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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/21/26 has been entered. Claims 1-3 and 6-11 remain pending in the application.
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 1-3 and 6-7 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.
In claim 1, the amended limitation of “wherein the plurality of anode electrodes disposed at a first region of the plurality of regions have a first thicknesses and a second region of the plurality of regions have a second thickness thinner than the first thickness, and wherein the cathode electrode in the first region of the plurality of regions is thicker than the cathode electrode in the second region of the plurality of regions” is not described in the specification.
For the sake of clarity, from the above limitation:
For anode let: Thickness T1=first region; Thickness T2=second region; T1<T2
And for cathode let Thickness t1=first region Thickness t2=second region t1>t2
However, the specification does not describe this relationship of T1<T2 and t1>t2. The disclosure in turn describes:
[0011] In an example embodiment, 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. T2>T1
[0012] In an example embodiment, 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 t1<t2 (t2>t1).
3) Also see T1,T2 and t1,t2 relation in instant Figures 11.
Claims 2-3 and 6-7 are rejected because of their dependency status from claim 1.
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li (CN 106783913 A)
Regarding claim 8, Yi teaches a light emitting display device (at least Fig.3) comprising: a substrate including a first region 220 and a second region 210; a first pixel electrode 206 disposed at the first region of the substrate; a second pixel electrode 207 ([0047]) disposed at the second region of the substrate; an emission layer 203 ([0050]) on the first pixel electrode and the second pixel electrode; a first common electrode (cathode electrode 209;[0048]) disposed at the first region on the emission layer; and a second common electrode (212,[0048]) 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 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 (disclosed in Li: NOVELTY - The display has a bottom emitting organic LED unit (OLED) (220) whose anode terminal is connected with a first anode (211) and a second anode (221), where thickness of the first anode is larger than thickness of the second anode. A cathode terminal of the top emitting OLED unit (210) is connected with the bottom emitting OLED unit. Thickness of a first cathode (222) is larger than thickness of a second cathode (212). The second cathode comprises transparent property. The first cathode comprises reflectivity).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Li and further in view of Tsuchiya (CN 1729726 A, cited previously)
Regarding claim 9, Li 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 Li in order to improve electrical contact performance.
Claim Objection
Claims 10 and 11 are objected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance:
For claim 10, the prior art of record neither shows nor suggests the limitation of “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”.
Claim 11 has allowable subject matter due it its dependency status on claim 10.
Response to Arguments
The arguments filed by the Applicant on 4/21/26 have been considered. Applicant is directed to the 112 rejection for claim 1 above, wherein the relation as claimed is not disclosed in the specification. For claim 8, prior art teaches the relation as claimed , however it is for a top and bottom emitting portions, and therefore further amendment, and inclusion of limitation such as, for example, “bottom emission only” (Applicant can use any appropriate language of their choice) in claim 8 would make claim 8 in an allowable form.
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
Prosecution Insights