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
Acknowledgement is made to a claim of priority to Chinese application filed on March 31st, 2021. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on September 29th, 2022, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of group I, which is associated with claims 1-9 and 12-20 drawn to an OLED display panel and a display device in the reply filed on August 5th, 2026 is acknowledged.
The requirement is made FINAL, claims 1-9 and 12-20 are being examined on their merits and all non-elected claims (i.e. claims 10-11) are withdrawn from consideration at this time.
Specification
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
Content of Specification
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION: See 37 CFR 1.72(a) and MPEP § 606. The title of the invention should be placed at the top of the first page of the specification unless the title is provided in an application data sheet. The title of the invention should be brief but technically accurate and descriptive, preferably from two to seven words. It may not contain more than 500 characters.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCES TO RELATED APPLICATIONS: See 37 CFR 1.78 and MPEP § 211 et seq.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT: See MPEP § 310.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT. See 37 CFR 1.71(g).
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM: The specification is required to include an incorporation-by-reference of electronic documents that are to become part of the permanent United States Patent and Trademark Office records in the file of a patent application. See 37 CFR 1.77(b)(5) and MPEP § 608.05. See also the Legal Framework for Patent Electronic System posted on the USPTO website (https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2019LegalFrameworkPES.pdf) and MPEP § 502.05
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR. See 35 U.S.C. 102(b) and 37 CFR 1.77.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(c). The specification should set forth the Background of the Invention in two parts:
(1) Field of the Invention: A statement of the field of art to which the invention pertains. This statement may include a paraphrasing of the applicable U.S. patent classification definitions of the subject matter of the claimed invention. This item may also be titled “Technical Field.”
(2) Description of the Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98: A description of the related art known to the applicant and including, if applicable, references to specific related art and problems involved in the prior art which are solved by the applicant’s invention. This item may also be titled “Background Art.”
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(d). A brief summary or general statement of the invention as set forth in 37 CFR 1.73. The summary is separate and distinct from the abstract and is directed toward the invention rather than the disclosure as a whole. The summary may point out the advantages of the invention or how it solves problems previously existent in the prior art (and preferably indicated in the Background of the Invention). In chemical cases it should point out in general terms the utility of the invention. If possible, the nature and gist of the invention or the inventive concept should be set forth. Objects of the invention should be treated briefly and only to the extent that they contribute to an understanding of the invention.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S): See MPEP § 608.01(f). A reference to and brief description of the drawing(s) as set forth in 37 CFR 1.74.
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(g). A description of the preferred embodiment(s) of the invention as required in 37 CFR 1.71. The description should be as short and specific as is necessary to describe the invention adequately and accurately. Where elements or groups of elements, compounds, and processes, which are conventional and generally widely known in the field of the invention described, and their exact nature or type is not necessary for an understanding and use of the invention by a person skilled in the art, they should not be described in detail. However, where particularly complicated subject matter is involved or where the elements, compounds, or processes may not be commonly or widely known in the field, the specification should refer to another patent or readily available publication which adequately describes the subject matter.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS: See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP § 608.01(m). The claim or claims must commence on a separate sheet or electronic page (37 CFR 1.52(b)(3)). Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP 608.01(i) - (p).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE: See 37 CFR 1.72 (b) and MPEP § 608.01(b). The abstract is a brief narrative of the disclosure as a whole, as concise as the disclosure permits, in a single paragraph preferably not exceeding 150 words, commencing on a separate sheet following the claims. In an international application which has entered the national stage (37 CFR 1.491(b)), the applicant need not submit an abstract commencing on a separate sheet if an abstract was published with the international application under PCT Article 21. The abstract that appears on the cover page of the pamphlet published by the International Bureau (IB) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is the abstract that will be used by the USPTO. See MPEP § 1893.03(e).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING: See 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825 and MPEP §§ 2421 - 2431. The requirement for a sequence listing applies to all sequences disclosed in a given application, whether the sequences are claimed or not. See MPEP § 2422.01.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Regarding claims 7 and 18;
