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 .
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 (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 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, 3-6, and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et el. (US20240249959A1, hereinafter “Park”), and further in view of Voronov et al. (US9065054B2, hereinafter “Voronov”) and Diehl et el. (US11056277B2, hereinafter “Diehl”).
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches a method of manufacturing a display device (Fig. 1, manufacturing apparatus 10 of display device), comprising:
discharging an ink onto a substrate (Para [0105], light emitting layer EML may be deposited through an inkjet printing);
drying the discharged ink to form a first light emitting layer (Para [0105], bake process);
disposing a first heater below the substrate (Fig.1, first heater 121) and disposing a second heater above the substrate (Fig. 1, second heater 122);
operating both the first heater and the second heater(Para [0065-0069], operating first and second heaters together to control the temperature of the substrate during the bake process).
But Park does not teach operating both the first heater and the second heater to vaporize light emitting material in the first light emitting layer; and reducing an operation temperature of the first heater while maintaining an operation temperature of the second heater to redeposit the light emitting material, which is vaporized, onto the substrate.
However, Voronov teaches the second heater to vaporize light emitting material in the first light emitting layer (Claim 1, applying heat to a portion other than a first region of the temporal transfer substrate to remove the first organic light emitting material formed on the portion other than the first region as a first heating step); and
reducing an operation temperature of the first heater while maintaining an operation temperature of the second heater to redeposit the ink light emitting material, which is vaporized, onto the substrate (Claim 4, controlled rate for uniform layer formation e.g., 1000 Å/sec or less.).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify a method for manufacturing an display device of Park and further integrating Voronov’s temperature-control technique with Park’s dual apparatus, since both are directed to thermal processing of organic light emitting material for display manufacturing, and applying Voronov’s known technique to Park’s known apparatus would have yield predictable result (MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)).
But Park in view of Kim still does not teach that the disposing a mask plate above the substrate.
However, Diehl teaches disposing a mask plate above the substrate (Para [0007], shadow mask over the substrate.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify a method for manufacturing an display device of Park and further integrating Diehl’s mask plate, since shadow masks were well known in OLED manufacturing to control deposition pattern accuracy, and applying Dehl’s known structure would have yielded predictable result of improved pattern accuracy (MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)).
PNG
media_image1.png
986
1178
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Park in view of Voronov and Deihl teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the display device further comprises a bank disposed on the substrate, and an opening is disposed in the bank, the ink also being disposed in the opening (Fig. 3 of Kim, pixel-defining layer 40 by a predetermined distance. The pixels 10 defined on the array substrate 500 by the pixel-defining layer 40).
Regarding claim 4, Park in view of Voronov and Deihl teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the mask plate is disposed above the bank (Fig. 1 of Kim503, a mask 105 positioned above the substrate S, so that by using the manufacturing process of Kim503 in the method of Kim, the method would comprise the mask plate is disposed above the bank).
Regarding claim 5, Park in view of Voronov and Deihl teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the mask plate is disposed directly on an upper surface of the bank (Fig. 1 of Kim503, a mask 105 positioned above the substrate S, so that by using the manufacturing process of Kim503 in the method of Kim, the method would comprise the mask plate is disposed directly on an upper surface of the bank).
Regarding claim 6, Park in view of Voronov and Deihl teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the mask plate comprises a magnet to attach to the bank (Fig. 1 of Kim503, a mask 105 positioned above the substrate S to provide the mask 105 by magnetic force, so that by using the manufacturing process of Kim503 in the method of Kim, the method would comprise the mask plate comprises a magnet to attach to the bank).
Regarding claim 8, Park in view of Voronov and Deihl teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the operating both the first heater and the second heater vaporizes the first light emitting layer (Fig. 5A of Kim, vaporized material condenses onto the substrate, redistributing or reforming an organic layer).
Regarding claim 9, Park in view of Voronov and Deihl teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the reducing the operation temperature of the first heater forms a second light emitting layer in an opening of a bank from the vaporized light emitting material (Fig. 5A of Kim, independent temperature control of multiple region, implying adjustable thermal conditions).
Regarding claim 10, Park in view of Voronov and Deihl teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising reducing an operation temperature of the second heater after the reducing of the operation temperature of the first heater (Fig. 5A of Kim, generating vapor from a heated source and controlling substrate temperature to promote condensation, thereby establishing a temperature differential corresponding to reducing a substrate-side heater while maintaining a source-side heater).
Regarding claim 11, Park in view of Voronov and Deihl teaches the method of claim 10, Kim teaches the controlling temperature during processing of organic materials, including evaporation and deposition, but does not expressly disclose a maximum operation temperature of the first heater and a maximum operation temperature of the second heater are about 500 °C. Since temperature is a result-effective variable, selecting a maximum temperature of about 500 °C, would have been a matter of routine optimization. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US20240249959A1) in view of Voronov et al. (US9065054B2, hereinafter “Voronov”) and Diehl (US11056277B2), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Yamazaki (US20080026501A1).
Regarding claim 12, Park in view of Voronov and Deihl teaches the method of claim 1 respectively, the use of organic materials for forming functional layers in an OLED device.
But Park in view of Voronov and Deihl does not teach that the ink comprises a light emitting material, wherein a molecular weight of the light emitting material is less than or equal to about 10,000 atomic mass units.
However, Yamazaki teaches the ink comprises a light emitting material, wherein a molecular weight of the light emitting material is less than or equal to about 10,000 atomic mass units (Fig. 15, such organic materials include light-emitting organic compounds commonly used in OLED devices. These materials are well known to be small-molecule compounds having molecular weight significantly below 10,000 atomic mass units. Accordingly, selecting a material having a molecular weight less than or equal to about 10,000 atomic mass units would have been obvious. See In re Ahlert, 424 F.2d 1088, 1091, 165 USPQ 418, 420 (CCPA 1970)).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify a method for manufacturing an organic light emitting diode display of Park and further integrating alternative ink jet method of laminate structure having two or more layers by Yamazaki. The combination of these familiar elements increase the efficiency of light emission (Para [0044]).
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 JAHAE KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1844. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
/FERNANDO L TOLEDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights