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 .
Election/Restrictions
Arguments with respect the species restriction requirement are persuasive. Claims 1-20 are examined herewith.
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)(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, 3-5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang (2024/029263).
Re claim 1, Wang discloses (Fig. 6) a substrate (101); a pixel-circuit layer (102) on the substrate (101) and comprising a pixel circuit; a via insulating layer (insulating layer over the transistor M) on the pixel-circuit layer; a first electrode (201) on the via insulating layer; a pixel-defining layer (301) on the first electrode (201) and exposing a portion of the first electrode, the pixel-defining layer comprising: a plurality of first pixel-defining layers (301) extending in a first direction and adjacent to each other in a second direction crossing the first direction; and a plurality of second pixel-defining layers (302) respectively between adjacent ones of the first pixel-defining layers (Fig. 1A); and a second electrode (302) on the first electrode, wherein the second pixel-defining layers (302) are spaced apart from each other (Fig. 1A), and wherein the via insulating layer has a groove (groove where 201 is deposited and contacts the transistor M in Fig. 6) in at least a portion of a region at where the first pixel-defining layers (301) overlaps the via insulating layer (Fig. 6).
Re claim 3, Wang discloses wherein the first electrode (201) is provided in plurality, wherein each of the first pixel-defining layers (301) has a first portion between the first electrodes and a second portion outside the first portion and between adjacent ones of the second pixel-defining layers (302) (Fig. 1A), and wherein the groove in the via insulating layer overlaps the second portion of each of the first pixel-defining layers (301) (Fig. 1A).
Re claim 4, Wang discloses wherein the groove in the via insulating layer extends in the first direction and overlaps the first portion and the second portion of each of the first pixel-defining layers (301).
Re claim 5, Wang discloses wherein at least a portion of the second portion of each of the first pixel-defining layers (301) does not overlap the second pixel-defining layers (302) (Fig. 1A).
Re claim 9, Wang discloses wherein the first electrode (201) is provided in plurality, and wherein the pixel-defining layer (301) and the first electrodes (201) cover an entire upper surface of the via insulating layer (Fig. 6).
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) 6-8, 10, 11 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang as applied to claims 1, 3-5 and 9 above, and further in view of the following comments.
Re claims 6-8, Wang does not clearly disclose wherein a thickness of each of the first pixel-defining layers is greater than a thickness of each of the second pixel-defining layers; wherein a width of the first pixel-defining layer in the second direction between an adjacent pair of the second pixel-defining layers from among the first pixel-defining layers is equal to a distance between the adjacent pair of second pixel-defining layers; wherein a width of the first pixel-defining layer in the second direction between an adjacent pair of the second pixel-defining layers from among the first pixel-defining layers is greater than a distance between the adjacent pair of second pixel-defining layers.
Re claim 11, Wang discloses (Fig. 6) a substrate (101); a pixel-circuit layer (102) on the substrate (101) and comprising a pixel circuit; a via insulating layer (insulating layer over the transistor M) on the pixel-circuit layer; a first electrode (201) on the via insulating layer; a pixel-defining layer (301) on the first electrode (201) and exposing a portion of the first electrode, the pixel-defining layer comprising: a plurality of first pixel-defining layers (301) extending in a first direction and adjacent to each other in a second direction crossing the first direction; and a plurality of second pixel-defining layers (302) respectively between adjacent ones of the first pixel-defining layers (Fig. 1A); and a second electrode (302) on the first electrode, wherein the second pixel-defining layers (302) are spaced apart from each other (Fig. 1A).
Wang does not clearly disclose wherein a width of the first pixel-defining layer in the second direction between an adjacent pair of second pixel-defining layers from among the first pixel-defining layers is equal to or greater than a distance between the adjacent pair of second pixel-defining layers.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited width and distance through routine experimentation to achieve a desired device dimension, device associated and device density on the finished wafer.
In addition, the selection of width and distance, it's obvious because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996)(claimed ranges or a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill or art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1995) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed width and distance or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen width and distance or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen width and distance are critical. In re Woodruf, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Re claims 10 and 18, Wang does not clearly disclose wherein the groove in the via insulating layer does not overlap the first electrode.
Notwithstanding, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the groove to overlap or not overlap the first electrode depending on the dimensions choose for adjacent layers and features of the device, and also desired expected functions of the resultant structure.
Re claim 13, Wang discloses wherein the first pixel-defining layers (301) each has a uniform thickness in the first direction (Fig. 6).
Re claim 14, Wang discloses wherein the first electrode (201) is provided in plurality, wherein each of the first pixel-defining layers (301) has a first portion between adjacent ones of the first electrodes (201) and a second portion outside the first portion and between adjacent ones of the second pixel-defining layers (302).
Wang does not clearly disclose wherein a thickness of the second portion of each of the first pixel-defining layers is greater than a thickness of the first portion.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited thickness through routine experimentation to achieve a desired device dimension, device associated and device density on the finished wafer.
In addition, the selection of thickness, it's obvious because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996)(claimed ranges or a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill or art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1995) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed thickness or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen thickness or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen thickness is critical. In re Woodruf, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Re claim 15, Wang discloses further comprising a via insulating layer (groove where 201 is deposited and contacts the transistor M in Fig. 6) between the pixel-circuit layer and the first electrode, wherein the via insulating layer has grooves in at least a portion of a region overlapping the first pixel-defining layers (301) (Fig. 6).
Re claim 16, Wang discloses wherein the grooves extend in the first direction and are adjacent to each other in the second direction (Fig. 6).
Re claim 17, Wang discloses wherein the first electrode (201) is provided in plurality, wherein each of the first pixel-defining layers (301) has a first portion arranged between adjacent ones of the first electrodes (201) and a second portion arranged outside the first portion and arranged between adjacent ones of the second pixel-defining layers (302) (Fig. 1A), and wherein the grooves overlap the second portion of the second pixel-defining layers (302).
Re claim 19, One of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited thickness through routine experimentation to achieve a desired device dimension, device associated and device density on the finished wafer.
In addition, the selection of thickness, it's obvious because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996)(claimed ranges or a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill or art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1995) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed thickness or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen thickness or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen thickness is critical. In re Woodruf, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Re claim 20, Wang discloses wherein the first electrode (201) is provided in plurality, wherein each of the first pixel-defining layers (301) has a first portion between adjacent ones of the first electrodes (201) and a second portion outside the first portion and between adjacent ones of the second pixel-defining layers (302), and wherein at least a portion of the second portion of each of the first pixel-defining layers (301) does not overlap the second pixel-defining layers (302) (Fig. 7).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 12 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.
Pending the correction of issues outlined in the rejection above, the following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not disclose or fairly suggest the following in combination the remaining limitations called for in each claim:
wherein the first pixel-defining layers have a repellent characteristic, and the second pixel-defining layers have a hydrophilic characteristic, as recited in claim 2;
wherein the first pixel-defining layers comprises a repellent material, and the second pixel-defining layers comprises a hydrophilic material, as recited in claim 12.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 2022/0392947 A1, US 2023/0361261 A1, US 2024/0065037 A1 and US 2021/0408183 A1 disclose a similar configuration for a display apparatus with dual pixel definition layers.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE MANDALA whose telephone number is (571)272-1858. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 PM.
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, Sue Purvis can be reached at 571-272-1236. 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.
/MICHELLE MANDALA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893 August 13, 2026
Prosecution Insights