DETAILED ACTION
An amendment, amending claim 8, was entered on 7/8/26.
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 argues that the cited art fails to teach the claimed invention because Mizutani does not teach that the first distance (d1 in the arguments) between a first nozzle and a fourth nozzle of the red nozzle array is the same as the second distance (d2) between a mark 1 and a subsequent deposition mark (i.e. 4, 7, 10, 13, etc.). This is persuasive and a new rejection is presented below in response to this amendment.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites a “shortest distance” multiple times. In some contexts, it is the shortest distance in the first direction and in others it is the shortest distance in the second direction. Based on the totality of the claim language and the arguments presented with this amendment, the “shortest distance” in the first direction is understood to be equal to the “shortest distance” in the second direction. That is to say, the shortest distance translates to a specific length and that length is a consistent length each time it is recited regardless of the direction (e.g., if the distance between pixels in the first direction is 2 µm, the “shortest distance” in each of the first and second direction refers to a length of 2 µm).
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.
Claims 8, 9, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 8,828,763) in light of Lin (US 2002/0121220), Mizutani (US 2005/0005996) and Iketsu et al. (US 2002/0043941).
Claims 8 and 16: Lee teaches a process of forming a display apparatus via inkjet deposition (Abst.) comprising the steps of: moving a printhead in a first direction to supply droplets to pixels (the x direction in Fig. 9); advancing the printhead to the next set of pixels in a first direction and depositing droplets into the next set of pixels (Figs. 7-10); moving the printhead in a second direction (the y direction) wherein the second direction movement corresponds to pixels on the substrate (i.e. claimed wherein a distance is a multiple of a natural number of distance between pixels and claimed moving a distance from one coating region to the next coating region in claim 16); and moving the printhead back in the direction opposite of the first direction to supply droplets to pixels (Fig. 9; 12:3-21).
Lee teaches moving the printhead rather than moving the substrate. Lin teaches a process of inkjet printing and explains that either the printhead or the substrate can be moved relative to the other (¶ 0007). The simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is prima facie obvious. MPEP § 2143. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have moved the substrate relative to the printhead rather than the printhead relative to the substrate in the process of Lee with the predictable expectation of success.
Lee teaches that the printhead comprises a plurality of nozzles where multiple nozzles correspond to each color (7:17-31), but fails to teach selectively operating on some of the nozzles on each pass. Mizutani teaches a process of forming colored pixel regions on an electroluminescent display device (Abst.; ¶¶ 0002, 0004) and explains that the printhead having multiple nozzles corresponding to the various colors (¶ 0070) is operated in a manner so that only some of the nozzles deposit while others are inactive during a pass of the printhead (¶¶ 0123, Fig. 14) so that the process can be more finely controlled (¶ 0102, e.g.). Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is prima facie obvious. MPEP § 2143. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have operated the printhead of Lee in a manner where only certain nozzles corresponding to the desired color(s) were operated while other nozzles are inactive with the predictable expectation of success.
Lee and Mizutani fail to teach that the distance between pixels in the first direction is the same as the distance between pixels in the second direction. Iketsu teaches a process of forming an OLED (Abst.) and explains that the distance between pixels of the same color is the same in both the row and column direction (i.e. claimed first and second direction) in order to improve display quality uniformity (¶ 0040). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected equal first and second shortest distances in the process of modified Lee in order to have improved uniformity.
Claim 9: Lee teaches that pixels of the same color are adjacent to each other in the first direction (i.e. each of 310 is one color, each of 320 is another color, etc.) (Fig. 9; 7:17-31).
Claim 20: Mizutani teaches that particular nozzles can be operated continuously (see, e.g., Fig. 8 where the nozzle is operated continuously for 36 mark positions). Additionally, Mizutani teaches that each nozzle is operated when it is needed to supply a particular color (¶ 0072). Where 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. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have operated a given set of nozzles for a particular color continuously depending on the configuration of the pixels on the substrate with the predictable expectation of success.
Claims 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2018/0164640) in light of Lee, Lin, Mizutani and Iketsu.
Claims 8-12 and 16: Kim teaches a process of forming a display apparatus (Abst.; ¶¶ 0088, 0171-200) comprising the steps of: providing a substrate having an array of pixel wells (Figs. 2-3 and 7, e.g.) and using an inkjet process to deposit phosphors in each of the pixel wells (¶ 0027), wherein the phosphors comprise quantum dots and a titanium dioxide scattering material (¶¶ 0093, 0098, 0112).
Kim fails to teach the claimed movement steps for performing the inkjet deposition. Lee teaches a process of forming a display apparatus via inkjet deposition (Abst.) comprising the steps of: moving a printhead in a first direction to supply droplets to pixels (the x direction in Fig. 9); advancing the printhead to the next set of pixels in a first direction and depositing droplets into the next set of pixels (Figs. 7-10); moving the printhead in a second direction (the y direction) wherein the second direction movement corresponds to pixels on the substrate (i.e. claimed wherein a distance is a multiple of a natural number of distance between pixels and claimed moving a distance from one coating region to the next coating region in claim 16); and moving the printhead back in the direction opposite of the first direction to supply droplets to pixels (Fig. 9; 12:3-21). Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is prima facie obvious. MPEP § 2143. Thus, because Kim does not limit the inkjet process used and because Lee teaches a suitable inkjet process for filling pixels, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have used the process of Lee as the means for inkjet deposition in Kim with the predictable expectation of success.
Lee teaches moving the printhead rather than moving the substrate. Lin teaches a process of inkjet printing and explains that either the printhead or the substrate can be moved relative to the other (¶ 0007). The simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is prima facie obvious. MPEP § 2143. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have moved the substrate relative to the printhead rather than the printhead relative to the substrate in the process of Lee with the predictable expectation of success.
Lee teaches that the printhead comprises a plurality of nozzles where multiple nozzles correspond to each color (7:17-31), but fails to teach selectively operating on some of the nozzles on each pass. Mizutani teaches a process of forming colored pixel regions on an electroluminescent display device (Abst.; ¶¶ 0002, 0004) and explains that the printhead having multiple nozzles corresponding to the various colors (¶ 0070) is operated in a manner so that only some of the nozzles deposit while others are inactive during a pass of the printhead (¶¶ 0123, Fig. 14) so that the process can be more finely controlled (¶ 0102, e.g.). Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is prima facie obvious. MPEP § 2143. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have operated the printhead of Lee in a manner where only certain nozzles corresponding to the desired color(s) were operated while other nozzles are inactive with the predictable expectation of success.
Lee and Mizutani fail to teach that the distance between pixels in the first direction is the same as the distance between pixels in the second direction. Iketsu teaches a process of forming an OLED (Abst.) and explains that the distance between pixels of the same color is the same in both the row and column direction (i.e. claimed first and second direction) in order to improve display quality uniformity (¶ 0040). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected equal first and second shortest distances in the process of modified Lee in order to have improved uniformity.
Claims 13 and 14: Kim teaches that a color filter and a planarization layer (i.e. encapsulation layer) are formed on the pixels (¶¶ 0088; 0193).
Claim 15: Kim teaches arranging the substrate on a light emitting panel (¶ 0195; Fig. 7).
Claims 17 and 18: Kim, as modified by Lee, teaches that moving in the second direction moves the printhead over a second column of pixels in the array (i.e. another coating region in the second direction) and then that the printhead moves back in the first direction in that second column (i.e. claimed plurality of coating regions adjacent to the coating regions in the first direction).
Claim 19: Kim, as modified by Lee, teaches that the discharge part comprises nozzles, as discussed above, but fails to teach that any of the coating regions are a different size. However, Lee explains that the process is suitable for any number of pixels (12:21-34) and one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Kim does not limit the size of the pixel array because different arrays are needed for different display devices. Where 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. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have performed this process on any pixel array, including one where the last printing region contained fewer pixels than the previous regions with the predictable expectation of success depending on the size of the pixel array.
Claim 20: Mizutani teaches that particular nozzles can be operated continuously (see, e.g., Fig. 8 where the nozzle is operated continuously for 36 mark positions). Additionally, Mizutani teaches that each nozzle is operated when it is needed to supply a particular color (¶ 0072). Where 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. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have operated a given set of nozzles for a particular color continuously depending on the configuration of the pixels on the substrate with the predictable expectation of success.
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 Robert A Vetere whose telephone number is (571)270-1864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 EST.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at (571) 270-1034. 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.
/ROBERT A VETERE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights