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.
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) 1,2,15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohara et al (PG Pub 2017/0324063 A1) and Kanaya et al (PG Pub 2021/0066564 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ohara teaches a light-emitting element comprising: a thin film transistor layer (22, figs. 1A to 1C) and a light-emitting element layer (42, paragraph [0105]) that are layered in this order, wherein in the thin film transistor layer, a thin film transistor (TFT, paragraph [0118]) and an insulating film formed of an organic material (31, paragraph [0119]) are layered in this order, in the light-emitting element layer, a reflective electrode (41, fig. 1B) electrically connected (fig. 1B, paragraph [0105]) to the thin film transistor and having light reflectivity (fig. 1B), a light-emitting layer (42), and an electrode (43, fig. 1B) having optical transparency are layered in this order, the reflective electrode is provided on the insulating film, and a first protruding portion is formed on a surface on the light-emitting layer side of the reflective electrode (fig. 1B and fig. 1C), and a difference between a height of a highest point of the first protruding portion and a height of a lowest point of the first protruding portion is in a film thickness direction of the reflective electrode (fig. 1B and fig. 1C).
Ohara does difference in height to be in a range not explicitly teaches the from 0.4 µm to 1 µm, though Ohara implies the range (several hundreds nanometers, paragraph [0191], which is understood to include 400 nanometers, which is 0.4 µm).
In the same field of endeavor, Kanaya teaches a difference between a height of a highest point of the first protruding portion and a height of a lowest point of the first protruding portion is in a range from 0.4 µm to 1 µm (depressed portion is half the thickness of layer 190, which may be 2 µm, paragraph [0059]) in a film thickness direction of the reflective electrode, for the benefit of increasing light extraction (paragraphs [0006][0031]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the difference in height to be in a range from 0.4 µm to 1 µm for the benefit of increasing light extraction.
Regarding claim 2, Ohara does not teach a period of the first protruding portion in a direction perpendicular to the film thickness direction of the reflective electrode is in a range from 6 µm to 8 µm.
Kanaya teaches a period of the first protruding portion in a direction perpendicular to the film thickness direction of the reflective electrode is in a range from 6 µm to 8 µm (paragraph [0058]), for the benefit of improving light extraction (paragraphs [0006][0031]).
Regarding claim 15, Ohara teaches a display device comprising: the light-emitting element according to claim 1 (figs. 1A to 1C).
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohara et al (PG Pub 2017/0324063 A1) and Kanaya et al (PG Pub 2021/0066564 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takahashi et al (PG Pub 2018/0113564 A1).
Regarding claim 3, the previous combination remains as applied in claim 1.
The previous combination does not teach a film thickness of the insulating film is in a range from 1 µm to 3 µm.
In the same field of endeavor, Takahashi teaches a film thickness of the insulating film (528, fig. 31A) is in a range from 1 µm to 3 µm (paragraph [0455]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the thickness of the insulating film according to the electrical insulation and planarization needs of the device. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 4, Ohara does not teach the insulating film is formed of a polymer material containing at least one of polyimide, polyamide, or polyamic acid.
Takahashi teaches an insulating film is formed of a polymer material containing at least one of polyimide (521, fig. 31A, paragraph [0437]), polyamide, or polyamic acid, for the benefit of providing a thermally stable insulating film (paragraph [0437]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the insulating film is formed of a polymer material containing at least one of polyimide, polyamide, or polyamic acid, for the benefit of providing a thermally stable insulating film.
Regarding claim 5, Takahashi teaches the light-emitting element according to claim 4, wherein the polymer material is formed of only any one of polyimide (paragraph [0437]), polyamide, and polyamic acid.
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohara et al (PG Pub 2017/0324063 A1) and Kanaya et al (PG Pub 2021/0066564 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Huang (PG Pub 2014/0338963 A1).
Regarding claim 4, the previous combination remains as applied in claim 1.
The previous combination does not teach the insulating film is formed of a polymer material containing at least one of polyimide, polyamide, or polyamic acid.
In the same field of endeavor, Huang teaches an insulating film is formed of a polymer material containing at least one of polyimide (paragraph [0044]), polyamide, or polyamic acid, for the benefit of simplifying the manufacturing process (paragraph [0044]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the insulating film is formed of a polymer material containing at least one of polyimide, polyamide, or polyamic acid, for the benefit of simplifying the manufacturing process.
Regarding claim 5, Huang teaches the light-emitting element according to claim 4, wherein the polymer material is formed of only any one of polyimide (paragraph [0044]), polyamide, and polyamic acid.
Regarding claim 6, Huang teaches the light-emitting element according to claim 4, wherein a glass transition point of the polymer material is in a range from 110°C to 210°C (paragraph [0044]).
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohara et al (PG Pub 2017/0324063 A1) and Kanaya et al (PG Pub 2021/0066564 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Son et al (PG Pub 2007/0138478 A1).
Regarding claim 7, the previous combination remains as applied in claim 1.
The previous combination does not teach the reflective electrode has a layered structure of a first transparent material, an opaque material, and a second transparent material.
In the same field of endeavor, Son teaches a reflective electrode (410, fig. 6) has a layered structure of a first transparent material, an opaque material, and a second transparent material (ITO/Ag/ITO, paragraph [0069]), for the benefit of reducing specific resistance (paragraph [0069]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the reflective electrode to have a layered structure of a first transparent material, an opaque material, and a second transparent material for the benefit of reducing specific resistance.
Regarding claim 8, Son teaches the light-emitting element according to claim 7, wherein the opaque material contains at least one of aluminum, silver (paragraph [0069]), and magnesium.
Regarding claim 9, Son teaches the light-emitting element according to claim 7, wherein at least one of the first transparent material and the second transparent material contains ITO (paragraph [0069]).
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohara et al (PG Pub 2017/0324063 A1) and Kanaya et al (PG Pub 2021/0066564 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pentlehner et al (PG Pub 2018/0277778 A1).
Regarding claim 10, the previous combination remains as applied in claim 1.
Ohara further teaches the light-emitting element is a top-emitting light-emitting element (figs. 1A to 1C).
The previous combination does not teach the light-emitting element to be a tandem light-emitting element including a first light-emitting layer and a second light-emitting layer.
In the same field of endeavor, Pentlehner teaches a light-emitting element to be a tandem light-emitting element including a first light-emitting layer (4, fig. 3) and a second light-emitting layer (6, paragraph [0287]), for the benefit of increasing the luminance of the emitted light (paragraph [0290]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the light-emitting element a tandem light-emitting element including a first light-emitting layer and a second light-emitting layer, for the benefit of increasing the luminance of the emitted light.
Regarding claim 11, Pentlerhner teaches the light-emitting element according to claim 10, further comprising: a charge generation layer (5, fig. 3, paragraph [0287]) disposed between the first light-emitting layer and the second light-emitting layer, wherein the charge generation layer includes a hole generation layer (5a, paragraph [0287]) configured to generate holes, an electron generation layer (5b, paragraph [0287]) configured to generate electrons, and an inorganic compound layer (5c, paragraph [0213]) disposed between the hole generation layer and the electron generation layer, for the benefit of achieving high luminance (paragraph [0290]).
Ohara in view of Kanaya and Pentlerhner teaches a second protruding portion is formed on a surface on the hole generation layer side of the inorganic compound layer (Ohara teaches the entire light emitting element, layers 41-43, fig. 1C, to have protruding portions) and a height of the second protruding portion is in a range from 0.4 µm to 1 µm (Ohara teaches by implication height h3 may be several hundred nanometers, paragraphs [0191][0192], which is understood to include 400 nanometers, which is 0.4 µm, to enhance light extraction, paragraphs [0007][0008]). Kanaya teaches to make a conductive layer to have a protruding portion in a range from 0.4 µm to 1µm to enhance light extraction (paragraphs [0006][0031]). Thus, it would have been obvious to make the conductive layer (Yb 5c in Pentlerhner) to have a protruding portion in a range from 0.4 µm to 1µm to enhance light extraction.
Regarding claim 12, Pentlehner teaches the inorganic compound layer is formed of ytterbium or lithium (paragraph [0213]).
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohara et al (PG Pub 2017/0324063 A1) and Kanaya et al (PG Pub 2021/0066564 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al (PG Pub 2017/0358534 A1).
Regarding claim 13, the previous combination remains as applied in claim 1.
The previous combination does not teach atoms included in the insulating film and atoms included in the reflective electrode are chemically bonded to each other.
In the same field of endeavor, Kim teaches atoms included in the insulating film (202, fig. 11A) and atoms included in the electrode (303) are chemically bonded to each other (paragraph [0112]), for the benefit of creating excellent adhesion (paragraph [0112]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make atoms included in the insulating film and atoms included in the reflective electrode chemically bonded to each other for the benefit of creating excellent adhesion.
Regarding claim 14, Kim teaches the light-emitting element according to claim 13, wherein the atoms included in the insulating film and the atoms included in the reflective electrode are bonded to each other based on any of an ionic bond, a dipole-dipole interaction, an ion-dipole interaction, van der Waals attraction, a coordination bond (paragraph [0112]), a metal bond, and a hydrogen bond.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FEIFEI YEUNG LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1882. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8am to 4pm EST.
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, Dale Page can be reached at 571 270 7877. 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.
/FEIFEI YEUNG LOPEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899
