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
This office action is in response to the Applicant Election filled on 06/02/2026. Currently, claims 1-21 are pending in the application. Claims 1-13 have been withdrawn from consideration.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Group II, claims 14-21, in the reply filed on 06/02/2026 is acknowledged, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
Claims 14-17 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over SONG et al (US 20150299843 A1) in view of TIAN et al (US 20160043152 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Figures 1-5 of SONG disclose a method of manufacturing a display device, the method comprising:
forming a base portion (58/59, polyimide, [0085]) on a display substrate (50, [0083]);
supplying a second raw material (for 63) onto the base portion while linearly moving at least one selected from the display substrate and a nozzle portion facing the display substrate; and
forming a second layer (61) on the base portion by supplying a first raw material (for 61) onto the base portion, on which the second raw material is supplied, while linearly moving the at least one selected from the display substrate and the nozzle portion facing the display substrate (please see Figures 1-4 for deposition by linearly moving the nozzle position, [0048]).
SONG does not teach that the first and the second raw materials are graphene and the forming a second graphene layer on the base portion by supplying the first raw material.
However, TIAN is a pertinent art which teaches an OLED display wherein TIAN teaches that wherein at least one of the cathode 41 and anode 42 are made of the carbon nanotube or graphene with conductor properties ([0071]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of SONG by forming graphene electrodes for the OLED electrodes (61 and 62) by using a first and a second raw materials for forming the graphene layer according to the teaching of TIAN in order to have improved quality electrode for the OLED.
Regarding claim 15, Figures 1-5 of SONG in view of TIAN teach that the method of claim 14, wherein at least one selected from the base portion and the graphene layer is formed in a pattern (SONG teaches pattern sheet to form layers in a pattern, [0042]).
Regarding claim 16, Figures 1-5 of SONG in view of TIAN teach that the method of claim 14, wherein the base portion (59) comprises at least one selected from polyimide and transition metals ([0085], polyimide).
Regarding claim 17, Figures 1-5 of SONG in view of TIAN teach that the method of claim 14, wherein the forming the base portion on the display substrate comprises: supplying a first base raw material onto the display substrate while linearly moving the at least one selected from the display substrate and the nozzle portion facing the display substrate; and supplying a second base raw material onto the display substrate, on which the first base raw material is supplied, while linearly moving the at least one selected from the display substrate and the nozzle portion facing the display substrate ([0048] teaches of moving linearly and raw materials are deposited from the nozzle and considering 58/59 as the base layer that would require multiple raw materials to be supplied from the nozzles).
Regarding claim 20, Figures 1-5 of SONG in view of TIAN teach that the method of claim 14, further comprising: discharging at least one selected from the first graphene raw material and the second graphene raw material (TIAN teaches that the electrode such as anode and cathode formed with graphene layer wherein each graphene layer is built on each layer by discharging multiples passes of graphene raw materials).
Regarding claim 21, Figures 1-5 of SONG in view of TIAN teach that the method of claim 14, further comprising: discharging the second graphene raw material to the outside along a circumference of a planar shape of the nozzle portion (TIAN teaches that the electrode such as anode and cathode formed with graphene layer wherein each graphene layer is built on each layer by discharging multiples passes of graphene raw materials).
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over SONG et al (US 20150299843 A1) in view of TIAN et al (US 20160043152 A1) as applied to claims above, and further in view of IFUKU et al (US 20190085457 A1).
Regarding claims 18-19, Figures 1-5 of SONG in view of TIAN does not teach that the method of claim 17, wherein the forming the base portion on the display substrate further comprises supplying a purge gas onto the display substrate, on which the first base raw material is supplied, while linearly moving the at least one selected from the display substrate and the nozzle portion facing the display substrate. Or
Figures 1-5 of SONG in view of TIAN does not teach that the method of claim 14, further comprising: supplying a purge gas onto the base portion on which the second graphene raw material is supplied while linearly moving the at least one selected from the display substrate and the nozzle portion facing the display substrate.
However, IKUKU is a pertinent art which teaches a method of forming graphene structure for wiring for various devices such as a wiring, a field effect transistor (FET) channel, a barrier film and the like ([005]). IFUKU teaches that of using purge gas in the method of forming the graphene layer for proper cleaning and forming the layer ([0113]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a step in the method of SONG in view of TIAN as claimed above according to the teaching of IFUKU in order to clean and supplying pure raw materials for forming a graphene layer ([0113] of IFUKU).
Examiner Notes
A reference to specific paragraphs, columns, pages, or figures in a cited prior art reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or any specific examples. It is well settled that a prior art reference, in its entirety, must be considered for all that it expressly teaches and fairly suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, a prior art disclosure reading on a limitation of Applicant's claim cannot be ignored on the ground that other embodiments disclosed were instead cited. Therefore, the Examiner's citation to a specific portion of a single prior art reference is not intended to exclusively dictate, but rather, to demonstrate an exemplary disclosure commensurate with the specific limitations being addressed. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). In re: Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Merck& Co. v. BiocraftLabs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792,794 n.1, 215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHAJA AHMAD whose telephone number is (571)270-7991. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM (Eastern Time).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, GAUTHIER STEVEN B, can be reached on (571)270-0373. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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 .
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.
/KHAJA AHMAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights