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
Amendment filed on 4/7/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The examiner has thoroughly reviewed the applicant's arguments regarding the amendment; however, they lack persuasiveness. The specific grounds for rejection concerning the amendment are set forth in the subsequent grounds for rejection. Furthermore, the applicant asserts that the TPL of Kim’s device is not a barrier. The examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown in Figure 24, Kim’s TPL is disposed over each light-emitting layer and is confined within each subpixel region. Due to this arrangement, the TPL separates adjacent regions and overlies the emissive material, thereby functioning as a barrier.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 6, 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim (US 20230275197).
Regarding claim 1. Fig 24 of Kim discloses A barrier structure for separating sub-pixel regions of a display device [0049] (TPL is separately covering each subpixels including PX1, PX2, PX3) comprising:
a plurality of light-transmissive photoresist patterns ([0147]/[0149]/[0150]: TPL/WCL1/WCL2, ‘formed by a photoresist process’. Thus, being photoresist patterns) disposed on a substrate 11 at predetermined intervals (via BNL(45)),
wherein spaces between the light-transmissive photoresist patterns define sub-pixel regions (Refer to the space situated between the TPL within each subpixel, a space that exclusively encloses its respective subpixel. Furthermore, adjacent TPLs located in different subpixels are formed and separated by this space. Thus, define sub-pixel regions, PX1, PX2, PX3); and
reflective films ([0218]: each LRL_4 on TPL/WCL1/WCL2) formed on an entire outer surface of the light-transmissive photoresist patterns [0218].
Regarding claim 6. Kim discloses The barrier structure of claim 1, further comprising:
non-transmissive photoresist patterns ([0106]: ‘BM’, the light blocking member BM is black matrix which is inherently non-transmissive) disposed under the light-transmissive photoresist patterns (Fig 24) or on the reflective films of an upper side of the light-transmissive photoresist patterns.
Regarding claim 8. Kim discloses A method of manufacturing a barrier structure for separating sub-pixel regions of a display device [0049] (TPL is separately covering each subpixels including PX1, PX2, PX3), the method comprising:
applying a light-transmissive photoresist ([0149]/[0150]/[0201]: TPL/WCL1/WCL2) on a substrate (Fig 19, [0201]: ‘photoresist process’);
forming light-transmissive photoresist patterns spaced apart from each other at predetermined intervals by exposing and developing the light-transmissive photoresist (Fig 19, [0201]: spaced apart by BNL(45)),
wherein spaces between the light-transmissive photoresist patterns define sub-pixel regions (Refer to the space situated between the TPL within each subpixel, a space that exclusively encloses its respective subpixel. Furthermore, adjacent TPLs located in different subpixels are formed and separated by this space. Thus, define sub-pixel regions, PX1, PX2, PX3); and
forming reflective films (Fig 24: each LRL_4 on TPL/WCL1/WCL2) on an entire upper surface and an entire side surface of the light-transmissive photoresist patterns (Fig 24: LRL_4 is formed on top side surface and curved edge surfaces).
Regarding claim 13. Kim discloses The method of claim 8, further comprising:
forming non-transmissive photoresist patterns ([0106]: ‘BM’, the light blocking member BM is black matrix which is inherently non-transmissive) disposed under the light-transmissive photoresist patterns (Fig 24) or on the reflective films of an upper side of the light-transmissive photoresist patterns.
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.
Claims 2-5, 7, 9-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20230275197).
Regarding claim 2. Kim discloses The barrier structure of claim 1. But Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein a thickness of the light-transmissive photoresist patterns is 2 μm to 200 μm.
However, the ordinary artisan would have recognized the claimed range to be a result effective variable. Thus, it would have been obvious that Kim’s device within the claimed range, since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B
It is further noted that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of instant claimed range or any unexpected results arising thereof. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen values or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen values are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578,16 USPQ2d 1934,1936 (Fed Cir.1990). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art).
Regarding claim 3. Kim discloses The barrier structure of claim 1. But Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein a thickness of the light-transmissive photoresist patterns is 10% to 80% of the intervals between the light-transmissive photoresist patterns.
However, the ordinary artisan would have recognized the claimed range to be a result effective variable. Thus, it would have been obvious that Kim’s device within the claimed range, since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B
It is further noted that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of instant claimed range or any unexpected results arising thereof. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen values or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen values are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578,16 USPQ2d 1934,1936 (Fed Cir.1990). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art).
Regarding claim 4. Kim discloses The barrier structure of claim 1, wherein the reflective films have a reflectance of 50% or more with respect to a light wavelength of 430 nm to 650 nm (Kim’s reflective films made of silver which is well known to the most reflective metal in the visible spectrum (around 400-700 nm), consistently reflecting about 95% to over 97% of light).
Regarding claim 5. Kim discloses The barrier structure of claim 1. But Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein a thickness of the reflective films is 50 nm to 500 nm.
However, the ordinary artisan would have recognized the claimed range to be a result effective variable. Thus, it would have been obvious that Kim’s device within the claimed range, since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B
It is further noted that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of instant claimed range or any unexpected results arising thereof. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen values or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen values are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578,16 USPQ2d 1934,1936 (Fed Cir.1990). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art).
Regarding claim 7. Kim discloses The barrier structure of claim 6. But Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein a thickness of the non-transmissive photoresist patterns is 0.5 μm to 3 μm.
However, the ordinary artisan would have recognized the claimed range to be a result effective variable. Thus, it would have been obvious that Kim’s device within the claimed range, since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B
It is further noted that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of instant claimed range or any unexpected results arising thereof. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen values or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen values are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578,16 USPQ2d 1934,1936 (Fed Cir.1990). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art).
Regarding claim 9. Kim discloses The method of claim 8. But Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein the light-transmissive photoresist is applied to a thickness of 2 μm to 200 μm.
However, the ordinary artisan would have recognized the claimed range to be a result effective variable. Thus, it would have been obvious that Kim’s method within the claimed range, since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B
It is further noted that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of instant claimed range or any unexpected results arising thereof. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen values or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen values are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578,16 USPQ2d 1934,1936 (Fed Cir.1990). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art).
Regarding claim 10. Kim discloses The method of claim 8. But Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein a thickness of the light-transmissive photoresist patterns is manufactured to be 10% to 80% of the intervals between the light-transmissive photoresist patterns.
However, the ordinary artisan would have recognized the claimed range to be a result effective variable. Thus, it would have been obvious that Kim’s method within the claimed range, since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B
It is further noted that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of instant claimed range or any unexpected results arising thereof. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen values or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen values are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578,16 USPQ2d 1934,1936 (Fed Cir.1990). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art).
Regarding claim 11. Kim discloses The method of claim 8, wherein the reflective films are formed by depositing and patterning a metal or oxide having a reflectance of 50% or more with respect to a light wavelength of 430 nm to 650 nm (Kim’s reflective films made of silver which is well known to the most reflective metal in the visible spectrum (around 400-700 nm), consistently reflecting about 95% to over 97% of light).
Regarding claim 12. Kim discloses The method of claim 11. But Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein the reflective films are formed to have a thickness of 50 nm to 500 nm.
However, the ordinary artisan would have recognized the claimed range to be a result effective variable. Thus, it would have been obvious that Kim’s method within the claimed range, since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B
It is further noted that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of instant claimed range or any unexpected results arising thereof. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen values or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen values are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578,16 USPQ2d 1934,1936 (Fed Cir.1990). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art).
Regarding claim 14. Kim discloses The method of claim 13. But Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein the non-transmissive photoresist patterns are formed to have a thickness of 0.5 μm to 3 μm.
However, the ordinary artisan would have recognized the claimed range to be a result effective variable. Thus, it would have been obvious that Kim’s method within the claimed range, since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B
It is further noted that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of instant claimed range or any unexpected results arising thereof. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen values or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen values are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578,16 USPQ2d 1934,1936 (Fed Cir.1990). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Changhyun Yi whose telephone number is (571)270-7799. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8A-4P.
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, Davienne Monbleau can be reached on 571-272-1945. 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.
/Changhyun Yi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights