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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Abstract
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is written in legal terminology which is too similar to claim language. In particular, legal phraseology such as the term “comprising”, “said” and “wherein” which are commonly used to define the limitations and scope pf patent claims, should generally be avoided in U.S. patent abstracts because the purpose of the abstract is not to define the patent claims, but to provide the reader with a clear and concise summary. The abstract should use plain language to describe the invention's technical problem, solution, and principal use. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” etc. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the “that of light” should be “[[that]] a wavelength of light” because it is unclear what the “that” specifically refers to.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: the “that of the first” should be “[[that]] a resonance distance of the first” because it is unclear what the “that” specifically refers to.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: the “that of the second” should be “[[that]] a thickness of the second” because it is unclear what the “that” specifically refers to.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: the “that of the second” in line 6 should be “[[that]] a thickness of the second” because it is unclear what the “that” specifically refers to.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 19, the claim recites the limitation “the first light-emitting device electrode” in line(s) 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the examiner construed the limitation as “the first
Regarding claim 20, because of the dependency on claim 19, the claim is also rejected for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 19.
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.
(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.
Claims 1-7, 9, 11-12, 17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lim (US 20230209921).
Regarding claim 1. Fig 1 (electronic device), Fig 5 (a pixel and a light sensor, which are provided in Fig 1) and Fig 6 (a section view of Fig 5) of Lim disclose An electronic device (Fig 1) comprising
an organic photodiode (OPD in LS) and an organic light-emitting device (OLED in EA1) comprising a first subpixel ([0047]: LS/SP1),
the electronic device comprising:
a substrate 111;
a first photodiode electrode ([0069]: in the LS, the 124 is a stack of ITO/Al/ITO. The bottommost ITO is the first photodiode electrode) on the substrate;
a first subpixel electrode 122 (in EA1) on the substrate spaced apart from the first photodiode electrode (Fig 6);
a second electrode 154 (same as 152) covering the first photodiode electrode and the first subpixel electrode (Fig 6);
an emission layer 130 [0071] between the first subpixel electrode and the second electrode and in the organic light-emitting device (Fig 6);
a photoactive layer 160 [0089] between the first photodiode electrode and the second electrode and in the organic photodiode (Fig 6);
a first common layer (CL1) arranged between the first subpixel electrode and the emission layer and between the first photodiode electrode and the photoactive layer (Fig 6);
a second common layer (CL4) between the emission layer and the second electrode and between the photoactive layer and the second electrode (Fig 6); and
a first optical auxiliary electrode ([0069]: in the LS, the 124 is a stack of ITO/Al/ITO. The topmost ITO is the first optical auxiliary electrode) arranged between the first photodiode electrode and the first common layer and in the organic photodiode (Fig 6),
wherein the first optical auxiliary electrode comprises a transparent conductive metal oxide (the first optical auxiliary electrode is made of ITO which is inherently a transparent conductive metal oxide).
Regarding claim 2. Lim discloses The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the first subpixel of the organic light-emitting device further comprises a first optical auxiliary layer between the first common layer and the emission layer ([0074]: in the EA1, the CL1 includes a hole transporting layer and at least one of a hole injection layer or an electron blocking layer, which means that the CL1 may include a stack of a hole injection layer, a hole transporting layer, and an electron blocking layer. Thus, the hole transporting layer is the first optical auxiliary layer).
Regarding claim 3. Lim discloses The electronic device of claim 2, wherein
the organic light-emitting device further comprises at least one additional subpixel (EA2), and
the additional subpixel comprises an additional optical auxiliary layer arranged between the first common layer and the emission layer ([0074]: in the EA2, CL1 includes a hole transporting layer and at least one of a hole injection layer or an electron blocking layer, which means that the CL1 may include a stack of a hole injection layer, a hole transporting layer, and an electron blocking layer. Thus, an electron blocking layer is the additional optical auxiliary layer).
Regarding claim 4. Lim discloses The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the first subpixel of the organic light-emitting device further comprises a second optical auxiliary electrode arranged between the first subpixel electrode and the first common layer ([0069]: in the EA1, the 122 is a stack of ITO/Al/ITO. The topmost ITO is a second optical auxiliary electrode) (Fig 6).
Regarding claim 5. Lim discloses The electronic device of claim 4, wherein
the organic light-emitting device further comprises at least one additional subpixel (EA2), and
the additional subpixel comprises an additional optical auxiliary layer arranged between the first common layer and the emission layer ([0074]: in the EA2, the CL1 includes a hole transporting layer and at least one of a hole injection layer or an electron blocking layer, which means that the CL1 may include a stack of a hole injection layer, a hole transporting layer, and an electron blocking layer. Thus, the hole transporting layer of the stack is the additional optical auxiliary layer).
Regarding claim 6. Lim discloses The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the organic photodiode receives light of same wavelength as that of light emitted by the first subpixel (Lim’s OPD inherently receives light from the OLED because they share similar organic semiconductor materials and structures, allowing them to be integrated, with the OLED acting as the light source and the OPD, Thus, the Lim’s organic photodiode receives light of same wavelength as that of light emitted by the first subpixel).
Regarding claim 7. Lim discloses The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the first subpixel emits green light, red light [0081], or near-infrared light.
Regarding claim 9. Lim discloses The electronic device of claim 5, wherein
the additional subpixel comprises a second subpixel and a third subpixel, and
the second subpixel and the third subpixel each independently emits green light, red light, or blue light [0050].
Regarding claim 11. Lim discloses The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the optical auxiliary electrode comprises indium tin oxide (ITO) [0069], indium zinc oxide (IZO), aluminum zinc oxide (AZO), In2O3, indium gallium zinc oxide (IGZO), indium tin zinc oxide (ITZO), zinc tin oxide (ZTO), fluorine doped tin oxide (FTO), gallium tin oxide (GTO), gallium doped zinc oxide (GZO), ZnO, TiO, tungsten oxide, molybdenum oxide, or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 12. Lim discloses The electronic device of claim 2, wherein the first optical auxiliary layer comprises a hole transporting material [0074].
Regarding claim 17. Lim discloses The electronic device of claim 4, wherein the first optical auxiliary electrode has a thickness identical to that of the second optical auxiliary electrode (Fig 7, because they are the same continuous layer).
Regarding claim 19. Fig 1 (electronic apparatus), Fig 5 (a view illustrating an example of a pixel and a light sensor, which are provided in Fig 1) and Fig 6 (a section view of Fig 5) of Lim disclose An electronic apparatus (Fig 1) comprising an electronic device that includes:
a first photodiode electrode 124 and a first subpixel electrode 122 on a substrate 111 spaced apart from each other (Fig 6);
a second electrode 154 (same as 152) covering the first photodiode electrode and the first subpixel electrode (Fig 6);
an emission layer 130 [0071] between the first subpixel electrode and the second electrode and in the organic light-emitting device (Fig 6);
a photoactive layer 160 [0089] between the first photodiode electrode and the second electrode and in the organic photodiode (Fig 6);
a first common layer (CL1) arranged between the first light-emitting device electrode and the emission layer and between the first photodiode electrode and the photoactive layer (Fig 6);
a second common layer (CL4) between the emission layer and the second electrode and between the photoactive layer and the second electrode (Fig 6); and
a first optical auxiliary electrode ([0069]: in the LS, the 124 is a stack of ITO/Al/ITO. The topmost ITO is the first optical auxiliary electrode) arranged between the first photodiode electrode and the first common layer and in the organic photodiode (Fig 6),
wherein the first optical auxiliary electrode comprises a transparent conductive metal oxide (the first optical auxiliary electrode is made of ITO which is inherently a transparent conductive metal oxide).
Regarding claim 20. Lim discloses The electronic apparatus of claim 19, further comprising a thin-film transistor (Fig 6, [0054]: ‘T’), wherein
the thin-film transistor comprises a source electrode (SE) and a drain electrode (DE), and
the first subpixel electrode of the light-emitting device is electrically connected to at least one of the source electrode and the drain electrode of the thin-film transistor (Fig 6, refer to CH2).
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.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim (US 20230209921).
Regarding claim 13. Lim discloses The electronic device of claim 1. But Lim does not explicitly disclose wherein the first optical auxiliary electrode has a thickness in a range of about 250 Å to about 2,000 Å.
However, the ordinary artisan would have recognized the claimed thickness range used transparent conductive material, e.g. Indium Tin Oxide (ITO) in Organic Photodiodes (OPD) and Organic Light-Emitting Diodes (OLED) to be a result effective variable affecting to make proper balance between electrical conductivity (lower sheet resistance) and optical transmittance. Thus, it would have been obvious that Lim’s electronic device including the OPD and OLED within the claimed range, since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B
It is further noted that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of instant claimed thickness or any unexpected results arising thereof. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen values or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen values are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578,16 USPQ2d 1934,1936 (Fed Cir.1990). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art).
Regarding claim 14. Lim discloses The electronic device of claim 1. But Lim does not explicitly disclose wherein the photoactive layer has a thickness in a range of about 150 Å to about 1,000 Å.
However, the ordinary artisan would have recognized the claimed thickness range of the active (light-absorbing) layer in Organic Photodiodes (OPD) is generally in the claimed range and to be a result effective variable affecting to provide high-efficiency charge extraction. Thus, it would have been obvious that the Lim’s photoactive layer of the electronic device including the OPD within the claimed range, since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B
It is further noted that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of instant claimed thickness or any unexpected results arising thereof. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen values or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen values are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578,16 USPQ2d 1934,1936 (Fed Cir.1990). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art).
Regarding claim 15. Lim discloses The electronic device of claim 1. But Lim does not explicitly disclose wherein the emission layer has a thickness in a range of about 300 Å to about 700 Å.
However, the ordinary artisan would have recognized the claimed thickness range of the active (light-emitting) layer in Organic Light-Emitting Diodes (OLED) is generally in the claimed range and to be a result effective variable affecting to provide enhanced light extraction because organic materials are relatively poor conductors, and thinner layers are necessary to allow electricity to reach the center of the device. Thus, it would have been obvious that the Lim’s emission layer of the electronic device including the OLED within the claimed range, since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B
It is further noted that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of instant claimed thickness or any unexpected results arising thereof. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen values or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen values are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578,16 USPQ2d 1934,1936 (Fed Cir.1990). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 10, 16 and 18 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 8. the cited prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest, along with the other claimed features, “thicknesses of the first optical auxiliary layer and the additional optical auxiliary layer are proportional to wavelengths of light emitted by a subpixel comprising the first optical auxiliary layer and a subpixel comprising the additional optical auxiliary layer, respectively”.
Regarding claim 16. the cited prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest, along with the other claimed features, “the organic photodiode has a resonance distance identical to that of the first subpixel”.
Regarding claim 18. the cited prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest, along with the other claimed features, “thicknesses of the second optical auxiliary layer and the additional optical auxiliary electrode are proportional to wavelengths of light emitted by a subpixel comprising the second optical auxiliary electrode and a subpixel comprising the additional optical auxiliary electrode, respectively”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Changhyun Yi whose telephone number is (571)270-7799. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8A-4P.
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, Davienne Monbleau can be reached on 571-272-1945. 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.
/Changhyun Yi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812