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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Applicant uses the limitation “controlling driving” in line 29. Examiner reads both words to mean the same thing. Examiner requests Applicant to choose one of the words.
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 1-12 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 1, the limitation “subpixels” in lines 13 and 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of Examination, Examiner will read this to mean “the first subpixel, second subpixel, and third subpixel.”
Further, the limitation “the other one” in lines 20-21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of Examination, Examiner will read this to mean “the other overlap area.”
Claims 2-12 would also be rejected as they are dependent on claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “the subpixels” in lines 13 and 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of Examination, Examiner will read this to mean “the first subpixel, second subpixel, and third subpixel.”
Further, the limitation “subpixel” in line 29. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of Examination, Examiner will read this to mean “the first subpixel, second subpixel, and third subpixel.”
Claims 2-10 would also be rejected as they are dependent on claim 2.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “the subpixels” in line 27. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of Examination, Examiner will read this to mean “the first subpixel, second subpixel, and third subpixel.”
Further, the limitation “the subpixel” in line 28. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of Examination, Examiner will read this to mean “the respective first subpixel, second subpixel, and third subpixel.”
Claims 6-10 would also be rejected as they are dependent on claim 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamada et. al. (US 20190103573 A1), hereinafter Hamada, in view of Yu et. al. (US 20210159452 A1), hereinafter Yu, in further view of Hamada et. al. (US 20050088104 A1), hereinafter Hamada2.
Regarding claim 1, Hamada teaches a display device (Fig 1 OLED display device 10, [0042]) comprising: a base material (Fig 18 not shown but would be similar to Fig 2B substrate 261, [0052]); and a display area (Fig 17 not labeled part of display region 125 from Fig 1, [0164]) including a plurality of pixels (Fig 17 main pixel 600, [0166]) arrayed in matrix in a first direction (Fig 17 x-direction, [0165]) and a second direction (Fig 17 y-direction, [0165]) intersecting with the first direction (Fig 17 x-direction, [0165]), wherein each of the pixels (Fig 17 main pixel 600, [0166]) includes a first subpixel (Fig 17 red subpixel 251R, [0164]) including an organic layer (Fig 18 light-emitting layer 269R, [0167]) having a first color (red, [0167]), a second subpixel (Fig 17 green subpixel 251G, [0164]) including an organic layer (Fig 18 light-emitting layer 269G, [0167]) having a second color (green, [0167]) and a third subpixel (Fig 17 blue subpixel 251B, [0164]) including an organic layer (Fig 18 light-emitting layer 269B, [0167]) having a third color (blue, [0167]), each of the subpixels (Fig 17 subpixel 251R, 251G, and 251B, [0164]) comprises two overlap areas (Fig 18 one-dot chain line circles, [0168]-[0169]; Fig 17 portions between shaded areas for subpixels) which overlap subpixels (Fig 17 subpixel 251R, 251G, and 251B, [0164]) which are adjacent in the first direction (Fig 17 x-direction, [0165]), and an effective area (Fig 17 shaded areas of subpixels) which contributes display of images, in the first subpixel (Fig 17 red subpixel 251R, [0164]), neither of the two overlap areas (Fig 18 one-dot chain line circles, [0168]-[0169]) is included in the effective area (Fig 17 shaded areas of subpixels), in the second subpixel (Fig 17 green subpixel 251G, [0164]).
Hamada fails to teach one of the two overlap areas is included in the effective area, and the other one is not included in the effective area, and in the third subpixel (Fig 17 blue subpixel 251B, [0164]), both of the two overlap areas are included in the effective area.
However, Hamada teaches forming a subpixel stack for each color individually to minimize crosstalk between subpixels (Fig 22, [0184]). Further, Hamada teaches the order for forming each color stack does not matter (Fig 22). Yu teaches having a reflective electrode (Fig 1A anode 101, [0038]) on top of the pixel defining layer (Fig 1A pixel defining layer 111, ([0038]) to improve light extraction for an OLED ([0044]). Hamada2 teaches how minor misalignment of the mask can cause a smaller light-emitting region due to less emitting material touching an electrode, resulting in reduced yield (Fig 3c, [0040]). One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would use the teachings of Yu and Hamada2 in having the reflective electrode on top of a pixel defining layer and forming a subpixel stack at one time to ensure the light emitting material is in full contact with the bottom electrode even with minor mask misalignment with a reasonable expectation of success. That is, the lower electrodes (Hamada: Fig 18 electrodes 265, [0052]) would be formed as a part of the stack, on top of the pixel defining layer (Fig 18 pixel defining layer 253, [0049]), consisting of carrier layers (Hamada: Fig 18 injection layer 266 and transport layer 286, [0144]) and emitting layer (Hamada: Fig 18 emitting layer 269, [0145]). MPEP 2143(I)(G)
In doing so, one of the two overlap areas (Hamada: Fig 18 one-dot chain line circles, [0168]-[0169]; Fig 17 portions between shaded areas for subpixels) would be included (Hamada: due to no overlap of the reflective electrode blocking light emission in the overlap area) in the effective area (Hamada: Fig 17 shaded areas of subpixels), and the other one (Hamada: Fig 18 one-dot chain line circles, [0168]-[0169]; Fig 17 portions between shaded areas for subpixels) is not included (Hamada: due to the reflective electrode blocking light emission in the overlap area) in the effective area (Hamada: Fig 17 shaded areas of subpixels), and in the third subpixel (Hamada: Fig 17 blue subpixel 251B, [0164]), both of the two overlap areas (Hamada: Fig 18 one-dot chain line circles, [0168]-[0169]; Fig 17 portions between shaded areas for subpixels) are included (Hamada: The blue layer would have to be formed last so that in the overlap area it is the highest and is thus not blocked in the edge area) in the effective area (Hamada: Fig 17 shaded areas of subpixels).
Regarding claim 2, Hamada as modified in claim 1 teaches each of the subpixels (Hamada: Fig 17 subpixel 251R, 251G, and 251B, [0164]) includes bottom (Hamada: Fig 18 electrodes 265, [0052]) and top electrodes (Hamada: Fig 18 electrode 273, [0052]) provided so as to interpose the organic layer (Hamada: Fig 18 emitting layer 269, [0145]) between them (Hamada: Fig 18 electrodes 265 and 273, [0052]), the bottom electrode (Hamada: Fig 18 electrodes 265, [0052]) is connected to a pixel circuit (Hamada: Fig 18 not shown; but shown in Fig 15 TFT circuit layer 263, [0055]) for controlling driving (Hamada: [0057]) of the subpixel, and the top electrode (Hamada: Fig 18 electrode 273, [0052]) is provided over (Hamada: Fig 18) a plurality of subpixels (Hamada: Fig 17 subpixel 251R, 251G, and 251B, [0164]).
Regarding claim 3, Hamada as modified in claim 2 teaches a peripheral portion (Hamada: Fig 18 one-dot chain line circles; the modified bottom electrode portion on top of pixel defining layer 253) of the bottom electrode (Hamada: Fig 18 electrodes 265, [0052]) is covered with the organic layer (Hamada: Fig 18 emitting layer 269, [0145]) and is not in contact organic layer (Hamada: Fig 18 emitting layer 269, [0145]) with the top electrode (Hamada: Fig 18 electrode 273, [0052]).
Regarding claim 4, Hamada as modified in claim 2 teaches the overlap area (Hamada: Fig 18 one-dot chain line circles; the modified bottom electrode portion on top of pixel defining layer 253) in which the first subpixel (Hamada: Fig 17 red subpixel 251R, [0164]; would have to be formed first) overlaps the second subpixel (Hamada: Fig 17 green subpixel 251G, [0164]), the second subpixel (Hamada: Fig 17 green subpixel 251G, [0164]; would have to be formed second) is provided on an upper side relative to the first subpixel (Hamada: Fig 17 red subpixel 251R, [0164]), and the bottom electrode (Hamada: Fig 18 electrodes 265, [0052]) included in the second subpixel (Hamada: Fig 17 green subpixel 251G, [0164]) reflects light emitted from the first subpixel (Hamada: Fig 17 red subpixel 251R, [0164]) such that the light does not contribute to display of images (light that is blocked by reflective electrode is not emitted), in the overlap area in which the second subpixel (Hamada: Fig 17 green subpixel 251G, [0164]) overlaps the third subpixel (Hamada: Fig 17 blue subpixel 251B, [0164]), the third subpixel (Hamada: Fig 17 blue subpixel 251B, [0164]; would have to be formed last) is provided on an upper side relative to the second subpixel (Hamada: Fig 17 green subpixel 251G, [0164]), and the bottom electrode (Hamada: Fig 18 electrodes 265, [0052]) included in the third subpixel (Hamada: Fig 17 blue subpixel 251B, [0164]) reflects light emitted from the second subpixel (Hamada: Fig 17 green subpixel 251G, [0164]) such that the light does not contribute to display of images (light that is blocked by reflective electrode is not emitted), and in the overlap area in which the third subpixel (Hamada: Fig 17 blue subpixel 251B, [0164]) overlaps the first subpixel (Hamada: Fig 17 red subpixel 251R, [0164]), the third subpixel (Hamada: Fig 17 blue subpixel 251B, [0164]) is provided on an upper side relative to the first subpixel (Hamada: Fig 17 red subpixel 251R, [0164]), and the bottom electrode (Hamada: Fig 18 electrodes 265, [0052]) included in the third subpixel (Hamada: Fig 17 blue subpixel 251B, [0164]) reflects light emitted from the first subpixel (Hamada: Fig 17 red subpixel 251R, [0164]) such that the light does not contribute to display of images (light that is blocked by reflective electrode is not emitted).
Examiner notes the overlapping areas and corresponding blocking of light to prevent contribution to image formation is dependent on order of formation. Hamada teaches the different color stacks can be formed at different times (Fig 22). This causes different overlapping areas, in the case of Hamada Fig 18, the blue color was formed first thus the overlapping areas would have light emission blocked by the subpixel electrodes placed on top during the formation of successive layers. Hamada fails to show the overlapping areas for other color stacks. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that different formation orders would cause overlapping areas similar to the limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 5, Hamada as modified in claim 2 teaches the organic layer (Hamada: Fig 18 emitting layer 269, [0145]) included in each of the subpixels (Hamada: Fig 17 subpixel 251R, 251G, and 251B, [0164]) includes a light emitting layer (Hamada: Fig 18 emitting layer 269, [0145]) corresponding to the color of the subpixel (Hamada: Fig 17 subpixel 251R, 251G, and 251B, [0164]), and first (Hamada: Fig 2B hole supply layer 267, [0061]) and second functional layers (Hamada: Fig 2B electron supply layer 271, [0061]) provided so as to interpose the light emitting layer (Hamada: Fig 18 emitting layer 269, [0145]) between them, the first functional layer (Hamada: Fig 2B hole supply layer 267, [0061]) is provided between the bottom electrode (Hamada: Fig 18 electrodes 265, [0052]) and the light emitting layer (Hamada: Fig 18 emitting layer 269, [0145]) and covers a peripheral portion of the bottom electrode, and the second functional layer (Hamada: Fig 2B electron supply layer 271, [0061]) is provided between the light emitting layer (Hamada: Fig 18 emitting layer 269, [0145]) and the top electrode (Hamada: Fig 18 electrode 273, [0052]) and covers (Hamada: Fig 18 does not show an electron supply layer but one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize that it would improve the efficiency of the display device) the light emitting layer (Hamada: Fig 18 emitting layer 269, [0145]).
Regarding claim 6, Hamada as modified in claim 5 fails to teach in the overlap area (Fig 18 one-dot chain line circles, [0168]-[0169]; Fig 17 portions between shaded areas for subpixels), between the bottom electrode (Hamada: Fig 18 electrodes 265, [0052]) included in the subpixel (Hamada: Fig 17 subpixel 251R, 251G, and 251B, [0164]) provided on the upper side (Hamada: Fig 18 part of a subpixel that is placed on top of a different subpixel) and the light emitting layer (Hamada: Fig 18 emitting layer 269, [0145]) included in the subpixel (Hamada: Fig 17 subpixel 251R, 251G, and 251B, [0164]) provided on the lower side (Hamada: Fig 18 part of a subpixel that is under the previously placed subpixel on top of a different subpixel), a carrier blocking layer is provided as the second functional layer of the subpixel provided on the lower side (Hamada: Fig 18 part of a subpixel that is under the previously placed subpixel on top of a different subpixel).
However, Yu teaches a carrier blocking layer (not shown, hole blocking layer and electron blocking layer, [0039]) in an OLED stack (Fig 1A OLED layer stack 104, [0039]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hamada and Hamada2 to incorporate the teachings of Yu by having a carrier blocking layer in the OLED stack. This would improve the efficiency of the OLED display.
In modifying Hamada and Hamda2 to incorporate a carrier blocking layer, in the overlap area (Fig 18 one-dot chain line circles, [0168]-[0169]; Fig 17 portions between shaded areas for subpixels), between the bottom electrode (Hamada: Fig 18 electrodes 265, [0052]) included in the subpixel (Hamada: Fig 17 subpixel 251R, 251G, and 251B, [0164]) provided on the upper side (Hamada: Fig 18 part of a subpixel that is placed on top of a different subpixel) and the light emitting layer (Hamada: Fig 18 emitting layer 269, [0145]) included in the subpixel (Hamada: Fig 17 subpixel 251R, 251G, and 251B, [0164]) provided on the lower side (Hamada: Fig 18 part of a subpixel that is under the previously placed subpixel on top of a different subpixel), a carrier blocking layer would be provided as the second functional layer (Hamada: Fig 2B electron supply layer 271, [0061]) of the subpixel provided on the lower side (Hamada: Fig 18 part of a subpixel that is under the previously placed subpixel on top of a different subpixel).
Regarding claim 7, Hamada as modified in claim 6 teaches the carrier blocking layer (not shown, hole blocking layer and electron blocking layer, [0039]) includes at least one of a hole blocking layer (optional so not considered) and an electron blocking layer (not shown, electron blocking layer, [0039]).
Regarding claim 8, Hamada as modified in claim 5 teaches the second functional layer (Hamada: Fig 2B electron supply layer 271, [0061]) includes a common layer (Hamada: Fig 2B electron supply layer 271, [0061]) provided over the plurality of subpixels (Hamada: Fig 17 subpixel 251R, 251G, and 251B, [0164]).
Regarding claim 9, Hamada as modified in claim 5 fails to teach in the overlap area (Fig 18 one-dot chain line circles, [0168]-[0169]; Fig 17 portions between shaded areas for subpixels), a protective layer is provided between the subpixel provided on the upper side and the subpixel provided on the lower side.
However, Yu teaches a protective layer (not shown, hole blocking layer and electron blocking layer, [0039]) in an OLED stack (Fig 1A OLED layer stack 104, [0039]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hamada and Hamada2 to incorporate the teachings of Yu by having a carrier blocking layer in the OLED stack. This would improve the efficiency of the OLED display.
In modifying Hamada and Hamda2 to incorporate a protective layer, in the overlap area (Fig 18 one-dot chain line circles, [0168]-[0169]; Fig 17 portions between shaded areas for subpixels), a protective layer (Yu: electron blocking layer, [0039]) would be provided between the subpixel (Hamada: Fig 17 subpixel 251R, 251G, and 251B, [0164]) provided on the upper side and the subpixel (Hamada: Fig 17 subpixel 251R, 251G, and 251B, [0164]) provided on the lower side.
Regarding claim 10, Hamada as modified in claim 9 teaches the protective layer (Yu: electron blocking layer, [0039]) includes a carrier blocking layer (Yu: electron blocking layer, [0039]) or an insulating layer (optional so not considered) formed of an insulating material.
Regarding claim 11, Hamada as modified in claim 1 teaches the first color is red (red, [0167]), and the second color is green (green, [0167]), and the third color is blue (blue, [0167]).
Examiner notes Hamada teaches the order of the subpixels can be changed ([0048]).
Regarding claim 12, Hamada as modified in claim 1 teaches the first color is green (green, [0167]), and the second color is red (red, [0167]), and the third color is blue (blue, [0167]).
Examiner notes Hamada teaches the order of the subpixels can be changed ([0048]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALVIN L LEE whose telephone number is (703)756-1921. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5 pm (ET).
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.
/ALVIN L LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2813
/STEVEN B GAUTHIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2813