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 amendment filed by the Applicant on 11/20/25 is acknowledged.
Claim Objection
Claims 1-7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 1, the limitation of “wherein the cathode electrode in the first region of the plurality of regions has a different thickness from the cathode electrode in the other regions” does not have antecedent basis to the previous portion of the claim “a cathode electrode on the emission layer”. For purposes of examination, the limitation of “a cathode electrode on the emission layer” is considered to be “a plurality of cathode electrodes formed on the emission layer in the plurality of regions”. Appropriate correction is needed.
In claims 3, 6 and 7, “the third” does not have antecedent basis to the claims they are dependent on, since claim 1 does not recite the term “third”. Appropriate corrections is needed.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by
Yi (US 20190157371 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Yi teaches a light emitting display device (at least Fig.3), comprising: a substrate 100 including a plurality of regions (regions separated by walls 250) disposed in a horizontal direction; a plurality of anode electrodes (211 and 221 in Fig.3; [0046]-[0047]) disposed at each of the plurality of regions, respectively; an emission layer 203 ([0050]) on each anode electrode; and a cathode electrode 222 on the emission layer , wherein the plurality of anode electrodes disposed at first region of the plurality of regions have different thicknesses from the plurality of anode electrodes disposed at other regions ([0046]), and wherein the cathode electrode in the first region of the plurality of regions has a different thickness from the cathode electrode in the other regions (see in [0046]: the second cathode 222 is thicker than the first cathode 212; also see claim objection above).
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) 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by
Maeda (CN 1838427 A)
Regarding claim 8, Maeda teaches a light emitting display device (at least Fig.1) comprising: a substrate 11 including a first region and a second region (regions R,G,B); a first pixel electrode (12) disposed at the first region of the substrate; a second pixel electrode (next to 12, anode layer) disposed at the second region of the substrate; an emission layer 13 on the first pixel electrode and the second pixel electrode (see pixels in: Here, an organic EL element 10 the cavity conveying layer 13, luminescent layer 14, no matter in any pixel 100 (R), (G) and (B) are composed of a same material as the organic EL element 10 emits white light); a first common electrode 16 disposed at the first region on the emission layer; and a second common electrode disposed at the second region on the emission layer, wherein the first pixel electrode has a first pixel thickness, and the second pixel electrode has a second pixel thickness thicker than the first pixel electrode, and wherein the first common electrode has a first common thickness, and the second common electrode has a second common thickness thicker than the first common thickness (see below in Maeda:.
However, in this embodiment, thickness of the cathode layer 12 at each pixel 100 (R), (G) and (B) are different from each other, the anode layer 12 has a thickness of less than pixel 100 pixel 100 (B) (G) pixels 100 (R). for example, thickness of the anode layer 12, each pixel 100 (R), (G) and (B) is set to the following values: pixel 100 (B) of the anode layer 12 a thickness of =20nm pixel 100 (G) of the anode layer 12 a thickness of =50nm pixel 100 (R) of the thickness =90nm of the anode layer 12. Therefore, each pixel 100 (R), (G), (B) of the optical length of the optical resonator 40 in each pixel 100 (R), (G) and (B) are different from each other. In other words, the thickness of the anode layer 12 is adjusted to the optical length of the resonator so that a predetermined color light from each pixel 100 (R), (G), (B).
However, in this embodiment, thickness of the cathode layer 12 at each pixel 100 (R), (G) and (B) are different from each other, the anode layer 12 has a thickness of less than pixel 100 pixel 100 (B) (G) pixels 100 (R). for example, thickness of the anode layer 12, each pixel 100 (R), (G) and (B) is set to the following values: pixel 100 (B) of the anode layer 12 a thickness of =40nm pixel 100 (G) of the anode layer 12 a thickness of =70nm pixel 100 (R) of the thickness =110nm of the anode layer 12. That is, thickness of the anode layer 12 is adjusted to the optical length of the resonator so that a predetermined color light from each pixel 100 (R), (G), (B).)
Regarding claim 10, Maeda teaches the light emitting display device, further comprising: a third region disposed on the substrate; a third pixel electrode (third anode 12 for pixel R in Fig.3) disposed at the third region on the substrate; and a third common electrode (third cathode 16 for pixel R in Fig.3) disposed at the third region, wherein the emission layer (luminous layer 14) is disposed on the third pixel electrode, wherein the third common electrode is disposed on the emission layer; wherein the third pixel electrode has a third pixel thickness thinner than the first pixel thickness, and the third common electrode has a third common thickness thinner than the first common thickness (from the 2 paragraphs cited in Maeda in the rejection of claim 8 above).
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 Proir 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 2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Yi in view of Pichler (US 20020036297 A1, cited previously)
Regarding claim 2, Yi teaches a light emitting display device, wherein the cathode electrode includes: a first cathode layer 208 ([0048]) disposed on the emission layer; a second cathode layer (222/212) disposed on the first cathode layer 208; but does not teach a third cathode layer disposed on the second cathode layer.
Pichler teaches an OLED device, wherein the cathode electrode includes: a first cathode layer disposed on the emission layer; a second cathode layer disposed on the first cathode layer; and a third cathode layer disposed on the second cathode layer (see in Abstract: a second cathode layer overlying the first cathode layer, and a third cathode layer overlying the second cathode layer AND claim 1 of Pichler).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide three overlapping cathode layers, as disclosed in Pichler, in the device of Yi in order to improve electron movements (see in Pichler: [0006] in addition to improving the movement of electrons into the organic layers 200 may also protect the organic layers from being damaged during the application of the upper ITO layer 320).
Regarding claim 4, Yi in view of Pichler teaches a light emitting display device, wherein the first cathode layer has a first thickness at a first region of the substrate, and the first cathode layer has a second thickness thicker than the first thickness at a second region of the substrate (from the teachings of Yi as cited in claim 1, in the combined structure of Yi in view of Pichler).
Regarding claim 5, Yi in view of Pichler teaches a light emitting display device, wherein the plurality of anode electrodes disposed at the second region has a thickness thicker than the plurality of anode electrode disposed at the first region (from the teachings of Isomura as cited in claim 1, in the combined structure of Yi in view of Pichler).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Yi in view of Pichler and further in view of Maeda (CN 1838427 A)
Regarding claim 6, Yi in view of Pichler teaches the invention set forth in claim 2 above but is silent regarding:
the first cathode layer has a reference thickness at the first region of the substrate, a first thickness thinner than the reference thickness at the second region, and a second thickness thicker than the reference thickness at the third region.
Maeda discloses:
However, in this embodiment, thickness of the cathode layer 12 at each pixel 100 (R), (G) and (B) are different from each other, the anode layer 12 has a thickness of less than pixel 100 pixel 100 (B) (G) pixels 100 (R). for example, thickness of the anode layer 12, each pixel 100 (R), (G) and (B) is set to the following values: pixel 100 (B) of the anode layer 12 a thickness of =20nm pixel 100 (G) of the anode layer 12 a thickness of =50nm pixel 100 (R) of the thickness =90nm of the anode layer 12. Therefore, each pixel 100 (R), (G), (B) of the optical length of the optical resonator 40 in each pixel 100 (R), (G) and (B) are different from each other. In other words, the thickness of the anode layer 12 is adjusted to the optical length of the resonator so that a predetermined color light from each pixel 100 (R), (G), (B).
However, in this embodiment, thickness of the cathode layer 12 at each pixel 100 (R), (G) and (B) are different from each other, the anode layer 12 has a thickness of less than pixel 100 pixel 100 (B) (G) pixels 100 (R). for example, thickness of the anode layer 12, each pixel 100 (R), (G) and (B) is set to the following values: pixel 100 (B) of the anode layer 12 a thickness of =40nm pixel 100 (G) of the anode layer 12 a thickness of =70nm pixel 100 (R) of the thickness =110nm of the anode layer 12. That is, thickness of the anode layer 12 is adjusted to the optical length of the resonator so that a predetermined color light from each pixel 100 (R), (G), (B).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the variation in the thicknesses of cathode, as disclosed in Maeda, in the device of Yi in view of Pichler in order to create a robust optical resonator.
Regarding claim 7, Yi in view of Pichler and Maeda teaches a light emitting display device, wherein the plurality of anode electrodes disposed at the second region has a thickness thinner than the plurality of anode electrodes disposed in the first region, and the plurality of anode electrodes disposed at the third region has a thickness thicker than the plurality of anode electrodes disposed in the first region (from the teachings of Maeda as cited in claim 1, in the combined structure of Yi in view of Pichler and Maeda, see the citation from Maeda in the rejection of claim 6 above).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Yi in view of Pichler and further in view of Tsuchiya (CN 1729726 A, cited previously)
Regarding claim 3, Yi in view of Pichler teaches the first cathode layer has a first metal material having a thickness range of 100Å to 200Å (10-20 nm), and the third cathode layer has a second metal material having a thickness range of 2,000Å to 4,000Å (200-400 nm). (see in last 2 lines of [0027] in Pichler and first 2 lines of [0028]).
Yi in view of Pichler does not teach the second cathode layer has a conductive organic material including a domain material and a dopant.
Tsuchiya teaches a cathode with a conductive organic material including a domain material and a dopant (see in Tsuchiya: as the cathode 2 layer 314 using a conductive organic matter. In order to suppress is high hygroscopic material to the cathode layer 1 is dipped, the conductivity of organic matter preferably through cathode layer 3 needle into the cathode layer 2 of moisture. Furthermore, in this embodiment, since the upper electrode is a cathode, as conductive organic matter, preferably using a material with high electron transporting. In order to improve the conductivity of the organic material and improve electrical contact performance with the inorganic material, in the step of forming the cathode layer 2 of a conductive organic substance, may be doped with alkali metals or alkaline earth metals, rare earth metals and other transition metal AND furthermore, in this embodiment, since the upper electrode is a cathode, as conductive organic matter, preferably using a material with high electron transporting).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the material as disclosed in Tschuiya, in the device of Yi in view of Pichler in order to improve electrical contact performance.
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Maeda and further in view of Tsuchiya (CN 1729726 A, cited previously)
Regarding claim 9, Maeda teaches a light emitting display device,
wherein the first common electrode and the second common electrode include a first metal layer (composed of magnesium-silver alloy with semi-permeable reflective cathode layer 16) and the first metal layer of the second common electrode has a thickness thicker than the first metal layer of the first common electrode ( from the teachings of Maeda: However, in this embodiment, thickness of the cathode layer 12 at each pixel 100 (R), (G) and (B) are different from each other, ) but does not teach an organic conductive layer and a second metal layer sequentially deposited.
Tsuchiya teaches a cathode with a conductive organic material including a domain material and a dopant (see in Tsuchiya: as the cathode 2 layer 314 using a conductive organic matter. In order to suppress is high hygroscopic material to the cathode layer 1 is dipped, the conductivity of organic matter preferably through cathode layer 3 needle into the cathode layer 2 of moisture. Furthermore, in this embodiment, since the upper electrode is a cathode, as conductive organic matter, preferably using a material with high electron transporting. In order to improve the conductivity of the organic material and improve electrical contact performance with the inorganic material, in the step of forming the cathode layer 2 of a conductive organic substance, may be doped with alkali metals or alkaline earth metals, rare earth metals and other transition metal AND furthermore, in this embodiment, since the upper electrode is a cathode, as conductive organic matter, preferably using a material with high electron transporting).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the material as disclosed in Tschuiya, in the device of Maeda in order to improve electrical contact performance.
Regarding claim 11, Maeda teaches a light emitting display device,
wherein each of the first common electrode, the second common electrode and the third common electrode include a first metal layer (magnesium silver alloy for cathode 16 in Maeda) and wherein the first metal layer of the second common electrode has a thicker thickness than the first metal layer of the first common electrode, and the first metal layer of the third common electrode has a thinner thickness than the first metal layer of the first common electrode (from the two paragraphs cited in rejection in claim 8 above) but does not teach an organic conductive layer and a second metal layer.
Tsuchiya teaches a cathode with a conductive organic material including a domain material and a dopant (see in Tsuchiya: as the cathode 2 layer 314 using a conductive organic matter. In order to suppress is high hygroscopic material to the cathode layer 1 is dipped, the conductivity of organic matter preferably through cathode layer 3 needle into the cathode layer 2 of moisture. Furthermore, in this embodiment, since the upper electrode is a cathode, as conductive organic matter, preferably using a material with high electron transporting. In order to improve the conductivity of the organic material and improve electrical contact performance with the inorganic material, in the step of forming the cathode layer 2 of a conductive organic substance, may be doped with alkali metals or alkaline earth metals, rare earth metals and other transition metal AND furthermore, in this embodiment, since the upper electrode is a cathode, as conductive organic matter, preferably using a material with high electron transporting).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the material as disclosed in Tschuiya, in the device of Maeda in order to improve electrical contact performance.
Other art
Cited previously:
CN 109802050 A teaches the limitations of claim 1
CN 107579093 A/ EP 1450419 B1 teaches limitations of claim 2
WO 2010013725 teaches limitations of claim 3
CN 110867504 A- When the cathode 153 is formed by transparent conductive oxide, can be set with multi-layer between the cathode 153 and the light emitting layer 152, so that electron mobility through the cathode 153. for example, can be metal doped layer set between the cathode 153 and the light emitting layer 152. In addition, it can be an organic buffer layer disposed between the light emitting layer 152, and the metal doped layer additionally.
CN 109802050 A;
WO 2018205619 A1
WO 2022073032 A1
CN 111063711 A
US 20230238496 A1; US 20190157371 A1
WO 2018090440 A1
US 20160365388 A1-[0062]
CN 103811525 B
CN 114447094 A: For example, the thickness of the micro-cavity adjusting layer of each light emitting element can be different by different thicknesses of the anode and the cathode.
Response to Arguments
The arguments filed by the Applicant on 11/20/25 is acknowledged, however they are moot in light of new grounds of rejection.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fatima Farokhrooz whose telephone number is (571)-272-6043. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday, 9 am - 5 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James Greece can be reached on (571) 270-3711. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http;//pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Fatima N Farokhrooz/
Examiner, Art Unit 2875