DETAILED ACTION
Reissue
The present reissue application is directed to US 11,737,333 B2 (“333 Patent”). 333 Patent issued on August 22, 2023 with claims 1-17 from application 17/111,279 filed on December 3, 2020 and claims priority to KR 10-2019-0160623 filed on December 5, 2019.
This application was filed on August 22, 2025. Since this date is 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. Furthermore, the present application is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This application presents broadened claims, which are permitted because Applicant filed these claims and demonstrated an intent to broaden within two years of the issue date of 333 Patent.
The most recent amendment was filed on August 22, 2025. The status of the claims is:
Claims 1-17: Canceled
Claims 18-38: New
This is a first, non-final action.
References and Documents Cited in this Action
333 Patent (US 11,737,333 B2)
Kim (US 2019/0179065 A1)
Suzuki (US 2022/0115629 A1)
Lee (US 2019/0198802 A1)
Summary of Rejections and Objections in this Action
Examiner objects to the claim amendment, specification, and the drawings.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 22, 30-35, 37, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being based upon new matter added to the patent for which reissue is sought
Claims 18, 19, and 27-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim.
Claims 32-34 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Suzuki.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Lee.
Claims 20-26 and 36 may contain allowable subject matter.
Summary of the Claims
333 Patent is directed to an organic light emitting diode display device. Claim 18, the only independent claim, is representative:
18. An organic light emitting diode display device, comprising:
first, second, and third subpixels disposed on a substrate;
first, second and third color filter layers in the first, second, and third subpixels, respectively, over the substrate;
a first wavelength converting layer in the first subpixel and disposed over the first color filter layer;
a second wavelength converting layer in the second subpixel and disposed over the second color filter layer; and
a first planarizing layer on the first, second, and third color filter layers, and disposed between the first, second, and third color filter layers and the first and second wavelength converting layers,
wherein the first planarizing layer directly contacts the third color filter layer.
PNG
media_image1.png
366
761
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Amendment
Examiner objects to the claim amendment filed on August 22, 2025 because Applicant has not provided a satisfactory explanation of the support in the disclosure of 333 Patent for the changes made to the claims. See 37 CFR 1.173(c).
More specifically, in Remarks filed on August 22, 2025, Applicant asserts that “For example, support for the amendments is found at FIG. 3 and col. 5, line 57 - col. 7, line 27 of the issued patent.” This statement is inaccurate. New claims 18-38 all recite “a first planarizing layer…disposed between the first, second, and third color filter layers and the first and second wavelength converting layers” (see independent claim 18). Figure 3 does not show a planarizing layer between the filter layers and the wavelength converting layers.
Specification
Examiner objects to the specification amendment filed on August 22, 2025 because it does not comply with 37 CFR 1.173. Any changes relative to the patent being reissued must be marked. Matter to be omitted by reissue must be enclosed by single brackets; and matter to be added by reissue must be underlined. See 37 CFR 1.173(d) and MPEP 1453. More specifically, the deletion of the word “is” must be shown with single brackets instead of double brackets.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: fourth light “L4” in Figure 3 (wherein L4 is the light emitted from first subpixel SP1; e.g., see 333 Patent, column 9, lines 61-67). In Figure 3, “L6” is incorrectly used to label the light emitted from first subpixel SP1 as well as the light emitted from second subpixel SP3.
PNG
media_image2.png
354
686
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.173(b)(3) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Applicant must submit a replacement sheet for each sheet of drawings containing a Figure to be revised. Any replacement sheet must comply with 37 CFR 1.84 and include all of the figures appearing on the original version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each figure that is amended must be identified by placing the word “Amended” at the bottom of that figure. Any added figure must be identified as “New.” In the event that a figure is canceled, the figure must be identified as “Canceled” and also surrounded by brackets. All changes to the figure(s) must be explained, in detail, beginning on a separate sheet which accompanies the papers including the amendment to the drawings. See MPEP 1413 for further information.
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 35 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 written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 35, as well as the claim may be understood with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as discussed below, the claim depends on claims 18 and 19 and further recites a plurality of microlenses disposed between the first and second wavelength converting layers and the second planarizing layer. 333 Patent does not appear to describe this combination of limitations.
Parent claims 18 and 19 previously recite a first planarizing layer between the filter layers and the wavelength converting layers, and a second planarizing layer on the wavelength converting layers. Figures 14 and 15 are the only figures that show this arrangement of planarizing layers (i.e., a first planarizing layer 840 or 940 between the filter layers and the wavelength converting layers and a second planarizing layer 852 or 952 on the wavelength converting layers). The microlenses 838 or 938 in these figures are not between the wavelength converting layers and the second planarizing layer.
PNG
media_image3.png
366
761
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 22, 30-35, 37, and 38 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 claim 22, which depends on claims 18 and 20, the claim is indefinite because there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the third emitting material layer.” Examiner suggests that claim 22 may depend on claim 21 instead.
Regarding claim 30, which depends on claims 18 and 27, the claim is indefinite because there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the blue colored light” recited twice in the claim. Examiner notes there is currently no other claim that claim 30 may properly depend on. Although claim 20 recites a blue colored light, claim 27 (which does not depend on claim 20) provides antecedent basis for “the first wavelength converting material” and “the second wavelength converting material” also recited in claim 30.
Claim 31 depends on claim 30 and is indefinite for at least the same reason.
Regarding claim 32, which depends on claim 18, the claim is indefinite because there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the light emitting layer.” Examiner suggests that claim 32 may depend on claim 20 instead.
Claims 33, 34, and 38 depend on claim 32 and are also indefinite for at least the same reason. Claim 34 additionally recites “the first plurality of microlenses” and there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the first plurality of microlenses” because its parent claims only previously recite “a plurality of microlenses.”
Regarding claim 35, as well as the claim may be understood with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as discussed above, the claim recites “a second plurality of microlenses” but claims 18 and 19 on which it depends does not previously recite a first plurality of microlenses. The claim is indefinite at least because it is unclear if it recites two groups of microlenses.
Regarding claim 37, which depends on claim 18, the claim is indefinite because there is insufficient antecedent basis for the “second planarizing layer” recited in the claim. Examiner suggests that claim 37 may depend on claim 19 instead.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 251
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being based upon new matter added to the patent for which reissue is sought. The added material which is not supported by the prior patent is as follows:
a second plurality of microlenses disposed between the first and second wavelength converting layers and the second planarizing layer (in combination with limitations of the parent claim, e.g., wherein the first and second wavelength converting layers are disposed over first and second color filter layers; a first planarization layer is disposed between the color filter layers and the wavelength converting layers, and directly contacts a third color filter layer; and the second wavelength converting layer is on the first and second wavelength converting layers).
See the related discussion above with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 18, 19, and 27-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim.
Regarding independent claim 18, Kim discloses an organic light emitting diode display device (Figures 1-3), comprising:
first, second, and third subpixels disposed on a substrate 110 (i.e., red, green, and blue subpixels as shown in Figure 3; paragraphs [0045]-[0048]);
first, second and third color filter layers 230R, 230G, and 230B in the first, second, and third subpixels, respectively, over the substrate (paragraphs [0045]-[0048]);
a first wavelength converting layer 250R in the first subpixel and disposed over the first color filter layer 230R (paragraphs [0073]-[0077]);
a second wavelength converting layer 250G in the second subpixel and disposed over the second color filter layer 230G (paragraphs [0073]-[0077]); and
a first planarizing layer 240 on the first, second, and third color filter layers, and disposed between the first, second, and third color filter layers and the first and second wavelength converting layers (Figure 3; paragraph [0073]),
wherein the first planarizing layer 240 directly contacts the third color filter layer 230B (Figure 3; paragraph [0073]).
PNG
media_image4.png
449
1052
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19, Kim discloses a second planarizing layer 260 on the first and second wavelength converting layers, wherein the second planarizing layer gapfills a region laterally disposed between the first and second wavelength converting layers 250R and 250G (Figure 3; paragraphs [0093]-[0094]).
Regarding claims 27 and 28, Kim discloses that the first and second wavelength converting layers 250R and 250G include first and second wavelength converting materials, respectively, wherein each of the first and second wavelength converting materials includes at least one of a quantum dot or a nanocomposite (e.g., nanocrystal including quantum dot; paragraphs [0076]-[0077]).
Regarding claim 29, Kim discloses that each of the first and second wavelength converting materials has an absorption wavelength band of 350 nm to 650 nm (i.e., the first and second wavelength converting materials absorb incident blue light, which inherently includes a wavelength band between 380 nm to 500 nm) and an emission wavelength band of 450n m to 750 nm (i.e., the first and second wavelength converting materials emit red and green light, which inherently includes wavelength bands of 620 nm to 750 nm and 495 nm to 570 nm; paragraphs [0074]-[0077]).
Regarding claim 30, as well as the claim may be understood with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as discussed above, Kim discloses that the first and second subpixels correspond to red and green colors, respectively,
wherein the first and second color filter layers 230R and 230G selectively transmit red and green colored lights, respectively (paragraphs [0045]-[0048]),
wherein the first wavelength converting material 250R absorbs the blue colored light and emits the red colored light (paragraph [0076]), and
wherein the second wavelength converting material 250G absorbs the blue colored light and emits the green colored light (paragraph [0077]).
Regarding claim 31, as well as the claim may be understood with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as discussed above, Kim discloses that the third subpixel corresponds to blue color,
wherein the third color filter layer 230B selectively transmits blue colored light, and
wherein the third color filter layer does not have a corresponding wavelength converting layer (i.e., Kim discloses that “the blue light is incident into the transmissive layer 250B and the blue light may be emitted as it is”; paragraph [0075]).
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.
Claims 32-34 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Suzuki.
Regarding claim 32, as well as the claim may be understood with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) discussed above, Kim discloses a device as discussed above with regard to claim 18 but does not specifically disclose a plurality of microlenses. However, Suzuki teaches a device that is related to the one disclosed by Kim, including a plurality of pixels disposed on substrate 11 (Figure 1; paragraph [0110]) and further teaches a plurality of microlenses 50. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include microlenses as taught by Suzuki in the device disclosed by Kim to advantageously direct the light from the device as desired (Suzuki, paragraphs [0105] and [0142]).
Regarding claim 33, as well as the claim may be understood with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) discussed above, in the device taught by Kim in view of Suzuki, Suzuki further teaches that the plurality of microlenses comprises a first plurality of microlenses disposed between the substrate and a first planarizing layer (i.e., flattening layer 35; Suzuki, Figure 1 and paragraphs [0112] and [0141]).
Regarding claim 34, as well as the claim may be understood with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) discussed above, in the device taught by Kim in view of Suzuki, Suzuki further teaches that the plurality of microlenses are disposed between first, second and third color filter layers CF and a first planarizing layer 35 (Suzuki, Figure 1 and paragraphs [0112] and [0141].
Regarding claim 38, as well as the claim may be understood with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) discussed above, in the device taught by Kim in view of Suzuki, Suzuki further teaches that plurality of microlenses include an organic insulating material (e.g., polycarbonate resin; Suzuki, paragraph [0062]).
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Lee.
Regarding claim 37, as well as the claim may be understood with respect to 35 U.S.C> 112(b) as discussed above, Kim discloses a device as discussed above with regard to claim 18, including a first planarization layer 240. Kim further discloses a second planarization layer 260 and that a planarization layer may include organic material (paragraphs [0073] and [0094]) but does not specifically disclose an organic insulating material. However, Lee teaches a device that is related to the one disclosed by Kim, including a subrtate 110 and pixels (Lee, Figures 1-2; paragraph [0041]). Lee further teaches a planarization layer 135 including an organic insulating material (Lee, paragraph [0064]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include an organic insulating material as taught by Lee in the planarization layers disclosed by Kim in order to use a known material for the layer with predictable results of effectively stabilizing the other elements without undesired electrical conductivity.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20, 21, 23-26, and 36 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. Claim 22 may contain allowable subject matter if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art does not specifically disclose or fairly suggest a device including the combination of all of the elements, steps, and limitations recited in claims 20-26, and 36 (including all of the limitations of any respective parent claims and as well as claim 22 may be understood with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as discussed above), particularly including
a first electrode disposed over the first planarizing layer; a light emitting layer on the first electrode, the light emitting layer including at least first and second emitting material layers emitting a blue colored light; and a second electrode on the light emitting layer.
Conclusion
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 this reissue application 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.
Applicant is notified that any subsequent amendment to the specification and/or claims must comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b).
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 https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/interview-practice.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner, or as to the status of this proceeding, should be directed to Examiner Christina Leung at telephone number (571) 272-3023; the Examiner’s supervisor, SPE Patricia Engle at (571) 272-6660; or the Central Reexamination Unit at (571) 272-7705.
/CHRISTINA Y. LEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3991
Conferees:
/DEANDRA M HUGHES/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3992
/Patricia L Engle/SPRS, Art Unit 3991
Prosecution Insights