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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitation in claim 12 that "the color purifier layer is disposed in the encapsulation layer" must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 8, the phrase "each of the at least metal layers" should read "each of the at least .
In claim 19, the phrase “transmission peaks of the white light is at” should read “transmission peaks of the white light are at”.
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.
Claims 1-20 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.
Regarding claims 3, 4, 18, 19, and 20, The term “about” in claims 3, 4, 18, 19, and 20 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Thus, it is unclear what exact values for the thicknesses in claims 3 & 4 and the wavelengths in claims 18-20 fall within the scope of the invention.
Regarding claim 9, in claim 8, the metal layers are specified to contain Ag or an Ag alloy, in the alternative. Claim 9, which depends from this, further limits the material of the Ag alloy “the Ag alloy contains Ag and at least one of Yb, Mg, Cu, Al, Au and Pb”. The limitation is unclear as to if applicant intends to further require the metal to be a Ag alloy or as to if it is intended to be a conditional limitation merely required if the Ag alloy is chosen in the preceding claim. Thus, the claim is rendered indefinite. For the purposes of applying prior art, the claim will be interpreted as a conditional limitation required if the Ag alloy is chosen in the preceding claim.
Regarding claim 1, Claim 1 recites the limitation "the light emitting elements" in line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim introduces “a light-emitting element formed in each of the plurality of pixel regions” (a single light emitting element), and the later refers to “the light-emitting elements” (plural), and the goes back to referring to “the light emitting element”. Thus, it is unclear whether there is intended to be a single light-emitting element, or multiple light-emitting elements.
For applying art, this was interpreted as multiple light-emitting elements, with at least one in each of the pixels.
Claims 2-19 are also rejected due to their dependence on claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, Claim 20 recites the limitation "the light emitting elements" in line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim introduces “a light-emitting element formed in each of the plurality of pixel regions” (a single light emitting element), and the later refers to “the light-emitting elements” (plural), and the goes back to referring to “the light emitting element”. Thus, it is unclear whether there is intended to be a single light-emitting element, or multiple light-emitting elements.
For applying art, this was interpreted as multiple light-emitting elements, with at least one in each of the sub-pixels.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
PNG
media_image1.png
599
1165
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
597
1093
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
658
843
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-2, 8-9, 11, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ou (US 20210167331 A1), hereinafter referred to as "Ou", in view of Kim et al. (KR 20200080891 A), hereinafter referred to as "Kim".
Regarding claim 1, Ou discloses an organic light-emitting display device comprising: a substrate (12 in Ou figure 2) including a plurality of pixel regions (regions between unlabeled banks in Ou figure 2); a light-emitting element formed in each of the plurality of pixel regions of the substrate (32, 60, and 52 in figure 2); and a color purifier layer (70 in figure 2) including at least two metal layers (76 and 78 in figure 3) and at least one dielectric layer (74 in figure 3).
Ou does not explicitly disclose a color filter layer.
Kim teaches a color filter layer including red, green, and blue color filters located on the light-emitting elements to correspond to each of the plurality of pixel regions (230 in Kim figure 1). Kim also teaches that these allow for red, blue, and green pixels without needing to use different light sources for each (Kim translation page 2, lines 22-26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the color filters of Kim to the device of Ou in order to get differently colored pixels.
Furthermore, if the color filters are placed at the top of the structure as in Kim, then the color purifier layer of Ou would be located between the light emitting element and the color filter layer.
Regarding claim 2, Ou in view of Kim discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Ou further discloses that the color purifier layer includes a stacked structure of a first metal layer (74 in Ou figure 3), the dielectric layer (74 in Ou figure 3), and a second metal layer (78 in Ou figure 3).
Regarding claim 8, Ou in view of Kim discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Ou further discloses that each of the at least metal layers includes Ag or an Ag alloy (Ou paragraph 0024 and 0022).
Regarding claim 9, Ou in view of Kim discloses all of the limitations of claim 8. Ou further discloses that the Ag alloy contains Ag and at least one of Yb, Mg, Cu, Al, Au and Pb (Ou paragraph 0022).
Regarding claim 11, Ou in view of Kim discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Ou does not explicitly disclose an encapsulation layer.
Kim teaches an encapsulation layer that is further disposed between the color purifier layer and the light-emitting element or between the color purifier layer and the color filter layer (190 in Kim figure 1. It is between the light emitting element and the color filter layer, and thus would be either above or below the color purifier layer). Kim also teaches that this layer protects the light-emitting diode by blocking moisture or oxygen (Kim translation page 6 lines 15-19).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the encapsulation layer of Kim in order to protect the light emitting element by blocking moisture and oxygen.
Regarding claim 14, Ou in view of Kim discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. The combined device further shows that the at least two metal layers do not include a hole overlapping the color filter layer (see Ou figure 2. There are no holes in any part of the metal layers).
Regarding claim 15, Ou in view of Kim discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. The combined device further shows that the at least one dielectric layer has a first thickness at a first portion overlapping the light-emitting element (the dielectric layer has a thickness) and a second thickness at a second portion overlapping a contact area between adjacent color filters of the color filter layer (the areas between the color filters in Kim figure 1 can be considered a contact area. Since the dielectric layers of Ou extend all the way across, they will also have a thickness here. No relationship between these thicknesses is currently claimed).
Regarding claim 16, Ou in view of Kim discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. The combined device further shows that the color purifier layer is disposed in contact with the light-emitting element (Ou figure 2, 70 is in contact with the light-emitting element) and the color filter layer (A natural place to put the color purifier layer in relation to the color filter layer would be like the layers 242 and 244 in Kim figure 1, since both adjust the color before it reaches the color filters. However, even ignoring this, since all of these three elements would be in one stack, they would all be in thermal contact).
Regarding claim 17, Ou in view of Kim discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Ou further discloses that the light-emitting element emits white light (Ou paragraph 0022).
Regarding claim 18, Ou in view of Kim discloses all of the limitations of claim 17. Ou further discloses that the color purifier layer is configured to amplify and preferentially transmit the white light from the light-emitting element in specific wavelength ranges of about 400 nm to 480 nm, about 470 nm to 570 nm and about 660 nm to 700 nm (Ou paragraphs 0014 and 0027. The peak value of 604 nm is taken here to fall within the range of “about” 660 nm to 700 nm).
Regarding claim 19, Ou in view of Kim discloses all of the limitations of claim 18. Ou further discloses that transmission peaks of the white light are at about 450 nm, about 530 nm, and about 640 nm (Ou paragraph 0027. Here the peak value of 604 nm is taken to be “about” 640 nm).
Regarding claim 20, Ou discloses an organic light-emitting display device comprising:
Ou does not explicitly disclose a plurality of pixels for composed of the subpixels, nor a color filter.
Regarding the plurality of pixels, Ou does teach that the AMOLED screens like that Ou discloses have been widely adopted in smart phones (Ou paragraph 0002). It is well known that such screens have many pixels in them in order to form images, and furthermore, most display panel applications are the same, requiring many pixels. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a plurality of pixels in order to make a display, such as a smart phone screen.
Kim teaches a color filter layer including a plurality of color filters located on the light-emitting elements to correspond to one of the plurality of sub-pixels (230 in Kim figure 1). Kim also teaches that these allow for red, blue, and green sub-pixels without needing to use different light sources for each (Kim translation page 2, lines 22-26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the color filters of Kim to the device of Ou in order to get differently colored pixels.
Furthermore, if the color filters are placed at the top of the structure as in Kim, then the color purifier layer of Ou would be located between the light emitting element and the color filter layer.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ou in view of Kim as applied to claims 2 and 1 above, and further in view of Yoon (US 20250120280 A1), hereinafter referred to as "Yoon".
Regarding claim 3, Ou in view of Kim discloses all of the limitations of claim 2. Neither Ou nor Kim explicitly recites a thickness for the entire color purifier layer. Ou does disclose that the thicknesses of the dielectric layers (organic layers 72 and 74) can be adjusted to strengthen light at specific wavelengths.
Yoon teaches a color purifier (resonant filter DFPF) that has three metal semi-transmission layers (like the metal layers in Ou) that are each 30 nm (Yoon paragraph 0094), and several medium layers (like the organic layers in Ou), that are of undisclosed exact thickness. The sum of these will thus be greater than 0.09 µm, and depend on the exact thicknesses of the medium layers. However, using this as a base, it would be obvious to arrive at the claimed range of “about” 0.4 µm to 2 µm by adjusting the thickness of the dielectric layers through routine optimization (see MPEP 2144.05 II), in order to strengthen the light at specific wavelengths, as taught by Ou.
Regarding claim 4, Ou in view of Kim discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Neither Ou nor Kim explicitly recites the thickness of the metal layers.
Yoon teaches metal layers that have a thickness of about 10 nm to about 100 nm (30 nm, see Yoon paragraph 0094). Yoon also teaches that this thickness allows light to be semi-transmitted (Yoon paragraph 0094).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the metal layers be in the claimed thickness in order to allow light to be semi-transmitted, as Ou also requires.
PNG
media_image4.png
435
648
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claims 5-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ou in view of Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (WO 2014175681 A1), hereinafter referred to as "Kim '681".
Regarding claim 5, Ou in view of Kim discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Ou further discloses that the color purifier layer includes a stacked structure of a first metal layer (76 in Ou figure 3), a first dielectric layer (72 in Ou figure 3), a second metal layer (78 in Ou figure 3), and a second dielectric layer (74 in Ou figure 3).
Neither Ou nor Kim explicitly disclose a third metal layer in the color purifying layer.
Kim ‘681 teaches a color purifier with a third metal layer (240, 260, and 242 in Kim ‘681 figure 2c). Kim ‘681 also teaches that this allows for higher color accuracy (Kim ‘681 translation page 12, lines 1-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a third metal layer to the device of Ou and Kim in order to achieve higher color accuracy.
Regarding claim 6, Ou in view of Kim and Kim ‘681 teaches all of the limitations of claim 5. Ou further discloses that a thickness of the second metal layer is twice or less of a thickness of the first metal layer (Ou figure 3. The second layer is the same thickness as the first, so it is less than twice the first’s thickness).
Regarding claim 7, Ou in view of Kim and Kim ‘681 teaches all of the limitations of claim 5. Neither Ou nor Kim disclose that the second metal layer is a sum of a thickness of the first and third metal layers.
Kim ‘681 teaches that a thickness of the second metal layer is a sum of a thickness of the first metal layer and a thickness of the third metal layer (260 in Kim ‘681 figure 2c. The second layer can be around double the thickness of the other two layers 240 and 242, which are the same thickness – see Kim ‘681 translation page 12, lines 1-7. Therefore, the thickness would be equal to the sum of the two thicknesses). Kim ‘681 also teaches that this thickness allows for higher color accuracy (Kim ‘681 translation page 12, lines 1-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the second metal layer be a sum of the first and second metal layers in order to achieve higher color accuracy.
Regarding claim 10, Ou in view of Kim discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Neither Ou nor Kim explicitly discloses the specific material of the dielectric layer. Ou discloses that it is a transparent organic layer.
Kim ‘681 teaches a color purifying layer where the dielectric layer includes an oxide including at least one of SiNx, SiOx, AlOx, IZO, ZnO and ITO (Kim ‘681 translation page 6, sixth paragraph), or an organic material including at least one of a monomer, a polymer and polyimide (PI) (Kim ‘681 translation page 6, sixth paragraph). Kim also teaches that these materials are used so that the layer is transparent (Kim ‘681 translation page 6, sixth paragraph).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use one of the materials taught by Kim ‘681 in order to have the layers work as transparent layers.
PNG
media_image5.png
498
798
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ou in view of Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Baik et al. (KR 20180079618 A), hereinafter referred to as "Baik".
Regarding claim 12, Ou in view of Kim discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Ou does not disclose an encapsulation layer.
Kim teaches an encapsulation layer that is further disposed between the light-emitting element and the color filter layer (190 in Kim figure 1. It is between the light emitting element and the color filter layer). Kim also teaches that this layer protects the light-emitting diode by blocking moisture or oxygen (Kim translation page 6 lines 15-19).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the encapsulation layer of Kim in order to protect the light emitting element by blocking moisture and oxygen.
Kim does not teach that the color purifying layer is disposed in the encapsulation layer.
Baik teaches that components can be disposed within the encapsulation layer (Baik figure 17 and Baik abstract. The color filter 350 is disposed inside the encapsulation layer 310), and that this allows for a thinner display (Baik abstract. See also Baik translation page 2 ninth paragraph).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the color purifying layer be disposed in the encapsulation in order to make the display thinner.
Regarding claim 13, Ou in view of Kim and Baik teaches all of the limitations of claim 12. Kim further discloses that the encapsulation layer includes an ultraviolet hardening sealant or a frit sealant (Kim translation page 6 lines 15-19).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL K ELLIOTT whose telephone number is (571)357-4606. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00 -5:00.
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, Brent Fairbanks can be reached at 408-918-7532. 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.
/DANIEL KURT ELLIOTT/ Examiner, Art Unit 2899
/Brent A. Fairbanks/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights