DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 30 October 2023.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the plan view ordering of layers as recited by claim 8 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5-7, and 13-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fukagawa et al. (US 2020/0220116 A1; hereinafter Fukagawa).
In regards to claim 1, Fukagawa teaches, e.g. in figs. 2 and 6, an organic device comprising:
a pixel region (A10) [0033] which is disposed above a first main surface (e.g. upper surface) of a substrate (10) [0049] and in which a plurality of pixels (P) [0034] are disposed;
a peripheral region (A20) [0033] which is disposed outside the pixel region above the first main surface;
an external connection electrode (37) [0035] which is disposed in the peripheral region above the first main surface;
a first sealing film (41) [0070-0071] disposed above (e.g. (41) is disposed on a plane above (37)) the external connection electrode; and
a second sealing film (42) [0074] which is disposed above (e.g. (42) is disposed on a plane above (37)) the external connection electrode and a material of which is different from a material of the first sealing film ([0071], [0074]: (41) and (42) can be formed of different materials),
wherein the second sealing film is disposed above the first sealing film ((42) is disposed above (41)), and
wherein, in the peripheral region, the organic device is provided with, in the first sealing film, an opening (49) which exposes the external connection electrode [0090] and, between the opening and the pixel region, a first groove in which the second sealing film is disposed (see annotated fig. 6).
PNG
media_image1.png
679
497
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 6
In regards to claim 2, Fukagawa teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 1. Fukagawa further teaches the limitations wherein, in the organic device, the pixels are not disposed in the peripheral region (fig. 2: pixels (P) are not disposed in (A20)).
In regards to claim 5, Fukagawa teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 1. Fukagawa further teaches the limitations moisture permeability of the first sealing film (41) ([0070-0071], [0074]: e.g. (42) can be made of SiN and (41) can be made of SiO2).
In regards to claim 6, Fukagawa teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 1. Fukagawa further teaches the limitations wherein the first sealing film (41) contains silicon oxide [0070-0071].
In regards to claim 7, Fukagawa teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 1. Fukagawa further teaches the limitations wherein the second sealing film (42) contains silicon nitride [0074].
In regards to claim 13, Fukagawa teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 1. Fukagawa further teaches the limitations of a photoelectric conversion apparatus comprising:
an image capturing element that receives light [0152]; and
a display section that displays an image captured by the image capturing element,
wherein the display section is the organic device according to Claim 1 ([0152]: camera which would have an image capturing element and a display section).
In regards to claim 14, Fukagawa teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 1. Fukagawa further teaches the limitations of a display apparatus comprising:
a display section that includes the organic device according to Claim 1 [0152]; and
a housing in which the display section is provided (Title & [0152]: camera which would have a housing).
In regards to claim 15, Fukagawa teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 1. Fukagawa further teaches the limitations of an electronic device comprising:
a display section that includes the organic device according to Claim 1 [0152];
a housing in which the display section is provided [0152]; and
a communication section which is provided in the housing and which communicates with an outside ([0152]: smartphone, which would have a housing an communication section).
In regards to claim 16, Fukagawa teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 1. Fukagawa further teaches the limitations of a lighting apparatus comprising:
a light source that includes the organic device according to Claim 1 [0152]; and
a housing in which the light source is provided ([0152]: illuminating light).
In regards to claim 17, Fukagawa teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 1. Fukagawa further teaches the limitations of a moving object comprising:
a light fitting that includes the organic device according to Claim 1 [0152]; and
a body in which the light fitting is provided ([0152]: vehicle mounted display unit which would be on a moving object with a light and a body).
In regards to claim 18, Fukagawa teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 1. Fukagawa further teaches the limitations wearable device comprising:
a display section that includes the organic device according to Claim 1 [0152];
an optical system that concentrates light to the display section [0152]; and
a control apparatus that controls operation of the display section ([0152]: multiple devices with display sections, optical systems, and control apparatuses).
In regards to claim 19, Fukagawa teaches, e.g. in figs. 2 and 6, a method for manufacturing an organic device (Title), the method comprising the steps of:
preparing the organic device that includes a pixel region (A10) [0033] which is disposed above a substrate (10) [0049] and in which a plurality of pixels (P) [0034] are disposed, a peripheral region (A20) [0033] which is disposed outside the pixel region above the substrate, an external connection electrode (37) [0035] which is disposed in the peripheral region above the substrate, and a first sealing film (41) [0070-0071] disposed above the external connection electrode above the substrate (e.g. (41) is disposed on a plane above (37));
forming, in the first sealing film, a first groove (see annotated fig. 6) that exposes the external connection electrode or the substrate disposed in the peripheral region;
disposing a second sealing film (42) [0074] above the first sealing film ((42) is disposed above (41)) after the forming of the first groove has been performed; and
forming, after the forming of the second sealing film has been performed, an opening (49) that exposes the external connection electrode [0090].
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) 3, 4, and 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukagawa as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Koshihara (US 2017/0237032 A1; hereinafter Koshihara).
In regards to claim 3, Fukagawa teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 1. Fukagawa appears to be silent as to, but does not preclude, the limitations wherein, in the first groove, the second sealing film is in contact with the external connection electrode. Koshihara teaches, e.g. in figs. 4-5, the limitations wherein, in the first groove (35A) [0128], the second sealing film (43) [0128] is in contact with the external connection electrode (103) [0053]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application at hand was filed to modify the limitations taught by Fukagawa with the aforementioned limitations taught by Koshihara to provide an electro-optical device and an electronic apparatus that can improve the joining strength of an external connection substrate by preventing detachment from occurring at an interface between a sealing film and an insulation film (Koshihara [0008]).
In regards to claim 4, Fukagawa teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 1. Fukagawa appears to be silent as to, but does not preclude, the limitations wherein the second sealing film is disposed so as to fill the first groove. Koshihara teaches, e.g. in figs. 4-5, the limitations wherein the second sealing film (43) [0128] is disposed so as to fill the first groove (35A) [0128]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application at hand was filed to modify the limitations taught by Fukagawa with the aforementioned limitations taught by Koshihara to provide an electro-optical device and an electronic apparatus that can improve the joining strength of an external connection substrate by preventing detachment from occurring at an interface between a sealing film and an insulation film (Koshihara [0008]).
In regards to claim 8, Fukagawa teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 1. Fukagawa appears to be silent as to, but does not preclude, the limitations wherein, in plan view of the first main surface, the opening, the first sealing film, the second sealing film, and the first sealing film are provided in this order in a direction parallel to the first main surface. Koshihara teaches, e.g. in figs. 4-5, the limitations wherein, in plan view of the first main surface (upper surface of (5/11)) [0115], the opening (35A) [0128], the first sealing film (34a) [0129], the second sealing film (43) [0128], and the first sealing film are provided in this order in a direction parallel to the first main surface. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application at hand was filed to modify the limitations taught by Fukagawa with the aforementioned limitations taught by Koshihara to provide an electro-optical device and an electronic apparatus that can improve the joining strength of an external connection substrate by preventing detachment from occurring at an interface between a sealing film and an insulation film (Koshihara [0008]).
In regards to claim 9, Fukagawa teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 1. Fukagawa appears to be silent as to, but does not preclude, the limitations wherein the organic device further has a second groove disposed around the opening, and the second sealing film is disposed in the second groove. Koshihara teaches, e.g. in figs. 4-5, the limitations wherein the organic device further has a second groove (35B) disposed around the opening (e.g. fig. 5: instances of (35B) surround the center instance of (35A)), and the second sealing film (43) is disposed in the second groove (fig. 5: (43) is disposed in instances of (35B)). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application at hand was filed to modify the limitations taught by Fukagawa with the aforementioned limitations taught by Koshihara to provide an electro-optical device and an electronic apparatus that can improve the joining strength of an external connection substrate by preventing detachment from occurring at an interface between a sealing film and an insulation film (Koshihara [0008]).
In regards to claim 10, the combination of Fukagawa and Koshihara teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 9. Koshihara further teaches, e.g. in figs. 4-5, the limitations wherein, in the second groove (35B), the second sealing film (43) is in contact (e.g. via WE) with the external connection electrode (103). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application at hand was filed to modify the limitations taught by Fukagawa with the aforementioned limitations taught by Koshihara to provide an electro-optical device and an electronic apparatus that can improve the joining strength of an external connection substrate by preventing detachment from occurring at an interface between a sealing film and an insulation film (Koshihara [0008]).
In regards to claim 11, the combination of Fukagawa and Koshihara teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 9. Koshihara further teaches, e.g. in figs. 4-5, the limitations wherein the second sealing film (43) is disposed so as to fill the second groove (35B). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application at hand was filed to modify the limitations taught by Fukagawa with the aforementioned limitations taught by Koshihara to provide an electro-optical device and an electronic apparatus that can improve the joining strength of an external connection substrate by preventing detachment from occurring at an interface between a sealing film and an insulation film (Koshihara [0008]).
In regards to claim 12, the combination of Fukagawa and Koshihara teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 9. Koshihara further teaches, e.g. in figs. 4-5, the limitations wherein, in plan view of the first main surface (upper surface of (5/11)) [0115], the opening (35A) [0128], the first sealing film (34a) [0129], the second sealing film (43) [0128], and the first sealing film are provided in this order in a direction parallel to the first main surface. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application at hand was filed to modify the limitations taught by Fukagawa with the aforementioned limitations taught by Koshihara to provide an electro-optical device and an electronic apparatus that can improve the joining strength of an external connection substrate by preventing detachment from occurring at an interface between a sealing film and an insulation film (Koshihara [0008]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CALVIN Y CHOI whose telephone number is (571)270-7882. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 (Pacific Time).
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, William (Blake) Partridge can be reached at (571) 270-1402. 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.
CALVIN CHOI
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2812
/CALVIN Y CHOI/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812