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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-26 remain pending in this application. Acknowledgement is made of the amendment received 07/08/2026. Claims 1, 6, 11, 16, 18, 21, and 26 are amended.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 18, it recites “a cathode in corresponding subpixel is minimized” in line 11 of the claim. The examiner interprets this claim to have intended to state “a cathode in the corresponding subpixel is minimized”. 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.
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.
Claims 18-25 are 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.
Regarding claim 18, it recites the limitation "the subpixel emitting light" in line 10 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner interprets the claim to have intended to state “a subpixel emitting light of a relatively shorter wavelength”, in which case proper antecedent basis is established. The claim will be examined on the basis of this interpretation hereafter. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 18, it recites the limitation "the number of layers of a cathode in the subpixel emitting light of a relatively longer wavelength" in lines 12 and 13 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner interprets the claim to have intended to state “number of layers of a cathode in a subpixel emitting light of a relatively longer wavelength than the subpixel emitting light of a relatively shorter wavelength among the first to third subpixels”, in which case proper antecedent basis is established. The claim will be examined on the basis of this interpretation hereafter. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claims 19-25, the claims depend from rejected claim 18, includes all limitations of the claim and therefore are rejected for the same reason. The claims will be examined on the basis of interpretation of the rejected claim hereafter.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 23, claim 18, from which claim 23 depends, recites “the metal patterning layer is disposed only in the subpixel emitting light of a relatively shorter wavelength among the first to third subpixels”. Claim 23 recites “the metal patterning layer is disposed on the second electrode in each of the first, second and third subpixels”, which directly contradicts requirement of claim 18. Claim 23 therefore fails to include all the limitations of claim 18. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 12-17, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Polyakov et al (US 20200075693 A1, hereafter Polyakov).
Regarding claim 1, Polyakov discloses: A display apparatus (Polyakov 100, ¶0004, 0042-0043, 0051-0053, fig 1, 2A-F), comprising:
a first subpixel (Polyakov 101B, ¶0042), a second subpixel (Polyakov 101G, ¶0042) and a third subpixel (Polyakov 101R, ¶0042) disposed on a substrate (Polyakov 400, ¶0045)(Polyakov fig 1, 2A-F, ¶0045);
a first organic light emitting element (Polyakov 110B, 150B, 180B ¶0043, 0048) configured to emit a first color of light (Polyakov ¶0051, blue), a second organic light emitting element (Polyakov 110G, 150G, 180G ¶0043, 0048) configured to emit a second color of light (Polyakov ¶0042, 0051, green) and a third organic light emitting element (Polyakov 110R, 150R, 180R ¶0043, 0048) configured to emit a third color of light (Polyakov ¶0051, red) disposed in the first, second and third subpixels, respectively (Polyakov fig 1, 2A, ¶0043, 0052);
a first anode (Polyakov 110B, ¶0043), a second anode (Polyakov 110G, ¶0043) and a third anode (Polyakov 110R, ¶0043) included in the first, second and third organic light emitting elements, and disposed in the first, second and third subpixels, respectively (Polyakov fig 1, 2F, ¶0043); and
a first cathode (Polyakov 180B, ¶0043, 0050, “second cathode 180B”, it appears the prior art uses 180B designation to denote both “a cathode layer 180B” of cathode 180 and “a second cathode 180B” of subpixel 101B), a second cathode (Polyakov 180G, ¶0043, 0050) and a third cathode (Polyakov 180R, ¶0043, 0050) included in the first, second and third organic light emitting elements, and disposed in the first, second and third subpixels, respectively (Polyakov fig 1, 2F, ¶0043, 0050-0053),
wherein the first, second and third cathodes include at least one layer (Polyakov 180A, ¶0052, fig 2A), and
wherein at least two cathodes among the first, second and third cathodes have a different number of layers than each other (Polyakov fig 2C, 2F, ¶0052-0053, 180R having a single layer 180A, 180G having two layers 180A and cathode layer 180B, and second cathode 180B having three layers 180A, cathode layer 180B, and 180C), and
wherein the number of the first, second and third cathodes is proportional to a wavelength of the light from the first, second and third organic light emitting elements (Polyakov fig 2C, 2F, ¶0051-0053, the red, green, and blue subpixels having one, two, and three cathode layers, respectively, wherein the layer count of each cathode corresponds to a different wavelength of light; under a broadest reasonable interpretation of “proportional”, the number of layers of each cathode is set in relationship to the wavelength of that subpixels emission).
