DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/16/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation “the low-reflection layer is on the opposite electrode,” is unclear as to how it is related to the direct contact between the elements required by claim 11.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 7, 9-17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada (US 20190074336; herein “Okada”) in view of Baek et al. (US 20190004616; herein “Baek”).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 7 and 10; claims 11, 13 and 16, Okada discloses in Figs. 2, 3, 14 and related text a display apparatus comprising:
a pixel electrode (110, see [0046]);
a pixel-defining layer (150, see [0046]) having an opening that exposes at least a portion of the pixel electrode;
an emission layer (120, see [0046]) on the pixel electrode, between the pixel electrode and the opposite electrode;
an opposite electrode (130, see [0046]) covering the emission layer; and
a low-reflection layer (190, see [0046]) on the opposite electrode and overlapping the emission layer,
a transparent capping layer (e.g. 170, see [0063] and [0096]) covering the low-reflection layer;
a thin-film encapsulation layer (172, see [0063]) on the transparent capping layer;
wherein the low-reflection layer having blackening characteristics (see [0055]).
Okada does not explicitly disclose
wherein the low-reflection layer comprises molybdenum tantalum oxide, comprises molybdenum having blackening characteristics and an oxide including a Group 5 element of the Periodic Table of Elements;
wherein the low-reflection layer has a thickness of 150 Å to 450 Å;
wherein the emission layer is in the opening of the pixel-defining layer.
In the same field of endeavor, Baek teaches an OLED device comprising a low-reflection layer (RP2, see [0087])
wherein the low-reflection layer comprises molybdenum tantalum oxide, comprises molybdenum having blackening characteristics and an oxide including a Group 5 element of the Periodic Table of Elements (see [0074], [0089], and [0139]);
wherein the low-reflection layer has a thickness of 150 Å to 450 Å (see [0089] and [0076]-[0079]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kwon by having the low-reflection layer comprising molybdenum tantalum oxide and with the thickness of 150 Å to 450 Å, as shown by Baek, in order to achieve desired level of low reflectance without sacrificing characteristics significant in processing (see Baek [0140] and [0077]).
Note that the range disclosed by Baek overlaps with the claimed range with sufficient specificity to constitute an anticipation of the claims (see MPEP 2131.03.II). Alternatively, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)). Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the thickness to be a result effective variable affecting the light reflectance and absorption (see Okada [0055] and Baek [0077]-[0078] at least). Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Okada to have the thickness within the claimed range in order to achieve the desired reflectance and absorption, and since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B and 2143. Furthermore, it has also been held that the applicant must show that a particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936, (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that the law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some dimensional limitation or other variable within the claims, patentability cannot be found. The instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.
Additionally, note that the limitation “has blackening characteristics” is a property or function of the claimed device. It is the position of the Office that when the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, that a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established in regards to the claimed properties or functions. See MPEP 2112.01. Specifically, since the low-reflection layer of the art has the same material as the claimed invention, it is the position of the Office that the layer will have blackening characteristics.
Regarding claims 4 and 14, the combined device shows an amount of tantalum (Ta) in the low-reflection layer is 2 at% to 16 at% (Baek: see [0074], [0089], and [0139]).
Note that the range disclosed by Baek overlaps with the claimed range with sufficient specificity to constitute an anticipation of the claims (see MPEP 2131.03.II). Alternatively, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)). Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the percent tantalum to be a result effective variable affecting the reflectance and characteristics for processing (see Baek [0077]-[0078] at least). Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Okada to have the percent tantalum within the claimed range in order to achieve the desired optical effects and processing parameters, and since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B and 2143. Furthermore, it has also been held that the applicant must show that a particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936, (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that the law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some dimensional limitation or other variable within the claims, patentability cannot be found. The instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.
Regarding claims 9 and 20, Okada further discloses wherein a thickness of the low-reflection layer (190) is smaller than a thickness of the capping layer (172) (see Fig. 2, 3).
In the alternative, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the thickness to be a result effective variable affecting the light reflectance and absorption. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Okada to have the thickness within the claimed range in order to achieve the desired reflectance and absorption, and since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B and 2143. Furthermore, it has also been held that the applicant must show that a particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936, (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that the law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some dimensional limitation or other variable within the claims, patentability cannot be found. The instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.
Regarding claim 12, Okada further discloses wherein the low-reflection layer (190) is on the opposite electrode (130).
Regarding claim 15, the combined device shows the low-reflection layer has a refractive index of 1.8 to 2.2 (Baek: see [0078]-[0079]).
Note that the range disclosed by Baek overlaps with the claimed range with sufficient specificity to constitute an anticipation of the claims (see MPEP 2131.03.II). Alternatively, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)). Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the refractive index to be a result effective variable affecting the light reflectance and absorption. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Okada to have the refractive index within the claimed range in order to achieve the desired reflectance and absorption, and since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B and 2143. Furthermore, it has also been held that the applicant must show that a particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936, (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that the law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some dimensional limitation or other variable within the claims, patentability cannot be found. The instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.
Regarding claim 17, Okada further discloses wherein the low-reflection layer (190) overlaps the emission layer (120) (see Fig. 2, 3).
Regarding claim 19, the combined device shows the capping layer comprises a material different from that of the low-reflection layer (Okada: see [0055] and [0063]; Baek: see [0074], [0089], and [0139]).
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada in view of Baek, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tong et al. (20220344607; herein “Tong”).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Kwon does not explicitly disclose
wherein the opposite electrode has a thickness of 80 Å to 150 Å;
wherein the opposite electrode comprises a silver-magnesium alloy (AgMg), and an amount of silver (Ag) in the opposite electrode is 85 at% to 95 at%.
In the same field of endeavor, Tong teaches an OLED device comprising a cathode,
wherein the opposite electrode has a thickness of 80 Å to 150 Å (10nm, see [0110]);
wherein the opposite electrode comprises a silver-magnesium alloy (AgMg), and an amount of silver (Ag) in the opposite electrode is 85 at% to 95 at% (85% by mass, which amounts to 83.6 at%).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Tong by having the thickness and percent Al as claimed, as taught by Tong, in order to employ a light transmitting cathode (see Tong [0029]).
Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the thickness and percent aluminum to be a result effective variable affecting the light transmittance and electrical properties of the electrode. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Kwon to have the thickness and percent aluminum within the claimed range in order to achieve the desired optical and electrical effects of the electrode, and since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B and 2143. Furthermore, it has also been held that the applicant must show that a particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936, (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that the law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some dimensional limitation or other variable within the claims, patentability cannot be found. The instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/16/2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented above.
It is noted that Applicant's arguments amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lauren R Bell whose telephone number is (571)272-7199. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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.
/LAUREN R BELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights