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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s election, without traverse, of Group I-B, claims 13-16 in the reply filed on April 27th, 2026 is acknowledged. Non-elected invention of Group II-A, claims 1-12 and 17-20 have been withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Action on merits of Group I-B, claims 13-16 as follows.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 29th, 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 01/29/2024 are acceptable.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
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.
Claims 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choung (US 2022/0077251, hereinafter as Chou ‘251) in view of Nakamura (US 2016/0190508, hereinafter as Naka ‘508).
Regarding Claim 13, Chou ‘251 teaches a mother substrate for a display device, comprising:
a substrate (Fig. 1A, (102); [0027]) including a plurality of panel portions each of which includes a display area (108a; [0029]), and a margin area around the panel portions (region of (110); [0030]);
a lower electrode (anode, 104; [0027]) provided in the display area;
a rib (PDL (126); [0027]) comprising a pixel aperture overlapping the lower electrode;
a first partition (110; [0030]) formed in the margin area and including a first lower portion (110A; [0030]) formed of an inorganic insulating material and a first upper portion comprising an end portion which protrudes from a side surface of the first lower portion;
a stacked film (112; [0029]) including an organic layer which is in contact with the lower electrode (104) through the pixel aperture, and an upper electrode (cathode (114); [0032]) which covers the organic layer (112); and
a sealing layer (encapsulation layer (116); [0034]) formed of an inorganic insulating material which covers the stacked film (112), wherein the stacked film is formed in the panel portions and the margin area and is divided into a plurality of portions by the first partition, the sealing layer (116) continuously covers the plurality of portions, an end portion of the substrate (102) is spaced apart from an end portion of the sealing layer as seen in plan view.
Thus, Chou ‘251 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “a first lower portion formed of an organic insulating material; and the stacked film is exposed from the sealing layer in an area between the end portion of the substrate and the end portion of the sealing layer”.
However, Naka ‘508 teaches a first lower portion (separation wall (150); [0040]) formed of an organic insulating material; and the stacked film (160; [0038]) is exposed from the sealing layer (180; [0046]) in an area between the end portion of the substrate (110) and the end portion of the sealing layer (180) (see Fig. 2A).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Chou ‘251 by having a first lower portion formed of an organic insulating material; and the stacked film is exposed from the sealing layer in an area between the end portion of the substrate and the end portion of the sealing layer for the purpose of providing an organic EL display that has a reduced optical loss and high efficiency and is inexpensive (see para. [0019]) as suggested by Naka ‘508.
PNG
media_image1.png
252
730
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1A (Chou ‘251)
Regarding Claim 15, Chou ‘251 teaches the rib (126; [0028]) and the first upper portion (11B; [0040]) are formed of inorganic insulating material.
Chou ‘251 and Naka ‘508 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the rib and the first upper portion are formed of a same inorganic insulating material”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select the rib and the first upper portion are formed of a same inorganic insulating material on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select the rib and the first upper portion are formed of a same inorganic insulating material when this allows a good flow with the other steps in the fabrication process.
Product by process limitation:
The expression “formed of the same inorganic insulating material” is/are taken to be a product by process limitation and is given no patentable weight. A product by process claim directed to the product per se, no matter how actually made, In re Hirao, 190 USPQ 15 at 17 (footnote 3). See In re Fessman, 180 USPQ 324, 326 (CCPA 1974); In re Marosi et al., 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972); In re Pilkington, 411 F.2d 1345, 1348, 162 USPQ 145, 147 (CCPA 1969); Buono v. Yankee Maid Dress Corp., 77 F.2d 274, 279, 26 USPQ 57, 61 (2d. Cir. 1935); and particularly In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985), all of which make it clear that it is the patentability of the final structure of the product “gleaned” from the process steps, which must be determined in a “product by process” claim, and not the patentability of the process. See also MPEP 2113. Moreover, an old and obvious product produced by a new method is not a patentable product, whether claimed in “product by process” claims or not.
Claims 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou ‘251 and Naka ‘508 as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Takana (US 2009/0009069, hereinafter as Taka ‘069).
Regarding Claim 14, Chou ‘251 and Naka ‘508 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “an organic insulating layer formed of the same organic insulating material as the first lower portion and provided in the display area, and the lower electrode is provided above the organic insulating layer”.
Taka ‘069 teaches an organic insulating layer (Fig. 1, (110); [0044]) provided in the display area, and the lower electrode (300; [0040]) is provided above the organic insulating layer (110).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Chou ‘251 and Naka ‘508 by having an organic insulating layer provided in the display area, and the lower electrode is provided above the organic insulating layer in order to planarize an uneven part of the TFT portion (see para. [0044]) as suggested by Taka ‘069.
Chou ‘251, Naka ‘508 and Taka ‘069 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “formed of the same organic insulating material as the first lower portion”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select organic insulating layer material is the same organic insulating material as the first lower portion on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select organic insulating layer material is the same organic insulating material as the first lower portion when this allows a good flow with the other steps in the fabrication process.
Product by process limitation:
The expression “formed of the same organic insulating material” is/are taken to be a product by process limitation and is given no patentable weight. A product by process claim directed to the product per se, no matter how actually made, In re Hirao, 190 USPQ 15 at 17 (footnote 3). See In re Fessman, 180 USPQ 324, 326 (CCPA 1974); In re Marosi et al., 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972); In re Pilkington, 411 F.2d 1345, 1348, 162 USPQ 145, 147 (CCPA 1969); Buono v. Yankee Maid Dress Corp., 77 F.2d 274, 279, 26 USPQ 57, 61 (2d. Cir. 1935); and particularly In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985), all of which make it clear that it is the patentability of the final structure of the product “gleaned” from the process steps, which must be determined in a “product by process” claim, and not the patentability of the process. See also MPEP 2113. Moreover, an old and obvious product produced by a new method is not a patentable product, whether claimed in “product by process” claims or not.
Regarding Claim 16, Taka ‘069 teaches the lower electrode (e.g. a chromium material, a silver material, (300); [0046]) and the first upper portion (e.g. a chromium material, a silver material, (350); [0050]) are formed of a same conductive material.
Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select the lower electrode and the first upper portion are formed of a same conductive material on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select the lower electrode and the first upper portion are formed of a same conductive material when this allows a good flow with the other steps in the fabrication process.
Product by process limitation:
The expression “formed of a same conductive material” is/are taken to be a product by process limitation and is given no patentable weight. A product by process claim directed to the product per se, no matter how actually made, In re Hirao, 190 USPQ 15 at 17 (footnote 3). See In re Fessman, 180 USPQ 324, 326 (CCPA 1974); In re Marosi et al., 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972); In re Pilkington, 411 F.2d 1345, 1348, 162 USPQ 145, 147 (CCPA 1969); Buono v. Yankee Maid Dress Corp., 77 F.2d 274, 279, 26 USPQ 57, 61 (2d. Cir. 1935); and particularly In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985), all of which make it clear that it is the patentability of the final structure of the product “gleaned” from the process steps, which must be determined in a “product by process” claim, and not the patentability of the process. See also MPEP 2113. Moreover, an old and obvious product produced by a new method is not a patentable product, whether claimed in “product by process” claims or not.
Examiner’s Note
Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. See MPEP 2111, 2123, 2125, 2141.02 VI, and 2182.
Examiner has cited particular paragraph numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following patents are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to semiconductor devices:
Lee et al. (US 2016/0351636 A1)
Kim et al. (US 2013/0248867 A1)
Jones et al. (US 6,069443)
For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DZUNG T TRAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-3911. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8 AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sue Purvis can be reached on (571) 272-1236. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DZUNG TRAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights