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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 30, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Receipt of the Amendment, filed on March 30, 2026, is acknowledged.
Cancellation of claims 19 has been entered.
Claims 1-18 and 20-22 are pending in the instant 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 1-18 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for “the difference between the smallest thickness and the greatest thickness may be 15 nm to 150 nm, 20 nm to 150 nm, 30 nm to 100 nm, or 50 nm to 100 nm”, does not reasonably provide enablement for “a difference between a smallest thickness and a greatest thickness of the lower organic layer is 15 nm or more”. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
The disclosure states at ¶[0066] “For example, a difference [Symbol font/0x44]Z between a smallest thickness and a greatest thickness of each of the first curved portion CA1 and the second curved portion CA2 may be 15 nm to 150 nm, 20 nm to 150 nm, 30 nm to 100 nm, or 50 nm to 100 nm. When the difference [Symbol font/0x44]Z between the smallest thickness and the greatest thickness is less than 15 nm, an effect of increasing a luminance viewing angle may be insignificant. Conversely, when the difference between the smallest thickness and the greatest thickness exceeds 150 nm, emission efficiency may decrease.” The limitation “a difference between …is 15 nm or more” raises the issue of lack of enablement since the broader range scope, i.e., range greater than 150 nm, is not reasonably supported by the scope of enablement in the specification.
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 21 is 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.
Claim 21 recites the limitation " the Ո-shape or the W-shape " in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1-3, 14, 17-18 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (US 2022/0085315 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses a display apparatus (Fig. 2), comprising: a substrate (BS); a bank structure (PDL) on the substrate; a first electrode (EL1) disposed on the substrate; a lower organic layer (HTR) disposed on the first electrode; a light emitting layer (EML) disposed on the lower organic layer; and a second electrode (EL2) disposed on the light emitting layer, wherein the lower organic layer (HTR) has a cross-sectional profile including a plurality of curved surfaces (HR-C, HR-B), and wherein a difference between a smallest thickness and a greatest thickness of the lower organic layer (HTR) is 15 nm or more (¶[0098]).
Regarding claim 2, Park discloses a display apparatus wherein the lower organic layer (HRT) includes at least one of a hole injection layer or a hole transport layer (¶[0063]).
Regarding claim 3, Park discloses a display apparatus wherein the lower organic layer has a cross-sectional profile of one or more of a U-shape, a Ո-shape, a W-shape, or a M-shape.
Regarding claim 14, the is directed to the method of manufacturing the lower organic layer and the light emitting layer by a solution process and a deposition process, respectively, in view of an absent of a showing that the method imparts distinctive structural characteristics to the final product, the limitations directed to the method of manufacturing are not germane to the issue of patentability of the device.
Regarding claim 17, Park discloses a display apparatus wherein the lower organic layer includes an organic material including fluorine (¶[0094], F4-TCNQ, fluorinated dopant).
Regarding claim 18, Park discloses a display apparatus wherein the organic material including fluorine includes a polymer with atoms or functional groups substituted with fluorine or a functional group including fluorine (¶[0094], F4-TCNQ, fluorinated dopant).
Regarding claim 22, Park discloses a display apparatus wherein a cross-sectional profile of the lower organic layer (HTR) has a flat shape on a side facing towards the first electrode (EL1, Fig. 3).
Claim(s) 1-3, 15 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Otani (US 2017/0213979 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Otani discloses a display apparatus (Fig. 1), comprising: a substrate (¶[0012]); a bank structure (¶[0012]) on the substrate; a first electrode (¶[0004]) disposed on the substrate; a lower organic layer (charge transport layer, ¶[0032]) disposed on the first electrode; a light emitting layer (¶[0004]) disposed on the lower organic layer; and a second electrode (OLED displays inherently comprises a second electrode to operate) disposed on the light emitting layer, wherein the lower organic layer (¶[0099], film profiles are shown in Fig. 1, example 4 and comparative example 1) has a cross-sectional profile including a plurality of curved surfaces, and wherein a difference between a smallest thickness and a greatest thickness of the lower organic layer is 15 nm or more (¶[0099], Comparative example 1, Rmax = 22.7 nm).
Regarding claim 2, Otani discloses a display apparatus wherein the lower organic layer includes at least one of a hole injection layer or a hole transport layer (¶[0006]).
Regarding claim 3, Otani discloses a display apparatus wherein the lower organic layer has a cross-sectional profile of a Ո-shape (¶[0099], film profiles are shown in Fig. 1, example 4 and comparative example 1).
Regarding claim 15, Otani discloses a display apparatus wherein the cross-sectional profile of the lower organic layer has the Ո-shape, and the lower organic layer is formed of an oligomer having a weight average molecular weight of 2000 g/mol or less (¶[0020]).
Regarding claim 21, Otani discloses a display apparatus, comprising: a substrate (¶[0012]); a first electrode disposed on the substrate; a lower organic layer (charge transport layer, ¶[0032]) disposed on the first electrode (¶[0004]); a light emitting layer disposed on the lower organic layer (¶[0004]); and a second electrode (OLED displays inherently comprises a second electrode to operate), disposed on the light emitting layer, wherein the lower organic layer has a cross-sectional profile including a plurality of curved surfaces (¶[0099], film profiles are shown in Fig. 1, example 4 and comparative example 1), wherein the cross-sectional profile of the lower organic layer has the Ո-shape (¶[0099], film profiles are shown in Fig. 1, example 4 and comparative example 1) or the W-shape, and the lower organic layer is formed of an oligomer having a weight average molecular weight of 2000 g/mol or less (¶[0020]).
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) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2022/0085315 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Park discloses a display apparatus wherein the cross-sectional profile of the lower organic layer has the Ո-shape (Fig. 3), wherein the lower organic layer (HTR) has a first curved portion (HR-C), a second curved portion (HR-C), and a first flat portion (at center of HR-A) between the first curved portion and the second curved portion, wherein the first curved portion (HR-C) and the second curved portion (HR-C) have a shape in which a thickness increases toward the inner portion from the outer portion of the lower organic layer (Fig. 6). Park is silent in regards to a thickness variation of the first flat portion is 2 nm or less. One skilled in the art would have reasonably contemplate to optimize the variation of the thickness of the first flat portion within the claimed margin in order to provide a substantially flat surface, as an obvious matter of design engineering. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a thickness variation of the first flat portion is 2 nm or less in order to provide a substantially flat surface, since optimization of workable ranges is considered within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 8, Park discloses a display apparatus wherein a difference between a smallest thickness and a greatest thickness of each of the first curved portion and the second curved portion is in a range from 15 nm to 80 nm (¶[0098]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is allowed over the prior art of record.
Claims 4-6, 9-13 and 16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim(s) 4, the references of the Prior Art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations as set forth in claim(s) 4, and specifically comprising the limitation of the cross-sectional profile of the lower organic layer has the U-shape, wherein the lower organic layer has a first curved portion, a second curved portion, and a first flat portion between the first curved portion and the second curved portion, wherein the first curved portion and the second curved portion have a shape in which a thickness decreases toward the inner portion from the outer portion of the lower organic layer, and wherein a thickness variation of the first flat portion is 2 nm or less.
Regarding claim(s) 5-6, claims(s) 5-6 is/are allowable for the reasons given in claim(s) 4 because of its/their dependency status from claim(s) 4.
Regarding claim(s) 9, the references of the Prior Art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations as set forth in claim(s) 9, and specifically comprising the limitation of a ratio of a width of the first flat portion to a sum of a width of the first curved portion and a width of the second curved portion is in a range from 3:7 to 7:3.
Regarding claim(s) 10, the references of the Prior Art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations as set forth in claim(s) 10, and specifically comprising the limitation of the cross-sectional profile of the lower organic layer has the W-shape, wherein the lower organic layer includes a first flat portion, a first curved portion disposed at a first portion of the first flat portion, a second curved portion disposed at a second portion of the first flat portion, a second flat portion at a first portion of the first curved portion, a third flat portion at a second portion of the second curved portion, a third curved portion disposed at a first portion of the second flat portion, and a fourth curved portion disposed at a second portion of the third flat portion, wherein the first curved portion and the second curved portion are symmetrical to each other, the second flat portion and the third flat portion are symmetrical to each other, and the third curved portion and the fourth curved portion are symmetrical to each other, and wherein a thickness variation of each of the first flat portion, the second flat portion, and the third flat portion is 2 nm or less.
Regarding claim(s) 11-13, claims(s) 11-13 is/are allowable for the reasons given in claim(s) 10 because of its/their dependency status from claim(s) 10.
Regarding claim(s) 16, the references of the Prior Art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations as set forth in claim(s) 16, and specifically comprising the limitation of the cross-sectional profile of the lower organic layer has the U-shape, and the lower organic layer is formed of a polymer having a weight average molecular weight of 11000 g/mol or more.
Regarding claim(s) 20, the references of the Prior Art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations as set forth in claim(s) 20, and specifically comprising the limitation of the first curved portion and the second curved portion have a shape in which a thickness decreases toward the inner portion from the outer portion of the lower organic layer, wherein a thickness variation of the first flat portion is 2 nm or less, and wherein a ratio of a width of the first flat portion to a sum of a width of the first curved portion and a width of the second curved portion is in a range from 3:7 to 7:3.
Conclusion
The rejections above rely on the references for all the teachings expressed in the text of the references and/or one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably understood or implied from the texts of the references. To emphasize certain aspects of the prior art, only specific portions of the texts have been pointed out. Each reference as a whole should be reviewed in responding to the rejection, since other sections of the same reference and/or various combinations of the cited references may be relied on in future rejections in view of amendments.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mariceli Santiago whose telephone number is (571) 272-2464. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM.
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, James R. Greece, can be reached on (571) 272-3711. 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.
/Mariceli Santiago/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2879
Prosecution Insights