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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “wherein an area of an orthographic projection of an entire layer of the photoresist layer in a region of the opening on the substrate is less than an area of an orthographic projection of an entire layer of the sacrificial layer in the region of the opening on the substrate” of claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Currently Applicant’s Fig. 3 shows, at best, the orthographic projection of the photoresist layer being equal, to the orthographic projection of the sacrificial layer in a region of the opening on the substrate such that it is not less than. Any portion of the sacrificial layer that extends beyond the borders of the photoresist are outside of a region of the opening. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The Examiner acknowledges that the amendment to claim 1 resolves the previous rejections of claims 1 and 4-8 under 35 USC 112(b). Therefore, the previous rejections of claims 1 and 4-8 under 35 USC 112(b) have been withdrawn.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites “wherein an area of an orthographic projection of an entire layer of the photoresist layer in a region of the opening on the substrate is less than an area of an orthographic projection of an entire layer of the sacrificial layer in the region of the opening on the substrate”. However neither the Applicant’s written specification nor the Applicant drawings show where an area of an orthographic projection of an entire layer of the photoresist layer in a region of the opening on the substrate is less than an area of an orthographic projection of an entire layer of the sacrificial layer in the region of the opening on the substrate. Instead the Applicant’s Fig. 3 shows where the orthographic projection of the photoresist layer (Item 500) in a region of the opening is equal to an orthographic projection of the sacrificial layer (Item 400) and Fig. 5D shows where the orthographic projection of the photoresist layer (Item 500) in a region of the opening exceeds the metes and bounds of the orthographic projection of the sacrificial layer (Item 400) in a region of the opening and thus is not located within. Further, Paragraph 0058 of the Applicant’s written specification states that “the orthographic projection of the photoresist layer 500 on the substrate 100 may also be located in the orthographic projection of the sacrificial layer 400 on the substrate 100 (with reference to Fig. 3 for a schematic” but does not discuss the orthographic projection of the photoresist and the orthographic projection of the sacrificial layer with respect to a region of the opening. As stated above, the Applicant’s drawings also do not support the orthographic projections of the respective structures with respect to a region of the opening. Instead, Fig. 3 shows where an orthographic projection of the entire layer of the photoresist on the substrate is within an orthographic projection of the entire layer of the sacrificial layer on the substrate.
Claims 4-8 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(a) as they depend from and include all of the limitations of rejected claim 1.
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 and 4-8 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.
Further regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites “wherein an area of an orthographic projection of an entire layer of the photoresist layer in a region of the opening on the substrate is less than an area of an orthographic projection of an entire layer of the sacrificial layer in the region of the opening on the substrate”. However it is unclear how the orthographic projection of the photoresist layer in a region of the opening is located in an orthographic projection of the sacrificial layer in a region of the opening when Applicant’s Fig. 3 shows that the orthographic projection of the photoresist layer (Item 500) in a region of the opening is equal to an orthographic projection of the sacrificial layer (Item 400) and Fig. 5D shows that the orthographic projection of the photoresist layer (Item 500) in a region of the opening exceeds the metes and bounds of the orthographic projection of the sacrificial layer (Item 400) in a region of the opening and thus is not located within. Appropriate correction should be made to clarify the language. For purposes of compact prosecution, and with consistency with the Applicant specification and drawings the Examiner interprets “wherein an area of an orthographic projection of an entire layer of the photoresist layer in a region of the opening on the substrate is less than an area of an orthographic projection of an entire layer of the sacrificial layer in the region of the opening on the substrate” to be “wherein an area of an orthographic projection of an entire layer of the photoresist layer in a region of the opening on the substrate is equal to an area of an orthographic projection of an entire layer of the sacrificial layer in the region of the opening on the substrate”.
Claims 4-8 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) as they depend from and include all of the limitations of rejected claim 1.
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.
Claims 1, 4-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xin et al. (US 2021/0135149) hereinafter “Xin” in view of Choe (US 2017/0194396) hereinafter “Choe”.
Regarding claim 1, Fig. 1 of Xin teaches a method for fabricating a display substrate (Paragraph 0002), comprising: forming a pixel defining layer (Item 103) on a surface of one side of a substrate (Item 101), wherein the pixel defining layer (Item 103) defines an opening; forming a light-emitting layer (Item 105) on one side of the pixel defining layer (Item 103) away from the substrate (Item 101); forming a first metal layer (Item 104) on surfaces of the pixel defining layer (Item 103); and forming a second metal layer (Item 106) in the opening and on a surface of the first metal layer (Item 104) away from the substrate (Item 101), wherein the first metal layer (Item 104) and the second metal layer (Item 106) jointly constitute a cathode of the display substrate.
Xin does not teach the forming of the first metal layer comprises: forming a sacrificial layer and a photoresist layer on a surface of the light-emitting layer away from the substrate, wherein an orthographic projection of the sacrificial layer on the substrate at least partially overlaps an orthographic projection of the opening on the substrate, and the photoresist layer is located on a surface of the sacrificial layer away from the substrate; wherein an area of an orthographic projection of an entire layer of the photoresist layer in a region of the opening on the substrate is equal to an area of an orthographic projection of an entire layer of the sacrificial layer in the region of the opening on the substrate; forming the first metal layer on the surface of the photoresist layer; removing the sacrificial layer, the photoresist layer, and the first metal layer located on the surface of the photoresist layer away from the substrate, and exposing the opening.
Figs. 1-7 of Choe teach a method of forming a first metal layer (Item 261) of a cathode on a pixel defining layer (Item 180) comprising forming a sacrificial layer (Item 240) and a photoresist layer (Item 250) on a surface of a light-emitting layer (Item 221) away from a substrate (Item 100), wherein an orthographic projection of the sacrificial layer (Item 240) on the substrate at least partially overlaps an orthographic projection of an opening on the substrate (Item 100), and the photoresist layer (Item 250) is located on a surface of the sacrificial layer (Item 240) away from the substrate (Item 100); wherein an area of an orthographic projection of an entire layer of the photoresist layer (Item 250) in a region of the opening on the substrate is equal to an area (See Picture 1 below) of an orthographic projection of an entire layer of the sacrificial layer (Item 240) in the region of the opening on the substrate; forming the first metal layer (Item 260) on the surface of the photoresist layer (Item 250); removing the sacrificial layer (Item 240), the photoresist layer (Item 250), and the first metal layer (Item 260) located on the surface of the photoresist layer (Item 250) away from the substrate (Item 100); and exposing the opening.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the first metal layer of Xin in the manner taught by Cho such that the method includes forming a sacrificial layer and a photoresist layer on a surface of the light-emitting layer away from the substrate, wherein an orthographic projection of the sacrificial layer on the substrate at least partially overlaps an orthographic projection of the opening on the substrate, and the photoresist layer is located on a surface of the sacrificial layer away from the substrate; forming the first metal layer on the surface of the photoresist layer; removing the sacrificial layer, the photoresist layer, and the first metal layer located on the surface of the photoresist layer away from the substrate, and exposing the opening; because this method is known to produce a metal layer on a desired top surface of a pixel definition layer between subpixels without damaging organic light emitting layers or at least minimize the damage to the organic light emitting layers (Choe Paragraph 0038) and “(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or (D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results supports a prima facie case of obviousness” (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007); MPEP 2143).
PNG
media_image1.png
293
391
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Picture 1 (Labeled version of a portion of Choe Fig. 6)
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Xin and Choe teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Xin does not teach where a distance between a surface of the photoresist layer close to the substrate and a surface of the pixel defining layer away from the substrate is greater than a thickness of the first metal layer.
Fig. 6 of Choe further teaches where a distance between a surface of the photoresist layer (Item 250) close to the substrate (Item 100) and a surface of the pixel defining layer (Item 180) away from the substrate (Item 100) is greater than a thickness of the first metal layer (Item 260).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a distance between a surface of the photoresist layer close to the substrate and a surface of the pixel defining layer away from the substrate is greater than a thickness of the first metal layer because this allows for the first metal layer to be deposited on a desired top surface of a pixel definition layer between subpixels (Choe Paragraph 0044).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Xin and Choe teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Xin does not teach where the orthographic projection of the sacrificial layer on the substrate covers the orthographic projection of the opening on the substrate.
Fig. 6 of Choe further teaches where the orthographic projection of the sacrificial layer (Item 240) on the substrate (Item 100) covers the orthographic projection of the opening on the substrate (Item 100).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have where the orthographic projection of the sacrificial layer on the substrate covers the orthographic projection of the opening on the substrate because this allows for the first metal layer to be deposited on a desired top surface of a pixel definition layer between subpixels (Choe Paragraph 0044).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Xin and Choe teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Xin does not teach where the sacrificial layer satisfies the condition that a material comprises a fluorine-containing high-polymer material.
Choe further teaches where the sacrificial layer (Item 240) satisfies the condition that a material comprises a fluorine-containing high-polymer material (Paragraph 0037).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the sacrificial layer satisfies the condition that a material comprises a fluorine-containing high-polymer material because this allows for the first metal layer to be deposited on a desired top surface of a pixel definition layer between subpixels (Choe Paragraph 0044) without damaging organic light emitting layers or at least minimize the damage to the organic light emitting layers (Choe Paragraph 0038).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Xin and Choe teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Xin does not teach where the forming the sacrificial layer and the photoresist layer on the surface of the light-emitting layer away from the substrate further comprises: forming a first prefabricated film layer on the surfaces of the pixel defining layer and the light-emitting layer away from the substrate; forming an entire layer of second prefabricated film layer on a surface of the first prefabricated film layer away from the substrate; patterning the second prefabricated film layer through a composition process, to obtain the photoresist layer; and removing the first prefabricated film layer not covered with the photoresist layer, to obtain the sacrificial layer.
Choe further teaches where the forming the sacrificial layer (Item 240) and the photoresist layer (Item 250) on the surface of the light-emitting layer (Item 221) away from the substrate (Item 100) further comprises: forming a first prefabricated film layer (Item 240) on the surfaces of the pixel defining layer (Item 180) and the light-emitting layer (Item 221) away from the substrate (Item 100); forming an entire layer of second prefabricated film layer (Item 250) on a surface of the first prefabricated film layer (Item 240) away from the substrate (Item 100); patterning the second prefabricated film (Item 250) layer through a composition process (Paragraph 0040), to obtain the photoresist layer (Item 250); and removing the first prefabricated film layer (Item 240) not covered with the photoresist layer (Item 250), to obtain the sacrificial layer (Item 240).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the forming the sacrificial layer and the photoresist layer on the surface of the light-emitting layer away from the substrate further comprises: forming a first prefabricated film layer on the surfaces of the pixel defining layer and the light-emitting layer away from the substrate; forming an entire layer of second prefabricated film layer on a surface of the first prefabricated film layer away from the substrate; patterning the second prefabricated film layer through a composition process, to obtain the photoresist layer; and removing the first prefabricated film layer not covered with the photoresist layer, to obtain the sacrificial layer because this is known to expose a prearranged area a structure on which the first metal layer is to be formed (Choe Paragraph 0040) and “(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or (D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results supports a prima facie case of obviousness” (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007); MPEP 2143).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xin et al. (US 2021/0135149) hereinafter “Xin” in view of Choe (US 2017/0194396) hereinafter “Choe” and in further view of Lu et al. (US 2020/0176722) hereinafter “Lu”.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Xin and Choe teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where a thickness of the photoresist layer is 0.5 µm -2 µm.
However, Lu teaches a method of forming a display where a thickness of a photoresist layer is a result effective variable (Paragraph 0066). In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because "obvious to try" is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding (MPEP 2144.05).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the thickness of the photoresist layer such that the thickness of the photoresist layer is 0.5 µm -2 µm because "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/30/2026 regarding the drawings have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, the Applicant argues that the newly amended in limitation is shown in Fig. 3. However, Fig. 3 does not show “where an area of an orthographic projection of an entire layer of the photoresist layer in a region of the opening on the substrate is less than an area of an orthographic projection of an entire layer of the sacrificial layer in the region of the opening on the substrate”. Currently Applicant’s Fig. 3 shows, at best, the orthographic projection of the photoresist layer being equal to the orthographic projection of the sacrificial layer in a region of the opening on the substrate such that it is not less than. Any portion of the sacrificial layer that extends beyond the borders of the photoresist are outside of a region of the opening, not in a region of the opening. Therefore, the Examiner maintains the drawings objection.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s REMARKS, filed 04/30/2026 with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 103(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, the Applicant’s arguments are based on a limitation which the Examiner has identified above as being new matter and unclear as the limitation is inconsistent with the structures shown in the Applicant’s drawings. As such, the Examiner presented in the 112(b) rejection above an interpretation of the language which is consistent with and supported by the Applicant’s original disclosure. A 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1 is provided above using the Examiner’s best interpretation of the amended in claim language.
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 ERIC K ASHBAHIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5187. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5:30 PM.
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, Matthew Landau can be reached at 571-272-1731. 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.
/ERIC K ASHBAHIAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Prosecution Insights