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 § 112
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 9, 18, 21 and 22 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.
Regarding claim 9, the Examiner is unclear about the limitation “a difference between the second thickness and the first thickness is greater than a thickness of the first emission layer” especially to which “second thickness and first thickness.” For purpose of Examination, the claim will be interpreted as “a difference between the second thickness of the second optical auxiliary body and the first thickness of the first optical auxiliary body…” and the first thickness is greater than a thickness of the first emission layer
Regarding claim 18, the Examiner is unclear about the limitation “a difference between the second thickness and the first thickness is in a range of 120 Å to 180 Å”, especially to which “second thickness and first thickness.” For purpose of Examination, the claim will be interpreted as “a difference between the second thickness of the second optical auxiliary body and the first thickness of the first optical auxiliary body is in a range of 120 Å to 180 Å.”
Regarding claim 21, the Examiner is unclear about the limitation “a difference between the third thickness and the first thickness is in a range of 900 Å to 1020 Å”, especially to which “third thickness and first thickness.” For purpose of Examination, the claim will interpreted as “a different between the third thickness of the third optical auxiliary body and the first thickness of the first optical auxiliary body is in a range of 900 Å to 1020 Å.”
Regarding claim 22, the Examiner is unclear about the limitation “a difference between the first thickness and the third thickness is six times a difference between the first thickness and the third thickness.” The claim is so unclear it precludes a reasonable search for a prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-2, 7, 11, 17, 19-20 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Seo et al. (US. Pub: 2012/0206675 A1~hereinafter “Seo”) of record.
Regarding claim 1, Seo discloses (in at least figs. 1-5) a display apparatus comprising: a circuit layer (see figs. 4 and 5) on a substrate (201) and comprising at least one thin-film transistor (230); a pixel electrode (220) on the circuit layer; an intermediate layer (218; [0107]) on the pixel electrode, comprising a first emission layer that emits light in a first wavelength band (see at least fig. 3B; [0086]; [0093]), a second emission layer configured to emit light in a second wavelength band (see at least fig. 3B; [0086]; [0093]), a third emission layer configured to emit light in a third wavelength band (see at least fig. 3B; [0086]; [0093]), and a fourth emission layer configured to emit light in the first wavelength band (see at least fig. 3B; [0086]; [0093]), wherein the first through fourth emission layers overlap each other in a plan view (see at least figs. 3B; [0086]; [0093]); an opposite electrode (219) on the intermediate layer; a color filter layer (254; [0106]) on the opposite electrode and comprising a first color filter through which light in the second wavelength band transmits, a second color filter side-by-side with the first color filter and through which light in the third wavelength band transmits, and a third color filter side-by-side with the second color filter and through which light in the first wavelength band transmits ([0144]; [0167]); and an optical auxiliary layer (104a-104c; at least fig. 2B; [0047]-[0048]; [0067]) between the pixel electrode and the intermediate layer, comprising a first optical auxiliary body (104c) having a first thickness (see at least figs. 2A and 2B) and a second optical auxiliary body (104b) side-by-side with the first optical auxiliary body and having a second thickness greater than the first thickness (see at least figs. 2A and 2B), wherein the first optical auxiliary body and the first color filter overlap each other in the plan view, and the second optical auxiliary body and the third color filter overlap each other in the plan view (as evident by at least figs. 3B, 4A, 5A and 5B).
Regarding claim 2, Seo discloses (in at least figs. 1-5) the intermediate layer further comprises a first hole transport layer between the pixel electrode and the first emission layer ([0019]; [0083]).
Regarding claim 7, Seo discloses (in at least figs. 1-5) the pixel electrode comprises a reflective layer (214) on the substrate and a first transparent conductive layer (220) on the reflective layer, and the optical auxiliary layer (104a-104c) is between the first transparent conductive layer and the intermediate layer.
Regarding claim 11, Seo discloses (in at least figs. 1-5; [0018]; [0045]-[0046]) the first wavelength band is a blue-based visible light region, the second wavelength band is a red-based visible light region, and the third wavelength band is a green-based visible light region.
Regarding claim 17, Seo discloses (in at least figs. 1-5) a capping layer (256) is further between the opposite electrode (219) and the color filter layer (254); see at least fig. 4A).
Regarding claim 19, Seo discloses (in at least figs. 1-5) the optical auxiliary layer (104a-104c) further comprises a third optical auxiliary body (104a) having a third thickness and side-by-side with the first optical auxiliary body and the second optical auxiliary body (see at least figs. 2A and 2B).
Regarding claim 20, Seo discloses (in at least figs. 1-5) the third thickness (of 104a) is less than the first thickness and the second thickness (figs. 2A and 2B).
Regarding claim 23, Seo discloses (in at least figs. 1-5) in the plan view, the third optical auxiliary body overlaps the second optical filter.
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.
Claim(s) 8-10, 18, 21-22 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo et al. (US. Pub: 2012/0206675 A1~hereinafter “Seo”) of record.
Regarding claim 8, Seo discloses all the claimed limitations except for the pixel electrode further comprises a second transparent conductive layer under the reflective layer, and an upper surface of the second transparent conductive layer and a lower surface of the reflective layer are in contact with each other.
However, it is well-known in the art to form a display device comprised of, in part, a pixel electrode further comprises a second transparent conductive layer under the reflective layer, and an upper surface of the second transparent conductive layer and a lower surface of the reflective layer are in contact with each other as evident by Park et al. (EP: 3576157 A2~hereinafter “Park”) at least fig. 8.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the display device of Seo with the pixel electrode structure of Park, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 9, Seo does not expressly disclose a difference between the second thickness and the first thickness is greater than a thickness of the first emission layer.
However, Seo discloses (in at least figs. 2-5) a first thickness of the first auxiliary optical body (104b), a second thickness of the second auxiliary optical body (104c) and first emission layer (106).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to consider forming the device of Seo such that a difference between the second thickness of the second auxiliary optical body and the first thickness of the first auxiliary optical body is greater than a thickness of the first emission layer, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 10, Seo does not expressly disclose a thickness of the first emission layer coincides with a thickness of the fourth emission layer. See the reasoning of claim 9.
Regarding claims 18, 21-22 and 24, Seo does not expressly disclose a difference between the second thickness and the first thickness is in a range of 120 Å to 180 Å; a difference between the third thickness and the first thickness is in a range of 900 Å to 1020 Å; a difference between the first thickness and the third thickness is six times a difference between the first thickness and the third thickness; and a thickness of the intermediate layer is in a range of 2200 Å to 2800 Å.
However, Seo discloses (in at least figs. 2-5) a first thickness of the first auxiliary optical body (104b), a second thickness of the second auxiliary optical body (104c) and first emission layer (106).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to consider forming the device of Seo with the above thickness ranges through routine experimentation and optimization.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 and 12-16 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 3, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest a sum of an optical thickness of the first hole transport layer in the first wavelength band and an optical thickness of the second optical auxiliary body in the first wavelength band coincides with a sum of an optical thickness of the first hole transport layer in the second wavelength band and an optical thickness of the first optical auxiliary body in the second wavelength band.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest an optical thickness of the first hole transport layer in the first wavelength band is in inverse proportion to an optical thickness of the second optical auxiliary body in the first wavelength band.
Regarding claim 5, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest a part of the first hole transport layer in the first wavelength band is replaceable with a part of the second optical auxiliary body in the first wavelength band. Claim 6 is objected due to its dependency upon claim 5.
Regarding claim 12, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest a first connection layer is between the first emission layer and the second emission layer, and a second connection layer is between the third emission layer and the fourth emission layer. Claims 13-16 are objected due to their dependency upon claim 12.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELMITO BREVAL whose telephone number is (571)270-3099. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th~ 7:30-5:30.
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, James R. Greece can be reached at 571-272-3711. 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.
ELMITO BREVAL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2875
/ELMITO BREVAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights