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 § 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) 1-6, 14, 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong US 10,720,598 and further in view of Choung et al US 11,348,983.
Pertaining to claims 1 and 16, Jeong teaches a display apparatus and method of making comprising:
a first sub-pixel electrode 101 disposed on a substrate 100;
a conductive bank layer 121/151 comprising a first opening overlapping the first sub-pixel electrode and comprising a first layer 121 and a second conductive layer 151 disposed on the first layer;
a first intermediate layer 141 overlapping the first sub-pixel electrode 101 through the first opening of the conductive bank layer; and
a first opposite electrode 181 overlapping the first intermediate layer through the first opening of the conductive bank layer, wherein
the second conductive layer 151 comprises a first tip that protrudes towards the first opening from a first point, at which a side surface of the first layer 121 meets a bottom surface of the second conductive layer 151 see Figure 5F, and
the first tip comprises an upward curved portion with respect to a thickness direction of the substrate See element 151 at opening in Figure 5F.
Jeong fails to teach wherein the first layer is a conductive layer. Choung teaches an OLED display device in an analogous art with a conductive bank layer 110 wherein the first layer 128 and the second layer 110B are both conductive layers. Col 6 lines 15-20. It would have been within the scope of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine the teachings of Jeong and Choung to enable the bank formation step of Jeong to be performed according to the teachings of Choung because one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have been motivated to look to alternative suitable methods of performing the disclosed bank formation step of Jeong and art recognized suitability for an intended purpose has been recognized to be motivation to combine. MPEP § 2144.07.
Pertaining to claims 2 and 17, Jeong in view of Choung teaches the display apparatus of claim 1, further comprising:
a first dummy intermediate layer 141 disposed on the conductive bank layer 121/151, the first dummy intermediate layer 141 and the first intermediate layer 141 comprising a same material; and
a first dummy opposite electrode 181 disposed on the first dummy intermediate layer, the first dummy opposite electrode 181 and the first opposite electrode 181 comprising a same material, wherein the first intermediate layer is spaced apart from the first dummy intermediate layer See Figure 5F, and the first opposite electrode is spaced apart from the first dummy opposite electrode layer See Figure 5F.
wherein the first intermediate layer and the first dummy intermediate layer are formed through a same process and spaced apart from each other, and the first opposite electrode and the first dummy opposite electrode are formed through a same process and spaced apart from each other. See Figure 5D, 5E and 5F
Pertaining to claims 3 and 18, Jeong in view of Choung teaches the display apparatus of claim 2, further comprising:
an auxiliary layer 161 disposed between the first dummy intermediate layer 141 and the first dummy opposite electrode 181.
Pertaining to claim 4, Jeong in view of Choung teaches the display apparatus of claim 3, further comprising:
a dummy auxiliary layer 161 disposed between the first intermediate layer 141 and the first opposite electrode 181 through the first opening of the conductive bank layer see Figure 5F, the dummy auxiliary layer 161 and the auxiliary layer 161 comprising a same material, wherein the auxiliary layer is spaced apart from the dummy auxiliary layer See Figure 5F.
Pertaining to claim 5, Jeong in view of Choung teaches the display apparatus of claim 4, wherein the auxiliary layer 161 and the dummy auxiliary layer 161 (Ag, Mg, Al, Yb, Ca, Li or Au) comprise different materials from the first opposite electrode 181 (transparent conductive oxide).
Pertaining to claim 6, Jeong in view of Choung teaches the display apparatus of claim 4, wherein a thickness of each of the auxiliary layer and the dummy auxiliary layer is between about 300 Å and about 1000 Å. Note that the device of Jeong is an organic LED in an analogous art of that which is claimed in the present disclosure, as such the scale (ie size) of the devices are going to be similar if not obvious to produce, as such the thicknesses being of a wide margin as which is claimed would have been obvious at the time the invention was filed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of making semiconductor devices to determine the workable or optimal value for the thickness of the layers through routine experimentation and optimization to obtain optimal or desired device performance because the thickness is a result-effective variable and there is no evidence indicating that it is critical or produces any unexpected results and it has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable within given prior art conditions by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05
Given the teaching of the references, it would have been obvious to determine the optimum thickness, temperature as well as condition of delivery of the layers involved. See In re Aller, Lacey and Hall (10 USPQ 233-237) “It is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed ranges or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 f.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Any differences in the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness. Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992).
An Affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979).
Pertaining to claim 14, Jeong in view of Choung teaches the display apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first tip of element 151 comprises a surface that is convex and another surface that is concave, and the surface that is convex faces the substrate. This is essentially describing what is already claimed in claim 1. Never the less, “curved up” creates a concave upper surface and a convex lower surface as illustrated in Figure 5F of Jeong element 151.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-13, 15, 19-27 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.
Pertaining to claims 7 and 25 the prior art does not teach nor suggest combined with the preceding claims from which it depends wherein the auxiliary layer comprises a transparent electrode.
Pertaining to claims 9 and 20 the prior art does not teach nor suggest combined with the preceding claims from which it depends wherein the auxiliary layer comprises a semi-transmissive electrode, and the auxiliary layer comprises a transparent conductive layer and a semi-transmissive metal layer.
Pertaining to claim 10 the prior art does not teach nor suggest combined with the preceding claims from which it depends wherein the first opposite electrode and the first dummy opposite electrode comprise a reflection electrode.
Pertaining to claim 12 the prior art does not teach nor suggest combined with the preceding claims from which it depends wherein the first opposite electrode and the first dummy opposite electrode comprise a transparent conductive layer.
Pertaining to claim 15 the prior art does not teach nor suggest combined with the preceding claims from which it depends wherein an outer portion of the first opposite electrode directly contacts the side surface of the first conductive layer which faces the first opening of the conductive bank layer.
Pertaining to claims 19 and 27 the prior art does not teach nor suggest combined with the preceding claims from which it depends wherein the first tip is curved upwards by a tensile stress of the auxiliary layer.
Pertaining to claim 21 the prior art does not teach nor suggest combined with the preceding claims from which it depends wherein the auxiliary layer is formed through sputtering, and the first opposite electrode and the first dummy opposite electrode are formed through evaporation.
Pertaining to claim 23 the prior art does not teach nor suggest combined with the preceding claims from which it depends wherein the auxiliary layer is formed through sputtering under a first pressure, and the first opposite electrode and the first dummy opposite electrode are formed through sputtering under a second pressure that is lower than the first pressure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS J TOBERGTE whose telephone number is (571)272-6458. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30.
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, Kretelia Graham can be reached at (571) 272-5055. 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.
/NICHOLAS J TOBERGTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights