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 .
The Applicant’s amendment filed on January 16, 2026 was received. Claim 1 was amended.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office action issued December 18, 2024.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Culver et al. (US 6,890,627) on claims 1-3 and 19-20 are maintained. The rejections are restated below.
Regarding claim 1: Culver et al. discloses a laser thermal transfer apparatus including an OLED substrate (38) which is supported by means of spacers, a donor element (12) which is a multi-layer film disposed apart from the OLED substrate (38), which can be considered above, the donor element (12) having a support substrate (14)- which is a base layer that can be formed of a light transmissive material- and a donor layer of organic material (30) which is a source layer disposed partially on the substrate (14), the organic material (30) absorbing light (56) from a laser source spaced apart from the donor element (12) by way of a light-absorbing layer (22) embedded within the organic material (30) layer (col. 4 lines 1-32, col. 14 lines 56+, col. 15 lines 1-13, figure 2b). The organic material (30) would also inherently absorb light (56) directly from the laser, converting it to heat in the same way as in the instant invention, as it uses the same laser wavelengths and organic materials. Together with the heat from the light-absorbing layer (22) a portion of the organic material (30) is then transferred to the pixel are of the substrate (3) (see figure 2).
Regarding claim 2: Culver et al. discloses that the laser used has a peak wavelength between 464 and 616nm (results table, col. 19) which is within the claimed range of 300 to 700 nm.
Regarding claim 3: Culver et al. discloses that the donor element (12) is a donor film, and shows that the organic material (30) layer has a transfer layer pattern that overlaps the transferred organic material (52) on areas which can be considered pixel areas of the display substrate (53) (col. 14 lines 56+, col. 15 lines 1-13, figure 2b).
Regarding claim 19: Culver et al. discloses that the organic material (30) once deposited is meant to be used as an emissive layer (col. 2 lines 66-67, col. 3 lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 20: Culver et al. discloses that the organic material (30) can also include a hole-transporting material (col. 15 lines 8-13).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Grande et al. (US 5,851,709) in view of Culver et al. on claims 1-3, 5-11 and 19-20 are maintained. The rejections are restated below.
Regarding claim 1: Grande et al. discloses a system for manufacturing a display device (30) where the display device (30) is oriented or aligned with a multi-layer film substrate (10), such that it needs some type of support, the multi-layer film substrate (10) including a light transmissive support (20) which is a base layer, and a donor layer (16) which is a source layer comprising a light-emissive organic material, where a scanning laser beam source is spaced apart from the support (20) in order to provide radiation exposure (40) needed to transfer the donor layer (16) to the display device (30) after the radiation is absorbed by the donor layer (16) by contact with a light absorbing layer (15) (cols. 5-8, figure 2). Grande et al. fails to explicitly disclose that at least a portion of the donor layer (16) is disposed directly on the support (20).
However, Culver et al. discloses a similar system in which a donor element (12) having a support substrate (14) and a donor layer of organic material (30) has the donor layer (30) partially disposed directly on the support substrate (14) with a patterned light-absorbing layer (22) being embedded within the donor layer (30) (col. 4 lines 1-32, col. 14 lines 56+, col. 15 lines 1-13, figure 2b). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a system as taught by Culver et al. where the light-absorbing layer (22) is patterned such that the donor layer is at least partially directly on the support substrate for the system of Grande et al. because Culver et al. teaches that this is a functionally equivalent mechanism for generating a pattern of donor material on the target substrate (col. 13 lines 29-40, col. 15 lines 8-13, figures 1a, 1b, 2a and 2b) and simple substitution of functional equivalents is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143, 2144.06). The donor layer of Grande et al. and Culver et al. would also inherently absorb light (56) directly from the laser, converting it to heat in the same way as in the instant invention, as it uses the same laser wavelengths and organic materials. Together with the heat from the light-absorbing layer (22) a portion of the organic material is then transferred to the pixel are of the substrate (3) (see Culver et al. figure 2).
Regarding claim 2: Grande et al. fails to explicitly disclose the laser wavelength. However, Culver et al. discloses a table of experiments where laser wavelength is varied between 464 and 616nm (results table, col. 19) such that laser wavelength is a result effective variable for this type of process. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to experiment with and optimize the laser wavelength to be between 300 and 700nm or 800 to 20,000nm because simple optimization of result effective variables is not considered to be a patentable advance (Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215).
Regarding claim 3: Grande et al. discloses that the substrate film includes the donor layer (16) which is a transfer layer having a pattern that overlaps with a pixel or subpixel (32) area on the display device (30) (col. 7 lines 32-45, figure 2E).
Regarding claim 5: Grande et al. discloses that the light transmissive support (20) can be made of glass (col. 7 lines 1-6, figure 2).
Regarding claim 6: Grande et al. discloses that the light transmissive support (20) can be made of quartz, which comprises silicon (col. 7 lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 7: Grande et al. discloses that the underlying substrate (10) can form partition walls disposed between the transmissive support (20) and the donor layer (16), defining a number of openings (14) between segments which overlap the pixel areas (32) on the substrate (30) (col. 7 lines 7-20, figure 2).
Regarding claim 8: Grande et al. discloses that the walls include an insulating layer (13) which has a low thermal conductivity (col. 5 lines 5-16), but fails to explicitly disclose the relative thermal conductivity of the donor layer (16) or the thermal expansion coefficients of either. However, Grande et al. does repeatedly state the importance of thermal properties of the layers (col. 5 lines 61+, col. 7 lines 6-31). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to carefully consider relative thermal conductivity and thermal expansion when selecting materials, because Grande et al. teaches that the thermal properties are important result effective variables (col. 5 lines 61+, col. 7 lines 6-31), and optimizing result effective variables is not considered to be a patentable advance (Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215), and further because trying from a finite number of possibilities (conductivity/CTE of the insulating layer being higher than, lower than, or same as the donor layer) is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143E).
Additionally, regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2114.). In the instant case, one of ordinary skill in the art would presume that the material properties are the same considering some of the materials taught by Grande et al. (such as those of the insulating layer) are the same as that claimed.
Regarding claim 9: Grande et al. shows that the openings (14) of the substrate partition (10) have a width about equal to the pixel areas (32) of the device (30) to which the donor layer (16) is transferred (figure 2E).
Regarding claim 10: Grande et al. shows that the partition wall layer (10) is clearly thicker than the donor layer (16) (see figures 2D-2E).
Regarding claim 11: Grande et al. discloses that the wall layer (10) has on top of it an insulating layer (13) which can be considered part of the partition wall layer, the insulating layer comprising either silicon dioxide, silicon nitride or aluminum oxide (col. 5 lines 5-16, figure 2).
Regarding claim 19: Grande et al. discloses that the donor layer (16) comprises a light-emissive organic material such that it is the same material as an emission layer on the completed device (30) (col. 6 lines 1-63).
Regarding claim 20: Grande et al. fails to explicitly disclose that the donor layer (16) comprises the same material as that of a hole injection layer, hole transport layer, electron transport layer or electron injection layer of the display device. However, Culver et al. discloses that a donor layer can actually comprise multiple layers such that it also includes a hole-transporting layer to be used in the completed OLED device (col. 15 lines 8-13). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use multiple layers for the donor layer as taught by Culver et al. because Culver et al. teaches that this is a functionally equivalent means for depositing the desired hole-transport material, to other deposition methods (col. 15 lines 54-60), and simple substitution of functional equivalents is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143, 2144.06).
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Grande et al. and Culver et al. as applied to claims 1-3, 5-11 and 19-20 above and further in view of Speier et al. (US 2013/0037838) on claims 4 and 15-18 are maintained. The rejections are restated below.
Regarding claim 4: Grande et al. and Culver et al. fails to explicitly disclose that the laser beam has a particular width. However, Speier et al. discloses a similar laser transfer apparatus in which a VCSEL laser (330) provided on a two-dimensional motion system (340) is used as the irradiation laser (pars. 36, 46-47, figure 3) where the width of the laser beam can be configured to have the same width as the transfer region in order to sequentially transfer each section (par. 97, figure 7). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a laser system like that of Speier et al. for the apparatus of Grande et al. and Culver et al. because Speier et al. discloses that the localized control helps improve the transfer process (par. 90).
Regarding claim 15: Grande et al. and Speier et al. teach that the laser (330) is supported by a motion system (340) for movement in two directions intersecting the emission direction of the beam (Speier et al. par. 46-47, figure 3).
Regarding claim 16: Grande et al. and Speier et al. teach disclose that the target and donor substrates can also be provided supports and actuators in order to controllably position them (par. 45).
Regarding claim 17: Grande et al. and Speier et al. disclose that the laser source can comprise an array (1530) which has multiple light sources coupled with optical elements that can focus the beams (Speier et al. par. 50, figure 15).
Regarding claim 18: Grande et al. and Speier et al. disclose that the laser (330) is a VCSEL laser (Speier et al. par. 36).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 16, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant primarily argues that because Culver et al. teaches that the light-absorbing layer absorbs the laser and uses that energy to generate the heat which transfers the organic layer, that the source layer itself does not directly absorb laser light as now claimed.
In response:
Applicant’s argument ignores the inherency of the new claim limitation. The organic layer of Culver et al. will inherently absorb some of the laser energy to generate heat, due to the nature of optical mechanics and physics in general. Culver et al. does not explicitly state that the energy it absorbs is sufficient to sublimate/vaporize the material onto the substrate, but it nonetheless does convert some amount of laser light to heat, in the same way as in Applicant’s instant invention. Nothing about the claim limitation nor Applicant’s specification can adequately explain how the organic donor layer and laser can be so differently structured such that the donor layer of Culver et al. does not absorb the energy while the donor layer of Applicant’s invention does. Simply stating that it is configured to do so is not adequate explanation of how the invention itself- the structure and configuration of the apparatus- differs from that of the prior art. Particularly because Culver et al. uses the same laser wavelength and organic materials in some embodiments. One of ordinary skill in the art may recognize that the process could be different in order to result in the claimed arrangement- i.e. the laser can be applied to the donor layer for a much longer time or with a higher intensity, thereby generating much more heat and sublimation. But this would be a process feature, and regardless is not part of the instant claims or specification. As it stands, Culver et al. still reads on the claim due to the intrinsic natural laws of optical mechanics and solid-state physics.
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 STEPHEN A KITT whose telephone number is (571)270-7681. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/S.A.K/
Stephen KittExaminer, Art Unit 1717
3/6/2026
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717