DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/2/2024 is 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 § 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 12-14 and 16 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.
Claim 12 recites the abbreviation “LUMO” in lines 7 and 9 of the claim, however does not provide the expanded form for the abbreviation such that it is unclear what is necessarily required by the abbreviation “LUMO.”
Claim 13 recites the abbreviation “LUMO” in lines 1 of the claim, however does not provide the expanded form for the abbreviation such that it is unclear what is necessarily required by the abbreviation “LUMO.”
Claim 16 recites the term “about” in line 2 of the claim, which 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.
For example, one of ordinary skill in the art could not make a clear determination of whether or not a specific value reasonably constitutes as being “about 100 Å” without clear upper and lower limits defined for the term “about”.
Note the dependent claims 13-14 necessarily inherit the indefiniteness of the claims on which they depend.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11, 15 and 17-20 are allowed.
Regarding independent claim 1, Figure 1A of Minotto et al. (US 2023/0018862 A1, hereinafter “Minotto”) discloses an electronic apparatus comprising:
a substrate 101 (“substrate”- ¶0023) comprising a photodetection region (i.e., the region of substrate 101 associated with the photodiode- ¶0024) and an emission region (i.e., the region of substrate 101 associated with the light-emitting device- ¶0023);
an organic photodetector (i.e., “photodiode”- ¶¶0010, 0024) arranged on the photodetection region; and
a light-emitting device (“light-emitting device”- ¶0023) arranged on the emission region,
wherein the organic photodetector comprises: a first pixel electrode 102A’ (“electrode”- ¶0024); a counter electrode 106A/106A’ (collectively 106A and 106A’ “electrode”- ¶¶0023-0024) facing the first pixel electrode 102A’; and a hole transport region 103A’ (collectively 103A and 103A’ “hole transport layers”- ¶¶0023-0024, 0026), an activation layer 104A’ (“photo-active layer”- ¶0024), and an electron transport region 105A/105A’ (collectively 105A and 105A’ “electron transport layers”- ¶¶0023-0024, 0026) sequentially arranged between the first pixel electrode 102A’ and the counter electrode 106A/106A’,
the light-emitting device comprises: a second pixel electrode 102A (“electrode”- ¶0023); the counter electrode 106A/106A’ facing the second pixel electrode 102A; and the hole transport region 103A/103A’, an emission layer 104A (“emissive layer”- ¶0023), and the electron transport region 105A/105A’ sequentially arranged between the second pixel electrode 102A and the counter electrode 106A/106A’,
the first pixel electrode 102A’ and the activation layer 104A’are arranged in the photodetection region,
the second pixel electrode 102A and the emission layer 104A are arranged in the emission region,
the hole transport region 103A/103A’, the electron transport region 105A/105A’, and the counter electrode 106A/106A’ are arranged in the photodetection region and the emission region, and
the electron transport region 105A/105A’ and the activation layer 104A’ of the organic photodetector are in contact with each other.
Minotto does not expressly disclose wherein a mean square roughness (Rq) value of a surface of the activation layer that is closest to the electron transport region is 9 nm or more.
Thus, regarding independent claim 1, the claim is allowed, because the prior art of record including Minotto, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the combination of limitations including, but not limited to, “a mean square roughness (Rq) value of a surface of the activation layer that is closest to the electron transport region is 9 nm or more”.
Claims 2-11, 15 and 17-20 are allowed as being dependent on allowed claim 1.
Claims 12-14 and 16 (which depend from allowed claim 1) would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kubota et al. (US 2022/0393123 A1), which discloses an electronic apparatus comprising a photodetector and a light-emitting device disposed on the same substrate.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY C CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-6132. The examiner can normally be reached Mon- Fri 12pm-10pm.
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, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano can be reached at (571)-272-7925. 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.
/JAY C CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights