DETAILED NON-FINAL 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. The present application is a reissue of U.S. Patent No. 10,516,004 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘004 Patent) and is a continuation of reissue application no. 17/939,817, now U.S. Patent No. RE 50,316.
Status of Claims
Claims 17-32 are pending. Claims 17-32 are new.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
At col. 3, lines 43-49, the specification recites, “[i]n one or more embodiments, a threshold voltage of the first subpixel is higher than a threshold voltage of the second sub-pixel” twice.
At col. 3, lines 65-67, the specification recites, “[i]n one or more embodiments, at last [sic] one layer of the organic stack has a gap at sides of the first spacer”. The term “last” should be changed to –least--.
At col. 10, lines 41-42, the specification recites, “[i]s electrically disconnected in at last [sic] a common layer”. The term “last” should be changed to -least-.
At col. 4, lines 3-6, the specification recites, “[i]n one or more embodiments, wherein at least one layer of the organic stack on the first spacer has an island shape” twice.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
(A) at line 17 the claim recites “on the non-emission portion” which should recite “on each of the non-emission portions” as there are a plurality of non-emission portions because each of the three claimed sub-pixels comprises a non-emission portion.
(B) the third to the last line recites “encapsulation comprising” which should recite “encapsulation layer comprising”.
(C) the third to the last line recites “a encapsulation layer” which should recite “an encapsulation layer”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 17-20, 27-29, 31, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatano et al., US 2014/0103368 (“Hatano”) in view of Ryu, US 2014/0138645 (“Ryu”).
Heo et al., US 2025/0287809 (“Heo”) is relied upon as an evidentiary reference for claim 31.
PNG
media_image1.png
273
498
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
594
576
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Hatano discloses an organic light emitting display (OLED) device comprising a substrate (416) disposed on which is a plurality of pixels each of which comprises a first (160R), second (160G), and third (160B) light emitting portions (i.e., a first, second, and third sub-pixel) [0058-0079, Fig. 2A-2D]. The light emitting portions (160R, 160G, 160B) of the pixels correspond to the claimed emission portion. The space between the light emitting portions (150, 155) corresponds to the claimed non-emission portion.
Figures 2A (right) and 2B (left) of Hatano illustrating the pixel
arrangement of the disclosed OLED device.
PNG
media_image5.png
402
754
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
390
652
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Each of the first, second, and third light-emitting portions comprises (in order) a lower electrode (118a), an organic layer (120), and an upper electrode (130) [0051, Fig. 2B] which respectively correspond to the claimed first electrode, organic stack, and second electrode.
Figure 2B (Left) and annotated Figure 2B (right) of Hatano illustrating
the layer arrangement and partition structure of the light-emitting portions.
The first (160R), second (160G), and third (160B) light-emitting portions are separated from each other by a partition (150) [0058-0088, 00952, Figs 2A-2B, 4A]. A spacer (155) is disposed atop the partition (150) [0059, 0091, Figs. 2B, 4A].
The partition (150) which is positioned between the first light-emitting portion (160R) and the second light-emitting portion (160G) may reasonably interpreted as corresponding to the claimed first spacer. It is noted that the spacer (155) extends higher than the partition (150). As such, the spacer (155) (i.e., the second spacer) is reasonably interpreted as being higher in height than the partition (150) (i.e., the first spacer).
The spacer (155) which is positioned between the second-light emitting portion (160G) and the third light-emitting portion (160B) may reasonably be interpreted as corresponding to the claimed second spacer (see Fig. 2A above). The partition (150) comprises a shoulder which is interpreted as being a bank in a non-emission portion.
PNG
media_image9.png
392
401
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding the organic layer (120), Hatano teaches that it comprises a charge generation layer (1104) disposed between two light emitting units (1103a, 1103b) [0012, 0113, Fig. 5A] which corresponds to the claimed organic stack having at least a charge generation layer disposed between a first and second organic stack.
Figure 5A of Hatano illustrating the charge generation layer (1104) disposed between two light emitting units (1103)
Hatano further teaches forming an undercoat layer (173) which covers a portion of the upper electrode (122) [0058, 0059, 0091, Figs. 2B, 4A]. The undercoat layer (173) corresponds to the claimed capping layer on the second electrode.
Hatano is silent regarding the disclosed OLED device comprising an encapsulation layer having a first inorganic layer, a first organic layer, and a second inorganic layer alternately stacked one above another.
Ryu discloses an OLED device (200) comprising a substrate (100) disposed on which is an emission layer (230) which is formed between a first electrode (210) and second electrode (240) [0070, Fig. 3]. The device further comprises an encapsulation layer (300) which is disposed on the top surface of a capping layer (400) [0077, Fig. 3]. Ryu teaches that the encapsulating layer (300) comprises a plurality of organic layers and a plurality of inorganic layers which are alternately laminated [abstract, 0007, 0045]. Ryu further teaches that the encapsulating layer is structured so as to reduce or prevent penetration of oxygen or moisture while at the same time having flexibility [0005, 0006, 0045].
Hatano and Ryu are both directed towards OLED 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 incorporated an encapsulating layer having a plurality of organic layers and a plurality of inorganic layers which are alternately laminated onto the top surface of the OLED device of Hatano as taught by Ryo with the expectation of preventing or reducing the penetration of oxygen and moisture into the OLED device while also providing flexibility. The resulting OLED device comprising an encapsulating layer having an alternately laminated plurality of organic and inorganic layers would have corresponded to the encapsulating layer.
Regarding claim 18, Hatano teaches that both the second electrode (122) and the organic layer (i.e., stack) (120) have a stepped portion on the first spacer (150) [0089, Fig. 4A].
PNG
media_image10.png
524
730
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 4A of Hatano highlighting the stepped portions
of the second electrode and organic stack
Regarding claim 19, Hatano teaches that the organic layer (120) is disconnected from the partition (150) [0080, Figs. 3A,3B] which corresponds to the claimed organic stack having a disconnected portion on at least one side of the first spacer.
Regarding claim 20, Hatano teaches that the upper electrode (122) rises up from a flat region so as to conform with the shape of the partition (150) and spacer (155) [0058, 0059, Fig. 2B] which is reasonably interpreted as being an island shape.
Regarding claim 27, it is noted that the edge between any two of the light emitting portions (i.e., sub-pixels) of the OLED device disclosed by Hatano is defined by the spacer (155) (corresponding to the claimed second spacer)
PNG
media_image11.png
408
396
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Figure 2A of Hatano
As such, Hatano reasonably teaches a sub-pixel (160B) which extends in a first direction to an edge of a third sub-pixel (160G) wherein the said edge is located at a side of the third sub-pixel that is away from the second sub-pixel (160R) [0059, Fig. 2A].
PNG
media_image12.png
418
585
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 28, as can be seen in the annotated Figure 2A shown below, Hatano may alternatively be interpreted as teaching a first spacer which meets the limitations of claim 28.
Annotated Figure 2A of Hatano
Regarding claim 29, modified Hatano may reasonably be interpreted as disclosing the claimed arrangement as shown in the annotated figure 2A below.
PNG
media_image13.png
539
610
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2A of Hatano
Regarding claim 31, modified Hatano is silent regarding the threshold voltage of the light emitting portions (i.e., sub-pixels). However, Heo discloses that organic luminescent materials for respective colors require different threshold voltages, and among the blue, green, and red organic luminescent materials which are currently known, the threshold voltage of the blue organic luminescent materials is the highest [0063]. As such, Heo provides objective evidence that the blue light emitting portions (160B) of the OLED device of modified Hatano would intrinsically have the highest threshold voltage. Thus, in an alternative interpretation of modified Hatano, the blue light emitting portions (160B) may be interpreted as corresponding to the claimed first sub-pixel. In this case, the first sub-pixel would intrinsically have the highest threshold voltage as claimed.
Regarding claim 32, as is illustrated in Figs 2A and 2B shown below, Hatano teaches a partition (150) (i.e., a first spacer) which is shorter (i.e., of a different size) than the spacer (155) (i.e., a second spacer) [0058-0088, 00952, Figs 2A-2B, 4A].
PNG
media_image2.png
594
576
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
390
652
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Figures 2A (right) and 2B (left) of Hatano illustrating the pixel
arrangement of the disclosed OLED device
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatano in view of Ryu as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Kim et al., US 2016/0293675 (“Kim I”).
Regarding claim 21, Hatano as modified with Ryu teaches what is described above. Hatano additionally teaches that the light emitting portions (i.e., sub-pixels) may be red-, green-, or blue-light emitting [0012, 0060, 0088, 0092]. Hatano also teaches that the organic layer of light emitting portions comprise a light-emitting unit (1103) which comprises a light-emitting layer [0111, 0112, Fig. 5B].
Modified Hatano is silent regarding the light emitting layers of the sub-pixels having different thicknesses.
Kim I discloses a light-emitting display device comprising a display area comprising a red, green, and blue pixels each of which comprises a light emitting layer [abstract, 0043-0050, Figs. 1 and 2]. Kim I teaches that the light-emitting layer of each of the red, green, and blue pixels may be formed so as to have a different thickness in order to help improve display quality [0095].
Modified Hatano and Kim I are both related to light-emitting display device comprising a display area comprising a red-, green-, and blue-light emitting portions each of which comprising a light emitting layer. In view of the teachings of Kim I, 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 light emitting layer of the light emitting portions of the OLED device of modified Hatano so as to have different thicknesses in order to help improve display quality.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hatano in view of Ryu, as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Kang et al., US 2014/0103368 (“Kang”).
Regarding claim 22, Hatano as modified with Ryu teaches what is described above. Additionally, as is noted above, Hatano teaches that the organic layer (120) comprises a charge generation layer (1104) disposed between two light emitting units (1103a, 1103b) [0012, 0113, Fig. 5A].
Modified Hatano is silent regarding the disclosed OLED device comprising p-type charge generation layer and an n-type charge generation layer.
Kang discloses an OLED device comprising a charge generation layer disposed between two light emitting units [abstract, 0013, 0039-0040, Fig. 1]. Kang teaches that by utilizing a charge generation layer comprising a p-type charge generation layer and a n-type charge generation layer one can provide an OLED device having a low drive voltage and high luminous efficiency [0011, 0013].
Modified Hatano and Kang are both directed towards OLED devices comprising a charge generation layer disposed between two light emitting units. In light of the teachings of Kang, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was effectively filed to have utilize a p-type and a n-type charge generation layer as the charge generation layer of the OLED device of modified Hatano with the expectation of providing the OLED device with a low drive voltage and high luminous efficiency. The p-type and a n-type charge generation layer in the resulting OLED device would have corresponded to the claimed p-type and n-type charge generation layers.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatano in view of Ryu as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Kim et al., US 2014/0001447 (“Kim II”).
Regarding claim 23, Hatano as modified with Ryu teaches what is described above. Additionally, Hatano teaches that one of the emission portions emits blue light [0060, Fig. 2B]. Hatano is silent regarding any of the emission portions being smaller than any other emission portions.
Kim II discloses an OLED device comprising a substrate on which are disposed a first through fourth sub-pixel regions [abstract, 0003, Fig. 7A]. Kim II teaches that the first through third sub-pixel regions correspond to red, green, and blue sub-pixels respectively [0007, Fig. 1]. Further, Kim II teaches that the blue sub-pixel may have a larger area than the other sub-pixels because blue sub-pixels have a lower brightness than the sub-pixels of other color [0032].
In light of the teachings of Kim II, 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 blue light emitting portion of the OLED device of modified Hatano so as to be larger than the other light emitting portions in order to compensate for the lower brightness associated with the blue light emitting portion. The resulting OLED device would have comprised a light emitting portion (i.e., sub-pixel) which is necessarily smaller than the larger blue light emitting portion which would have met the limitation of the claim.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hatano in view of Ryu, as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Shih et al., US 2016/0342038, (“Shih”).
Regarding claim 30, Hatano as modified with Ryu teaches what is described above. Additionally, the first (160R), second (160G), and third (160B) light emitting portions (i.e., the first, second, and third sub-pixel) disclosed by Hatano are red, green, and blue emitting, respectively [0012, 0060].
Hatano is silent regarding a threshold voltage of a first sub-pixel being higher than a threshold voltage of a second and third sub-pixel
Shih teaches a display device comprising a plurality of sub-pixels wherein a threshold voltage of one sub-pixel is higher than a threshold voltage of another sub-pixel, thereby suppressing the phenomenon of yellow-bias and/or green-bias, and therefore, mitigating a color shift problem as compared to a conventional pixel array [0046,0099, Fig. 1].
Hatano and Shih are both directed towards display devices comprising red, green, and blue pixels. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to design the threshold voltage of the first sub-pixel to be higher than the threshold voltage of the second and third sub-pixels in the display device of Hatano in order to mitigate the color shift problem, as suggested by Shih.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 24-26 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.
Duty to Disclose
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. 10,516,004 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 apprise 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, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
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 571-272-6600. 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/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3991
/Patricia L Engle/SPRS, Art Unit 3991
Prosecution Insights