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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/4/26 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11, 17-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 5/30/25.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sirringhaus (US 2003/0059984) in view of Kim (US 7794799).
Claims 1, 4-5:
Sirringhaus teaches a method for processing a substrate to have hydrophobic areas and hydrophilic areas (abstract). In one embodiment, the hydrophilic substrate is coated with hydrophobic polyimide and patterned by photolithography (i.e., coating the top surface with a resist, exposing portions of the resist, and removing portions of the resist) [0104] thereby forming a plurality of chemical stoppers on the substrate that comprise an opening exposing the top surface of the substrate (Fig. 7b). In another embodiment, the hydrophobic material is a SAM [0118]. Then, a plurality of liquid ink drops are deposited within the chemical stoppers (Fig. 7b) and dried to form a layer (Fig. 7c) (drying time [0111]). The purpose of the hydrophobic chemical stoppers is to repel the deposited ink and prevent the ink from flowing out of the designated area (indicating the surface tension of the chemical stoppers is less than the surface tension of the ink) [0104]. The purpose of this patterning is to form the source and drain electrodes of a TFT (Id.) illustrated as 2,3 in Fig. 6. In order to form these structures without the ink leaking out, the barrier that defines these structures must circumscribe the corresponding area and be spaced apart in the manner illustrated in Fig. 6.
Sirringhaus does not explicitly teach a first thermal treatment applied to the chemical stoppers or a second thermal treatment applied to the liquid ink drops.
With respect to the second thermal treatment applied to the liquid ink drops, Sirringhaus does teach drying the liquid ink drops. Applying a thermal treatment to facilitate this, at a particular elevated temperature, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with higher temperatures leading to faster dry time for example.
With respect to the first thermal treatment applied to the chemical stoppers, Kim teaches a method for manufacturing an array plate of hydrophilic and hydrophobic regions (7:10-11). After the polymer/SAM hydrophobic layer is coated, it is then baked at a temperature between 100-200°C (3:24-35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to practice the method of Sirringhaus and apply thermal treatments to both the chemical stoppers and the liquid ink drops to facilitate baking/drying.
Claim 2:
Sirringhaus teaches chemical stopper thickness of 500 Ang (50 nm) [0118].
Claim 3:
The generally accepted range of hydrophobic surface tension is 35 mN/m or less. Sirringhaus further teaches the degree of hydrophobicity can be adjusted [0107], the selection of which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 8-9:
Sirringhaus teaches the liquid ink drops contain solvent can be water [0074]. The resulting surface tension of this liquid will be around 72 mN/m (the surface tension of water). Sirringhaus also teaches that this value is adjustable by addition of other solvents [0074].
Claim(s) 6-7, 10, 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sirringhaus (US 2003/0059984) in view of Kim (US 7794799) in view of Nishida (US 2009/0114888).
Claims 6-7, 10, 12-16:
Previously cited prior art is discussed above but does not teach refractive index or larger solid ink drops thickness.
However, Nishida teaches an implementation of the hydrophobic/hydrophilic substrate processing used to form a color filter [0294]. The black matrix is the hydrophobic chemical stopper and is filled with inkjet ink of RGB pigments [0296]. Nishida does not explicitly state the refractive index of the resulting color pixel, but this value would have been an obvious selection to one of ordinary skill in the art based on the refractive index of the surrounding material. It is noted that the refractive index range currently claimed is essentially the entire useful range of refractive index and is not assigned any criticality for that reason.
Nishida teaches the dried film thickness of the pixel material is between 1-3 µm [0304].
The combination of Sirringhaus and Nishida teaches a process that uses relatively thin hydrophobic walls around 50 nm to confine liquid droplets of several µm in size (Sirringhaus [0118]) and a dried droplet thickness between 1-3 µm (Nishida [0304]). The result is wall having a thickness much less than 50% of the dried droplet thickness.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention apply the method of processing a substrate of Sirringhaus/Kim/Mori to form a color filter. Nishida teaches that the formation of color filters relies on this type of substrate processing to confine and separate the different subpixel colors.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/4/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As noted above, Sirringhaus is found to teach the amended claim language at [0104]. The Mori reference has been removed as unnecessary because Sirringhaus is found to teach circumscribing an area in a spaced apart manner as illustrated in Fig. 6. The Nishida is considered analogous because it pertains to hydrophobic/hydrophilic substrate processing, which is the same field as the other references and the instant claims as written.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX A ROLLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5355. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6:30.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 5712721234. 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.
/ALEX A ROLLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights