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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, claims 1-6, in the reply filed on 7/31/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 7-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/31/2026.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (US 2012/0228603) in view of Jung (US 2024/0147778).
Regarding claim 1, Nakamura discloses, in FIG. 2A and in related text, a display device comprising:
a substrate (110);
an organic insulating (resin) layer (131) provided above the substrate (see Nakamura, [0033]);
a lower electrode (141, 142) provided on the organic insulating layer (see Nakamura, [0034]);
a planarization layer (143a) which is provided on the organic insulating layer (131) and is in contact with a side surface of the lower electrode (141, 142);
an inorganic insulating layer (143b) which covers the planarization layer (143a) and covers a peripheral portion of the lower electrode (141, 142) (see Nakamura, [0036]);
a partition (150) having a lower portion which is provided on the inorganic insulating layer (143b) and is formed of a conductive material (see Nakamura, [0037], [0039]);
an organic layer (160) surrounded by the partition (150), provided on the lower electrode (141, 142) and including a light emitting layer (see Nakamura, [0040]); and
an upper electrode (170) which is surrounded by the partition (150), is provided on the organic layer (160) and is in contact with the lower portion of the partition (150) (see Nakamura, [0042]).
Nakamura does not explicitly disclose a partition having a lower portion and an upper portion which is provided on the lower portion and protrudes from a side surface of the lower portion.
Jung teaches a partition (300) having a lower portion (310) and an upper portion (320) which is provided on the lower portion and protrudes from a side surface of the lower portion (see Jung, FIGS. 5F and 6, [0115]-[0116], [0134]).
Nakamura and Jung are analogous art because they both are directed to display devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Nakamura with the features of Jung because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Nakamura to include a partition having a lower portion and an upper portion which is provided on the lower portion and protrudes from a side surface of the lower portion, as taught by Jung, to prevent using a separate mask in forming intermediate layers and electrodes during manufacturing (see Jung, [0151]).
Regarding claim 2, Nakamura in view of Jung teaches the device of claim 1.
Nakamura discloses wherein the planarization layer (143a) is formed into a grating shape in plan view (see Nakamura, FIGS. 1 and 2A, [0037]: planarization layer 143a has similar pattern as partition 150 in top view).
Regarding claim 3, Nakamura in view of Jung teaches the device of claim 1.
Nakamura discloses wherein at least part of an upper surface of the planarization layer (143a) protrudes relative to an upper surface of the lower electrode (141, 142) (see Nakamura, FIG. 2A, planarization layer 143a protrudes and cover edges of lower electrode 141, 142).
Regarding claim 4, Nakamura in view of Jung teaches the device of claim 1.
Nakamura discloses wherein at least part of an upper surface of the planarization layer (143a) is concave (away from lower electrode 141, 142) relative to an upper surface of the lower electrode (141, 142) (see Nakamura, FIG. 2A).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura in view of Jung, and further in view of Wikipedia (Photoresist, Wikipedia, archived 16 January 2022).
Regarding claim 5, Nakamura in view of Jung teaches the device of claim 1.
Nakamura discloses wherein the planarization (143a) is formed of a photosensitive resin, and the photosensitive resin is novolac-based (see Nakamura, [0071]).
Nakamura does not explicitly disclose a positive photosensitive resin.
Wikipedia teaches that novolac-based resin is a positive photosensitive resin (see Wikipedia, section Posotive photoresist). Thus, Wikipedia together with Nakamura teaches a positive photosensitive resin.
Nakamura and Wikipedia are analogous art because they both are directed to manufacturing processes using photoresists and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Nakamura with the features of Wikipedia because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Nakamura to include a positive photosensitive resin, as taught by Wikipedia, since DNQ changes dissolution rate of novolac in photoresist formed of mixture of DNQ and novolac resin (see Wikipedia, section Posotive photoresist).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record, Nakamura, discloses a cap layer provided on the upper electrode. The prior art of records, individually or in combination, do not disclose nor teach “a sealing layer provided on the cap layer and formed of an inorganic insulating material, wherein the sealing layer covers the cap layer immediately above the lower electrode and is in contact with the partition” in combination with other limitations as recited in claim 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIH TSUN A CHOU whose telephone number is (408)918-7583. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-16:00 Arizona 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, Lynne Gurley can be reached at (571) 272-1670. 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.
/SHIH TSUN A CHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2811
