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 § 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) 2 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 2, the limitation “the low-reflection layer is in contact with the opposite electrode,” is unclear as to how it is related to the direct contact recited in claim 1.
Note the dependent claims necessarily inherit the indefiniteness of the claims on which they depend.
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, 7-13 and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al. (US 20190293990; herein “Kwon”) in view of Okada (US 20190074336; herein “Okada”).
Regarding claim 1, Kwon discloses in Figs. 3B, 8, 9C and related text a display apparatus comprising:
a pixel electrode (EL1);
an emission layer (EML) on the pixel electrode;
an opposite electrode (EL2) covering the emission layer; and
a low-reflection layer (e.g. at least a portion of IL, see [0071]) on the opposite electrode and overlapping the emission layer,
wherein the low-reflection layer comprises molybdenum tantalum oxide (see [0087]).
Kwon does not explicitly disclose the low-reflection layer in direct contact with the opposite electrode.
In the same field of endeavor, Okada teaches in Figs. 2, 3 and related text a display device with the low-reflection layer (190) in direct contact with the opposite electrode (130) (see pg. 2 para. 4).
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 in direct contact with the opposite electrode in order to reduce reflectance of light. Additionally, Okada shows that the low-reflectance layer in direct contact with the opposite electrode is an equivalent structure known in the art to that of the low-reflectance electrode separated from the opposite electrode (see Figs. 2-6 as compared to Figs. 7-9). Therefore, because these two were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the structure having the low-reflectance layer in direct contact with the opposite electrode of Okada for the structure of the low-reflectance layer in spaced apart from the opposite electrode of Kwon.
Regarding claim 2, the combined device shows wherein the low-reflection layer is in contact with the opposite electrode.
Regarding claim 3, Kwon further discloses wherein the low-reflection layer has a thickness of 150 Å to 450 Å (e.g. 10-40 nm, which overlaps the claimed range, see [0084]).
Note that the range disclosed by Kwon 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] at least). Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Kwon 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 7, Kwon further discloses wherein the low-reflection layer has blackening characteristics.
Note that the limitation 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 claim 8, Kwon further discloses a capping layer covering the low-reflection layer (e.g. in the instance where Sub-IL1 is the “low-reflection layer” and Sub-IL2 is the “capping layer”).
Regarding claim 9, Kwon further discloses wherein a thickness of the low-reflection layer is smaller than a thickness of the capping layer (see [0085]; note that in at least some of the embodiments encompassed by the disclosed ranges the low-reflection layer Sub-IL1 will have a thickness smaller than the thickness of the capping layer Sub-IL2).
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. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Kwon 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 10, Kwon further discloses a thin-film encapsulation layer (e.g. EAL, see [0165] at least) on the low-reflection layer.
Regarding claim 11, Kwon discloses in Figs. 3B, 8, 9C and related text a display apparatus comprising:
a pixel electrode (EL1);
a pixel-defining layer (PDL) having an opening that exposes at least a portion of the pixel electrode;
an opposite electrode (EL2) on the pixel electrode and the pixel-defining layer;
a low-reflection layer (e.g. at least a portion of IL, see [0071]) in contact (e.g. thermal contact) with the opposite electrode; and
a thin-film encapsulation layer (e.g. EAL, see [0165] at least) on the low-reflection layer,
wherein the low-reflection layer comprises molybdenum having blackening characteristics and an oxide including a Group 5 element of the Periodic Table of Elements (see [0087]), and
the low-reflection layer has a thickness of 150 Å to 450 Å (e.g. 10-40 nm, which overlaps the claimed range, see [0084]).
Kwon does not explicitly disclose the low-reflection layer in direct contact with the opposite electrode.
In the same field of endeavor, Okada teaches in Figs. 2, 3 and related text a display device with the low-reflection layer (190) in direct contact with the opposite electrode (130) (see pg. 2 para. 4).
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 in direct contact with the opposite electrode in order to reduce reflectance of light. Additionally, Okada shows that the low-reflectance layer in direct contact with the opposite electrode is an equivalent structure known in the art to that of the low-reflectance electrode separated from the opposite electrode (see Figs. 2-6 as compared to Figs. 7-9). Therefore, because these two were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the structure having the low-reflectance layer in direct contact with the opposite electrode of Okada for the structure of the low-reflectance layer in spaced apart from the opposite electrode of Kwon.
Note that the range disclosed by Kwon 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. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Kwon 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, Kwon further discloses wherein the low-reflection layer is on the opposite electrode (see Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 13, Kwon further discloses wherein the low-reflection layer comprises molybdenum tantalum oxide (see [0087]).
Regarding claim 15, Kwon further discloses wherein the low-reflection layer has a refractive index of 1.8 to 2.2 (see [0078]).
Note that the range disclosed by Kwon 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 Kwon 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 16, Kwon further discloses an emission layer (EML) between the pixel electrode and the opposite electrode, wherein the emission layer is in the opening of the pixel-defining layer (see Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 17, Kwon further discloses wherein the low-reflection layer (at least a portion of IL) overlaps the emission layer (EML) (see Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 18, Kwon further discloses a capping layer on the low-reflection layer (e.g. in the instance where Sub-IL1 is the “low-reflection layer” and Sub-IL2 is the “capping layer”).
Regarding claim 19, Kwon further discloses wherein the capping layer comprises a material different from that of the low-reflection layer (see [0087] and [0088]).
Regarding claim 20, Kwon further discloses wherein a thickness of the low-reflection layer is smaller than a thickness of the capping layer (see [0085]; note that in at least some of the embodiments encompassed by the disclosed ranges the low-reflection layer Sub-IL1 will have a thickness smaller than the thickness of the capping layer Sub-IL2).
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. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Kwon 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.
Claim(s) 4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon in view of Okada, as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Baek et al. (US 20190004616; herein “Baek”).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Kwon does not explicitly disclose an amount of tantalum (Ta) in the low-reflection layer is 2 at% to 16 at%.
In the same field of endeavor, Baek teaches an OLED device comprising a low-reflection layer, wherein an amount of tantalum (Ta) in the low-reflection layer is 2 at% to 16 at% (see [0074], [0089], and [0139]).
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 percentage of tantalum within the claimed range, as shown by Baek, in order to achieve desired level of low reflectance without sacrificing characteristics significant in processing (see Baek [0140] and [0077]).
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. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Kwon 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.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon in view of Okada, as applied to claims 1 and 5 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 2/27/2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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