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 3-8 stand rejected under Section 102 or in the alternative under Section 103. Claim 2 stands rejected under Section 103. The specification stands objected to. Claims 9-20 stand withdrawn.
Applicants amended claims 1 and 7, and amended withdrawn claims 9, 12-16, and 18-20. Applicants provided an amendment to the specification. Applicants argue that the application is in condition for allowance.
Turning first to the specification: Applicants’ amendment addresses the previously noted specification objection and is accepted and entered. No new matter has been added. The previously noted specification objection is withdrawn.
Section 102/103 rejections: Applicants argue that Yamagata does not disclose a cured layer including a material forming a crosslinked structure through carbon-carbon bonds. As noted in the Office action, the Office’s position is that because, among Yamagata’s embodiments, Yamagata discloses the conditions—polyimide pixel definition layer and use of helium for plasma processing, resulting in a hardened film with weakened moisture absorption—that are in applicants’ disclosure, the result would be expected to be the same as claimed: cross-linked structure through carbon-carbon bonds. For these reasons, the rejections are maintained.
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 and 3-8 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
386
612
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1197
628
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
206
631
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, the cured layer would be expected to include a material forming a crosslinked structure through carbon-carbon bonds. 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 4, which depends from claim 1: Yamagata discloses the cured layer has a different chemical structure from a chemical structure of a material included in the pixel-defining layer (946). See id.
Regarding claim 5, which depends from claim 4: 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 (948) on the pixel electrode (946). Id. ¶¶ 95-103.
Regarding claim 8, which depends from claim 7: Yamagata discloses the opposite electrode (949) covers the intermediate layer (948) and the cured layer. See Yamagata Figures 6B, 7; Yamagata specification ¶¶ 95-103.
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.
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
Prosecution Insights