Detailed Action
This office action is in response to the amendment filed on December 1st, 2025. Claims 1, 4-9, 12-13, and 16-22 are pending.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 1st, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (pgs. 9-12, “Remarks”) that Nishiyama and the other cited references fail to teach the limitations of amended Claims 1 and 20.
However, as seen below, amended Claims 1 and 20 are now rejected by the combination of Nishiyama and Jo.
Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 9, 13, 16, and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiyama et al. (U.S. 2016/0370646 A1; hereinafter Nishiyama) in view of Jo et al. (2017/0331072 A1; hereinafter Jo).
Regarding Claim 1, Nishiyama (annotated fig. 4) teaches:
A display panel ([0127]), comprising:
an array substrate ([0127], 40) comprising a display region (display region, see annotated fig. 4) and a non-display region (non-display region, see annotated fig. 4) surrounding at least a part of the display region (display region), wherein
the display region (display region) comprises a plurality of pixels ([0128], a group of red, blue, and green pixels is referred to as a pixel) arranged in an array, each of the pixels (pixel) comprises a plurality of sub-pixels ([0128], each of the red, blue, and green pixels is referred to as a sub-pixel), and each of the sub-pixels comprises a light-emitting device ([0129], 29, 30);
an encapsulation cover plate ([0127], 20) opposite to the array substrate (40), wherein the encapsulation cover plate (20) comprises:
a first base substrate ([0128], 10); and
a plurality of organic layers ([0128], 11, optionally 26) on a side of the first base substrate (10) close to the array substrate (40) wherein the plurality of organic layers (11, 26) are spaced apart from the light-emitting device (29, 30); and
a frame sealant ([0127], 34) in the non-display region (non-display region) and between the array substrate (40) and the encapsulation cover plate (20), and configured to adhere ([0127]) the array substrate (40) and the encapsulation cover plate (20), wherein
a gap region (area between 34 and 26, labeled gap region, see annotated fig. 4) is between an organic layer (26) of the plurality of the organic layers (11, 26) closest to the frame sealant (34) in a direction (left to right, see annotated fig. 4) from the display region (display region) to the frame sealant (34) and the frame sealant (34), the gap region (gap region) separates the organic layer (26) of the plurality of the organic layers (11, 26) closest to the frame sealant (34) from the frame sealant (34), and the gap region (gap region) is in the non-display region (non-display region), wherein
the plurality of the organic layers (11, 26) comprises: a black matrix (11) on a side of the first base substrate (10) close to the array substrate (40) and defining a plurality of sub-color filter units ([0134], 23, 24, 25); a protection layer (26) covering at least a portion of the black matrix (top of 11) and the plurality of the sub-color filter units (23, 24, 25);
Nishiyama doesn’t teach a first spacer on a side of the first base substrate close to the array substrate and on a side of both of the black matrix and the protection layer close to the frame sealant, wherein the organic layer of the plurality of the organic layers closest to the frame sealant is the first spacer, and wherein a plane shape of the first spacer is a closed ring formed surrounding the black matrix and the protection layer.
However, Jo (figs. 7-8) teaches a first spacer ([0065], R1) on a side of the first base substrate ([0059], SUB1) close to the array substrate ([0059], SUB2) and on a side of both of the black matrix ([0059], BM1) and the protection layer ([0059], PAS) close to the frame sealant ([0065], R3), wherein the organic layer of the plurality of the organic layers (R1, PAS) closest to the frame sealant (R3) is the first spacer (R1), and wherein a plane shape of the first spacer (R1) is a closed ring formed surrounding the black matrix (BM1) and the protection layer (PAS). Jo also teaches the spacer may function as a getter and easily and safely absorbs moisture from being permeated from the outside ([0055]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the display panel of Nishiyama to include the first spacer of Jo to absorb moisture from the outside.
PNG
media_image1.png
546
1060
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 4
Regarding Claim 4, Nishiyama (annotated fig. 4) teaches the display panel according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of the sub-color filter units (23, 24, 25) are in a one-to-one correspondence with the plurality of the sub-pixels (23, 24, 25 correspond to each of the red, blue, and green pixels), and the black matrix (11) is configured ([0134]) to enable light emitted by the light-emitting device (29, 30) of each of the sub-pixels (sub-pixel) to pass through and exit from the corresponding sub-color filter unit (23, 24, 25).
Regarding Claim 9, Jo (fig. 8) teaches the display panel according to claim 1, wherein the protection layer (PAS) is a planarization layer (PAS), and a surface of the planarization layer (PAS) away from the first base substrate (SUB1) is a flat surface (see fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 13, Nishiyama (annotated fig. 4) teaches the display panel according to claim 1, wherein the encapsulation cover plate (20) further comprises an opaque light shielding layer [0129], 33), the opaque light shielding layer (33) is on a side of the first base substrate (10) close to the array substrate (40), and an orthographic projection of the opaque light shielding layer (33) on the first base substrate (10) at least partially overlaps (see annotated fig. 4) with an orthographic projection of the frame sealant (34) on the first base substrate (10).
Regarding Claim 16, Nishiyama (annotated fig. 4) teaches the display panel according to claim 4, wherein the array substrate (40) further comprises: a pixel definition layer ([0129], 31) defining the plurality of the sub-pixels (sub-pixel), wherein an orthographic projection of the black matrix (11) on the first base substrate (10) is within an orthographic projection of the pixel definition layer (31) on the first base substrate (10).
Regarding Claim 18, Nishiyama (annotated fig. 4) teaches the display panel according to claim 1, further comprising: a filling material layer ([0130], filling material layer, see annotated fig. 4) which is filled between the array substrate (40) and the encapsulation cover plate (20) and comprises a first portion in the display region (display region) and a second portion in the non- display region (non-display region), wherein the first portion covers the light-emitting device (29, 30), and the second portion fills the gap region (gap region).
Regarding Claim 19, Nishiyama (annotated fig. 4) teaches the display panel according to claim 18, wherein the filling material layer (filling material layer) is an elastic layer ([0130], [0138], resin may be flexible), and in a case (in this case the display panel is not applied with a pressure, therefore this limitation is interpreted as being optional) that the display panel is applied with a pressure in a direction perpendicular to the first base substrate, a thickness of the elastic layer in a direction perpendicular to the first base substrate decreases.
Regarding Claim 20, Nishiyama (annotated fig. 4) teaches:
A manufacturing method of a display panel ([0127]), comprising:
Providing an array substrate ([0127], 40), wherein the array substrate (40) comprises a display region (display region, see annotated fig. 4) and a non-display region (non-display region, see annotated fig. 4) surrounding at least a part of the display region (D),
the display region (D) comprises a plurality of pixels ([0128], a group of red, blue, and green pixels is referred to as a pixel) arranged in an array, each of the pixels (pixel) comprises a plurality of sub-pixels ([0128], each of the red, blue, and green pixels is referred to as a sub-pixel), and each of the sub-pixels comprises a light-emitting device ([0129], 29, 30);
forming an encapsulation cover plate ([0127], 20), comprising:
providing a first base substrate ([0128], 10), and
forming a plurality of organic layers ([0128], 11, 26) on a side of the first base substrate (10) close to the array substrate (40) wherein the plurality of organic layers (11, 26) are spaced apart from the light-emitting device (29, 30);
forming a frame sealant ([0127], 34), wherein the frame sealant (34) is located in the non-display region (non-display region); and allowing the array substrate (40) to be opposite to the encapsulation cover plate (20) and bonding the array substrate (40) with the encapsulation cover plate (20), wherein
the frame sealant (34) is located between the array substrate (40) and the encapsulation cover plate (20), the frame sealant (34) adheres ([0127]) the array substrate (40) and the encapsulation cover plate (20),
a gap region (area between 34 and 26, labeled gap region, see annotated fig. 4) is provided between an organic layer (26) of the plurality of the organic layers (11, 26) closest to the frame sealant (34) in a direction (left to right, see annotated fig. 4) from the display region (display region) to the frame sealant (34) and the frame sealant (34), the gap region (gap region) separates the organic layer (26) of the plurality of the organic layers (11, 26) closest to the frame sealant (34) from the frame sealant (34), and the gap region (gap region) is located in the non-display region (non-display region), wherein
the plurality of the organic layers (11, 26) comprises: a black matrix (11) on a side of the first base substrate (10) close to the array substrate (40) and defining a plurality of sub-color filter units ([0134], 23, 24, 25); a protection layer (26) covering at least a portion of the black matrix (top of 11) and the plurality of the sub-color filter units (23, 24, 25);
Nishiyama doesn’t teach a first spacer on a side of the first base substrate close to the array substrate and on a side of both of the black matrix and the protection layer close to the frame sealant, wherein the organic layer of the plurality of the organic layers closest to the frame sealant is the first spacer, and wherein a plane shape of the first spacer is a closed ring formed surrounding the black matrix and the protection layer.
However, Jo (figs. 7-8) teaches a first spacer ([0065], R1) on a side of the first base substrate ([0059], SUB1) close to the array substrate ([0059], SUB2) and on a side of both of the black matrix ([0059], BM1) and the protection layer ([0059], PAS) close to the frame sealant ([0065], R3), wherein the organic layer of the plurality of the organic layers (R1, PAS) closest to the frame sealant (R3) is the first spacer (R1), and wherein a plane shape of the first spacer (R1) is a closed ring formed surrounding the black matrix (BM1) and the protection layer (PAS). Jo also teaches the spacer may function as a getter and easily and safely absorbs moisture from being permeated from the outside ([0055]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the display panel of Nishiyama to include the first spacer of Jo to absorb moisture from the outside.
Regarding Claim 21, Nishiyama (annotated fig. 4) teaches a display apparatus ([0033], liquid crystal display device) comprising the display panel ([0033], [0127], light emitting device) according to claim 1.
Regarding Claim 22, Nishiyama (annotated fig. 4) teaches the display panel according to claim 18, wherein a first part (part of filling material layer in the space between 26 and 29, see annotated fig. 4) of the filling material layer (filling material layer) is located between the light-emitting device (29, 30) and the plurality of organic layers (11, 26), and a second part (part of filling material layer in gap region, see annotated fig. 4) of the filling material layer (filling material layer) is filled between the plurality of organic layers (11, 26) and the frame sealant (34).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiyama and Jo as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (2015/0380470 A1; hereinafter Lee).
Regarding Claim 5, Nishiyama fails to teach the larger a size of the non-display region in the direction from the display region to the frame sealant is, the larger a width of the gap region in a transverse direction is.
However, Lee (fig. 6) teaches the display panel according to claim 1, wherein the larger a size of the non-display region (region between 52 and 72, see fig. 6) in the direction (left to right, see fig. 6) from the display region (region including 72, see fig. 6) to the frame sealant ([0037], 52) is, the larger (as the distance between 52 and 72 increases, the gap increases in size) a width of the gap region (area between 52 and the end of 66) in a transverse direction (left to right, see fig. 6) is. Lee teaches that the shape of the frame sealant may be sloped while still maintaining the function of sealing the display device. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the frame sealant of Lee for the frame sealant of Nishiyama and yielded the predictable results of sealing the display device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the frame sealant of Lee for the frame sealant of Nishiyama, since simple substitution of a frame sealant for another is an appropriate rationale to support a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding Claim 6, Nishiyama fails to teach the larger a size of the frame sealant in the direction from the display region to the frame sealant is, the smaller a width of the gap region in a transverse direction is.
However, Lee (fig. 6) teaches the display panel according to claim 1, wherein the larger a size of the frame sealant ([0037], 52) in the direction (left to right, see fig. 6) from the display region (region including 72, see fig. 6) to the frame sealant (52) is, the smaller (as 52 increases in width, the gap decreases in size) a width of the gap region (area between 52 and the end of 66) in a transverse direction (left to right, see fig. 6) is. Lee teaches that the shape of the frame sealant may be sloped while still maintaining the function of sealing the display device. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the frame sealant of Lee for the frame sealant of Nishiyama and yielded the predictable results of sealing the display device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the frame sealant of Lee for the frame sealant of Nishiyama, since simple substitution of a frame sealant for another is an appropriate rationale to support a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiyama, Jo, and Lee as applied to Claim 6 above, and further in view of Ito et al. (2014/0252386 A1; hereinafter Ito).
Regarding Claim 7, Nishiyama and Lee fail to teach a width of the gap region in the direction from the display region to the frame sealant to the frame sealant is greater than or equal to 10 µm.
However, Ito (figs. 7A and 11A) teaches the display panel according to claim 6, wherein a width of the gap region (region between 305 and the end of 307, see fig. 11A) in the direction from the display region to the frame sealant ([0168], 305) to the frame sealant (305) is greater than or equal to 10 µm ([0168], 100 µm).
In reference to MPEP § 2144.06.II., both Nishiyama and Ito provide gap regions that separate the display region from the frame sealant in the art of display devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art substitute the gap region of Ito for the gap region of Nishiyama to select the appropriate width for the gap region while still maintaining a functional display device.
Regarding Claim 8, Nishiyama and Lee fail to teach in the direction from the display region to the frame sealant, a width of the frame sealant is less than or equal to 2 mm, and the width of the gap region is greater than or equal to 100 µm.
However, Ito (figs. 7A and 11A) teaches the display panel according to claim 7, wherein in the direction from the display region to the frame sealant (305), a width of the frame sealant (305) is less than or equal to 2 mm ([0170], 250 µm), and the width of the gap region is greater than or equal to 100 µm ([0168], 100 µm).
In reference to MPEP § 2144.06.II., both Nishiyama and Ito provide frame sealants that seal connect opposing substrates and seal the space in between in the art of display devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art substitute the frame sealant of Ito for the frame sealant of Nishiyama to select the appropriate width for the frame sealant while still maintaining a functional display device.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiyama and Jo as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Liou et al. (2007/0273821 A1; hereinafter Liou).
Regarding Claim 12, Nishiyama (annotated fig. 4) teaches the display panel according to claim 1, wherein the encapsulation cover plate (20) further comprises an opaque light-shielding layer ([0129], 33), the opaque light shielding layer (33) is on a side of the first base substrate (10) close to the array substrate (40). Nishiyama doesn’t teach an orthographic projection of the opaque light shielding layer on the first base substrate does not overlap with an orthographic projection of the frame sealant on the first base substrate.
However, Liou (fig. 6) teaches an orthographic projection of the opaque light shielding layer ([0027], 39) on the first base substrate ([0022], 31) does not overlap ([0027], see fig. 6) with an orthographic projection of the frame sealant ([0022], 35) on the first base substrate (31). ). Liou also teaches that the greater exposure is useful for sealants that have a lower capability of photosensitivity and also can diminish the panel dimensions ([0027]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the display panel of Nishiyama to include the opaque light shielding layer of Liou to carry out the process of shielding light and also reduce panel dimensions
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiyama and Jo as applied to Claim 16 above, and further in view of Luo (2019/0058153 A1; hereinafter Luo).
Regarding Claim 17, Nishiyama and Lee fail to teach a second spacer on a side of the pixel definition layer close to the black matrix, wherein a space is between the second spacer and the protection layer, an orthographic projection of the second spacer on the first base substrate is within the orthographic projection of the pixel definition layer on the first base substrate, and is within the orthographic projection of the black matrix on the first base substrate; and a height of the second spacer in a direction perpendicular to the first base substrate is smaller than a height of the first spacer in the direction perpendicular to the first base substrate.
However, Luo (figs. 3 and 5) teaches the display panel according to claim 16, further comprising: a second spacer ([0045], 1021) on a side of the pixel definition layer ([0082], 202) close to the black matrix ([0040]-[0041], 105, mistakenly written as 104 in the specification), wherein a space (1022 is between 1021 and 106, see fig. 3) is between the second spacer (1021) and the protection layer ([0040], 106), an orthographic projection of the second spacer (1021) on the first base substrate ([0040], 100) is within the orthographic projection of the pixel definition layer (202) on the first base substrate (100), and is within the orthographic projection of the black matrix (105) on the first base substrate (100). Luo also teaches that including the second spacer can improve the conductivity of the top electrodes ([0050]-[0052]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the display device of Nishiyama and Lee to include the second spacer of Luo to improve conductivity. The combination of Nishiyama, Lee, and Luo renders obvious the limitation wherein a height of the second spacer (Luo, 1021) in a direction perpendicular to the first base substrate (Luo, 100, Lee, 58) is smaller (the first spacer of Lee extends the height of the frame sealant, the second spacer of Luo does not) than a height of the first spacer (Lee, 54) in the direction perpendicular to the first base substrate (Luo, 100, Lee, 58).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADIN HRNJIC whose telephone number is (571)270-1794. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM.
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.
/A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/Kretelia Graham/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817 January 19, 2026