DETAILED ACTION
An amendment, amending claims 1 and 5 and adding new claims 12-14, was entered on 1/21/26.
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
Applicant argues that the cited art fails to teach the newly added limitation concerning the location of the insulating layer relative to the base. This is persuasive and a new rejection is presented in response to this amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 4-6 and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatano et al. (US 2012/0217516) in light of Ohara (US 2008/0150422) and Park et al. (US 2003/0143319).
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8 and 14: Hatano teaches a method of manufacturing an organic light emitting device (Abst.), comprising the steps of: forming a light emitting element and structure body (i.e. a partition) (126) over a base (100), the light emitting element comprising a lower electrode (118), a light emitting organic layer (120), and an upper electrode (122) (Figs. 2A-2D; ¶¶ 0011, 0077-0080), wherein the light emitting element emits light upward (¶ 0078, e.g.).
Hatano fails to teach forming an insulating layer in a location wherein the light emitting element is between the insulating layer and the base. Ohara teaches a method of manufacturing an organic light emitting device (Abst.; ¶ 0008) and explains that the light emitting structure should include a silicon oxide or silicon nitride insulating layer over the upper electrode (and, therefore, not in contact with the lower electrode or the organic compound layer) to serve as a protective film (¶ 0231). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have included an insulating layer over the upper electrode in Hatano in order to have provided a protective film.
With an insulating layer over the upper electrode (122) in Hatano, the upwardly directed light (¶ 0078 in Hatano) is emitted towards the insulating layer and the insulating layer is in contact with the side of the structure body (126).
Ohara teaches that insulating layer is formed of silicon oxide or silicon nitride (¶ 0231), but fails to teach that the layer is formed by ALD. Park teaches a process of forming an organic light emitting device (Abst.) having an insulating layer of silicon oxide or silicon nitride and explains that this layer is formed via ALD (¶ 0043). Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is prima facie obvious. MPEP § 2143. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected ALD as the means for depositing the silicon oxide or silicon nitride insulating layer of Hatano with the predictable expectation of success.
Claims 9 and 10: Hatano also teaches first forming a transistor over the base before forming the light emitting element (¶ 0047; Fig. 2D), wherein the bottom surface of the insulating layer includes a region over the bottom surface of the functional layer (Fig. 2D).
Claim 11: Hatano teaches that the partition (124) includes an opening overlapping with the light emitting element and covers an end portion of the lower electrode (122) (Fig. 2D).
Claims 12 and 13: Hatano teaches that the second base (160) includes a color filter (i.e. coloring layer) (166) and that the second based is bonded to the first base (¶ 0043) in a manner such that the light emitting element emits light toward the color filter (Fig. 1D; ¶ 0078, e.g.).
Claims 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatano, Ohara and Park in light of Yamazaki et al. (US 2011/0001146).
Claims 3 and 7: Hatano is silent regarding insulating layer thicknesses. Yamazaki teaches a process of forming an organic light emitting device (Abst.) and explains that suitable thicknesses for the silicon nitride insulating layer is between 10 and 1000 nm (¶ 0038). The simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is prima facie obvious. MPEP § 2143. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP § 2144.05(I). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected a thickness of 20-200 nm for the insulating layer in Hatano with the predictable expectation of success.
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 Robert A Vetere whose telephone number is (571)270-1864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 EST.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at (571) 270-1034. 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.
/ROBERT A VETERE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights