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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 19, 2026 has been entered.
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 4 and 8 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 "a contact hole", as recited in claims 4 and 8, is unclear as to whether said limitation is the same as or different from "two contact holes", as recited in claims 1 and 5, respectively.
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, 4, 5 and 8, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (2017/0025489).
As for claims 1 and 5, Choi et al. show in Fig. 5 and related text an organic-electroluminescent (EL) display apparatus 72, comprising:
a substrate 30 having a surface with a drive circuit formed on the surface, the drive circuit comprising a thin-film transistor 58 ([0035]);
a planarizing layer 82/50/84 to planarize the surface of the substrate by covering the drive circuit; and
an organic light-emitting element 26 (36/38T/38C/42) formed on a surface of the planarizing layer and electrically connected to the drive circuit, the organic light-emitting element comprising an organic light-emitting layer 38C in a region over the thin-film transistor, and arranged such that the organic light emitting layer does not overlap, in a thickness direction of the substrate, with two contact holes that are, respectively, electrically connected to a source electrode 76 and a drain electrode 78 of the thin-film transistor, wherein
the planarizing layer comprises:
a first inorganic insulating layer 82 deposited on the drive circuit ([0048]),
an organic insulating layer 50 deposited on the first inorganic insulating layer ([0046]), and
a second inorganic insulating layer 84 deposited on the organic insulating layer ([0052]),
a surface of the second inorganic insulating layer, facing an opposite orientation of the organic insulating layer, has an arithmetic average roughness,
(a surface of the organic insulating layer, facing the second organic insulating layer, has an arithmetic average roughness,) and
a thickness of the second inorganic insulating layer varies based on an unevenness of a surface of the organic insulating layer facing to the second inorganic insulating layer.
Choi et al. do not disclose the surface of the second inorganic insulating layer has the arithmetic average roughness of 50 nm or less in a region over the thin-film transistor in the thickness direction of the substrate; the surface of the organic insulating layer has the arithmetic average roughness of 100 nm or more and 300 nm or less in the region over the thin-film transistor in the thickness direction of the substrate; a maximum thickness of the second inorganic insulating layer is equal to or more than two times a maximum height difference of the unevenness and equal to or less than three times the maximum height difference of the unevenness in the region over the thin-film transistor in the thickness direction of the substrate, and a minimum thickness of the second inorganic insulating layer is equal to or more than one times time the maximum height difference of the unevenness and equal to or less than two times the maximum height difference of the unevenness in the region over the thin-film transistor in the thickness direction of the substrate.
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 second inorganic insulating layer having the arithmetic average roughness of 50 nm or less in a region over the thin-film transistor in the thickness direction of the substrate; the surface of the organic insulating layer having the arithmetic average roughness of 100 nm or more and 300 nm or less in the region over the thin-film transistor in the thickness direction of the substrate; a maximum thickness of the second inorganic insulating layer being equal to or more than two times a maximum height difference of the unevenness and equal to or less than three times the maximum height difference of the unevenness in the region over the thin-film transistor in the thickness direction of the substrate, and a minimum thickness of the second inorganic insulating layer being equal to or more than one times time the maximum height difference of the unevenness and equal to or less than two times the maximum height difference of the unevenness in the region over the thin-film transistor in the thickness direction of the substrate, in Choi 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 claims 4 and 8, Choi et al. show the drive circuit and the organic light-emitting element are connected via a metal 36 being embedded in a contact hole 75 collectively penetrating the first inorganic insulating layer, the organic insulating layer, and the second inorganic insulating layer (Fig. 2).
4. Claim(s) 2, 3, 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (2017/0025489) in view of Sato et al. (2005/0118827).
As for claims 2, 3, 6, and 7, Choi et al. disclosed substantially the entire claimed invention, as applied to claims 1 and 5, respectively, above, except the organic insulating layer comprises an acrylic resin without a photosensitive body, or a polyimide resin without the photosensitive body (claims 2 and 6); 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 (claims 3 and 7).
Saito et al. teach in Fig. 2 and related text:
As for claims 2 and 6, the combined device shows the organic insulating layer comprises an acrylic resin without a photosensitive body, or a polyimide resin without the photosensitive body ([0107]).
As for claims 3 and 7, 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]).
Choi 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 Choi 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 Choi 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 choice. 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8 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
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