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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) to foreign application CN202210879182.9 filed on 07/25/2022. The foreign application is not in English. The certified copy of the foreign priority application CN202210879182.9 has been received.
Filing Dates for the Claims — All Claims Not Entitled to Priority Date
To be entitled to the filing date of the foreign priority application CN202210879182.9 that is not in English, an English translation of the non-English language foreign application CN202210879182.9 and a statement that the translation is accurate in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55 is required to perfect the claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The foreign application must adequately support the claimed subject matter, meaning satisfy the written description and enablement requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a). See MPEP §§ 215 and 216. 37 C.F.R. 1.55(g)(3)(ii)-(iii). To demonstrate compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(a), applicant should point to support for their claimed subject matter in their translations.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment dated 08/13/2026, in which claims 1-3, 5, 8-9 were amended, claims 6-7 were cancelled, has been entered.
Specification
The amendment to the specification received on 04/16/2024 has not been entered because the substitute specification does not in compliance with §§ 1.125(c) which requires “A substitute specification submitted under this section must be submitted with markings showing all the changes relative to the immediate prior version of the specification of record. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. An accompanying clean version (without markings) must also be supplied. Numbering the paragraphs of the specification of record is not considered a change that must be shown pursuant to this paragraph.” In this case, Applicant’s substitute specification does not include any markings.
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 1-5, 10, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishimoto (US Pub. 20190384090) in view of Qu et al. (US Pub. 20220254865) and Choong et al. (US Pub. 20060066220).
Regarding claim 1, Kishimoto discloses in Fig. 12, paragraph [0071]-[0072] a light-emitting module, comprising:
a first base substrate [3e], and a functional layer [37] and at least one light-emitting element [30] disposed on the first base substrate [3e];
wherein, the light-emitting element [30] is provided with a first electrode [33], a light-emitting layer [34] and a second electrode [35] in sequence on the functional layer [37] in a direction away from the first base substrate [3e];
the functional layer [37] is located on a side of the first electrode [33] close to the first base substrate [3e], and is configured to convert a light emitted by the light-emitting element [30] into a light of a specific color;
wherein the functional layer [37] comprises N sub-functional layers [37a and 37b] disposed in sequence in a direction away from the first base substrate [3e], and N=3; and
the N sub-functional layers [37a and 37b] comprises two first sub-functional layer [37a] and one second sub-functional layer [37b] sandwiched between the two first sub-functional layers [37a], and one of the N sub-functional layers [37a and 37b] closest to the light-emitting element [30] is one of the two first sub-functional layers [37a];
a refractive index of each of the two first sub-functional layers [silicon nitride 37a] is greater than a refractive index of the second sub-functional layer [silicon oxide 37b];
the two first sub-functional layers [37a] have the same thickness.
Notes, the limitation “configured to convert a light emitted by the light-emitting element into a light of a specific color” directs to manner of operation of the device. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. In addition, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Kishimoto fails to disclose
each of the two first sub-functional layers having a thickness of 66 nm.
Kishimoto discloses each of the two first sub-functional layers is a silicon nitride layer.
Choong et al. discloses in paragraph [0002], “the wavelength of the light output by the display is determined, in part, by the optical length of the microcavity, which can be manipulated by, for example, changing the thickness of the layers that make up the microcavity” and in paragraph [0021], “the multi-layer mirror 111 includes layers of substantially non-absorbing materials of appropriately chosen thickness… the mirror 111 is comprised of alternating layers of high index and low index thins films and the mirror 111 has an odd number of layers… The alternating layers can be, for example: SiO2 and SixNy; and SiO2 and SiNx.”
In other word, Choong et al. suggests a thickness of silicon nitride layer is appropriately chosen to obtain the determined wavelength of the light output by the display.
Qu et al. disclose in Fig. 1, paragraph [0068]
a first sub-functional layer/a silicon nitride layer of a functional layer [3] having a thickness of 50 nm-300nm.
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).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Qu et al. and Choong et al. into the method of Kishimoto to include each of the two first sub-functional layers having a thickness of 66 nm. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Kishimoto in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable thickness of silicon nitride layer to obtain desired wavelength of the light output by the display.
Regarding claims 2-3, Kishimoto discloses in Fig. 12, paragraph [0072]
wherein, a material of the two first sub-functional layers [37a] is silicon nitride or silicon oxynitride [silicon nitride];
wherein, a refractive index of the material of the two first sub-functional layer [silicon nitride] is 1.6-2.0.
["Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.” MPEP 2112.01. In this case, Kishimoto discloses the material of the first sub-functional layer is silicon nitride as claimed. Thus, the silicon nitride would have a refractive index of 1.6-2.0.]
Regarding claims 4-5, Kishimoto discloses in Fig. 12, paragraph [0072]
wherein, a material of the second sub-functional layer [37b] is silicon oxide;
wherein, a refractive index of the material of the second sub-functional layer [37b] is 1.2-1.6. ["Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.” MPEP 2112.01. In this case, Kishimoto discloses the material of the second sub-functional layer is silicon oxide as claimed. Thus, the silicon oxide would have a refractive index of 1.2-1.6].
Regarding claim 10, Kishimoto fails to disclose
wherein, the first electrode is a transparent electrode; and
the second electrode is a reflecting electrode.
Choong et al. discloses in paragraph [0022], [0038]
wherein, the first electrode [114] is a transparent electrode; and
the second electrode [123] is a reflecting electrode.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Choong et al. into the method of Kishimoto to include wherein, the first electrode is a transparent electrode; and the second electrode is a reflecting electrode. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Kishimoto in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable material of the first and second electrode to improve the color purity of the emitted light, and increases the intensity of the emitted light [paragraph [0017] of Choong et al.].
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Kishimoto, Qu et al. and Choong et al. discloses a light-emitting device, comprising the light-emitting module according to claim 1.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishimoto (US Pub. 20190384090) in view of Qu et al. (US Pub. 20220254865) and Choong et al. (US Pub. 20060066220) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Tchakarov et al. (US Pub. 20090153026).
Regarding claim 8, Kishimoto fails to disclose
wherein, when the light emitted by the light-emitting element is orange, a thickness of the second sub-functional layer is 50 nm.
Choong et al. discloses in paragraph [0002], “the wavelength of the light output by the display is determined, in part, by the optical length of the microcavity, which can be manipulated by, for example, changing the thickness of the layers that make up the microcavity” and in paragraph [0021], “the multi-layer mirror 111 includes layers of substantially non-absorbing materials of appropriately chosen thickness… the mirror 111 is comprised of alternating layers of high index and low index thins films and the mirror 111 has an odd number of layers… The alternating layers can be, for example: SiO2 and SixNy; and SiO2 and SiNx.”
In other word, Choong et al. suggests a thickness of silicon oxide layer is appropriately chosen to obtain the determined wavelength of the light output by the display.
Tchakarov et al. discloses in paragraph [0054], [0055], [0056], [0087], [0168], [0173]
a thickness of the second sub-functional layer/a silicon oxide layer of a functional layer [barrier layer] having a thickness between 5-50nm or between 20nm-150nm.
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).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Choong et al. and Tchakarov et al. into the method of Kishimoto to include wherein, when the light emitted by the light-emitting element is orange, a thickness of the second sub-functional layer is 50 nm. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Kishimoto in the above manner for the purpose of providing optimal thicknesses of the second sub-functional layer to obtain desired wavelength of the light output by the display.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishimoto (US Pub. 20190384090) in view of Qu et al. (US Pub. 20220254865) and Choong et al. (US Pub. 20060066220) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Choi et al. (US Pub. 20070273291).
Regarding claim 9, Kishimoto fails to disclose
wherein, when the light emitted by the light-emitting element is red, a thickness of the second sub-functional layer is 70 nm.
Choong et al. discloses in paragraph [0002], “the wavelength of the light output by the display is determined, in part, by the optical length of the microcavity, which can be manipulated by, for example, changing the thickness of the layers that make up the microcavity” and in paragraph [0021], “the multi-layer mirror 111 includes layers of substantially non-absorbing materials of appropriately chosen thickness… the mirror 111 is comprised of alternating layers of high index and low index thins films and the mirror 111 has an odd number of layers… The alternating layers can be, for example: SiO2 and SixNy; and SiO2 and SiNx.”
In other word, Choong et al. suggests a thickness of silicon oxide layer is appropriately chosen to obtain the determined wavelength of the light output by the display.
Choi et al. discloses in Fig. 6, claims 11 and 13, paragraph [0063]
a second sub-functional layer/a silicon oxide layer [410] of a functional layer [buffer layer] having a thickness of 700 to 900Å (equal to 70nm-90nm).
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).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Choi et al. and Choong et al. into the method of Kishimoto to include wherein, when the light emitted by the light-emitting element is red, a thickness of the second sub-functional layer is 70 nm. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Kishimoto in the above manner for the purpose of providing optimal thicknesses of the second sub-functional layer to obtain desired wavelength of the light output by the display.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishimoto (US Pub. 20190384090) in view of Qu et al. (US Pub. 20220254865) and Choong et al. (US Pub. 20060066220) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Kim (US Pub. 20090244906).
Regarding claim 11, Choong et al. fails to disclose
wherein, the light-emitting module further comprises a second base substrate disposed opposite to the first base substrate and a reflecting layer disposed on a side of the second base substrate away from the light-emitting element; and
an orthographic projection of the reflecting layer on the first base substrate covers an orthographic projection of the second electrode of each of the light-emitting elements on the first base substrate.
Kim discloses in Fig. 14, paragraph [0094]-[0109],
wherein, the light-emitting module further comprises a second base substrate [810] disposed opposite to the first base substrate [600] and a reflecting layer [840] disposed on a side of the second base substrate [810] away from the light-emitting element [650, 660, 670]; and
an orthographic projection of the reflecting layer [840] on the first base substrate [600] covers an orthographic projection of the second electrode [670] of each of the light-emitting elements [650, 660, 670] on the first base substrate [600].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Kim into the method of Choong et al. to include wherein, the light-emitting module further comprises a second base substrate disposed opposite to the first base substrate and a reflecting layer disposed on a side of the second base substrate away from the light-emitting element; and an orthographic projection of the reflecting layer on the first base substrate covers an orthographic projection of the second electrode of each of the light-emitting elements on the first base substrate. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Choong et al. in the above manner for the purpose of preventing deterioration of the driving performance of the light emitting device and the display apparatus due to ultraviolet rays [paragraph [0008], [0010], [0014] of Kim].
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishimoto (US Pub. 20190384090) in view of Qu et al. (US Pub. 20220254865) and Choong et al. (US Pub. 20060066220) and Kim (US Pub. 20090244906) as applied to claim 11 above and further in view of Lee et al. (US Pub. 20160093645)
Regarding claims 12-13, Kishimoto fails to disclose
wherein, the light-emitting module further comprises an encapsulation base and an encapsulation structure, which are positioned at an edge of the light-emitting module and disposed between the first base substrate and the second base substrate;
the encapsulation base is positioned on a side of the functional layer away from the first base substrate; and
the second electrode of the light-emitting element positioned at the edge of the light-emitting module partially covers the encapsulation base; and
the encapsulation structure is used for sealing the edge of the light-emitting module;
wherein, the encapsulation base comprises a main body structure and a plurality of branch structures; and
the encapsulation structure is at least partially embedded in a gap formed between the respective branch structures.
Lee et al. discloses in Fig. 2A, Fig. 3A, Fig. 3B, paragraph [0022]-[0023], [0030], [0032]
wherein, the light-emitting module further comprises an encapsulation base [portion of 18 in PA region] and an encapsulation structure [F], which are positioned at an edge of the light-emitting module and disposed between the first base substrate [11] and the second base substrate [12];
the encapsulation base [portion of 18 in PA region] is positioned on a side of a layer [15] away from the first base substrate [11]; and
the second electrode [17] of the light-emitting element positioned at the edge of the light-emitting module partially covers the encapsulation base [portion of 18 in PA region]; and
the encapsulation structure [F] is used for sealing the edge of the light-emitting module;
wherein, the encapsulation base [portion of 18 in PA region] comprises a main body structure and a plurality of branch structures; and
the encapsulation structure [F] is at least partially embedded in a gap [181 or 182] formed between the respective branch structures.
Kishimoto discloses the layer formed under the first electrode and away from the first base substrate is the functional layer. Thus, the combination of Kishimoto and Lee et al. would result to “the encapsulation base is positioned on a side of the functional layer away from the first base substrate.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Lee et al. into the method of Kishimoto to include wherein, the light-emitting module further comprises an encapsulation base and an encapsulation structure, which are positioned at an edge of the light-emitting module and disposed between the first base substrate and the second base substrate; the encapsulation base is positioned on a side of the functional layer away from the first base substrate; and the second electrode of the light-emitting element positioned at the edge of the light-emitting module partially covers the encapsulation base; and the encapsulation structure is used for sealing the edge of the light-emitting module; wherein, the encapsulation base comprises a main body structure and a plurality of branch structures; and the encapsulation structure is at least partially embedded in a gap formed between the respective branch structures. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Kishimoto in the above manner for the purpose of reducing degree of the moisture absorption of the functional layer and the element's reliability of the display panel can be thus enhanced [paragraph [0050] of Lee et al.].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-5, 8-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Overall, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The claims stand rejected and the Action is made FINAL.
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 SOPHIA T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1686. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am -5:00 pm, Monday-Friday.
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 D 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.
/SOPHIA T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights