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 § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Song (2021/0184153).
Regarding claim 1, Song (Fig. 8) discloses a light emitting device comprising: a first subpixel (G); and a second subpixel (B) and a third subpixel (R) of which color types are different from that of the first subpixel (G), wherein the first subpixel (G) and the second subpixel (B) have a first light emitting layer OL2 emitting light of a predetermined color type ([0109]), and wherein the third subpixel (R) has a second light emitting layer OL1 that is stacked on the first light emitting layer OL2 and has a light emission color different from that of the first light emitting layer OL2 (see Figs. 8-9, [0059]).
Regarding claim 2, Song (Figs. 8-9) discloses further comprising a color conversion layer CF1 converting the light emission color of the first light emitting layer OL1 into a color type corresponding to the first subpixel and the second subpixel ([0130]).
Regarding claim 3, Song (Figs. 8-9) discloses wherein the color conversion layer is a color filter ([0130]).
Regarding claim 5, Song (Fig. 8) discloses wherein the first subpixel (G) and the second subpixel (B) include a plurality of first electrodes AN2 and a second electrode CA2 ([0060]), wherein the third subpixel (R) includes a plurality of third electrodes AN1, wherein the plurality of first electrodes AN2 are separated in correspondence with the first subpixel and the second subpixel, wherein the third subpixel (R) shares the second electrode CA2 with the first subpixel and the second subpixel, and wherein the plurality of third electrodes AN1 are separated in correspondence with the third subpixel.
Regarding claim 6, Song (Fig. 8) discloses wherein the first subpixel (G) and the second subpixel (B) include a plurality of first electrodes AN2 and a second electrode CA2, wherein the third subpixel (R) includes a plurality of third electrodes AN1 and a fourth electrode CA1, wherein the plurality of first electrodes AN2 are separated in correspondence with the first subpixel and the second subpixel, wherein the second electrode CA2 is a common electrode that is common to the first subpixel and the second subpixel, and wherein the plurality of third electrodes AN1 are separated in correspondence with the third subpixel.
Regarding claim 8, Song (Fig. 8) discloses wherein the first subpixel (G), the second subpixel (B), and the third subpixel (R) independently emit light ([0171]).
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) 4 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song (2021/0184153) in view of Jinta et al. (2014/0247200).
Regarding claim 4, Song discloses all the claimed limitations of the invention except for the color conversion layer is a multi-layer interference layer having a dielectric laminated structure.
However, Jinta (Fig. 23) discloses wherein the color conversion layer is a multi-layer interference layer having a dielectric laminated structure (202, 204, 211, 213, 216) for providing a function as a protective layer in order to reduce a possibility of degradation in light emitting characteristics (see Fig. 23, [0071]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Song by forming the color conversion layer is a multi-layer interference layer having a dielectric laminated structure, as taught by Jinta in order to reduce a possibility of degradation in light emitting characteristics (see Fig. 23, [0071]).
Regarding claim 10, as discussed, the combination above, Jinta (Figs. 31A-31B) discloses wherein the first subpixel 11R and the second subpixel 11G respectively have red and green as light emission colors, and wherein the third subpixel 11B has blue as a light emission color.
Regarding claim 11, Song discloses all the claimed limitations of the invention except for a light emission area of the third subpixel is larger than any one of a light emission area of the first subpixel and a light emission area of the second subpixel.
However, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F. 2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form a light emission area of the third subpixel is larger than any one of a light emission area of the first subpixel and a light emission area of the second subpixel as claimed, because the dimensions can be optimized during routine experimentation, depending upon the device in a particular application.
Regarding claim 12, as discussed, the combination above, Jinta (Fig. 32) discloses an electronic apparatus comprising the light emitting device according to claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 9 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 prior art of record fails to disclose all the limitations recited in the above claims. Specifically, the prior art of record fails to disclose wherein the first electrodes and the second electrode are stacked with the first light emitting layer interposed therebetween, wherein the third electrodes and the fourth electrode are stacked with the second light emitting layer interposed therebetween, wherein the second electrodes and the third electrode are disposed between the first light emitting layer and the second light emitting layer, and wherein an insulating layer separating the second electrodes and the third electrode are disposed (claim 7); or wherein each of the first subpixel and the second subpixel has a resonator structure causing light of a specific wavelength out of light generated in the first light emitting layer to resonate (claim 9).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THERESA T DOAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1704. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday from 7:00AM - 3:00PM.
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, WAEL FAHMY can be reached on (571) 272-1705. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THERESA T DOAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2814
/WAEL M FAHMY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2814