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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/19/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: “pixel defining layer” in line 11. For the sake of compact prosecution, claim 14 is interpreted in the instant Office action as follows: “pixel defining layer” is found to be a typographical error and is believed to be equivalent to “pixel defining film” based on antecedence for this term earlier in the claim; however, no actual change to the claim language has been applied during examination of the instant set of claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: “first common electrode” in line 8. For the sake of compact prosecution, claim 20 is interpreted in the instant Office action as follows: “first common electrode” is found to be a typographical error and is believed to be equivalent to “common electrode” based on antecedence for this term earlier in the claim; however, no actual change to the claim language has been applied during examination of the instant set of claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: “first electrode pattern material layer” in lines 8-9. For the sake of compact prosecution, claim 20 is interpreted in the instant Office action as follows: “first electrode pattern material layer” is found to be a typographical error and is believed to be equivalent to “electrode pattern material layer” based on antecedence for this term earlier in the claim; however, no actual change to the claim language has been applied during examination of the instant set of claims. Appropriate correction is required.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-8, 11-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lin (US 20230263014 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lin discloses a display device (Fig. 4B) comprising:
a first pixel electrode (404; [0059]: “anode”) disposed on (vertically “on”, See annotated figure for direction designation) a substrate (102);
a first sacrificial pattern (110C) disposed on (directly vertically “on”) an edge (left “edge”, See annotated figure for direction designation) of the first pixel electrode;
a pixel defining film (126) including a body portion (126B) disposed on (vertically “on”) the substrate and a protrusion portion (126A) disposed on the first sacrificial pattern (vertically “on”) and exposing (vertically “exposing”) the first pixel electrode;
a first light emitting layer (112; [0037]: “OLED material”) disposed on (vertically “on”) the first pixel electrode;
a first common electrode (114; [0038]: “cathode”) disposed on (vertically “on”) the first light emitting layer;
a first bank layer (110A) disposed on (vertically “on”) the pixel defining film; and
a second bank layer (110B) disposed on (vertically “on”) the first bank layer and having a side surface (right “side surface”, See annotated figure for direction designation) protruding more (horizontally “more” to the right) than a side surface of the first bank layer (right “side surface”),
wherein a first side surface (right “side surface”) of the first sacrificial pattern is aligned with a side surface of the protrusion portion of the pixel defining film (right “side surface”. Note: The claim does not require specific directions, footprints, or shapes for “aligned”. Thus, the resultant shape of sacrificial pattern 110C is reasonably encompassed within the scope of “aligned” as written per MPEP 2111, because this shape is produced by the shape of protrusion portion 126A, as shown in Fig. 6E) or protrudes more than the side surface of the protrusion portion of the pixel defining film.
Illustrated below is a marked and annotated figure of Fig. 4B of Lin.
PNG
media_image1.png
534
725
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Lin discloses the display device of claim 1,
wherein the first sacrificial pattern has a second side surface (left “side surface”) opposite (horizontally “opposite”) to the first side surface, and
the pixel defining film is disposed on (directly “on”) the second side surface of the first sacrificial pattern.
Regarding claim 4, Lin discloses the display device of claim 1 (Fig. 4B), wherein the side surface of the protrusion portion of the pixel defining film protrudes more than (horizontally “more than” to the right) the side surface of the second bank layer.
Regarding claim 6, Lin discloses the display device of claim 1 (Fig. 4B),
wherein an upper surface of the first sacrificial pattern (See annotated figure for “upper” direction designation) is in contact (direct “contact”) with the protrusion portion of the pixel defining film, and
a lower surface of the first sacrificial pattern (See annotated figure for “lower” direction designation) is in contact (direct “contact”) with the first pixel electrode.
Regarding claim 7, Lin discloses the display device of claim 1 (Fig. 4B), wherein the first pixel electrode is a multilayer film (layers 404B/404A/404C) made of indium tin oxide (ITO)/silver (Ag)/ITO, aluminum (Al)/titanium nitride (TiN), or Al/Ti ([0058]: “TCO…silver…TCO” in combination with [0036]: “TCO material includes…ITO”).
Regarding claim 8, Lin discloses the display device of claim 1 (Fig. 4B), wherein an entire lower surface of the protrusion portion of the pixel defining film (See annotated figure for “lower” direction designation) is in contact (a combination of direct and indirect “contact”) with the first sacrificial pattern.
Regarding claim 11, Lin discloses the display device of claim 1 (Fig. 4B), further comprising a first inorganic layer (116; [0066]: “non-conductive inorganic material”) disposed on (directly “on”) an upper surface of the first common electrode (See annotated figure for “upper” direction designation), the side surface of the first bank layer (directly “on” at least a portion), and a lower surface (directly “on”) and an upper surface of the second bank layer (indirectly “on”).
Regarding claim 12, Lin discloses the device of claim 1 (Fig. 4A), further comprising:
a second pixel electrode (404 on right) disposed to be spaced apart (horizontally “apart”) from the first pixel electrode (404 on left) on the substrate;
a second sacrificial pattern (Fig. 4B is relied upon here in the same way as before, for similar structures: pattern 110C) disposed on (directly vertically “on”) an edge (left “edge”, See annotated figure for direction designation) of the second pixel electrode;
a second light emitting layer (112; [0037]: “OLED material”) disposed on (vertically “on”) the second pixel electrode;
a second common electrode (114; [0038]: “cathode”) disposed on (vertically “on”) the second light emitting layer and spaced apart (horizontally “apart”) from the first common electrode (Fig. 4A: 114 on left); and
a second inorganic layer (116 on right) disposed on (directly “on”) an upper surface of the second common electrode (See annotated figure for “upper” direction designation), the side surface of the first bank layer (directly “on” at least a portion), and a lower surface (directly “on”) and an upper surface of the second bank layer (indirectly “on”),
wherein the pixel defining film exposes (vertically “exposes”) the second pixel electrode,
the first inorganic layer and the second inorganic layer are disposed to be spaced apart (horizontally “apart”) from each other, and
a portion of the second bank layer is exposed (vertically “exposed”) in a space between (horizontally “between”) the first inorganic layer and the second inorganic layer spaced apart (horizontally “apart”) from each other (116 on left and right are completely separate from each other including on 2nd bank 110B).
Illustrated below is a marked and annotated figure of Fig. 4A of Lin.
PNG
media_image2.png
358
746
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Lin discloses the display device of claim 1 (Fig. 4B), further comprising:
an organic pattern (112) disposed on (directly “on”) the second bank layer and including a same material as the first light emitting layer ([0053]: “shadowing” teaches these cited pieces of 112 are the “same material”); and
a first electrode pattern (114) disposed on (directly “on”) the organic pattern and including a same material as the first common electrode ([0053]: “shadowing” teaches these cited pieces of 114 are the “same material”),
wherein the first light emitting layer and the organic pattern are separated from each other ([0053]: “shadowing” teaches these cited pieces of 112 are “separated”), and
the first common electrode and the first electrode pattern are separated from each other ([0053]: “shadowing” teaches these cited pieces of 114 are “separated”).
Regarding independent claim 14, Lin discloses a display device (Fig. 4B) comprising:
a pixel electrode (404; [0059]: “anode”) disposed on (vertically “on”, See annotated figure for direction designation) a substrate (102);
a sacrificial pattern (110C) disposed on (directly vertically “on”) the pixel electrode;
a pixel defining film (126) disposed on (vertically “on”) the substrate and including a body portion (126B) and a protrusion portion (126A) protruding from the body portion (horizontally “protruding”);
a light emitting layer (112; [0037]: “OLED material”) disposed on (vertically “on”) the pixel electrode;
a common electrode (114; [0038]: “cathode”) disposed on (vertically “on”) the light emitting layer;
a first bank layer (110A) disposed on (vertically “on”) the pixel defining film; and
a second bank layer (110B) disposed on (vertically “on”) the first bank layer and having a side surface (right “side surface”, See annotated figure for direction designation) protruding more (horizontally “more” to the right) than a side surface of the first bank layer (right “side surface”),
wherein the protrusion portion of the pixel defining layer is disposed on the pixel electrode (vertically “on”), and is spaced apart (vertically “apart” by intervening 110C) from an upper surface of the pixel electrode (See annotated figure for “upper” direction designation), and
a space between the protrusion portion of the pixel defining film and the pixel electrode is filled (at least partially “filled”) with the sacrificial pattern.
Regarding claim 15, Lin discloses the display device of claim 14 (Fig. 4B), wherein a lower surface of the protrusion portion of the pixel defining film (See annotated figure for “lower” direction designation) is not in contact with the light emitting layer (a portion of film 126 is not directly vertically contacting layer 112, and this portion is being designated as the “lower surface”).
Regarding claim 16, Lin discloses the display device of claim 14 (Fig. 4B),
wherein an upper surface of the sacrificial pattern (See annotated figure for “upper” direction designation) is in contact (direct “contact”) with the protrusion portion of the pixel defining film, and
a lower surface of the sacrificial pattern (See annotated figure for “upper” direction designation) is in contact (direct “contact”) with the pixel electrode.
Regarding independent claim 17, Lin discloses a method for fabrication of a display device (Fig. 4A), comprising:
forming a plurality of pixel electrodes (404; [0059]: “anode”) and sacrificial layers (110C) on (vertically “on”, See annotated figure for direction designation) a substrate (102), the plurality of pixel electrodes being spaced apart (horizontally “apart”, See annotated figure for direction designation) from each other, and the sacrificial layers being disposed on (directly vertically “on”) the pixel electrodes;
forming a pixel defining material layer (126) on the sacrificial layers (vertically “on”), forming a first bank material layer (110A) on the pixel defining material layer (vertically “on”), and forming a second bank material layer (110B) on (vertically “on”) the first bank material layer;
forming a hole (Fig. 4A: See annotated figure) exposing (vertically “exposing”) a pixel electrode (any one of 404) of the plurality of pixel electrodes by etching (Fig. 2: method step 203) the pixel defining material layer, the first bank material layer (method step 203), and the second bank material layer (method step 202);
etching (the method step of Fig. 6E; [0077]: “removed by a wet etch process”) a portion of the sacrificial layer (a portion of 602C) exposed through the hole (See preceding Fig. 6D: exposed 602C, which corresponds to resultant 110C cited earlier) and side surfaces of the first bank material layer (horizontal “side surfaces”) exposed through the hole (See preceding Fig. 6D: exposed 110A to the hole. Note: these surfaces are exposed to the hole and the hole includes an auxiliary material 608 during method step 6D) such that portions of a lower surface of the second bank material layer (Fig. 4B: See annotated figure for “lower” direction designation) are exposed (vertically “exposed” to the hole. Note: these surfaces are exposed to the hole and the hole includes an auxiliary material 608 during method step 6D);
forming a light emitting layer (Fig. 4B: 112; [0037]: “OLED material”) on (vertically “on”) the pixel electrode and forming a common electrode (114; [0038]: “cathode”) on (vertically “on”) the light emitting layer; and
forming an inorganic material layer (116; [0066]: “non-conductive inorganic material”) on (vertically “on”) the common electrode.
Regarding claim 20, Lin discloses the method for fabrication of the display device of claim 17 (Fig. 4B),
wherein in the forming of the light emitting layer on the pixel electrode and the forming of the common electrode on the light emitting layer, an organic pattern material layer (112) separated from the light emitting layer ([0053]: “shadowing” teaches these cited pieces of 112 are “separated”) is formed on (vertically “on”) the second bank material layer, and an electrode pattern material layer (114) separated from the common electrode is formed on the organic pattern material layer ([0053]: “shadowing” teaches these cited pieces of 114 are “separated”), and
in the forming of the inorganic material layer on the common electrode, a monolithic inorganic material layer is formed to cover both the first common electrode and the first electrode pattern material layer (a single “monolithic” continuous meandering piece of 116 is formed conformally on both cited pieces of 114).
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.
Rejection Note: Italicized claim limitations indicate limitations that are not explicitly disclosed in the primary reference (or combination of references), but are disclosed or rendered obvious by secondary references or remarks.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hosaka (US 20250098439 A1, claiming PCT priority to 1/17/2023).
Regarding claim2, Lin discloses the display device of claim 1, but fails to teach the claimed material composition of the first sacrificial pattern “wherein the first sacrificial pattern includes molybdenum (Mo)”.
Hosaka discloses the first sacrificial pattern (Fig. 37A: pattern 118R), wherein the first sacrificial pattern includes molybdenum (Mo) ([0589]: “molybdenum”).
Modifying the material composition of the first sacrificial pattern (of Lin) by incorporating the finite selection of known suitable material compositions of Hosaka would arrive at the claimed “first sacrificial pattern” material configuration. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have had a reasonable expectation of success doing so because: 1) in each situation the first sacrificial pattern is used in the same way to pattern a portion of a pixel (Lin: Fig. 6E: portion 404; Hosaka: Fig. 37A: portion 113R/111R) during an etching operation (Lin: etching of Fig. 6E; Hosaka: etching of Fig. 37A), and 2) Hosaka teaches the finite selection of known suitable material compositions overlaps in scope with the compositions disclosed by Lin (Hosaka: [0588]: “In—Ga—Zn oxide…In—Zn oxide…In—Ti oxide…” overlaps in scope with Lin: [0061]: “…a metal-containing material or an inorganic material…indium zinc oxide (IZO), indium tin oxide (ITO), indium gallium zinc oxide (IGZO)…”).
Since Lin and Hosaka are in the same field of endeavor, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have readily recognized the finite number of predictable solutions for the “first sacrificial pattern” material configuration. These predictable solutions include “molybdenum (Mo)” as these may be chosen from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (Hosaka: [0589]). Absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try using a different material configuration. Therefore, the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technique grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” MPEP 2143 (1)(E).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kanda (US 20170077196 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Lin discloses the display device of claim 1, but fails to teach the claimed dimensional configuration of the first sacrificial pattern “wherein a thickness of the first sacrificial pattern is 50 angstroms (Å) to 600 Å” because Lin is silent regarding this specific dimension.
Nevertheless, the claimed thickness range is reasonably close to a substantially similar first sacrificial pattern disclosed elsewhere in the prior art: Kanda discloses the first sacrificial pattern (Kanda: Fig. 2: pattern 350), wherein a thickness of the first sacrificial pattern ([0046]: “150 nm or more and 500 nm or less”) is reasonably close to the claimed thickness “50 angstroms (Å) to 600 Å”. These thickness ranges are reasonably close because they differ by only one order of magnitude. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have had a reasonable expectation of success including the claimed “thickness” because in each situation the “first sacrificial pattern” is used in the same way to pattern a portion of a pixel (Lin: Fig. 6E: portion 404; Kanda: Fig. 10: portion 300) during an etching operation (Lin: etching of Fig. 6E; Kanda: etching of Fig. 10).
Lin discloses the claimed invention except for the dimensional configuration “wherein a thickness of the first sacrificial pattern is 50 angstroms (Å) to 600 Å”. However, this dimensional configuration would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in view of the dimensional configuration disclosed by Kanda, since a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin.
Regarding claim 9, Lin discloses the display device of claim 1 (Fig. 4B),
wherein the first common electrode and the first light emitting layer are in contact (direct horizontal “contact”) with the first bank layer, and
a contact area between the first common electrode and the first bank layer is greater than a contact area between the first light emitting layer and the first bank layer.
Lin fails to teach specific “contact area” ranges for the “first common electrode”, “first light emitting layer”, and “first bank layer”. Thus, Lin fails to teach the claimed configuration:
“a contact area between the first common electrode and the first bank layer is greater than a contact area between the first light emitting layer and the first bank layer”.
Nevertheless, Lin illustrates these contact areas as separate and distinct contact areas, and fails to teach any required relation among these contact areas. Thus. it is reasonable to expect differing properties among these contact areas. Accordingly, the examiner finds only three possible relations for these areas: 1) less than; 2) equal to; or 3) greater than. A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have readily recognized the finite number of predictable solutions for the relation for these contact areas. These predictable solutions include: 1) less than; 2) equal to; or 3) greater than, as these may be chosen from a finite number of only three possible solutions identified by the examiner. Absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try using a different “contact area” configuration. Therefore, the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technique grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” MPEP 2143 (1)(E).
Additionally, the examiner finds the only difference between Lin and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the “contact area”; and in each situation “a contact area” (direct contact) exists between a “first bank layer” and a “first common electrode” and a “first light emitting layer” (Lin: Fig. 4B: bank 110A, electrode 114, layer 112; Applicant’s disclosure: Figs. 5-7: bank BN1, electrode CE1, layer EL1). Therefore, the claimed “contact area” would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date because it is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A): Gardner.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim (US 20230209864 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Lin discloses the display device of claim 1 (Fig. 4B),
wherein the first bank layer includes aluminum (Al) ([0061]: “aluminum”), and
the second bank layer includes titanium (Ti).
Lin fails to teach specific examples for the material configuration of the second bank layer. Thus, Lin fails to explicitly teach “the second bank layer includes titanium (Ti)”.
Kim discloses the second bank layer (Fig. 2A: 541) includes titanium (Ti) ([0059]: titanium nitride…titanium oxide”).
Modifying the material configuration of the second bank layer (of Lin) by choosing from the finite selection of known suitable bank material configurations (of Kim) would arrive at the claimed material configuration. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have had a reasonable expectation of success doing so because in each situation, the bank is an inorganic material (Lin: [0061]: “inorganic material”; Kim: [0059]: “inorganic layer”).
Since Lin and Kim are in the same field of endeavor, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have readily recognized the finite number of predictable solutions for the “second bank layer” material configuration. These predictable solutions include “titanium (Ti)” as these may be chosen from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (Kim: [0059]). Absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try using a different material configuration. Therefore, the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technique grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” MPEP 2143 (1)(E).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Hosaka.
Regarding claim 19, Lin discloses the method for fabrication of the display device of claim 17 (Fig. 6E), wherein the etching of the portion of the sacrificial layer exposed through the hole and the side surfaces of the first bank material layer exposed through the hole includes performing a wet etching process ([0077]: “a wet etch process”) that uses an etchant including phosphorus (P), fluorine (F), or nitrogen (N).
Lin fails to teach specific etchants used during the wet etching process. Thus, Lin fails to teach “performing a wet etching process that uses an etchant including phosphorus (P), fluorine (F), or nitrogen (N)”.
Hosaka discloses performing a wet etching process ([0604]: “a wet etching method”) that uses an etchant including phosphorus (P) ([0604]: “phosphoric acid”), fluorine (F) ([0604]: “hydrofluoric acid”), or nitrogen (N) ([0604]: “TMAH…nitric acid”).
Modifying the wet etching process (of Lin) by incorporating the finite selection of known suitable etchants of Hosaka would arrive at the claimed “etchant” material configuration. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have had a reasonable expectation of success doing so because: 1) in each situation the first sacrificial pattern is used in the same way to pattern a portion of a pixel (Lin: Fig. 6E: portion 404; Hosaka: Fig. 37A: portion 113R/111R) during a wet etching operation (Lin: etching of Fig. 6E; Hosaka: etching of Fig. 37A), and 2) Hosaka teaches the sacrificial layer materials overlap in scope with the materials disclosed by Lin (Hosaka: [0588]: “In—Ga—Zn oxide…In—Zn oxide…In—Ti oxide…” overlaps in scope with Lin: [0061]: “…a metal-containing material or an inorganic material…indium zinc oxide (IZO), indium tin oxide (ITO), indium gallium zinc oxide (IGZO)…”).
Since Lin and Hosaka are in the same field of endeavor, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have readily recognized the finite number of predictable solutions for the “etchant” material configuration. These predictable solutions include “phosphorus (P), fluorine (F), or nitrogen (N)” as these may be chosen from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (Hosaka: [0604]). Absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try using a different material configuration. Therefore, the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technique grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” MPEP 2143 (1)(E).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 is 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.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The primary reason for the allowable subject matter of claim 18 is the inclusion of the limitation “forming a metal electrode layer on the substrate and forming a sacrificial material layer on the metal electrode layer;
forming a mask pattern on the sacrificial material layer and etching portions of the sacrificial material layer and the metal electrode layer that are not covered by the mask pattern; and
heat-treating remaining portions of the sacrificial material layer and the metal electrode layer that are covered by the mask pattern.” in combination with the other limitations in the claim. For example, prior art of record fails to teach or be reasonably combined to render obvious the claimed limitations “etching portions of the sacrificial material layer and the metal electrode layer”, “the mask pattern”, and “heat treating”, in combination with “” all other sequences and limitations in claims 18 and 17.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM H ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2534. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00-5:00.
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, Kretelia Graham can be reached at (571) 272-5055. 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.
/WILLIAM H ANDERSON/ Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights