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 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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10-11, 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki et al. (US Publication No. 2017/0373036 A1; hereinafter Yamazaki)
With respect to claim 1, Yamazaki discloses a display device comprising a display portion [10] capable of full-color display, wherein the display portion comprises a first subpixel [21B], wherein the first subpixel comprises a first light-emitting device [120b] and a first coloring layer [152B] transmitting blue light, wherein the first light-emitting device comprises a first pixel electrode [121], a first EL layer [122] over the first pixel electrode, and a common electrode [123] over the first EL layer (see Figures 7A-7B), wherein the first EL layer comprises a first light-emitting material emitting blue light and a second light-emitting material emitting light with a longer wavelength than blue light (see ¶[0375]), wherein the first EL layer comprises a first light-emitting unit over the first pixel electrode, a charge-generation layer over the first light-emitting unit, and a second light-emitting unit over the charge-generation layer (see ¶[0377]). Yamazaki fails to explicitly disclose wherein, in an emission spectrum of blue display by the display portion at a first luminance, when an intensity of a first emission peak at a wavelength longer than or equal to 400 nm and shorter than 500 nm is 1, an intensity of a second emission peak at a wavelength longer than or equal to 500 nm and shorter than or equal to 700 nm in the emission spectrum is lower than or equal to 0.5, and wherein the first luminance is any value higher than 0 cd/m2 and lower than 1 cd/m2, however does disclose a general condition in which the subpixels have luminance (see ¶[0370]) and emits light having two or more emission peaks at a wavelength range of a visible light region (see ¶[0375]). It has been held "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Therefore it would have been appreciated by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that since Yamazaki discloses the general conditions of intensity and luminance to improve reliability (see ¶[0107]), it would not be inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Applicant has not shown that the specific conditions wherein, in an emission spectrum of blue display by the display portion at a first luminance, when an intensity of a first emission peak at a wavelength longer than or equal to 400 nm and shorter than 500 nm is 1, an intensity of a second emission peak at a wavelength longer than or equal to 500 nm and shorter than or equal to 700 nm in the emission spectrum is lower than or equal to 0.5, and wherein the first luminance is any value higher than 0 cd/m2 and lower than 1 cd/m2 produce unexpected results that are different in kind and not different in degree, Yamazaki’s disclosed general conditions render claim 1 as obvious.
With respect to claim 2, Yamazaki discloses wherein the display portion comprises a second subpixel [21R], wherein the second subpixel comprises a second light-emitting device [120a] and a second coloring layer [152R] transmitting light of a color different from a color of light transmitted by the first coloring layer, wherein the second light-emitting device comprises a second pixel electrode [121], a second EL layer [122] over the second pixel electrode, and the common electrode [123] over the second EL layer, wherein the first EL layer has a same structure as the second EL layer, and wherein the first EL layer and the second EL layer are separated from each other (See Figures 7A-7B).
With respect to claim 3, Yamazaki discloses a display device comprising a display portion [10] capable of full-color display, wherein the display portion comprises a first subpixel [21B] and a second subpixel [21R], wherein the first subpixel comprises a first light-emitting device [120b] and a first coloring layer transmitting blue light [152B], wherein the second subpixel comprises a second light-emitting device [120a] and a second coloring layer [152R] transmitting light of a color different from a color of light transmitted by the first coloring layer, wherein the first light-emitting device comprises a first pixel electrode [121], a first EL layer [122W] over the first pixel electrode, and a common electrode [123] over the first EL layer, wherein the second light-emitting device comprises a second pixel electrode [121], the first EL layer over the second pixel electrode, and the common electrode [123] over the first EL layer, wherein the first EL layer comprises a first light-emitting unit [143] over the first pixel electrode, a charge-generation layer [144,145] over the first light-emitting unit, and a second light-emitting unit over the charge-generation layer (see Figure 14C; ¶[0375-0377]), Yamazaki fails to explicitly disclose wherein, in an emission spectrum of blue display by the display portion at a first luminance, when an intensity of a first emission peak at a wavelength longer than or equal to 400 nm and shorter than 500 nm is 1, an intensity of a second emission peak at a wavelength longer than or equal to 500 nm and shorter than or equal to 700 nm in the emission spectrum is lower than or equal to 0.5, and wherein the first luminance is any value higher than 0 cd/m2 and lower than 1 cd/m2, however does disclose a general condition in which the subpixels have luminance (see ¶[0370]) and emits light having two or more emission peaks at a wavelength range of a visible light region (see ¶[0375]). It has been held "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Therefore it would have been appreciated by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that since Yamazaki discloses the general conditions of intensity and luminance to improve reliability (see ¶[0107]), it would not be inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Applicant has not shown that the specific conditions wherein, in an emission spectrum of blue display by the display portion at a first luminance, when an intensity of a first emission peak at a wavelength longer than or equal to 400 nm and shorter than 500 nm is 1, an intensity of a second emission peak at a wavelength longer than or equal to 500 nm and shorter than or equal to 700 nm in the emission spectrum is lower than or equal to 0.5, and wherein the first luminance is any value higher than 0 cd/m2 and lower than 1 cd/m2 produce unexpected results that are different in kind and not different in degree, Yamazaki’s disclosed general conditions render claim 1 as obvious.
With respect to claim 4, Yamazaki discloses a display device comprising a display portion [10] capable of full-color display, wherein the display portion comprises a first subpixel [21B] and a second subpixel [21R], wherein the first subpixel comprises a first light-emitting device [120b] and a first coloring layer [152B] transmitting blue light, wherein the second subpixel comprises a second light-emitting device [120a] and a second coloring layer [152R] transmitting light of a color different from a color of light transmitted by the first coloring layer, wherein the first light-emitting device comprises a first pixel electrode [121], a first EL layer [122B] over the first pixel electrode, and a common electrode [123] over the first EL layer, wherein the second light-emitting device comprises a second pixel electrode [121], a second EL layer [122R] over the second pixel electrode, and the common electrode [123] over the second EL layer, wherein the first EL layer has a same structure as the second EL layer, wherein the first EL layer and the second EL layer are separated from each other (See Figure 13A-13B and 14A), wherein the first EL layer comprises a first light-emitting unit [143] over the first pixel electrode, a charge-generation layer over the first light-emitting unit, and a second light-emitting unit over the charge-generation layer (see ¶[0375-0377]). Yamazaki fails to disclose wherein, in an emission spectrum of blue display by the display portion at a first luminance, when an intensity of a first emission peak at a wavelength longer than or equal to 400 nm and shorter than 500 nm is 1, an intensity of a second emission peak at a wavelength longer than or equal to 500 nm and shorter than or equal to 700 nm in the emission spectrum is lower than or equal to 0.5, and wherein the first luminance is any value higher than 0 cd/m2 and lower than 1 cd/m2, however does disclose a general condition in which the subpixels have luminance (see ¶[0370]) and emits light having two or more emission peaks at a wavelength range of a visible light region (see ¶[0375]). It has been held "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Therefore it would have been appreciated by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that since Yamazaki discloses the general conditions of intensity and luminance to improve reliability (see ¶[0107]), it would not be inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Applicant has not shown that the specific conditions wherein, in an emission spectrum of blue display by the display portion at a first luminance, when an intensity of a first emission peak at a wavelength longer than or equal to 400 nm and shorter than 500 nm is 1, an intensity of a second emission peak at a wavelength longer than or equal to 500 nm and shorter than or equal to 700 nm in the emission spectrum is lower than or equal to 0.5, and wherein the first luminance is any value higher than 0 cd/m2 and lower than 1 cd/m2 produce unexpected results that are different in kind and not different in degree, Yamazaki’s disclosed general conditions render claim 1 as obvious. With respect to claim 5, Yamazaki discloses wherein the first light-emitting device comprises a common layer [145] between the first EL layer and the common electrode (see Figure 14A-D), wherein the second light-emitting device comprises the common layer between the second EL layer and the common electrode, and wherein the common layer comprises at least one of a hole-injection layer, a hole-transport layer, a hole-blocking layer, an electron-blocking layer, an electron-transport layer, and an electron-injection layer (see ¶0216] and ¶[0372]).
With respect to claim 6, Yamazaki discloses wherein the display portion comprises a first insulating layer [135], and wherein the first insulating layer covers a side surface of the first EL layer and a side surface of the second EL layer, and wherein the common electrode is positioned over the first insulating layer (see Figure 7B).
With respect to claim 7, Yamazaki discloses wherein the first insulating layer is in contact with a side surface of the first pixel electrode and a side surface of the second pixel electrode (see Figure 7B and 14C).
With respect to claim 8, Yamazaki discloses wherein the display portion comprises a second insulating layer [134], wherein the first insulating layer [135] comprises an inorganic material, and wherein the second insulating layer comprises an organic material (see ¶[0366]) and covers the side surface of the first EL layer and the side surface of the second EL layer with the first insulating layer therebetween (see Figure 7A-7B; bottom side surface with two EL layers and the first insulating layer therebetween).
With respect to claim 10, Yamazaki discloses wherein the first subpixel comprises a lens [862] overlapping with the first light-emitting device and the first coloring layer (see Figure 27B; large lens overlaps the entirety of the display portion [10]/[864] of Figure 27B).
With respect to claim 11, Yamazaki discloses wherein the first pixel electrode comprises a material reflecting visible light (see ¶[0155]).
With respect to claim 13, Yamazaki discloses display module comprising the display device according to claim 1 and at least one of a connector [63a] and an integrated circuit [64a].
With respect to claim 14, Yamazaki discloses an electronic device comprising the display module according to claim 13 and at least one of a housing, a battery, a camera, a speaker, and a microphone (See Figures 27A-27E)
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kubota et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20180095312 A1; hereinafter Kubota)
With respect to claim 9, Yamazaki fails to disclose wherein a resolution of the display portion is higher than or equal to 1000 ppi, however does disclose an extremely high resolution (See ¶[0008]). In the same field of endeavor, Kubota teaches wherein a resolution of the display portion is higher than or equal to 1000 ppi and also characterizes the resolution as “an extremely high resolution (See ¶[0068]). Implementation of a resolution higher than or equal to 1000 ppi as taught by Kubota would accomplished the characterized “extremely high resolution” of Yamazaki and provide a display device with increased clarity and luminescence (see Kubota ¶[0068]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that the combination of references would arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sato (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0077390 A1)
With respect to claim 12, Yamazaki fails to disclose wherein the first subpixel comprises a reflective layer, wherein the first pixel electrode comprises a material transmitting visible light, and wherein the first pixel electrode is positioned between the reflective layer and the first EL layer. In the same field of endeavor, Sato teaches wherein the first subpixel comprises a reflective layer [424], wherein the first pixel electrode [430] comprises a material transmitting visible light, and wherein the first pixel electrode is positioned between the reflective layer and the first EL layer (see Figure 10 and ¶[0071]). Implementation of a reflective layer within the display subpixel of Yamazaki, as taught by Sato allows for increased control in directionality and intensity of the light emitted by the subpixel structure (see Sato ¶[0071]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that the combination of references would arrive at the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN HAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7546. The examiner can normally be reached 9.00-5.00PM PST.
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 LOKE can be reached at 571-272-1657. 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.
/JONATHAN HAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818