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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/6/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant alleges Cho teaches away by noting there are outgassing problems in paragraph [0014] of Cho. The examiner disagrees that Cho teaches away from the current rejection. The applicant fails to disclose show where Cho teaches away from a photoresist to define the pixel. MPEP 2145 discloses “such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed….” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004).” In this case, Cho does not “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage” the use of a photoresist to pattern to define the pixel. Moreover, paragraph [0014] of Cho discloses “the pixel defining layer 120 is formed of an organic material, outgassing of H.sub.2O, O.sub.2 and so on from the pixel defining layer into the organic layer 130 may deteriorate the organic layer 130”. The current claimed structure does not have an organic layer on the photoresist. Therefore, the examiner submits the cited portion of Cho does not teach away from using a photoresist.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 13, 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki et al. (US 2012/0205701) in view of Inoue et al. (US 2010/0053759) , Chen et al. (US 2016/0190222) and Cho et al. (US 2006/0060865).
Regarding claim 13, Sasaki e al. disclose forming a pixel electrode (111, 112, 113)(fig 2C) over a substrate (100); forming an intermediate layer (102) on the pixel electrode; and forming an opposite electrode (103) covering the intermediate layer, wherein the forming of the pixel electrode includes: forming a preliminary reflective layer including a first metal(111)[0039, aluminum]; forming a metal thin film (112)[0040] (titanium) on the preliminary reflective layer, the metal thin film including a second metal different from the first metal; forming a preliminary transparent layer (113)[0042] on the metal thin film and forming a barrier layer (titanium oxide)[0040] by oxidizing at least a portion of the metal thin film [0057].
Sasaki et al. fails to explicitly disclose patterning the preliminary reflective layer, the metal thin film, and the preliminary transparent layer.
Inoue et al. does disclose patterning with a photoresist [0110] and that photolithography and patterning was known [0145].
The combination of Inoue and Sasaki would disclose patterning the pixel electrode (i.e. the preliminary reflective layer, the metal thin film, and the preliminary transparent layer; and forming a barrier layer by oxidizing at least a portion of the metal thin film).
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (i.e. patterning the pixel electrode), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (the pattering of the pixel electrode would form a patterned pixel electrode).
The combination of Inoue and Sasaki fails to explicitly disclose “forming a barrier layer by oxidizing at least a portion of the metal thin film after patterning the preliminary reflective layer, the metal thin film, and the preliminary transparent layer”.
However, the applicant has not provided evidence of new or unexpected results by “oxidizing at least a portion of the metal thin film after patterning the preliminary reflective layer, the metal thin film, and the preliminary transparent layer”. MPEP 2144.04 IV C In reBurhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results).
Therefore, the “oxidizing at least a portion of the metal thin film after patterning the preliminary reflective layer, the metal thin film, and the preliminary transparent layer” would be prima facie obvious at the time the application was filed because the applicant does not provide any new or unexpected results for oxidizing after patterning the preliminary reflective layer, the metal thin film, and the preliminary transparent layer.
Sasaki et al. and Inoue et al. fail to disclose forming a preliminary pixel-defining layer on the preliminary transparent layer that is patterned; forming a pixel-defining layer by patterning the preliminary pixel-defining layer.
As noted above, Inoue et al. does disclose patterning with a photoresist [0110] and that photolithography and patterning was known [0145].
Chen et al. disclose patterning the preliminary pixel-defining layer [0026] which would form a pixel-defining layer.
The combination of Sasaki Inoue and Chen would form the preliminary pixel-defining layer, which includes a photoresist, on the patterned pixel electrode, as disclosed by Sasaki and Inoue.
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (i.e. using a photoresist for patterning the preliminary pixel defining layer), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (using a photoresist for the pattering of the preliminary pixel defining layer would form a patterned pixel defining layer).
Sasaki et al. and Inoue et al. and Chen fail to disclose and heat-treating the pixel-defining layer, wherein the forming of the barrier layer includes oxidizing at least a portion of the metal thin film through the heat-treating.
Cho et al. discloses heat treating the pixel defining layer [0041], and the heat treatment is at 200 to 300 degrees C [0045].
The combination of Cho with Sasaki et al. and Inoue et al. and Chen would oxdize at least a portion of the metal film and would form a barrier layer. (MPEP 2112.01 discloses “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” In this case, the structure would be oxidized and would form a barrier layer, because the prior art discloses the same structure and method steps.) The examiner notes that Sasaki et al. disclose forming the oxidizing the conductive layer 112 (metal thin film) by heat treating at 200-300 degrees C [Sasaki et al., 0057].
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (i.e. heat treating the pixel defining layer ), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (the heat treatment would form an oxide in the metal thin film layer).
Regarding claim 15, Sasaki et al. disclose the first metal of the preliminary reflective layer includes aluminum [0039].
Regarding claim 16, Sasaki et al. disclose the second metal of the metal thin film includes titanium [0040].
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki et al. (US 2012/0205701) in view of Inoue et al. (US 2010/0053759) Chen et al. (US 2016/0190222) and Cho et al. (US 2006/0060865) as applied to claim 13 above and further in view of Ludwig et al. (US 2017/0066168).
Sasaki et al. Inoue et al. Chen et al. and Cho et al. disclose the invention supra. Sasaki et al. disclose the (preliminary) reflective layer is aluminum. (MPEP 2131 “[t]he elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990)”).
Sasaki et al. Inoue et al. Chen et al. and Cho et al. fail to disclose the reflective layer has a thickness of about 500 A to about 5000 A.
Ludwig et al. disclose a reflective aluminum layer with a thickness of 500 nm (or 5000 angstroms) [0047].
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (i.e. forming an 500nm aluminum layer) and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (the aluminum layer would be 500 nm).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki et al. (US 2012/0205701) in view of Inoue et al. (US 2010/0053759) Chen et al. (US 2016/0190222) and Cho et al. (US 2006/0060865) as applied to claim 13 above and further in view of An (US 2003/0057462).
Sasaki et al. Inoue et al. Chen et al. and Cho et al. disclose the invention supra. Sasaki et al. disclose barrier layer is titanium oxide.
Sasaki et al. Inoue et al. Chen et al. and Cho et al. fail to disclose the barrier layer has a thickness of about 5 angstroms to about 100 angstroms.
An disclose a barrier layer of titanium oxide has a thickness of 100 angstroms [0022].
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (i.e. forming an 100 angstrom titanium oxide layer) and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (the titanium oxide would be a barrier layer).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY K SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-1884. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10am-6pm.
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, Marlon Fletcher can be reached at 571-272-2063. 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.
/BRADLEY SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817