DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on 04/29/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 15-24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Therefore, claims 1-14 have been fully considered in examination.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 10 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 1 and 10 recite the plural “light emitting elements” and thereafter recite “an element portion overlapping the light emitting element.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the light emitting element” in the claim, and it is unclear whether the singular “the light emitting element” refers to one of the previously recited plurality of “light emitting elements” or to a separately introduced element.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2023/0326931 A1, hereinafter “Park”) in view of Nakatani et al. (US 2012/0228602 A1, hereinafter “Nakatani”).
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches a display device (display device, Para [0083]) comprising:
a via layer disposed on a substrate (passivation layer PSV, over the substrate SUB in the pixel circuit layer PCL, FIGS. 10-12);
a first electrode and a second electrode disposed on the via layer and spaced apart from each other (first and second alignment electrodes ALE1, ALE2, spaced apart in the first direction DR1, FIGS. 10-12);
a bank layer disposed on the first electrode and the second electrode (first bank BNK1 disposed on the insulating layer over the alignment electrodes, FIGS. 10–12);
light emitting elements disposed on the bank layer (light emitting elements LD disposed between ALE1 and ALE2, FIGS. 7, 10–12);
an insulating layer disposed on the light emitting elements (an insulating layer over the light emitting elements LD, FIGS. 10–12); and
a first connection electrode and a second connection electrode spaced apart from each other on the bank layer and the light emitting elements, the first connection electrode being electrically connected to one end of the light emitting elements and the second connection electrode being electrically connected to another end of the light emitting elements (first and second contact electrodes contacting the first end EP1 and the second end EP2 of LD, respectively, FIGS. 10–12), wherein
the bank layer includes an element portion overlapping the light emitting element, a partition portion surrounding the element portion, and a bank portion surrounding the partition portion (first horizontal bank H_BNK1, vertical bank V_BNK1, and first bank BNK1, respectively, having thicknesses d3 < d2 < d1 and formed by a halftone mask, FIGS. 19–21), and
the bank layer includes fluorine (the surface of the first bank BNK1 is fluorinated by fluorine-based gas plasma to impart liquid repellency, FIGS. 19–21).
Park does not explicitly teach that an atomic ratio of fluorine on a surface of the bank portion is about 11% or more.
However, Nakatani teaches an ink-jet-printed display in which a fluorine-containing-resin bank has its surface fluorine atomic concentration controlled and measured by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS), the surface fluorine concentration being about 5–10 atom% while the bottom is about 0–3 atom%, the fluorine concentration increasing along the bank thickness direction from bottom to top so as to provide liquid repellency at the bank surface for confining the applied ink (Para [0112] and Table 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the surface fluorine atomic ratio of the bank portion of Park to about 11% or more to obtain the desired liquid repellency for confining the light-emitting-element ink, since Nakatani establishes that this ratio is a result-effective variable and both references are analogous art directed to controlling ink confinement by bank surface wettability, and the discovery of an optimum value of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.05(II); § 2141.01(a); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454 (CCPA 1955); KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Regarding claim 2, Park in view of Nakatani teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the bank portion, the partition portion, and the element portion of the bank layer have different thicknesses (BNK1, V_BNK1, and H_BNK1 have thicknesses d1, d2, and d3 different from one another, FIGS. 19–21).
Regarding claim 3, Park in view of Nakatani teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein a thickness of the bank portion is greater than a thickness of the partition portion and a thickness of the element portion (d1 > d2 and d1 > d3, FIGS. 19–21).
Regarding claim 4, Park in view of Nakatani teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the thickness of the partition portion is greater than the thickness of the element portion (d2 > d3, FIGS. 19–21).
Regarding claim 5, Park teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the bank layer includes a partition portion having a thickness (vertical bank V_BNK1 having thickness d2, FIGS. 19–21), but does not explicitly teach that the thickness of the partition portion is about 1.475 µm or more.
However, Park teaches that the thickness of the partition portion (V_BNK1) is set less than that of the bank portion in order to prevent the light emitting elements from being aligned in an undesired area while controlling the amount of supplied ink (Para [0331] and FIGS. 19–21), such that the partition portion thickness is a result-effective variable governing light-emitting-element alignment and ink confinement.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the thickness of the partition portion, including to about 1.475 µm or more, since the discovery of an optimum value of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 6, Park teaches the display device of claim 1, the partition portion and the element portion each having a thickness (V_BNK1 and H_BNK1 having thicknesses d2 and d3, FIGS. 19–21), but does not explicitly teach that a thickness of the partition portion and a thickness of the element portion are about 1.438 µm or less.
However, the thicknesses of these portions are result-effective variables governing light-emitting-element alignment and ink confinement.
It would have been obvious, for an alternative embodiment in which a thinner partition portion and element portion are desired, to optimize these thicknesses to about 1.438 µm or less, since the discovery of an optimum value of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 7, Park in view of Nakatani teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the atomic ratio of fluorine on the surface of the bank portion is greater than an atomic ratio of fluorine on a surface of the partition portion and an atomic ratio of fluorine on a surface of the element portion (the surface fluorine concentration of an upper, liquid-repellent region is higher than that of a lower, lyophilic region, the fluorine concentration increasing along the bank thickness direction, FIG. 2 and Table 1 of Nakatani).
Regarding claim 8, Park in view of Nakatani teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the atomic ratio of fluorine on the surface of the bank portion is greater than an atomic ratio of fluorine at a center of the bank portion in a thickness direction (the fluorine concentration at the bank surface/top is higher than at the bank bottom, along the thickness direction, Para [0110] and Table 1 of Nakatani).
Regarding claim 9, Park in view of Nakatani teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the bank portion, the partition portion, and the element portion of the bank layer are integral with each other (BNK1, V_BNK1, and H_BNK1 are formed of the same material in a single halftone-mask process as one bank layer, FIGS. 19–21).
Regarding claim 10, Park teaches a display device comprising all of the limitations set forth for claim 1 above (via layer, first and second electrodes, bank layer on the electrodes, light emitting elements, insulating layer, first and second connection electrodes, the element/partition/bank three-portion structure, and a fluorine-containing bank, FIGS. 19–21).
Park does not explicitly teach that an atomic ratio of fluorine on a surface of each of the partition portion and the element portion is about 9.1% or less.
However, Nakatani teaches that the surface fluorine atomic ratio of a bank is measured by XPS and is a result-effective variable controlling the liquid repellency/lyophilicity of the bank, the fluorine concentration varying along the thickness direction such that a lower/lyophilic region has a surface fluorine concentration of about 0–3 atom% and an upper/liquid-repellent region has about 5–10 atom% (Para [0112] and Table 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the surface fluorine atomic ratio of the partition portion and the element portion of Park to about 9.1% or less, in order to impart the lyophilic property required for the light-emitting elements to be aligned and retained in those portions, since the discovery of an optimum value of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.05(II); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454 (CCPA 1955); KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Regarding claim 11, Park in view of Nakatani teaches the display device of claim 10, wherein the bank layer includes a partition portion having a thickness (vertical bank V_BNK1 having thickness d2, FIGS. 19–21), but does not explicitly teach that the thickness of the partition portion is about 1.475 µm or more.
However, Park teaches that the thickness of the partition portion (V_BNK1) is set less than that of the bank portion in order to prevent the light emitting elements from being aligned in an undesired area while controlling the amount of supplied ink (Para [0331] and FIGS. 19–21), such that the partition portion thickness is a result-effective variable governing light-emitting-element alignment and ink confinement.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the thickness of the partition portion, including to about 1.475 µm or more, since the discovery of an optimum value of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 12, Park in view of Nakatani teaches the display device of claim 10, the partition portion and the element portion each having a thickness (V_BNK1 and H_BNK1 having thicknesses d2 and d3, FIGS. 19–21), but does not explicitly teach that a thickness of the partition portion and a thickness of the element portion are about 1.438 µm or less.
However, the thicknesses of these portions are result-effective variables governing light-emitting-element alignment and ink confinement.
It would have been obvious, for an alternative embodiment in which a thinner partition portion and element portion are desired, to optimize these thicknesses to about 1.438 µm or less, since the discovery of an optimum value of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 13, Park in view of Nakatani teaches the display device of claim 10, wherein the atomic ratio of fluorine on the surface of the bank portion is greater than an atomic ratio of fluorine on a surface of the partition portion and an atomic ratio of fluorine on the surface of the element portion (the surface fluorine concentration of an upper, liquid-repellent region is higher than that of a lower, lyophilic region, the fluorine concentration increasing along the bank thickness direction, FIG. 2 and Table 1 of Nakatani).
Regarding claim 14, Park in view of Nakatani teaches the display device of claim 10, wherein the atomic ratio of fluorine on the surface of the bank portion is greater than an atomic ratio of fluorine at a center of the bank portion in a thickness direction (the fluorine concentration at the bank surface/top is higher than at the bank bottom, along the thickness direction, Para [0110] and Table 1 of Nakatani).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9, and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,961,844 B2 ("Park '844") in view of Nakatani (US 2012/0228602 A1).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Park '844 claims 1, 9, and 11 recite a display device having a pixel circuit on a substrate, a first alignment electrode and a second alignment electrode spaced apart from each other, a light emitting element disposed between the alignment electrodes and having first and second ends, an insulating layer on the alignment electrodes, and a first bank disposed on the insulating layer, the first bank including a vertical bank having a thickness less than that of the first bank and a first horizontal bank intersecting the vertical bank, thereby claiming the same via/electrode/light-emitting-element structure and the same element/partition/bank three-portion bank layer recited in the instant claims.
Park '844 does not claim that the bank layer includes fluorine with an atomic ratio of fluorine on a surface of the bank portion of about 11% or more (instant claim 1) or about 9.1% or less on the partition and element portions (instant claim 10). However, Nakatani teaches a fluorine-containing bank in which the surface fluorine atomic ratio is a result-effective variable measured by XPS and controlled to about 5-10 atom% at the surface and about 0-3 atom% at the bottom to provide liquid repellency for ink confinement. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the surface fluorine atomic ratio of the bank of Park '844 to the claimed ranges, since the discovery of an optimum value of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, such that the instant claims are not patentably distinct from the claims of Park '844 in view of Nakatani. See MPEP § 804; § 2144.05(II).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAHAE KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1844. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Fernando Toledo can be reached on (571) 271-1867. 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.
/FERNANDO L TOLEDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/JAHAE KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights