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 Arguments
Claims 1 and 9-11 stand rejected under Section 102. Claims 1, 7-11, and 16 stand rejected under Section 103. Claims 1, 7-10, and 16 stand rejected under Section 112(a) for lack of enablement. Claims 1, 7-11, and 16 stand rejected under Section 112(b). Claim 7 stands objected to. The drawings and specification stand objected to. Claims 2-6, 12-15, and 17-22 stand withdrawn.
Applicants amended claims 1 and 7-9, canceled claims 2-6 and 11-22, and added claims 23-37. Applicants provided replacement drawings, and provided amendments to the specification and abstract. Applicants argue that the application is in condition for allowance.
Turning first to the abstract: Applicants’ amendments to the claims render moot the objection to the abstract. The objection to the abstract is withdrawn.
Next, the specification: Applicants’ amendments address the previously noted specification objections and are accepted and entered. No new matter has been added. The previously noted specification objections are withdrawn.
Drawings: Applicants’ amendments address most of the previously noted drawing objections and are accepted and entered. No new matter has been added. The previously noted drawing objections that were addressed are withdrawn. The remaining drawing objection is re-stated, below.
Claim objections: Applicants’ amendments address one of the previously noted claim objections, and render moot the other of the previously noted claim objections. No new matter has been added. The previously noted claim objections are withdrawn.
Section 112(b) rejections: Applicants’ amendments address some of the previously noted Section 112(b) rejections and render moot the remainder of the Section 112(b) rejections. No new matter has been added. The previously noted Section 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
Section 112(a) enablement rejections: Applicants state that they have amended the claims to comply the enablement and written description rejections under Section 112(a). As a preliminary note, only Section 112(a) enablement rejections were included in the rejections. No Section 112(a) written description rejections were included. Applicants have not explained how the amendments to the claims overcome the previously noted Section 112(a) enablement rejections. For these reasons, the Section 112(a) enablement rejections are maintained.
Section 102 rejections: Applicants’ arguments are persuasive. The Section 102 rejections are withdrawn.
Section 103 rejections: Applicants’ arguments are persuasive. The Section 102 rejections are withdrawn.
During a review of the claims, the Office identified Section 112(b) rejections, a Section 112(d) rejection, and a claim informality, which are noted below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following:
In Figure 36, make the same change as the change made to Figure 35, that is, change the middle SP-1 and the SP-1 adjacent to SUB-E to SP-2 and SP-3, respectively. See applicants’ specification, page 34, paragraph 165, line 4.
PNG
media_image1.png
354
445
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 Objections
Claim 28 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 28, line 7: Change this line to “smaller than that of the inner ring and larger than that of the outer ring.”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1, 7-10, and 23-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make the invention.
Regarding claim 1: This claim, as amended, is directed to a display device and requires:
a first light emitting layer disposed in the bank hole, the first light emitting layer contacting an upper surface of the portion of the first electrode and extending continuously on sidewalls of the bank hole and along a top edge portion of the bank, wherein an outer edge portion of the first light emitting layer disposed on the top edge portion of the bank extends in a direction toward an adjacent sub-pixel that is adjacent to the at least one sub-pixel, and the outer edge portion of the first light emitting layer includes a plurality of stepped portions, and thicknesses of the plurality of stepped portions decrease in the direction toward the adjacent sub-pixel, and wherein the first light emitting layer terminates in an area between the at least one sub- pixel and the adjacent sub-pixel.
Claim 1 (emphasis added).
Few details are presented as to how to accomplish this specific shape. The disclosure explains that the stepped shape of the stepped portions is a result of the deposition of the sub-pixel pattern when an overhang is present, and the thickness of the layer adjacent the overhang is less than the depth of the overhang. However, the prior art suggests that the deposited light emitting layer will have ends along the top of the bank that gradually decrease in thickness, or—depending on the material and possibly the process—the deposited light emitting layer will comprise sublayers having varying lengths along the top of the bank, resulting in an overall step pattern. Applicants disclosure is directed to the formation of a light emitting layer in one step which results in the plurality of stepped portions that decrease along the top outside edge surface of the bank. Because the details of this process are not disclosed, claim 1 is rejected for lack of enablement.
There are many factors to be considered when determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a determination that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is "undue." These factors include, but are not limited to:
(A) The breadth of the claims;
(B) The nature of the invention;
(C) The state of the prior art;
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill;
(E) The level of predictability in the art;
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor;
(G) The existence of working examples; and
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
(A) The breadth of the claims: The breadth of the claims encompasses a specific shape of an outer edge portion of a first light emitting layer along the top edge portion of the bank, the shape including a plurality of stepped portions, the thicknesses of the plurality of stepped portions decreasing in the direction toward the adjacent sub-pixel.
(B) The nature of the invention: The invention is a semiconductor.
(C) The state of the prior art: The prior art discloses the use of an overhang to deposit the light emitting layer, the overhang resulting in a decreasing thickness of the light emitting layer in a direction toward an adjacent sub-pixel, see Lee, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2020/0152719 (note that the process in Lee ’719 is similar to applicants’ process); Lee, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2019/0280063, and the use of an overhang to deposit a series of patterns that comprise a light emitting layer, the layer comprising a series of sublayers of varying length, which when stacked, result in a plurality of stepped portions, see Kim, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2020/0411614.
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill: One having ordinary skill in the art would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or materials science and 5 years of experience in the semiconductor industry.
(E) The level of predictability in the art: The level of predictability is low because the specific process steps for creating the step-by-step decrease are not disclosed when a similar process in Lee ’719 results in a continuously decreasing thickness along the top outside edge surfaces of the bank.
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor: The inventor provides general direction relating to the relationship between the depth of the overhang and the thickness of the layer that creates the overhang, and explains why this arrangement creates the step-by-step decrease. However, as discussed above, the prior art suggests that the same arrangement results in (a) a continuously decreasing thickness of the light emitting layer in a direction toward an adjacent sub-pixel, or (b) a light emitting layer comprising a series of sublayers of varying length, apparently due to the materials of the sublayer and/or the deposition conditions. The conditions and/or materials that would result in a stepped portion instead of the continuously decreasing thickness of Lee ’719 are not disclosed.
(G) The existence of working examples: The disclosure has no working examples.
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure: Given the information provided by the inventor, the state of the prior art, and the scope of the claims, the quantity of experimentation is undue. For these reasons, claim 1 is rejected for lack of enablement.
Claims 7-10 and 23-29 are rejected for depending from rejected base claim 1.
Regarding claim 30: As with claim 1, claim 30, directed to a display device, requires:
a light emitting layer disposed on the portion of the first electrode exposed by the bank hole and extending onto a top surface of the bank, wherein the light emitting layer includes a central portion located within the bank hole and a peripheral portion located on the top surface of the bank, wherein the peripheral portion continuously surrounds the bank hole in a plan view, wherein the peripheral portion has a multi-tiered upper surface including a plurality of tiers having different heights relative to the top surface of the bank, and wherein heights of the tiers decrease in a direction away from the bank hole.
Claim 30 (emphasis added).
Also as with claim 1, few details are presented as to how to accomplish this specific shape. The disclosure explains that the plurality of tiers is a result of the deposition of the light-emitting layer when an overhang is present, and the thickness of the layer adjacent the overhang is less than the depth of the overhang. However, the prior art suggests that the deposited light emitting layer will have ends along the top of the bank that gradually and continuously decrease in thickness, or—depending on the material and possibly the process—the deposited light emitting layer comprises sublayers having varying lengths along the top of the bank, resulting in an overall step/tier pattern. Applicants disclosure is directed to the formation of a light emitting layer in one step which results in the multi-tiered upper surface decreasing along the top outside edge surface of the bank. Because the details of this process are not disclosed, claim 30 is rejected for lack of enablement.
(A) The breadth of the claims: The breadth of the claims encompasses a specific shape of a peripheral portion of a light emitting layer along the top surface of the bank, the shape including a multi-tiered upper surface including a plurality of tiers having different heights relative to the top surface of the bank, wherein heights of the tiers decrease in a direction away from the bank hole.
(B) The nature of the invention: The invention is a semiconductor.
(C) The state of the prior art: The prior art discloses the use of an overhang to deposit the light-emitting layer, the overhang resulting in a decreasing thickness of the light-emitting layer in a direction toward an adjacent sub-pixel, see Lee, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2020/0152719 (note that the process in Lee ’719 is similar to applicants’ process); Lee, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2019/0280063, and the use of an overhang to deposit a series of patterns that comprise a light-emitting layer, the patterns being of varying length, which when stacked, result in a multi-tiered upper surface including a plurality of tiers having different heights relative to the top surface of the bank, wherein the heights of the tiers decrease in a direction away from the bank hole, see Kim, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2020/0411614.
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill: One having ordinary skill in the art would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or materials science and 5 years of experience in the semiconductor industry.
(E) The level of predictability in the art: The level of predictability is low because the specific process steps for creating the multi-tiered upper surface are not disclosed when a similar process in Lee ’719 results in a continuously decreasing thickness along the top surface of the bank.
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor: The inventor provides general direction relating to the relationship between the depth of the overhang and the thickness of the layer that creates the overhang, and explains why this arrangement creates the step-by-step decrease/multi-tiered upper surface. However, as discussed above, the prior art suggests that the same arrangement results in (a) a decreasing thickness of the light emitting layer in a direction toward an adjacent sub-pixel, or (b) a light emitting layer comprising a series of sublayers of varying length, apparently due to the materials of the sublayer and/or the deposition conditions. The conditions and/or materials that would result in a multi-tiered upper surface including a plurality of tiers having different height relative to the top surface of the bank, wherein the heights of the tiers decrease in a direction away from the bank hole, instead of the continuously decreasing thickness of Lee ’719 are not disclosed.
(G) The existence of working examples: The disclosure has no working examples.
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure: Given the information provided by the inventor, the state of the prior art, and the scope of the claims, the quantity of experimentation is undue. For these reasons, claim 30 is rejected for lack of enablement.
Claims 31-37 are rejected for depending from rejected base claim 30.
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 9, 10 and 36 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.
Regarding claim 9, which depends from claim 1: Claim 1 requires:
wherein an outer edge portion of the first light emitting layer disposed on the top edge portion of the bank extends in a direction toward an adjacent sub-pixel that is adjacent to the at least one sub-pixel, and the outer edge portion of the first light emitting layer includes a plurality of stepped portions, and thicknesses of the plurality of stepped portions decrease in the direction toward the adjacent sub-pixel, and wherein the first light emitting layer terminates in an area between the at least one sub-pixel and the adjacent sub-pixel.
Claim 9 requires “wherein the first light emitting layer includes: an outer pattern portion extending along the top outside edge surfaces of the bank; and an inner trench pattern portion disposed on the first electrode and the sidewalls of the bank hole”. However, claim 9 is unclear as to the relationship between the outer edge portion of the first light emitting layer and the outer pattern of the first light emitting layer: Is the outer pattern part of the outer edge portion or separate from the outer edge portion? Because the relationship is not clear, claim 9 is rejected as indefinite.
Claim 10 is rejected for depending from rejected base claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, which depends from claim 9, which depends from claim 1: Claim 10 requires “in a plan view, the outer pattern portion includes a plurality of annular pattern portions horizontally arranged in a stepped manner such that a thickness of an innermost annular pattern portion is larger than a thickness of an outermost annular pattern portion.” However, claim 10 is unclear as to the relationship between the annular pattern portions and the stepped portions of claim 1: Are the annular pattern portions the same as the stepped portions, or are they annular pattern portions different from the stepped portions? Because the relationship is not clear, claim 10 is rejected as indefinite.
Regarding claim 36, which depends from claim 30: Claim 30 requires:
wherein the peripheral portion continuously surrounds the bank hole in a plan view, wherein the peripheral portion has a multi-tiered upper surface including a plurality of tiers having different heights relative to the top surface of the bank, and wherein heights of the tiers decrease in a direction away from the bank hole.
Claim 36, which requires that “the peripheral portion defines a stepped slope on the top surface of the bank that descends toward an adjacent sub-pixel.” However, claim 30 already defines a multi-tiered upper surface, including a plurality of tiers have different heights relative of the top surface of the bank, wherein the heights of the tiers decrease in a direction away from the bank hole, which corresponds to the peripheral portion defining a stepped slope on the top surface of the bank that descends toward an adjacent sub-pixel of claim 30. Claim 36 is not clear as to the relationship between the stepped slope and the plurality of tiers having different heights relative to the top surface of the bank, wherein the heights of the tiers decrease in a direction away from the bank hole—is the stepped slope different from the slope inherently present from the heights of the tiers that decrease in a direction away from the bank hole, or are they the same? Because claim 36 is unclear on this matter, claim 36 is rejected as indefinite.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 32, which depends from claim 31, which depends from claim 30: Claim 30 requires:
wherein the peripheral portion continuously surrounds the bank hole in a plan view, wherein the peripheral portion has a multi-tiered upper surface including a plurality of tiers having different heights relative to the top surface of the bank, and wherein heights of the tiers decrease in a direction away from the bank hole.
Claim 31 requires that “the plurality of tiers include a first tier, a second tier, and a third tier arranged sequentially in the direction away from the bank hole.” Because, per claim 30, the first tier, second tier, and third tier are arranged sequentially in the direction away from the bank hole, their heights will decrease in a direction away from the bank hole.
Claim 32 requires that “a height of the first tier is greater than a height of the second tier, and the height of the second tier is greater than a height of the third tier.” Because claim 30 defines the height relationship between the tiers, and claim 31 defines first, second, and third tiers as being sequentially arranged in the direction away from the bank hole, the height of the first tier will be greater than the height of the second tier, and the height of the second tier will be greater than a height of the third tier. Therefore, claim 32 does not further narrow the scope of its parent claim, claim 31. For these reasons, claim 32 is rejected under Section 112(d).
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 7-10, and 23-37 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112, and the claim objection, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regard to claim 1: The claim has been found allowable because the prior art of record does not disclose “the outer edge portion of the first light emitting layer includes a plurality of stepped portions, and thicknesses of the plurality of stepped portions decrease in the direction toward the adjacent sub-pixel”, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
With regard to claims 7-10 and 23-29: The claims have been found allowable due to their dependency from claim 1 above.
With regard to claim 30: The claim has been found allowable because the prior art of record does not disclose “wherein the peripheral portion has a multi-tiered upper surface including a plurality of tiers having different heights relative to the top surface of the bank, and wherein heights of the tiers decrease in a direction away from the bank hole”, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
With regard to claims 31-37: The claims have been found allowable due to their dependency from claim 30 above.
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 VICTORIA KATHLEEN HALL whose telephone number is (571)270-7567. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8 a.m.-5 p.m.
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, Fernando Toledo can be reached at 571-272-1867. 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.
/Victoria K. Hall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897