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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fukuda (US 2023/0240118).
Regarding claim 1, Fukuda discloses a display device (Fig. 3) comprising: a substrate (10; Paragraph [0025]); a lower electrode provided above the substrate (LE3; Paragraph [0048]); a rib formed of an inorganic insulating material and comprising an aperture which overlaps the lower electrode (5; Paragraph [0048, 0056]); a partition comprising a lower portion which is provided on the rib and is formed of a conductive material (61; Paragraph [0057]), and an upper portion which is provided on the lower portion and protrudes from a side surface of the lower portion (62; Paragraph [0057]); an organic layer provided on the lower electrode in the aperture (OR3a; Paragraph [0048]); an upper electrode which covers the organic layer and is in contact with the lower portion of the partition (UE3a; Paragraph [0048]); a sealing layer which covers the upper electrode and is in contact with the lower portion of the partition (SE3; Paragraph [0053]); and a common sealing layer formed of an inorganic insulating material and provided over a broader range than the sealing layer above the sealing layer, wherein the sealing layer is formed of silicon nitride or a transparent oxide (14; Paragraph [0056]).
Regarding claim 9, Fukuda further discloses wherein a thickness of the sealing layer is less than a thickness of the lower portion of the partition (Fig. 3, 61 & SE3; Note that the thickness of SE3 adjacent to 61 is less than the height of 61 since SE3 is below element 62 and on top of element UE3a at that location).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-8 and 10 are 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.
Specifically, in claim 2, the requirement that “a transparent layer which is formed of an inorganic fluoride, is provided on the sealing layer, is covered with the common sealing layer and is in contact with the upper portion on the partition, wherein a refractive index of the transparent layer is less than a refractive index of the sealing layer” is neither taught nor suggested by the prior art of record.
Claims 3-5 are objected to based on their dependence from claim 2.
Specifically, in claim 6, the requirement that “the common sealing layer covers the sealing layer and is in contact with the upper portion on the partition, and a refractive index of the common sealing layer is less than a refractive index of the sealing layer” is neither taught nor suggested by the prior art of record.
Claims 7-8 are objected to based on their dependence from claim 6.
Specifically, in claim 10, the requirement that “a thickness of the sealing layer is less than a thickness of the common sealing layer” is neither taught nor suggested by the prior art of record.
Claims 11-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding independent claim 11, the references of the Prior Art of record fail to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations as set forth in claim 11, and specifically comprising the limitation of forming a first resist on the first sealing layer immediately above the first lower electrode; removing the first sealing layer, the first upper electrode and the first organic layer using the first resist as a mask immediately above the second lower electrode; forming a second organic layer on the first sealing layer and the second lower electrode; forming a second upper electrode on the second organic layer; forming a second sealing layer which covers the second upper electrode and is in contact with the lower portion of the partition; forming a second resist on the second sealing layer immediately above the second lower electrode; removing the second sealing layer, the second upper electrode and the second organic layer using the second resist as a mask immediately above the first sealing layer; and forming a common sealing layer above the first sealing layer and the second sealing layer, wherein each of the first sealing layer and the second sealing layer is formed of silicon nitride or a transparent oxide, and the common sealing layer is formed of an inorganic insulating material
Regarding claims 12-20, claims 12-20 are allowable for the reasons given in claim 11 because of their dependency status from claim 11.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNE M HINES whose telephone number is (571)272-2285. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 8:00-4:30.
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, James Greece, can be reached on 571-272-3711. 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.
/Anne M Hines/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2875