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 .
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 1-3 and 16-18 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.
The claimed limitation of "…, and that comprises an inorganic insulating layer and an organic insulating layer", as recited in claim 1, is unclear as to which element comprises an inorganic insulating layer and an organic insulating layer applicant refers.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 16 and 17, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (2017/0288003).
As for claim 1, Kim et al. show in Figs. 1-3 and related text an organic-electroluminescent (EL) display apparatus 1, comprising:
a substrate 100 having a surface with a drive circuit PC formed on the surface, the drive circuit comprising a thin-film transistor Td ([0033]) including
a semiconductor layer A1 including a source region, a drain region, and a channel region located between the source region and the drain region,
a gate insulating layer 203 covering the semiconductor layer, and
a gate electrode G1 formed on the gate insulating layer and overlapping the channel region in a thickness direction of the substrate;
a planarizing layer 209 that planarizes the surface of the substrate by covering the drive circuit, and that comprises an inorganic insulating layer and an organic insulating layer ([0052]);
an organic light-emitting element 212/OLED (221/222/223) formed on a surface of the planarizing layer, the organic light-emitting element comprising a first electrode 221, an insulating bank 212 surrounding the first electrode, an organic light-emitting layer 222 contacting the first electrode in an area surrounded by the insulating bank, and a second electrode 223 formed over the organic light-emitting layer; and
a metal layer electrically connecting the first electrode of the organic light-emitting element and the source region of the thin-film transistor, wherein:
the planarizing layer has a first contact hole,
the gate insulating layer has a second contact hole,
a part of the first electrode is formed within the first contact hole,
a part of the metal layer is formed within the second contact hole,
the channel region overlaps the organic light-emitting layer within the area surrounded by the insulating bank in the thickness direction,
neither the first contact hole nor the second contact hole overlaps the organic light-emitting layer within the area surrounded by the insulating bank in the thickness direction, and
the surface of the planarizing layer, facing the organic light-emitting element, has an arithmetic average roughness in a region of the surface of the planarizing layer that is beneath the organic light-emitting layer within the area surrounded by the insulating bank in the thickness direction.
Kim et al. do not disclose the surface of the planarizing layer has the arithmetic average roughness of 50 nm or less.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the surface of the planarizing layer having the arithmetic average roughness of 50 nm or less, in Kim et al.’s device, in order to optimize the performance and enhance reliability of the device.
Furthermore, it has been held that where then general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Furthermore, it has been held in that the applicant must show that a particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that the law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some dimensional limitation or other variable within the claims, patentability cannot be found. The instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.
As for claim 16, Kim et al. show both of the first contact hole and the second contact hole overlap the insulating bank in the thickness direction (Fig. 3).
As for claim 17, Kim et al. show the first contact hole overlaps the second contact hole in the thickness direction (Fig. 3).
Claim(s) 2 and 3, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (2017/0288003) in view of Sato et al. (2005/0118827).
As for claims 2 and 3, Kim et al. disclosed substantially the entire claimed invention, as applied to claim 1 above, except the organic insulating layer comprises an acrylic resin without a photosensitive body, or a polyimide resin without the photosensitive body (claim 2); and the organic insulating layer comprises an additive agent at a content rate of 0.5 mass% or more and 5 mass% or less, wherein the additive agent improves a planarity of the organic insulating layer facing the second inorganic insulating layer (claim 3).
Saito et al. teach in Fig. 2 and related text:
As for claim 2, the organic insulating layer comprises an acrylic resin without a photosensitive body, or a polyimide resin without the photosensitive body ([0107]).
As for claim 3, the organic insulating layer comprises an additive agent at a content rate, wherein the additive agent improves a planarity of the organic insulating layer facing the second inorganic insulating layer ([0107]).
Kim et al. and Saito et al. are analogous art because they are directed to a display device and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Kim et al. with the specified feature(s) of Saito et al. because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an acrylic resin without a photosensitive body or a polyimide resin without the photosensitive body, as the organic insulating layer; and to include the organic insulating layer comprising an additive agent at a content rate, wherein the additive agent improving a planarity of the organic insulating layer facing the second inorganic insulating layer, as taught by Saito et al., and the additive agent at the content rate of 0.5 mass[Symbol font/0x25] or more and 5 mass[Symbol font/0x25] or less, in Kim et al.’s device, in order to achieve higher aperture ratio, higher brightness at same current density; and optimize the performance and enhance reliability of the device (Saito: [0117], lines 10-14).
Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design Kimce. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Furthermore, it has been held that where then general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Furthermore, it has been held in that the applicant must show that a particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that the law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some dimensional limitation or other variable within the claims, patentability cannot be found. The instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.
Claim(s) 18, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (2017/0288003) in view of Kim et al. (2015/0070643, hereinafter Kim’3).
Kim et al. disclosed substantially the entire claimed invention, as applied to claim 1 above, except the inorganic insulating layer is formed above the organic insulating layer, and the surface of the planarizing layer having the arithmetic average roughness of 50 nm or less is a surface of the inorganic insulating layer.
Kim’3 teaches in Fig. 1 and related text the inorganic insulating layer 17 is formed above the organic insulating layer 15 ([0066]), and the surface of the planarizing layer 15/17 having a flat surface is a surface of the inorganic insulating layer.
Kim et al. and Kim’3 are analogous art because they are directed to an organic-EL display and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Kim et al. with the specified feature(s) of Kim’3 because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the inorganic insulating layer above the organic insulating layer, and the surface of the planarizing layer having a flat surface is a surface of the inorganic insulating layer, as taught by Kim’3, in Kim et al.’s device, in order to protect the underlying organic layer from moisture uptake, reduce leakage current and reduce outgassing and contamination.
Therefore, the combined device shows the surface of the planarizing layer having the arithmetic average roughness of 50 nm or less is a surface of the inorganic insulating layer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 MEIYA LI whose telephone number is (571)270-1572. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-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, LYNNE GURLEY can be reached on (571)272-1670. 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.
/MEIYA LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2811
Prosecution Insights