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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the two of the plurality of light shielding layers defining an opening having a cross-shaped profile, as in claims 14 and 15, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Both claims require a plurality of light shielding layers in the top view. However, applicant’s disclosure as filed does not support such an arrangement. Rather, in the top view, there is only a single light shielding layer in which the opening having the cross-shaped profile is defined. The limitation of the there being a plurality of light shielding layers per claim 8 as previously examined is understood to be a convention in considering the light-emitting element in the cross-section but only a single light shielding layer is actually disclosed as seen in the top view.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, and 7-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ryu et al. (US 2005/0179368 A1).
Ryu discloses a light-emitting element (Fig 10), comprising: a substrate (641); light shielding layers (642) disposed over the substrate; a capping layer (644, 646 & 648) disposed over the light shielding layers; a plurality of protrusions (650) arranged over the substrate, an organic light-emitting unit comprising an organic material (650) being disposed between two adjacent protrusions of the plurality of protrusions, wherein an edge of the light shielding layer is misaligned with an edge of one of the plurality of protrusions (per Fig 10, the light blocking layer 642 extends further horizontally than protrusion 650); wherein the organic light-emitting unit includes a first light-emitting unit and a second light-emitting unit, wherein the first light-emitting unit and the second light-emitting unit respectively have an organic light-emitting stack layer containing the organic material, and wherein the light shielding layers are electrically insulated from the plurality of protrusions (¶132, layer 642 is a black insulating film, as an insulating film it is electrically insulated from all other elements as it does not conduct electricity).
Regarding claim 4, Ryu discloses that the light shielding layer is electrically insulated from a conductive layer disposed on the capping layer by the capping layer (648 is a conductive layer which is insulated from the light shielding layer 642 by the capping layers).
Regarding claim 5, Ryu discloses that the organic light-emitting stack layer includes: a carrier injection layer; a carrier transport layer; an organic emission layer; and an organic carrier transport layer (¶22).
Regarding claim 7, Ryu discloses that the substrate comprises a transparent material (per Fig 10 light emits from the OLED through the substrate).
Regarding claim 8, Ryu discloses a light-emitting element (Fig 10), comprising: a substrate (641); a plurality of light shielding layers (642, each instance of 642 may be considered its own layer) disposed over the substrate; a capping layer (644, 646 & 648) disposed over the substrate and covering the plurality of light shielding layers; a conductive layer (648) disposed over the capping layer; a plurality of protrusions (650), wherein the plurality of protrusions is arranged over a portion of the conductive layer, and an organic light-emitting unit (651) comprising an organic material is disposed between two adjacent protrusions of the plurality of protrusions; wherein each of the plurality of protrusions has an edge, which is offset from an edge of one of the plurality of light shielding layers in the longitudinal direction (per Fig 10, the light blocking layer 642 extends further horizontally than protrusion 650), and wherein the plurality of light shielding layers are electrically insulated from the plurality of protrusions (¶132, layer 642 is a black insulating film, as an insulating film it is electrically insulated from all other elements as it does not conduct electricity).
Regarding claim 9, Ryu discloses that the light shielding layer was a larger width than the protrusions in a lateral direction (Fig 10).
Regarding claim 10, Ryu discloses that the conductive layer includes a transparent conductive film, and the transparent conductive film includes ITO (indium tin oxide), IZO (indium zinc oxide) or IGZO (indium gallium zinc oxide, ¶123).
Regarding claim 11, Ryu discloses that the conductive layer includes an anode electrode (¶123).
Regarding claim 12, Ryu discloses that a distance between respective edges of the two adjacent protrusions is greater than a distance between two of the plurality of light shielding layers (per Fig 10).
Regarding claim 13, the claimed methods of forming the capping layer do not impose any structural limitations on the capping layer and as such the method of formation of the capping layer has no patentable weight and claim 13 is rejected for the same reason as claim 8.
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) 2, 3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu.
Regarding claim 2, Ryu does not disclose the claimed materials. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the claimed materials in order to implement an OLED, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). Note that the materials of claim 2 are conventional OLED materials.
Regarding claim 3, Ryu is silent to the ration of the black area to the bright area when emitting light. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to design the OLED such that the total area of the black area is less than 50% of the effective light-emitting area of the first and second light-emitting units since it has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Note that it is well-known to minimize the non-light emitting portions of an OLED so as to increase the brightness of the device.
Regarding claim 6, Ryu does not disclose that the plurality of protrusions comprises a photosensitive material. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to form the plurality of protrusions from a photosensitive material since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). Note that forming pixel defining layers out of photosensitive material is conventional in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the objections to the drawings, the amendments as filed to claims 14 and 15 overcome the prior objections but raise new issues as discussed under Drawings above.
Regarding the 112 rejections, applicant’s amendment has remedied the unclear subject matter of claim 9. However, while the unclear subject matter of claims 14 and 15 have been remedied, questions of new matter have arisen from said amendment, see the 112 Rejections above.
Regarding applicant’s arguments in view of the prior art, the amendment does not overcome the present rejections because an insulating layer, which the light shielding layer is, is by nature insulated from all other elements, please see the 102 Rejections above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yao et al. (US 2021/0328199 A1) discloses a black matrix (50) which may have a variety of differently shaped openings in the top view, including cross-shaped openings (Fig 14).
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 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