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 II (Claims 7-20) in the reply filed on 22 April 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-6 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 22 April 2026.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 9-11 and 13-15 refer to thicknesses of the photosensitive pattern using terminology such as “first-1 thickness”, “first-2 thickness”, “second-1 thickness”, and the like. This terminology is not conventional in the art, but is also not necessarily improper. Based on the instant application’s specification, the Examiner understands the term “first-1 thickness” to mean the initial thickness of the first photosensitive pattern and the term “first-2 thickness” to mean the second thickness of the first photosensitive pattern. The Examiner is interpreting the term “first-n thickness” (wherein n is an integer) to mean the thickness of the first photosensitive pattern at an nth step in the method of producing the display device. For instance, first-4 thickness refers to the first photosensitive pattern at a 4th processing step. Similar terminology is applied by the applicant for the second and third photosensitive patterns. The term “second-1 thickness”, for instance, is understood to refer to the initial thickness of the second photosensitive pattern. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner will be interpreting the language of claims 9-11 and 13-15 as described above.
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.
Claim 8 is 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.
The term “vacuous state” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “vacuous state” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The specification of the instant application states that the coating chamber may be in a vacuous state, an atmospheric pressure state, or a low vacuous state (see paragraph 0009 and 0053 of the instant application’s specification). However, the specification does not define these states in terms of physical conditions. Whilst “atmospheric pressure state” can be reasonably interpreted as a pressure of 1 atm, the terms “vacuous state” and “low vacuous state” do not have a reasonable interpretation that can be considered definite. As the term “vacuous state” is indefinite, the forming of the first light-emitting layer, the forming of the first photosensitive pattern, and the first dry etching process are similarly indefinite, because there is no standard for ascertaining the requisite degree. The lack of a threshold value to describe a vacuous or low vacuous state therefore makes it unclear what the scope of claim 8 is. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret a vacuous state to mean below standard atmospheric pressure.
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.
Claim(s) 7-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20130236999 A1 (hereby referred to as Lee) in view of US 20190369497 A1 (hereby referred to as Mori), citing US 6489245 B1 (hereby referred to as Winniczek) as an evidentiary reference.
Regarding Claim 7, Lee discloses a method for forming a multicolor OLED device (e.g. a display device). The method of manufacturing the display device starts by forming a first light-emitting layer on a substrate (Lee, paragraph 0064 and Fig. 2B). A photoresist is applied to the light-emitting layer and selectively exposed to radiation to form a first pattern (Lee, paragraph 0064 and Fig. 2C). The photoresist layer is developed and a plasma etching process is performed using the first photoresist pattern as an etching mask to remove portions of the first light-emitting layer (Lee, paragraph 0064 and Fig. 2D). The exposure source for the patterning of the photoresist layer may be an ultraviolet light source (Lee, paragraph 0060).
However, Lee is silent in regards to the exposure process of the photoresist layer being performed by vacuum ultraviolet (VUV) rays. Mori teaches a photosensitive composition used to produce an image display device. Specifically, Mori produces a color filter using a photosensitive composition (Mori, paragraph 0268), which is produced by exposing the photosensitive composition to exposure (Mori, paragraph 0270-0271). Exposure may be performed using ultraviolet rays, such as KrF rays, ArF rays, and the like (Mori, paragraph 0291). Notably, Lee utilizes KrF rays (ultraviolet source having a wavelength of 248 nm, see Lee paragraph 0060). The ArF rays taught by Mori are understood in the art to be a vacuum ultraviolet exposure source.
Lee and Mori are analogous art because both references pertain to photolithography techniques used to produce display devices. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to use vacuum ultraviolet rays, such as those provided by ArF rays, as taught by Mori, in the method disclosed by Lee because Mori teaches that ArF rays (193 nm) and KrF rays (248 nm) are functionally equivalent for the purposes of exposing photoresist compositions when preparing a display device (see Mori, paragraph 0291). Per MPEP 2144.06 II., a prima facie case of obviousness thus exists.
Regarding Claim 8, Lee discloses that the light-emitting layer may be vapor deposited in a vacuum (Lee, paragraph 0071). Lee does not express that the formation of the photoresist layer or the dry etching is performed in a vacuous state. However, Lee defines the terms for vacuum (Lee, paragraph 0049). Lee states that patterning and formation of the photosensitive layer may be performed at pressures as low as 0.01 Torr (Lee, paragraph 0049). As 0.01 Torr is significantly less than atmospheric pressure (by orders of magnitude), Lee suggests that the formation of the photosensitive layer and patterning may be performed in a vacuous state.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Lee and Mori are silent in regards to the thickness of the first photosensitive pattern before and/or after the first dry etching process. However, it is well known and documented in the prior art that dry etching processes using photoresist materials as an etching mask produce erosion of the photoresist layer. For instance, Winniczek teaches a conventional plasma-enhanced etching process is known to cause some of the mask to be removed (Winniczek, Col. 2 Line 3-14). The mask is a photoresist mask (Winniczek, Col. 1 Line 38-54). As shown in Fig. 2 of Winniczek, the mask thickness is reduced as a result of the etching process (Winniczek, Col. 2 Line 3-14). Additionally, the side walls of the pattern may be eroded, as demonstrated by Fig. 2 of Winniczek. Thus, whilst Lee and __ do not teach or disclose that the thickness of the photoresist layer is reduced following the first dry etching process, it is a well understood phenomenon in the art that the photoresist pattern used as an etching mask will have a reduced thickness following the etching process, as evidenced by Winniczek. Therefore, it would be expected by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application that the method obtained by combining the teachings of Lee and Mori would produce a reduced thickness of the photoresist layer following the etching process. One having ordinary skill in the art would expect such a phenomenon to be observed because even when methods that reduce mask erosion are employed, such as those taught by Winniczek, thickness reduction is still observed following the etching process (see Fig. 9 of Winniczek).
Regarding Claim 10, Lee discloses that a second light-emitting layer is formed over the patterned first light-emitting layer and the substrate (Lee, paragraph 0065 and Fig. 2E). A photoresist is coated over the second light-emitting layer and selectively patterned (Lee, paragraph 0065 and Fig. 2F). The photoresist layer is developed and then used as an etching mask to pattern the second light-emitting layer (Lee, paragraph 0065 and Fig. 2G).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Lee and Mori are silent in regards to the thickness of the first and second photosensitive patterns before and/or after the second dry etching process. However, as discussed above, the phenomenon of mask thickness erosion is well documents and understood to be an issue in the prior art, as evidenced by Winniczek. For the same reasons as applied to instant claim 9, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application would expect that the first and second photosensitive patterns to have their thicknesses reduced by the second dry etching process.
Regarding Claim 12, Lee discloses that a third light-emitting layer is formed over the patterned first and second light-emitting layers and the substrate (Lee, paragraph 0066 and Fig. 2H). A photoresist is coated over the third light-emitting layer and selectively patterned (Lee, paragraph 0066 and Fig. 2I). The photoresist layer is developed and then used as an etching mask to pattern the third light-emitting layer (Lee, paragraph 0066 and Fig. 2J).
Regarding Claims 13-14, the combination of Lee and Mori are silent in regards to the thickness of the first, second, and third photosensitive patterns before and/or after the third dry etching process. However, as discussed above, the phenomenon of mask thickness erosion is well documents and understood to be an issue in the prior art, as evidenced by Winniczek. For the same reasons as applied to instant claim 9, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application would expect that the first, second, and third photosensitive patterns to have their thicknesses reduced by the third dry etching process.
Regarding Claim 15, as discussed above in regards to claims 9, 11, and 13-14, it is a known phenomenon that dry etching reduces the thickness of the photoresist layer functioning as an etching mask, per the teachings of Winniczek. The method disclosed by Lee (and modified by the teachings of Mori) forms a first light-emitting layer with a photosensitive layer disposed over it and patterns the first light-emitting layer using the photosensitive pattern as an etching mask (Lee, paragraph 0064). The process is then repeated for a second light-emitting layer and a third light-emitting layer (Lee, paragraph 0065-0066). Specifically, the order of the formations of the first, second, and third light-emitting layers leads to the first light-emitting layer experiencing more dry etching processes than the second light-emitting layer, which experiences more dry etching process than the third light-emitting layer. As it is known in the art that etching processes reduce the photosensitive layer thickness, it would be expected by one having ordinary skill in the art that the photosensitive layer over the first light-emitting layer would have had its thickness reduced more than the photosensitive layer over the second light-emitting layer, which would have had its thickness reduced more than the photosensitive layer over the third light-emitting layer. Additionally, the photosensitive layer over the first light-emitting layer would have its thickness reduced before the photosensitive layer over the second light-emitting layer, which would have its thickness reduced before the photosensitive layer over the third light-emitting layer.
Regarding Claims 16 and 17, Lee discloses that following the patterning of the third light-emitting layer, a solvent (e.g. a liquid developer) is provided to the substrate to remove the remaining photoresist layers from the organic light-emitting layers (Lee, paragraph 0066).
Claim(s) 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20130236999 A1 (hereby referred to as Lee) in view of US 20190369497 A1 (hereby referred to as Mori) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of US 20180090716 A1 (hereby referred to as Shirahase).
Regarding Claims 18-20, the combination of Lee and Mori renders obvious the method of claim 7, as discussed above. Lee discloses that the etching of the light-emitting material layer is performed with an O2-based plasma (Lee, paragraph 0064-0066). However, Lee and Mori are silent in regards to a metal film formed over the light-emitting material layer.
Shirahase teaches an organic electroluminescence (EL) element. The EL element includes an anode, a light-emitting layer over the anode, and a functional layer including a first metal disposed on the light-emitting layer (Shirahase, paragraph 0023). The functional layer including a first metal allows for electrons to be supplied to the light-emitting layer (Shirahase, paragraph 0004). However, Shirahase is silent in regards to using different etching gases to pattern the metal layer and the light-emitting layer.
Lee, Mori, and Shirahase are analogous art because each reference pertains to display devices. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to include a metal layer over the light-emitting layer, as taught by Shirahase, in the method obtained by combining the teachings of Lee and Mori because the metal layer allows for the flow of electrons and thus provide light emission (Shirahase, paragraph 0004). Whilst not explicitly taught by Shirahase, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to use fluorine-based dry etching to pattern the metal layer separately from the oxygen-based dry etching used to pattern the light-emitting layer because it is known in the art that, when etching multiple layers of a laminated film structure, using different etching gases can provide improved patterning accuracy due to the materials having different etching selectivity to the etching gas.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAYSON D COSGROVE whose telephone number is (571)272-2153. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00-18:00.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at (571) 272-1177. 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.
/JAYSON D COSGROVE/Examiner, Art Unit 1737
/JONATHAN JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights