DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the communication filed 15 May 2026.
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
The status of the application as a CON of PCT/JP2022/005046 claiming foreign priority to JP2021-029126 is acknowledged.
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of the Species 1 embodiment in the reply filed on 16 December 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse. See MPEP § 818.01(a).
Regarding Applicant’s listing of claims 1-5, 7-10, and 12 as readable on the elected species, the Examiner respectfully notes that claim 4 does not belong to the elected Species 1 embodiment. Claim 4 recites the limitation “wherein the first and second pixel electrodes are cathodes . . . .” Applicant’s elected Species 1 embodiment is depicted in FIG. 2-4, however, in which the first and second pixel electrodes are specifically disclosed as being anodes. See instant application [0040]: “In FIG. 3 , the pixel electrodes 124R, 124G, and 124B are anodes and the counter electrode 136 is a cathode.” The unelected Species 6 embodiment is depicted in FIG. 16, wherein the pixel electrodes function as cathodes. See instant application [0106]: “The display device 100F is different from the display device 100 in that the pixel electrodes 142R, 142G, and 142B function as the cathodes and the counter electrode 144 functions as the anode.”
Accordingly, claims 4, 6, and 11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, and 12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The § 112(b) rejections of claims 2 and 5 are withdrawn, responsive to Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Further § 112(b) rejections appear below.
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.
Claim 1 is 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.
“The essential inquiry pertaining to this requirement is whether the claims set out and circumscribe a particular subject matter with a reasonable degree of clarity and particularity. ‘As the statutory language of “particular[ity]” and “distinct[ness]” indicates, claims are required to be cast in clear—as opposed to ambiguous, vague, indefinite—terms. It is the claims that notify the public of what is within the protections of the patent, and what is not.’” MPEP § 2173.02(II) (quoting In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
Regarding claim 1: Claim 1 states, in relevant part, “the first light-emitting layer and the second light-emitting layer do not overlap each other in the region overlapping the first opening, the first light-emitting layer and the second light-emitting layer do not overlap each other in the region overlapping the second opening . . . .” There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
It is further unclear which “region” of which structure Applicant is referring to in claim 1, including whether “the region” refers to (1) the first light emitting layer, (2) the second light emitting layer, (3), the insulating layer, etc., or (4) a region of any of the structures recited in claim 1. For the purposes of examination, the relevant language has been interpreted in accordance with interpretation (4).
Claims 2, 3, 5, 7-10, and 12, which depend from claim 1, are rejected under § 112(b) for the same reasons as claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims, or present a sufficient showing that the claims comply with the statutory requirements.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3, 5, 7-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0187132 (filed Dec. 18, 2012) (hereinafter “Ando”) in view of Japanese Patent Publication No. JP2011009169A (published Jan. 13, 2011) (hereinafter “Takasugi”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Ando discloses: A display device comprising:
a first pixel electrode (FIG. 4, depicting a first lower electrode 15, [0116]);
a second pixel electrode (FIG. 4, depicting a second lower electrode 15) arranged in a first direction and spaced apart from the first pixel electrode (FIG. 4, depicting wherein the second lower electrode 15 is arranged in a first direction and spaced apart from the first lower electrode 15);
an insulating layer (FIG. 4, opening insulating film 16, [0117]) having a first opening exposing at least a portion of a top surface of the first pixel electrode (FIG. 4, depicting wherein the opening insulating film 16 has a first opening exposing at least a portion of a top surface of a first lower electrode 15) and a second opening exposing at least a portion of a top surface of the second pixel electrode (FIG. 4, depicting wherein the opening insulating film 16 has a second opening exposing at least a portion of a top surface of a second lower electrode 15);
a first common layer (FIG. 4, e.g., hole transport layer 172, [0119]) arranged on the first pixel electrode, the second pixel electrode, and the insulating layer (FIG. 4, depicting wherein the hole transport layer 172 is disposed on a first lower electrode 15, a second lower electrode 15, and the opening insulating film 16);
a first light-emitting layer (FIG. 4, e.g., blue light emitting layer 173B, [0119]) arranged on the first common layer (FIG. 4, depicting wherein the blue light emitting layer 173B is arranged on the hole transport layer 172), and overlapping the first opening (FIG. 4, depicting wherein the blue light emitting layer 173B overlaps a first lower electrode 15);
a second light-emitting layer (FIG. 4, e.g., red light emitting layer 173R, [0119]) arranged on the first common layer (FIG. 4, depicting wherein the red light emitting layer 173R is arranged on the hole transport layer 172), overlapping the second opening (FIG. 4, depicting wherein the red light emitting layer 173R overlaps a first lower electrode 15); and
a counter electrode (FIG. 4, upper electrode 18, [0191]) arranged on the first light-emitting layer and the second light-emitting layer (FIG. 4, depicting wherein the upper electrode 18 is arranged on the blue light emitting layer 173B and the red light emitting layer 173R),
wherein the first light-emitting layer is spread over the insulating layer (FIG. 4, depicting wherein the blue light emitting layer 173B is spread over the opening insulating film 16).
The FIG. 4 embodiment of Ando does not specifically disclose wherein the first light-emitting layer and the second light-emitting layer do not overlap each other in the region overlapping the first opening, the first light-emitting layer and the second light-emitting layer do not overlap each other in the region overlapping the second opening, an edge of the first light-emitting layer is arranged on an inclined surface of the second opening in the insulating layer, and the second light-emitting layer includes a region overlapping the first light-emitting layer.
In the same field of endeavor, Takasugi discloses a display device including a configuration of layers wherein the first light-emitting layer and the second light-emitting layer do not overlap each other in the region overlapping the first opening, the first light-emitting layer and the second light-emitting layer do not overlap each other in the region overlapping the second opening (FIGS. 5/6, depicting a light emitting device including an insulating layer 11 including a first, rightmost opening, and a second, leftmost opening, and further wherein a blue light emitting layer B and a red light-emitting layer R do not overlap each other in a region overlapping the first, rightmost opening or the second, leftmost opening, [0015], [0035]), an edge of the first light-emitting layer is arranged on an inclined surface of the second opening in the insulating layer (FIG. 6, depicting wherein an edge of the blue light emitting layer B is arranged on an inclined surface of the second, leftmost opening in the insulating layer 11), and the second light-emitting layer includes a region overlapping the first light-emitting layer (FIG. 6, depicting wherein the red light emitting layer R includes a region overlapping the blue light emitting layer). Regarding the configuration of layers, in [0041]-[0044], Takasugi states: “[I]n this case, the panel life is determined by the life of B. . . . [S]ince the lifetime of B is still shorter, the lifetime of B is increased by increasing the width of the light emitting region of B, and the lifetime of the panel is eventually increased.”
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosed display device of Ando by substituting the light emitting layer configuration of Takasugi in order to improve the lifetime of the display device. See Takasugi [0041]-[0044].
Applicant further claims wherein the second light-emitting layer has “a lower emission starting voltage than that of the first light-emitting layer.”
When the structure recited in a reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. MPEP § 2112.01(I). “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” Id. (citing In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 U.S.P.Q. 430, 433 (C.C.P.A. 1977)). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” Id. (quoting In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). “Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product.” Id. (citing In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255).
In the instant case, Ando in view of Takasugi discloses a display device structure that is identical to the display device structure claimed in Applicant’s claim 1, and thus necessarily possesses the properties of the display device structure claimed in Applicant’s claim 1, including wherein the second light-emitting layer has “a lower emission starting voltage than that of the first light-emitting layer. Compare, e.g., FIGS. 2/3 of the instant application with FIGS. 1-22, [0001]-[0114] of Ando.
Accordingly, Ando in view of Takasugi discloses a display device that necessarily possesses the properties of the display device structure claimed in Applicant’s claim 1, and thus renders obvious claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Ando in view of Takasugi further discloses wherein the first light-emitting layer is arranged on a first common layer side (FIG. 4, depicting wherein the blue light emitting layer 173B is arranged on a side of the hole transport layer 172), in a region where the first light-emitting layer and the second light-emitting layer are overlapped each other (Takasugi FIGS. 5/6; Ando FIG. 4, depicting wherein the hole transport layer 172 is disposed over the entire display panel, such that, as modified by Takasugi, the blue light emitting layer 173B would be arranged on a side of the hole transport layer 172 in a region where the blue light emitting layer 173B and the red light emitting layer 173R overlap).
Regarding claim 3, Ando in view of Takasugi further discloses wherein the first and second pixel electrodes are anodes (FIG. 4, [0116]: “The lower electrode 15 is an anode of the light emitting device and is connected to the driving transistor Tr1 in the TFT layer 13 as described above.”), the first light-emitting layer has electron transport properties (FIG. 4, [0127]: “More specifically, the light emitting layer 173 may be formed of a mixture material in which a low-molecular material (monomer or oligomer) is added to a polymer (light emitting) material. For example, the light emitting layer 173 may be formed by doping, with an organic EL material, polyfluorene-based polymer derivatives, a (poly)paraphenylene vinylene derivative, a polyphenylene derivative, a polyvinyl carbazole derivative, a polythiophene derivative, perylene-based pigments, coumarin-based pigments, rhodamine-based pigments, or the above-described polymer materials. Examples of the doping material include rubrene, perylene, 9,10-diphenyl anthracene, tetraphenyl butadiene, nile red, and coumarine 6.”), and the first common layer has hole transport properties (FIG. 4, [0124]: “As a material forming the hole transport layer 172, a light emitting material that is soluble to an organic solvent may be used. Examples of such a light emitting material include polyvinyl carbazole and a derivative thereof, polyfuluorene and a derivative thereof, polyaniline and a derivative thereof, polysilane and a derivative thereof, a polysiloxane derivative that has aromatic amine in a side chain or in a main chain thereof, polythiophene and a derivative thereof, and polypyrrole.”).
Regarding claim 5, Ando in view of Takasugi further discloses wherein an edge of the second light-emitting layer overlaps the first light-emitting layer (Takasugi FIGS. 5/6; Ando FIG. 4, depicting wherein an edge of the red light emitting layer 173R, as modified by Takasugi, would overlap the blue light emitting layer 173B), the edge of the second light-emitting layer is on the insulating layer (Takasugi FIGS. 5/6; Ando FIG. 4, depicting wherein the edge of the red light emitting layer 173R, as modified by Takasugi, would be on the insulating film 16), and is between an edge of the first opening and an edge of the second opening in a plan view (Takasugi FIGS. 5/6; Ando FIG. 4, depicting wherein the edge of the red light emitting layer 173R, as modified by Takasugi, would be between an edge of the first opening exposing at least a portion of a top surface of a first lower electrode 15 and an edge of the second opening exposing at least a portion of a top surface of a second lower electrode 15), and a distance between the edge of the second light-emitting layer and the edge of the first opening is smaller than a distance between the edge of the second light-emitting layer and the edge of the second opening (Takasugi FIGS. 5/6; Ando FIG. 4, depicting wherein the edge of the red light emitting layer 173R, as modified by Takasugi, would be closer to the first opening exposing at least a portion of a top surface of a first lower electrode 15 than the second opening exposing at least a portion of a top surface of a first lower electrode 15, such that a distance between the edge of the red light emitting layer 173R and the first opening exposing at least a portion of a top surface of a first lower electrode 15 would be smaller than a distance between the edge of the red light emitting layer 173R and the second opening exposing at least a portion of a top surface of a second lower electrode 15).
Regarding claim 7, Ando in view of Takasugi further discloses wherein a second common layer (FIG. 4, e.g., electron injection layer 175, [0119]) is further arranged between the first and second light-emitting layers and the counter electrode (FIG. 4, depicting wherein the electron injection layer 175 is arranged between the blue light emitting layer 173B and red light emitting layer 173R and the upper electrode 18).
Regarding claim 8, Ando in view of Takasugi further discloses wherein a third pixel electrode (FIG. 4, depicting a third lower electrode 15) is arranged apart from the first pixel electrode (FIG. 4, depicting wherein the third lower electrode 15 is arranged apart from the first lower electrode 15), the insulating layer has a third opening exposing the third pixel electrode (FIG. 4, depicting wherein the opening insulating film 16 has a third opening exposing at least a portion of a third lower electrode 15), and the edge of the first light-emitting layer is arranged on the inclined surface of the third opening in the insulating layer (Takasugi FIGS. 5/6, depicting wherein an edge of the blue light emitting layer B is arranged on an inclined surface of the third, central opening in the insulating layer 11, such that, as the display device of Ando is modified by Takasugi as disclosed regarding claim 1, the blue light emitting layer 173B would be arranged on the inclined surface of the third opening exposing at least a portion of a third lower electrode 15).
Regarding claim 9, Ando in view of Takasugi further discloses a third light-emitting layer (FIG. 4, e.g., green light emitting layer 173G, [0119]) arranged between the first common layer and the counter electrode (FIG. 4, depicting wherein the green light emitting layer 173G is arranged between the hole transport layer 172 and the upper electrode 18), and overlaps a portion of the first light-emitting layer and the third pixel electrode on the first common layer (FIG. 4, depicting wherein the green light emitting layer 173G of Ando, as modified by Takasugi, would overlap a portion of the blue light emitting layer 173B and the third lower electrode 15 on the hole transport layer 172).
Applicant further claims wherein the third light-emitting layer “has a lower emission start voltage than the of the first light-emitting layer.”
When the structure recited in a reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. MPEP § 2112.01(I). “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” Id. (citing In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 U.S.P.Q. 430, 433 (C.C.P.A. 1977)). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” Id. (quoting In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). “Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product.” Id. (citing In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255).
In the instant case, Ando in view of Takasugi discloses a display device structure that is identical to the display device structure claimed in Applicant’s claim 9, and thus necessarily possesses the properties of the display device structure claimed in Applicant’s claim 9, including wherein wherein the third light-emitting layer “has a lower emission start voltage than the of the first light-emitting layer.” Compare, e.g., FIGS. 2/3 of the instant application with FIGS. 1-22, [0001]-[0114] of Ando.
Accordingly, Ando in view of Takasugi discloses a display device that necessarily possesses the properties of the display device structure claimed in Applicant’s claim 9, and thus renders obvious claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, Ando further discloses wherein an emission peak wavelength of the first emission layer is 460 nm or more, 500 nm or less (FIG. 4, [0126]: “The blue light emitting layer 173B may be formed, for example, of a light emitting material that has one or more peak wavelengths in a range of 450 nm to 495 nm both inclusive.”).
Regarding claim 12, Ando further discloses wherein an emission peak wavelength of the first light-emitting layer is 460 nm or more, 500 nm or less (FIG. 4, [0126]: “The blue light emitting layer 173B may be formed, for example, of a light emitting material that has one or more peak wavelengths in a range of 450 nm to 495 nm both inclusive.”).
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 ADAM D WEILAND whose telephone number is (703)756-4760. 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, Steven Gauthier can be reached at (571)270-0373. 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.
/ADAM D WEILAND/Examiner, Art Unit 2813
/STEVEN B GAUTHIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights