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 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.
Claims 1 and 12 are 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. Claim 1 introduces, in line 2: “a substrate including an emission area” and line 3 states “a thin-film transistor disposed on a substrate.” It is indefinite whether or not this refers to the same substrate or an additional substrate. Claim 12 similarly introduces a substrate in line 2 and line 3. As set forth in In re Miyazaki, “if a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions, the USPTO is justified in requiring the applicant to more precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention by holding the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph, as indefinite.” 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2008). In this case, the claim is amiable to the interpretation that one or multiple substrates are present. For the purposes of this action, the claim will be interpreted to have one substrate.
Claim 29 and 31 are 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. Claims 19 and 31 are drawn to a display apparatus, and a part of a display apparatus does not have an intrinsic luminance, but rather a luminance that is dependent on multiple factors, for example, operating voltage and amperage. Claims 29 and 31 require that a luminance of different parts be different, which is drawn to a method of using the apparatus (as it depends on at least the above identified operating condition) and not to the device itself. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.2d 1377, 1384, 77 USPQ2d 1140, 1145 (Fed. Cir. 2005). For the purposes of examination, the claims will be taken to mean that the maximum operable luminance of one region is different than another.
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, 27, and 29 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 substrate 10A including an emission area EL and a thin film transistor Tr with “conductive contact portion” 15B disposed on the 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. The emission area includes an emission part and an additional emission part surrounding the emission part (see annotated FIG. 2 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
781
879
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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_image2.png
445
545
media_image2.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_image3.png
313
476
media_image3.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 27, Fujioka further teaches that the substrate further includes a non-emission area wherein the non-emission rea includes a non-emission part and an additional non-emission part. See annotated FIG. 2 below.
PNG
media_image4.png
732
955
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 29, Fujioka further discloses that the non-emission part does not contain an emission element EL. Therefore, the non-emission area is not capable of producing any luminant, while the additional emission part and the emission part are at least capable of producing a non-zero luminance, meaning that the additional non-emission part has a lower luminance than the emission part and the additional emission part.
Claim(s) 12-15 and 30-31 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 substrate 12A including an emission area 10A, 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. In addition, the emission area includes an emission part and an additional emission part surrounding the emission part, (see annotated FIG. 2 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
781
879
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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_image5.png
584
765
media_image5.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.
Regarding claim 30, Fujioka further teaches that the substrate further includes a non-emission area wherein the non-emission rea includes a non-emission part and an additional non-emission part. See annotated FIG. 2 below.
PNG
media_image4.png
732
955
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 31, Fujioka further discloses that the non-emission part does not contain an emission element EL. Therefore, the non-emission area is not capable of producing any luminant, while the additional emission part and the emission part are at least capable of producing a non-zero luminance, meaning that the additional non-emission part has a lower luminance than the emission part and the additional emission part.
Claim(s) 28 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 Kim (US 20210132723 A1).
Regarding claim 28, as explained above, Fujioka teaches the limitations of claim 27. Fujioka further teaches, in FIG. 1, that the display device further comprises a plurality of emission areas including the emission area, wherein the non-emission part is disposed between neighboring emission areas, see annotated FIG. 1 below.
PNG
media_image6.png
526
649
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Fujioka does not teach that the additional non-emission part is disposed between the emission part and the additional emission part.
Kim teaches, in FIG. 12, a display device comprising a substrate 1110 (see FIG. 11B) which has an emission part which comprises an emission part EA1 and an additional emission part EA2, as well as a non-emission area comprising a non-emission part NEA2 and an additional non-emission area NEA1. FIG. 10 shows a plurality of emission areas, including the emission area, wherein the non-emission part is disposed between neighboring emission areas, and wherein the additional non-emission part is disposed between the emission part and the additional emission part.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the device taught by Fujioka such that the he additional non-emission part is disposed between the emission part and the additional emission part. One having ordinary skill in the art is motivated to do so because, for example, “. . . the first emission area EA1 and the second emission area EA2 may be differentiated from each other by the first non-emission area NEA1” (Kim, paragraph [0129]), meaning that the emission areas can display, for example, different colors, enabling a multi-color display and increasing the device’s economic viability. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Response to Arguments
The Examiner acknowledges the withdraw of claims 20, 22, and 24 and withdraws previous objections thereto.
The examiner acknowledges the amendment to claim 8 to address the previously presented antecedent basis issue and withdraws the previously presented rejection thereto under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
In response to applicant's argument regarding claims 1 and 12 that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “In Fujioka, the light emission section corresponding to a single pixel is merely a single, undivided region defined by the aperture.”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s) (as the claims recite an emission area comprising an emission part surrounded by an additional emission part, not that this is explicitly to be formed from multiple discontinuous, divided, parts). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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 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.
/G.S.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/JACOB Y CHOI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights