DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on June 5, 2024. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on June 5, 2024, are being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Choung (US 2022/0077251).
With respect to Claim 9, Chen shows (Fig. 1B) all aspects of the current invention including a display device, comprising:
a lower electrode (layers 104)
a rib (126) including a pixel aperture (openings between layers 126) which overlaps the lower electrode
a partition (110) including a conductive lower part (110A) disposed on the rib and an upper part (110B) including having an end portion protruding from a side surface of the lower part
a stacked film (layers 112,114) including an organic layer (112) in contact with the lower electrode via the pixel aperture and an upper electrode (114) which covers the organic layer
a sealing layer (118) which covers the stacked film, wherein the rib includes an end portion having a tapered shape over an entire circumference of the pixel apertures
With respect to Claim 10, Chen shows (Fig. 1B) wherein the end portion of the rib has an inclined angle of 45° or less.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ishida (US 2023/0371314).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
With respect to Claim 9, Ishida shows (Fig. 3) all aspects of the current invention including a display device, comprising:
a lower electrode (LE1, LE2, LE3)
a rib (5) including a pixel aperture (openings between layers 5) which overlaps the lower electrode
a partition (6) including a conductive lower part (61) disposed on the rib and an upper part (62) including having an end portion protruding from a side surface of the lower part
a stacked film (OR1, UE1, CP1) including an organic layer (OR1) in contact with the lower electrode via the pixel aperture and an upper electrode (UE1) which covers the organic layer
a sealing layer (SE1, SE2, SE3 which covers the stacked film, wherein the rib includes an end portion having a tapered shape over an entire circumference of the pixel apertures
With respect to Claim 10, Ishida shows (Fig. 3) wherein the end portion of the rib has an inclined angle of 45° or less.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kokame (US 2023/0225180).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
With respect to Claim 9, Kokame shows (Fig. 3) all aspects of the current invention including a display device, comprising:
a lower electrode (LE1, LE2, LE3)
a rib (5) including a pixel aperture (openings between layers 5) which overlaps the lower electrode
a partition (6) including a conductive lower part (61) disposed on the rib and an upper part (62) including having an end portion protruding from a side surface of the lower part
a stacked film (OR1a-3a, UE1a-3a, CP1a-3a) including an organic layer (OR1a-3a) in contact with the lower electrode via the pixel aperture and an upper electrode (UE1a-3a) which covers the organic layer
a sealing layer (71,72,73) which covers the stacked film, wherein the rib includes an end portion having a tapered shape over an entire circumference of the pixel apertures
With respect to Claim 10, Kokame shows (Fig. 3) wherein the end portion of the rib has an inclined angle of 45° or less.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choung (US 2022/0077251) in view of Inoue (US 2017/0081758).
With respect to Claim 1, Choung shows (Fig. 1B,3,4a-4w) most aspects of the current invention including a method of manufacturing a display device, comprising:
forming a lower electrode (layers 104)
forming an inorganic insulating layer (layers 126) which covers the lower electrode
forming a partition (402A/402B) including a conductive lower part (402A) and an upper part (402B) including an end portion protruding from a side surface of the lower part, on the inorganic insulating layer
forming a resist (406) on the inorganic insulating layer, which is patterned using a photomask
forming a rib (layers 126; see Fig 4c) including a pixel aperture (openings between layers 126) that overlaps the lower electrode by removing a part of the inorganic insulating layer, which is exposed from the resist (Fig 4b-4c)
Furthermore, although Choung shows forming a resist on the inorganic insulating layer, Choung fails to disclose the photomask comprising an aperture including a pair of first straight portions extending in a first direction, a pair of second straight portions extending in a second direction intersecting the first direction, and four arc-shaped corner portions each connecting each respective of a first straight portion and a second straight portion adjacent to each other.
On the other hand, and in the same field of endeavor, Inoue teaches (Fig. 3,28) a method of manufacturing a display device, comprising forming an inorganic insulating layer (layers 15) which covers a lower electrode (layers 21). Furthermore, Inoue teaches using a resist (101) on the inorganic insulating layer, which is patterned using a photomask (101), the photomask comprising an aperture (137) including a pair of first straight portions extending in a first direction, a pair of second straight portions extending in a second direction intersecting the first direction, and four arc-shaped corner portions each connecting each respective of a first straight portion and a second straight portion adjacent to each other (see par 330; corner portions of each through hole 137 are rounded). Inoue teaches the desired shapes of the aperture in the photomask used in deposition methods may suppress the generation of ghosts in the step of vapor-depositing organic EL layers other than the emission layers and a second electrode and further maintain the precision of the deposition pattern (par 204-206, 352).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the arrangement of the photomask comprising an aperture including a pair of first straight portions extending in a first direction, a pair of second straight portions extending in a second direction intersecting the first direction, and four arc-shaped corner portions each connecting each respective of a first straight portion and a second straight portion adjacent to each other in the device of Choung, as taught by Inoue because the desired shapes of the aperture in the photomask used in deposition methods may suppress the generation of ghosts in the step of vapor-depositing organic EL layers other than the emission layers and a second electrode and further maintain the precision of the deposition pattern.
With respect to Claim 2, Choung shows (Fig. 1B,3,4a-4w) the rib includes an end portion having a tapered shape over an entire circumference of the pixel aperture.
With respect to Claim 3, Choung shows (Fig. 1B,3,4a-4w) the end portion of the rib has an inclined angle of 45° or less.
With respect to Claim 4, Inoue teaches (Fig. 3,28) the photomask comprising an aperture (137) including four arc-shaped corner portions each connecting each respective of a first straight portion and a second straight portion adjacent to each other (see par 330; corner portions of each through hole 137 are rounded) and furthermore the corner portions having a radius of curvature.
However, it is noted that the specification fails to provide teachings about the criticality of having a radius of curvature of the corner portions is 3 μm or more.
Regarding claim, the courts have held that differences in the radius of curvature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such radius of curvature are critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105, USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Since the applicant has not established the criticality of the radius of curvature and similar radius of curvature is known in the art (see e.g. Inoue), it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use these values in the device of Choung in view of Inoue.
Criticality: The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed radius of curvature 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 USPQ 2d 1934, 1936 (Fed Cir. 1990).
With respect to Claim 7, Choung shows (Fig. 1B,3,4a-4w) forming an organic layer (112) which covers the lower electrode and emits light in response to application of voltage (par 29) and forming an upper electrode (114) which covers the organic layer and is in contact with the lower part.
With respect to Claim 8, Choung shows (Fig. 1B,3,4a-4w) forming a sealing layer (layer 118 in Fig 1B; layer 116 in Fig 4w) that continuously covers a stacked film including the organic layer and the upper electrode and the partition.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choung (US 2022/0077251) in view of Inoue (US 2017/0081758) and in further view of Jang (US 2011/0104591).
With respect to Claim 5, Choung in view of Inoue, show most aspects of the present invention. However, the combination of references do not show the photomask comprises a halftone film disposed in a region corresponding to each of the corner portions and a chromium film disposed in a region other than those corresponding to each of the corner portions and the aperture.
On the other hand, and in a related field of endeavor, Jang teaches (Fig. 1) a method of manufacturing a device, comprising forming photomask (100), the photomask comprising an aperture (area containing P), the photomask comprises a halftone film disposed in a region corresponding to aperture (area containing P), and a chromium film disposed in a region (areas B) other than those corresponding to the aperture. Jang teaches the chromium film is used as a light shielding pattern and to further help improve the resolution of a fine pattern.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the arrangement of the photomask having a halftone film disposed in a region corresponding to each of the corner portions and a chromium film disposed in a region other than those corresponding to each of the corner portions and the aperture in the device of Choung in view of Inoue, as taught by Jang because the chromium film is used as a light shielding pattern and to further help improve the resolution of a fine pattern.
With respect to Claim 6, Jang teaches (Fig. 1) a width of the halftone film is 720 Å or less.
However, it is noted that the specification fails to provide teachings about the criticality of having a width of the halftone film is 4 μm or more.
Regarding claim, the courts have held that differences in the widths will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such widths are critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105, USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Since the applicant has not established the criticality of the widths and similar widths are known in the art (see e.g. Jang), it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use these values in the device of Choung in view of Inoue.
Criticality: The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed widths 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 USPQ 2d 1934, 1936 (Fed Cir. 1990).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUINTON A BRASFIELD whose telephone number is (571)272-0804. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-4PM.
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, Wael Fahmy can be reached on 571-272-1705. 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.
/Q.A.B/ Examiner, Art Unit 2814
/WAEL M FAHMY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2814
Prosecution Insights