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 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claimed subject matter of claim 4 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). For example, claim 4 recites the limitation “wherein the first electrode is inclined in the direction away from the substrate in the third region”, which does not appear to be shown in the Drawings of the current application. As shown in Figures 3A-3B of the Drawings of the current application the first electrode 130 is shown to be flat and thereby parallel to the substrate 100 in the third region S3. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 6-7 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 6 recites the limitation “the direction perpendicular t the first principal surface” in lines 6-7 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Note the dependent claim 7 necessarily inherits the indefiniteness of the claims on which it depends.
A. Prior-art rejections based at least in part by Jun
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5 and 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jun (US 2020/0044002 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1, Figure 2A of Jun discloses an organic device comprising:
a reflection layer 5 (“reflective electrode”- ¶0030), a first electrode 6 (“electrode”- ¶0030), an organic layer 8 (“organic light emitting layer”- ¶0030), and a second electrode 9 (“electrode”- ¶0030) arranged in that order above a first principal surface of a substrate 2 (“substrate”- ¶0030),
wherein the first electrode 6 includes a first region 611, a second region 621, a third region 612, and a fourth region 622, the first region 611 being in contact with the organic layer 8, the second region 621 being inclined in a direction away from the substrate 2, the third region 612 having an inclination less than an inclination of the second region 621 with respect to the substrate 2, and the fourth region 622 being inclined in the direction away from the substrate 2 and having an inclination greater than the inclination of the third region 612 with respect to the substrate 2, and
wherein the first region 611 and the second region 621 are in contact with each other, the second region 621 and the third region 612 are in contact with each other, and the third region 612 and the fourth region 622 are in contact with each other.
Regarding claim 2, Figure 2A of Jun discloses wherein a distance between the third region 612 and the first principal surface in a direction perpendicular to the first principal surface is greater than a distance between the first region 611 and the first principal surface in the direction perpendicular to the first principal surface.
Regarding claim 3, Figure 2A of Jun discloses wherein the first electrode 6 is parallel to the substrate 2 in the third region 612.
Regarding claim 5, Figure 2A of Jun discloses wherein the first electrode 6 further includes a fifth region 613 in contact with the fourth region 622, and wherein the fifth region 613 is electrically connected to the reflection layer 5 (¶0068).
Regarding claim 8, Figure 2A of Jun discloses wherein the first electrode 6 is a transparent electrode, since as shown in Figure 2A light travels through electrode 6 and is then reflected by layer 5. Thereby, electrode 6 is transparent to said light (¶¶0095-0098).
Regarding claim 9, Figure 2A of Jun discloses wherein the organic device includes a plurality of pixels including a first pixel and a second pixel (¶0033),
wherein the first electrode 6 included in the first pixel includes the first region 611, the second region 621, the third region 612, and the fourth region 622,
wherein the first electrode 6 included in the second pixel (which would have a similar configuration as shown in Fig. 2A) includes the first region 611, a sixth region 623, and a seventh region 613, the sixth region 623 being inclined in the direction away from the substrate 2, the seventh region 613 having an inclination less than an inclination of the sixth region 623 with respect to the substrate 2, and wherein the sixth region 623 and the seventh region 613 are in contact with each other.
Regarding claim 10, Figures 5A-5C of Jun disclose a photoelectric conversion apparatus comprising:
an imaging element that receives light (¶¶0156-0174); and a
display unit that displays an image captured by the imaging element (¶¶0156-0174),
wherein the display unit is the organic device according to Claim 1 (¶¶0162, 0170).
Regarding claim 11, Figures 5A-5C of Jun disclose a display apparatus comprising:
a display unit including the organic device according to Claim 1 (¶¶0162, 0170); and
a housing 11 (“storage case”- ¶0157) on which the display unit is provided.
Regarding claim 12, Figures 5A-5C of Jun disclose an electronic apparatus comprising:
a display unit including the organic device according to Claim 1 (¶¶0162, 0170);
a housing 11 (“storage case”- ¶0157) on which the display unit is provided; and
a communication unit that is provided in the housing 11 and that communicates with an outside of the electronic apparatus (¶¶0156-0174).
Regarding claim 13, Figures 5A-5C of Jun disclose an illumination apparatus comprising:
a light source including the organic device according to Claim 1 (¶¶0162, 0170); and
a housing 11 (“storage case”- ¶0157) in which the light source is provided.
Regarding claim 14, Figures 5A-5C of Jun disclose a moving object (i.e., a user wearing the device 1 would inherently be moving during usage) comprising:
a lighting tool including the organic device according to Claim 1 (¶¶0162, 0170); and
a body 11 (“storage case”- ¶0157) on which the lighting tool is provided.
Regarding claim 15, Figures 5A-5C of Jun disclose a wearable device comprising:
a display unit including the organic device according to Claim 1 (¶¶0162, 0170);
an optical system that collects light of the display unit (¶¶0156-0174); and
a control device that controls an operation of the display unit (¶¶0156-0174).
B. Prior-art rejections based at least in part by Ito
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. (US 2015/0060832 A1, hereinafter “Ito”) in view of Sun (US 2021/0303816 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
876
1245
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding independent claim 1, Figure 8 of Ito discloses an organic device comprising:
an electrode layer 146 (“electrode… drain”- ¶0039), a first electrode 148 (“electrode”- ¶0041), an organic layer 162 (“organic EL layer”- ¶0048), and a second electrode 164 (“electrode”- ¶0049) arranged in that order above a first principal surface of a substrate 102 (“substrate”- ¶0034),
wherein the first electrode 148 includes a first region (i.e., the portion of 148 in the notated “1st Region”; see above Examiner’s Markup Fig. 8 Ito), a second region (i.e., the portion of 148 in the notated “2nd Region”; see above Examiner’s Markup Fig. 8 Ito), a third region (i.e., the portion of 148 in the notated “3rd Region”; see above Examiner’s Markup Fig. 8 Ito), and a fourth region (i.e., the portion of 148 in the notated “4th Region”; see above Examiner’s Markup Fig. 8 Ito), the first region being in contact with the organic layer 162, the second region being inclined in a direction away from the substrate 102, the third region having an inclination less than an inclination of the second region with respect to the substrate 102, and the fourth region being inclined in the direction away from the substrate 102 and having an inclination greater than the inclination of the third region with respect to the substrate 102, and
wherein the first region and the second region are in contact with each other, the second region and the third region are in contact with each other, and the third region and the fourth region are in indirect contact with each other.
Ito does not expressly disclose wherein the electrode layer comprises a reflective material such that it can be interpreted as the claimed reflection layer.
Figure 1 of Sun discloses an organic device comprising an electrode layer 24 (“drain electrode”- ¶0035), wherein the electrode layer comprises a reflective metal composition (¶0035).
In light of such teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ito such that the electrode layer comprises a reflective metal composition as taught by Sun for the purpose of utilizing a suitable and well-known drain electrode composition which achieves a good reflecting effect for both the visible lights and the non-visible lights (Sun ¶0035). Thus, the combined teachings including Sun discloses wherein the electrode layer 146 comprises a reflective metal composition such that it can be interpreted as the claimed reflection layer.
Regarding claim 4, Figure 8 of Ito discloses wherein the first electrode 148 is inclined in the direction away from the substrate 102 in the third region, since the left portion of electrode 148 in the “3rd Region” is inclined in the direction away from the substrate 102 (see above Examiner’s Markup Fig. 8 Ito).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 6 (which claim 7 depends from), the prior art of record including Jun and/or Ito, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the combination of limitations including, but not limited to, “wherein the organic device includes a plurality of pixels including a first pixel and a second pixel and an insulating layer disposed between the reflection layer and the first electrode, and wherein a thickness of the insulating layer in the direction perpendicular to the first principal surface in the first region of the first electrode included in the first pixel differs from a thickness of the insulating layer in the direction perpendicular to the first principal surface in the first region of the first electrode included in the second pixel”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kawachi et al. (US 2009/0009440 A1), which discloses an organic device comprising a first electrode including multiple inclined portions.
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