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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 1-6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220302178 A1 Cha et al (herein “Cha”) in view of KR 20080054597 A Lee Dong Wong (herein “Lee”).
Regarding Claim 1, Cha discloses:
A display device (see generally cross-sectional view shown in Fig. 4) comprising:
a substrate (#SUB);
a first electrode (#RME1) and a second electrode (#RME2) on the substrate (#SUB), extended in a first direction (horizontal direction) and spaced apart from each other;
a first insulating layer (#PAS1) on the first electrode (#RME1) and the second electrode (#RME2);
a light-emitting element (#ED) on the first insulating layer (#PAS1) and between the first electrode (#RME1) and the second electrode (#RME2); and
a first connection electrode (#CNE1) connected to a first end of the light-emitting element (#ED) and a second connection electrode (#CNE2) connected to a second end of the light-emitting element (#ED), wherein
the first insulating layer (#PAS1) overlaps with the light-emitting element (#ED).
Cha does not explicitly disclose:
the first insulating layer comprises trench portions comprising a plurality of trenches.
However, in analogous art, Lee teaches:
See generally Espacenet translation of Lee, specifically:
“A plurality of pixel electrodes (191), a plurality of connecting members (85), and a plurality of contact assistants (81, 82) are formed on the protective film (180). These can be made of transparent conductive materials such as ITO or IZO, or reflective metals such as aluminum, silver, or their alloys. Here, the pixel electrode (191), connecting member (85), and contact assisting member (81, 82) formed on the rough surface of the protective film (180) have a larger surface area in contact with the protective film (180). Accordingly, the adhesion between the protective film (180), the pixel electrode (191), the connecting member (85), and the contact assisting members (81, 82) is improved. In addition, the surface roughness of the protective film (180) is also transferred to the pixel electrode (191), so that the surface of the pixel electrode (191) also has a predetermined roughness. The pixel electrode (191) is physically and electrically connected to the second output electrode (175b) through the contact hole (185b), and the connecting member (85) is connected to the second control electrode (124b) and the first output electrode (175a) through the contact holes (184, 185a). The contact auxiliary members (81, 82) are each connected to the end portion (129) of the gate line (121) and the end portion (179) of the data line (171) through the contact holes (181, 182). The contact assist members (81, 82) complement the adhesion between the end portions (179, 129) of the data line (171) and gate line (121) and the external device and protect them. A partition (361) is formed over the pixel electrode (191) and the connecting member (85). The partition (361) surrounds the edge of the pixel electrode (191) like a bank to define the opening (365) and is made of an organic or inorganic insulating material. The partition (361) can also be made of a photosensitive material containing a black pigment, in which case the partition (361) acts as a light-blocking member and the formation process is simple. An organic light-emitting member (370) is formed within the opening (365) above the pixel electrode (191) defined by the partition wall (361).” Emphasis added.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider combining the teachings of Lee to the device disclosed by Cha and form the first insulating layer (passivating layer) having trenches (having surface roughness) therein. Cha does not specifically teach trenches (surface roughness). However, the surface roughness of a passivation layer directly affects its adhesive quality to adjacent layers like common electrodes, other insulating layers… etc., as taught by Lee, and would therefore be an obvious improvement a person of ordinary skill in the art would make to improve adhesive quality between layers, and additionally transfer the surface roughness onto other layers for additional adhesive properties. Additionally, adhesive quality is a result effective variable that may be optimized by the person of ordinary skill in the art for specific device needs, see MPEP 2144.05(II)(B)
Regarding Claim 2, Cha in view of Lee discloses: The display device of claim 1,
Cha further discloses:
wherein the trench portions comprise a first trench portion (see annotated Fig. 4 below) overlapping with the first end of the light-emitting element (#ED), and a second trench portion (see annotated Fig. 4 below) overlapping with the second end of the light-emitting element (#ED).
Note, the substituted property of surface roughness is assumed to be consistent across the entire surface of the first insulating layer, as the entire layer is deposited at one stage of manufacturing and would therefore have that property throughout manufacturing. As such, first and second trench portions would be present at each relevant region of the device, although not directly assigned an element number. See below.
PNG
media_image1.png
861
948
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Cha Fig. 4 – Annotated by Examiner
Regarding Claim 3, Cha in view of Lee discloses: The display device of claim 2,
Cha further discloses:
wherein the first trench portion (see annotated Fig. 4 above) overlaps with the first electrode (#CNE1) and extends in parallel with the first electrode (#CNE1), and wherein the second trench portion (see annotated Fig. 4 above) overlaps with the second electrode (#CNE2) and extends in parallel with the second electrode (#CNE2).
Regarding Claim 4, Cha in view of Lee discloses: The display device of claim 2,
Cha further discloses:
wherein a side of the first trench portion (see annotated Fig. 4 above) is aligned with and coincides with a side of the first end of the light-emitting element (#ED), and a side of the second trench portion (see annotated Fig. 4 above) is aligned with and coincides with a side of the second end of the light-emitting element (#ED).
Note, the substituted property of surface roughness is assumed to be consistent across the entire surface of the first insulating layer, as the entire layer is deposited at one stage of manufacturing and would therefore have that property throughout manufacturing. As such, first and second trench portions and subsequent sides of trench portions would be present at each relevant region of the device, although not directly assigned an element number. See above.
Regarding Claim 5, Cha in view of Lee discloses: The display device of claim 1,
Cha further discloses:
wherein the trench portions (see annotated Fig. 4 above) contact a lower surface of the light-emitting element (#ED).
Note, the substituted property of surface roughness is assumed to be consistent across the entire surface of the first insulating layer, as the entire layer is deposited at one stage of manufacturing and would therefore have that property throughout manufacturing. As such, trench portions would be present at each relevant region of the device including the portion below the light-emitting element, although not directly assigned an element number. See above.
Regarding Claim 6, Cha in view of Lee discloses: The display device of claim 1,
Cha further discloses:
wherein a depth of the trenches (see annotated Fig. 4 above) is in a range of 1% to 30% of a thickness of the first insulating layer (#PAS1).
Note, as previously disclosed, the surface roughness directly corresponds to adhesive quality which has previously been noted to be a result effective variable that may be optimized by the person of ordinary skill in the art for specific device needs, see MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, it would be obvious for a person skilled in the art to adjust the surface roughness for device specific needs with respect to the quality of the adhesion between the respective layers within the device, specifically in this case being the first insulating layer.
Regarding Claim 10, Cha in view of Lee discloses: The display device of claim 1,
Cha further discloses:
further comprising: a second insulating layer (#PAS2) on the light-emitting element, wherein an etch selectivity of the first insulating layer with respect to the second insulating layer is 4.1 or more (see MPEP 2112.01, “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” In this case, the prior art discloses substantially identical insulating layers and formed in substantially the same manner resulting in a display device, and would therefore have the same properties, in this case being a specific etch selectivity for manufacturing purposes).
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220302178 A1 Cha et al in view of KR 20080054597 A Lee Dong Wong and further in view of Determination of optical properties of a-SiOxNy thin films by ellipsometric and UV-visible spectroscopies 2008 Rebib et al (herein “Rebib”).
Regarding Claim 7, Cha in view of Lee discloses: The display device of claim 1,
Cha in view of Lee does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the first insulating layer contains silicon oxynitride represented by the following chemical formula:
SixOyNz
wherein x, y and z satisfy 34.6 < x < 42.9, 24.2 < y < 63.8 and 1.5 < z <32.9, respectively, and x, y and z denote atomic ratios.
However, in analogous art, Rebib teaches:
See generally abstract, introduction, results and discussion, and conclusions. See Figs. 1, 2, 3a + 3b, 4, and 5.
Rebib teaches varying the stoichiometry of Silicon Oxynitride thin films and shows that doing so directly affects the refractive index of the thin film, resulting in values between 1.94 and 1.46 (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider combining the teachings of Rebib to the device disclosed by Cha in view of Lee and form the first insulating layer using silicon oxynitride within the claimed stoichiometry atomic ratios. Doing so would be a simple substitution of silicon oxynitride thin film within the claimed atomic ratios for the cited insulating layer (Cha discloses insulating layers may be one of silicon oxide (SiO.sub.x), silicon nitride (SiN.sub.x), or silicon oxynitride (SiO.sub.xN.sub.y). [0099]) with the additional benefit of enhanced refractive indices within the layer. Additionally, based on the disclosure of Rebib, such atomic values are considered result effective variables that directly tie the silicon, oxygen, and nitrogen content of the thin film to the refractive index that may be optimized by a person skilled in the art for a targeted refractive index. Therefore, the atomic ratios are a result effective variables that may be optimized by the person of ordinary skill in the art for specific device needs, see MPEP 2144.05(II)(B)
Regarding Claim 9, Cha in view of Lee discloses: The display device of claim 1,
Cha in view of Lee does not explicitly disclose:
wherein a refractive index of the first insulating layer is in a range of greater than 1.4 and less than 1.63.
However, in analogous art, Rebib teaches:
See generally abstract, introduction, results and discussion, and conclusions. See Figs. 1, 2, 3a + 3b, 4, and 5.
Rebib teaches varying the stoichiometry of Silicon Oxynitride thin films and shows that doing so directly affects the refractive index of the thin film, resulting in values between 1.94 and 1.46 (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider combining the teachings of Rebib to the device disclosed by Cha in view of Lee and form the first insulating layer using silicon oxynitride within the claimed stoichiometry atomic ratios therefore also having the claimed refractive indices. Cha in view of Lee does not teach the refractive index of the claimed insulating layer, therefore a person of ordinary skill would be motivated to seek such teachings to form an insulating layer and therefore form a functional device capable of emitting light in a specific manner, in this case targeting a specific refractive index by varying the silicon, oxygen, and nitrogen content arriving at the claimed index range.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220302178 A1 Cha et al in view of KR 20080054597 A Lee Dong Wong and further in view of US 20050067953 A1 Yamazaki et al (herein “Yamazaki”).
Regarding Claim 8, Cha in view of Lee discloses: The display device of claim 11,
Cha in view of Lee does not explicitly disclose:
wherein a thickness of the first insulating layer is in a range from 2,000 Å to 3,000 Å.
However, in analogous art, Yamazaki teaches:
See generally paragraph [0120]. Yamazaki teaches a refractive index and film thickness of each respective layer directly correlates to light reflection within the interfaces within the device leading to reduced reflection and therefore enhanced light extraction, the layers being any of the interlayer insulating film, the base insulating film, the gate insulating film, or the first electrode.
Specifically:
“[0120] A bottom emission light emitting device is completed according to the above steps. In this embodiment, a refractive index or film thickness of each layer (the interlayer insulating film, the base insulating film, the gate insulating film, or the first electrode) is determined within an adjustable range. Accordingly, light reflection at an interface of the layer is reduced and light extraction efficiency is improved.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider combining the teachings of Yamazaki to the device disclosed by Cha in view of Lee and form the insulating layer within the claimed range. Yamazaki teaches a refractive index and film thickness of each respective layer of the interlayer insulating film, the base insulating film, the gate insulating film, or the first electrode directly correlates to light reflection within the interfaces within the device leading to reduced reflection and therefore enhanced light extraction. Therefore, the thickness of the first insulating layer is a result effective variables that may be optimized by the person of ordinary skill in the art for specific device needs, see MPEP 2144.05(II)(B)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew V. Prostor whose telephone number is (571) 272-2686. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00a-4:30p.
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, Christine S Kim can be reached at (571) 272-8458. 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.
/ANDREW VICTOR PROSTOR/Examiner, Art Unit 2812 /CHRISTINE S. KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812
