DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim(s) 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US Pub. 2019/0198816) in view of Wong et al. (US Pub. 2021/0057670) and Yamazaki et al. (US 2003/0080338).
Regarding independent claim 15, Park teaches a display device (Fig. 3; para. 0054+) comprising:
a first pixel electrode comprising a first reflective electrode (REF; para. 0057) in a first emission area (SPB; para. 0050), a first light transmitting pattern (D1, D2; para. 0057) on a part of the first reflective electrode and containing an insulating material (para. 0057), and a first light transmitting electrode (ITO; para. 0057) on the first reflective electrode and the first light transmitting pattern and connected to the first reflective electrode (Fig. 3);
a second pixel electrode comprising a second reflective electrode (REF) in a second emission area (SPG) and a second light transmitting electrode (ITO) on the second reflective electrode;
a light emitting stack (OL) on the first pixel electrode and the second pixel electrode and comprising at least one light emitting layer (para. 0053); and
a common electrode (CAT) on the light emitting stack (para. 0053),
a bank pattern (BN) surrounding the first emission area and the second emission area, and having at least a portion positioned between the first emission area and the second emission area (Fig. 3),
wherein the first light transmitting pattern and the bank pattern are spaced apart from each other (Figs. 3 - spaced apart ITO layer).
Park teaches wherein the light transmitting pattern can be an organic or an inorganic dielectric (para. 0068) and wherein the bank pattern is a dielectric material (para. 0098); however, Park is silent with respect to wherein the bank pattern contains a same material as the first light transmitting pattern, specifically.
Wong teaches a display device wherein the light transmitting pattern (50, 52) can be, for example; silicon dioxide, silicon oxynitride, silicon nitride (para. 0043). Wong teaches wherein the bank pattern (66) can be a non-conducting material, but is silent with respect to any specific materials.
Yamazaki teaches a display device wherein the bank pattern can be, for example; silicon oxide, silicon nitride, silicon oxynitride (para. 0238).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to choose materials disclosed by Wong and Yamazaki for the first light transmitting patterns and the bank pattern, respectively, of Park such that they were formed of the same material. For example, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to choose silicon nitride as taught by Wong for the first light transmitting pattern of Park because it is considered obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for it intended purpose (MPEP 2144.07) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to choose silicon nitride as taught by Yamazaki for the bank pattern of Park because it is considered obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for it intended purpose (MPEP 2144.07).
Re claim 16, Park teaches wherein the first light transmitting pattern is formed in a separation type pattern locally on the first reflective electrode, and the light emitting stack is a common layer entirely over a display area comprising the first emission area and the second emission area (Fig. 3).
Re claim 17, Park teaches wherein the light emitting stack is configured to emit white light (para. 0062) but is silent with respect to “wherein the light emitting stack comprises: a first light emitting layer configured to emit light of a first color; and a second light emitting layer configured to emit light of a second color”.
Wong teaches a white light emitting stack comprising: a first light emitting layer configured to emit light of a first color; and a second light emitting layer configured to emit light of a second color (para. 0008, 0033 – “combinations of red, green, blue, and/or yellow OLED layers”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to form the white OLED of Park as taught by Wong; that is, with combinations of red, green, blue, and/or yellow OLED layers to arrive at the claimed invention for the purpose of providing the color mixing needed to form a white OLED layer.
Re claim 18, Park teaches a first color filter on the common electrode to correspond to the first emission area, and configured to selectively transmit light of a first color; and a second color filter on the common electrode to correspond to the second emission area, and configured to selectively transmit light of a second color (para. 0062).
Re claim 19, Park teaches wherein a first distance between the first reflective electrode and the common electrode corresponds to a resonance distance of the light of the first color, and a second distance between the second reflective electrode and the common electrode corresponds to a resonance distance of the light of the second color (this is the same thing as what is referred to as “microcavity effect” by Park – para. 0064-0065).
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US Pub. 2019/0198816) in view of Wong et al. (US Pub. 2021/0057670) and Yamazaki et al. (US 2003/0080338) and further in view of Baek et al. (US Pub. 2021/0104586).
Re claim 20, Park and Wong are silent with respect to a specific embodiment of the light emitting stack.
Baek teaches wherein the light emitting stack comprises: a first stack comprising the first light emitting layer (EL1) and at least one first intermediate layer (CGL1; a second stack on the first stack, and comprising the second light emitting layer (EL2) and at least one second intermediate layer (CGL2); and a third stack on the second stack, and comprising a third light emitting layer (EL3) and at least one third intermediate layer (ETL1), wherein the first light emitting layer is configured to emit blue light (Fig. 4C; para. 0138-0139).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to look to Baek to provide that which was missing from Park and Wong; that is, a specific light emitting stack structure, to arrive at the claimed invention for the purpose of providing a structure for the light emitting stack of Park with a reasonable expectation of success. It is considered obvious to substitute one known element (the light emitting stack of Park) for another (the light emitting stack of Baek) to obtain the predictable result of providing an organic light emitting layer (MPEP 2143, I, B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation from the prior art of record, nor does the prior art of record otherwise make obvious the limitations of “…the first light transmitting pattern and the bank pattern are spaced apart from each other in a horizontal direction crossing a thickness direction of the first light transmitting pattern, and the first light transmitting electrode contacts the first reflective electrode between the first light transmitting pattern and the bank pattern…”, in combination with the other limitations.
Response to Arguments
The previous rejection(s) of claims 1-14 have been withdrawn in light of the amendments to independent claim 1, which have placed these claims in condition for allowance as described above.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 15-20 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.
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 MOLLY KAY REIDA whose telephone number is (571)272-4237. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00PM.
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, Brent Fairbanks can be reached at (408)918-7532. 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.
/MOLLY K REIDA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2899
/Brent A. Fairbanks/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights