic layer(6); and a second electrode layer (7) on a side of the second organic layer away from the substrate, covering the second organic layer (see figures 1-2); wherein the stacked first electrode layer, the first organic layer, the light-emitting adjustment layer, the organic electroluminescent layer, the second organic layer, and the second electrode layer form a microcavity of the sub-pixel, with a length of the microcavity of the R sub-pixel, a length of the microcavity of the G sub-pixel, and a length of the microcavity of the B sub-pixel decreasing in sequence in the first display area (see figure 1-3, paragraphs# 47-49, meeting claim 9), the length of the microcavity of the R sub-pixel in the first display area, is greater than a length of a microcavity of a R sub-pixel in the second display area; the length of the microcavity of the G sub-pixel in the first display area, is equal to a length of a microcavity of a B sub-pixel in the second display area; and the length of the microcavity of the B sub-pixel in the first display area, is greater than a length of a microcavity of the B sub-pixel in the second display area (see figure 1-3, paragraphs# 47-49, meeting claim 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the requisite art at the time of the invention was filed would to form microcavity between the reflective layer and electrode as taught by Zhang in CAI because it is known in the sart to improve the optical performance of the display device.
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CAI (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0202885) in view of ZHANG et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0225949) and further in view of KIM et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0204355).
Referring to figures 1-17, CAI teaches a display panel (10), comprising: a substrate (see paragraph# 4) comprising a first display area (11) and a second display area (12) at least partially surrounding the first display area (11), the first display area (12) being configured for image display and light transmission, the second display area being configured for image display (see figures 5-17); and a light-emitting functional layer (11) on a side of the substrate, comprising an organic electroluminescent layer (see paragraph# 3); wherein each of the first display area (11) and the second display area (12) comprises a plurality of sub-pixels emitting light of different colors, and light-emitting functional layer of respective sub-pixels of the plurality of sub-pixels in the first display area emit light of a same color (see paragraphs# 53-55, 59-60, figures 3-17).
However, the reference does not clearly teach the specific length of the microcavity (in claim 11), the peak wavelength (in claim 12) and a value of a Y color coordinate CIE ( in claim 13)
Regarding to claim 13, in the first display area, a value of a Y coordinate in a Commission Internationale de leclairage (CIE) color model of the B sub-pixel is less than or equal to 0.075 (see paragraph# 79).
In re claims 10-13, the specific length of the microcavity, the peak wavelength and a value of a Y color coordinate CIE is obvious because it is a matter of determining optimum process condition by routine experimentation with a limited number of species. ln re Jones, 162 USPQ 224 (CCPA 1955)(the selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious) and In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)(discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in a known process is obvious). In such a situation, applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to prior art range. See M.P.E.P 2144.05 III. In particular, Zhang et al. suggest that the specific length of the microcavity, the peak wavelength can be optimized (see paragraphs# 49, 53).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the requisite art at the time of the invention was filed would form the specific length of the microcavity, the peak wavelength and a value of a Y color coordinate CIE in CAI because it is known in the art that choosing an optimum ranges for microcavity/wavelength is known in the display device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thanh Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-1695, or by Email via address Thanh.Nguyen@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 6:00AM to 3:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Yara Green, can be reached on (571) 270-3035. The fax phone number for this Group is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pairdirect.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to thy Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/THANH T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights