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). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 17/252,795, filed on December 16, 2020.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 1, paragraph [0000], line 2: After “May 3, 2023, add “, which issued as U.S. Pat. No. 12,096,671, issued on September 17, 2024,”.
Page 1, paragraph [0000], line 3: Before “U.S. Patent Number”, add “U.S. Application No. 17/252,795, filed December 16, 2020, which issued as”. Delete the period after “Number”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding claim 19, which depends from claim 1: Claim 1 defines at least two or more subpixels including a first subpixel and a second subpixel, the first subpixel comprising a first electrode, a first organic compound layer on the first electrode, the first organic compound layer having a first light-emitting layer, and a second electrode on the first organic compound layer, the second subpixel comprising a third electrode, a second organic compound layer on the third electrode, the second organic compound layer having a second light-emitting layer, and a fourth electrode on the second organic compound layer. Claim 19, which depends from claim 1, defines a third subpixel which includes a fifth electrode, and a third organic compound layer on the fifth electrode. The third organic compound layer is not defined as having a light-emitting layer. The claim does not define an electrode on the third organic compound layer. Because these elements are missing, the third subpixel is not usable as a subpixel, and thus, claim 19 is not enabled.
There are many factors to be considered when determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a determination that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is "undue." These factors include, but are not limited to:
(A) The breadth of the claims;
(B) The nature of the invention;
(C) The state of the prior art;
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill;
(E) The level of predictability in the art;
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor;
(G) The existence of working examples; and
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
(A) The breadth of the claims: The breadth of the claims encompasses a third subpixel, which based on the claim language can be operated without a light emitting layer and without an additional electrode.
(B) The nature of the invention: The invention is an organic light-emitting device, in which subpixels are included.
(C) The state of the prior art: The prior art discloses a subpixel having a first electrode, a light-emitting layer (organic or inorganic) on the first electrode, and a second electrode on the light-emitting layer. This is a well-known design, common in the art.
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill: One having ordinary skill in the art would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or materials science and 5 years of experience in the semiconductor industry.
(E) The level of predictability in the art: The level of predictability is low because the subpixel, in order to function, requires a light-emitting layer and two electrodes.
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor: The inventor provides no direction on how to use the subpixel with only one electrode and an organic compound layer.
(G) The existence of working examples: The disclosure has no working examples which show the subpixel without a light-emitting layer and the additional electrode. The examples in the disclosure require the light-emitting layer and the additional electrode.
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure: Given the information provided by the inventor, the state of the prior art, and the scope of the claims, the quantity of experimentation is undue. For these reasons, claim 19 is rejected for lack of enablement.
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.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: the light-emitting layer and the additional (or sixth) electrode.
Claim 20 is 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 20: This claim defines first, second, and third subpixels, and then requires the following: “wherein the first subpixel and the second subpixel are arranged along a second direction; […] and the third subpixel is spaced apart from the second subpixel on a plane perpendicular to the first direction.” (emphasis added). A question arises as to the difference between the second direction and the plane perpendicular to the first direction. According to the disclosure and figures, the second direction and the plane perpendicular to the first direction are the same. Because the language is unclear, claim 20 is rejected as indefinite.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
Statutory Double Patenting Rejections
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-18 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,096,671 [hereinafter “the ’671 patent]. This is a statutory double patenting rejection, and is based on an interpretation that “lateral” in the ’671 patent means the same thing as “side” in the pending application.
Pending claims 1-18 use the exact same language as claims 1-18 of the ’671 patent, with the following exceptions:
In pending claims 1 and 7, the term “side” is used instead of “lateral” in corresponding claims 1 and 7 of the ’671 patent. As noted above, the Office interprets “side” as “lateral”.
In pending claim 1, the direction is referred to “a direction”, while in claim 1 of the ’671 patent, the direction is referred to “a specific direction”. The Office interprets the definition of “a direction” that is consistently referred to as “the direction” in pending claim 1, to be the same as “a specific direction” that is consistently referred to as “the specific direction” in claim 1 of the ’671 patent.
In pending claim 2, line 6, the line begins with “one of” whereas the corresponding claim 2, line 6 of the ’671 patent lacks this language. However, the interpretation of pending claim 2 is the same as claim 2 of the ’671 patent because claim 2, lines 6-8, of the ’671 patent indicate two options, and pending claim 2, lines 6-8, indicate the same two options—the use of “one of” at the beginning of claim 2, line 6, making the language clearer that there are two options. This additional language does not change the claim scope.
For these reasons, claims 1-18 are rejected for statutory double patenting.
Nonstatutory Double Patenting Rejections
Note: To the extent that claims 1-18 would not be able to be rejected for statutory double patenting, the Office offers this alternate nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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 Ornum, 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.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of the ’671 patent. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following:
Regarding claim 1: Claim 1 of the ’671 patent discloses an organic EL (Light-Emitting) device, comprising (line 1): at least two or more subpixels including a first subpixel and a second subpixel (lines 2-3), wherein the first subpixel comprises (lines 3-4): a first electrode (line 5); a first organic compound layer on the first electrode, wherein the first organic compound layer has one or more first side (“lateral” in the ’671 patent) surfaces (lines 6-8); a first light-emitting layer in the first organic compound layer, wherein the first light-emitting layer is configured to emit light of a first color (lines 9-11); a second electrode on the first organic compound layer (lines 12-13), wherein the first electrode, the first organic compound layer, and the second electrode are stacked in a direction (“specific direction” in the ’671 patent) (lines 13-15); and a first film configured to cover the one or more first side (“lateral” in the ’671 patent) surfaces, wherein the first film has a first thickness (lines 15-18), the second subpixel comprises (line 19): a third electrode (line 20); a second organic compound layer on the third electrode, wherein the second organic compound layer has one or more second side (“lateral” in the ’671 patent) surfaces (lines 21-23); a second light-emitting layer in the second organic compound layer, and the second light-emitting layer is configured to emit a light of a second color different from the first color (lines 24-27); a fourth electrode on the second organic compound layer (lines 28-29); and a second film configured to cover the one or more second side (“lateral” in the ’671 patent) surfaces, wherein the second film has a second thickness different from the first thickness (lines 30-33), and the first subpixel is spaced apart from the second subpixel on a plane perpendicular to the direction (“specific direction” in the ’671 patent) (lines 34-36). The differences between pending claim 1 and claim 1 of the ’671, that is “side” surface vs. “lateral” surface and “a direction” vs. “a specific direction” are trivial because they are interpreted to mean essentially the same thing. For these reasons, claim 1 is rejected for nonstatutory double patenting.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of the ’671 patent. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following:
Regarding claim 2, which depends from claim 1: Claim 2 of the ’671 patent, which depends from claim 1 of the ’671 patent, discloses wherein the first film has a first film quality and includes one or more first film materials (claim 2, lines 1-3), the second film has a second film quality and includes one or more second film materials (claim 2, lines 4-5), and one of the second film quality is different from the first film quality or the one or more first film materials are different from the one or more second film materials (claim 2, lines 6-8).
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of the ’671 patent. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following:
Regarding claim 3, which depends from claim 1: Claim 3 of the ’671 patent, which depends from claim 1 of the ’671 patent, discloses wherein at least one of the first film or the second film comprises an inorganic material (claim 3, lines 1-3).
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of the ’671 patent. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following:
Regarding claim 4, which depends from claim 3, which depends from claim 1: Claim 4 of the ’671 patent, which depends from claim 3 of the ’671 patent, which depends from claim 1 of the ’671 patent, discloses wherein the inorganic material comprises one or more of AlO, TiO, SiN, SiON, or SiO (claim 4, lines 1-3).
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of the ’671 patent. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following:
Regarding claim 5, which depends from claim 1: Claim 5 of the ’671 patent, which depends from claim 1 of the ’671 patent, discloses wherein at least one of the first film or the second film comprises an organic material (claim 5, lines 1-3).
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of the ’671 patent. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following:
Regarding claim 6, which depends from claim 5, which depends from claim 1: Claim 6 of the ’671 patent, which depends from claim 5 of the ’671 patent, which depends from claim 1 of the ’671 patent, discloses wherein the organic material is a hydrocarbon containing a fluorine atom (claim 6, lines 1-3).
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of the ’671 patent. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following:
Regarding claim 7, which depends from claim 1: Claim 7 of the ’671 patent, which depends from claim 1 of the ’671 patent, discloses wherein the second electrode has one or more third side (“lateral” in the ’671 patent) surfaces (claim 7, lines 1-3), the fourth electrode has one or more fourth side (“lateral” in the ’671 patent) surfaces (claim 7, lines 4-5), the first film is further configured to cover the one or more third side (“lateral” in the ’671 patent) surfaces (claim 7, lines 6-7), and the second film is further configured to cover the one or more fourth side (“lateral” in the ’671 patent) surfaces (claim 7, lines 8-9).
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of the ’671 patent. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following:
Regarding claim 8, which depends from claim 7, which depends from claim 1: Claim 8 of the ’671 patent, which depends from claim 7 of the ’671 patent, which depends from claim 1 of the ’671 patent, discloses wherein the second subpixel is adjacent to the first subpixel, and the second electrode is connected to the fourth electrode (claim 8, lines 1-3).
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of the ’671 patent. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following:
Regarding claim 9, which depends from claim 8, which depends from claim 7, which depends from claim 1: Claim 9 of the ’671 patent, which depends from claim 8 of the ’671 patent, which depends from claim 7 of the ’671 patent, which depends from claim 1 of the ’671 patent, discloses wherein at least one of the second electrode or the fourth electrode is configured to transmit a first part of the light and reflect a second part of the light (claim 9, lines 1-4).
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of the ’671 patent. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following:
Regarding claim 10, which depends from claim 7, which depends from claim 1: Claim 10 of the ’671 patent, which depends from claim 7 of the ’671 patent, which depends from claim 1 of the ’671 patent, discloses wherein the second electrode and the fourth electrode are cathodes (claim 10, lines 1-2).
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of the ’671 patent. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following:
Regarding claim 11, which depends from claim 7, which depends from claim 1: Claim 11 of the ’671 patent, which depends from claim 7 of the ’671 patent, which depends from claim 1 of the ’671 patent, discloses wherein the second electrode and the fourth electrode comprise a metal oxide (claim 11, lines 1-3).
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of the ’671 patent. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following:
Regarding claim 12, which depends from claim 7, which depends from claim 1: Claim 12 of the ’671 patent, which depends from claim 7 of the ’671 patent, which depends from claim 1 of the ’671 patent, discloses wherein the second subpixel is adjacent to the first subpixel (claim 12, lines 1-2), the first subpixel further comprises a common electrode on the second electrode (claim 12, lines 3-4), and the second subpixel further comprises the common electrode on the fourth electrode (claim 12, lines 4-6).
Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of the ’671 patent. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following:
Regarding claim 13, which depends from claim 12, which depends from claim 7, which depends from claim 1: Claim 13 of the ’671 patent, which depends from claim 12 of the ’671 patent, which depends from claim 7 of the ’671 patent, which depends from claim 1 of the ’671 patent, discloses wherein the common electrode is configured to transmit a first part of the light and reflect a second part of the light (claim 13, lines 1-3).
Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of the ’671 patent. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following:
Regarding claim 14, which depends from claim 1: Claim 14 of the ’671 patent, which depends from claim 1 of the ’671 patent, discloses wherein a planar size of each of the first subpixel and the second subpixel is one of 100 μm or less (claim 14, lines 1-3).
Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of the ’671 patent. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following:
Regarding claim 15, which depends from claim 1: Claim 15 of the ’671 patent, which depends from claim 1 of the ’671 patent, discloses wherein a planar size of each of the first subpixel and the second subpixel is one of 10 μm or less (claim 15, lines 1-3).
Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of the ’671 patent. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following:
Regarding claim 16, which depends from claim 1: Claim 16 of the ’671 patent, which depends from claim 1 of the ’671 patent, discloses wherein the first thickness differs from the second thickness based on an order of formation of the first subpixel and the second subpixel (claim 16, lines 1-4).
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of the ’671 patent. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following:
Regarding claim 17, which depends from claim 1: Claim 17 of the ’671 patent, which depends from claim 1 of the ’671 patent, discloses wherein the first thickness differs from the second thickness based on a film forming method (claim 17, lines 1-3).
Claim 18 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of the ’671 patent. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following:
Regarding claim 18, which depends from claim 1: Claim 18 of the ’671 patent, which depends from claim 1 of the ’671 patent, discloses wherein the first subpixel further comprises a first filler layer on the first film (claim 18, lines 1-3), and the second subpixel further comprises a second filler layer on the second film (claim 18, lines 3-5).
Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of the ’671 patent in view of Kang, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2018/0138251, Figure 2.
Regarding claim 20: Claim 19 of the ’671 patent discloses a method for manufacturing an organic EL (Light-Emitting) device, the method comprising (lines 1-2): forming at least two or more subpixels including a first subpixel and a second subpixel (lines 3-4), wherein the first subpixel comprises (line 5): a first electrode (line 6); a first organic compound layer on the first electrode, wherein the first organic compound layer has one or more first side (“lateral” in the ’671 patent) surfaces (lines 7-9); a first light-emitting layer in the first organic compound layer, wherein the first light-emitting layer emits light of a first color (lines 10-12); and a second electrode on the first organic compound layer, wherein the first electrode, the first organic compound layer, and the second electrode are stacked in a first direction (“specific direction” in the ’671 patent) (lines 12-16), the second subpixel comprises (line 17): a third electrode (line 18); a second organic compound layer on the third electrode, wherein the second organic compound layer has one or more second side (“lateral” in the ’671 patent) surfaces (lines 19-21); a second light-emitting layer in the second organic compound layer, wherein the second light-emitting layer emits a light of a second color different from the first color (lines 22-25); and a fourth electrode on the second organic compound layer (lines 26-27), wherein the first subpixel and the second subpixel are arranged along a second direction (“the first subpixel is spaced apart from the second subpixel on a plane perpendicular to the specific direction” in the ’671 patent) (lines 27-29); forming a first film, having a first thickness, to cover the one or more first side (“lateral” in the ’671 patent) surfaces (lines 30-31); and forming a second film, having a second thickness to cover the one or more second side (“lateral” in the ’671 patent) surfaces (lines 32-33), wherein the first thickness is different from the second thickness (lines 33-34). Claim 19 of the ’671 patent does not disclose a third subpixel, or that the third subpixel is spaced apart from the second subpixel on a plane perpendicular to the first direction.
Kang Figure 2, directed to similar subject matter, discloses forming at least two or more subpixels (PX1, PX2, PX3) including a first subpixel (PX1), a second subpixel (PX2), and a third subpixel (PX3), wherein the first subpixel (PX1) comprises: a first electrode (210, at PX1); a first organic compound layer (230, at PX1) on the first electrode (210, at PX1), wherein the first organic compound layer (230, at PX1) has one or more first side surfaces; a first light-emitting layer (230, at PX1) in the first organic compound layer (230, at PX1), wherein the first light-emitting layer (230, at PX1) emits light of a first color; and a second electrode (240, at PX1) on the first organic compound layer (230, at PX1), wherein the first electrode (210, at PX1), the first organic compound layer (230, at PX1), and the second electrode (240, at PX1) are stacked in a first direction, the second subpixel comprises: a third electrode (210, at PX2); a second organic compound layer (230, at PX2) on the third electrode (210, at PX2), wherein the second organic compound layer (230, at PX2) has one or more second side surfaces; a second light-emitting layer (230, at PX2) in the second organic compound layer (230, at PX2), wherein the second light-emitting layer (230, at PX2) emits a light of a second color different from the first color; and a fourth electrode (240, at PX2) on the second organic compound layer (230, at PX2), wherein the first subpixel (PX1) and the second subpixel (PX2) are arranged along a second direction; and the third subpixel (PX3) is spaced apart from the second subpixel (PX2) on a plane perpendicular to the first direction. Kang specification ¶¶ 42-89. One having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date would be motivated to modify claim 20 to include the third subpixel’s formation because a 3-subpixel pixel is a well-known standard in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTORIA KATHLEEN HALL whose telephone number is (571)270-7567. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8 a.m.-5 p.m.
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, Fernando Toledo can be reached at 571-272-1867. 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.
/Victoria K. Hall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights