DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claim Objections
2. Claims 11-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11, which depends on claim 10, recites: “the protective layer set” which lacks an antecedent basis. For examination purposes, “the protective layer set” is interpreted to be “the first protective layer set” (because “a first protective layer set” is mentioned in claim 10).
Claim 12 recites: “the magnetic conductive sheet” which lacks an antecedent basis. For examination purposes, dependency of claim 12 (“claim 1”) is interpreted to be “claim 4” which provides said antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
3. Claims 1-2, 5, 8, 15, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakai et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0327356 A1 (the ‘356 reference).
Referring to claim 1, the ‘356 reference discloses in Figs. 1-11 a light-emitting panel (11, 12, para [39, 148] (paragraph(s) [0039], [0148)), comprising:
a base substrate (2) having a first surface and a second surface disposed oppositely;
a conductive coil (antenna 4, para [41], best seen as a coil in Fig. 6) disposed on the first surface of the base substrate, the conductive coil having a first end (41, para [41]) and a second end (42);
a first electrode (51, para [40]) connected to the first end (41) (para [41, 66]);
a light-emitting layer (53, para [40]) disposed on a side of the first electrode (51) away from the base substrate; and
a second electrode (52, para [40]) disposed on a side of the light-emitting layer (53) away from the base substrate, and the second electrode (52) being connected to the second end (42) (para [41]).
Referring to claim 2, the reference further discloses that the first electrode (51, formed of copper, para [68]) is disposed in a same layer with a same material as the conductive coil (4, formed of copper, para [56]), meeting the claim limitation “the first electrode is disposed on a side of the conductive coil away from the base substrate, or the first electrode is disposed in a same layer with a same material as the conductive coil.”
Referring to claim 5, the reference further discloses that the light-emitting panel further comprises:
a barrier structure (vertical portion of sealing plate 3, Figs. 8-9, para [148]), disposed around a periphery of the conductive coil (4), and a vertical distance between a surface of the barrier structure (3) away from the base substrate (2) and the base substrate is greater than [or equal] to a vertical distance between a surface of the second electrode (52) away from the base substrate (2) and the base substrate.
Referring to claim 8, for the light-emitting panel detailed above for claim 5, the reference further discloses a packaging structure (horizontal portion of sealing plate 3, Figs. 8-9, para [148]), packaged on a side of the second electrode (52) away from the base substrate (2).
Referring to claim 15 and using the same reference characters, interpretations, and citations as detailed above for claim 1 where applicable, the reference discloses a light-emitting device, comprising a light-emitting panel (11, 12), wherein the light-emitting panel comprises:
a base substrate (2) having a first surface and a second surface disposed oppositely;
a conductive coil (4) disposed on the first surface of the base substrate, the conductive coil having a first end (41) and a second end (42);
a first electrode (51) connected to the first end (41);
a light-emitting layer (53) disposed on a side of the first electrode (51) away from the base substrate; and
a second electrode (52) disposed on a side of the light-emitting layer away from the base substrate, and the second electrode (52) being connected to the second end (42).
Referring to claim 17, the reference further discloses that the first electrode (51, formed of copper, para [68]) is disposed in a same layer with a same material as the conductive coil (4, formed of copper, para [56]), meeting the claim limitation “the first electrode is disposed on a side of the conductive coil away from the base substrate, or the first electrode is disposed in a same layer with a same material as the conductive coil.”
Referring to claim 20, the reference further discloses that the light-emitting panel further comprises:
a barrier structure (vertical portion of sealing plate 3, Figs. 8-9, para [148]), disposed around a periphery of the conductive coil (4), and a vertical distance between a surface of the barrier structure (3) away from the base substrate (2) and the base substrate is greater than [or equal] to a vertical distance between a surface of the second electrode (52) away from the base substrate (2) and the base substrate.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
4. Claims 4, 9, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Nakai et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0327356 A1 (the ‘356 reference).
Referring to claims 4 and 9, the ‘356 reference further discloses a magnetic conductive sheet (92, Fig. 10, para [168]). Although the reference does not disclose that the magnetic conductive sheet is disposed on the second surface of the base substrate, the relative placement of the magnetic conductive sheet (the reference discloses that the magnetic conductive sheet 92 is disposed on the first surface of the base substrate 2, see Fig. 10) is a matter of design choice, within the skill of one in the art, and therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Thus, such a change of placement of the magnetic conductive sheet would have resulted in a light-emitting panel having a magnetic conductive sheet disposed on the second surface of the base substrate.
Furthermore, referring to claim 12, the ‘356 reference further discloses a second protective layer set (insulating layer 91, para [167]), disposed between the second surface and the magnetic conductive sheet (92) (para [168]).
Referring to claim 14, a number of turns of the conductive coil is about 3 or 4 (see Fig. 6), meeting the claim limitation “greater than or equal to 3 turns”. Although the reference does not specifically disclose dimensions as claimed, the claimed dimensions (wherein a thickness of the conductive coil is less than or equal to 5 microns) will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art (the ‘356 reference discloses that a thickness of the electric power receiving antenna conductive coil 4 is not particularly limited, para [60]) unless there is evidence indicating such dimensions are critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation"; MPEP 2144.05.
5. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Nakai et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0327356 A1 (the ‘356 reference) in view of Sato et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0190509 or Takahashi et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0006051.
Referring to claim 9, the ‘356 reference discloses the packaging structure (horizontal portion of sealing plate 3, Figs. 8-9, para [148]) as detailed above for claim 8, but does not disclose that the packaging structure comprises a first inorganic layer, disposed on the side of the second electrode away from the base substrate, an organic layer, disposed on a side of the first inorganic layer away from the base substrate, and a second inorganic layer, disposed on a side of the organic layer away from the base substrate and at a periphery of the barrier structure. Instead, as detailed above, the reference discloses that the packaging structure comprises a single layer (horizontal portion of sealing plate 3) at a periphery of the barrier structure (vertical portion of sealing plate 3).
Sato, in disclosing a light-emitting panel comprising a packaging sealing structure (125, Fig. 3), discloses that the packaging sealing structure 125 comprises a multi-layer or s single layer packaging sealing material (para [35]), thereby teaching that a multi-layer or s single layer packaging sealing material are art-recognized equivalents; or, Takahashi, in disclosing a light-emitting panel comprising a packaging sealing structure (6, Fig. 1), discloses that the packaging sealing structure 6 comprises a multi-layer or s single layer packaging sealing material (para [29-31]), thereby teaching that a multi-layer or s single layer packaging sealing material are art-recognized equivalents.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the reference’s packaging structure utilizing a multi-layer packaging sealing material. One would have been motivated to make such a modification in view of the teachings in Sato that a multi-layer or s single layer packaging sealing material are art-recognized equivalents.
Thus, such a modification would have resulted in a light-emitting panel,
referring to claim 9, wherein the packaging structure would have comprised: a first inorganic layer (231, Sato; 27, Takahashi), disposed on the side of the second electrode (52) away from the base substrate (2); an organic layer (232, Sato; 28, Takahashi), disposed on a side of the first inorganic layer away from the base substrate; and a second inorganic layer (233, Sato, para [35]; 29, Takahashi, para [29]), disposed on a side of the organic layer away from the base substrate and at a periphery of the barrier structure (vertical portion of sealing plate 3).
6. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Nakai et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0327356 A1 (the ‘356 reference) in view of Shin et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 20220320474.
Referring to claim 16, the ‘356 reference discloses a light-emitting device comprising the light-emitting panel (11, 12) as detailed above for claim 15, but does not disclose that the light-emitting device further comprises a card case, the card case comprises a first card plate and a second card plate disposed oppositely, edges of the first card plate and the second card plate are connected, a through hole is provided on the first card plate, and the light-emitting panel is disposed in the through hole.
Shin, in disclosing a light-emitting device (300) comprising a light-emitting panel (320, Figs. 3A, 3B, para [96]), teaches that the light-emitting device further comprises a card case, the card case comprises a first card plate (311) and a second card plate (312) disposed oppositely, edges of the first card plate (311) and the second card plate (312) are connected, a through hole (recess) is provided on the first card plate (311), and the light-emitting panel (320) is disposed in the through hole (para [96]) for the implied purpose of protecting the light-emitting panel.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the ‘356 reference’ light-emitting device comprising the light-emitting panel (11, 12 comprising a card case, the card case comprises a first card plate (311) and a second card plate (312) disposed oppositely, edges of the first card plate (311) and the second card plate (312) are connected, a through hole (recess) is provided on the first card plate (311), and the light-emitting panel (11, 12) would have been disposed in the through hole. One would have been motivated to make such a modification in view of the teachings in Shin for the implied purpose of protecting the light-emitting panel (11, 12).
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 3, 6-7, 10-11, 13, and 18, insofar as in compliance with the claim objections detailed above, 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The cited art, whether taken singularly or in combination, especially when all limitations are considered within the claimed specific combination, fails to teach or render obvious a light-emitting panel and a light-emitting device with all exclusive limitations as recited in claims 3, 6, 10, 13, and 18, which may be characterized in that (claims 3 and 18) a connecting electrode is disposed in a same layer with a same material as the first electrode and insulated from the first electrode, and in that the second electrode is connected to the second end through the connecting electrode, (claim 6) in that a first planarization layer is disposed between the conductive coil and the first electrode, and a second planarization layer is disposed on sides of the first planarization layer and the first electrode away from the base substrate, a third via hole is disposed on the second planarization layer, the third via hole is penetrated to the first electrode, and in that the light-emitting layer and the second electrode are disposed in the third via hole, (claim 10) a first protective layer set is disposed on a side of the packaging structure away from the base substrate, and (claim 13) in that the second protective layer set comprises a second adhesive layer, disposed on the second surface of the base substrate, and a second protective layer, disposed on a side of the second adhesive layer away from the base substrate.
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TU TU V HO whose telephone number is (571)272-1778. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Thursday 6:30 - 15:00, Monday through Thursday.
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, Jeff W Natalini can be reached on 571-272-2266. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned 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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
01-31-2026
/TU-TU V HO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818