In line 4 of each claim the term “engagement portion” is recited. The term “engagement portion” does not appear in the specification, making interpretation of what specifically is contemplated as an “engagement portion” in the claimed invention unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 4, 6-8, 12-13, 15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (CN110048005A) for the following reasons:
Regarding claims 1 and 12;
Zhang et al. teaches a display device (e.g. Fig. 1 ref 100, Example 1 “an OLED display device 100”), comprising an OLED display panel (e.g. Fig. 2-4) comprising a first display area (e.g. Fig. 2-4 ref 102, Example 1“…second display region 102”) and a second display area (e.g. Fig. 2-4 ref 101, Example 1 “…first display region 101”), wherein the OLED display panel further comprises: a substrate extending from the first display area to the second display area (e.g. Fig. 2-4 ref 1, Example 1 “the OLED display device 100 includes: a substrate 1…”); a pixel definition layer disposed on the substrate and arranged in the first display area and the second display area (e.g. Fig. 2-4 ref 4, Example 1 “the OLED display device 100 includes:… a pixel defining layer 4,”), wherein the pixel definition layer comprises isolation structures and pixel openings arranged between adjacent isolation structures (e.g. see examiner markup below); a spacer layer comprising first spacer structures, each of the first spacer structures is disposed on one of the isolation structures in the first display area (e.g. Fig. 4 ref 11); a light-emitting layer disposed in the pixel openings of the first display area and the second display area (e.g. Fig. 2-4 ref 6, Example 1 “the OLED display device 100 includes:…light emitting layer 6”); and a cathode disposed on the light-emitting layer in the first display area and the second display area (e.g. Fig 2-4 ref 7, Example 1 “the OLED display device 100 includes:…a cathode 7.”), wherein in the first display area, the cathode extends to side surfaces of the first spacer structures (e.g. see examiner markup below).
PNG
media_image1.png
511
522
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
489
1044
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 2 and 13;
Zhang et al. further teaches that the display device further comprises: an encapsulation layer (e.g. Fig 4 ref 12, Example 1 “the OLED display device of the present invention 100 further comprises…organic encapsulation layer 12…”) disposed on a side of the cathode away from the light-emitting layer (e.g. see examiner markup below); wherein, the encapsulation layer in the first display area is in direct contact with a surface of the first spacer structure away from the substrate (e.g. see examiner markup below).
PNG
media_image3.png
489
1044
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 4 and 15;
Zhang et al. further teaches that the spacer layer further comprises a second spacer structure (e.g. Fig. 2-4 ref 5, Example 1 “wherein the OLED display device 100 includes:…first separation column 5…”) correspondingly provided on the isolation structure in the second display area (e.g. see examiner markup below); and in the second display area, the cathode extends to a surface of the second spacer structures and covers the second spacer structures, and a thickness of the first spacer structure is less than a thickness of the second spacer structures (e.g. see examiner markup below in claim 1 rejection).
Regarding claims 6 and 17;
Zhang et al. further teaches that an upper surface of the spacer layer is a surface away from the substrate, and an orthographic projection of the first spacer structure or the second spacer structure on the upper surface of the isolation structure completely falls within a boundary of the upper surface of the isolation structure (e.g. see examiner markup in claim 1 rejection).
Regarding claims 7 and 18;
Zhang et al. further teaches that the first spacer structure and/or the second spacer structure are/is provided with a slot (e.g. see examiner markup below), and the OLED display device further comprises an encapsulation layer disposed on the cathode and filled in the slot, and the encapsulation layer forms an engagement portion in the slot (e.g. see examiner markup below).
PNG
media_image4.png
489
1044
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 8 and 19;
Zhang et al. further teaches that in the second display area, the cathode extends to a surface of the pixel definition layer and covers the pixel definition layer (e.g. see examiner markup in claim 1 rejection).
Claims 1, 8, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (CN110048005A) for the following reasons:
Regarding claims 1 and 12;
Zhang et al. alternatively teaches a display device (e.g. Fig. 1 ref 100, Example 1 “an OLED display device 100”), comprising an OLED display panel (e.g. Fig. 11) comprising a first display area (e.g. Fig. 11 ref 101, Example 1“…first display region 101”) and a second display area (e.g. Fig. 11 ref 102, Example 1 “…second display region 102”), wherein the OLED display panel further comprises: a substrate extending from the first display area to the second display area (e.g. Fig. 11 ref 1, Example 1 “the OLED display device 100 includes: a substrate 1…”); a pixel definition layer disposed on the substrate and arranged in the first display area and the second display area (e.g. Fig. 11 ref 4, Example 1 “the OLED display device 100 includes:… a pixel defining layer 4,”), wherein the pixel definition layer comprises isolation structures and pixel openings arranged between adjacent isolation structures (e.g. see examiner markup below); a spacer layer comprising first spacer structures, each of the first spacer structures is disposed on one of the isolation structures in the first display area (e.g. Fig. 11 ref 5); a light-emitting layer disposed in the pixel openings of the first display area and the second display area (e.g. Fig. 11 ref 6, Example 1 “the OLED display device 100 includes:… light emitting layer 6”); and a cathode disposed on the light-emitting layer in the first display area and the second display area (e.g. Fig 11 ref 7, Example 1 “the OLED display device 100 includes:… a cathode 7.”), wherein in the first display area, the cathode extends to side surfaces of the first spacer structures (e.g. see examiner markup below).
PNG
media_image1.png
511
522
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
428
1004
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 8 and 19;
Zhang et al. further teaches that in the second display area, the cathode extends to a surface of the pixel definition layer and covers the pixel definition layer (e.g. see examiner markup in alternative claim 1 rejection).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 3, 5, 9, 14, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN110048005A) for the following reasons:
Regarding claims 3 and 14;
Zhang et al. implicitly teaches that a side surfaces of the first spacer structures and upper surfaces of the isolation structures form an internal angle (e.g. synonymous to an “included angle”, see examiner markup below).
PNG
media_image6.png
489
1044
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Zhang et al. is silent to the included angles between the side surfaces of the first spacer structures and upper surfaces of the isolation structures being in a range from 8° to150° as claimed.
However, at the effective time of filing, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that during the forming of the first spacer structures taught in Zhang et al. that the included angle between a side surface of the first spacer structures and upper surfaces of the isolation structures would necessarily be within the range of 8° to 150° because minor dimensional differences would predictably result from a chosen formation method/process’s tolerances resulting in variable internal angles without changing the intended functioning of the resulting device.
Regarding claims 5 and 16;
Zhang et al. implicitly teaches that side surfaces of the second spacer structures and upper surfaces of the isolation structures form an internal angle (e.g. synonymous to an “included angle”, see examiner markup in claim 3 rejection).
Zhang et al. is silent to the included angles between side surfaces of the second spacer structures and upper surfaces of the isolation structures being in a range from 8° to 150° as claimed.
However, at the effective time of filing, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that during the forming of the second spacer structures taught in Zhang et al. that the included angle between a side surface of the second spacer structures and upper surfaces of the isolation structures would necessarily be within the range of 8° to 150° because minor dimensional differences would predictably result from a chosen formation method/process’s tolerances resulting in variable internal angles without changing the intended functioning of the resulting device.
Regarding claims 9 and 20;
Zhang et al. implicitly teaches wherein in the first display area, an area of an orthographic projection of the first spacer structure on a surface of the substrate is defined as a first area, and that an area of an orthographic projection of the pixel definition layer on the surface of the substrate is defined as a second area (e.g. see examiner markup below).
PNG
media_image7.png
489
1044
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Zhang et al. is silent to a ratio of the first area to the second area ranges from 5% to 90% as claimed.
However, At the effective time of filing, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art to form a ratio between the first area projected onto the substrate by the first spacer structures and the second area projected onto the substrate by the pixel definition layer to be within the ranges of 5% to 90% with routine experimentation and optimization since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.04. See also In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Claims 3-6, 9, 14-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN110048005A) for the following reasons:
Regarding claims 3 and 14;
Zhang et al. implicitly teaches that a side surfaces of the first spacer structures and upper surfaces of the isolation structures form an internal angle (e.g. synonymous to an “included angle”, see examiner markup below).
PNG
media_image8.png
428
1004
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Zhang et al. is silent to the included angles between the side surfaces of the first spacer structures and upper surfaces of the isolation structures being in a range from 8° to 150° as claimed.
However, at the effective time of filing, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that during the forming of the first spacer structures taught in Zhang et al. that the included angle between a side surface of the first spacer structures and upper surfaces of the isolation structures would necessarily be within the range of 8° to 150° because minor dimensional differences would predictably result from a chosen formation method/process’s tolerances resulting in variable internal angles without changing the intended functioning of the resulting device.
Regarding claims 4 and 15;
Zhang et al. further teaches that the spacer layer further comprises a second spacer structure correspondingly provided on the isolation structure in the second display area (e.g. Fig. 11 ref 8, “…a second separation column 8.”); and in the second display area, the cathode extends to a surface of the second spacer structure and covers the second spacer structure (e.g. see examiner markup in alternative claim 1 rejection).
Zhang et al. is silent to a thickness of the first spacer structure being smaller than a thickness of the second spacer structure as claimed.
However, Zhang et al. teaches that the illustrated dimension are schematic and non-limiting (e.g. Specific implementation methods “…the size and thickness of each component shown in the drawings are arbitrarily shown, the invention is not limited to the size and thickness of each component.”).
At the effective time of filing, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to someone having ordinary skill in the art to form a thickness of the first spacer structure to be smaller than a thickness of the second spacer structure, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of component and not produced an unpredictable change in device functioning. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claims 5 and 16;
Zhang et al. implicitly teaches that side surfaces of the second spacer structures and upper surfaces of the isolation structures form an internal angle (e.g. synonymous to an “included angle”, see examiner markup below in claim 3 rejection).
Zhang et al. is silent to the included angles between side surfaces of the second spacer structures and upper surfaces of the isolation structures being in a range from 8° to 150° as claimed.
However, at the effective time of filing, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that during the forming of the second spacer structures taught in Zhang et al. that the included angle between a side surface of the second spacer structures and upper surfaces of the isolation structures would necessarily be within the range of 8° to 150° because minor dimensional differences would predictably result from a chosen formation method/process’s tolerances resulting in variable internal angles without changing the intended functioning of the resulting device.
Regarding claims 6 and 17;
Zhang et al. further teaches that an upper surface of the spacer layer is a surface away from the substrate, and an orthographic projection of the first spacer structure or the second spacer structure on the upper surface of the isolation structure completely falls within a boundary of the upper surface of the isolation structure (e.g. see examiner markup in alternative claim 1 rejection).
Regarding claims 9 and 20;
Zhang et al. implicitly teaches wherein in the first display area, an area of an orthographic projection of the first spacer structure on a surface of the substrate is defined as a first area, and that an area of an orthographic projection of the pixel definition layer on the surface of the substrate is defined as a second area (e.g. see examiner markup in alternative claim 1 rejection).
Zhang et al. is silent to a ratio of the first area to the second area ranges from 5% to 90% as claimed.
However, At the effective time of filing, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art to form a ratio between the first area projected onto the substrate by the first spacer structures and the second area projected onto the substrate by the pixel definition layer to be within the ranges of 5% to 90% with routine experimentation and optimization since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.04. See also In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM ROBERT MANN whose telephone number is (571)270-0210. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday 0800-1800 EST.
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, Jacob Choi can be reached at (469) 295-9060. 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.
/WILLIAM ROBERT MANN/Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/JACOB Y CHOI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
