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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 1/10/24, 4/24/24, 9/24/24 and 10/7/25 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-4, 13, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki et al., US 2021/0159435 in view of Joo et al., US 2015/0014661.
Regarding claim 1, Yamazaki teaches a light emitting element (see at least Figures 3C and 4C) comprising a first element having a first lower electrode (1101), a first light emitting layer (1123B1) for emitting light of a first color, a charge generation layer (1109), a second light emitting layer (1123B2) for emitting light of the first color, and an upper electrode (1102) in this order on a substrate. Yamazaki is silent as to the space between the lower electrode and first light emitting layer being larger than the space between the first light emitting layer and second light emitting layer.
However, in the same field of endeavor of display devices, Joo teaches wherein a space between the first light emitting layer and the first lower electrode is larger than a space between the first light emitting layer and the second light emitting layer (see Figure 1, lower electrode 105, first light emitting layer 121 and second light emitting layer 122). Further, Joo teaches that utilizing a printing process resulting in different distances of optical resonance for each pixel is simplified and therefore reduces production costs. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to providing a varying thickness second transparent electrode between the lower electrode and first light emitting layer, in order to utilize a streamlined and more simple printing process.
Regarding claim 2, Yamazaki and Joo teach the invention as explained above and Yamazaki further teaches a second element (Figure 3C, 3 separate elements, and Figure 4C, example of each element) having a second lower electrode (1101), a third light emitting layer (1123G1) for emitting light of a second color different from the first color, the charge generation layer (1109), a fourth light emitting layer (1123G2) for emitting light of the second color, and the upper electrode (1102) in this order on the substrate. Yamazaki is silent as to the space between the lower electrode and first light emitting layer being larger than the space between the first light emitting layer and second light emitting layer.
However, in the same field of endeavor of display devices, Joo teaches wherein a space between the first light emitting layer and the first lower electrode is larger than a space between the first light emitting layer and the second light emitting layer (see Figure 1, lower electrode 105, first light emitting layer 121 and second light emitting layer 122). Further, Joo teaches that utilizing a printing process resulting in different distances of optical resonance for each pixel is simplified and therefore reduces production costs. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to providing a varying thickness second transparent electrode between the lower electrode and first light emitting layer, in order to utilize a streamlined and more simple printing process.
Regarding claim 3, Yamazaki and Joo teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 1 and further it is the position of the examiner that it would have been an obvious matter of routine experimentation for one of ordinary skill in the art, lacking criticality or unexpected results, to optimize the optical path length of the elements in order to ensure the most efficient and bright light emission.
Regarding claim 4, Yamazaki and Joo teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 2, and Yamazaki further teaches the first element has a reflection layer ([0099]) and a first optical adjustment layer between the substrate and the first lower electrode ([0076] layer 1104), and the second element has a reflection layer (id) and a second optical adjustment layer between the substrate and the second lower electrode (id, see Figure 2B).
Regarding claim 13, Yamazaki and Joo teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 1 and Yamazaki further teaches a display apparatus (Abstract and Figure 3C for example) having a plurality of pixels and a transistor ([0018]) connected with the light emitting element in the pixels.
Regarding claim 16, Yamazaki and Joo teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 1 and Yamazaki further teaches a lighting apparatus comprising a light source (Abstract and Figure 3C), an optical diffusion part or an optical film for transmitting light emitted by the light source therethrough ([0083]).
Regarding claim 17, Yamazaki and Joo teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 1 and Yamazaki further teaches a mobile body ([0364]) comprising a light fixture having a light emitting element (see Figure 3C) and a frame ([0025]) provided with the light fixture.
Claims 12, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki in view of Joo and further in view of Yamazaki et al., US 2022/0029121 (hereinafter Yamazaki 22).
Regarding claim 12, Yamazaki and Joo teach the invention as explained above, but are silent as to a lens. However, in the same field of endeavor of displays, Yamazaki 22 teaches a lens on a light emitting side of the light emitting element ([0393]). Further, it would have been well known for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that lens would further direct light in the intended manner. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a lens on the Yamazaki device in order to further direct light as desired.
Regarding claim 14, Yamazaki and Joo teach the invention as explained above but fail to teach a photoelectric conversion device. However, in the same field of endeavor of light emitting devices, Yamazaki 22 teaches a photoelectric conversion device ([0393]) comprising an optical part having a plurality of lenses (id); an image pickup element for receiving light which has passed through the optical part (id); and a display part for displaying an image captured by the image pick up element (id and see for example Figure 15b). Further, it would have been well known to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize an organic electroluminescent display in order to provide high quality imaging and long life. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the Yamazaki and Joo display in a photoelectric conversion device in order to ensure high quality display and long life.
Regarding claim 15, Yamazaki and Joo teach the invention as explained above but fail to teach electronic equipment with a communication device. However, in the same field of endeavor of light emitting devices, Yamazaki 22 teaches electronic equipment ([0584]) comprising a display part having a light emitting element, a casing ([0588]) provided with the display part, and a communication part ([0584]) provided at the casing, and for communicating with the outside (id). Further, it would have been well known to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize an organic electroluminescent display in order to provide high quality imaging and long life. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the Yamazaki and Joo display in electronic equipment in order to ensure high quality display and long life.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-11 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: The prior art fails to teach or suggest the first element has an organic layer between the lower electrode and the charge generation layer and an insulating layer between the first lower electrode and the organic layer, the insulating layer has a groove at a surface on the organic layer side and the organic layer is not formed in the groove.
The prior art further fails to teach or suggest the first element has an insulation layer in contact with an upper surface of the lower electrode and at least one organic layer arranged between the charge generation layer and the upper electrode, the insulating layer has a groove at a surface on the organic layer side, and the organic layer is formed in the groove.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mizusaki US 2024/0114715 teaches a tandem display but fails to teach the distance between the first electrode and first light emitting layer is larger than the distance between the first light emitting layer and second light emitting layer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARY-ELLEN BOWMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5383. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday; 7:00 am-5:00 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 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.
MARY ELLEN BOWMAN
Examiner
Art Unit 2875
/MARY ELLEN BOWMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875