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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species II sub-species A in the reply filed on 10/09/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 8-9, 12-13 and 15-20 were canceled in the amendment filed 10/09/2025
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “subpixels deposits” which is a typo for subpixels deposited. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 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 1-7, 11, 14 and 21-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et. Al. (US 20220013750 A1 hereinafter Cheng) and further in view of Wang et. Al. (US 20090059404 A1 hereinafter Wang).
Regarding claim 1, Cheng teaches in Fig. 16B with associated text a
A microcavity Organic Light Emitting Diode (MCOLED) array device comprising: a substrate 34; a plurality of subpixels (subpixels corresponding to 30a, 30b and 30c) deposited above the substrate, the subpixels having at least two different colors (Fig. 16B, [0165]), each subpixel comprising: a bottom electrode (30a-30c) (Fig.16B, [0165]); an optical filler layer (46-50) deposited above the bottom electrode, the optical filler layer having a thickness selected for a specific color emission (Fig.16B, [0165]); a white organic stack 56 deposited above the optical filler later (Fig.16B, [0165]); and a top electrode 18 deposited above the white organic stack (Fig.16B, [0165]); and a shared multi-DBR system 10 deposited above the plurality of subpixels, the multi- The second light beam L2 which is reflected by the second electrode 129, the optical adjusting layer 122 and/or the boundary of the second electrode 129 and the optical adjusting layer 122 back to the organic electroluminescence pattern 123b is reflected back and forth between the common electrode pattern 124b and the second electrode 129, between the common electrode pattern 124b and the optical adjusting layer 122 and/or between the common electrode pattern 124b and the boundary of the second electrode 129 and the optical adjusting layer 122. In other words, at least a portion of a second optical resonant cavity C2 which is significant is between the common electrode pattern 124b and the optical adjusting layer 122. comprising: a first distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) having a first Bragg wavelength (Fig.16B, [0165]); and a second distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) deposited above the first DBR, the second DBR having a second Bragg wavelength different from the first Bragg wavelength.
Cheng does not specify a second distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) deposited above the first DBR, the second DBR having a second Bragg wavelength different from the first Bragg wavelength.
Wang discloses in Figs. 7 with associated text multi-DBR system similar to that of Cheng comprising a second distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) 40 deposited above a first DBR 30, the second DBR having a second Bragg wavelength different from the first Bragg wavelength (Fig. 7, [0080] and [0090]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a second distributed Bragg reflector as taught by Wang in the device of Cheng because according to Wang such a structure the second mirror stack 40 may be designed for a wavelength or a spectrum of wavelengths different from first mirror stack 30 [0090] so that such a structure would provide additional design freedom for selecting a wavelength in the device of Cheng.
PNG
media_image1.png
535
742
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Cheng in view of Wang teaches the device of claim 1.
Cheng does not specify the shared multi-DBR system has a multi- DBR stopband which is the sum of the first stopband and the second stopband however Wang teaches in Fig. 11 passed wavelengths for each pixel overlap so that band for each pixel overlap Fig. 11, [0128] so that the first DBR has a first stopband, the second DBR has a second stopband, and the first stopband and second stopband would overlap.
Language in an apparatus or product claim directed to the function, operation, intent-of-use, and materials upon which the components of the structure work that does not structurally limit the components or patentably differentiate the claimed apparatus or product from an otherwise identical prior art structure will not support patentability. See, e.g., In re Rishoi, 197 F.2d 342, 344-45 (CCPA 1952); In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 939-40 (CCPA 1963); In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 663-64 (CCPA 1971); In re Yanush, 477 F.2d 958, 959 (CCPA 1973). The patentability of an apparatus claim depends only on the claimed structure, not on the use or purpose of that structure, Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 809 (Fed. Cir. 2002), or the function or result of that structure. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 848 (CCPA 1959). Please also see M.P.E.P. 2114 [R-1].
The following italicized limitations of claim 2 lines 1-2 are understood to be functional (i.e. the first DBR has a first stopband, the second DBR has a second stopband, and the first stopband and second stopband overlap):
The limitation describes purpose, function, operation, or intent -of-use the backside warpage control structure. However, the claim does not disclose a sufficient structure which supports the function. Since Cheng in view of Wang shows an identical structure as claimed, namely a first and second DBR, the Examiner submits that the first and second DBR is capable of producing the claimed results.
Regarding claim 3, Cheng in view of Wang teaches the device of claim 2.
Cheng does not specify the first DBR has a first stopband, the second DBR has a second stopband, and the first stopband and second stopband overlap however Wang teaches in Fig. 11 passed wavelengths for each pixel overlap so that band for each pixel overlap Fig. 11, [0128] so that the shared multi-DBR system has a multi- DBR stopband which is the sum of the first stopband and the second stopband.
Language in an apparatus or product claim directed to the function, operation, intent-of-use, and materials upon which the components of the structure work that does not structurally limit the components or patentably differentiate the claimed apparatus or product from an otherwise identical prior art structure will not support patentability. See, e.g., In re Rishoi, 197 F.2d 342, 344-45 (CCPA 1952); In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 939-40 (CCPA 1963); In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 663-64 (CCPA 1971); In re Yanush, 477 F.2d 958, 959 (CCPA 1973). The patentability of an apparatus claim depends only on the claimed structure, not on the use or purpose of that structure, Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 809 (Fed. Cir. 2002), or the function or result of that structure. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 848 (CCPA 1959). Please also see M.P.E.P. 2114 [R-1].
The following italicized limitations of claim 2 lines 1-2 are understood to be functional (i.e. the shared multi-DBR system has a multi- DBR stopband which is the sum of the first stopband and the second stopband):
The limitation describes purpose, function, operation, or intent -of-use the backside warpage control structure. However, the claim does not disclose a sufficient structure which supports the function. Since Cheng in view of Wang shows an identical structure as claimed, namely a first and second DBR, the Examiner submits that the first and second DBR is capable of producing the claimed results.
Regarding claim 4, Cheng teaches the first DBR and the second DBR are comprised layers of one or more of silicon nitride (Si3N4), silicon dioxide (SiO2), zinc sulfide(ZnS), calcium fluoride (CaF2), aluminum oxides (AlOx), magnesium fluoride (MgF2), lithium fluoride (LiF), tellurium oxides (TeOx), and titanium dioxide (TiO2) (Cheng [0096]).
Regarding claim 5, Cheng teaches the first DBR and the second DBR comprise sublayers of alternating high refractive index dielectric material and low refractive index dielectric material, and each sublayer provides an optical path length equal to one quarter of the Bragg wavelength for the DBR (Cheng [0096]).
Regarding claim 6, Cheng teaches the sublayers of alternating high refractive index dielectric material and low refractive index dielectric material have different indices of refraction (Cheng [0096]).
Regarding claim 7, Cheng teaches the sublayers of alternating high refractive index dielectric material and low refractive index dielectric material the first DBR and the second DBR are of one or more different thicknesses (they would necessarily have at least one thickness Cheng [0096]).
Regarding claim 11, Cheng teaches the bottom electrode comprises one or more layers of silver (Ag), aluminum (Al), gold (Au), Ag/Al, Lithium (Li)/Al, or Calcium (Ca)/Ag (Cheng [0141]).
Regarding claim 14, Cheng teaches the top electrode comprises one or more of a metal reflective surface and a semi-transparent conductive material (Cheng [0141]).
Regarding claim 21, Cheng teaches the white organic stack is capable of emitting red, green, and blue primary colors (Cheng [0161]).
Regarding claim 22, Cheng teaches the optical filler layer for each subpixel creates a desired optical path length for the specific color emission ([0149]).
Regarding claim 23, Cheng teaches the optical filler layer for different colored subpixels comprise one or more of different thicknesses and different materials (Fig.16B, [0165]).
Regarding claim 24, Cheng teaches the optical filler layer comprises transparent oxides ([0137]).
Regarding claim 25, Cheng teaches the transparent oxides comprise one or more of indium tin oxide (ITO) and indium-doped zinc oxide (IZO) ([0137]).
Regarding claim 26, Cheng teaches the top electrode is deposited using blanket deposition and is common to all subpixels (Fig. 16B, [0165]).
Regarding claim 27, Cheng teaches pixel definition layers 152 deposited between the subpixel (Figs. 13 and 16B, [0170]).
Regarding claim 28, Cheng teaches the white organic stack comprises one or more of a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an electron injection layer, an electron transport layer, and an emissive layer (Figs. 13 and 16B, [0170]).
Regarding claim 29, Cheng teaches each subpixel forms an optical microcavity 28 that filters light to emit only the desired color for that subpixel ([0170]).
. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng in view of Wang and further in view of Wu et. Al. (US 20200035937 A1 hereinafter Wu).
Regarding claim 10, Cheng in view of Wang teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the bottom electrode of each subpixel comprises a metal or metal alloy .
Cheng does not specify the bottom electrode is reflective.
Wu discloses in Figs. 7 with associated text a bottom electrode 129 similar to that of Cheng wherein the bottom electrode is reflective (“L2 which is reflected by the second electrode 129” Fig. 7, [0052]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a reflective material for the bottom electrode of Cheng in view of Wang as taught by Wu because according to Wu the second light beam L2 which is reflected by the second electrode 129, the optical adjusting layer 122 and/or the boundary of the second electrode 129 and the optical adjusting layer 122 back to the organic electroluminescence pattern 123b is reflected back and forth between the common electrode pattern 124b and the second electrode 129, between the common electrode pattern 124b and the optical adjusting layer 122 and/or between the common electrode pattern 124b and the boundary of the second electrode 129 and the optical adjusting layer 122. In other words, at least a portion of a second optical resonant cavity C2 which is significant is between the common electrode pattern 124b and the optical adjusting layer 122 (Wu [0052]) so that such a structure would be suitable for forming and adjusting an optical cavity in the device of Cheng in view of Wang.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON J GRAY whose telephone number is (571)270-7629. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-4pm.
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, Toledo Fernando can be reached on 5712721867. 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.
/AARON J GRAY/Examiner, Art Unit 2897