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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “gap region”, the “orthographic projection”, the “partitions”, the “split bodies” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Since there is no corresponding reference numerals in the specification, it is difficult to determine which element in the drawings corresponds to the claimed limitations.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Since there are no references numbers for the “gap region”, the “orthographic projection”, the “partitions”, the “split bodies” it is difficult to determine which element in the drawings corresponds to the claimed limitations.
Appropriate correction is required.
Election/Restrictions
Claim 14 is merely a method of making the display panel of claim 1 with only the word method in the preamble and steps of “forming” the layers of claim 1. Accordingly, any further methods steps such as evaporation (e.g., [0061]) would result in a restriction requirement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 3-13, 17-20 is/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.
In claims 3, 16, “one of” the second blocks and “one of” the first blocks is ambiguous. Is every second blocks smaller than every first block? Is only one second block smaller than at least one first block?
In claims 4-6, 18, it is unclear what is meant by “disposed away from” and “one by one”. Also, “…the split body has a greater distance from the first display region, has a smaller area…” Which split body? Greater distance than what? Another split body? Fewer of what? The claim appears to omit a comparison reference for the smaller area.
In claim 7, it is unclear what is meant by “…the side of…away from”.
In claims 9, 17, the relationship among the pixel openings, the light-transmitting blocks, the partition is unclear and difficult to determine. There is a scope ambiguity problem with the lengthy claim.
In claim 10, “adapted to a shape of” is a term of degree that fails to provide objective boundaries because the claim does not specify the extent to which the shapes must correspond.
In claims 12, 13, 19, 20, it is unclear what is meant by “separated from” since the claim does not specify whether the projections are non-overlapping, spaced apart by a distance, or otherwise geometrically distinct.
The other claims are rejected as being dependent on one of the claims above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 12-16, 19, 20 is/are, to the extent taught and understood, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 112103318 (Xu), cited by Applicant in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0165052 (Liu) or 2022/0100022 (Wang).
Xu discloses
[Claim 1] (Original) A display panelhaving a first display region AA1, a second display region AA2, and a third display region AA3 positioned between the first display region AA1 and the second display region AA2, comprising:
a substrate 101;
a pixel definition layer 100 disposed on a side of the substrate 101, wherein a plurality of spaced-apart pixel openings 120 are defined on the pixel definition layer 100, and a gap region is defined between two adjacent pixel openings 120; and
a suppression layer 230 / 220 disposed on a side of the pixel definition layer 100 away from the substrate 101, wherein the suppression layer 230 / 220 is positioned in the gap region; and
wherein the suppression layer 230 / 220 comprises a first cathode suppression layer 230 positioned in the first display region AA1 and a second cathode suppression layer 220 positioned in the third display region AA3, and
an orthographic projection of the second cathode suppression layer 220, an orthographic projection of the first cathode suppression layer 230 (Figs. 2-5, [0033], [0036], [0041], [0042], [0046], [0047], [0088], [0089] of equivalent U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0083099).
Xu fails to disclose
a ratio of an area of an orthographic projection of the second cathode suppression layer on the substrate to an area of the third display region is less than a ratio of an area of an orthographic projection of the first cathode suppression layer on the substrate to an area of the first display region.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the reduce the relative area of one suppression layer and increase the relative area of another suppression layer in Xu. The motivation would be to make the transmittance of one display region greater than the transmittance of another display region by having the second suppression layer cover a smaller area ratio than the first suppression layer, so the third region is less suppressed than the first based on routine optimization. See MPEP 2144.05.
Liu teaches (at least [0193], [0194], [0202])
A display panel, comprising:
a ratio of an area of an orthographic projection of the second cathode suppression layer on the substrate to an area of the third display region is less than a ratio of an area of an orthographic projection of the first cathode suppression layer on the substrate to an area of the first display region.
Wang teaches (at least [0078], [0080], [0136])
A display panel, comprising:
a ratio of an area of an orthographic projection of the second cathode suppression layer on the substrate to an area of the third display region is less than a ratio of an area of an orthographic projection of the first cathode suppression layer on the substrate to an area of the first display region.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the areas in Xu. The motivation would be to control transmittance characteristics among the respective display regions and achieve a desired balance between optical transmission and display performance. Both the Liu and Wang references recognize that varying the area occupied by suppression structures affects the transmittance of the corresponding display region.
Liu and Wang teach selecting coverage ratios and quantitative area relationships to achieve desired optical performance.
[Claim 2] (Original) The display panel according to claim 1, wherein the ratio of the area of the orthographic projection of the second cathode suppression layer on the substrate to the area of the third display region is less than or equal to one half of the ratio of the area of the orthographic projection of the first cathode suppression layer on the substrate to the area of the first display region.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a ratio less than or equal to one-half in Xu. The motivation would be to make the transmittance of one display region greater than the transmittance of another display region by having one suppression layer cover a smaller area ratio than another suppression layer, so one region is less suppressed than another based on routine optimization as discussed in Liu and Wang. See MPEP 2144.05.
Wang teaches ([0078], [0080]) varying optical structures in different regions
[Claim 3] (Original) The display panel according to claim 1, wherein the first cathode suppression layer comprises a plurality of spaced-apart first light-transmitting blocks, and the second cathode suppression layer comprises a plurality of spaced-apart second light-transmitting blocks; and wherein an area of an orthographic projection of one of the second light-transmitting blocks on the substrate is less than an area of an orthographic projection of one of the first light-transmitting blocks on the substrate, or/and a number of the second light-transmitting blocks is less than a number of the first light-transmitting blocks.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select smaller or fewer light-transmittance blocks in Xu. The motivation would be to obtain differing transmittance by lowering overall coverage based on routine optimization as discussed in Wang. See MPEP 2144.05.
Xu discloses
[Claim 12] (Original) The display panel according to claim 1, wherein an orthographic projection of the suppression layer 230 / 220 on the substrate 101 is separated from an orthographic projection of the second display region AA2 on the substrate 101.
Xu discloses
[Claim 13] (Original) The display panel according to claim 1, wherein an orthographic projection of the suppression layer 230 / 220 on the substrate 101 is separated from an orthographic projection of an anode of a sub-pixel 400 on the substrate 101.
Xu discloses
[Claim 14] (Original) A method of manufacturing a display panelhaving a first display region AA1, a second display region AA2, and a third display region AA3 positioned between the first display region AA1 and the second display region AA2, comprising:
forming a pixel definition layer 100 on a side of the substrate 101, wherein a plurality of spaced-apart pixel openings 120 are defined on the pixel definition layer 100, and a gap region is defined between two adjacent pixel openings 120; and
forming a suppression layer 230 / 220 on a side of the pixel definition layer 100 away from the substrate 101, wherein the suppression layer 230 / 220 is positioned in the gap region, and the suppression layer 230 / 220 comprises a first cathode suppression layer 230 positioned in the first display region AA1 and a second cathode suppression layer AA2 positioned in the third display region AA3, and
an orthographic projection of the second cathode suppression layer 220, an orthographic projection of the first cathode suppression layer 230 (Figs. 2-5, [0033], [0036], [0041], [0042], [0046], [0047], [0088], [0089] of equivalent U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0083099).
Xu fails to disclose
wherein a ratio of an area of an orthographic projection of the second cathode suppression layer on the substrate to an area of the third display region is less than a ratio of an area of an orthographic projection of the first cathode suppression layer on the substrate to an area of the first display region.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the reduce the relative area of one suppression layer and increase the relative area of another suppression layer in Xu. The motivation would be to make the transmittance of one display region greater than the transmittance of another display region by having the second suppression layer cover a smaller area ratio than the first suppression layer, so the third region is less suppressed than the first based on routine optimization. See MPEP 2144.05.
Liu teaches (at least [0193], [0194], [0202])
A display panel, comprising:
a ratio of an area of an orthographic projection of the second cathode suppression layer on the substrate to an area of the third display region is less than a ratio of an area of an orthographic projection of the first cathode suppression layer on the substrate to an area of the first display region.
Wang teaches (at least [0078], [0080], [0136])
A display panel, comprising:
a ratio of an area of an orthographic projection of the second cathode suppression layer on the substrate to an area of the third display region is less than a ratio of an area of an orthographic projection of the first cathode suppression layer on the substrate to an area of the first display region.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the areas in Xu. The motivation would be to control transmittance characteristics among the respective display regions and achieve a desired balance between optical transmission and display performance. Both the Liu and Wang references recognize that varying the area occupied by suppression structures affects the transmittance of the corresponding display region.
Liu and Wang teach selecting coverage ratios and quantitative area relationships to achieve desired optical performance.
[Claim 15] (Original) The method of manufacturing the display panel according to claim 14, wherein the ratio of the area of the orthographic projection of the second cathode suppression layer on the substrate to the area of the third display region is less than or equal to one half of the ratio of the area of the orthographic projection of the first cathode suppression layer on the substrate to the area of the first display region.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a ratio less than or equal to one-half in Xu. The motivation would be to make the transmittance of one display region greater than the transmittance of another display region by having one suppression layer cover a smaller area ratio than another suppression layer, so one region is less suppressed than another based on routine optimization as discussed in Liu and Wang. See MPEP 2144.05.
Wang teaches ([0078], [0080]) varying optical structures in different regions
[Claim 16] (Original) The method of manufacturing the display panel according to claim 14, wherein the first cathode suppression layer comprises a plurality of spaced-apart first light-transmitting blocks, and the second cathode suppression layer comprises a plurality of spaced-apart second light-transmitting blocks; and wherein an area of an orthographic projection of one of the second light- transmitting blocks on the substrate is less than an area of an orthographic projection of one of the first light-transmitting blocks on the substrate, or/and a number of the second light-transmitting blocks is less than a number of the first light-transmitting blocks.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select smaller or fewer light-transmittance blocks in Xu. The motivation would be to obtain differing transmittance by lowering overall coverage based on routine optimization as discussed in Wang. See MPEP 2144.05.
Xu discloses
[Claim 19] (Original) The manufacturing method of the display panel according to claim 14, wherein an orthographic projection of the suppression layer 230 / 220 on the substrate 101 is separated from an orthographic projection of the second display region AA2 on the substrate 101.
Xu discloses
[Claim 20] (Original) The manufacturing method of the display panel according to claim 14, wherein an orthographic projection of the suppression layer 230 / 220 on the substrate 101 is separated from an orthographic projection of an anode of a sub-pixel 400 on the substrate 101.
Claim(s) 7, 8 is/are, to the extent taught and understood, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu in view of Liu or Wang as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0023382 (Harikrishna Mohan).
Liu teaches
[Claim 7] (Original) The display panel according to claim 3, wherein the display panel further comprises a cathode layer 105 / 109 disposed on the side of the pixel definition layer 134 away from the substrate 101, and the cathode layer 105 / 109 covers the pixel openings (unlabeled) and at least part of the suppression layer 135;
The combination of references fails to teach
and wherein a thickness of the cathode layer positioned on the suppression layer is less than a thickness of the cathode layer positioned on the pixel openings.
Harikrishna Mohan teaches a cathode layer having a varying thickness.
A display panel comprising:
wherein a thickness of the cathode layer 54 positioned on the suppression layer is less than a thickness of the cathode layer 54 positioned on the pixel openings.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary the thickness of the cathode layer opening in the modified device of Xu. The motivation would be to optimize light extraction and color purity, while overlapping an opening to physically separate sub-pixels, prevent short circuits, and manage electrical and optical crosstalk as discussed in Harikrishna Mohan.
Harikrishna Mohan teaches
[Claim 8] (Original) The display panel according to claim 7, wherein the cathode layer 54 comprises electrode portions in one-to-one correspondence with the pixel openings and an overlap portion connecting two adjacent ones of the electrode portions, wherein the overlap portion is positioned in the first display region and the third display region.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent Application Publication Nos. 2022/0190073 (Song), 2022/0102670 (Peng), JP Publication No. 2021-114426 (Kondo) teach a display panel having suppression layers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERESA M ARROYO whose telephone number is (703)756-1576. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (8:30 A.M. E.T. - 5:00 P.M. E.T.).
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, Sue Purvis can be reached at 571.272.1236. 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.
/TERESA M. ARROYO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights