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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 13, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Claims 1 and 3-8 stand rejected under Section 102 or in the alternative under Section 103 in view of Yamagata. Claim 2 stands rejected under Section 103 in view of Yamagata and Jia. Claims 9-20 stand withdrawn as being directed to an unelected invention.
Applicants amended claims 1, 5, 7 and withdrawn claim 9, canceled claims 4 and 8, and added new claims 21 and 22. Applicants argue that the application is in condition for allowance. Claim 1 has been amended to require “wherein the cured layer and the pixel-defining layer are formed from a common monomer, the cured layer having a higher frequency of carbon-carbon bonds between the common monomer within the cured layer than the pixel-defining layer.”
In Yamagata, the cured layer and the pixel-defining layer are formed from a common monomer, among which is polyimide. Yamagata specification ¶ 92. When the polyimide is plasma treated, carbon-carbon bonds will be formed as a part of the hardening process when free radicals are formed after the carbon-nitrogen bond are broken during plasma treatment. Thus, the cured layer will have a higher amount of carbon-carbon bonds. For these reasons, the rejection is maintained.
As for the newly added claims, claim 21 would be rejected based on the same reasoning as claim 1. For claim 22, claim would be rejected based on the fact that Yamagata cites noble gases as gases that can be used in the plasma. Id. ¶ 132. The claimed conditions could be found through routine optimization. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). See Moghadam, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2003/0232495, ¶ 132 (use of helium plasma to harden organo-silicon-base films); Cho, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0376023 ¶ 98 (process pressure conditions during test, including a process pressure condition of 10 mT); Fujiwara, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2010/0181654, Table 1 (various conditions for curing organic layers, including a wavelength at 380 nm).
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.
Claims 1-7, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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 1: Claim 1 has been amended to require that the cured layer and the pixel-defining layer be formed from a common monomer, with the cured layer having a higher “frequency” of carbon-carbon bonds between the common monomer within the cured layer than the pixel-defining layer. The use of the term “frequency” in this context is vague because the term is associated with wave-like behavior, not concentration differences in material layers. Because the term is vague, claim 1 is rejected as indefinite.
Claims 2-7, 21, and 22 are rejected for depending from rejected base claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 3, 5-7, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yamagata, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2003/0201443, Figures 3A-7.
PNG
media_image1.png
758
603
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
842
631
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
208
641
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1: Yamagata Figures 3A-7 disclose a display apparatus comprising: a pixel electrode (943) on a substrate (900); a pixel-defining layer (946) on the pixel electrode (943) and defining an opening, the opening exposing at least a portion of the pixel electrode (943); a cured layer (unnumbered hatched layer in Yamagata Figure 7) on the pixel-defining layer (946); and an opposite electrode (949) on the cured layer, wherein the cured layer includes a material forming a crosslinked structure through carbon-carbon bonds. Yamagata specification ¶¶ 60-106, 130-134. Pixel-defining layer (946) can be a polyimide, and Yamagata indicates that the pixel-defining layer is a photosensitive material (resist) in one embodiment and refers to another organic material used for the pixel-defining layer as being photosensitive. Id. ¶¶ 91-92. Furthermore, polyimide is described in a later deposition as being spin coated on the substrate, id. ¶ 94, which indicates that polyimide is in a liquid form, which would require curing to solidify. Yamagata describes the use of various gases in plasma, including noble gases, id. ¶ 132, and one having ordinary skill in the art would know that helium is a noble gas. The result of the plasma treatment is a hardening of the pixel-defining layer (946) where the plasma contacts the pixel-defining layer (946). Id. ¶¶ 130-134. Given the similar materials and plasma gas and the resulting hardening of the cured layer, the cured layer would be expected to include a material forming a crosslinked structure through carbon-carbon bonds, wherein the cured layer and the pixel-defining layer are formed from a common monomer, the cured layer having a higher frequency of carbon-carbon bonds between the common monomer within the cured layer than the pixel-defining layer. See discussion in Response to Arguments section. To the extent that the embodiment in Yamagata Figure 7 is not considered a part of the embodiment in Yamagata Figures 3A-6B, one having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date would be motivated to modify Yamagata Figures 3A-6B to include the Yamagata Figure 7 treatment because the Yamagata Figure 7 treatment protects the light-emitting device from exposure to moisture and gases that could degrade the light-emitting device. See id. ¶ 131.
Regarding claim 3, which depends from claim 1: Yamagata discloses the cured layer is hydrophobic. See id. ¶¶ 131-133.
Regarding claim 5, which depends from claim 1: Yamagata discloses the pixel-defining layer comprises photosensitive polyimide (PSPI). See id. ¶¶ 91, 92, 94, 131-133.
Regarding claim 6, which depends from claim 5: Yamagata discloses the material forming the crosslinked structure in the cured layer comprises a PSPI monomer. See id. If the polyimide is spin coated, then the polyimide would be a monomer prior to curing.
Regarding claim 7, which depends from claim 1: Yamagata discloses an intermediate layer (947 or 948) in direct contact with the cured layer. Id. ¶¶ 95-103. Yamagata is unclear whether insulating film (947) would be deposited after the cured layer is formed, but if the insulating film (947) is formed, then the insulating film (947) would serve as an intermediate layer. If the insulating film (947) is not formed, then organic compound layer (948) is the intermediate layer. Id. ¶¶ 93-95.
Regarding claim 21, which depends from claim 1: Yamagata discloses that the crosslinked structure of the cured layer comprises a photosensitive polyimide with carbon-carbon single bonds, for the reasons stated in claim 1 and in the Response to Arguments section above.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamagata, and further in view of Jia, Chinese Pat. Pub. No. CN111477661A, Figure 4.
PNG
media_image4.png
215
467
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, which depends from claim 1: Yamagata is silent as to the specifics of the cured layer thickness.
Jia Figure 4, directed to the use of a lyophobic layer (105) on a pixel definition layer (1021), discloses the thickness of the lyophobic layer (105) as 50 nm, which is 500 angstroms, Jia specification ¶¶ 54-55, which is in the claimed range of 100-500 angstrom. One having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date would be motivated to modify Yamagata to include the Jia thickness because the Jia thickness is suitable for preventing moisture incursion. Id.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamagata, with evidence from or in the alternative as obvious in view of Moghadam, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2003/0232495, Cho, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0376023, and Fujiwara, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2010/0181654.
Regarding claim 22, which depends from claim 1: Yamagata discloses that the cured layer is formed by a plasma treatment process using a noble gas. Yamagata specification ¶ 132. Helium is a noble gas, as is well known in the art. Furthermore, the claimed process conditions could be found through routine optimization, and are thus obvious. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). See Moghadam specification ¶ 132 (use of helium plasma to harden organo-silicon-base films); Cho specification ¶ 98 (process pressure conditions during test, including a process pressure condition of 10 mT); Fujiwara specification Table 1 (various conditions for curing organic layers, including a wavelength at 380 nm). One having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date would be motivated to modify Yamagata to use the disclosed conditions as a starting point because these conditions provide direction on creating the cured layer.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights