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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: The characters “(F1)” are included without context and seemingly by mistake. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 22 and 24 are objected to because of the following informalities: claimed angle between 'third inclined surface' and top surface of first upper layer is not present in drawings. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the first inclined portion and a thickness of the second inclined portion”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of this action, the first and second inclined portions will be examined as having their respective definitions from claim 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fujioka (US 20120086328 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Fujioka discloses, in FIG. 2, a light emitting element EL on a substrate 10A, with a “second electrode” (first electrode) 20, a “first electrode” (second electrode) 18A spaced from the first electrode, and an “organic light emitting layer” (emission layer) 19 between the first and second electrodes. Additionally, a “flat insulating film” (first protective layer) having a first upper surface and a first inclined surface extending from the first upper surface, and a first contact hole extending through the first protective layer, wherein a sidewall of the first protective layer corresponds to the inclines surface is disclosed, along with a second protective layer on the first protective layer, which has a second upper surface and a second inclined side extending from the second upper surface wherein the sidewall of a second protective hole corresponds to the second inclined side surface. Further, the first electrode extends from the light-emitting element and is continuously and contiguously disposed over the second upper surface, the second inclined side surface, and the first upper surface, and the first inclined side surface.
Regarding claim 17, Fujioka further discloses, in FIG. 2, that a dimension of the second contact hole in a first direction is greater than a corresponding dimension of the first contact hole such that the two overlap in a plan view.
Regarding claim 18, Fujioka further discloses, in FIG. 2, that the light emission layer extends from the light emitting element and is disposed over the second upper surface and the second inclined surface.
Regarding claim 19, Fujioka further discloses, in FIG. 2, a “sealing resin” (bank layer) 17B on the second protective layer, wherein the bank layer is deposited within the first and second contact holes.
Regarding claim 20, Fujioka further discloses, in FIG. 2, that the second protective layer includes a third inclined surface (near the right side, see above) spaced across from the second inclined surface, wherein the bank layer is disposed between the third inclined surface and the emission layer. The examiner notes that while the third inclined surface appears to be in contact with the emission layer in FIG. 2, the bank layer is disposed between the third inclined surface and the emission layer on the opposite side of the second hole (along the second inclined surface).
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.
Please note that foreign patent literature is cited in this office action. All quotations and figure citations in this action refer to the translations thereof attached to this action.
Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujioka (US 20120086328 A1) in view of You (US 20160141544 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Fujioka teaches, in FIG. 2, a display device with thin film transistor Tr with “conductive contact portion” 15B disposed on a substrate 10A. Paragraph 0041 states: “planarization insulating film 17A [is] laminated on the thin film transistor Tr” (a first protective layer. A first contact hole is disposed to expose a portion of the connection electrode. An “insulating film” 21 (second protective layer) is disposed on the first protective layer and has an opening (wherein light-emitting “organic element” EL is disposed) and a second contact hole configured to expose the first contact hole. Additionally, there is a “second electrode 20” (first electrode) disposed in an area including the opening and the first and second contact holes, wherein the connection electrode and first electrode are electrically connected (paragraph 0043); furthermore, FIG. 2 shows that they are electrically connected via the first and second contact holes.
Fujioka does not teach that the opening is configured to expose the first protective layer.
You teaches, in FIG. 2, an opening C5 (which houses light emitting elements) in organic layer 19 (second protective layer) which is configured to expose interlay insulating layer (first protective layer) 15.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to substitute the opening taught by Fujioka (which exposes an electrode 18A, FIG. 2) with the opening taught by You (which contacts the first protective layer, see above) as to decrease the risk of over etching into the electrode taught by Fujioka while forming the opening, as is known by one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, Fujioka further teaches, in FIG. 8, that a portion of the second contact hole is larger than a dimension of a top portion of the first contact hole (in a dimension parallel to the substrate).
Regarding claim 3, Fujioka further teaches, in FIG. 8, that the second contact hole exposes an outer periphery of a top portion of the first contact hole and a portion of the upper surface of the first protective layer around the outer periphery of the top portion of the first contact hole.
Regarding claim 4, Fujioka further teaches, in FIG. 8, that an outer periphery of a bottom portion of the second contact hole is located on the first protective layer.
PNG
media_image1.png
445
545
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Fujioka further teaches, in FIG. 21, a first inclined surface of the opening with a first angle (not labeled) and a second inclined surface of the second contact hole which has a second inclination angle different than the first. Further, paragraph 0054 states: “thus the forward tapered shape [of the electrode 20] has as gentile a tilt angle as possible . . . to prevent a break or increase in resistance at the time of forming the second [(first)] electrode 20.”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the embodiments taught by Fujioka in order to form a gentler (lesser) angle on the second inclination surface (keeping the first inclination surface at the same angle, and thereby a different, greater angle) in order to garner the benefits taught by Fujioka (see above).
Regarding claim 6, Fujioka teaches, in FIG. 21, that a first inclination angle is larger than the second inclination angle, as shown above.
Regarding claim 7, Fujioka further discloses, in FIG. 8, that the first electrode includes a first inclined portion disposed on an inclined surface of the second protective layer and is exposed through the opening and a second inclined protective layer exposed through the second contact hole.
Regarding claim 8, Fujioka teaches the limitations of claim 1, and the examiner notes that there is no manufacturing process in which the thickness of the first and second inclination portions can be made exactly identical.
Regarding claim 9, Fujioka further teaches “ . . . each component may be made of any other material with any other thickness” (paragraph 0106).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply the above teaching of Fujioka such that the thickness of the first electrode on the second inclined portion is larger than the thickness of the first inclined portion. One having ordinary skill in the art is motivated to thicken the electrode of the second inclined portion in order to, for example, ensure that a break or increase in resistance is not caused in the first electrode at the second inclined portion (Fujioka paragraph 0086). Regarding claim 10,
PNG
media_image2.png
313
476
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fujioka teaches, in FIG. 8, a first contact hole which exposes a small portion of the first protective layer:
Fujioka does not teach an opening that exposes the upper surface of the first protective layer.
You teaches, in FIG. 2, that the opening of the second protective layer and the second contact hole expose a portion of an upper surface of the first protective layer, wherein an area of the upper surface of the first protective layer exposed by the second contact hole is much larger than a contact hole C6.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to substitute the contact hole taught by Fujioka with the contact hole taught by You (for the reasons stated above), and doing so would obviously result in the area of the upper surface of the first protective layer exposed by the opening to be larger than the area of the upper surface of the first upper layer exposed by the second contact hole in the embodiment taught by Fujioka in FIG. 8, given the great relative size difference of the exposed portions in the disclosures. One of ordinary skill in the art is also motivated to enlarge the opening in order to improve viewing angle, and there is no given reason to enlarge the area of the upper surface of the first protective layer that is exposed by the second contact hole.
Regarding claim 11, Fujioka further teaches, in FIG. 2, a “sealing resin” (bank) 17B which is disposed at an edge of the opening of the second protective layer and disposed to fill the first contact hole and the second contact hole.
Regarding claim 21, Fujioka teaches the limitations of claim 20, however, Fujioka does not teach that the second electrode extends from the light emitting element.
You teaches, in FIG. 2, an electrode 122 (second electrode) which extends from the light emitting element disposed in hole C5 and is continuously and contiguously disposed over the “organic layer” (bank layer) 20, completely overlapping the contact hole C6.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to insert the second electrode taught by You into the display apparatus taught by Fujioka, such that the second electrode layer overlaps the entirety of both contact holes (and thus overlaps the second and third inclined surfaces, and the first upper surface in plan view). One having ordinary skill in the art is motivated to do so in order to, for example, increase the insulating between the first and second electrode (utilizing the bank layer).
Claim(s) 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujioka (US 20120086328 A1) in view of You (US 20160141544 A1) in further view of Zhang (CN 111524957 A).
Regarding claim 12, Fujioka teaches, in FIG. 2, a first protective layer on a substrate including a first contact hole (see above), a second protective layer, 21, which is located in a partial area on the first protective layer (see FIG. 2) and includes an opening, a second contact hole, and is disposed along a first inclined surface of the second protective layer exposed by the opening (see above). Further, a first electrode (see above) has first inclination angle along a first inclined surface in the opening, and a second inclination angle along a second surface along the second contact hole, with the second electrode disposed in both areas.
However, Fujioka does not teach that the second inclination angle is smaller than the first inclination angle.
Zhang teaches, in FIG. 5, first and second contact holes in “passivation layer” (first protective layer) 2 and “flat layer” (second protective layer) 3, respectively. Zhang further teaches that the first inclined portion of the second hole forms an angle β with the surface of the first protection layer, and that the second inclined surface of the first contact hole forms an angle α with the “driving drain electrode of the thin film transistor” 4 (which is the same angle when formed with the surface of the first protective layer). In a particular embodiment: “the . . . angle of the side wall of the first through hole is 30 ~ 40 degrees; the slope angle of the side wall of the second through hole is 50 ~ 60 degrees; the . . . angle of the first through hole and the second through hole is relatively small; [so] the second conductive pattern is not easy to break at the through hole, [and] it can ensure the connection reliability between the first conductive pattern and the second conductive pattern, so as to ensure the product yield of the display device.” Note the “first through hole” refers to the second contact hole, and the “second though hole” refers to the first contact hole, in this context.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine Fujioka with Zhang such that the second inclination angle is smaller than the first, for the reasons taught by Zhang.
PNG
media_image3.png
584
765
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Fujioka teaches, in FIG. 2, a third inclined surface of the first protective layer in the first contact hole and an area including the second contact hole, along which the first electrode is disposed.
Regarding claim 14, Fujioka further teaches, in FIG. 8, that the first electrode is continuously disposed along the second inclined surface and an upper surface of the first protective layer, connected to the second inclined surface, and the third inclined surface, connected to the upper surface of the first protective layer.
Regarding claim 15, Fujioka further teaches, in FIG. 2, that the first electrode has a stepped shape as it descends the first and second contact holes.
Claim(s) 22-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujioka (US 20120086328 A1)
Regarding claim 22, Fujioka teaches, in FIG. 2, a first angle formed between the second inclined surface and the upper surface of the first protective layer (not explicitly shown), and a third inclined surface opposite the second inclined surface and second contact hole with a second angle formed between the third inclined surface and the top surface of the first protective layer. Additionally, the examiner notes that there is no known manufacturing method which can make these angles exactly the same.
Regarding claim 23, Fujioka teaches the limitations of claim 22 and implies that the first and second angles are equivalent in FIG. 2. The examiner notes that natural variations in manufacturing will ensure that ~50% of display panels manufactured according to the teachings of Fujioka will result in the first angle being smaller than the second angle, as is known to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 24, Fujioka discloses the limitations of claim 16, and further teaches, in FIG. 2, a second inclined surface of the second protective layer that forms a first angle with respect to the upper surface of the first protective layer (not explicitly labeled), and a third inclined surface on the second protective layer that is opposite the second contact hole and second inclined surface, which forms a second angle with respect to the upper surface of the first protective layer (not explicitly labeled). Additionally, the first electrode has a thickness over the second inclined surface, and a thickness over the third inclined portion. The examiner additionally notes that there is no known manufacturing method that can make the first and second angles identical.
Regarding claim 25, Fujioka further teaches “. . . each component may be made of any other material with any other thickness” (paragraph 0106).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply the above teaching of Fujioka such that the thickness of the first electrode on the second inclined portion (first thickness) is larger than the thickness of the first electrode on the third inclined portion (second thickness). One having ordinary skill in the art is motivated to thicken the electrode on the third inclined portion in order to, for example, lessen the resistance of the electrode as it travels farther away from the transistor (via the third inclined surface and farther onto the upper surface of the first protective layer) ensuring that the voltage does not drop substantially over that distance.
Regarding claim 26, Fujioka further teaches, in FIG. 2, that the first and second inclined side surfaces are coplanar with each other (plane of the cross-section), and a dimension of the second contact hole in a first direction is larger than a dimension of the first contact hole in a first direction such that the second contact hole fully overlaps the first contact hole from a plan view.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL S MINNEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9688. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Friday, 8:30 a.m. 5 p.m. ET..
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, Jacob Choi can be reached at (469) 295-9060. 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.
/GABRIEL SEBASTIAN MINNEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/JACOB Y CHOI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897