CTNF 18/390,511 CTNF 83781 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/20/2023 has been considered by the examiner. Specification 06-11 AIA The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-01 AIA The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. 07-31-01 Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The Examiner notes that claim 1 specifically recites “exposing at least a part of an upper surface of each of the first and second pixel electrodes, and having an upper surface at a same level as an upper surface of the first partition wall with respect to a surface of the base substrate”. The Examiner takes the position that the limitation recited in claim #1 does not appear or follow the drawings presently filed,(Figures 1-22). Furthermore, the specifications fails to supply further explanation that would give the claim language functional description. How can one have upper surfaces stacked on top of each other and be at the same level? Applicant has not given a special meaning for “at the same level”, so taking the broadest reason interpretation, it is not possible to achieve this particular configuration. One of ordinary skill could not achieve the claimed results without undue experimentation. Applicant gives no guidance in the specification for having such a configuration and drawings which are opposite of what is being stated in the present claim. Claim 2 is likewise rejected for having similar recitations. Claims 3-14 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 1. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, 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. The Examiner notes that claim 1 specifically recites “exposing at least a part of an upper surface of each of the first and second pixel electrodes, and having an upper surface at a same level as an upper surface of the first partition wall with respect to a surface of the base substrate”. The Examiner takes the position that the limitation recited in claim #1 does not appear or follow the drawings presently filed,(Figures 1-22). Furthermore, the specifications fails to supply further explanation that would give the claim language functional description. How can one have upper surfaces stacked on top of each other and be at the same level? Applicant has not given a special meaning for “at the same level”, so taking the broadest reason interpretation, it is not possible to achieve this particular configuration. One of ordinary skill could not achieve the claimed results without undue experimentation. Applicant gives no guidance in the specification for having such a configuration and drawings which are opposite of what is being stated in the present claim. Claim 2 is likewise rejected for having similar recitations. Claims 3-14 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 1. For purposes of examination the recitation “exposing at least a part of an upper surface of each of the first and second pixel electrodes, and having an upper surface at a same level as an upper surface of the first partition wall with respect to a surface of the base substrate” will be interpreted using rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1,2,and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek et al. (US 20140353630 A1) (Baek, hereafter) . Regarding claim 1, Baek discloses ( Figure 1-2 and corresponding text) a, display device comprising: a base substrate (101) including a first pixel area (where 202R is) and a second pixel area (where 202G is); a first pixel electrode (121) in the first pixel area on the base substrate (101); a second pixel electrode in the second pixel area (202R) on the base substrate (101); (π56) a first partition wall (113b,π61) between the first pixel electrode (121) and the second pixel electrode(no number); and a first pixel defining layer(111,π56) on a part of each of the first (121) and second pixel electrodes, the first electrode 121 is formed on the opening and the inclined surface of the first pixel defined layer (11) exposing at least a part of an upper surface of each of the first and second pixel electrodes, Baek fails to explicitly disclose wherein exposing at least a part of an upper surface of each of the first and second pixel electrodes having an upper surface at a same level as an upper surface of the first partition wall with respect to a surface of the base substrate . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Baek wherein having an upper surface at a same level as an upper surface of the first partition wall with respect to a surface of the base substrate, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (see 112 rejection) Regarding claim 2, Baek discloses wherein at least one end of each of the first and second pixel electrodes is vertically bent (π57) Baek fails to explicitly disclose wherein an upper surface of the one end of each of the first and second pixel electrodes is at a same layer as the upper surface of each of the first partition wall and the first pixel defining layer with respect to the surface of the base substrate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Baek wherein, Baek wherein an upper surface of the one end of each of the first and second pixel electrodes is at a same layer as the upper surface of each of the first partition wall and the first pixel defining layer with respect to the surface of the base substrate. since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70I (see 112 rejection) Regarding claims 12, Baek discloses (Figure 2), wherein the base substrate(101) further includes a third pixel area (where 202B is), further comprising: a third pixel electrode in the third pixel area on the base substrate; Baek fails to explicitly disclose wherein a first light emitting layer on the first pixel electrode and including a light emitting material configured to emit red light; a second light emitting layer on the second pixel electrode and including a light emitting material configured to emit green light; and a third light emitting layer on the third pixel electrode and including a light emitting material configured to emit blue light. However Baek discloses an organic white light emitting display apparatus including: a first substrate including a first sub-pixel area, a second sub-pixel area, a third sub-pixel area, wherein an organic light emitting device (OLED) is formed in each sub-pixel area, the OLED includes a first electrode, a second electrode, and an organic white light emitting layer interposed between the first and second electrodes and emits white light; a second substrate facing the first substrate and including first, second, and third color filters of different colors formed on positions corresponding to the respective sub-pixel areas; and a partition wall formed on the first substrate, extending to an area between neighboring color filters among the color filters and partitioning the sub-pixel areas. Both are configured to have muki0icolored pixels and it a matter of design choice as to what suits the invention. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to further modify the display device of Baek wherein a first light emitting layer on the first pixel electrode and including a light emitting material configured to emit red light; a second light emitting layer on the second pixel electrode and including a light emitting material configured to emit green light; and a third light emitting layer on the third pixel electrode and including a light emitting material configured to emit blue light the motivation being to provide a device not limited in brightness, contrast and vision angle, and since matters of design choice require only routine skill . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek et al. (US 20140353630 A1) (Baek, hereafter) in view of Bok et al. US 20210191552 A1) (Bok, here after) . Regarding claims 13 and 14 , Baek discloses the device set forth above, see rejection claim 1. Bake fail to explicitly disclose wherein the first partition wall includes silicon nitride (claim 13);wherein the base substrate includes a silicon wafer(claim 14). Bok et al. discloses a (Figure 88) pixel separation structure(410) in which the sidewall (411,partition wall) includes silicon nitride(π823); and where the substrate 200 is not limited to a bulk wafer or an epitaxial wafer, and may be implemented using various wafers such as a polished wafer, an annealed wafer, and a silicon on insulator (SOI) wafer(π819) It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to further modify the display device of Baek as disclosed by Bok wherein the first partition wall includes silicon nitride; wherein the base substrate includes a silicon wafer the motivation being to provide a device that is thinner, lighter and faster over diverse usage . Allowable Subject Matter All; 112 rejections must be resolved. Claim 3 and 5 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. Claim 4 and 6-11 are objected to due to their dependency upon claims 3 and 5 respectively. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the 892 and below: US 20240155879 A1- A display panel includes an array substrate, a pixel definition layer disposed on the array substrate, US 20230133156 A1- pixel defining layer, located on the base substrate, wherein the pixel defining layer includes: a plurality of openings and at least one communicating groove, US 20210066417 A1.- A display substrate includes a pixel definition layer and a light emitting layer which are arranged on a driving circuit layer, Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRACIE Y GREEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3104. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thursday, 10am-8pm. 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, James R Greece can be reached at (571)272-3711. 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. TRACIE Y. GREEN Primary Examiner Art Unit 2875 /TRACIE Y GREEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875 Application/Control Number: 18/390,511 Page 2 Art Unit: 2875 Application/Control Number: 18/390,511 Page 3 Art Unit: 2875 Application/Control Number: 18/390,511 Page 4 Art Unit: 2875 Application/Control Number: 18/390,511 Page 5 Art Unit: 2875 Application/Control Number: 18/390,511 Page 6 Art Unit: 2875 Application/Control Number: 18/390,511 Page 7 Art Unit: 2875
Prosecution Insights