Regarding claim 12, Polyakov discloses: The display apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first cathode (Polyakov 180B, “second cathode 180B”) includes three layers (Polyakov fig 2F, ¶0052-0053, 180A, “cathode layer 180B”, and 180C), the second cathode (Polyakov 180G) includes two layers (Polyakov fig 2F, 180A and “cathode layer 180B”), and the third cathode (Polyakov 180R) includes one layer (Polyakov fig 2F, 180A), and
wherein a first metal patterning layer (Polyakov 202B, fig 2D, ¶0053, under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of “a first metal patterning layer”, 202B is a patterned organic layer that prevents deposition of subsequent metal layers, i.e. 180C) is disposed on the second cathode (Polyakov fig 2D, ¶0053), and a second metal patterning layer (Polyakov 202A, fig 2C, ¶0052) is disposed on the third cathode (Polyakov fig 2C, ¶0052).
Regarding claim 13, Polyakov discloses: The display apparatus of claim 12, wherein the first and second metal patterning layers (Polyakov 202B, 202A, respectively) include an organic material (Polyakov ¶0052-0053, “organic”).
Regarding claim 14, Polyakov discloses: The display apparatus of claim 12, further comprising a bank (Polyakov 402, ¶0070, under a BRI of “bank”, 402 divides anodes and defines subpixels) dividing the first, second and third subpixels (Polyakov 101B, 101G, 101R, respectively)(Polyakov fig 2F, ¶0070).
Regarding claim 15, Polyakov discloses: The display apparatus of claim 14, wherein at least a portion of each of the first, second and third cathodes (Polyakov 180B, 180G, 180R, respectively, “second cathode 180B”) overlaps with the bank (Polyakov 402)(Polyakov fig 2F, at least portions of 180A/B/C comprising 180B/G/R directly overlap 402).
Regarding claim 16, Polyakov discloses: The display apparatus of claim 15, wherein the first, second and third cathodes (Polyakov 180B, 180G, 180R, respectively, “second cathode 180B”) are formed as a common cathode layer (Polyakov 180, ¶0050, “cathode 180 may be a common layer shared by multiple subpixels”) across the first, second and third subpixels(Polyakov 101B, 101G, 101R, respectively)(Polyakov fig 2F, ¶0050), and
wherein the common cathode layer has a first disconnection portion or a first hole (Polyakov fig 2F, ¶0052-0053, opening in 180C formed due to 202B in 180G/101G, under a BRI of “disconnection portion” and/or “hole”) overlapping with the first metal patterning layer (Polyakov 202B) in the second subpixel (Polyakov 101G)(Polyakov fig 2F, ¶0052-0053), and a second disconnection portion or a second hole (Polyakov fig 2F, ¶0052-0053, opening in 180B and 180C formed due to 202A in 180R/101R) overlapping with the second metal patterning layer (Polyakov 202A) in the third subpixel (Polyakov 101R)(Polyakov fig 2F, ¶0052-0053).
Regarding claim 17, Polyakov discloses: The display apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first, second and third subpixels (Polyakov 101B, 101G, 101R, respectively) are different ones of a red subpixel, a green subpixel, and a blue subpixel (Polyakov ¶0042, 0051).
Regarding claim 26, Polyakov discloses: A display apparatus (Polyakov 100, ¶0004, 0042-0053, fig 1, 2A-F), comprising:
a first subpixel (Polyakov 101B, ¶0042) and a second subpixel (Polyakov 101G, ¶0042) disposed on a substrate (Polyakov 400, ¶0045)(Polyakov fig 1, 2A-F, ¶0045);
a first anode (Polyakov 110B, ¶0043) and a second anode (Polyakov 110G, ¶0043) disposed in the first and second subpixels, respectively (Polyakov fig 1, 2F, ¶0043);
a first organic light emitting element (Polyakov 110B, 150B, 180B ¶0043, 0048) configured to emit a first color of light (Polyakov ¶0051, blue) disposed in the first subpixel (Polyakov fig 1, 2A, ¶0043, 0052);
a second organic light emitting element (Polyakov 110G, 150G, 180G ¶0043, 0048) configured to emit a second color of light (Polyakov ¶0042, 0051, green) disposed in the second subpixel (Polyakov fig 1, 2A, ¶0043, 0052); and
a first cathode (Polyakov 180B, ¶0043, 0050, “second cathode 180B”) and a second cathode (Polyakov 180G, ¶0043, 0050) disposed in the first and second subpixels, respectively (Polyakov fig 1, 2F, ¶0043, 0050-0053),
wherein a first wavelength of light from the first organic light emitting element (Polyakov ¶0051, blue) is different from a second wavelength of light (Polyakov ¶0042, 0051, green) from the second organic light emitting element,
wherein the number of the first cathode and the second cathode is proportional to the first wavelength and the second wavelength (Polyakov fig 2C, 2F, ¶0051-0053, the green, and blue subpixels having two, and three cathode layers, respectively, wherein the layer count of each cathode corresponds to a different wavelength of light; under a broadest reasonable interpretation of “proportional”, the number of layers of each cathode is set in relationship to the wavelength of that subpixels emission), and
wherein the first cathode has a different number of layers than the second cathode (Polyakov fig 2C, 2F, ¶0052-0053, 180G having two layers 180A and cathode layer 180B, and second cathode 180B having three layers 180A, cathode layer 180B, and 180C).
Claims 18, 19, 22, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Helander et al (US 20200280017 A1, hereafter Helander).
Regarding claim 18, Helander discloses: A display apparatus (Helander 1300, fig 13, 14, ¶0099-0100), comprising:
a first subpixel (Helander 1331c, ¶0100), a second subpixel (Helander 1331b, ¶0100) and a third subpixel (Helander 1331a, ¶0100) disposed on a substrate (Helander 1310, ¶0123)(Helander fig 14);
a first electrode (Helander 1344c, 1344b, 1344a, ¶0100, respectively) disposed in each of the first, second and third subpixels (Helander fig 14, ¶0100);
an organic layer (Helander 1348c, 1348b, 1348a, ¶0100, 0124, respectively) disposed on the first electrode in each of the first, second and third subpixels (Helander fig 14, ¶0100);
a second electrode (Helander 1375, ¶0101) disposed on the organic layer in each of the first, second and third subpixels (Helander fig 14, ¶0100-0101), the second electrode including at least one layer (Helander 1375, 1371, 1372, 1373, ¶0101, fig 14); and
a metal patterning layer (Helander 1361, ¶0053, 0100, under a broadest reasonable interpretation of “a metal patterning layer, 1361 has a low affinity towards deposition of an electrically conductive material, thereby inhibiting deposition where it is formed, forming a patterned layer, i.e. 1361 patterns 1372) disposed on the second electrode of at least one subpixel among the first, second and third subpixels (Helander fig 14, ¶0100),
wherein the metal patterning layer is disposed only in the subpixel emitting light of a relatively shorter wavelength (as best understood to mean “a subpixel emitting light of a relatively shorter wavelength”)(Helander 1331a, ¶0084, 0112, blue, blue having a relatively shorter wavelength than green or red)(Helander fig 14, ¶0100, 0111-0112) among the first to third subpixels so that a number of layers of a cathode (Helander 1371) in corresponding subpixel is minimized (as best understood to mean “a cathode in the corresponding subpixel is minimized”)(Helander fig 14, ¶0111, only 1371 is formed within 1331a, where 1361 inhibits formation of 1372, 1373, thereby the number of cathode layers is minimized to one), while the number of layers of a cathode (Helander 1375, 1371-1373) in the subpixel emitting light of a relatively longer wavelength (as best understood to mean “number of layers of a cathode in a subpixel emitting light of a relatively longer wavelength than the subpixel emitting light of a relatively shorter wavelength among the first to third subpixels”)(Helander 1331c, ¶0084, 0112, red, red having a relatively longer wavelength than green or blue)(Helander fig 14, ¶0100, 0111-0112) is maximized (Helander fig 14, ¶0111, three cathode layers, 1371-1373 are formed within 1331c, there by having a larger number of cathode layers than at least 1331a and 1331b, thereby at least meeting a broadest reasonable interpretation of a number of layers being maximized).
Regarding claim 19, Helander discloses: The display apparatus of claim 18, wherein the metal patterning layer (Helander 1361) includes an organic material (Helander ¶0143, 0171).
Regarding claim 22, Helander, in at least one embodiment, discloses: The display apparatus of claim 18, wherein the second electrode (Helander 1375) in the first subpixel (Helander 1331c) includes three layers (Helander 1371, 1372, 1373, fig 14, ¶0102), the second electrode in the second subpixel (Helander 1331b) includes two layers (Helander 1371, 1372, fig 14, ¶0102), and the second electrode in the third subpixel (Helander 1331a) includes one layer (Helander 1371, fig 14, ¶0102), and
wherein the metal patterning layer (Helander 1361, 1362) is disposed on the second electrode in each of the second subpixel and the third subpixel (Helander fig 14, ¶0100, 1361 on 1371 in 1331a, 1362 on 1372 in 1331b).
Regarding claim 24, Helander discloses: The display apparatus of claim 18, further comprising a bank layer (Helander 1346a-d, fig 14, ¶0100, under a BRI of “bank layer”) disposed in a boundary region between the first, second and third subpixels (Helander 1331c, 1331b, 1331a, respectively)(Helander fig 14, ¶0100).
Regarding claim 25, Helander discloses: The display apparatus of claim 24, wherein the bank layer (Helander 1346a-d) includes:
a portion of the organic layer (Helander 1371)(Helander fig 14, portion of the organic layer on the sidewalls of the bank layer - under a broadest reasonable interpretation of “a portion of the organic layer“ which is include in the bank layer); and
a portion of the second electrode (Helander 1375) disposed on the portion of the organic layer (Helander fig 14).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 2-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polyakov et al (US 20200075693 A1, hereafter Polyakov), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Helander et al (US 20200280017 A1, hereafter Helander).
Regarding claim 2, Polyakov teaches: The display apparatus of claim 1, wherein each of the first cathode (Polyakov 180B, “second cathode 180B”) and the second cathode (Polyakov 180G) includes two layers (Polyakov fig 2F, ¶0052-0053, 180A and “cathode layer 180B”), and the third cathode (Polyakov 180R) includes one layer (Polyakov fig 2F, 180A), and
wherein a metal patterning layer (Polyakov 202A, fig 2C, ¶0052) is disposed on the third cathode (Polyakov fig 2F, ¶0054).
Polyakov does not teach: the second cathode includes three layers, and the third cathode includes two layers.
Polyakov further teaches: a cathode layer comprising a double layer (Polyakov ¶0050).
Helander, in the same field of endeavor of semiconductor device manufacturing, teaches: a cathode layer (Helander 1371) comprising a double layer (Helander ¶0108).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the first, second, and third cathodes of Polyakov to include at least one double layer, as taught by Polyakov and Helander, such that “each of the first cathode and the second cathode includes three layers, and the third cathode includes two layers”, in order to improve electron injection (Polyakov ¶0050) and/or improve electrical conductance of the electrode (Polyakov ¶0050), and/or in order to adjust for optical microcavity effects (Helander ¶0113).
Regarding claim 3, Polyakov in view of Helander teaches: The display apparatus of claim 2, wherein the metal patterning layer (Polyakov 202A) includes an organic material (Polyakov ¶0052-0053, “organic”).
Regarding claim 4, Polyakov in view of Helander teaches: The display apparatus of claim 2, further comprising a bank (Polyakov 402, ¶0070, under a BRI of “bank”, 402 divides anodes and defines subpixels) dividing the first, second and third subpixels (Polyakov 101B, 101G, 101R, respectively)(Polyakov fig 2F, ¶0070).
Regarding claim 5, Polyakov in view of Helander teaches: The display apparatus of claim 4, wherein at least a portion of each of the first, second and third cathodes (Polyakov 180B, 180G, 180R, respectively, “second cathode 180B”) overlaps with the bank (Polyakov 402)(Polyakov fig 2F, at least portions of 180A/B/C comprising 180B/G/R directly overlap 402).
Regarding claim 6, Polyakov in view of Helander teaches: The display apparatus of claim 5, wherein the first, second and third cathodes (Polyakov 180B, 180G, 180R, respectively, “second cathode 180B”) are formed as a common cathode layer (Polyakov 180, ¶0050, “cathode 180 may be a common layer shared by multiple subpixels”) across the first, second and third subpixels (Polyakov 101B, 101G, 101R, respectively)(Polyakov fig 2F, ¶0050), and
wherein the common cathode layer has a disconnection portion or a hole (Polyakov fig 2F, ¶0052-0053, opening in 180B and 180C formed due to 202A in 180R/101R) overlapping with the metal patterning layer (Polyakov 202A) in the third subpixel (Polyakov 101R)(Polyakov fig 2F, ¶0052-0053).
Regarding claim 7, Polyakov teaches: The display apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first cathode (Polyakov 180B, “second cathode 180B”) includes three layers (Polyakov fig 2F, ¶0052-0053, 180A and “cathode layer 180B”, 180C), the second cathode (Polyakov 180G) includes two layers (Polyakov fig 2F, 180A and “cathode layer 180B”), and the third cathode (Polyakov 180R) includes one layer (Polyakov fig 2F, 180A), and
wherein a first metal patterning layer (Polyakov 202B, fig 2D, ¶0053) is disposed on the second cathode (Polyakov fig 2D, ¶0053), and a second metal patterning layer (Polyakov 202A, fig 2C, ¶0052) is disposed on the third cathode (Polyakov fig 2C, ¶0052).
Polyakov does not teach: the third cathode includes two layers.
Polyakov further teaches: a cathode layer comprising a double layer (Polyakov ¶0050).
Helander, in the same field of endeavor of semiconductor device manufacturing, teaches: a cathode layer (Helander 1371) comprising a double layer (Helander ¶0108).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the first, second, and third cathodes of Polyakov to include at least one double layer, as taught by Polyakov and Helander, such that “each of the second cathode and the third cathode includes two layers”, in order to improve electron injection (Polyakov ¶0050) and/or improve electrical conductance of the electrode (Polyakov ¶0050), and/or in order to adjust for optical microcavity effects (Helander ¶0113).
Regarding claim 8, Polyakov in view of Helander teaches: The display apparatus of claim 7, wherein the first and second metal patterning layers (Polyakov 202B, 202A, respectively) include an organic material (Polyakov ¶0052-0053, “organic”).
Regarding claim 9, Polyakov in view of Helander teaches: The display apparatus of claim 7, further comprising a bank (Polyakov 402, ¶0070, under a BRI of “bank”, 402 divides anodes and defines subpixels) dividing the first, second and third subpixels (Polyakov 101B, 101G, 101R, respectively)(Polyakov fig 2F, ¶0070).
Regarding claim 10, Polyakov in view of Helander teaches: The display apparatus of claim 9, wherein at least a portion of each of the first, second and third cathodes (Polyakov 180B, 180G, 180R, respectively, “second cathode 180B”) overlaps with the bank (Polyakov 402)(Polyakov fig 2F, at least portions of 180A/B/C comprising 180B/G/R directly overlap 402).
Regarding claim 11, Polyakov in view of Helander teaches: The display apparatus of claim 10, wherein the first, second and third cathodes (Polyakov 180B, 180G, 180R, respectively, “second cathode 180B”) are formed as a common cathode layer (Polyakov 180, ¶0050, “cathode 180 may be a common layer shared by multiple subpixels”) across the first, second and third subpixels (Polyakov 101B, 101G, 101R, respectively)(Polyakov fig 2F, ¶0050), and
wherein the common cathode layer has a first disconnection portion or a first hole (Polyakov fig 2F, ¶0052-0053, opening in 180C formed due to 202B in 180G/101G, under a BRI of “disconnection portion” and/or “hole”) overlapping with the first metal patterning layer (Polyakov 202B) in the second subpixel (Polyakov 101G)(Polyakov fig 2F, ¶0052-0053), and a second disconnection portion or a second hole (Polyakov fig 2F, ¶0052-0053, opening in 180B and 180C formed due to 202A in 180R/101R) overlapping with the second metal patterning layer (Polyakov 202A) in the third subpixel (Polyakov 101R)(Polyakov fig 2F, ¶0052-0053).
Claims 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helander et al (US 20200280017 A1, hereafter Helander), as applied to claim 18, and further in view of Polyakov et al (US 20200075693 A1, hereafter Polyakov).
Regarding claim 20, Helander, in at least one embodiment, teaches: The display apparatus of claim 18, wherein the second electrode (Helander 1375) in the first subpixel (Helander 1331c) includes three layers (Helander 1371, 1372, 1373),
wherein the second electrode in the second subpixel (Helander 1331b) includes two layers (Helander 1371, 1372), and the second electrode in the third subpixel (Helander 1331a) includes one layer (Helander 1371)(Helander fig 14), and
wherein the metal patterning layer (Helander 1361, 1362) is disposed on the second electrode in each of the second subpixel and the third subpixel (Helander fig 14).
Helander does not explicitly teach: the second electrode in the second subpixel includes three layers, and the second electrode in the third subpixel includes two layers.
Helander further teaches: a cathode layer (Helander 1371) comprising a double layer (Helander ¶0108).
Polyakov, in the same field of endeavor of semiconductor device manufacturing, teaches: subpixels sharing a common cathode thickness (Polyakov 180R, 180G, 180B ¶0051).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the second electrode in the first, second and third subpixels of Polyakov to include at least one double layer, as taught by Polyakov and Helander, such that “the second electrode in each of the first subpixel and the second subpixel includes three layers” and “the second electrode in the third subpixel includes two layers”, in order to improve electron injection (Polyakov ¶0050) and/or improve electrical conductance of the electrode (Polyakov ¶0050), and/or in order to adjust for optical microcavity effects (Helander ¶0113).
Regarding claim 21 Helander, in at least one embodiment, teaches: The display apparatus of claim 18, wherein the second electrode (Helander 1375) in the first subpixel (Helander 1331c) includes three layers (Helander 1371, 1372, 1373),
wherein the second electrode in the second subpixel (Helander 1331b) includes two layers (Helander 1371, 1372), and the second electrode in the third subpixel (Helander 1331a) includes one layer (Helander 1371)(Helander fig 14), and
wherein the metal patterning layer (Helander 1361, 1362) is disposed on the second electrode in each of the second subpixel and the third subpixel (Helander fig 14).
Helander does not explicitly teach: the second electrode in the third subpixel includes two layers.
Helander further teaches: a cathode layer (Helander 1371) comprising a double layer (Helander ¶0108).
Polyakov, in the same field of endeavor of semiconductor device manufacturing, teaches: subpixels sharing a common cathode thickness (Polyakov 180R, 180G, 180B ¶0051).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the second electrode in the first, second and third subpixels of Polyakov to include at least one double layer, as taught by Polyakov and Helander, such that “the second electrode in each of the second subpixel and the third subpixel is includes two layers”, in order to improve electron injection (Polyakov ¶0050) and/or improve electrical conductance of the electrode (Polyakov ¶0050), and/or in order to adjust for optical microcavity effects (Helander ¶0113).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 07/08/2026, with respect to the specification, has been fully considered and is persuasive. The objection to the specification has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed 07/08/2026, with respect to claim 16, has been fully considered and is persuasive. The objection to claim 16 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed 07/08/2026, with respect to claims 1, 11, and 16, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC § 112 rejections of claims 1, 11, and 16 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed 07/08/2026, with respect to 35 USC § 102 and 103 rejections of claims 18-25 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Helander et al.
Applicant's arguments filed 07/08/2026, with respect to 35 USC § 102 and 103 rejections of claims 1-17 and 26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1 and 26, the applicant alleges at pages 10 and 11:
In the embodied invention, the number of the first, second and third cathodes is proportional to the wavelength of the light from the first, second and third light emitting elements. For example, according to an example embodiment, the cathode in the Red (R) light emitting element is formed in 3 layers, the cathode in the Green (G) light emitting element is formed in 2 layers, and the cathode in the Blue (B) light emitting element is formed in 1 layer.
In contrast to amended claim 1, in Polyakov, for example, the Red LED 10IR includes only 1 cathode 180A, the Green LED 101G includes 2 cathodes 180A, and the Blue LED 101B includes 3 cathodes 180A. That is, in Polyakov, the number of cathodes in the R, G, B LEDs is inversely proportional to the wavelength of the light from the corresponding LED.
Examiner’s Response:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the number of cathode layers increases as the wavelength of the emitted light decreases, wherein the blue element has 3 cathode layers, the green element has 2 cathode layers, the red element has 1 cathode layers) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Specifically, claims 1 and 26 recites only that the number of cathodes is “proportional to” the wavelength of light emitted, but does not recite a specific direction of that relationship.
Further, the specification does not appear to define “proportional” having a specific directionality; rather, it expressly discloses the both embodiments (R/G/B with 1/2/3 cathodes layers respectively, and R/G/B with 3/2/1 cathodes layers respectively, spec ¶0191-0194). Therefore, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, consistent with the specification, “proportional to” is inclusive of an “inverse proportion” (MPEP 2111.01).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS B. MICHAUD whose telephone number is (703)756-1796. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 0800-1700 Eastern Time.
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, EVA MONTALVO can be reached at (571) 272-3829. 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.
/NICHOLAS B. MICHAUD/
EXAMINER
Art Unit 2818
/BRIAN TURNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights