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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10, 16, and 18-27 are pending.
Claims 1, 3, 10, 16, and 18 are amended.
Claims 4, 9, 11-15, and 17 are cancelled.
Claims 19-27 are new.
Examiner notes that on page 10 of the remarks filed 06/22/2026, claims 7 and 8 were noted as cancelled, but were marked Previously Presented in the filed claim set. In a phone call with David Hardy on 09/03/2026, applicant confirmed that claims 7 and 8 remain active and pending in the application. Claims 7 and 8 will be treated on the merits.
Specification
Amendment to the title in the response filed 06/22/2026 overcomes the objection of 03/23/2026. The objection is withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10 line 24 should read: “forming a resin layer over and in contact with the insulating film”
Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-11, filed 06/22/2026, with respect to amended independent claims 1 and 10 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, amendment of new claim limitation “wherein the resin layer is over and in contact with the insulating layer,” overcomes the prior art rejection of record. The rejection of independent claims 1 and 10 of 06/22/2026 has been withdrawn. Accordingly, the rejections of claims 2, 3, 5-8, 16, and 18 are withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments regarding new independent claim 19 filed 06/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Independent claim 19 is rejected under the prior art of record. See details below.
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 19, 23, 25, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamada et al. (WO 2020/0053692A1, US PGPub 2021/0327979 is the US equivalent and is cited for convenience; herein known as Kamada) in view of Yamazaki et al. (WO 2020/021399A1, US PGPub 2021/0296409 is the US equivalent and is cited for convenience; herein known as Yamazaki).
Regarding claim 19, Kamada teaches (Fig. 2A) a display apparatus comprising: a first light-emitting element (190, [0080]), a light-receiving element (110, [0080]), and a first coloring layer, wherein the first light-emitting element comprises: a first pixel electrode (191, [0083]), a first organic layer (193, [0086]) over the first pixel electrode, and a common electrode (115, [0093]) over the first organic layer, wherein the light-receiving element comprises: a second pixel electrode (111, [0093]), a second organic layer (113, [0086]) over the second pixel electrode, and the common electrode (115, [0093]) over the second organic layer, wherein the first organic layer comprises: a first light-emitting layer ([0086]), wherein the second organic layer comprises a photoelectric conversion layer ([0093]),
Kamada does not explicitly teach a first coloring layer, wherein the first coloring layer overlaps with the first light-emitting element, nor and wherein the photoelectric conversion layer has sensitivity in a wavelength range of light passing through the first coloring layer and the first light-emitting element is configured to emit white light.
Yamazaki teaches (Fig. 6A) a first coloring layer (CF, [0108]) wherein the first coloring layer overlaps with the first light-emitting element (170, [0108]).
Because Kamada and Yamazaki are both directed toward OLED devices, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kamada and Yamazaki to include a first coloring layer, wherein the first coloring layer overlaps with the first light-emitting element in order to achieve full-color display (Yamazaki, [0109]).
Kamada in view of Yamazaki does not explicitly teach wherein the photoelectric conversion layer has sensitivity in a wavelength range of light passing through the first coloring layer ([0123]).
Kamada further teaches wherein the photoelectric conversion layer has sensitivity in a wavelength range of light passing through the first coloring layer ([0123]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further combine the teachings of Kamada and Yamazaki to include wherein the photoelectric conversion layer has sensitivity in a wavelength range of light passing through the first coloring layer in order to enable a highly sensitive sensor with selectively inhibited light ([0123]).
Kamada in view of Yamazaki does not explicitly teach wherein the first light-emitting element is configured to emit white light.
Yamazaki further teaches wherein the first light-emitting element is configured to emit white light (Yamazaki, [0109]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further combine the teachings of Kamada and of Yamazaki to include wherein the first light-emitting element is configured to emit white light in order to allow for full color display to be achieved based on choice of coloring layer (Yamazaki, [0109]).
Regarding claim 23, Kamada in view of Yamazaki teaches (Kamada, not pictured) the display apparatus according to claim 19, further comprising: a second light-emitting element ([0009]); and wherein the second light-emitting element comprises: a third pixel electrode ([0009]); a third organic layer over the third pixel electrode ([0009]); and the common electrode ([0009]) over the third organic layer, wherein the third organic layer comprises a second light-emitting layer ([0009]),
Kamada in view of Yamazaki does not explicitly teach a second coloring layer, wherein the second coloring layer overlaps with the second light-emitting element, and wherein a wavelength range of light passing through the second coloring layer is different from the wavelength range of light passing through the first coloring layer.
At the time of filing, there is a recognized need to provide subpixels emitting different colors in OLED devices.
Yamazaki teaches a coloring layer disposed over a light-emitting element for the purpose of providing a finite number of options of either a red, green, or blue subpixel ([0108]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further combine Kamada and Yamazaki to include a second coloring layer, wherein the second coloring layer is overlaps with the second light-emitting element, and wherein a wavelength range of light passing through the second coloring layer is different from the wavelength range of light passing through the first coloring layer as a known potential solution with a reasonable expectation of success of providing two light-emitting subpixels with different colors. See MPEP 2143.I(E).
Regarding claim 25, Kamada in view of Yamazaki teaches the display apparatus according to claim 23, wherein the second light-emitting element is configured to emit white light (Yamazaki, [0109]).
Regarding claim 26, Kamada in view of Yamazaki further teaches (Kamada, Fig. 2A) the display apparatus according to claim 23, wherein the first organic layer comprises: a first light-emitting unit (112, [0092]) over the first pixel electrode (191); a first charge-generation layer (193, [0090]) over the first light-emitting unit; and a second light-emitting unit (114, [0092]) over the first charge-generation layer, wherein the third organic layer comprises: a third light-emitting unit (112, [0092]) over the third pixel electrode; a second charge-generation layer (not pictured, [0009]) over the third light-emitting unit; and a fourth light-emitting unit (114, [0092]) over the second charge-generation layer.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamada in view of Yamazaki as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Yamazaki et al. (US PGPub 2020/0057330; herein known as Yamazaki2).
Regarding claim 21, Kamada in view of Yamazaki teaches the display apparatus according to claim 19, but does not explicitly teach further comprising a region in which a distance between the first organic layer and the second organic layer is less than or equal to 8 μm.
Yamazaki2 teaches wherein the pitch between two pixels is ideally in a range of 4-100μm where pitch is a result-effective variable of impacting screen resolution ([0170]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein which a distance between the first organic layer and the second organic layer is less than or equal to 8 μm in order to improve device resolution (Yamazaki, [0170]).
Claims 24 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamada in view of Yamazaki, as applied to claim 23 and 26 above, and further in view of Yamazaki2.
Regarding claim 24, Kamada in view of Yamazaki teaches the display apparatus according to claim 23, but does not explicitly teach wherein the first light-emitting layer and the second light-emitting layer comprise a same material.
Yamazaki2 teaches wherein the first light-emitting layer and the second light-emitting layer comprise a same material ([0133]).
Because Kamada in view of Yamazaki and Yamazaki2 are directed toward OLED devices, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kamada in view of Yamazaki and of Yamazaki2 to include wherein the first light-emitting layer and the second light-emitting layer comprise a same material in order to simplify formation process of the light-emitting elements (Yamazaki2, [0133]).
Regarding claim 27, Kamada in view of Yamazaki teaches the display apparatus according to claim 26, but does not explicitly teach wherein the first light-emitting unit and the third light-emitting unit comprise a same material, wherein the first charge-generation layer and the second charge-generation layer comprise a same material, and wherein the second light-emitting unit and the fourth light-emitting unit comprise a same material.
Yamazaki2 teaches wherein the materials of a first light-emitting device and the third light-emitting device comprise a same material ([0133]).
Because Kamada in view of Yamazaki and Yamazaki2 are directed toward OLED devices, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kamada in view of Yamazaki and of Yamazaki2 to include wherein the first light-emitting unit and the third light-emitting unit comprise a same material, wherein the first charge-generation layer and the second charge-generation layer comprise a same material, and wherein the second light-emitting unit and the fourth light-emitting unit comprise a same material in order to simplify formation process of the light-emitting elements (Yamazaki2, [0133]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20 and 22 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.
Regarding claim 20, the cited prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest, along with the other claimed features, the display apparatus according to claim 19 wherein the resin layer is over and in contact with the insulating layer.
Kamada in view of Yamazaki teaches the display apparatus according to claim 19, further comprising: a resin layer (Kamada, 216, [0092]); and an insulating layer (Akiyama US PGPub 2013/0075761, 202), wherein the resin layer and the insulating layer are positioned between the first light-emitting element (Kamada, 190) and the light-receiving element (Kamada, 110), and wherein the insulating layer is in contact with a side surface of the first organic layer (Akiyama, 205, [0051]) and a side surface of the second organic layer (Akiyama, 305, [0050]), but does not teach wherein the resin layer is over and in contact with the insulating layer.
Kamada teaches a display apparatus with a resin layer supplied as a bank layer directly over the pixel electrode. Akiyama teaches an insulating layer disposed in the same location as the resin layer of Kamada, serving the same purpose as the resin layer of Kamada. While one of ordinary skill in the art may be motivated to provide an insulating layer and/or a resin layer for the purpose of protection of the underlying substrate and pixel electrode, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include wherein the resin layer is over and in contact with the insulating layer, as this would create redundancies in the manufacturing process and unnecessarily increase package height in size-constrained devices.
Claim 22 would be allowed as dependent on claim 20.
REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10, 16, and 18 are allowed.
Claim 10 is allowed pending applicant’s amendment to overcome the minor claim objection, noted above.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 1, the cited prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest, along with the other claimed features, a display apparatus comprising wherein the resin layer is over and in contact with the insulating layer.
Kamada teaches a display apparatus with a resin layer supplied as a bank layer directly over the pixel electrode. Akiyama teaches an insulating layer disposed in the same location as the resin layer of Kamada, serving the same purpose as the resin layer of Kamada. While one of ordinary skill in the art may be motivated to provide an insulating layer and/or a resin layer for the purpose of protection of the underlying substrate and pixel electrode, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include wherein the resin layer is over and in contact with the insulating layer, as this would create redundancies in the manufacturing process and unnecessarily increase package height in size-constrained devices.
Prior art references, alone or in combination, fail to disclose, teach, or suggest every limitation of the invention as claimed.
Claims 2, 3, and 5-8 are allowed as dependent on claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, the cited prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest, along with the other claimed features, a method of manufacturing a display apparatus, comprising the step of: forming a resin layer over and in contact with the insulating film.
Kamada teaches a display apparatus with a resin layer supplied as a bank layer directly over the pixel electrode. Akiyama teaches an insulating layer disposed in the same location as the resin layer of Kamada, serving the same purpose as the resin layer of Kamada. While one of ordinary skill in the art may be motivated to provide an insulating layer and/or a resin layer for the purpose of protection of the underlying substrate and pixel electrode, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include wherein the resin layer is over and in contact with the insulating layer, as this would create redundancies in the manufacturing process and unnecessarily increase package height in size-constrained devices.
Prior art references, alone or in combination, fail to disclose, teach, or suggest every limitation of the invention as claimed.
Claims 16 and 18 are allowed as dependent on claim 10.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 EMILY N FARMER whose telephone number is (703)756-1472. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Davienne Monbleau can be reached at 571-272-1945. 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.
/EMILY FARMER/Examiner, Art Unit 2812
/DAVIENNE N MONBLEAU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights