DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment, filed on 12/10/2025 has been entered and acknowledged by the Examiner.
The addition of claim 21 has been entered.
Claims 1-21 are pending in the instant application..
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) 1-5, 7, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota et al (WIPO Pub. No. WO 2022167892, English machine translation previously attached) in view of Kim (US PG Pub. No. 2007/0096637, previously cited), and further in view of Yoshida et al (US PG Pub. No. 2010/0181554).
Regarding Claim 1, Kubota discloses, at least in figure 3A (see page 12), A display apparatus, comprising: a substrate (101); a first electrode (111) disposed on the substrate (101); a lower organic layer (581, hole injection layer) disposed on the first electrode (111); a light emitting layer (583) disposed on the lower organic layer (581); and a second electrode (113) disposed on the light emitting layer (583), wherein the lower organic layer has a cross-sectional profile including a plurality of curved surfaces (top and bottom are curved and would have the same on the other side of the emission area (4 surfaces) wherein the lower organic layer includes an outer portion and an inner portion, the outer portion more proximate to the bank structure than the inner portion, the inner portion protruding toward the light emitting layer.
Kim teaches in paragraph [0028] that the hole injection layer and hole transporting layers may be organic material.
Kubota fails to disclose: wherein the lower organic layer includes an outer portion and an inner portion, the outer portion more proximate to the bank structure than the inner portion, the inner portion protruding toward the light emitting layer.
Yoshida (554) teaches in figure 10, an organic EL display device (title), a substrate (101) a first electrode (103,¶ [0068]), a lower organic layer (105, ¶ [0067], hole injection, can be organic per Kim) disposed on the first electrode (103), a light emitting layer (109, ¶ [[0008]) and a cathode (111, ¶ [0106], not shown in fig. 10 but the abstract says they all have one) wherein the lower organic layer (105) includes an outer portion and an inner portion, the outer portion more proximate to the bank structure (107, ¶ [0018]) than the inner portion, the inner portion protruding toward the light emitting layer (109). Yoshida provides this type of structure to improve light emitting efficiency (¶ [0007]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to try an organic material for the hole injection layer, as suggested by Kim, in the device of Kubota, as modified by Yoshida, 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,125USPQ 416.Furthermore, it involves combining prior art elements according to known methods with predictable results. Also, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the claimed curved structure of Yoshida, in the device of Kubota, to improve light emitting efficiency.
Regarding Claim 2, Kubota discloses: wherein the lower organic layer (581) includes at least one of a hole injection layer.
Regarding Claim 3, Kubota discloses in figure 3A, wherein the lower organic layer (581) has a cross-sectional profile of one or more of, a ∩-shape.
Regarding Claim 4, Kubota fails to disclose: wherein 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.
Kim (637) teaches in figure 6: wherein the cross-sectional profile of a lower organic layer (132a) has the U-shape, wherein the lower organic layer (132a, ¶ [0048]) has a first curved portion (right side of center), a second curved portion (left side of center, and a first flat portion (flat bottom) between the first curved portion (right side of center) and the second curved portion (left side), wherein the first curved portion and the second curved portion have a shape in which a thickness decreases toward an inner portion from an outer portion of the lower organic layer (there is a thick portion on either side of center and it decrease towards the center).
Furthermore, paragraph [0057] teaches that the thickness of 132a is adjusted to lower the bend of the second electrode.
Kim fails to teach: and wherein a thickness variation of the first flat portion is 2 nm or less.
However, applicant has not shown, in the specification, how a variation of 2 nm or less produces any novel or unexpected result or solves any known problem. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the claimed variation, as a matter of obvious design choice and to adjust the thickness of the lower organic layer, as claimed, to lower the bend of the second electrode.
Regarding Claim 5, Kubota, as modified by Kim, fail to teach: 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 150 nm.
However, applicant has not shown, in the specification, how a variation of 15-150 nm produces any novel or unexpected result or solves any known problem. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the claimed range, as a matter of obvious design choice
Regarding Claim 7, Kubota fails to disclose:, wherein the cross-sectional profile of the lower organic layer has the ∩-shape, wherein the lower organic layer (581) 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 (on top) and the second curved portion (on bottom) have a shape in which a thickness increases 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.
Kim (637) teaches in figure 6: wherein the cross-sectional profile of the lower organic layer (132) has the ∩-shape (each side of center), wherein the lower organic layer (132a) has a first curved portion (right side), a second curved portion (left side), and a first flat portion (bottom of 132a) 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 increases toward an inner portion from an outer portion of the lower organic layer (the extreme right and left portions are thin increase towards the middle and then decrease again)
Kim fails to teach: and wherein a thickness variation of the first flat portion is 2 nm or less.
However, applicant has not shown, in the specification, how a variation of 2 nm or less produces any novel or unexpected result or solves any known problem. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the claimed variation, as a matter of obvious design choice and to adjust the thickness of the lower organic layer, as claimed, to lower the bend of the second electrode.
Regarding Claim 14, wherein the lower organic layer (581) is formed by a solution process, and the light emitting layer (583) is formed by a deposition process.
Claim 1, on which claim 14 depends is an apparatus claim, The claim limitation of " wherein the lower organic layer (581)is formed by a solution process, and the light emitting layer (583) is formed by a deposition process " is interpreted as product by process claim limitation.
Even though product by process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. Patentability of a claim to a product does not rest merely on the difference in the method by which the product is made (MPEP 2113).
Regarding Claim 20, Kubota discloses in figure 3A, wherein the cross-sectional profile of the lower organic layer (581) has a flat shape on a side facing towards the first electrode (111).
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota (892) in view of Kim (637) and Yoshida (554) and further in view of Lee et al (US PG Pub. No. 2021/0013266, previously cited) and Brown et al (US PG Pub. No. 9,896,587, previously cited).
Regarding Claim 16, Kubota fails to disclose: wherein 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.
Lee teaches in figure 1: wherein the cross-sectional profile of the lower organic layer has the U-shape (113 is the light emitting layer which can include a hole injecting layer(¶ [0052]) which would be on the bottom next to the anode),
Lee fails to disclose: and the lower organic layer (hole injection) is formed of a polymer having a weight average molecular weight of 11000 g/mol or more.
Brown teaches in claim 1, column 26, bottom] wherein a hole injection layer) is formed of a polymer having a weight average molecular weight of 11000 g/mol or more.
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the hole injection layer (lower organic layer) in the device of Kubota of a polymer with a molecular weight of more than 11000g/mole, as taught by Brown, 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,125USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota (892) and Kim (637) and Yoshida (554) in view of Watanabe et al (US PG Pub. No. 2022/0026341, previously cited)
Regarding Claim 17, Kubota fails to disclose: wherein the lower organic layer (581, hole injection or hole transport) includes an organic material including fluorine.
Watanabe teaches an organic material including fluorine is used to make a hole injection layer (¶ [0457).
18. The display apparatus of claim 17, wherein the organic material including fluorine includes a polymer with atoms or functional groups substituted with fluorine or a functional group including fluorine.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the hole injection layer (lower organic layer) in the device of Kubota of organic material including fluorine 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,125USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota (892) and Kim (637) and Yoshida (554) and further in view of Watanabe (341) and Nakatani et al (US PG Pub. No. 2012/0248423, previously cited).
Regarding Claim 18, Kubota fails to disclose: where in the organic material including fluorine includes a polymer with atoms or functional groups substituted with fluorine or a functional group including fluorine.
Nakatani teaches in the abstract: where in the organic material (hole injection layer) including fluorine includes a polymer with atoms or functional groups substituted with fluorine or a functional group including fluorine.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the hole injection layer (lower organic layer) in the device of Kubota of a polymer as taught by Nakatani, 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,125USPQ 416.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is allowed.
Claims 6, 8-13, 15 and 19 are objected to 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.
Regarding Claims 6 and 9, the references of the Prior Art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations as set forth in Claims 6 and 9, and specifically comprising the limitation of “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” including the remaining limitations
Examiner Note: Applicant discloses in the specification in paragraph [0090]ff, that this is necessary to improve the viewing angle.
Regarding Claim 8, the references of the Prior Art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations as set forth in Claim 8, and specifically comprising the limitation of “ 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” including the remaining limitations
Examiner Note: Applicant discloses in the specification in paragraph [0091]ff, that this is necessary to improve the viewing angle.
Regarding Claim 10, the references of the Prior Art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations as set forth in Claim 10, and specifically comprising the limitation of “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” including the remaining limitations.
Claims 11-13 are allowable, at least, because of their dependencies on claim 10.
Regarding Claim 15, the references of the Prior Art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations as set forth in Claim 15, and specifically comprising the limitation of “and the lower organic layer is formed of an oligomer having a weight average molecular weight of 2000 g/mol or less” including the remaining limitations.
Examiner Note: The references of the Prior Art teach that when the molecular weight is less than 5000 (g/mol), the hole injection layer may be dissolved at the time of forming other layers on top (see, for example, Saito et al (US PG Pub. No. 2015/0207100, paragraph [0071]). Therefore, this is not obvious to do.
Regarding Claims 19 and 21, the references of the Prior Art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations as set forth in Claims 19 and 21, and specifically comprising the limitation of “wherein a difference between a smallest thickness and a greatest thickness of the lower organic layer is 15 nm or more including the remaining limitations.
Examiner Note: Applicant discloses in the specification in paragraph [0091]ff, that this is necessary to improve the viewing angle.
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 DONALD L RALEIGH whose telephone number is (571)270-3407. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7AM -3 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 at 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.
/DONALD L RALEIGH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875