DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the application No. 18/590,877 filed on February 8, 2024.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I, corresponding to claims 1-14, in the reply filed on June 1, 2026, is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO-1449. The IDS has been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the in a horizontal direction, an area of each of the plurality of light blocking layers is greater than an area of each of the plurality of protrusions must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2, 3, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The claims, as best understood, include a value of 0 (zero) reflectance and are not limited to any particular angle or wavelength, however there is no disclosure of a perfect anti-reflective layer having zero reflectance for all angles and wavelengths. These is no written description support for a perfect anti-reflection layer, nor has Applicant demonstrated possession of a perfect, zero reflectance, antireflective layer across all angles and wavelengths.
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 2, 3, 10, 11, 13, and 14 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.
Claims 2 and 10 similarly recite an average reflectance of the anti-reflective layer is smaller than a first value, a reflectance of the anti-reflective layer with respect to a predetermined wavelength is smaller than a second value, and the first value is smaller than the second value. The reflectance is unclear as this will depend on a variety of variables not recited in the claims (e.g. incident angle, wavelength, etc.). It is not clear how these values are determined or measured. Further still, it is unclear what is used for the average (average for a range of angles? or for a range of wavelengths? or for a larger/smaller/different area?) and how the average is determined. Also, the predetermined wavelength is unknown. The metes and bounds are unclear. As claimed, one would not be able to compare claimed values/relationships to prior art values because the variables used in measurements and corresponding analysis are unknown. Also, it is noted as presently claimed, the first and second values may be arbitrarily selected to meet the claims regardless of the actual amount of reflectance.
Claim 11 recites wherein the first value is smaller than 0.6%, and the second value is smaller than 1%. The claimed ranges include 0%. At the interface of any two materials, there is a non-zero amount of reflection. The lower limit is unclear, and 0% is not possible. Also see §112(a) above.
Claim 13 recites wherein in a vertical direction, each of the plurality of protrusions has an edge, which is offset from an edge of one of the plurality of light blocking layers. It is unclear what Applicant intends by this limitation since this has multiple interpretations. In Fig. 3, in a vertical direction, the edges of 105 are offset from edges of 101 by the thickness of 102 and the thickness of 104. According to the specification (¶38) it appears this edge offset involves the widths of the features and the offset is in a horizontal direction, not a vertical direction.
Claim 14 recites wherein in a horizontal direction, an area of each of the plurality of light blocking layers is greater than an area of each of the plurality of protrusions. Areas do not have directions, it is unclear how to interpret areas in horizontal directions. Perhaps Applicant intended to recite in a cross section? According to ¶37, this limitation is clearly drawn to Fig. 3, however, the Fig. 3 cross section does not show the area of a 101 is larger than an area of a 105 (also see drawing objection above). The area of each 105 is clearly larger than an area of each 101 in the cross section.
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.
Claims 1-10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Uesaka et al. (US 2017/0365806, of record from IDS).
(Re Claim 1) Uesaka teaches a light emitting element, comprising (see Fig. 24B and supporting text in ¶¶456-531):
a substrate (2590); a plurality of light blocking layers (2567BM), disposed on a first surface of the substrate and comprising a plurality of openings; a cover layer (2521), being in contact with first surfaces of the plurality of light blocking layers and covering the plurality of light blocking layers; a plurality of protrusions (2528), disposed on the cover layer, wherein two adjacent protrusions of the plurality of protrusions have an organic light emitting unit (2550R) in between; and an anti-reflective layer (2567p), disposed on a second surface of the substrate, wherein the second surface is parallel to and opposite to the first surface.
(Re Claim 2) wherein an average reflectance of the anti-reflective layer is smaller than a first value, a reflectance of the anti-reflective layer with respect to a predetermined wavelength is smaller than a second value, and the first value is smaller than the second value (one may arbitrarily select first and second values to meet this).
(Re Claim 3) wherein the predetermined wavelength comprises a wavelength of visible light (the display disclosed uses/operates in visible light).
(Re Claim 4) wherein the organic light emitting unit comprises a first light emitting unit and a second light emitting unit, wherein each of the first light emitting unit and the second light emitting unit has an organic light emitting stack layer comprising an organic material (the displays are multicolor/multipixel displays, see Figs. 4B, 5B, 13B, 14, 17, ¶¶171, 280-281, 460, 472-473).
(Re Claim 5) wherein each of the first light emitting unit and the second light emitting unit has an effective light emitting region with a size defined by an anode located below each of the light emitting units (Fig. 24B, the unlabeled pixel electrodes are the anodes and the OLEDs have an effective light emitting region where they contact the anode and between the anode and the cathode, also see Fig. 13B: 1024R, 1024B, 1024G).
(Re Claim 6) wherein the light blocking layers are electrically insulated from a conductive layer disposed on the cover layer via the cover layer (cover layer 2521 is insulating, ¶487, 2567BM is insulated from conductive layers on the cover layer, e.g. 2502t, the pixel electrode, etc.).
(Re Claim 7) wherein the substrate comprises a transparent material (light is emitted through the transparent substrate, see arrows used throughout the disclosure, ¶513).
(Re Claim 8) wherein an edge of one of the plurality of openings of the light blocking layers is unaligned with an edge of one of the plurality of protrusions (Fig. 24B).
(Re Claim 9) Useaka teaches a light emitting element, comprising (see Fig. 24B and supporting text in ¶¶456-531):
a substrate (2590); an anti-reflective layer (2567p), located below the substrate and being in contact with the substrate; a plurality of light blocking layers (2567BM, while one pixel 2502R is shown, the display having a plurality of pixels in a repeating array, ¶¶460, 472-473), located over the substrate and being in contact with the substrate; a cover layer (2521), located over the substrate and covering the plurality of light blocking layers; a conductive layer (the unlabeled pixel electrodes and/or the unlabeled layer connecting the TFT to the pixel electrode, also see Fig. 13B: 1024R, 1024B, 1024G), located over the cover layer; and a plurality of protrusions (2528), disposed over a portion of the conductive layer.
(Re Claim 10) wherein an average reflectance of the anti-reflective layer is smaller than a first value, a reflectance of the anti-reflective layer with respect to a wavelength of visible light is smaller than a second value, and the first value is smaller than the second value (one may arbitrarily select first and second values to meet this).
(Re Claim 12) wherein the conductive layer comprises an anode (Fig. 24B, the unlabeled pixel electrodes are the anodes and the OLEDs have an effective light emitting region where they contact the anode and between the anode and the cathode, also see Fig. 13B: 1024R, 1024B, 1024G).
(Re Claim 13) wherein in a vertical direction, each of the plurality of protrusions has an edge, which is offset from an edge of one of the plurality of light blocking layers (Fig. 24B).
(Re Claim 14) wherein in a horizontal direction, an area of each of the plurality of light blocking layers is greater than an area of each of the plurality of protrusions (an area of each feature may be arbitrarily selected to meet this).
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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uesaka et al. as applied above, and further in view of Pang et al. (US 2023/0296888).
(Re Claim 11) wherein the first value is smaller than 0.6%, and the second value is smaller than 1%.
Uesaka is silent regarding the reflectance of the anti-reflection layer. A PHOSITA desiring to make and use Uesaka’s display would be motivated to look to related art to teach suitable anti-reflection layers and their properties. A PHOSITA would recognize that lower reflectance is desirable when using anti-reflection layers. Related art from Pang teaches low reflectance anti-reflection layers having values within the claimed range (see Tables 1-2 on p. 4). A PHOSITA would find it obvious to use the anti-reflection layer from Pang for Uesaka’s anti-reflection layer for their desirable low reflectance over a range of wavelengths thereby reducing reflections, increasing contrast, and clarity.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional cited art teaches related displays with protrusions, light blocking layers, and anti-reflection layers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIK T. K. PETERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3997. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 pm (CST).
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.
/ERIK T. K. PETERSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights