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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Republic of Korea on 12/05/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the KR10-2023-0174219 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 4-5 and 12-20 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 4 recites the limitation “…the side-surface of the lower bank has a same angle as the edge region of the first lower electrode”, which is unclear because it does not specify the reference from which the angle is measured. A surface does not inherently “have the same angle as” another surface absent an identified a reference plane, such as the upper surface of the device substrate. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is interpreted as requiring the side-surface of the lower bank has a same angle as the edge region of the first lower electrode relative to the upper surface of the device substrate.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “…a side-surface of the upper bank has an angle different from the side-surface of the lower bank”, which is unclear because it does not specify the reference from which the angle is measured. A surface does not inherently “have the angle different” than another surface absent an identified a reference plane, such as the upper surface of the device substrate. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is interpreted as requiring the side-surface of the upper bank and the side-surface of the lower bank to form different angles relative to the upper surface of the device substrate.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “…the central region of the third lower electrode has a shape different from the curved regions of the first and second lower electrodes”. However, the second lower electrode in claim 7, prior to claim 12, is recited as including an edge region and a center region, and is not expressly recited as including a curved region. Thus, the phrase “curved regions of the first and second lower electrodes” introduces inconsistent terminology and renders unclear what portion of the second lower electrode is being referenced for comparison. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is interpreted as the central region of the third lower electrode has a shape different from the curved regions of the first lower electrode and the central region of the second lower electrode.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “…an edge of the first lower electrode and an edge of the second lower electrode include an inclined region having an inclination with an upper surface of the device substrate toward the first light-emitting device and the second light-emitting device”. It is ambiguous whether each edge includes a separate inclined region respectively directed toward its corresponding light-emitting device, or whether the claim requires some other relationship. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is interpreted as the edge of the first lower electrode include a first inclined region having an inclination with an upper surface of the device substrate toward the first light-emitting device, and the edge of the second lower electrode include a second inclined region having an inclination with an upper surface of the device substrate toward the second light-emitting device.
Claims 14-20 inherit the indefiniteness of claim 13, hence, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 13 and 17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9 and 12 of copending Application No. 18/378478 (reference application).
Regarding Claim 13, although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 9 of reference application is drawn to a display apparatus comprising: a device substrate including a first pixel area and a second pixel area realizing a color different from the first pixel area; a first curved structure disposed on the first pixel area of the device substrate and including an upper surface having a first curvature; a first light-emitting device disposed on the upper surface of the first curved structure, the first light-emitting device having a stacked structure of a first lower electrode, a first light-emitting layer and a first upper electrode; a second curved structure disposed on the second pixel area of the device substrate including an upper surface having a second curvature different from the first curvature; and a second light-emitting device disposed on the upper surface of the second curved structure, the second light-emitting device having a stacked structure of a second lower electrode, a second light-emitting layer and a second upper electrode. Present claim 13 recites the same overall architecture and further recited inclined regions at the edges of the first and second lower electrodes. Although the claim 9 of the reference application does not specifically require “an edge of the first lower electrode and an edge of the second lower electrode include an inclined region having an inclination with an upper surface of the device substrate toward the first light-emitting device and the second light-emitting device”, the claim 9 of the reference application does require the first lower electrode and the second lower electrode to be curved and thus it would have been obvious that the lower electrode edges have an inclination.
Regarding Claim 17, claim 12 of reference application recites “wherein the second curved structure includes a same material as the first curved structure”, which is the same limitation as claim 17.
Claim 14 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of copending Application No. 18/378478 (reference application) in view of Matsumoto (US 20150144919 A1). Matsumoto discloses a curved OLED arrangement (see Fig. 2) in which second insulating layer 16 has concave portions 16b in the pixels and banks 16a at the boundaries of adjacent pixels, with lower electrodes 31 formed in the concave portions and curved along those surfaces. The edge/inclined region of first and second lower electrodes 31 are disposed outside the curved portion of 16, in the 16a region. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dispose the inclined lower-electrode edge regions of the display apparatus of reference application claim 9 outside the corresponding curved structures as a peripheral position refinement, as taught by Matsumoto.
Claim 15 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of copending Application No. 18/378478 (reference application) in view of Park (US 20160190217 A1). Park discloses a dual-bank OLED structure in which a first bank layer 102 and second bank layer 104 are formed around a lower electrode, and that the second bank layer 104 covers the end portion of the lower electrode 103 (see Fig. 6). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the display apparatus of reference application claim 9 with a bank insulating layer covering the inclined edge regions of the lower electrodes as an obvious peripheral implementation detail for defining the emission region and controlling the organic light-emitting material at the electrode periphery.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto (US 20150144919 A1) in view of Park (US 20160190217 A1).
Re: Independent Claim 1, Matsumoto discloses a display apparatus comprising:
a first lower electrode disposed at a first pixel area of a device substrate (Matsumoto, in Fig. 2, teaches display device 1 including first substrate 10 with pixels and an OLED section 30 in each pixel, the OLED section 30 including lower electrode 31), the first lower electrode including a curved region (Matsumoto, Fig. 2, lower electrode 31 is formed in concave portion 16b, thus include a curved region) and an edge region disposed outside the curved region (Matsumoto, Fig. 2, lower electrode 31 includes an edge region outside curved region 16b);
a first light-emitting layer disposed on the curved region of the first lower electrode (Matsumoto, Fig. 2, organic EL layer 32 is formed on curved region of first lower electrode 31); and
a first upper electrode disposed on the first light-emitting layer (Matsumoto, Fig. 2, first upper electrode 33 disposed on first light emitting layer 32).
Matsumoto is silent regarding
an upper bank covering the edge region of the first lower electrode, the upper bank exposing the curved region of the first lower electrode; and
wherein the edge region of the first lower electrode has a shape extending in a direction inclined to an upper surface of the device substrate toward the first lower electrode.
However, Park teaches an upper bank covering the edge region of the first lower electrode, the upper bank exposing the curved region of the first lower electrode (Park, in Fig. 6 and ¶ [0042], teaches second bank layer 104 covers the periphery edge of the lower electrode 103, and exposes the central region of the lower electrode 103. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the curved OLED structure of Matsumoto with the bank-covered inclined edge and exposing the central region as taught by Park in order to preserve the curved emission geometry while improving peripheral stack formation and emission-region definition.
Regarding the limitation wherein the edge region of the first lower electrode has a shape extending in a direction inclined to an upper surface of the device substrate toward the first lower electrode, Park teaches, in Figs. 5 and 6 and ¶¶ [0039] [0042], lower electrode 103 is disposed on the inclined portion of first bank layer 102 such that the periphery of lower electrode 103 has an inclination angle θ1 with respect to the upper surface of planarization layer 101, and further teaches the lower surface of lower electrode 103 contacts first bank layer 102 while the upper surface of lower electrode 103 contacts second bank layer 104 at the covered end portion. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the curved OLED structure of Matsumoto with the peripheral inclined electrode/bank arrangement of Park on order to provide the provide the curved lower electrode of Matsumoto with a bank-covered inclined edge region, thereby reducing stress concentration and layer separation at the electrode-bank transition while preserving the curved emission region used in Matsumoto to improve viewing-angle optical performance.
Re: Claim 2, Matsumoto and Park disclose all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends.
Matsumoto further teaches
further comprising a curved structure disposed between the device substrate and the curved region of the first lower electrode (Matsumoto, Fig. 2, insulating layer 16 which is curved in the concave portion 16b is positioned between the device substrate 10 and the curved region of the first lower electrode 31), wherein the edge region of the first lower electrode is disposed outside the curved structure (Matsumoto, Fig. 2, edge region of lower electrode 31 is disposed outside the curved portion of 16, in the 16a region).
Re: Claim 3, Matsumoto and park disclose all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends.
Park further teaches
further comprising a lower bank disposed between the device substrate and the upper bank (Park, in Fig. 6 teaches, lower bank 102 is disposed between planarization layer 101 and upper bank 104), wherein the edge region of the first lower electrode extends between a side-surface of the lower bank and the upper bank (Park teaches lower electrode 103 is disposed on the inclined portion of first bank layer 102 such that periphery of lower electrode 103 has inclination angle θ1, and further teaches the lower surface of lower electrode 103 contacts first bank 102 while the upper surface of lower electrode 103 contacts second bank layer 104 at the end portion covered by second bank layer 104).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the curved OLED structure of Matsumoto with the dual bank peripheral electrode arrangement of Park in order to provide a lower-bank/upper-bank structure at the peripheral edge of the lower electrode, thereby preventing electrical affect between adjacent pixels (Park, ¶ [0043]).
Re: Claim 4, Matsumoto and park disclose all the limitations of claim 3 on which this claim depends.
Park further teaches
wherein the side-surface of the lower bank has a same angle as the edge region of the first lower electrode (Park, Figs. 5-6, first bank layer 102 has an inclined end portion with inclination angle θ1 relative to planarization layer 101, and lower electrode 103 has a peripheral portion on that inclined portion with the same inclination angle θ1 relative to planarization layer 101).
Re: Claim 5, Matsumoto and park disclose all the limitations of claim 3 on which this claim depends.
Park further teaches
wherein a side-surface of the upper bank has an angle different from the side-surface of the lower bank (Park, in Figs. 5-6, teaches side-surface of upper bank 104 has different inclination than for the side-surface of the lower bank 102, thus, they have different angle).
Re: Claim 6, Matsumoto and park disclose all the limitations of claim 3 on which this claim depends.
Park further teaches
wherein the lower bank includes a material different from the upper bank (Park, in ¶ [0010], teaches the lower bank layer formed of a hydrophilic material, and the upper bank layer formed of a hydrophobic material. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the curved OLED structure of Matsumoto with dual-bank material arrangement of Park in order to control movement in the organic light emitting material at the peripheral region).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Re: Claim 7, Although Matsumoto discloses first and second lower electrodes with curvature, Matsumoto fails to teach or suggest, in combination with all other limitations in the claim, central region of the second lower electrode has a shape different from the curved region of the first lower electrode.
Claims 8-12 are dependent upon claim 7, hence also objected to.
Upon filing of a proper Terminal disclaimer, claims 13-15 and 17 would be allowable. Accordingly, the following is a statement of reasons that claims 13-15 and 17 would be allowable over the prior art of record.
Re: Independent claim 13, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest, in combination with all other limitations in the claim, a first curved structure disposed on the first pixel area of the device substrate and including an upper surface having a first curvature; a second curved structure disposed on the second pixel area of the device substrate including an upper surface having a second curvature different from the first curvature.
Claims 14-15 and 17 would also be allowable upon filing of a proper Terminal disclaimer due to their dependency on independent claim 13.
Claims 16 and 18-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The inclusion of the claim limitations recited in dependent claim 16 would overcome the provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claim 13.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BIPANA ADHIKARI DAWADI whose telephone number is (571)272-4149. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11:30am-7:30pm.
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, Jessica Manno can be reached at (571) 272-2339. 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.
/BIPANA ADHIKARI DAWADI/Examiner, Art Unit 2898
/JESSICA S MANNO/SPE, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights