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 Amendment
The response filed 07/23/2026 is accepted, in which, claims 1 and 11 are amended and claim 20 is newly added. Claims 1 and 20 are independent with claims 1-20 awaiting an action on the merits as follows.
The objection to the specification is withdrawn in view of the amended title.
The rejection of claim 11 under USC 112b is withdrawn in view of the amended claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding newly added claim 20, on page 10 of the response, Applicant argues,
"However, as shown in Figure 5 of Sato, the open groove 112 is formed in the part of layer 102d corresponding to the top surface of pixel defining structure 106, rather than in the part of layer 102d corresponding to the left diagonal sidewall or the right diagonal sidewall of pixel defining structure 106. In other words, Sato discloses that the open groove 112 is provided in the part of layer 102d corresponding to the third sidewall of pixel defining structure 106, and does not disclose or suggest that the open groove is provided in at least one of the first extending part or the second extending part of the first organic layer corresponding to the first sidewall and the second sidewall of the pixel defining structure as required by claim 20."
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Paragraph [0060] recites, "It is to be understood that when the first organic layer 400 includes only one open groove 410 and the open groove 410 is provided on the horizontal surface of the pixel-defining structure 310, the process difficulty of forming the open groove 410 may be reduced, and a residue may not be easily formed in the pixel opening of the OLED device, and thus the normal emission of the OLED device may not be affected." This description only applies criticality of the invention when the groove is provided in the third extending part of the organic layer, or the horizontal top of the PDL. The specification is silent as to the criticality of the open groove is provided in at least one of the first extending part, or the second extending part.
MPEP 2144.04 Section IV.B states that limitations related to changes in shape are not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to change the shape of a non-critical element.
Changing the shape of the first organic layer by moving the open groove to different extending parts would have been obvious iterations for one of ordinary skill in the art.
Sato states, "Disposing the dividing area 112 in the borders between pixels of different luminescent colors can prevent color crosstalk due to the leakage current, provide high color purity, and thus achieve desirable color reproducibility," (Sato, [0053]) in view of, "the bank 106 has more than enough width to have the dividing area 112 on it, and thus the edge of the lower layer 102d can overlap with the surface of the bank 106." (Sato, [0045])
Sato provides motivation to modify the first organic layer along any surface of the bank because there is "more than enough width" and dividing the different pixels prevents crosstalk and high color purity. One of ordinary skill in the art would have used this motivation to move the groove around on the surfaces of the bank, change its size, and/or duplicate it in plurality in order to optimize the reduction in crosstalk.
Sato, in view of the obviousness of change of shape, meets the limitations of claim 20.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-19 are allowed.
The following is an Examiner's statement of reasons for allowance:
As to claim 1, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest:
An OLED device with a light-emitting layer, provided on a side of the first organic layer away from the substrate and within the pixel unit; and a cathode layer, covering the light-emitting layer and the first organic layer, wherein the first organic layer comprises at least one open groove, and wherein the at least one open groove does not penetrate through the first organic layer, and is formed in part of the first organic layer. Emphasis on the underlined portion.
Paragraph [0060] of the specification recites, "It is to be understood that when the first organic layer 400 includes only one open groove 410 and the open groove 410 is provided on the horizontal surface of the pixel-defining structure 310, the process difficulty of forming the open groove 410 may be reduced, and a residue may not be easily formed in the pixel opening of the OLED device, and thus the normal emission of the OLED device may not be affected." This section of the specification defines the criticality of the emphasized limitations above.
Sato (US 20160155785 A1), used in the previous rejection, teaches a groove in the first organic layer, but explicitly defines it as a "dividing region" that penetrates through the entire first organic layer (Sato, [0045]) in order to isolate the pixel regions of the first organic layer so that carriers cannot be exchanged between them.
No prior art found in the search teaches or suggests a recessed groove within the first organic layer that does not penetrate the first organic layer.
In addition to the above, the totality of the limitations of claim 1 provide a novel OLED device.
As such, modification of the prior art of record can only be motivated by hindsight reasoning, or by changing the intended use and function of the prior art themselves. Therefore, it is not clear that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have made the necessary modifications to the prior art of record to encompass the limitations set forth in the present application. Moreover, none of the prior arts of record, taken either alone or in combination, anticipate nor render obvious the claimed inventions. Hence, claims 1-19 are allowable over the prior arts of record.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (US 20160155785 A1), and further in view of the obviousness of change in shape.
Regarding claim 20, Sato teaches an OLED device (40, Fig 5), comprising:
a substrate (70);
an anode layer (100) and a pixel-defining layer (106L: PDL layer containing 106), provided on (shown on) a side (70T: top of 70) of the substrate (70),
the pixel-defining layer (106L) comprising a plurality (shown in plurality) of pixel-defining structures (106), and
adjacent pixel-defining structures (106) defining (106 defines pixel, [0041]) a pixel unit (60);
a first organic layer (102d), covering (shown covering) the anode layer (100) and the pixel-defining layer (106L);
a light-emitting layer (102u), provided on (shown on) a side (102dT: top of 102d) of the first organic layer (102d) away (shown away) from the substrate (70) and within (shown in) the pixel unit (60); and
a cathode layer (62), covering (shown covering) the light-emitting layer (102u) and the first organic layer (102d),
wherein the first organic layer (102d) comprises at least one open groove (112), and
wherein the pixel-defining structure (106, Fig 5) comprises a first sidewall (106A: left diagonal sidewall), a second sidewall (106B: right diagonal sidewall) and a third sidewall (106C: top surface of 106), and
the third sidewall (106C) is connected between (shown connected between) the first sidewall (106A) and the second sidewall (106B); and
the first organic layer (102d) comprises a first extending part (102A: left diagonal side in direct contact with 106A), a second extending part (102B: right diagonal side in direct contact with 106B), and a third extending part (102C: top horizontal portion in direct contact with 106C), and
the first extending part (102A), the second extending part (102B) and the third extending part (102C) are provided to respectively correspond (shown respectively corresponding) to the first sidewall (106A), the second sidewall (106B) and the third sidewall (106C);
Sato fails to explicitly teach the open groove is provided in at least one of the first extending part, or the second extending part.
However, MPEP 2144.04 Section IV.B states that limitations related to changes in shape are not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to change the shape of a non-critical element.
Changing the shape of the first organic layer by moving the open groove to different extending parts would have been obvious iterations for one of ordinary skill in the art.
Sato states, "Disposing the dividing area 112 in the borders between pixels of different luminescent colors can prevent color crosstalk due to the leakage current, provide high color purity, and thus achieve desirable color reproducibility," (Sato, [0053]) in view of, "the bank 106 has more than enough width to have the dividing area 112 on it, and thus the edge of the lower layer 102d can overlap with the surface of the bank 106." (Sato, [0045])
Sato provides motivation to modify the first organic layer along any surface of the bank because there is "more than enough width" and dividing the different pixels prevents crosstalk and high color purity. One of ordinary skill in the art would have used this motivation to move the groove around on the surfaces of the bank, change its size, and/or duplicate it in plurality in order to optimize the reduction in crosstalk.
Sato, in view of the obviousness of change of shape, meets the limitations of claim 20.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jia (US 20200343322 A1) - OLED with groove in banks between pixels
Li (US 9461097 B2) - OLED with groove in banks between pixels
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Jeremy D Watts whose telephone number is (703)756-1055. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 8:00am-4:30pm, F 8:00-3pm EST.
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, Chad Dicke can be reached at (571) 270-7996. 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.
/JEREMY DANIEL WATTS/Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/CHAD M DICKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights