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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment dated 12/29/2025, in which claims 8-9, 13-18 were withdrawn, has been entered.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) to foreign application JP2020-195714 filed on 11/26/2020. The foreign application is not in English. The certified copy of the foreign priority application JP2020-195714 has been received.
Filing Dates for the Claims — All Claims Not Entitled to Priority Date
To be entitled to the filing date of the foreign priority application JP2020-195714 that is not in English, an English translation of the non-English language foreign application JP2020-195714 and a statement that the translation is accurate in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55 is required to perfect the claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The foreign application must adequately support the claimed subject matter, meaning satisfy the written description and enablement requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a). See MPEP §§ 215 and 216. 37 C.F.R. 1.55(g)(3)(ii)-(iii). To demonstrate compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(a), applicant should point to support for their claimed subject matter in their translations.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of species 1a, species 1d directs to Fig. 3, 5 and 20 in the reply filed on 12/29/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “at least the species could be commonly examined without undue burden, as at least some of the species share common technical features that could be concurrently examined”. This is not found persuasive because Applicant has not provided any evidence that there is no examination burden. A mere broad allegation that species could be commonly examined without undue burden and/or could be concurrently examined does not comply with the requirement of 37 CFR 1.111. Thus, Applicant’s traverse is incomplete and the required provisional election (see MPEP § 818.01(b)) becomes an election without traverse if accompanied by an incomplete traversal of the requirement for restriction.
Besides, the restriction/election requirement clearly states that there is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species because at least the following reason(s) apply:
• the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
• the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; and/or
• the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
• non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101, pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, and/or 35 U.S.C. 112(a) are relevant to one species or grouping of patentably indistinct species that are not relevant to the other species or grouping(s) of patentably indistinct species.
• prior art applied to one species or grouping of patentably indistinct species that cannot be applied to the other species or grouping(s) of patentably indistinct species.
Overall, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 5 is 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.
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 recites the limitation “a substrate constituent” while claim 3 on which claim 5 depends also recites “a substrate constituent”. It is unclear if “a substrate constituent” recited in claim 5 is same or different from “a substrate constituent” recited in claim 3. If they are different, then which substrate constituent is “a substrate constituent” recited in claim 5 and which substrate constituent is “a substrate constituent” recited in claim 3.
For the purpose of this Action, the above limitation “a substrate constituent” of claim 5 will be interpreted and examined as --the substrate constituent--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 6, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US Pub. 2019098590).
Regarding claim 1, Kim et al. discloses in Fig. 1, Fig. 8, Fig. 17, paragraph [0080]-[0083] a display apparatus comprising display elements formed on a substrate [110a, TFTA and 118] and arrayed in a two-dimensional matrix, the display elements each having a light emitting unit [OLED] formed by stacking a lower electrode [121], an organic layer [122], and an upper electrode [123], wherein
the lower electrode [121] and the organic layer [122] are provided for each light emitting unit,
the substrate [110a, TFTA and 118] includes a groove [HM] formed in a part of the substrate [110a, TFTA and 118] positioned between adjacent light emitting units [OLED], the groove [HM] having a bottom surface and both side surfaces forming a gentle inclination angle with respect to the bottom surface, and
a protective film [127] is formed in common on entire surface including an upper surface of the light emitting unit [OLED] and an upper surface of the groove [HM] of the substrate [110a, TFTA and 118].
PNG
media_image1.png
474
778
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 2 and 6, the limitation “wherein the groove of the substrate is formed by an etching method” and “wherein the groove of the substrate is formed by a dry etching method” direct to product-by-process claims. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Furthermore, "[b]ecause validity is determined based on the requirements of patentability, a patent is invalid if a product made by the process recited in a product-by-process claim is anticipated by or obvious from prior art products, even if those prior art products are made by different processes." Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd., 580 F.3d 1340, 1370 n 14, 92 USPQ2d 1289, 1312, n 14 (Fed. Cir. 2009). (MPEP 2113).
Regarding claim 19, Kim et al. discloses in Fig. 1, Fig. 4A, Fig. 8, Fig. 17, paragraph [0003], [0007], [0080]-[0083] an electronic device comprising a display apparatus,
the display apparatus including display elements formed on a substrate [110a, TFTA and 118] and arrayed in a two-dimensional matrix, the display elements each having a light emitting unit [OLED] formed by stacking a lower electrode [121], an organic layer [122], and an upper electrode [123], wherein
the lower electrode [121] and the organic layer [122] are provided for each light emitting unit,
the substrate [110a, TFTA and 118] includes a groove [HM] formed in a part of the substrate [110a, TFTA and 118] positioned between adjacent light emitting units [OLED], the groove [HM] having a bottom surface and both side surfaces forming a gentle inclination angle with respect to the bottom surface, and
a protective film [127] is formed in common on entire surface including an upper surface of the light emitting unit [OLED] and an upper surface of the groove [HM] of the substrate [110a, TFTA and 118].
PNG
media_image1.png
474
778
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 1-2, 6-7, 10, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chuang (US Pub. 20020105265) in view of Kim et al. (US Pub. 20190198590)
Regarding claim 1, Chuang discloses in Fig. 4B a display apparatus comprising display elements formed on a substrate [31], the display elements each having a light emitting unit formed by stacking a lower electrode [32], an organic layer [33], and an upper electrode [34] [paragraph [0034]-[0035]], wherein
the lower electrode [32] and the organic layer [33] are provided for each light emitting unit,
the substrate [31] includes a groove [35] formed in a part of the substrate [31] positioned between adjacent light emitting units,
a protective film [36] is formed in common on entire surface including an upper surface of the light emitting unit and an upper surface of the groove [35] of the substrate [31].
Chuang fails to disclose
the display elements arrayed in a two-dimensional matrix;
the groove having a bottom surface and both side surfaces forming a gentle inclination angle with respect to the bottom surface.
Kim et al. discloses in Fig. 1, Fig. 4A, Fig. 8, Fig. 17, paragraph [0003], [0007], [0080]-[0083]
the display elements arrayed in a two-dimensional matrix;
the groove [HM] having a bottom surface and both side surfaces forming a gentle inclination angle with respect to the bottom surface.
PNG
media_image1.png
474
778
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Kim et al. into the method of Chuang to include the display elements arrayed in a two-dimensional matrix; the groove having a bottom surface and both side surfaces forming a gentle inclination angle with respect to the bottom surface. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Chuang in the above manner for the purpose of providing known arrangement of display elements in a display device; providing suitable alternative shape of the groove to form reverse-tapered protrusions [paragraph [0080] of Kim et al.].
Regarding claims 2 and 6, the limitation “wherein the groove of the substrate is formed by an etching method” and “wherein the groove of the substrate is formed by a dry etching method” direct to product-by-process claims. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Furthermore, "[b]ecause validity is determined based on the requirements of patentability, a patent is invalid if a product made by the process recited in a product-by-process claim is anticipated by or obvious from prior art products, even if those prior art products are made by different processes." Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd., 580 F.3d 1340, 1370 n 14, 92 USPQ2d 1289, 1312, n 14 (Fed. Cir. 2009). (MPEP 2113).
Regarding claim 7, Chuang discloses in Fig. 4A-4B wherein the lower electrode [32] is formed such that an outer edge is not exposed to a side wall surface of the organic layer [33].
Regarding claim 10, Chuang discloses in Fig. 4B wherein the upper electrode [34] is provided for each light emitting unit.
Regarding claim 19, Chuang discloses in Fig. 4B an electronic device comprising a display apparatus,
the display apparatus including display elements formed on a substrate [31], the display elements each having a light emitting unit formed by stacking a lower electrode [32], an organic layer [33], and an upper electrode [34] [paragraph [0034]-[0035]], wherein
the lower electrode [32] and the organic layer [33] are provided for each light emitting unit,
the substrate [31] includes a groove [35] formed in a part of the substrate [31] positioned between adjacent light emitting units,
a protective film [36] is formed in common on entire surface including an upper surface of the light emitting unit and an upper surface of the groove [35] of the substrate [31].
Chuang fails to disclose
the display elements arrayed in a two-dimensional matrix;
the groove having a bottom surface and both side surfaces forming a gentle inclination angle with respect to the bottom surface.
Kim et al. discloses in Fig. 1, Fig. 4A, Fig. 8, Fig. 17, paragraph [0003], [0007], [0080]-[0083]
the display elements arrayed in a two-dimensional matrix;
the groove [HM] having a bottom surface and both side surfaces forming a gentle inclination angle with respect to the bottom surface.
PNG
media_image1.png
474
778
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Kim et al. into the method of Chuang to include the display elements arrayed in a two-dimensional matrix; the groove having a bottom surface and both side surfaces forming a gentle inclination angle with respect to the bottom surface. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Chuang in the above manner for the purpose of providing known arrangement of display elements in a display device; providing suitable alternative shape of the groove to form reverse-tapered protrusions [paragraph [0080] of Kim et al.].
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 10, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamane et al. (US Pub. 20140034994) in view of Kim et al. (US Pub. 20190198590)
Regarding claim 1, Yamane et al. discloses in Fig. 1A, Fig. 3, Fig. 4A a display apparatus comprising display elements formed on a substrate [110] and arrayed in a two-dimensional matrix, the display elements each having a light emitting unit formed by stacking a lower electrode [21], an organic layer [22], and an upper electrode [23] [paragraphs [0040]-[0041], paragraphs [0079]-[0080]], wherein
the lower electrode [21] and the organic layer [22] are provided for each light emitting unit,
the substrate [110] includes a groove [114] formed in a part of the substrate [110] positioned between adjacent light emitting units [paragraph [0046]],
a protective film [130] is formed in common on entire surface including an upper surface of the light emitting unit and an upper surface of the groove [114] of the substrate [110][paragraph [0047]].
Yamane et al. fails to disclose
the groove having a bottom surface and both side surfaces forming a gentle inclination angle with respect to the bottom surface.
Kim et al. discloses in Fig. 1, Fig. 4A, Fig. 8, Fig. 17, paragraph [0003], [0007], [0080]-[0083]
the groove [HM] having a bottom surface and both side surfaces forming a gentle inclination angle with respect to the bottom surface.
PNG
media_image1.png
474
778
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Kim et al. into the method of Yamane et al. to include the groove having a bottom surface and both side surfaces forming a gentle inclination angle with respect to the bottom surface. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Yamane et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable alternative shape of the groove and form reverse-tapered protrusions [paragraph [0080] of Kim et al.].
Regarding claims 2 and 6, the limitation “wherein the groove of the substrate is formed by an etching method” and “wherein the groove of the substrate is formed by a dry etching method” direct to product-by-process claims. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Furthermore, "[b]ecause validity is determined based on the requirements of patentability, a patent is invalid if a product made by the process recited in a product-by-process claim is anticipated by or obvious from prior art products, even if those prior art products are made by different processes." Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd., 580 F.3d 1340, 1370 n 14, 92 USPQ2d 1289, 1312, n 14 (Fed. Cir. 2009). (MPEP 2113).
Regarding claims 3 and 5, Yamane et al. discloses in Fig. 1, Fig. 4A, paragraph [0040]-[0041],
wherein a side wall surface of the organic layer [22] is covered with a deposited film [24] containing a substrate constituent [material of gas barrier 12 of the substrate 10] as a component [“the gas barrier layer 12 is made of a material having gas barrier properties such as silicon nitride”, “The sealing layer 24 is made of a material having gas barrier properties such as silicon nitride”];
wherein the deposited film [24] contains the substrate constituent composed of a silicon compound [silicon nitride] as a component [“the gas barrier layer 12 is made of a material having gas barrier properties such as silicon nitride”, “The sealing layer 24 is made of a material having gas barrier properties such as silicon nitride”].
Regarding claim 10, Yamane et al. discloses in Fig. 1, Fig. 4A wherein the upper electrode [23] is provided for each light emitting unit.
Regarding claim 19, Yamane et al. discloses in Fig. 1A, Fig. 3, Fig. 4A, an electronic device comprising a display apparatus,
the display apparatus including display elements formed on a substrate [110] and arrayed in a two-dimensional matrix, the display elements each having a light emitting unit formed by stacking a lower electrode [21], an organic layer [22], and an upper electrode [23] [paragraph [0040]-[0041], paragraphs [0079]-[0080]], wherein
the lower electrode [21] and the organic layer [22] are provided for each light emitting unit,
the substrate [110] includes a groove [114] formed in a part of the substrate [110] positioned between adjacent light emitting units [paragraph [0046]],
a protective film [130] is formed in common on entire surface including an upper surface of the light emitting unit and an upper surface of the groove [114] of the substrate [110][paragraph [0047]].
Yamane et al. fails to disclose
the groove having a bottom surface and both side surfaces forming a gentle inclination angle with respect to the bottom surface.
Kim et al. discloses in Fig. 1, Fig. 4A, Fig. 8, Fig. 17, paragraph [0003], [0007], [0080]-[0083]
the groove [HM] having a bottom surface and both side surfaces forming a gentle inclination angle with respect to the bottom surface.
PNG
media_image1.png
474
778
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Kim et al. into the method of Yamane et al. to include the groove having a bottom surface and both side surfaces forming a gentle inclination angle with respect to the bottom surface. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Yamane et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable alternative shape of the groove and form reverse-tapered protrusions [paragraph [0080] of Kim et al.].
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chuang (US Pub. 20020105265) in view of Kim et al. (US Pub. 20190198590) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Seo et al. (US Pub. 20110140164).
Regarding claims 3-5, Chuang discloses in Fig. 4B
wherein a side wall surface of the organic layer [33] is covered with a deposited film [innermost portion of 36];
wherein the deposited film [innermost portion of 36] is formed on the both side surfaces of the groove [35] of the substrate [38].
Chuang fails to disclose
the deposited film containing a substrate constituent as a component;
wherein the deposited film contains the substrate constituent composed of a silicon compound as a component.
Seo et al. discloses in Fig. 3, paragraph [0026]-[0029], [0045]-[0046]
the deposited film [41] containing a substrate constituent [material of 21 of substrate 10 and 20] as a component;
wherein the deposited film [41] contains the substrate constituent [material of 21] composed of a silicon compound [silicon oxide, silicon oxynitride (SiON)] as a component.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Seo et al. into the method of Chuang to include the deposited film containing a substrate constituent as a component; wherein the deposited film contains the substrate constituent composed of a silicon compound as a component. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Chuang in the above manner for the purpose of forming a barrier layer to prevent external moisture and air from penetrating into the organic light emitting apparatus [paragraph [0046] of Seo et al.].
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chuang (US Pub. 20020105265) in view of Kim et al. (US Pub. 20190198590) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Kasahara (WO2019026511A1), hereafter (US Pub. 20210091158) is used as English translation.
Regarding claims 11-12, Chuang discloses in Fig. 4B paragraph [0036] wherein the protective film [36] is constituted by an insulator.
Chuang fails to disclose
wherein the protective film is constituted by an inorganic insulator;
wherein the protective film is made of any of silicon oxide, silicon nitride, and silicon oxynitride.
Kasahara discloses in Fig. 5, paragraph [0104]
wherein the protective film [76] is constituted by an inorganic insulator;
wherein the protective film [76] is made of any of silicon oxide, silicon nitride, and silicon oxynitride.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Kasahara into the method of Chuang to include wherein the protective film is constituted by an inorganic insulator; wherein the protective film is made of any of silicon oxide, silicon nitride, and silicon oxynitride. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Chuang in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable material of the protective film.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited art discloses similar materials, devices and methods.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOPHIA T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1686. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am -5:00 pm, Monday-Friday.
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, BRITT D HANLEY can be reached at (571)270-3042. 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.
/SOPHIA T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893