DETAILED NON-FINAL REISSUE 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 .
Reissue Applications
For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions.
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which Patent No. 10,714,540 is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely appraise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1422.01, and 1442.04.
Priority
United States Patent No. 10,714,540 (“the ‘540 patent”) was filed on 19 December 2018 and claims priority to KR 10-2017-0180684 filed on 27 December 2017.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed on 7/12/2024 and 3/17/2025 have been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Status
The following is the status of the claims
Claims 22-80 are pending.
Claims 22-80 are new.
Original Patent
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 251:
IN GENERAL—Whenever any patent is, through error, deemed wholly or partly inoperative or invalid, by reason of a defective specification or drawing, or by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a right to claim in the patent, the Director shall, on the surrender of such patent and the payment of the fee required by law, reissue the patent for the invention disclosed in the original patent, and in accordance with a new and amended application, for the unexpired part of the term of the original patent. No new matter shall be introduced into the application for reissue.
MPEP 1412.01 states that the reissue claims must be for the same invention as that disclosed as being the invention of the original patent. MPEP 1412.01 further provides guidelines for determining whether the reissue claims are "for the invention disclosed in the original patent" as:
(A) the claims presented in the reissue application are described in the original patent specification and enabled by the original patent specification such that 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph is satisfied;
(B) nothing in the original patent specification indicates an intent not to claim the subject matter of the claims presented in the reissue application; and
(C) the newly claimed invention is clearly and unequivocally disclosed in the specification as a separate invention with the claimed combination of features.
New claim 45, filed 12 July 2024, does not meet the “original patent” clause because the newly claimed invention is not clearly and unequivocally disclosed as a separate invention.
Specifically, new claim 45 recites “a light emitting element disposed in a first pixel” which differs from the original patented claims which recite “an organic light emitting diode disposed in a first pixel” or “a blue organic light emitting diode disposed in a red pixel”.
While new claim 45 recites a generic light emitting element disposed in a first pixel, the detailed review of the disclosure of the ‘540 patent reveals that there was no intent to claim a display device in which a generic light emitting element is disposed in a first pixel.
For example, the abstract of the ‘540 patent recites “A display device can include an organic light emitting diode disposed in a first pixel”. Similarly, the SUMMARY section of the ‘540 patent recites “An objective to be achieved by the present disclosure is to provide a display device which includes an organic light emitting diode…” (see col. 1 lines 60-62). Additionally, when describing the figures, the ‘540 only describes an organic light emitting diode 140 (see col. 4 line 19-col. 15 line 64). In fact, there is no disclosure in the ‘540 of a generic light emitting element as recited in claim 45, rather all disclosures of a light emitting element in a first pixel are specifically to an organic light emitting diode.
Thus, there is no clear and unequivocal disclosure of the display device comprising a generic light emitting element in a pixel.
The Federal Circuit, in Forum US, Inc. v. Flow Valve, LLC, Appeal 2018-1765, slip op. 8-9, 2019 WL 2494728 (Fed. Cir. June 17, 2019), stated:
Thus, for broadening reissue claims, the specification of the original patent must do more than merely suggest or indicate the invention recited in reissue claims; “[i]t must appear from the face of the instrument that what is covered by the reissue was intended to have been covered and secured by the original.” Indus. Chems., 315 U.S. at 676 . . . (emphasis added). Stated differently, the original patent “must clearly and unequivocally disclose the newly claimed invention as a separate invention.” Antares, 111 F.3d at 1362. We apply the standard set forth in Industrial Chemicals and Antares to this case and hold that the reissue claims are invalid.
(emphasis added)
As described above, every embodiment disclosed by the ‘540 patent is directed to display device specifically comprising an organic light emitting diode in a first pixel.
That is, the face of the patent itself does not describe any generic light emitting element
embodiments. This is similar to the facts in Forum US, Inc. v. Flow Valve, LLC, Appeal 2018-1765, slip op. 8-9, 2019 WL 2494728 (Fed. Cir. June 17, 2019). In Forum, the patent claims recited “[a] workpiece machining implement comprising…a plurality of arbors.” The newly added reissue claims removed the “plurality of arbors” limitation and thus encompassed a scope that include either arbors or no arbors. The Court found that “nowhere do the written description or drawings disclose that arbors are an optional feature of the invention.” Id. at 9-10.
In this instance, while new claim 45 encompass a scope which include a display device comprising any type or species of light emitting element, the ‘540 patent does not describe a generic light emitting element. Thus, claims 45-80 do not satisfy the “original patent” requirement.
Accordingly, claims 45-80 are rejected under 35 USC §251 for not complying with the “original patent” clause.
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(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 30 recites “a fourth color filter disposed on the second color-conversion layer”. However, there is no recitation of a first, or second, or third color filter in claim 30 or claim 22 from which claim 30 depends. As such, it is unclear if claim 30 requires the presence of five color filters (i.e., the auxiliary color filter of claim 22 plus an additional first, second, third, and fourth color filters) or two color filters (i.e., the auxiliary color filter of claim 22 plus an additional color filter which corresponds to the fourth color filter of claim 30). For this reason, one ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the metes and bounds of claim 30. Appropriate action is required. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will interpret a second pixel comprising a color filter disposed on a second color-conversion layer as meeting the requirements of claim 30.
Claim 31 recites “a fifth color filter disposed on the third color-conversion layer”. However, there is no recitation of a first, or second, or third, or fourth color filter in claim 31 or claim 22 from which claim 31 depends. As such, it is unclear if claim 31 requires the presence of six color filters (i.e., the auxiliary color filter of claim 22 plus an additional first, second, third, fourth, and fifth color filters) or two color filters (i.e., the auxiliary color filter of claim 22 plus an additional color filter which corresponds to the fifth color filter of claim 31). For this reason, one ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the metes and bounds of claim 31. Appropriate action is required. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will interpret a third pixel comprising a color filter as meeting the requirements of claim 31.
Claim 69 recites the limitation "the organic light emitting diode" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as neither claim 69 nor claim 45 from it depends introduces an organic light emitting diode. Appropriate action is required.
Claim 74 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 74 recites “wherein the polarizer is configured to polar light” and therefore fails to include all the limitations of claim 73 from which claim 74 directly depends. It is noted that claim 73 recites “wherein the display device does include a polarizer”. Appropriate correction is required. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
For the purpose of examination, the examiner will interpret a display device which meets the limitations of claim 73 as also meeting the limitations of claim 74.
Examiner Notes
For the purpose of simplifying an explanation of how the cited prior art teaches each of the limitations recited in claims 22, 37, and 45, the different limitations will be identified as described below:
Claim 22
22[pre]. A display device comprising:
22[a]. an organic light emitting diode disposed in a first pixel configured to emit a first color light, a second pixel configured to emit a second color light, and a third pixel configured to emit a third color light;
22[b]. a first color-conversion layer disposed on the organic light emitting diode in the first pixel;
22[c]. a second color-conversion layer disposed on the organic light emitting diode in the second pixel;
22[d]. a black matrix disposed between the first, second, and third pixels;
22[e]. a light scattering layer disposed only on the organic light emitting diode in the third pixel, wherein a lateral surface of the light scattering layer is in contact with the black matrix, wherein the first color light and second color light have a longer wavelength than the third color light; and
22[f]. wherein at least one of the first, second, and third pixels include an auxiliary color filter and the auxiliary color filter is configured to transmit light having a wavelength different than one of the first color light of the first pixel, the second color light of the second color pixel, and the third color light of the third pixel.
Claim 37
37[pre]. A display device comprising:
37[a]. a blue organic light emitting diode disposed in a red pixel, a green pixel, and a blue pixel;
37[b]. a red color conversion-layer disposed on the blue organic light emitting diode in the red pixel, wherein the red color-conversion layer is configured to convert a blue light emitted from the blue light emitting diode into a red light;
37[c]. a green color conversion-layer disposed on the blue organic light emitting diode in the green pixel, wherein the green color-conversion layer is configured to convert a blue light emitted from the blue light emitting diode into a green light;
37[d]. a black matrix disposed between the red, green, and blue pixels; and
37[e]. a light scattering layer disposed only on the blue organic light emitting diode in the blue pixel;
37[f]. wherein a lateral surface of the light scattering layer is in contact with the black matrix;
37[g]. wherein at least one of the red, green, and blue pixels includes an auxiliary color filter and the auxiliary color filter is configured to transmit light having a wavelength different than a color light output of one of the red pixel, the green pixel, and the blue pixel.
Claim 45
45[pre]. A display device comprising:
45[a]. a light emitting element disposed in a first pixel configured to emit a first color light, a second pixel configured to emit a second color light, and a third pixel configured to emit a third color light;
45[b]. a first color-conversion layer disposed on the organic light emitting diode in the first pixel;
45[c]. a second color-conversion layer disposed on the organic light emitting diode in the second pixel;
45[d]. a black matrix disposed between the first, second, and third pixels;
45[e]. a light scattering layer disposed only on the organic light emitting diode in the third pixel, wherein a lateral surface of the light scattering layer is in contact with the black matrix, wherein the first color light and second color light have a longer wavelength than the third color light; and
45[f]. wherein at least one of the first, second, and third pixels include an auxiliary color filter and the auxiliary color filter is configured to transmit light having a wavelength different than one of the first color light of the first pixel, the second color light of the second color pixel, and the third color light of the third pixel.
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.
Claims 22-25, 28-31, 34, 35, 37, 40-47, 49-52, 56-62, 66, 70, 68, and 73-80 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masato et al., JP 2016/122606 (“Masato”)(machine translation provided herewith) in view of Kimura et al., US 2007/0075627 (“Kimura”).
Regarding claim 22[pre] & [a]. Masato discloses a display device comprising an organic light emitting element 40 which may be a diode wherein the element is disposed in a first pixel R configured to emit a red colored light, a second pixel G configured to emit a green colored light, and a third pixel B comprising a blue colored light [0021-0023,
PNG
media_image1.png
284
448
media_image1.png
Greyscale
0040,0075, 0123, 0136, 0178, Fig. 13].
Figure 13 of Masato illustrating the pixel arrangement of
the disclosed OLED display device
22[b]. the first pixel R comprises a first color-conversion layer 24R disposed on the organic light emitting element 40 [0100, Fig. 13].
22[c]. the second pixel G comprises a second color-conversion layer 24G disposed on the organic light emitting element 40 [0100, Fig. 13].
22[e]. the third pixel B comprises a light scattering layer 26 which is disposed only on the light emitting element 40 of the third pixel [0021, Fig. 13].
22[g]. as is noted above, the red pixel R emits a red light and the green pixel G emits a green light. As such, the red pixel R (i.e., the first pixel) and the green pixel G (i.e., the second pixel) emit light which inherently has a wavelength that is longer than the light emitted by the blue pixel.
22[h]. Masato teaches that the red pixel R comprises a red color filter layer that transmits only red light which corresponds to the claimed auxiliary color filter [0009, 0021]. Since the green and blue pixels transmit green and blue light, respectively, the red color filter transmits a light which has a wavelength that is different than that of the green and blue pixels.
22[d] & 22[f]. In addition to what is described above, Masato teaches that a partition wall 22 is disposed between each of the pixels [0021, 0121, Figs. 6 & 13]. Masato is silent regarding the presence of a black matrix which is disposed between the first, second, and third pixels. Masato is also silent regarding a lateral surface of the light scattering layer being in contact with a black matrix.
Kimura discloses an OLED display device comprising a red light emitting pixel, a green light emitting pixel, and a blue light emitting pixel wherein each of the pixels are separated by a partition wall [abstract, 0221, Fig. 14A]. Kimura teaches that when the partition walls are black they serve as a black matrix between pixels thereby improving the contrast of the display [0384].
Masato and Kimura are both directed toward OLED display devices comprising a partition wall between pixels. In light of the teachings of Kimura, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was effectively filed to have modified the OLED display of Masato by making the partitions wall between the pixels black with the expectation of improving the contrast of the display. The black partition walls of the resulting OLED display would have read on the claimed black matrix between the first, second, and third pixel recited in claim 22[d].
Additionally, as can be seen in the Fig. 13 of Masato the light scatting layer 26 comprises lateral surfaces which are in contact with the partition walls 22 [0021, Fig. 13]. As such, since the partition wall in the device of modified Masato would have constituted a black matrix, the device of modified Masato would have met the limitation recited in 22[f].
Regarding claim 23, Masato teaches that the light emitting element 40 of the red, green, and blue pixels is formed from a layer which is disposed continuously between the pixels [0020, 0022, 0184, Fig. 19].
Regarding claim 24, Masato teaches that the light emitting element 40 emits blue or blue-green light [0122] which corresponds to the claimed third color light. Masato goes on to teach that the red color-conversion layer (i.e., the first color-conversion layer) and the green color-conversion layer (i.e., the second color-conversion layer) convert the light from the light emitting element 40 to red light and green light respectively [0005, 0086, 0087, 0089, 0090] which correspond to the claimed first color light and second color light.
Regarding claim 25, Masato teaches that the color conversion layers 24 may comprise quantum dots [0088]. Since the red and green color conversion layers respectively emit red and green light, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have utilized red quantum dots in the red color-conversion layer 24R (i.e., the first color conversion layer) and green quantum dots in the green color-conversion layer 24G (i.e., the second color conversion layer).
Regarding claim 29, Masato teaches that the red pixel (i.e., the first pixel) comprise a red color filter 23R (i.e., a third color filter) disposed on the red color-conversion layer 24R (i.e., the first color-conversion layer) wherein the red color filter transmits red light (i.e., the first color light) from the red color-conversion layer 24G [0009, 0013, 0087, 0089].
Regarding claim 30, Masato teaches that the green pixel G (i.e., the second pixel) comprises a color filter 23 disposed on a color-conversion layer 24 wherein the color filter is configured to transmit green light (i.e., the second color light) received from the color-conversion layer [0009, 0011, Fig. 13].
Regarding claim 31, Masato teaches that the blue pixel B comprises a color filter 23 that transmits blue light which is interpreted as reading on the claimed fifth color filter [0021, Fig. 13].
Regarding claim 34, Masato teaches that the partition wall 22 of the red pixel (i.e., the first pixel) and green pixel (i.e., the second pixel) comprises a lateral side surface which directly contacts a lateral side surface of a color-conversion layer 24 [Fig. 13]. As such, the display device of modified Masato would have met the limitation of claim 34.
Regarding claim 35, as is described above, Masato teaches that the red pixel R comprises a red color filter layer 23R that transmits only red light which corresponds to the claimed auxiliary color filter [0009, 0021]. Masato also teaches that the red pixel comprise a red-color conversion layer 24R (corresponding to the claimed first color conversion layer) which overlaps the red color filter layer 23R [0100, Fig. 13].
Regarding claim 37[pre] & [a]. Masato discloses a display device comprising a blue organic light emitting element 40 (i.e., an organic light emitting diode) disposed in red pixel R, a green pixel G, and a blue pixel B [0023, 0040, 0100, 0122, 0136, 0178, Fig. 13].
37[b]. the red pixel comprises red color-conversion layer disposed on the blue organic light emitting element 40 wherein the red color-conversion layer is configured to convert a blue light emitted from the blue organic light emitting element 40 into a red light [0010, 0011, 0012, 0089]. The blue organic light emitting element may be a light emitting diode [0178]
37[c]. the green pixel comprises green color-conversion layer 24G disposed on the blue organic light emitting element 40 wherein the green color-conversion layer 24G is configured to convert a blue light emitted from the blue organic light emitting element 40 into a green light [0010, 0011, 0012, 0090].
37[e]. the blue pixel B comprise a light scattering layer 26 which is disposed only on the light emitting element 40 of the third pixel [0021, Fig. 13].
37[g]. Masato teaches that the red pixel comprises a red color filter layer 23R that transmits only red light which corresponds to the claimed auxiliary color filter [0009, 0021]. Since the green and blue pixels transmit green and blue light, respectively, the red color filter 23R transmits a light which has a wavelength that is different than that of the green and blue pixels.
37[d] & [f]. In additional to what is described above, Masato teaches that a partition wall 22 is disposed between each of the pixels [0021, 0121, Figs. 6 & 13]. Masato is silent regarding the presence of a black matrix which is disposed between the first, second, and third pixels. Masato is also silent regarding lateral surface of the light scattering layer being in contact with a black matrix.
Kimura discloses an OLED display device comprising a red light emitting pixel, a green light emitting pixel, and a blue light emitting pixel wherein each of the pixels are separated by a partition wall [abstract, 0221, Fig. 14A]. Kimura teaches that when the partition walls are black they serve as a black matrix between pixels thereby improving the contrast of the display [0384].
Masato and Kimura are both directed toward OLED display device comprising a partition wall between pixels. In light of the teachings of Kimura, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was effectively filed to have modified the OLED display of Masato by making the partitions wall between the pixels black with the expectation of improving the contrast of the display. The black partition walls of the resulting OLED display would have read on the claimed black matrix between the red, green, and blue pixel recited in claim 37[d].
Additionally, as can be seen in the Fig. 13 of Masato the light scatting layer 26 comprises lateral surfaces which are in contact with the partition walls 22 [0021, Fig. 13]. As such, since the partition wall in the device of modified Masato would have constituted a black matrix, the device of modified Masato would have met the limitation recited in 37[f].
Regarding claim 40, Masato teaches that the red pixel comprises a red color filter 23R disposed on a red color-conversion layer 24R [0128, Fig. 13].
Regarding claim 41, Masato teaches that the green pixel comprises a green color filter 23G disposed on a green color-conversion layer 24G [0128, Fig. 13].
Regarding claim 42, Masato teaches that the red pixel comprises a red color filter layer 23R which corresponds to the claimed auxiliary color filter [0128, Fig. 13]. The red color filter layer 23R that overlaps the red color-conversion layer 24R as claimed [0128, Fig. 13].
Regarding claim 43, Masato teaches that the blue pixel comprise a blue color filter 23B [0085, Fig. 13]. In an alternative interpretation, the blue color filter 23B in the blue pixel may reasonably be interpreted as corresponding to the claimed auxiliary color filter.
Regarding claim 44, since there is no clear designation of what part of the claimed display device is the bottom (or top), the color filter layers of the device of modified Masato may reasonably be interpreted as being below their corresponding color-conversion layers.
Regarding claim 45[pre] & [a] and 49. Masato discloses a display device comprising an organic light emitting element 40 disposed in a first pixel R configured to emit a red colored light (i.e., a first color light), a second pixel G configured to emit a green colored light (i.e., a second color light), and a third pixel B comprising a blue colored light (i.e., a third color light)[0021-0023, 0040, 0136, 0178, Fig. 13].
45[c]. the second pixel G comprises a second color-conversion layer 24G disposed on the organic light emitting element 40 [0100, Fig. 13].
45[e]. the third pixel B comprise a light scattering layer 26 which is disposed only on the light emitting element 40 of the third pixel [0021, Fig. 13].
45[g]. Masato teaches that the red pixel comprise a red color filter layer that transmits only red light which corresponds to the claimed auxiliary color filter [0009, 0021]. Since the green and blue pixels transmit green and blue light, respectively, the red color filter transmits a light which has a wavelength that is different than that of the green and blue pixels.
45[d] & [f]. in additional to what is described above, Masato teaches that a partition wall 22 is disposed between each of the pixels [0021, 0121, Figs. 6 & 13]. Masato is silent regarding the presence of a black matrix which is disposed between the first, second, and third pixels. Masato is also silent regarding lateral surface of the light scattering layer being in contact with a black matrix.
Kimura discloses an OLED display device comprising a red light emitting pixel, a green light emitting pixel, and a blue light emitting pixel wherein each of the pixels are separated by a partition wall [abstract, 0221, Fig. 14A]. Kimura teaches that when the partition walls are black they serve as a black matrix between pixels thereby improving the contrast of the display [0384].
Masato and Kimura are both directed toward OLED display device comprising a partition wall between pixels. In light of the teachings of Kimura, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was effectively filed to have modified the OLED display of Masato by making the partitions wall between the pixels black with the expectation of improving the contrast of the display. The black partition walls of the resulting OLED display would have read on the claimed black matrix between the red, green, and blue pixel recited in claim 45[d].
Additionally, as can be seen in the Fig. 13 of Masato the light scatting layer 26 comprises lateral surfaces which are in contact with the partition walls 22 [0021, Fig. 13]. As such, since the partition wall in the device of modified Masato would have constituted a black matrix, the device of modified Masato would have met the limitation recited in 45[f].
Regarding claim 46, Masato teaches that the light emitting element 40 is a blue light emitting element [0011, 0022].
Regarding claim 47, Masato teaches a light scattering layer 25 comprising scattering particles [0101, 0102].
Regarding claim 49, the red light, green light, and blue light emitted by the red, green, and blue pixels of the display device of modified Masato respectively correspond to the first color light, second color light, and third color light.
Regarding claim 50, Masato teaches that the red color light (i.e., the first color light) is defined as having a wavelength of from 580 to 750 nm and that the green color light (i.e., the second color light) is defined as having a wavelength of from 495 to 580 nm [0022]. Masato further teaches that the blue color light (i.e., the third color light) has a wavelength of from 400 to 495 nm [0022]. As such, Masato teaches ranges of wavelength for each of the light color which overlap or encompass, and therefore render obvious, the claimed ranges (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 51, the organic light emitting elements of the disclosed display device comprises a first electrode 42 and a second electrode 43 and an organic electroluminescent layer 41 disposed between the first electrode 42 and a second electrode 43 [0023, 0046, 0051, Fig. 2].
Regarding claim 52, Masato teaches that the organic electroluminescent layer 41 may have a single layer structure [0051].
Regarding claim 56, Masato teaches forming the first electrode 42 of the light emitting elements from indium tin oxide [0047].
Regarding claim 57, Masato teaches forming the second electrode 43 of the light emitting elements from ITO (i.e., indium tin oxide) [0049].
Regarding claim 58, Masato teaches that the second electrode 43 of the light emitting elements may comprise a metal film having reflectivity [0050] which corresponds to the claimed reflective plate.
Regarding claim 59, the disclosed organic light emitting layer 41 may comprise a hole transport layer 44 [0051, Fig. 2].
Regarding claim 60, the disclosed display device comprises a sealing layer 17 formed on first partition walls 16 which separate and therefore defines the different pixels [0041, 0042, Fig. 13]. The sealing layer 17 is disposed on the second electrode 43 and is overlaps the partition walls 22 [0075, Fig. 13]. The partition walls 22 of modified Masato correspond to the claimed black matrix.
Regarding claims 28 and 61, Masato teaches that the light emitting element 40 emits blue or blue-green light [0122] which corresponds to the claimed third color light. Masato goes on to teach that the red color-conversion layer 24R (i.e., the first color-conversion layer) and the green color-conversion layer 24G (i.e., the second color-conversion layer) convert the light from the light emitting element 40 to red light and green light respectively [0005, 0086, 0087, 0089, 0090] which correspond to the first color light and second color light recited in claim 61.
Additionally, since there is no clear designation of what part of the claimed display device is the bottom (or top), the red color filter 23R which corresponds to the claimed auxiliary color filter of the device of modified Masato may reasonably be interpreted as being below the corresponding red color-conversion layer 24R as recited in claim 28.
Regarding claim 62, Masato teaches that the red pixel (i.e., the first pixel), the green pixel (i.e., the second pixel), and the blue pixel (i.e., the third pixel) each comprise a color filter 23R, 23G, and 23B, respectively [0085, 0160]. The red pixel and green pixel also respectively comprise a red color-conversion layer 24R (i.e., a first color-conversion layer) and a green color-conversion layer 24G (i.e., a second color conversion layer) which are disposed on the color filter layers [0085, Fig. 13]. The red color-conversion is configured to convert blue light (i.e., a third light color) to red light (i.e., a first color light) [0086, 0089]. The green color-conversion layer is configured to convert blue light to a green light (i.e., a second color light) [0086, 0090] as claimed. The color filter 23B disposed in the blue pixel is configured to transmit blue light (i.e., the third color light) [0085] as claimed.
Regarding claim 66, as can be seen in Fig. 13 of Masato, the color filters 23 of the different pixels are spaced apart from each other by the partition wall 22.
Regarding claim 68, Masato teaches that the partition wall 22 of the red pixel (i.e., the first pixel) and green pixel (i.e., the second pixel) comprises a lateral side surface which directly contacts a lateral side surface of a color-conversion layer 24 [Fig. 13]. As such, the display device of modified Masato would have met the limitation of claim 68.
Regarding claim 70, Masato teaches that the red color-conversion layer 23R (i.e., the first color-conversion layer) and the green color-conversion layer 23G (i.e., the second color-conversion layer) are separated by a partition wall 22. Thus, upon modification with the teachings of Kimura, the resulting display device would have comprised a black matrix disposed between a first and second color-conversion layer as claimed.
Regarding claims 73-75, Masato does not teach or suggest that a polarizing plate is a required element of the disclosed invention. As such, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was effectively filed to have formed the display device of Masato without a polarizer plate. The resulting display device would have met the limitation of claim 73 and inherently met the limitation of claim 75.
Regarding claim 76, Masato teaches that the color-conversion layers 24 may comprise quantum dots [0088]. Since the purpose of the color-conversion layers 24 in the red pixel and green pixel is to convert the blue light from the organic light emitting layer 41 and reemit the light as either red light or green light, it logically follows that the color-conversion layer 24R in the red pixel would comprise red quantum dots and the color-conversion layer 24G in the green pixel would comprise green quantum dots. The different color quantum dots would have red on the claimed first and second color quantum dots.
Regarding claim 77, Masato teaches that the organic light emitting layer 41 is disposed continuously across the red, green, and blue pixels [Fig. 13].
Regarding claim 78, Masato teaches that the red pixel comprises a red color filter layer 23R (i.e., the first color filter layer) which corresponds to the claimed auxiliary color filter [0128, Fig. 13]. The red color filter layer 23R that overlaps the red color-conversion layer 24R as claimed [0128, Fig. 13].
Regarding claim 79, Masato teaches that the blue pixel comprise a blue color filter 23B [0085, Fig. 13]. In an alternative interpretation, the blue color filter 23B in the blue pixel may reasonably be interpreted as corresponding to the claimed auxiliary color filter.
Regarding claim 80, since there is no clear designation of what part of the claimed display device is the bottom (or top), the red color filter 23R which corresponds to the claimed auxiliary color filter of the device of modified Masato may reasonably be interpreted as being below the corresponding red color-conversion layer 24R.
Claims 32 and 53-55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masato in view of Kimura as applied to claims 22, 45, and 51 and further in view Oh et al., US 2017/0194387 (“Oh”).
Regarding claim 32, as is described above, Masato as modified with Kimura teaches a display device which meets limitations of claim 22. Modified Masato is silent regarding the organic light emitting diode comprising an n stack structure.
Oh discloses an organic light emitting diode which is useful in display devices [abstract, 0023, 0096]. The organic light emitting diode comprises a first blue light emitting layer and a second blue light emitting layer [abstract, 0007]. One of the blue light emitting layers emits blue light of a relatively short wavelength and the other blue light emitting layer emits blue light of a relative long wavelength [0052]. Oh teaches that by using two emission layers emitting blue light having different wavelengths, color visibility at site viewing angles is improved [0049, 0052].
Modified Masato and Oh are both directed towards the use of blue light emitting organic light emitting diodes in display devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was effectively filed to have utilized the organic light emitting diode disclosed by Oh in the display device of modified Masato with the expectation of improving side viewing angles. The resulting display device would have comprised an organic light emitting diode having an n stack structure wherein n is equal to 2.
Regarding claim 53-55, as is described above, Masato as modified with Kimura teaches a display device which meets limitations of claims 45 and 51. Modified Masato is silent regarding the organic light emitting diode having a plurality of emission structure.
However, the organic light emitting diode disclosed by Oh comprises two emission layers which reads on the plurality of emission layers recited in claim 53. The organic light emitting diode disclosed by Oh further comprises a charge generation layer (CGL) disposed between two emission layers [0007, 0046, Fig. 1] and therefore meets the limitation of claim 54. The two emission layers of the organic light emitting diode of Oh both emit blue light which corresponds to the third color light recited in claim 55
Claims 33, 48, and 67 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masato in view of Kimura as applied to claims 22 and 45 above, and further in view of Fujita, JP 2015/026417 (“Fujita”)(machine translation provided herewith).
Regarding claims 33 and 67, as is described above, Masato as modified with Kimura teaches a display device which meets the limitations of claims 22 and 45. In addition, Masato teaches that the light emitted from the organic light emitting layer 41 may be directional (i.e., anisotropic) [0052].
Modified Masato is silent regarding the scattering layer being configured to convert anisotropic light to isotropic light.
Fujita discloses a display device comprising a red pixel, a green pixel, and a blue pixel wherein the blue pixel comprises a light scattering layer which scatters light emitted from an organic light emitting element [0009-0013, 0025, 0145, 0146]. Fujita teaches that the light scattering layer comprises inorganic particles which allow for directional light from a light emitting element to be scattered more isotropically and effectively [0147].
Modified Masato and Fujita are both directed towards display devices comprising a red pixel, a green pixel, and a blue pixel wherein the blue pixel comprises a light scattering layer which scatters light emitted from an organic light emitting element. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was effectively filed to have utilized the light scattering layer taught by Fujita as the light scattering layer of the device of modified Masato with the expectation of scattering the light from the blue pixel more effectively and isotropically. The light scattering layer in the blue pixel of the resulting display device would have corresponded to the claimed light scattering layer.
Regarding claim 48, Fujita teaches using titanium oxide particles in the scattering layer [0149].
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Orne, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 22, 27, 36, and 45 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, 6, 16, 17, and 21 of U.S. Patent No. RE 50,125. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the above cited claims of RE 50,125 recite every limitation of the above cited claims of the instant reissue application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 26, 27, 36, 38, and 39 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.
Claims 63-65, 69, 71, and 72 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 103, 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and/or 35 U.S.C. 251 set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. The closest identified prior art references are described below.
Regarding the limitations of claims 26 and 27, neither Masato or Kimura teaches or suggests a first and second auxiliary color filter configured to transmit a third color light. Masato only teaches color filters which are configured to transmit a red and a green color light which correspond to the claimed first and second color lights.
Regarding the limitations of claims 36 and 69, neither Masato nor Kimura teaches or suggests an encapsulating layer that is in contact with the bottom surfaces of the light scattering layer and the black matrix and includes inorganic layers and organic layers alternatively stacked between the organic light emitting diode and the black matrix.
Regarding claims 38 and 39, neither Masato or Kimura teaches or suggests a blue color filter disposed in the red or green pixel. Additionally, since the red and green pixels of the device of Masato are intended to emit red and green light, respectively, a person of ordinary skill would not be motivated to include a blue light filter in these pixels.
Regarding claims 63-65, neither Masato or Kimura teaches or suggests the presence of four color filters.
Regarding claim 71, neither Masato or Kimura teaches or suggests the claimed specific relationship between a first black matrix layer to any of the color-conversion layers.
Regarding claim 72, neither Masato or Kimura teaches or suggests the presence of a second or additional black matrix specifically disposed between any of the color filters and its corresponding color-conversion layer.
A thorough search of the relevant prior art did not reveal a reference or combination of references which would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to have altered the display device of modified Masato so as to arrive at a display device which meets the limitations of any of claims 26, 27, 36, 38, 39, 63-35, 69, 71 or 72. As such, the closest cited prior art of record does not reasonably teach or suggest the invention recited in these claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEE E SANDERSON whose telephone number is (571) 270-1079. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30AM to 7:00PM.
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, Patricia Engle can be reached at 571-272-6660. 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.
/LEE E SANDERSON/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3991
Conferees:
/Leonardo Andujar/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3991
/Patricia L Engle/SPRS, Art Unit 3991
Prosecution Insights