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 May 18, 2026 was received. Claim 1 was amended, claim 2 was cancelled and claims 21-23 were newly added.
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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 16, 2026 has been entered.
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 (28) 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). Culver et al. further discloses that the laser source (28) used to heat the organic material (30) can be a visible-light laser (defined as having a wavelength of 380-750nm) or an infrared laser (defined as having a wavelength of 700-1,000nm), such that Culver et al. reads on either of the claimed wavelength ranges (col. 14 lines 11-55).
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
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Culver et al. as applied to claims 1, 3 and 19-20 above.
Regarding claims 21-22: Culver et al. teaches that the donor support substrate (14) can be made of a number of different materials but fails to give any specific examples. However, Culver et al. does teach that it can be radiation-transmissive (col. 3 lines 66+, col. 4 lines 1-32), and provides a number of examples of transparent materials for other parts of the device including glass (col. 13 lines 41+, col. 14 lines 1-10) and zinc selenide (col. 15 lines 14-40). 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 material like glass or zinc selenide as taught by Culver et al. for the generic transparent material of the base substrate (14) because simple substitution of functionally equivalent materials is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143, 2144.06) and using a known element or material to improve a known device or technique is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2144.04).
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.
Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grande et al. in view of Culver et al.
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).
Grande et al. fails to explicitly disclose the laser wavelength. However, Culver et al. further discloses that the laser source (28) used to heat the organic material (30) can be a visible-light laser (defined as having a wavelength of 380-750nm) or an infrared laser (defined as having a wavelength of 700-1,000nm) (col. 14 lines 11-55). 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 wavelength as taught by Culver et al. for the system of Grande et al. because Culver et al. shows that it is a known laser technique functionally equivalent to using a generic laser, and simple substitution of functional equivalents is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143, 2144.06) and because using a known technique to improve a known device is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143).
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).
Regarding claims 21-22: Grande et al. discloses that the light transmissive support (20) can be made of quartz, pyrex-type glass, or soda-lime glass, where quartz and soda-lime glass contain silicon such that the support (20) comprises both glass and silicon (par. 14).
Regarding claim 23: Grande et al. and Culver et al. teach the above combination, in which the film consists of the donor support (14) which is the base layer, the organic material (30) which is the source layer, and where the source layer includes the light-absorbing pattern (22) embedded therewithin (see Culver et al. figure 2), such that the light-absorbing pattern (22) can be considered part of the organic material (30) layer. Grande et al. further teaches that the underlying substrate can form partition walls disposed between the transmissive support and the donor layer, 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).
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 19-23 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 (Speier et al. 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 May 18, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant primarily argues that the previously cited laser wavelengths of Culver et al. did not refer to the claimed laser process, and Culver et al. does not teach any wavelengths used for its thermal transfer process.
In response:
Applicant is correct about the previously cited portion of Culver et al., but incorrect that Culver et al. is fully silent on the laser wavelength used- Culver et al. clearly states that the laser source (28) creating the heat (50) that vaporizes the organic material (30) “can be a visible-light laser or an infrared laser” (col. 14 lines 29-41), both of which have well defined wavelength ranges which substantially overlap with those claimed. Therefore, both Culver et al. and Grande et al. in view of Culver et al. still read on the instant claims.
Conclusion
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
8/18/2026
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights