DETAILED ACTION
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 “a maximum height of an upper surface of the insulation pattern is…equal to a height of the upper surface of the first bank pattern or the second bank pattern” recited in claim 3 and similarly in claim 4, in combination with “a thickness of the insulation pattern is greater than about 50% of a maximum thickness of a cross section of the first bank pattern…and is less than the maximum thickness of the first bank pattern in the cross-sectional view,” required by claim 1, 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.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “the thickness TH2 of the second insulation layer INS2 may be greater than about 50%, while being less than, the thickness TH1 of the first bank pattern PW1 and/or the second bank pattern PW2,” as described in accordance with Figs. 9-10 in [0254] and [0287] of the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: [0254] and [0287] recites “the thickness TH2 of the second insulation layer INS2 may be greater than about 50% of, while being less than, the thickness TH1 of the first bank pattern PW1 and/or the second bank pattern PW2,” in accordance with Figs. 9-10, however Fig. 9-10 do not show the feature. Specifically, it is noted that while the lower portions of the range recited appear to be applicable to the described figure, the entire range does not. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 3-4 and 6-8 are 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 claims 3 and 4, the limitation “a maximum height of the upper surface of the insulation pattern is…equal to a height of the upper surface of the first bank pattern or the second bank pattern” recited in claim 3 and similarly in claim 4, in combination with “a thickness of the insulation pattern is greater than about 50% of a maximum thickness of a cross section of the first bank pattern…and is less than the maximum thickness of the first bank pattern in the cross-sectional view,” required by claim 1, does not appear to have adequate support in the originally filed disclosure nor does it reasonable convey the applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, “a thickness of the insulation pattern is less than of a maximum thickness of a cross section of the first bank pattern” is understood as requiring the relationship between disclosed TH1 and TH2 to be 0≤TH2<TH1. The embodiment of Fig. 10 shows a maximum height H2 of the upper surface of the insulation pattern INS2 is equal to a height H1 of the upper surface of the first bank pattern PW1 or the second bank pattern PW2. While the thickness TH2 would necessarily be some value less than TH1, the maximum, however cannot be TH1 or any value close to TH1 because of the presence of INS1, EP1, the lower portion of INS2, and LD, each of which are non-zero thickness. In other words, each of these layers are understood to reduce the upper limit of TH2, resulting in a maximum value of something significantly below TH1 and a value which is not disclosed. Accordingly, the entire scope of the claim is not supported and the specification does not reasonably convey possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 3-4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for some height and thickness combinations, does not reasonably provide enablement for all height and thickness combinations as claimed. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, the limitation “a maximum height of the upper surface of the insulation pattern is…equal to a height of the upper surface of the first bank pattern or the second bank pattern” recited in claim 3 and similarly in claim 4, in combination with “a thickness of the insulation pattern is greater than about 50% of a maximum thickness of a cross section of the first bank pattern…and is less than the maximum thickness of the first bank pattern in the cross-sectional view,” required by claim 1, is not enabled for all height and thickness combinations/ranges. Specifically, “a thickness of the insulation pattern is less than of a maximum thickness of a cross section of the first bank pattern” is understood as requiring the relationship between disclosed TH1 and TH2 to be 0≤TH2<TH1. The embodiment of Fig. 10 shows a maximum height H2 of the upper surface of the insulation pattern INS2 is equal to a height H1 of the upper surface of the first bank pattern PW1 or the second bank pattern PW2. While the thickness TH2 would necessarily be some value less than TH1, the maximum, however cannot be TH1 or any value close to TH1 because of the presence of INS1, EP1, the lower portion of INS2, and LD, each of which are non-zero thickness. In other words, each of these layers are understood to reduce the upper limit of TH2, resulting in a maximum value of something significantly below TH1. Accordingly, the ordinary artisan is not enabled to make a device having TH2 being in the upper range of the thicknesses represented by the claim (i.e. in the upper parts of the range of 0≤TH2<TH1) in combination with the maximum height of the upper surface of the insulation pattern being equal to the height of the upper surface of the first/second bank pattern.
Note the dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies of the claims on which they depend.
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 1-4, 6-8, 10-11, and 15-16 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 1, the limitation “about 50%,” is indefinite. The term “about” is a relative term which renders the claim 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. “About” is defined as " almost or nearly—used to indicate that a number, amount, time, etc., is not exact or certain” (see Merriam Webster online dictionary). This language is indefinite as the specification does not describe the variation from the percentage which would be considered to read on “about” 50%. The term “about” modifies a target, and implicitly requires boundaries at some maximum value above the target and at some minimum value below the target beyond which one is not “about” the target any more. Neither the claims, nor the specification, defines these boundaries. Thus, it is unclear whether one must be within some small percentage of deviation of the target (such as 0.01 %, 0.1 %, 1 %, 2 %, 5 %, 10 %, or some other percentage) or within a certain number of units of the target, and specifically which of these possible values defines the boundaries. There are myriad possible interpretations of “about” in the art, including many possible interpretations in the disclosure of the instant application itself (“[f]or example, "about" may mean within one or more standard deviations, or within ±30%, 20%, 10%, 5% of the stated value,” [emphasis added], see [0061]). Thus, determining whether one is infringing the limitation is subjective, rather than objective, and thus the claim is unclear. Therefore, the claim is rejected as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
See also:
Chang et al. (US 2020/0227673) which defines “about” as “a range of variation of less than or equal to ±10% of that numerical value, such as less than or equal to ±5%, less than or equal to ±4%, less than or equal to ±3%, less than or equal to ±2%, less than or equal to ±1%, less than or equal to ±0.5%, less than or equal to ±0.1%, or less than or equal to ±0.05%,” (see [0157]).
Forrest et al. (US 2022/0181573) which defines “about” “a measurable value such as an amount, a temporal duration, and the like, is meant to encompass variations of ±20%, ±10%, ±5%, ±1%, and ±0.1% from the specified value, as such variations are appropriate,” (see [0044]).
Ram et al. (US 2020/0300842) which defines “about” as “within a range of normal tolerance in the art, for example within two standard deviations of the mean. In one embodiment, the term “about” means within 10% of the reported numerical value of the number with which it is being used, preferably within 5% of the reported numerical value. For example, the term “about” can be immediately understood as within 10%, 9%, 8%, 7%, 6%, 5%, 4%, 3%, 2%, 1%, 0.5%, 0.1%, 0.05%, or 0.01% of the stated value. In other embodiments, the term “about” can mean a higher tolerance of variation depending on for instance the experimental technique used,” (see [0116]).
Jian et al. (US 2019/0187523) which defines “about” as “an acceptable range of deviation for the particular value as determined by persons of ordinary skill in the art, considering the measurement in question and the error associated with measurement of the particular quantity (i.e., the limitations of the measurement system). For example, “about” may mean within one or more standard deviations, or within, for example, ±30%, ±20%, ±15%, ±10%, ±5% of the stated value. Moreover, a relatively acceptable range of deviation or standard deviation may be chosen for the term “about,” “approximately,” “essentially” or “substantially” as used herein based on optical properties, etching properties or other properties, instead of applying one standard deviation across all the properties,” (see [0019]).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, the limitation “a maximum height of the upper surface of the insulation pattern is…equal to a height of the upper surface of the first bank pattern or the second bank pattern” recited in claim 3 and similarly in claim 4, in combination with “a thickness of the insulation pattern is greater than about 50% of a maximum thickness of a cross section of the first bank pattern…and is less than the maximum thickness of the first bank pattern in the cross-sectional view,” required by claim 1, is unclear as to how the heights can be equal and also have the insulation pattern at any value close to 100% the thickness of the bank pattern when the insulation pattern is on the light emitting element between the first and second bank patterns.
Note the dependent claims necessarily inherit the indefiniteness of the claims on which they depend.
Note that the claims have not been rejected over the prior art because there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of the claims; hence, it would not be proper to reject the claims on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/26/2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (page 10-11) that claims 3 and 4 are supported and definite because the claim recites the insulation pattern is “less than the maximum thickness of the first bank pattern” and does not specify the insulation pattern is “close to” 100% and the claims “do not recite a thickness in the upper range of thickness.”
In response, the examiner disagrees. Claim 1 covers all values from 50% up to 100% (exclusive). Claim 3 and 4 each recite the height of the upper surface of the insulation pattern (upper portion of INS2) being equal to the height of the upper surface of the first bank pattern (PW1), which is shown in elected Fig. 10 (replicated below for convenience). In this configuration, TH1 is equal to the combined thicknesses of the upper portion of INS2 (TH2), EP2, the bottom portion of INS2, and INS1 (not labelled in Fig. 10 but is the layer below the bottom portion of INS2). Take, for example, a thickness (TH2) of the insulation pattern (upper portion of INS2) which is 99.99% of the thickness (TH1) of the first bank pattern (PW1). For an example value of TH1 as 2 µm (see Applicant’s disclosure [00237]), the value of TH2 which is 99.9999% of the thickness TH1 is 1.999998 µm. It follows that the total thickness of EP2, the bottom portion of INS2, and INS1 is then required to be 0.000002 µm, or 0.002 nm. This value would be understood as unachievable in today’s technology and applicant has provided no disclosure as to thickness of these magnitudes.
PNG
media_image1.png
388
606
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The rejections are based upon the fact that claim 1 is entitled to the entire range claimed, however values within that range are incompatible with features of claims 3 and 4. For some portion of the range 50%-100% (exclusive) at the lower end, there appears to be no conflict or confusion. While it is unknown what precise value within the range it becomes unsupported and not enabled, it is quite clear that for at least some high values within the range the combination of features cannot be achieved. Accordingly, the scope of the claim (i.e. the entire range) is not enabled, nor is there support in the originally filed disclosure which conveys possession of a device with a combination of these features (for the entire range). It additionally becomes unclear how one could even achieve this combination, and unclear as to the proper interpretation of this combination of limitations since the combination appears impossible for at least a portion of the ranges recited in claim 1.
It is noted that applicant’s disclosure recites the range of thickness of the insulation pattern being 50%-150% the thickness of the first bank pattern as a broad disclosure of one feature which generally applies to the invention. However, applicant additionally recites a distinct, unrelated feature of the relative heights of the insulation layer and the bank pattern. While it can be understood that for each instance of the relative heights of the insulation layer and the bank pattern, some values of the overall disclosed range overlap, the disclosure does not provide clarity as to a relationship between the two distinct features in a manner which would allow one to determine an appropriately narrowed range of thicknesses within the overall disclosed thickness.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lauren R Bell whose telephone number is (571)272-7199. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, William Kraig can be reached at (571) 272-8660. 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.
/LAUREN R BELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896 7/9/2025
Prosecution Insights