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
Restriction/Election
Applicant’s election of Species I (Claims 1-15), without traverse, in the response filed on 6/16/2026 is acknowledged.
Specification Objection
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4 and 9-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2006/0073398), in view of Kitajima (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2020/0356003).
Regarding Claim 1
FIG. 1 of Kang discloses a method of manufacturing a display apparatus, the method comprising: supplying a substrate (50); forming a photoresist (100) on the substrate; irradiating at least a portion of the photoresist with a light; and forming a bank layer (152) by curing at least the portion of the photoresist irradiated with the light [0043], wherein a wavelength range of the light is greater than or equal to about 250 nm and less than or equal to about 650 nm [0094].
Kang is silent with respect to “a pulse light comprising a plurality of pulses”.
Kitajima discloses a similar method of manufacturing a display apparatus [0003], comprising irradiating at least a portion of the photoresist with a pulse light comprising a plurality of pulses and forming a pattern by curing the exposed portion [0392], wherein a wavelength range of the light is greater than or equal to about 250 nm and less than or equal to about 650 nm [0393].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kang, as taught by Kitajima. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Kang in the above manner for purpose of creating precise, high-resolution patterns ([0010] of Kitajima).
Regarding Claim 2
With respect to “an intensity of the pulse light is greater than or equal to about 1 kW/cm.sup.2 and less than or equal to about 50 kW/cm.sup.2”, said intensity is adjusted to effectively activate the photoresist at a safe level ([0096] of US 20200038239, [0045] of US 20010030798, [0083] of US 20080090396 and Col. 3, Lines 41-48 of US 5314522 provide documentary evidences). Therefore, said intensity is considered to be a result effective variable. The claim to a specific intensity therefore constitutes an optimization of ranges. In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the parameters as claimed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 3
With respect to “a total energy of the pulse light is about 20 J to about 200 J”, said energy is related to the exposed area of the photoresist and its sensitivity to the light, and is adjusted to effectively activate the photoresist at a safe level ([0096] of US 20200038239, [0045] of US 20010030798, [0083] of US 20080090396, and Col. 3, Lines 41-48 of US 5314522 provide documentary evidences). Therefore, said energy is considered to be a result effective variable. The claim to a specific intensity therefore constitutes an optimization of ranges. In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the parameters as claimed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 4
With respect to “a duration of at least one pulse of the plurality of pulses of the pulse light is greater than or equal to about 500 μs and less than or equal to about 5,000 μs”, said energy is related to the exposed area of the photoresist and its sensitivity to the light, and is adjusted to effectively activate the photoresist at a safe level ([0096] of US 20200038239, [0045] of US 20010030798, [0083] of US 20080090396, and Col. 3, Lines 41-48 of US 5314522 provide documentary evidences). Therefore, said energy is considered to be a result effective variable. The claim to a specific intensity therefore constitutes an optimization of ranges. In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the parameters as claimed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 9
FIG. 1 of Kang discloses removing a portion of the photoresist not irradiated with the pulse light before the forming of the bank layer by curing at least the portion of the photoresist irradiated with the pulse light.
Regarding Claim 10
Kang discloses the photoresist comprises a dye or a pigment [0017].
Regarding Claim 11
Kang discloses the photoresist comprises carbon black or dichroic dye [0033].
Regarding Claim 12
Kang discloses the photoresist comprises metal, dielectric, or oxide nanoparticles [0051].
Regarding Claim 13
Kang discloses the photoresist comprises a radical photoinitiator [0043].
Regarding Claim 14
Kang discloses the photoresist comprises an ultraviolet photoinitiator [0098].
Claim 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang and Kitajima, in view of Yang (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2024/0021111).
Regarding Claim 5
Kang as modified by Kitajima discloses Claim 1.
Kang as modified by Kitajima is silent with respect to “a curing rate of the bank layer is greater than or equal to about 80% and less than or equal to about 100%”.
However, it is known in the art that higher light intensity increases the number of photons absorbed per unit time, accelerating the curing reaction, thus, more complete polymerization is produced in less time. Curing percentage refers to the fraction of the resist material that has undergone the chemical changes (cross-linking or deprotection) due to light exposure.
Yang discloses a similar method of manufacturing a display apparatus, wherein a curing rate of the bank layer is greater than or equal to about 80% and less than or equal to about 100% [0060].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kang, as taught by Yang. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Kang in the above manner for purpose of matching process requirements ([0070] of Yang).
Claim 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang and Kitajima, in view of Chen (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2021/0391442), in view of Corbett (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2007/0127134).
Regarding Claim 6
Kang as modified by Kitajima discloses Claim 1, wherein the photoresist is heated to a temperature greater than or equal to about 100° C. and less than or equal to about 250° C [0063].
Kang as modified by Kitajima is silent with respect to “a temperature of at least the portion of the photoresist irradiated with the pulse light is greater than or equal to about 100° C. and less than or equal to about 250° C”.
Chen discloses a similar method of manufacturing a display apparatus, wherein a temperature of at least the portion of the photoresist irradiated with the pulse light is greater than or equal to about 100° C, and less than or equal to about 250° C [0047].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kang, as taught by Chen. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Kang in the above manner, because if the temperature is too low, crosslinking reaction may not be triggered; if the temperature is too high, the performance of the semiconductor device may be affected ([0047] of Chen).
Furthermore, said temperature is related to the formulations of the photoresist and ambient conditions (for example, for an AZ type photoresist a temperature around 120° C can be used; for a polymethylsiloxane photoresist a temperature up to 300° C can be used ([0034] of US 20070082438). In particular, Corbett discloses to handle the photoresist at 130° C, exceeding the range may result in deformation or delamination of photoresist [0055]. Therefore, said temperature is considered to be a result effective variable. The claim to a specific temperature therefore constitutes an optimization of ranges. In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the parameters as claimed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05).
Claims 7 and 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang and Kitajima, in view of Zhang (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2023/0130753).
Regarding Claim 7
Kang as modified by Kitajima discloses Claim 1.
Kang as modified by Kitajima is silent with respect to “a temperature of the substrate is greater than or equal to about 20° C. and less than or equal to about 80° C. after irradiating the portion of the photoresist with the pulse light”.
FIG. 7 of Zhang discloses a similar method of manufacturing a display apparatus, wherein a temperature of the substrate (710) is greater than or equal to about 20° C and less than or equal to about 80° C after irradiating the portion of the photoresist (730) with the pulse light [0123].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kang, as taught by Zhang. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Kang in the above manner for purpose of removing the solvent ([0123] of Zhang).
Furthermore, said temperature is adjusted to remove the residues while not to degrade or soften the photoresist ([0032] of Zhang). Therefore, said temperature is considered to be a result effective variable. The claim to a specific temperature therefore constitutes an optimization of ranges. In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the parameters as claimed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 15
FIG. 7 of Zhang discloses the substrate comprises at least one selected from among silicon oxynitride (SiON), silicon nitride (SiN.sub.x), silicon oxide (SiO.sub.x), polyimide, and polyethylene terephthalate (PET).
Claim 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang and Kitajima, in view of Spitz (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2006/0097280).
Regarding Claim 8
Kang as modified by Kitajima discloses Claim 1.
Kang as modified by Kitajima is silent with respect to “pre-curing the photoresist before the irradiating of the portion of the photoresist with the pulse light”.
FIG. 3 of Spitz discloses a similar method of manufacturing a display apparatus, comprising pre-curing the photoresist before the irradiating of the portion of the photoresist with the pulse light [0029].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kang, as taught by Spitz. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Kang in the above manner for purpose of modifying material properties, improving performance and enabling efficient processing.
Pertinent Art
US 20080245674, 20230155075, 20060210083, 20090020710, 20210249465.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHENG-BAI ZHU whose telephone number is (571)270-3904. The examiner can normally be reached on 11am – 7pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chad Dicke can be reached on (571)270-7996. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/SHENG-BAI ZHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights