DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/12/26 been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that the references do not teach specific aspects of the invention: “two distinct preliminary low-reflection layers formed on opposing sidewalls (each covering the organic top surface), which are then anisotropically dry-etched to remove the top/bottom overlaps and yield sidewall-only barriers on both sides” (Remarks, p. 10), and elaborates regarding deposition which covers one side surface and exposes the other, etching which selectively removes top and bottom portions of the layers, etc (Remarks, p. 12). However, these limitations are not claimed. While the claims require that the first and second preliminary low-reflection layers respectively cover the first and side surface of the first organic layer, no limitation regarding exposing the other side is present. While the claims require an anisotropic dry etching step of both layers, what part of each layer is etched is not specified. Limitations not present in the claims are not read into the claims. The rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1 and 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae (U.S. PGPub 2021/0013455) in view of Yang (U.S. PGPub 2016/0013259).
Regarding claim 1, Bae teaches a method of manufacturing a display device, the method comprising: forming a barrier layer on a light emitting element (Fig. 6A, 430, 440, [0159]); forming a first organic layer defining an opening exposing a portion of the barrier layer and overlapping the light emitting element in a plan view on the barrier layer (501, [0159]); forming a first preliminary low-reflection layer covering a first side surface of the first organic layer defining the opening and an upper surface of the first organic layer (Fig. 6B, 503L, [0161]); forming a low-reflection barrier covering the first side surface and the second side surface defining the opening by anisotropic dry etching of the first preliminary low-reflection layer (Fig. 6D, [0164]); and forming a second organic layer filling the opening of the first organic layer (Fig. 6E, 510, [0165]).
Bae does not explicitly teach forming a second preliminary low-reflection layer covering a second side surface of the first organic layer defining the opening and opposite to the first side surface and the upper surface of the first organic layer and forming the low-reflection barrier covering the first side surface and the second side surface defining the opening by anisotropic dry etching of the first preliminary low-reflection layer and the second preliminary low-reflection layer.
Yang teaches wherein a low-reflection layer comprises a plurality of low-reflection layers ([0080]-[0083]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Chae with Bae such that the method comprises forming a second preliminary low-reflection layer covering a second side surface of the first organic layer defining the opening and opposite to the first side surface and the upper surface of the first organic layer and forming the low-reflection barrier covering the first side surface and the second side surface defining the opening by anisotropic dry etching of the first preliminary low-reflection layer and the second preliminary low-reflection layer for the purpose of providing a multi-layer low-reflection layer ([0083]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Bae and Yang teaches wherein the first preliminary low-reflection layer covers the first side surface defining the opening and one portion of an upper surface of the portion of the barrier layer, and the second preliminary low-reflection layer covers the second side defining the opening and a remaining portion of the upper surface of the portion of the barrier layer (Bae, Fig. 6B). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Bae and Yang for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Bae and Yang teaches wherein the second preliminary low-reflection layer further covers at least a portion of the first preliminary low-reflection layer covering the one portion of the upper surface of the portion of the barrier layer (Bae, Fig. 6B; Yang, Fig. 6B). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Bae and Yang for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Bae and Yang teaches wherein the upper surface of the portion of the barrier layer exposed by the opening is completely covered by the first preliminary low-reflection layer and the second preliminary low-reflection layer (Bae, Fig. 6B; Yang, Fig. 6B). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Bae and Yang for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Bae and Yang teaches wherein the first preliminary low-reflection layer covering the one portion of the upper surface of the portion of the barrier layer and the second preliminary low-reflection layer covering the remaining portion of the upper surface of the portion of the barrier layer are removed by the anisotropic dry etching (Bae, Fig. 6D). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Bae and Yang for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Bae and Yang teaches wherein a portion of the first preliminary low-reflection layer overlapping the upper surface of the first organic layer and a portion of the second preliminary low-reflection layer overlapping the upper surface of the first organic layer are removed by the anisotropic dry etching (Bae, Fig. 6D; Yang, Fig. 6B). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Bae and Yang for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Bae and Yang teaches wherein the opening defined by the first organic layer is provided in plural, and each of the openings extends in a first direction in a plan view, and the openings are arranged along a second direction crossing the first direction in the plan view, and the light emitting element overlaps at least one selected from the openings in the plan view (Bae, Fig. 7). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Bae and Yang for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Bae and Yang does not explicitly teach wherein a thickness of the low-reflection barrier in a direction perpendicular to the first side surface defining the opening in an area adjacent to a lower portion of the first side surface defining the opening is more than 95% and less than 100% of a thickness of the low-reflection barrier in the direction perpendicular to the first side surface defining the opening in an area adjacent to an upper portion of the first side surface defining the opening, and a thickness of the low-reflection barrier in a direction perpendicular to the second side surface defining the opening in an area adjacent to a lower portion of the second side surface defining the opening is more than 95% and less than 100% of a thickness of the low-reflection barrier in the direction perpendicular to the second side surface defining the opening in an area adjacent to an upper portion of the second side surface defining the opening.
Bae teaches wherein the thicknesses are 100% (Bae, [0154], single thickness for layer 503). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05. Further, Applicant cannot provide argument that the distinction between “less than 100%” and “100%” is critical, as the percentage is only disclosed as “less than about 100%” in the specification.
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Bae and Yang such that wherein a thickness of the low-reflection barrier in a direction perpendicular to the first side surface defining the opening in an area adjacent to a lower portion of the first side surface defining the opening is more than 95% and less than 100% of a thickness of the low-reflection barrier in the direction perpendicular to the first side surface defining the opening in an area adjacent to an upper portion of the first side surface defining the opening, and a thickness of the low-reflection barrier in a direction perpendicular to the second side surface defining the opening in an area adjacent to a lower portion of the second side surface defining the opening is more than 95% and less than 100% of a thickness of the low-reflection barrier in the direction perpendicular to the second side surface defining the opening in an area adjacent to an upper portion of the second side surface defining the opening.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Bae and Yang teaches wherein the forming the first preliminary low-reflection layer comprises: forming a first preliminary base metal oxide layer covering the first side surface defining the opening and the upper surface of the first organic layer; forming a first preliminary metal layer covering the first preliminary base metal oxide layer; and forming a first preliminary cover metal oxide layer covering the first preliminary metal layer (Yang, Fig. 6B, [0080]-[0081], 602d/602c/602b). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Bae and Yang for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Claims 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae (U.S. PGPub 2021/0013455) in view of Yang (U.S. PGPub 2016/0013259) and further in view of Choi (U.S. PGPub 2015/0027876).
Regarding claims 14-16, the combination of Bae and Yang does not explicitly teach wherein the first preliminary low-reflection layer is formed by a sputtering apparatus comprising a cylindrical target and a magnet disposed in the cylindrical target; wherein the cylindrical target extends along an extending direction of the opening; and wherein the magnet disposed in the cylindrical target is positioned in a direction between a direction perpendicular to an upper surface of the barrier layer from a rotational axis positioned in the cylindrical target and a direction from an upper edge of the second side surface defining the opening toward a lower edge of the first side surface defining the opening.
Choi teaches wherein layers of a display device are formed by a sputtering apparatus ([0062]) comprising a cylindrical target and a magnet disposed in the cylindrical target ([0031], 131/141, 132/142); wherein the substrate may be translated or rotated to a suitable position for deposition ([0036]-[0037]); where the magnet is positioned to adjust the rate of deposition ([0059]). Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05(II)A.
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Choi with Bae and Yang such that the first preliminary low-reflection layer is formed by a sputtering apparatus comprising a cylindrical target and a magnet disposed in the cylindrical target; wherein the cylindrical target extends along an extending direction of the opening; and wherein the magnet disposed in the cylindrical target is positioned in a direction between a direction perpendicular to an upper surface of the barrier layer from a rotational axis positioned in the cylindrical target and a direction from an upper edge of the second side surface defining the opening toward a lower edge of the first side surface defining the opening for the purpose of forming the low reflection layer of Bae with reduced damage to the substrate (Choi, [0051]).
Regarding claims 17-19, the combination of Bae and Yang does not explicitly teach wherein the second preliminary low-reflection layer is formed by a sputtering apparatus comprising a cylindrical target and a magnet disposed in the cylindrical target; wherein the cylindrical target extends along an extending direction of the opening; and wherein the magnet disposed in the cylindrical target is positioned in a direction between a direction perpendicular to an upper surface of the barrier layer from a rotational axis positioned in the cylindrical target and a direction from an upper edge of the first side surface defining the opening toward a lower edge of the second side surface defining the opening.
Choi teaches wherein layers of a display device are formed by a sputtering apparatus ([0062]) comprising a cylindrical target and a magnet disposed in the cylindrical target ([0031], 131/141, 132/142); wherein the substrate may be translated or rotated to a suitable position for deposition ([0036]-[0037]); where the magnet is positioned to adjust the rate of deposition ([0059]). Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05(II)A.
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Choi with Bae and Yang such that the second preliminary low-reflection layer is formed by a sputtering apparatus comprising a cylindrical target and a magnet disposed in the cylindrical target; wherein the cylindrical target extends along an extending direction of the opening; and wherein the magnet disposed in the cylindrical target is positioned in a direction between a direction perpendicular to an upper surface of the barrier layer from a rotational axis positioned in the cylindrical target and a direction from an upper edge of the second side surface defining the opening toward a lower edge of the first side surface defining the opening for the purpose of forming the low reflection layer of Bae with reduced damage to the substrate (Choi, [0051]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 11-13, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 2 and 11-13 were previously objected to as allowable for the reasons provided in the rejection dated 10/28/25, which remain valid.
Claim 20 comprises the limitations of independent claim 1 and dependent claim 2, previously objected to as allowable, and is therefore correspondingly allowable.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ALIA SABUR whose telephone number is (571)270-7219. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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, Christine S. Kim can be reached at 571-272-8458. 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.
/ALIA SABUR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights