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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Republic of Korea on 14 September 2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the KR 10-2023-0122663 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
This office acknowledges receipt of the following items from the applicant: Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 7 August 2024. The references cited on the PTOL 1449 form have been considered.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The applicant’s disclosure regarding this recitation is conflicting. The applicant utilizes the terms transparent, transmittance and reflectivity with respect to different materials (i.e. material precursor, reflection layer, transmissive layers, conversion layers, color filter layers, etc.) and different wavelengths of light (i.e. infrared, visible) (see par. 13, 20, 26, 73, 132, 134, 143). While the summary bullet points state “A transmittance of the reflection layer of the bank layer to visible light may be about 70% or higher.” (par. 20 and 26), this does not make sense based on the reflection layer’s intended purpose to reflect visible light for a display, to increase/improve light extraction efficiency (par. 132 and 143). In the detailed description, the applicant states “The reflectivity of the reflection layer 501 included in the bank layer 500 for visible light may be about 70% or higher.” (par. 132) and “The reflectivity for the reflection layer 501 to visible rays may be about 70% or higher. The reflectivity of the reflection layer 501 of the bank layer 500 for visible rays may be about 70% or higher…” (par. 143). The reflectivity makes sense for the function of the reflection layer, as opposed to the transmittance, with respect to the visible light, the silver material used, and the articulated improvements of the inventive concept. In order to achieve the improvements, the reflection layer must reflect most of the visible light, instead of allowing most of the visible light to transmit through the reflection layer.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10 recites “the material” and should read -- the material precursor – to reference the proper antecedent basis claim element.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The recitation of claim 14 is unclear and does not appear to be supported by enough written description. The applicant’s disclosure regarding this recitation is conflicting. The applicant utilizes the terms transparent, transmittance, transparent and reflectivity with respect to different materials (i.e. material precursor, reflection layer, transmissive layers, conversion layers, color filter layers) and different wavelengths of light (i.e. infrared, visible) (see par. 13, 20, 26, 73, 132, 134, 143). While the summary bullet points states “A transmittance of the reflection layer of the bank layer to visible light may be about 70% or higher.” (par. 20 and 26), this does not make sense based on the reflection layer’s intended purpose is to reflect visible light for a display, to increase/improve light extraction efficiency (par. 132 and 143). In the detailed description, the applicant states “The reflectivity of the reflection layer 501 included in the bank layer 500 for visible light may be about 70% or higher.” (par. 132) and “The reflectivity for the reflection layer 501 to visible rays may be about 70% or higher. The reflectivity of the reflection layer 501 of the bank layer 500 for visible rays may be about 70% or higher…” (par. 143). The reflectivity makes sense for the function of the reflection layer, as opposed to the transmittance, with respect to the visible light, the silver material used, and the articulated improvements of the inventive concept. In order to achieve the improvements, the reflection layer must reflect most of the visible light, instead of allowing most of the visible light to transmit through the reflection layer. Therefore, as currently claimed, it’s unclear how the improvements are achieved based on the transmittance instead of the reflectivity of the reflection layer. Similar remarks apply for claim 20.
(See MPEP 2163.03 V. ORIGINAL CLAIM NOT SUFFICIENTLY DESCRIBED):
While there is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present in the specification as filed, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976), a question as to whether a specification provides an adequate written description may arise in the context of an original claim. An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved or (2) a broad genus claim is presented but the disclosure only describes a narrow species with no evidence that the genus is contemplated. See Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). The written description requirement is not necessarily met when the claim language appears in ipsis verbis in the specification. "Even if a claim is supported by the specification, the language of the specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed. The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy that requirement." Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites intended use language “of a bank layer,” “to form a first reflection portion” and “to form the bank layer” which makes unclear as to the required relative structure and when, if at all, what structure exists after steps are performed. Per the applicant’s disclosure, at the time the step of disposing a material precursor (500s) is performed, “a bank layer” (500) does not exist. The recitation in the claim is an intended use. The manner in which the claim is written does not appear to require a first reflection portion or a bank layer to actually be formed as a result, let alone when to exist with respect to the steps actually performed. In other words, the claim does not recite “forming a first reflection portion by [performing active positive steps]” or “forming a bank layer by [performing active positive steps]”
As an example, driving a car to go to work. However, the car actually ends up at the store instead. The intention was to go to work but the end result was different.
It is noted that the claim does not require forming a reflection portion as a direct result of the irradiating step.
Claim 11 recites “after the forming of the bank layer” which lacks antecedent basis as there is no clear step that the bank layer is actually formed. Similar to claim 1, claim 11 recites intended use language “to form a second reflection portion” which makes unclear as to the required relative structure and when, if at all, what structure exists after steps are performed. The manner in which the claim is written does not appear to require a second reflection portion to actually be formed as a result, let alone when to exist with respect to the steps actually performed. In other words, the claim does not recite “forming a second reflection portion by [performing active positive steps].”
Claim 13 recites a “wherein” clause (see MPEP § 2111.04) introduced in past tense directed towards “a reflection layer” that does not limit a previous required positively recited active step. It’s unclear what additional or limiting step is performed related to the reflection layer. The claim also recites “the first reflection portion disposed at an upper surface of the bank layer” which lacks antecedent basis for multiple reasons. As noted above with respect to claim 1, there is no step of forming the first reflection portion or step of forming the bank layer. Furthermore, there is no prior step that forming a first reflection portion is disposed at an upper surface of the bank layer. As noted above with respect to claim 1, the bank layer (500) is not formed until after at least portion of the material precursor (500s) is removed.
The recitation of claim 14 is unclear. The applicant’s disclosure regarding this recitation is conflicting. The applicant utilizes the terms transparent, transmittance, transparent and reflectivity with respect to different materials (i.e. material precursor, reflection layer, transmissive layers, conversion layers, color filter layers) and different wavelengths of light (i.e. infrared, visible) (see par. 13, 20, 26, 73, 132, 134, 143). While the summary bullet points states “A transmittance of the reflection layer of the bank layer to visible light may be about 70% or higher.” (par. 20 and 26), this does not make sense based on the reflection layer’s intended purpose is to reflect visible light for a display, to increase/improve light extraction efficiency (par. 132 and 143). In the detailed description, the applicant states “The reflectivity of the reflection layer 501 included in the bank layer 500 for visible light may be about 70% or higher.” (par. 132) and “The reflectivity for the reflection layer 501 to visible rays may be about 70% or higher. The reflectivity of the reflection layer 501 of the bank layer 500 for visible rays may be about 70% or higher…” (par. 143). The reflectivity makes sense for the function of the reflection layer, as opposed to the transmittance, with respect to the visible light, the silver material used, and the articulated improvements of the inventive concept. In order to achieve the improvements, the reflection layer must reflect most of the visible light, instead of allowing most of the visible light to transmit through the reflection layer. It’s unclear if the transmittance is for all visible light or any particular wavelength within the visible light spectrum, thus it’s unclear as to the structural metes and bounds required to achieve this function. Similar remarks apply for claim 20.
Claim 15 recites intended use language “of a bank layer,” “to form a first reflection portion,” “to form the bank layer” and “to form a second reflection portion” which makes unclear as to the required relative structure and when, if at all, what structure exists after steps are performed. Per the applicant’s disclosure, at the time the step of disposing a material precursor (500s) is performed, “a bank layer” (500) does not exist. The recitation in the claim is an intended use. The manner in which the claim is written does not appear to require a first reflection portion, a bank layer or second reflection portion to actually be formed as a result, let alone when to exist with respect to the steps actually performed. In other words, the claim does not recite “forming a first reflection portion by [performing active positive steps]” or “forming a bank layer by [performing active positive steps]” or “forming a second reflection portion by [performing active positive steps]”
Claim 15 also recites “after forming the first reflection portion” which lacks antecedent basis as there is no clear step that the bank layer is actually formed.
Claim 15 recites “onto the bank layer” which lacks antecedent basis as there is no clear step that the bank layer is actually formed.
Claim 15 recites “removing, after forming the first reflection portion, at least a portion of the material precursor disposed above a pixel electrode” there is no antecedent basis that a portion of the material precursor is present above a pixel electrode. It’s unclear if the removing step is required.
Claim 16 recites “onto the bank layer, curing the bank layer” which lacks antecedent basis as there is no clear step that the bank layer is actually formed.
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 1, 2, 11, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Makoto (WO2015/033645).
As insofar as Claim 1 is definite, Makoto teaches in Fig. 1 or Fig. 4 for example, a method of manufacturing a display device, the method comprising: disposing a material precursor (11 alone or 11 and 35) of a bank layer on a substrate (10); irradiating first ultraviolet rays (see Fig. 1(B) and Fig. 1(E), as well as Fig. 4(A) and Fig. 4(C)) onto at least a portion of the material precursor (11) to form a first reflection portion (25; 27 and/or 28); and removing at least a portion (resulting in grooves 18 or 38; Fig. 1(C) and Fig. 4(D)) of the material precursor (11) to form the bank layer (17 or 37). The embodiment of Fig. 4 (D) provides for a higher bank (37) height than that (17) of Fig. 1(C), where processing continues in the same manner as that of Fig. 1(D) through Fig. 1(G) thereafter. It is also noted that the recitation of “to form” is an intended use language.
As insofar as Claim 2 is definite, Makoto further teaches disposing a photomask (13 and/or 13a) onto the material precursor (11 alone or 11 and 35) before the irradiating the first ultraviolet rays onto the portion of the material precursor, wherein the portion of the material precursor removed includes a portion of the material not irradiated by the first ultraviolet rays (see Fig. 1(B) to 1(C), and Fig. 4(A) to 4(D)).
As insofar as Claim 11 is definite, Makoto further teaches after the forming of the bank layer (17 or 37), irradiating second ultraviolet rays onto the bank layer to form a second reflection portion (25; 27 and/or 28) at a side surface of the bank layer (Fig. 1(E)).
As insofar as Claim 13 is definite, Makoto further teaches wherein a reflection layer (25) is formed of the first reflection portion disposed at an upper surface of the bank layer (17 or 37) and the second reflection portion disposed at the side surface of the bank layer (17 or 37), and the reflection layer (25) comprises Ag (Fig. 1(E)).
As insofar as Claim 14 is definite, Makoto teaches the required structure and material as claimed for the reflection layer, therefore teaches wherein a transmittance [reflectivity] of the reflection layer (25) of the bank layer (17 or 37) to visible light is about 70% or higher. “The claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). (MPEP 2112). As insofar as can be determined, a reflection layer comprising silver as taught by Makoto must be at least capable of performing the intended function.
Claims 1-6 and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kamura et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0372528).
As insofar as Claim 1 is definite, Kamura teaches in Fig. 14A-22 a method of manufacturing a display device, the method comprising: disposing a material precursor (13) of a bank layer on a substrate (11) (Fig. 13A-13C, par. 261-280; Fig. 14B-14D; Fig. 15B-15D; Fig. 16B-16D; Fig. 17B-17D); irradiating first ultraviolet rays onto at least a portion of the material precursor (13) to form a first reflection portion (10) (Fig. 13D, par. 281-288; Fig. 14E; Fig. 15E; Fig. 16E; Fig. 17E); and removing at least a portion of the material precursor to form the bank layer (13) (Fig. 13B, par. 263-265; 14C, 15C, 16C, 17C; par.).
As insofar as Claim 2 is definite, Kamura further teaches disposing a photomask onto the material precursor (Fig. 13A-13B; par. 263-265) before the irradiating the first ultraviolet rays onto the portion of the material precursor (Fig. 13D; par. 281), wherein the portion of the material precursor removed (Fig. 13A-13B; par. 263-265) includes a portion of the material not irradiated by the first ultraviolet rays (Fig. 13D).
As insofar as Claim 3 is definite, Kamura further teaches wherein the material precursor comprises silver ions (Ag+) and the irradiating of the first ultraviolet rays onto the portion of the material precursor comprises reducing the Ag+ to silver (Ag) (Fig. 13D; par. 281, 286).
As insofar as Claim 4 is definite, Kamura further teaches wherein the material precursor comprises an acryl-based monomer or an epoxy-based monomer, wherein the irradiating of the first ultraviolet rays onto the portion of the material precursor comprises synthesizing the acryl-based monomer or the epoxy-based monomer into a polymer (par. 128-143, 267, 305, 480, 496, 523).
As insofar as Claim 5 is definite, Kamura further teaches wherein the material comprises at least one of a photoinitiator or a photosensitizer (par. 265, 270, 272, 274, 480, 496, 523).
As insofar as Claim 6 is definite, Kamura further teaches wherein the material precursor comprises silver nitrate (AgNO3) and the irradiating of the first ultraviolet rays onto the portion of the material precursor comprises reducing silver ions (Ag+) of a AgNO3 to silver (Ag) (par. 277).
As insofar as Claim 8 is definite, Kamura further teaches wherein in the irradiating of the first ultraviolet rays onto the portion of the material precursor, an intensity of the first ultraviolet rays is in a range from about 10 mJ to about 1,500 mJ (par. 275, 312, 318, 482, 498, 525, 543-546).
As insofar as Claim 9 is definite, Kamura further teaches wherein the irradiating of the first ultraviolet rays onto the portion of the material precursor comprises generating free radicals from a photosensitive material to provide free electrons to the Ag+ of the material precursor (par. 281, 321, 500).
As insofar as Claim 10 is definite, Kamura further teaches wherein, in the irradiating of the first ultraviolet rays onto the portion of the material, inherently Ag atoms aggregate to form Ag colloidal nanoparticles (par. 281-288; Fig. 18) because Kamura performs the steps with the materials applicant describes by utilizing AgNO3 material with the acryl- or epoxy- based monomer and irradiates with UV to provide a polymer bank with a reflective layer thereon.
As insofar as Claim 11 is definite, Kamura further teaches, after the forming of the bank layer (13), irradiating second ultraviolet rays onto the bank layer (13) to form a second reflection portion (10) at a side surface of the bank layer (13). It is noted that there is no claimed distinction between first or second ultraviolet rays or timing of irradiating them (i.e. simultaneous or clearly different steps).
As insofar as Claim 12 is definite, Kamura further teaches, after the irradiating of the second ultraviolet rays onto the bank layer, curing the bank layer by applying heat to the bank layer (par. 13, 319, 376).
As insofar as Claim 13 is definite, Kamura further teaches wherein a reflection layer (10) is formed of the first reflection portion disposed at an upper surface of the bank layer and the second reflection portion disposed at the side surface of the bank layer, and the reflection layer (10) comprises Ag (par. 16, 18, 24, 26, 176-179, 277, 278, 281).
As insofar as Claim 14 is definite, Kamura teaches the required structure and material as claimed for the reflection layer (10), therefore teaches wherein a transmittance [reflectivity] of the reflection layer (10) of the bank layer (13) to visible light is about 70% or higher. “The claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). (MPEP 2112). As insofar as can be determined, a reflection layer comprising silver as taught by Kamura must be at least capable of performing the intended function.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 and 18 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 7, 16, 17 and 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
As insofar as Claim 7 is definite, the prior art of record alone or in combination neither teaches nor makes obvious the invention of the method further comprising aligning a photomask to the material precursor using infrared rays, wherein a transmittance of the material precursor to the infrared rays is about 14% or higher in combination with all of the limitations of Claim 1 and 7.
As insofar as Claim 15 is definite, the prior art of record alone or in combination neither teaches nor makes obvious the invention of the method of manufacturing a display device comprising: removing, after forming the first reflection portion, at least a portion of the material precursor disposed above a pixel electrode to form a bank layer in combination with all of the limitations of Claim 15. Claims 15- 17 include the limitations of claim 15.
Regarding Claim 18, the prior art of record alone or in combination neither teaches nor makes obvious the invention of the display device comprising the bank layer comprising a reflection layer formed of silver (Ag) at an upper surface and a side surface of the bank layer, and a central portion comprising Ag ions (Ag+) in combination with all of the limitations of Claim 18. Kamura teaches having different color conversion layers (142, 152, 162) that each also transmit light (par. 156, 182-218) but does not explicitly teach the that the different color conversion layers are quantum dot layers, per se, however, this type of display structure having a bank layer (B1) with a light transmissive layer (313) and different color quantum dot layers (323, 333) is known in Fig. 9 and 10 from the prior art of Kang (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0085978). The closest prior art for the inventive concept is considered to be the Kamura reference but does not explicitly state that there are Ag ions in a central portion of the bank layer (13 / 28) at the same time in the final device once the reflection layer of silver (10 / 20) is formed. Claims 19 and 20 include the limitations of claim 18.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EARL N TAYLOR whose telephone number is (571)272-8894. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, William Kraig can be reached on (571) 272-8660. 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.
/EARL N TAYLOR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
EARL N. TAYLOR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights