CTNF 18/423,763 CTNF 89973 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 17 objected to because of the following informalities: a typographical error “the hoe injection layer” in line 2 . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 2, 4, 9, and 15 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 claims 2, 4, 9, and 15, the term “about” in claims 2, 4, 9, and 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. This term makes the ranges claimed in claims 2, 4, 9, and 15 unclear. For the purpose of examination, “about” is interpreted as the largest possible 30% deviation from stated value (par. [0042] of the instant disclosure). The claim is unclear because par. [0042] lists multiple definitions of the term “about” in the alternative, so the ranges are unclear. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim s 1, 5, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yuan et. al., U.S. Pat. Pub. 2024/0334734, hereafter Yuan . Regarding claim 1, Yuan discloses (Figs. 7, 9) display device [200] (par. [0002]) comprising: a substrate [10]; a pixel electrode [11] disposed on the substrate [10]; a light emitting element lay [230] including a first light emitting layer [21] disposed on the pixel electrode [11] and having a first luminous efficiency and a second light emitting layer [31] disposed on the first light emitting layer and having a second luminous efficiency higher than the first luminous efficiency (par. [0049], Figs 4-6); and a common electrode [12] disposed on the light emitting element layer [230]. Regarding claim 5, Yuan further discloses (Fig. 7) wherein the light emitting element layer [230] further includes: a first electron transport layer [24] (par. [0083]) disposed between the first light emitting layer [21] and the second light emitting layer [31]; a hole transport layer [34] (par. [0083]) disposed between the first electron transport layer [24] and the second light emitting layer [31]; and a second electron transport layer [33] (par. [0082]) disposed between the second light emitting layer [31] and the common electrode [12]. Regarding claim 10, Yuan further discloses (Figs. 7, 9, par. [0083]) wherein the light emitting element layer [230] further includes: a charge generating layer [40] (par. [0083]) disposed between the first light emitting layer [21] and the second light emitting layer [31]. Regarding claim 11, Yuan discloses (Figs 7, 9) a method of manufacturing a display device [200], the method comprising: forming a pixel electrode [11] on a substrate [10]; forming a first light emitting layer [21] having a first luminous efficiency on the pixel electrode [11]; forming a second light emitting layer [31 having a second luminous efficiency higher (par. [0049]) than the first luminous efficiency on the first light emitting layer [21]; and forming a common electrode [12] on the second light emitting layer [31]. Regarding claim 12, Yuan further discloses (Fig. 7) wherein the first light emitting layer [21] and the second light emitting layer [31] form a light emitting element layer [230] . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 2-4 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan et. al., U.S. Pat. Pub. 2024/0334734, hereafter Yuan. Regarding claim 2, Yuan discloses everything as applied above. Yuan fails to explicitly disclose wherein the second luminous efficiency is about three times the first luminous efficiency. However, luminous efficiency is a result-effective variable which can be optimized within Prior Art conditions or through routine experimentation to improve device characteristics and reliability. Therefore, “wherein the second luminous efficiency is about three times the first luminous efficiency” would be obvious over Yuan. (MPEP, 2144.05.II.A, and case law therein). Regarding claim 3, Yuan discloses everything as applied above. Yuan fails to explicitly disclose wherein the second light emitting layer has a thickness greater than a thickness of the first light emitting layer. However, a modification of relative dimensions for a device was held to be within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, claim 3 is obvious over Yuan. In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) (MPEP, Latest Edition, 2144.04.IV.A). Regarding claim 4, Yuan discloses everything as applied above. Yuan fails to explicitly disclose wherein the thickness of the second light emitting layer is about 50 angstroms to about 200 angstroms greater than the thickness of the first light emitting layer. However, this limitation is considered to be obvious over Yuan because a size modification is within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP, Latest Edition, 2144.04.IV.A). Regarding claim 13, Yuan discloses everything as applied above. Yuan fails to explicitly disclose wherein a luminous efficiency of the light emitting element layer is adjusted by adjusting a thickness of the second light emitting layer with respect to a thickness of the first light emitting layer. However, it is known in the art that a luminous efficiency can be adjusted by changing material composition or relative thicknesses in a tandem light emitting element of Yuan. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the instant application for Yuan to optimize luminous efficiency by adjusting the relative thicknesses of the two light emitting layers. Regarding claim 14, Yuan discloses everything as applied above. Yuan fails to explicitly disclose wherein the thickness of the second light emitting 25 layer is greater than the thickness of the first light emitting layer. However, a modification of relative dimensions for a device was held to be within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, claim 3 is obvious over Yuan. In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) (MPEP, Latest Edition, 2144.04.IV.A). Regarding claim 15, Yuan discloses everything as applied above. Yuan fails to explicitly disclose wherein the thickness of the second light emitting layer is about 50 angstroms to about 200 angstroms greater than the thickness of the first light emitting layer. However, this limitation is considered to be obvious over Yuan because a size modification is within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP, Latest Edition, 2144.04.IV.A). `Regarding claim 16, Yuan discloses everything as applied above. Yuan further discloses (Fig. 7) further comprising] (the order of steps is implied or obvious because layers of any display device are normally consecutively deposited on the substrate [10]): forming a hole injection layer [22] on the pixel electrode [11] before the forming of the first light emitting layer [21]; forming a hole transport layer [24] on the first light emitting layer [21]; and forming an electron transport layer [33] on the second light emitting layer [31] after the forming of the second light emitting layer [31]. Regarding claim 17, Yuan discloses everything as applied above. Yuan fails to explicitly disclose wherein a luminous efficiency of the light emitting element layer is adjusted by adjusting a thickness of each of the hole injection layer, the hole transport layer, and the electron transport layer. However, it is known in the art that luminous efficiency is affected by thickness or material composition. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date to optimize luminous efficiency by adjusting thicknesses of said layers because it is obvious to try under KSR. The Supreme Court has clarified that an " obvious to try " line of reasoning may properly support an obviousness rejection. In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because " obvious to try " is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding. However, in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), the Supreme Court held that " obvious to try " was a valid rationale for an obviousness finding, for example, when there is a "design need" or "market demand" and there are a "finite number" of solutions. 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397 ("The same constricted analysis led the Court of Appeals to conclude, in error, that a patent claim cannot be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of elements was ‘[o]bvious to try.’ ... When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under §103 ."). Thus, after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process (MPEP, Latest Edition, 2144.05.II.B) 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 6-9 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan et. al., U.S. Pat. Pub. 2024/0334734, hereafter Yuan, in view of Kim et. al., U.S. Pat. Pub. 2016/0093828, hereafter Kim . Regarding claim 6, Yuan discloses everything as applied above. Yuan fails to explicitly disclose further comprising: an encapsulation layer disposed on the common electrode. However, Kim discloses (Figs 1, 2) further comprising: an encapsulation layer [130] disposed on the common electrode [123]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the instant application to use an encapsulation layer of Kim on display device of Yuan because Kim teaches (par. [0052]) that encapsulation blocks moisture and oxygen from entering the display device. Regarding claim 7, Yuan in view of Kim discloses everything as applied above. Kim further discloses (Fig. 2, par. [0049]) wherein the encapsulation layer [130] includes: a first encapsulation layer [131] including silicon nitride; a second encapsulation layer [132] disposed on the first encapsulation layer [131] and including silicon oxide; and a third encapsulation layer [133] disposed on the second encapsulation layer [132] and including silicon oxynitride. Yuan in view of Kim fails to explicitly disclose the second encapsulation layer including silicon oxynitride (Kim discloses silicon oxide). However, Kim explicitly teaches the critical importance of tuning the refractive indexes of the encapsulation layers to prevent light refraction at the interfaces, which causes color deviation and lowers luminous efficiency (Kim, par. [0059]). Kim teaches that the first layer has a high refractive index (par. [0056]), the second layer has a lower refractive index (par. [0058]), and the third layer’s refractive index should be matched to the adjacent organic layer (par. [0059]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Kim’s second encapsulation layer to comprise silicon oxynitride rather than silicon oxide. Silicon oxynitride is a known dielectric barrier material whose refractive index can be precisely tuned between that of silicon nitride and silicon oxide. Substituting silicon oxynitride for the second layer would have been an obvious design choice to achieve Kim’s stated goal of creating a gradual refractive index gradient between the layers, thereby minimizing interfacial refraction and maximizing luminous efficiency. Regarding claim 8, Yuan in view of Kim discloses everything as applied above. Kim further discloses (the inorganic encapsulation layers [131]-[133] of Kim can be re-labeled in claim 7; thus claim 7 is included, par. [0049], Fig. 2) wherein the encapsulation layer [130] includes: a first encapsulation layer [131] including silicon nitride; a second encapsulation layer [133] disposed on the first encapsulation layer [131] and including silicon oxynitride; and a third encapsulation layer [132] disposed on the second encapsulation layer [133] and including silicon oxide. Yuan in view of Kim fails to explicitly disclose the third encapsulation layer including silicon oxynitride (Kim discloses silicon oxide). However, Kim explicitly teaches the critical importance of tuning the refractive indexes of the encapsulation layers to prevent light refraction at the interfaces, which causes color deviation and lowers luminous efficiency (Kim, par. [0059]). Kim teaches that the first layer has a high refractive index (par. [0056]), the second layer has a lower refractive index (par. [0058]), and the third layer’s refractive index should be matched to the adjacent organic layer (par. [0059]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Kim’s second encapsulation layer to comprise silicon oxynitride rather than silicon oxide. Silicon oxynitride is a known dielectric barrier material whose refractive index can be precisely tuned between that of silicon nitride and silicon oxide. Substituting silicon oxynitride for the second layer would have been an obvious design choice to achieve Kim’s stated goal of creating a gradual refractive index gradient between the layers, thereby minimizing interfacial refraction and maximizing luminous efficiency. wherein a refractive index of the first encapsulation layer [131] is greater than each of a refractive index of the second encapsulation layer [133] and a refractive index of the third encapsulation layer [132], and the refractive index of the second encapsulation layer [133] is greater than the refractive index of the third encapsulation layer [132]. (these limitations follow from the refractive index of about 2.0 for silicon nitride, 1.45 for silicon oxide, and an in-between value for silicon oxynitride, the re-labeled Kim still meets limitations of claim 7). Regarding claim 9, Yuan in view of Kim discloses everything as applied above. The limitation “wherein a thickness of the first encapsulation layer ranges from about 1000 angstroms to about 1600 angstroms” is further obvious over Kim, who teaches an overlapping range (par. [0008] and [0057]; there is a typographical error in par [0057]. Element [131] in Kim is the first inorganic encapsulation layer, not a first inorganic emission layer. Kim explicitly defines 131 as the “first inorganic encapsulation layer” in paragraph [0048] and uses it consistently in pars. [0049], [0050], [0054], [0055], and [0056]) Yuan in view of Kim fails to explicitly disclose a thickness of the second encapsulation layer ranges from about 6000 angstroms to about 12000 angstroms, and a thickness of the third encapsulation layer ranges from about 50 angstroms to about 100 angstroms. Kim also teaches that the thicknesses and optical properties of the encapsulation stack dictate the resonance effect and luminous efficiency (Kim, pars. [0054]-[0057]). Therefore, determining the optimum thicknesses for the second and third layers to maximize the resonance effect and provide adequate moisture barrier protection would have been a matter of routine optimization for a person of ordinary skill in the art. Regarding claim 18, Yuan discloses everything as applied above. Yuan fails to explicitly disclose further comprising: forming a first encapsulation layer including silicon nitride on the common electrode; forming a second encapsulation layer including silicon oxynitride on the first 20 encapsulation layer; and forming a third encapsulation layer including silicon oxynitride on the second encapsulation layer. However, Kim discloses (Fig. 2, par. [0049]) further comprising: forming a first encapsulation layer [131] including silicon nitride on the common electrode [123]; forming a second encapsulation layer [132] including silicon oxide on the first encapsulation layer [131]; and forming a third encapsulation layer [133] including silicon oxynitride on the second encapsulation layer [132]. Yuan in view of Kim fails to explicitly disclose the second encapsulation layer including silicon oxynitride (Kim discloses silicon oxide). However, Kim explicitly teaches the critical importance of tuning the refractive indexes of the encapsulation layers to prevent light refraction at the interfaces, which causes color deviation and lowers luminous efficiency (Kim, par. [0059]). Kim teaches that the first layer has a high refractive index (par. [0056]), the second layer has a lower refractive index (par. [0058]), and the third layer’s refractive index should be matched to the adjacent organic layer (par. [0059]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Kim’s second encapsulation layer to comprise silicon oxynitride rather than silicon oxide. Silicon oxynitride is a known dielectric barrier material whose refractive index can be precisely tuned between that of silicon nitride and silicon oxide. Substituting silicon oxynitride for the second layer would have been an obvious design choice to achieve Kim’s stated goal of creating a gradual refractive index gradient between the layers, thereby minimizing interfacial refraction and maximizing luminous efficiency. Regarding claim 19, Yuan in view of Kim discloses everything as applied above. Yuan in view of Kim fails to explicitly disclose wherein a refractive index of each of the first, second, and third encapsulation layers is adjusted by adjusting a content ratio of elements included in each of the first, second, and third encapsulation layers. However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to effective date of the instant application to modify Yuan in view of Kim with these limitations for the reasons applied in the rejection of claim 18 above. Regarding claim 20, Yuan in view of Kim discloses everything as applied above. Yuan in view of Kim fails to explicitly disclose wherein a luminous efficiency of the light emitting element layer is adjusted by adjusting a thickness of each of the first, second, and third encapsulation layers. Kim also teaches that the thicknesses and optical properties of the encapsulation stack dictate the resonance effect and luminous efficiency (Kim, pars. [0054]-[0057]). Therefore, determining the optimum thicknesses for the second and third layers to maximize the resonance effect and provide adequate moisture barrier protection would have been a matter of routine optimization for a person of ordinary skill in the art. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTOR V BARZYKIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0508. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm. 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, BRITT HANLEY can be reached at (571)270-3042. 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. /VICTOR V BARZYKIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2893 /Britt Hanley/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/423,763 Page 2 Art Unit: 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/423,763 Page 3 Art Unit: 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/423,763 Page 4 Art Unit: 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/423,763 Page 5 Art Unit: 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/423,763 Page 6 Art Unit: 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/423,763 Page 7 Art Unit: 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/423,763 Page 8 Art Unit: 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/423,763 Page 9 Art Unit: 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/423,763 Page 10 Art Unit: 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/423,763 Page 11 Art Unit: 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/423,763 Page 12 Art Unit: 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/423,763 Page 13 Art Unit: 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/423,763 Page 14 Art Unit: 2893
Prosecution Insights