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 priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a) based upon an application filed in JAPAN on 03/16/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 08/12/2024 and 07/24/2025 has/have been considered by the examiner and made of record in the application file.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities where proposed corrections are bolded and underlined: Claim 20, line 7, “a plurality of openings [[is]] are formed in the organic EL” in order to be grammatically correct. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. Some of the errors identified by the examiner are discussed below.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-9, 13, and 15-20 all use the term “predetermined” at various points in the respective claims. It is unclear in the context of product claims 1-20 what the term predetermined is describing. For example, in claim 1, the limitation of “the organic film being formed in a predetermined number of sub-pixels”. It is unclear if the use of the word predetermined here is intended to identify a subset of a larger set of sub-pixels or if it may include all of the sub-pixels should the inventor decide as such (i.e. predetermine). It is further unclear if the use of the word “predetermined” somehow imparts a method limitation or product by process limitation whereby a subset of sub-pixels are selected or “predetermined” based on some characteristic that has not been claimed. In another example, claim 4 recites “a film thickness of a predetermined portion of the protective film covering the predetermined number of sub-pixels is larger than a film thickness of a portion that is not considered as the predetermined portion”. It is unclear how one may differentiate between the “predetermined portion” and the other portion of the protective film “that is not considered as the predetermined portion” as recited in the claim (i.e. is the other portion the entirety of what remains or another separate sub-portion of the protective film. Therefore, claims 1, 3, 4, 6-9, 13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The balance of claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) at least for their dependencies. For the purposes of this examination, the use of the word predetermined will be interpreted as only providing an identifier for which any subset or sub-portion of an element, or elements, or an entirety of an element may be identified with no particular characteristics of the set being required.
Claim 1 recites “when viewed in a vertical direction that is vertical to the predetermined plane” in the final two lines of the claim. The use of the word vertical here to describe a direction relative to a plane is unclear. Any direction may be interpreted as a “vertical” direction relative to a plane as the use of the word vertical does not describe a direction as being parallel or perpendicular or anything in between. For this reason, it is unclear what is meant by a vertical direction in claim 1. Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The balance of claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) at least for their dependencies. For the purposes of this examination, vertical will be interpreted to be describing any direction relative to the predetermined plane, including one which is parallel.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “every sub-pixel among the sub-pixels in a predetermined region surrounding the sub-pixel”. Both “the sub-pixels” and “the sub-pixel” lack proper antecedent basis since the only previous recitation has been “a predetermined number of sub-pixels” such that it is unclear if “the sub-pixels” are intended to represent all pixels or a subset and if “the sub-pixel” is part of the predetermined set or a separate entity. Therefore, claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. For the purposes of this examination, claim 3 will be interpreted to read as “every sub-pixel among the predetermined number of sub-pixels in a predetermined region surrounding a sub-pixel of the predetermined number of sub-pixels”.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the connection portion is formed in a portion that is not considered as a rectangular region in the inter-pixel region”. It is unclear what “a portion” is referring to or what it is a portion of. “A portion” could be any possible subset or sub-region of any possible element or group of elements such that it is indefinite. Therefore, claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. For the purposes of this examination, any portion of any element or grouping of elements will be interpreted to read on “a portion” without further identification.
Claims 6 and 8 both recite “the pixel array unit” which lacks proper antecedent basis in this line of claims. Neither claims 6 or 8, nor any claim they depend on, has recited “a pixel array unit”. Claim 4 has recited “a pixel array unit” but neither claim 6 nor claim 8 depends on claim 4. Thus it is unclear if claims 6 and 8 should depend on claim 4 or if the recitations of “the pixel array unit” in claims 6 and 8 may be referring to a different pixel array unit. Therefore, claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. For the purposes of this examination, claims 6 and 8 will both be interpreted to read as “[[the]] a pixel array unit” where they may be describing a different array or the same array of pixels as claim 4.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the width is a value according to” in the second to last line of the claim. Claim 7, which claim 8 depends on, has previously recited “a width of one end is different from a width of the another end”. It is unclear which width is being referred to by “the width” in claim 8 or if this is referring to both widths and should be plural. Therefore, claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. For the purposes of this examination, the width of claim 8 will be interpreted as referring to any of the preceding widths and read as “the width of the one end or the width of the another end is a value according to”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “a width of a center of the connection portion is wider than widths of both ends of the connection portion” which is unclear. There has been no previous recitation of “ends of the connection portion” such that this limitation may be referring to any two ends of the connection portion as both ends without any clarity as to which ends are being referenced in a structure which may have more than two ends. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. For the purposes of this examination, the ends of claim 11 will be interpreted as referring to any two ends of the connection portion and read as “a width of a center of the connection portion is wider than widths of [[both]] at least two ends of the connection portion”
Claim 13 recites the limitation “a bridge region mutually connecting the connection portions” but there has only been a recitation of a connection portion in the singular form. It is therefore unclear what encompasses the plurality of connection portions described in claim 13 and if the singular connection portion is part of that group. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. For the purposes of this examination, claim 13 will be interpreted to read as “a bridge region mutually connecting a plurality of [[the]] connection portions”
Claim 16 recites the limitation “unevenness is formed on a side wall of the sub-pixel” where it is unclear what the bounds are of “unevenness” since even a straight line may be interpreted as uneven relative to a point that is not in its center or unevenness may be a surface quality to describe roughness which has not clearly been defined by the specification. Furthermore, there has been no previous recitation of a singular sub-pixel such that it is unclear if “the sub-pixel” is part of the predetermined number previously recited or is a separate entity. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. For the purposes of this examination, any surface or side wall of any sub-pixel will be interpreted as having unevenness since it is not possible to form a perfectly smooth line with zero surface roughness and will read as “unevenness is formed on a side wall of a sub-pixel of the predetermined number of sub-pixels”.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “a frame surrounding a predetermined number of the sub-pixels, in a predetermined number of the sub-pixels”. It is unclear if the two recitations of “a predetermined number of the sub-pixels” is the same or different from the “a predetermined number of sub-pixels” which was previously recited in claim 1 which claim 20 depends on. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. For the purposes of this examination, claim 20 will be interpreted to read as “a frame surrounding [[a]] the predetermined number of the sub-pixels, in [[a]] the predetermined number of the sub-pixels”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2020/0259113 A1; Takahashi et al.; 08/2020; (“Takahashi”).
Regarding Claim 1. Takahashi discloses A display device (#100, Figures 1-2, organic light emitting device where Figure 2 is a top down view and Figure 1 is a cross-section) comprising:
a first electrode (#2R, #2G, and #2B, Figure 1, lower first electrodes) and a second electrode (#5, Figure 1, upper second electrode) having different polarities (Figure 1, #2s and #5 being on opposing sides of the light emitting layer #4 necessarily have different polarities to drive the device); and
an organic EL film (#4, Figure 1, organic light emitting layer) formed between the first electrode and the second electrode when viewed from a direction that is parallel to a predetermined plane (Figure 1, #4 is between #2s and #5 when viewed from a horizontal direction that is parallel to a plane that is the bottom surface of the device),
the organic EL film (#4, Figure 1, organic light emitting film) being formed in a predetermined number of sub-pixels (Figure 1, #4 is formed in each sub-pixel #10) and a connection portion (Figure 1, #4 is formed in a connection portion between the sub-pixels represented by “D” in Figure 1) that is a portion mutually connecting adjacent sub-pixels in an inter-pixel region between the predetermined number of sub-pixels, when viewed from a vertical direction that is vertical to the predetermined plane (Figure 1, the region between the sub-pixels is a connection portion that mutually connects a plurality of sub-pixels when viewed in a direction perpendicular to the plane, see Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 2. Takahashi discloses The display device according to claim 1, wherein the connection portion is a part of the inter-pixel region (Figure 2, the connection portion is part of the region between adjacent pixels, or the inter-pixel region).
Regarding Claim 3. Takahashi discloses The display device according to claim 1, wherein the first electrode is formed for every sub-pixel among the predetermined number of sub-pixels in a predetermined region surrounding a sub-pixel of the predetermined number of sub-pixels when viewed from the vertical direction (Figures 1 and 2, #2s are formed for each individual sub-pixel in a region, Figure 2, surrounding a central sub-pixel when viewed in the vertical direction), and
the second electrode is formed in the predetermined number of sub-pixels and the connection portion when viewed from the vertical direction (Figures 1 and 2, [0047], #5 is formed continuously over the plurality of sub-pixels and the connection portion in between them).
Regarding Claim 4. Takahashi discloses The display device according to claim 1, further comprising:
a protective film (#6, Figure 1, protective layer) covering a pixel array unit in which the predetermined number of sub-pixels are arranged (Figures 1 and 2, [0036], #6 is formed continuously over all of the sub-pixels arranged in the pixel array unit of Figure 2),
wherein a film thickness of a predetermined portion of the protective film covering the predetermined number of sub-pixels (Figure 1, let the predetermined portion be the portion of #6 which covers the edges of each pixel #10 having a rounded upper surface) is larger than a film thickness of a portion that is not considered as the predetermined portion (Figure 1, let the non-predetermined portion be the portion of #6 which covers the center of each pixel #10 having a flat upper surface) (Figure 1, the portion of #6 which has a rounded upper surface has a greater thickness at the edges of the region “D” than the portion over the center of each pixel).
Regarding Claim 5. Takahashi discloses The display device according to claim 1, wherein the connection portion is formed in a portion that is not considered as a rectangular region in the inter- pixel region (Figure 2, the connection portion between pixels is not interpreted to be solely rectangular in shape but is shown in Figure 2 to be formed in a hexagonal region of the inter-pixel region).
Regarding Claim 6. Takahashi discloses The display device according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined number of sub-pixels are arranged in [[the]] a pixel array unit (Figure 2, the predetermined number of sub-pixels #10 are arranged in an array unit), and
a width of the second electrode is a value according to a distance from a central portion of the pixel array unit (Figures 1 and 2, #5 has a width which may be a distance from a central portion of the array unit).
Regarding Claim 7. Takahashi discloses The display device according to claim 1, wherein one end of the connection portion is connected to one of a pair of adjacent sub-pixels among the predetermined number of sub-pixels (Figures 1 and 2, one end of the portion “D” is connected to the sub-pixel #10R of a pair including #10R and #10G),
another end of the connection portion is connected to another one of the pair of sub-pixels (Figures 1 and 2, another end of the portion “D” is connected to the sub-pixel #10G), and
a width of the one end is different from a width of the another end (Figures 1 and 2, the widths of the portions connected to #10R and #10G may be interpreted as being different where width is described as in claim 6, a width which may be a distance from a central portion of the array unit).
Regarding Claim 8. The display device according to claim 7, wherein the predetermined number of sub-pixels are arranged in [[the]] a pixel array unit (Figure 2, the predetermined number of sub-pixels #10 are arranged in an array unit), and
the width of the one end or the width of the another end is a value according to a distance from a center of the pixel array unit (Figures 1 and 2, the widths of the portions connected to #10R and #10G may be interpreted as being different where width is described as in claim 6, a width which may be a distance from a central portion of the array unit).
Regarding Claim 9. Takahashi discloses The display device according to claim 1, wherein the connection portion includes first and second connection portions having a rectangular shape (Figures 1 and 2, consider any two adjacent rectangular portions of the inter-pixel connection region between adjacent sub-pixels), and
a pair of adjacent sub-pixels among the predetermined number of sub-pixels are connected by the first and second connection portions (Figures 1 and 2, any pair of adjacent sub-pixels may be interpreted as being connected by at least two rectangular portions therebetween where any rectangular region may be chosen without bounds and “connected by” does not require direct contact).
Regarding Claim 10. Takahashi discloses The display device according to claim 1, wherein an edge of the connection portion has an arc shape (Figure 1, an edge of the connection region such as for example an upper edge of #6 in the region “D” has an arc shape).
Regarding Claim 11. Takahashi discloses The display device according to claim 1, wherein a width of a center of the connection portion (Figure 1, let a center portion be the portion in the region “D” which is between adjacent #2s) is wider than widths of [[both]] at least two ends of the connection portion (Figure 1, let at least two ends of the connection region be the portions of “D” which overlap with the adjacent #2s) (Figure 1, the central portion is observed to have a greater width in the horizontal direction than the two end portions).
Regarding Claim 12. Takahashi discloses The display device according to claim 11, wherein an opened region in which the organic EL film is not formed is provided in a central portion of the connection portion (Figure 1, the central portion of the region “D” between #2s includes a region where #4 is not formed and instead the insulating layer #3 is formed such that the region is open or free of #4).
Regarding Claim 13. Takahashi discloses The display device according to claim 1, wherein the organic EL film is formed in the predetermined number of sub-pixels (Figures 1 and 2, #4 is formed in each of the sub-pixel regions), in the connection portion (Figure 1, #4 is formed in the inter-pixel connection region “D” between immediately adjacent sub-pixels), and in a bridge region mutually connecting a plurality of [[the]] connection portions in the inter-pixel region, when viewed from the vertical direction (Figures 1 and 2, #4 is formed in a bridge region where three of the adjacent hexagonal sub-pixels meet which bridges the connection region between each adjacent pair).
Regarding Claim 14. Takahashi discloses The display device according to claim 1, wherein a shape of the sub-pixel is a figure in which a core portion and a plurality of protrusions are combined when viewed from the vertical direction (Figure 2, the sub-pixels have a hexagonal shape in the top view which may be interpreted as an inscribed circle which is a core portion and a plurality, i.e. 6, of pointed pseudo triangular protrusions combined).
Regarding Claim 15. Takahashi discloses The display device according to claim 1, wherein a shape of the organic EL film as viewed from the vertical direction is a shape having a predetermined number of bent portions (Figure 2, the EL film #4 when viewed in the vertical direction necessarily has some shape with some predetermined number of bent portions regardless of what that shape may be).
Regarding Claim 16. Takahashi discloses The display device according to claim 1, wherein unevenness is formed on a side wall of a sub-pixel of the predetermined number of sub-pixels when viewed from a direction that is parallel to the predetermined plane (Figure 1, any sidewall of any of the sub-pixels when viewed in the horizontal direction may be interpreted as having unevenness or non-zero surface roughness, see 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 16 above).
Regarding Claim 17. Takahashi discloses The display device according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined number of sub-pixels are arranged in a delta array (Figure 2, let the bottom left #10B, the bottom right #10R, and the central #10G be the sub-pixels arranged in a delta array).
Regarding Claim 18. Takahashi discloses The display device according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined number of sub-pixels are arranged in a square array (Figure 2, let any four pixels which are equidistant apart be the four sub-pixels arranged in a square array).
Regarding Claim 19. Takahashi discloses The display device according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined number of sub-pixels are arranged in a stripe array (Figure 2, let any group of pixels arranged along a straight line be pixels arranged in a stripe array).
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.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0259113 A1; Takahashi et al.; 08/2020; (“Takahashi”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 11,049,909 B2; Kim, Kanghyun; 06/2021; (“Kim”).
Regarding Claim 20. Takahashi discloses The display device according to claim 1, wherein the organic EL film is formed in a frame surrounding [[a]] the predetermined number of the sub-pixels, in [[a]] the predetermined number of the sub-pixels, and in the connection portion when viewed from the vertical direction (Figures 1 and 2, #40 is formed in each of the sub-pixels, in a hexagonal frame at least partially surrounding each of the sub-pixels, and in a connection portion between each of the sub-pixels in the inter-pixel connection region).
Takahashi does not disclose a plurality of openings [[is]] are formed in the organic EL film when viewed from the vertical direction, the plurality of openings includes a first opening having at least one edge in contact with the frame and a second opening that is not considered as the first opening, and
a smallest angle among angles formed by two edges of the first opening does not exceed a smallest angle among angles formed by two edges of the second opening.
However, Kim teaches an OLED display (Figure 16) comprising an organic light emitting layer (#50) which is formed over a plurality of pixels (Figure 16) and in a connection portion between select pairs of the pixels which are adjacent to one another, wherein
a plurality of openings [[is]] are formed in the organic EL film when viewed from the vertical direction (Figure 16, there are a plurality of openings in #50 when viewed from the vertical direction), the plurality of openings includes a first opening having at least one edge in contact with the frame and a second opening that is not considered as the first opening (Figure 16, of the plurality of openings of #50, at least two may be arbitrarily identified as a first opening in contact with a frame around the pixels and another different opening), and
a smallest angle among angles formed by two edges of the first opening does not exceed a smallest angle among angles formed by two edges of the second opening (Figure 16, the smallest angle in any of the openings is 90 degrees, or a right angle, such that the smallest angle in a first opening formed by two of its edges is not greater than a smallest angle in the second opening).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider forming openings in the EL layer between adjacent pairs of pixels, as in Kim, in the device of Takahashi in order to limit color mixing of adjacent pixels and avoid color crossing due to process defects (see column 18, lines 45-65 of Kim).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYLER JAMES WIEGAND whose telephone number is (571)270-0096. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8AM-5PM.
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, CHRISTINE KIM can be reached at (571) 272-8458. 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.
/TYLER J WIEGAND/Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights