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
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, 3-11, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2021/0408476 A1, hereinafter “Choi”).
In reference to claim 1, Choi discloses a similar device. Fig. 24 and 26 of Choi disclose a display device which comprises a light emitting element (ED3) disposed on a substrate (110). A capping layer (271) is disposed on the light emitting element (ED3). A layer (273) is disposed on the capping layer (271). Choi does not explicitly describe the layer (273) as being an antireflection layer. However the layer (273) has a roughened uneven structure (SR1a). Choi discloses that a roughened uneven structure reduces internal and external light reflection (p. 16, paragraph 235). The examiner would like to note that the elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. See In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Although Choi does not specifically use the term, “antireflection layer,” it is not required in order for Choi to teach this limitation in the claim. Thus this limitation is not patentable over Choi. An encapsulation layer (275a) is disposed on the antireflection layer (273). The capping layer (271) comprises a first capping layer (2711) disposed on the light emitting element (ED3). A second capping layer (2713) is disposed on the first capping layer (2711). Choi discloses (p. 23, paragraph 377) that the refractive index of the second capping layer (2713) is greater than a refractive index of the first capping layer (2711). Choi discloses that a thickness of the first capping layer (2711) is in a range of about 10 Å to about 10000 Å (p. 24, paragraph 378). Choi also discloses (p. 24, paragraph 378) that a thickness of the second capping layer (2713) is in a range of about 10 Å to about 15000 Å. These ranges overlap the claimed ranges of, “a thickness of the first capping layer is in a range of about 20 Å to about 400 Å, and a thickness of the second capping layer is in a range of about 60 Å to about 400 Å.” The examiner would like to note:
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05.
Thus claim 1 is not patentable over Choi.
With regard to claim 3, the examiner notes the limitation that, “a total thickness of the capping layer is in a range of about 400 Å to about 450 Å.” Choi discloses that a thickness of the first capping layer (2711) is in a range of about 10 Å to about 10000 Å (p. 24, paragraph 378). Choi also discloses (p. 24, paragraph 378) that a thickness of the second capping layer (2713) is in a range of about 10 Å to about 15000 Å. Thus there is a multitude of ranges of thicknesses of the first capping layer (2711) and the second capping layer (2713) which when added together for the total thickness of the capping layer overlap the claimed range of, “a total thickness of the capping layer is in a range of about 400 Å to about 450 Å.” The examiner would like to note:
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05.
Thus the limitation that, “a total thickness of the capping layer is in a range of about 400 Å to about 450 Å,” is not patentable over Choi.
With regard to claim 4, the examiner notes the limitation that, “the refractive index of the second capping layer is greater than the refractive index of the first capping layer by about 0.1 or more.” Choi discloses (p. 23, paragraph 377) that the refractive index of the first capping layer (2711) is “about 1.3 to less than about 1.7.” Choi also discloses (p. 23, paragraph 377) that the refractive index of the second capping layer (2713) is “about 1.5 to about 1.7.” Thus any refractive index of the first capping layer (2711) which is in a range between 1.3 and 1.4 while the refractive index of the second capping layer (2713) is “about 1.5 to about 1.7” overlaps the claimed range that, “the refractive index of the second capping layer is greater than the refractive index of the first capping layer by about 0.1 or more.” The examiner would like to note:
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05.
Thus the limitation that, “the refractive index of the second capping layer is greater than the refractive index of the first capping layer by about 0.1 or more,” is not patentable over Choi.
The examiner also notes the limitation that, “the refractive index of the first capping layer is in a range of about 1.2 to about 1.7, and the refractive index of the second capping layer is in a range of about 1.7 to about 2.2.” Choi discloses (p. 23, paragraph 377) that the refractive index of the first capping layer (2711) is “about 1.3 to less than about 1.7.” Choi also discloses (p. 23, paragraph 377) that the refractive index of the second capping layer (2713) is “about 1.5 to about 1.7.” The examiner would like to note:
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05.
Thus claim 4 is not patentable over Choi.
In reference to claim 5, Choi discloses that a thickness of the first capping layer (2711) is in a range of about 10 Å to about 10000 Å (p. 24, paragraph 378). Choi also discloses (p. 24, paragraph 378) that a thickness of the second capping layer (2713) is in a range of about 10 Å to about 15000 Å. These ranges overlap the claimed ranges of, “a thickness of the first capping layer is in a range of about 20 Å to about 400 Å, and a thickness of the second capping layer is in a range of about 60 Å to about 400 Å.” The examiner would like to note:
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05.
Thus claim 5 is not patentable over Choi.
With regard to claim 6, the examiner notes the limitation that, “a total thickness of the first capping layer and the second capping layer is in a range of about 400 Å to about 450 Å.” Choi discloses that a thickness of the first capping layer (2711) is in a range of about 10 Å to about 10000 Å (p. 24, paragraph 378). Choi also discloses (p. 24, paragraph 378) that a thickness of the second capping layer (2713) is in a range of about 10 Å to about 15000 Å. Thus there is a multitude of ranges of thicknesses of the first capping layer (2711) and the second capping layer (2713) which when added together for the total thickness overlap the claimed range of, “a total thickness of the first capping layer and the second capping layer is in a range of about 400 Å to about 450 Å.” The examiner would like to note:
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05.
Thus the limitation that, “a total thickness of the first capping layer and the second capping layer is in a range of about 400 Å to about 450 Å,” is not patentable over Choi.
In reference to claim 7, the capping layer (271) further comprises a third capping layer (2715) disposed between the second capping layer (2713) and the antireflective layer (273). Choi discloses (p. 23, paragraph 377) that the refractive index of the third capping layer (2715) is “about 1.3 to less than about 1.7.” Choi also discloses (p. 23, paragraph 377) that the refractive index of the second capping layer (2713) is “about 1.5 to about 1.7.” Thus any refractive index of the third capping layer (2715) which is in a range is between 1.3 and 1.5 while the refractive index of the second capping layer (2713) is “about 1.5 to about 1.7” overlaps the claimed range that (emphasis added), “a third capping layer disposed between the second capping layer and the antireflection layer and having a refractive index less than the refractive index of the second capping layer.” The examiner would like to note:
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05.
Thus the limitation that, “a third capping layer disposed between the second capping layer and the antireflection layer and having a refractive index less than the refractive index of the second capping layer,” is not patentable over Choi.
With regard to claim 8, the examiner notes the limitation that, “the refractive index of the second capping layer is greater than the refractive index of each of the first capping layer and the third capping layer by about 0.1 or more.” Choi discloses (p. 23, paragraph 377) that the refractive indices of the first capping layer (2711) and the third capping layer (2715) are “about 1.3 to less than about 1.7.” Choi also discloses (p. 23, paragraph 377) that the refractive index of the second capping layer (2713) is “about 1.5 to about 1.7.” Thus any refractive index of the first capping layer (2711) and the third capping layer (2715) which is in a range between 1.3 and 1.4 while the refractive index of the second capping layer (2713) is “about 1.5 to about 1.7” overlaps the claimed range that, “the refractive index of the second capping layer is greater than the refractive index of the first capping layer by about 0.1 or more.” The examiner would like to note:
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05.
Thus the limitation that, “the refractive index of the second capping layer is greater than the refractive index of each of the first capping layer and the third capping layer by about 0.1 or more,” is not patentable over Choi.
The examiner also notes the limitation that, “the refractive index of the first capping layer is in a range of about 1.2 to about 1.7, the refractive index of the second capping layer is in a range of about 1.7 to about 2.2, and the refractive index of the third capping layer is in a range of about 1.2 to about 1.7.” Choi discloses (p. 23, paragraph 377) that the refractive indices of the first capping layer (2711) and the third capping layer (2715) are “about 1.3 to less than about 1.7.” Choi also discloses (p. 23, paragraph 377) that the refractive index of the second capping layer (2713) is “about 1.5 to about 1.7.” The examiner would like to note:
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05.
Thus claim 8 is not patentable over Choi.
In reference to claim 9, Choi discloses that a thickness of the first capping layer (2711) is in a range of about 10 Å to about 10000 Å (p. 24, paragraph 378). Choi also discloses (p. 24, paragraph 378) that a thickness of the second capping layer (2713) is in a range of about 10 Å to about 15000 Å. Choi also discloses (p. 24, paragraph 378) that a thickness of the third capping layer (2715) is in a range of about 10 Å to about 5000 Å. These ranges overlap the claimed ranges of, “the thickness of the first capping layer is in a range of about 180 Å to about 300 Å, the thickness of the second capping layer is in a range of about 60 Å to about 180 Å, and the thickness of the third capping layer is in a range of about 20 Å to about 150 Å.” The examiner would like to note:
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05.
Thus claim 9 is not patentable over Choi.
With regard to claim 10, the examiner notes the limitation that, “a total thickness of the first capping layer, the second capping layer, and the third capping layer is in a range of about 400 Å to about 450 Å.” Choi discloses that a thickness of the first capping layer (2711) is in a range of about 10 Å to about 10000 Å (p. 24, paragraph 378). Choi also discloses (p. 24, paragraph 378) that a thickness of the second capping layer (2713) is in a range of about 10 Å to about 15000 Å. Choi also discloses (p. 24, paragraph 378) that a thickness of the third capping layer (2715) is in a range of about 10 Å to about 5000 Å. Thus there is a multitude of ranges of thicknesses of the first capping layer (2711), the second capping layer (2713), and the third capping layer (2715) which when added together for the total thickness overlap the claimed range of, “a total thickness of the first capping layer, the second capping layer, and the third capping layer is in a range of about 400 Å to about 450 Å.” The examiner would like to note:
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05.
Thus the limitation that, “a total thickness of the first capping layer, the second capping layer, and the third capping layer is in a range of about 400 Å to about 450 Å,” is not patentable over Choi.
In reference to claim 11, the light emitting element (ED3) further comprises a first electrode (AE3), a light emitting layer (OL) disposed on the first electrode (AE3), and a second electrode (CE) disposed on the light emitting layer (OL). The capping layer (271) is disposed between the second electrode (CE) and the antireflection layer (273).
In reference to claim 17, Choi discloses a similar device. Fig. 24 and 26 of Choi disclose a display device which comprises a light emitting element (ED3) disposed on a substrate (110). A first capping layer (2711) is disposed on the light emitting element (ED3). A layer (273) is disposed on the capping layer (271). Choi does not explicitly describe the layer (273) as being an antireflection layer. However the layer (273) has a roughened uneven structure (SR1a). Choi discloses that a roughened uneven structure reduces internal and external light reflection (p. 16, paragraph 235). The examiner would like to note that the elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. See In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Although Choi does not specifically use the term, “antireflection layer,” it is not required in order for Choi to teach this limitation in the claim. Thus this limitation is not patentable over Choi. An encapsulation layer (275a) is disposed on the antireflection layer (273). Choi discloses (p. 23, paragraph 377) that the refractive index of the first capping layer (2711) is “about 1.3 to less than about 1.7” which overlaps the claimed range of, “about 1.2 to about 1.7.” The examiner would like to note:
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05.
Thus this limitation is not patentable over Choi.
Choi discloses that a thickness of the first capping layer (2711) is in a range of about 10 Å to about 10000 Å (p. 24, paragraph 378) which overlaps the claimed range of, “about 200 Å to about 600 Å.” The examiner would like to note:
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05.
Thus claim 17 is not patentable over Choi.
With regard to claim 18, Choi discloses that a thickness of the first capping layer (2711) is in a range of about 10 Å to about 10000 Å (p. 24, paragraph 378) which overlaps the claimed range of, “about 360 Å to about 480 Å.” The examiner would like to note:
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05.
Thus claim 18 is not patentable over Choi.
In reference to claim 19, the light emitting element (ED3) further comprises a first electrode (AE3), a light emitting layer (OL) disposed on the first electrode (AE3), and a second electrode (CE) disposed on the light emitting layer (OL). The first capping layer (2711) is disposed between the second electrode (CE) and the antireflection layer (273).
With regard to claim 20, a second capping layer (2713) is disposed on at least the top or second surfaces of the first capping layer (2711). The examiner notes the limitation that, “a refractive index of the second capping layer is greater than the refractive index of the first capping layer by about 0.1 or more.” Choi discloses (p. 23, paragraph 377) that the refractive index of the first capping layer (2711) is “about 1.3 to less than about 1.7.” Choi also discloses (p. 23, paragraph 377) that the refractive index of the second capping layer (2713) is “about 1.5 to about 1.7.” Thus any refractive index of the first capping layer (2711) which is in a range between 1.3 and 1.4 while the refractive index of the second capping layer (2713) is “about 1.5 to about 1.7” overlaps the claimed range that, “the refractive index of the second capping layer is greater than the refractive index of the first capping layer by about 0.1 or more.” The examiner would like to note:
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05.
Thus the limitation that, “a refractive index of the second capping layer is greater than the refractive index of the first capping layer by about 0.1 or more,” is not patentable over Choi.
The examiner also notes the limitation that, “the refractive index of the second capping layer is in a range of about 1.7 to about 2.2.” Choi discloses (p. 23, paragraph 377) that the refractive index of the second capping layer (2713) is “about 1.5 to about 1.7.” The examiner would like to note:
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05.
Thus claim 20 is not patentable over Choi.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Wyckoff et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0287105 A1, hereinafter “Wyckoff”).
In reference to claim 2, Choi discloses that the first capping layer (2711) and the second capping layer (2713) include an inorganic material (p. 24, paragraph 379). Choi does not disclose that the antireflection layer (273) includes bismuth. However Choi discloses that the antireflection layer (273) acts as an encapsulation material (p. 23, paragraph 366). Wyckoff discloses the known use of bismuth oxide for use as an optically clear encapsulation material (p. 2, paragraph 25). The applicant is reminded in this regard that it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use would be entirely obvious. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) ("Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.). See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious). See MPEP 2144.07. In view of the above, it would therefore be obvious to use bismuth oxide for the antireflection/encapsulation layer (273) in the Choi device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-16 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: in the examiner’s opinion, it would not be obvious to implement a display device which comprises a light emitting element disposed on a substrate, a capping layer on the light emitting element, an antireflection layer on the capping layer, an encapsulation layer on the antireflection layer in combination with the capping layer having first, second, and third capping layers with the specific layer order, refractive index relationships and thicknesses as explicitly described by the applicant in claim 12.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN QUINTO whose telephone number is (571)272-1920. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9-5:30.
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, Britt Hanley can be reached at 571-270-3042. 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.
/KEVIN QUINTO/Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/Britt Hanley/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights