DETAILED ACTION
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/27/25 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The rejection of Claims 8-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tang et al. (US 2002/0011785 A1) in view of Oda et al. (US 2002/0160225 A1) as set forth in the Final Rejection filed 02/25/25 is NOT overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tang et al. (US 2002/0011785 A1) in view of Oda et al. (US 2002/0160225 A1).
Tang et al. discloses a an organic electroluminescent (EL) display device comprising “a plurality of organic light-emitting pixels arranged in a two-dimensional array” ([0058]); the method of manufacturing such a device comprises forming substrate (12), forming first and second electrodes (32 and 34, respectively), forming insulating layer (layer containing 42 and 44) extending in first and second directions over the first electrode (corresponding to lengthwise and widthwise directions, respectively), and forming an EL layer (60) over the first and second electrodes (Figs. 1-5, 14, and 15); the final construction is shown below (side view):
PNG
media_image1.png
496
937
media_image1.png
Greyscale
comprising green (G) and blue (B) light-emitting elements. The EL layer comprises the following layers: hole-injecting layer (first layer), hole-transporting layer (second layer), light-emitting layer (third layer), and electron-transporting/injecting layer (fourth layer) ([0065]). Tang et al. discloses that the EL layer (and its sublayers) can be formed by various methods, including vapor, sputter, and electron beam deposition ([0067]). However, Tang et al. does not explicitly disclose a wet process.
Oda et al. discloses that the layers of an organic EL device can be formed via “[c]onventionally known methods such as vacuum deposition and spin coating” ([0040]). It would have been obvious to utilize such methods (including wet methods such as spin coating) as disclosed by Oda et al. to form any of the sublayers of the EL layer of the organic EL device as disclosed by Tang et al. The motivation is provided by disclosure of Oda et al. which is directed to known methods in the art for layer formation of an organic EL device, thus rendering the utilization for an identical purpose predictable with a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
8. The Applicant argues on page 5 that the new amendments to Claim 8, i.e., “wherein the second direction is orthogonal to the first direction,” would overcome the rejection as set forth in the previous Office Action. Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Notice that the insulating layers (42 and 44) that lie over the first electrode (32) in the array of the organic EL device as disclosed by Tang et al. (Figs. 3-5, 14, and 15) inherently comprises a first part extending in a lengthwise (first) direction (i.e., into the page as shown in the side view of Fig. 5) as well as a second part extending in a relatively shorter and orthogonal widthwise (second) direction (i.e., across the page as shown in the side view of Fig. 5).
Conclusion
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY L YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1137. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 6am-3pm.
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, Jennifer A Boyd can be reached on 571-272-7783. 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.
/JAY YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786