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 .
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, 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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10-12, 20 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato (US 2021/0265432 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ogawa discloses a display device comprising: a first light-emitting device (Fig 21, 410G) comprising a first pixel electrode (418G), a first light-emitting layer (417G) over the first pixel electrode, and a common electrode (416) over the first light-emitting layer; a second light-emitting device (410B) comprises a second pixel electrode (417B), a second light-emitting layer (417B) over the second pixel electrode, and the common electrode over the second light-emitting layer; a first insulating layer (the gas barrier underlying the filler layer; ¶81); and a second insulating layer (113, as illustrated in Fig 1 & detailed in ¶80, omitted in Fig 21 per ¶130), wherein the first insulating layer covers a side surface and part of a top surface of the first light-emitting layer and a side surface and part of a top surface of the second light-emitting layer, wherein the second insulating layer overlaps with the part of the top surface of the first light-emitting layer and the part of the top surface of the second light-emitting layer through the first insulating layer, wherein the second insulating layer comprises a portion between the side surface of the first light-emitting layer and the side surface of the second light-emitting layer, wherein the common electrode covers the second insulating layer wherein the first light-emitting layer comprises a first region (the portions of 417 which directly contact pixel electrode 418) and a second region (the portions of 417 which overlie window layer 419) outside the first region, wherein the first region is between the first pixel electrode and the common electrode, wherein the second region and at least one of the first insulating layer and the second insulating layer overlap each other.
PNG
media_image1.png
508
842
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kato does not disclose that an end portion of the second insulating layer has a tapered shape with a taper angle greater than 0º and less than 90º in a cross-sectional view. It is old and well known in the art to provide layers with a tapered shape in order to ensure there are no discontinuities in the layer deposited over it, in this case the common electrode. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the end portion of the second insulating layer of Kato with a tapered shape so as to prevent said discontinuities.
Kato also doses not explicitly disclose that the width of the second region is greater than or equal to 1 nm and is less than or equal to 50 % of a width of the first region. However, as the second region extends beyond the overlap of the hard mask 415 said layer must be greater than 1 nm, and would additionally be much less than 50% of the width of the first region so as not to impede the display, see also Fig 21 where the first region is much wider than the second region,
Regarding claim 2, Kato discloses that the first light-emitting device comprises a first functional layer over the first light-emitting layer, wherein the second light-emitting device comprises a second functional layer over the second light-emitting layer (¶57carrier transport or injection layer), wherein the common electrode comprises a first portion and a second portion, wherein the first portion is over the first functional layer, and wherein the second portion is over the second functional layer.
Regarding claim 3, Kato discloses that each of the first functional layer and the second functional layer comprises at least one of a hole-injection layer, an electron-injection layer, a hole-transport layer, an electron- transport layer, a hole-blocking layer and an electron-blocking layer.
Regarding claim 4, Kato discloses that the second insulating layer covers at least a part of a side surface of the first insulating layer (Fig 21).
Regarding claim 5, Kato discloses that the end portion of the second insulating layer is positioned more outwardly than an end portion of the first insulating layer as the second insulating layer extends over the display whereas the first insulating layers are local to each pixel.
Regarding claim 6, Kato depicts the top surface of the second insulating layer as having a planar shape, however it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to form the top surface of the second insulating layer to have a convex shape in order to prevent discontinuities from forming at the 90º corner formed by the planar top surface, especially given that the common electrode overlies the second insulating layer.
Regarding claim 7, the same logic which applied to the second insulating layer with regards to the tapered shape equally applies to the first insulating layer as such tapers are known in the art to prevent discontinuities in layers formed above them.
Regarding claim 8, Kato discloses that each of the first insulating layer and the second insulating layer comprises a portion overlapping with a top surface of the first pixel electrode and a portion overlapping with a top surface of the second pixel electrode.
Regarding claim 10, please see the discussion of claims 1 and 7, it is old and well known in the art to provide the ends of layers with a taper in order to minimize discontinuities in the layers formed above such ends, therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to form the end portions of the first and second pixel electrodes to have a tapered shape with a taper angle greater than 0º and less than 90º in the cross-sectional view.
Regarding claim 11, Kato discloses that the first insulating layer is an inorganic insulating layer, and wherein the second insulating layer is an organic insulating layer (¶81).
Regarding claim 12, Kato does not disclose that the first insulating layer comprises aluminum oxide. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to select aluminum oxide or a material containing the same as the first insulating layer, since it has been held the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use involves only routine skill in the art. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claims 20 and 21, Kato discloses a display (¶2) which necessarily requires an integrated circuit, some connection thereto, and a housing in order to operate.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-19 are allowed.
Claims 9 and 13 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Prior art does not disclose or suggest the combination of a first and second light-emitting layer covering the side surfaces of their respective pixel electrodes in combination with the other limitations of claim 1.
Additionally, while common layers as in claim 13 are generally known in the art, prior art does not teach or suggest each feature of claim 13 including the positioning of the common layer between the second insulating layer and the common electrode.
Claim 14 is found to be allowable for covering substantially the same subject matter of claim 13.
Regarding claim 15, prior art does not disclose or suggest the display device including the third insulating layer as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL P SHOOK whose telephone number is (571)270-7890. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Mon-Fri.
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, WILLIAM KRAIG can be reached at (571)272-8660. 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.
/DANIEL P SHOOK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights