DETAILED ACTION
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 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 11-13, 15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai (U.S. PGPub 2025/0031522) in view of Aoyama (U.S. PGPub 2017/0062528).
Regarding claim 1, Dai teaches a display device comprising a substrate having light-emitting areas (Fig. 2) comprising a pixel electrode above the substrate ([0077], [0076]), a pixel-defining layer comprising: a first portion having a first thickness and having an upper surface having liquid repellency; and a second portion having a second thickness that is less than the first thickness and having an upper surface that is lyophilic (Fig. 4, 22, first portion 221, upper surface 45, second portion 222, [0142]-[0147]), and a light-emitting layer above the pixel electrode (42, [0075]).
Dai does not explicitly teach the pixel-defining layer exposing a portion of the pixel electrode.
Aoyama teaches a display device comprising a pixel-defining layer having a first portion having a first thickness and having an upper surface having liquid repellency, and a second portion having a second thickness that is less than the first thickness, where the pixel-defining layer exposes the pixel electrode (Fig. 4C, 82, 11/11a, [0121], [0082]-[0083]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Aoyama with Dai such that the pixel-defining layer exposes a portion of the pixel electrode because the prior art teaches every element, a person of ordinary skill could have combined them as claimed and in combination each element performs the same function as it does separately, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention. See MPEP 2143(I)A.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Dai and Aoyama teaches wherein the pixel-defining layer has a single-layer structure in which the first portion and the second portion are integrated (Aoyama, [0111]). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill to further combine the teachings of Aoyama with Dai such that the pixel-defining layer has a single-layer structure in which the first portion and the second portion are integrated for the purpose of forming the portions from the same material and with a single mask (Aoyama, [0111]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Dai and Aoyama teaches wherein the light-emitting layer covers the second portion, and is spaced apart from the upper surface of the first portion (Dai, Figs. 4-5).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Dai and Aoyama teaches wherein the first portion is between a respective pair of the light-emitting areas that are adjacent to each other and that emit light of different respective colors, and wherein the second portion is between another respective pair of the light-emitting areas that are adjacent to each other and that emit light of a same color (Dai, Fig. 2, Figs. 4-5).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Dai and Aoyama teaches wherein the pixel-defining layer comprises a positive photoresist (Dai, [0151]; Aoyama, [0566]).
Regarding claim 11, Dai teaches forming a display device comprising a substrate having light-emitting areas (Fig. 2) comprising a pixel electrode above the substrate ([0077], [0076]), forming a pixel-defining layer, and comprising: a first portion having a first thickness and having an upper surface having liquid repellency; and a second portion having a second thickness that is less than the first thickness and having an upper surface that is lyophilic (Fig. 4, 22, first portion 221, upper surface 45, second portion 222, [0142]-[0147]), and forming a light-emitting layer above the pixel electrode (42, [0075]).
Dai does not explicitly teach forming a preliminary pixel-defining layer covering the pixel electrode on the substrate and forming the pixel defining layer by patterning the preliminary pixel-defining layer using a mask, the pixel-defining layer exposing a portion of the pixel electrode.
Aoyama teaches a display device comprising a pixel-defining layer having a first portion having a first thickness and having an upper surface having liquid repellency, and a second portion having a second thickness that is less than the first thickness, where the pixel-defining layer exposes the pixel electrode (Fig. 4C, 82, 11/11a, [0121], [0082]-[0083]), and forming the pixel-defining layer by forming a preliminary pixel-defining layer covering the pixel electrode on the substrate and patterning the preliminary pixel-defining layer using a mask ([0111], [0566]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Aoyama with Dai such that the method comprises forming a preliminary pixel-defining layer covering the pixel electrode on the substrate and forming the pixel defining layer by patterning the preliminary pixel-defining layer using a mask, the pixel-defining layer exposing a portion of the pixel electrode, for the purpose of forming the portions from the same material and with a single mask (Aoyama, [0111]) and because the prior art teaches every element, a person of ordinary skill could have combined them as claimed and in combination each element performs the same function as it does separately, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention. See MPEP 2143(I)A.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Dai and Aoyama teaches wherein the pixel-defining layer has a single-layer structure in which the first portion and the second portion are integrated (Aoyama, [0111]).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Dai and Aoyama teaches wherein the pixel-defining layer comprises a positive photoresist (Dai, [0151]; Aoyama, [0566]).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Dai and Aoyama teaches wherein the mask comprises a halftone mask (Aoyama, [0111]).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Dai and Aoyama teaches wherein the light-emitting layer is formed through an inkjet printing process (Dai, [0107]).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Dai and Aoyama teaches wherein the light-emitting layer covers the second portion, and is spaced apart from the upper surface of the first portion (Dai, Figs. 4-5).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Dai and Aoyama teaches wherein the first portion is between a respective pair of the light-emitting areas that are adjacent to each other and that emit light of different respective colors, and wherein the second portion is between another respective pair of the light-emitting areas that are adjacent to each other and that emit light of a same color (Dai, Fig. 2, Figs. 4-5).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai (U.S. PGPub 2025/0031522) in view of Aoyama (U.S. PGPub 2017/0062528) and Hu (CN 115207069 A).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Dai and Aoyama does not explicitly teach wherein the first thickness is about 1.6 μm or less, and wherein the second thickness is about 0.8 μm or less.
Hu teaches a display device comprising a substrate having light-emitting areas (Fig. 3) comprising a pixel electrode above the substrate (211, Fig. 1, [0060]), a pixel-defining layer exposing a portion of the pixel electrode (30, Fig. 1) and comprising: a first portion having a first thickness and having an upper surface having liquid repellency and a second portion having a second thickness that is less than the first thickness (Figs. 3-5, first portion 32, second portion 31, [0051]-[0053]), and a light-emitting layer above the pixel electrode (Fig. 1, 212), wherein the first thickness is 1.0-1.7 μm and the second thickness is 0.2-1.0 μm ([0065]). In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Hu with Dai and Aoyama such that the first thickness is about 1.6 μm or less, and wherein the second thickness is about 0.8 μm or less for the purpose of allowing ink in sub-pixels of the same color to distribute uniformly and preventing in in sub-pixels of different colors from mixing (Hu, [0065]; Dai, [0145]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai (U.S. PGPub 2025/0031522) in view of Aoyama (U.S. PGPub 2017/0062528) and Hou (U.S. PGPub 2019/0103449).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Dai and Aoyama does not explicitly teach wherein a taper angle of the first portion is greater than a taper angle of the second portion.
Hou teaches wherein a pixel defining layer portion where ink should diffuse more easily has a smaller taper angle and a portion where ink should diffuse less easily has a larger taper angle ([0047]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Nakatani with Dai and Aoyama such that a taper angle of the first portion is greater than a taper angle of the second portion for the purpose of uniformly distributing the light-emitting layer in regions of the same color and providing liquid repellency between light-emitting regions of different colors (Dai, [0148]; Hou, [0047]).
Claims 8-9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai (U.S. PGPub 2025/0031522) in view of Aoyama (U.S. PGPub 2017/0062528) and Nakatani (U.S. PGPub 2021/0167147).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Dai and Aoyama does not explicitly teach wherein a contact angle of the composition for the light-emitting layer with respect to the upper surface of the first portion is about 50 degrees to about 70 degrees, and wherein a contact angle of the composition for the light-emitting layer with respect to the upper surface of the second portion is about 10 degrees to about 20 degrees.
Nakatani teaches a display device comprising a pixel defining layer comprising a first portion between light-emitting areas of different colors and a second portion between light-emitting areas of the same color, wherein the second portion has a smaller thickness that is less than the first thickness of the first portion (Figs. 4A-4C, 103, 102), wherein the first portion has an upper surface having liquid repellency and the second portion is lyophilic ([0118], [0120]), a contact angle of the composition for the light-emitting layer with respect to the upper surface of the first portion is about 30 degrees to about 70 degrees, and wherein a contact angle of the composition for the light-emitting layer with respect to the upper surface of the second portion is about 5 degrees to about 30 degrees ([0068], [0120], [0138]). In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Nakatani with Dai and Aoyama such that a contact angle of the composition for the light-emitting layer with respect to the upper surface of the first portion is about 50 degrees to about 70 degrees, and wherein a contact angle of the composition for the light-emitting layer with respect to the upper surface of the second portion is about 10 degrees to about 20 degrees for the purpose of uniformly distributing the light-emitting layer in regions of the same color (Dai, [0148]; Nakatani, [0063]); and providing liquid repellency between light-emitting regions of different colors (Dai, [0148]; Nakatani, [0066]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Dai and Aoyama does not explicitly teach wherein the pixel-defining layer comprises a liquid repellent containing a fluorine-based material, and wherein a density of the liquid repellent in an area adjacent to the upper surface of the first portion is greater than a density of the liquid repellent in an area adjacent to the upper surface of the second portion.
Nakatani teaches a display device comprising a pixel defining layer comprising a first portion between light-emitting areas of different colors and a second portion between light-emitting areas of the same color, wherein the second portion has a second thickness that is less than the first thickness of the first portion (Figs. 4A-4C, 103, 102), wherein the first portion has an upper surface having liquid repellency and the second portion is lyophilic ([0118], [0120]), wherein the pixel-defining layer comprises a liquid repellent containing a fluorine-based material, and wherein a density of the liquid repellent in an area adjacent to the upper surface of the first portion is greater than a density of the liquid repellent in an area adjacent to the upper surface of the second portion ([0113], [0117]-[0118]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Nakatani with Dai and Aoyama such that the pixel-defining layer comprises a liquid repellent containing a fluorine-based material, and wherein a density of the liquid repellent in an area adjacent to the upper surface of the first portion is greater than a density of the liquid repellent in an area adjacent to the upper surface of the second portion for the purpose of uniformly distributing the light-emitting layer in regions of the same color (Dai, [0148]; Nakatani, [0063]); and providing liquid repellency between light-emitting regions of different colors (Dai, [0148]; Nakatani, [0066]).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Dai and Aoyama does not explicitly teach wherein the preliminary pixel-defining layer comprises a liquid repellent containing a fluorine-based material.
Nakatani teaches a display device comprising a pixel defining layer comprising a first portion between light-emitting areas of different colors and a second portion between light-emitting areas of the same color, wherein the second portion has a second thickness that is less than the first thickness of the first portion (Figs. 4A-4C, 103, 102), wherein the first portion has an upper surface having liquid repellency and the second portion is lyophilic ([0118], [0120]), wherein the pixel-defining layer comprises a liquid repellent containing a fluorine-based material ([0113]), and wherein the pixel-defining layer is formed by etching the portion having a fluorine-based material and the portion not having a fluorine-based material at the same time ([0095]-[0098]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Nakatani with Dai and Aoyama such that the preliminary pixel-defining layer comprises a liquid repellent containing a fluorine-based material for the purpose of uniformly distributing the light-emitting layer in regions of the same color (Dai, [0148]; Nakatani, [0063]); and providing liquid repellency between light-emitting regions of different colors (Dai, [0148]; Nakatani, [0066]) while forming the pixel defining layer with a single mask (Aoyama, [0111]; Nakatani, [0098]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai (U.S. PGPub 2025/0031522) in view of Aoyama (U.S. PGPub 2017/0062528) and Jia (U.S. PGPub 2025/0081741).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Dai and Aoyama does not explicitly teach wherein the upper surface of the second portion has a concave and convex structure.
Jia teaches a display device comprising a pixel defining layer comprising a first portion having a first thickness and a second portion having a second thickness less than the first thickness, wherein the first portion has an upper surface having liquid repellency and the second portion is lyophilic (Figs. 1-2, first portion comprises 111 and 112, second portion comprises 111, [0053], [0044]), wherein the upper surface of the second portion has a concave and convex structure (Fig. 2, t1/t2, [0046]; Fig. 4, [0052]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Jia with Dai and Aoyama such that the upper surface of the second portion has a concave and convex structure for the purpose of adjusting the contact angle and improving the fluidity of the ink (Jia, [0052]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai (U.S. PGPub 2025/0031522) in view of Aoyama (U.S. PGPub 2017/0062528) and Ishii (U.S. PGPub 2016/0013254).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Dai and Aoyama does not explicitly teach wherein the mask comprises a slit mask. Aoyama teaches wherein the mask comprises a halftone mask or graytone mask (Aoyama, [0111]).
Ishii teaches wherein a graytone mask comprising slits is used to form a pixel defining layer with portions having different heights (Fig. 5, [0067]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Dai and Aoyama because the prior art teaches an element which differs from the claim by substitution with a different element, the claimed element is known in the art, a person of ordinary skill could have substituted one known element for another, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention. See MPEP 2143.I.B.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai (U.S. PGPub 2025/0031522) in view of Aoyama (U.S. PGPub 2017/0062528), Jia (U.S. PGPub 2025/0081741), and and Ishii (U.S. PGPub 2016/0013254).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Dai, Aoyama, and Jia does not explicitly teach wherein the upper surface of the second portion has a concave and convex structure after the forming of the pixel-defining layer.
Jia teaches a display device comprising a pixel defining layer comprising a first portion having a first thickness and a second portion having a second thickness less than the first thickness, wherein the first portion has an upper surface having liquid repellency and the second portion is lyophilic (Figs. 1-2, first portion comprises 111 and 112, second portion comprises 111, [0053], [0044]), wherein the upper surface of the second portion has a concave and convex structure (Fig. 2, t1/t2, [0046]; Fig. 4, [0052]) after the forming of the pixel defining layer ([0070]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Jia with Dai, Aoyama, and Jia such that the upper surface of the second portion has a concave and convex structure after the forming of the pixel-defining layer for the purpose of adjusting the contact angle and improving the fluidity of the ink (Jia, [0052]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALIA SABUR whose telephone number is (571)270-7219. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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, Christine S. Kim can be reached at 571-272-8458. 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.
/ALIA SABUR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812