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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/03/2025 has been entered.
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s remarks/amendments of claims 1-19 in the reply filed on September 03rd, 2025 are acknowledged. Claims 1, 4 and 12-15 have been amended. Claims 3 and 6-11 have been cancelled. Claim 20 has been withdrawn from consideration. New claims 21-26 have been amended. Claims 1-5 and 12-20 are pending.
Action on merits of claims 1-2, 4-5, 12-19 and 21-26 as follows.
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.
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 12-19 and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (CN 112054048, hereinafter as Xu ‘048) in view of Hai (CN 112861763, hereinafter as Hai ‘763).
Regarding Claim 1, Xu ‘048 teaches a display panel, comprising:
a first display area (AA1; pp. 9) and a second display area (AA2; pp. 9) (see Fig. 1);
a substrate (Fig. 3, (101); pp. 10);
a pixel definition layer disposed (100; pp. 10) on a side of the substrate and comprising a plurality of pixel openings spaced apart from each other (see Fig. 3); and a cathode layer (300) disposed on a side of the pixel definition layer (100) away from the substrate (101); wherein a cathode inhibition layer (210) made of a light-transmissive material (see pp. 13) is disposed between adjacent ones of the pixel openings (410) and located on a side of the pixel definition layer away from the substrate in the first display area (AA1) (see Fig. 2); wherein the cathode layer (300) comprises a plurality of electrode portions corresponding to the pixel openings located in the first display area (AA1) (see Fig. 3).
Thus, Xu ‘048 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “a thickness of a portion of the cathode layer formed on the cathode inhibition layer is less than a thickness of a portion of the cathode corresponding to the pixel openings; the cathode layer comprises a plurality of electrode portions corresponding to the pixel openings, respectively, and a plurality of bridging portions each configured to connect adjacent ones of the electrode portions”.
Hai ‘763 teaches a thickness of a portion of the cathode layer (Fig. 2, (1023); pp. 12) formed on the cathode inhibition layer (120; pp. 22) is less than a thickness of a portion of the cathode corresponding to the pixel openings (see Fig. 2), respectively, and a plurality of bridging portions each configured to connect adjacent ones of the electrode portions. Examiner considers the spacer layer (120; [0119]) is the cathode inhibition layer.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Xu ‘048 by having a thickness of a portion of the cathode layer formed on the cathode inhibition layer is less than a thickness of a portion of the cathode corresponding to the pixel openings, respectively, and a plurality of bridging portions each configured to connect adjacent ones of the electrode portions in order to improve the performance of the display device (see pp. 13) as suggested by Hai ‘763.
Regarding Claim 15, Xu ‘048 teaches a display panel, comprising:
a first display area (AA1; pp. 9) and a second display area (AA2; pp. 9) (see Fig. 1);
a substrate (Fig. 3, (101); pp. 10);
a pixel definition layer disposed (100; pp. 10) on a side of the substrate and comprising a plurality of pixel openings spaced apart from each other (see Fig. 3); and a cathode layer (300) disposed on a side of the pixel definition layer (100) away from the substrate (101), wherein a cathode inhibition layer (210) made of a light-transmissive material (see pp. 13) is disposed between adjacent ones of the pixel openings (410) and located on a side of the pixel definition layer away from the substrate in the first display area (AA1) (see Fig. 2); wherein the cathode layer (300) comprises a plurality of electrode portions corresponding to the pixel openings located in the first display area (AA1) (see Fig. 3).
Thus, Xu ‘048 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “a thickness of a portion of the cathode layer formed on the cathode inhibition layer is less than a thickness of a portion of the cathode corresponding to the pixel openings; the cathode layer comprises a plurality of electrode portions corresponding to the pixel openings, respectively, and a plurality of bridging portions each configured to connect adjacent ones of the electrode portions”.
Hai ‘763 teaches a thickness of a portion of the cathode layer (Fig. 2, (1023); pp. 12) formed on the cathode inhibition layer (120; pp. 22) is less than a thickness of a portion of the cathode corresponding to the pixel openings (see Fig. 2), respectively, and a plurality of bridging portions each configured to connect adjacent ones of the electrode portions. Examiner considers the spacer layer (120; [0119]) is the cathode inhibition layer.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Xu ‘048 by having a thickness of a portion of the cathode layer formed on the cathode inhibition layer is less than a thickness of a portion of the cathode corresponding to the pixel openings, respectively, and a plurality of bridging portions each configured to connect adjacent ones of the electrode portions in order to improve the performance of the display device (see pp. 13) as suggested by Hai ‘763.
PNG
media_image1.png
224
562
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 (Xu ‘048)
PNG
media_image2.png
344
407
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 (Hai ‘763)
Regarding Claim 2, Xu ‘048 and Hai ‘763 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the area of the orthographic projection of the cathode inhibition layer on the substrate is larger than or equal to 0.05 times the area of the first display area”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select an orthographic projection of the cathode inhibition layer on the substrate having an area larger than or equal to 0.95 times an area of the first display area on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
PNG
media_image3.png
18
19
media_image3.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have an orthographic projection of the cathode inhibition layer on the substrate having an area larger than or equal to 0.95 times an area of the first display area when this improves the performance of the display device.
Regarding Claims 4 and 17, Hai ‘763 teaches the bridging portions (1023) are integrally formed with the electrode portions (see Fig. 2); wherein each of the bridging portions is located in the bridging region.
Xu ‘048 teaches the cathode inhibition layer (210) comprises a plurality of light-transmissive blocks spaced apart from each other (see Fig. 2), and the first display area (AA1) comprises a bridging region defined between adjacent ones of the electrode portions, (see Figs. 2 and 3).
Regarding Claims 5 and 18, Xu ‘048 teaches the first display area (AA1) comprises a plurality of light-transmissive partitioned areas, and each of the light-transmissive partitioned areas is defined between the bridging portions and the pixel openings comprising a first pixel opening, a second pixel opening, a third pixel opening, and a fourth pixel opening; wherein the second pixel opening and the first pixel opening are located adjacent to each other and arranged in a first direction on a side of the first pixel opening, the third pixel opening and the second pixel opening are located adjacent to each other and arranged in a second direction on a side of the second pixel opening, the fourth pixel opening is located adjacent to the first pixel opening and the third pixel opening, and the light-transmissive blocks correspond to the light-transmissive partitioned areas, respectively (see Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 12, Xu ‘048 teaches an orthographic projection of the light-transmissive block (210) on the substrate is spaced apart from an orthographic projection of a cathode (300) included in the display panel (see Figs. 2 and 3).
Regarding Claim 13, Xu ‘048 teaches the orthographic projection of the platform portion on the substrate matches has a shape adapted to a shape of a corresponding one of the light-transmissive partitioned areas (see Fig. 2).
Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select the orthographic projection of the platform portion on the substrate matches has a shape adapted to a shape of a corresponding one of the light-transmissive partitioned areas on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
PNG
media_image3.png
18
19
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 14, Xu ‘048 and Hai ‘763 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the orthographic projection of the platform portion on the substrate is arc-like in shape”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select the orthographic projection of the platform portion on the substrate is arc-like in shape on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
PNG
media_image3.png
18
19
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 19, Xu ‘048 teaches each of the light-transmissive blocks comprises a platform portion and an edge portion adjoining an edge of the platform portion.
Xu ‘048, Hai ‘763 and Tan ‘190 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “an orthographic projection of the platform portion on the substrate is spaced apart from an orthographic projection of an adjacent one of the pixel openings at a distance greater than or equal to a width of the edge portion”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select an orthographic projection of the platform portion on the substrate is spaced apart from an orthographic projection of an adjacent one of the pixel openings at a distance greater than or equal to a width of the edge portion on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
PNG
media_image3.png
18
19
media_image3.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have an orthographic projection of the platform portion on the substrate is spaced apart from an orthographic projection of an adjacent one of the pixel openings at a distance greater than or equal to a width of the edge portion when this improves the performance of the display device.
Regarding Claim 16, Xu ‘048 teaches the cathode layer comprises a plurality of electrode portions corresponding to the pixel openings respectively (see Fig. 12).
Tan ‘190 teaches a plurality of bridging portions (104/1023) each configured to connect adjacent ones of the electrode portions and located in the first display area (see Fig. 2F).
Regarding Claim 21, Hai ‘763 teaches the cathode inhibition layer (120) comprises a platform portion and an edge portion adjoining an edge of the platform portion, wherein an orthographic projection of the platform portion on the substrate is spaced apart from an orthographic projection of an adjacent one of the pixel openings at a distance greater than or equal to a width of the edge portion (see Fig. 2). Examiner considers the spacer layer (120; [0119]) is the cathode inhibition layer.
Regarding Claim 22, Xu ‘048 and Hai ‘763 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the edge portion has a width between two microns (µm) and five µm”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select the edge portion has a width between two microns (µm) and five µm on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
PNG
media_image3.png
18
19
media_image3.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have the edge portion has a width between two microns (µm) and five µm when this improves the performance of the display device.
Regarding Claim 23, Xu ‘048 and Hai ‘763 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the orthographic projection of the platform portion on the substrate has an area larger than or equal to 0.84 times the area of the first display area”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select the orthographic projection of the platform portion on the substrate has an area larger than or equal to 0.84 times the area of the first display area on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
PNG
media_image3.png
18
19
media_image3.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have the orthographic projection of the platform portion on the substrate has an area larger than or equal to 0.84 times the area of the first display area when this improves the performance of the display device.
Regarding Claim 24, Xu ‘048 and Hai ‘763 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the distance between the orthographic projection of the platform portion on the substrate and the orthographic projection of the adjacent one of the pixel openings is between two µm and ten µm”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select the distance between the orthographic projection of the platform portion on the substrate and the orthographic projection of the adjacent one of the pixel openings is between two µm and ten µm on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
PNG
media_image3.png
18
19
media_image3.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have the distance between the orthographic projection of the platform portion on the substrate and the orthographic projection of the adjacent one of the pixel openings is between two µm and ten µm when this improves the performance of the display device.
Regarding Claim 25, Xu ‘048 and Hai ‘763 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the orthographic projection of the platform portion on the substrate has an area larger than or equal to 0.64 times the area of the first display area”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select the orthographic projection of the platform portion on the substrate has an area larger than or equal to 0.64 times the area of the first display area on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
PNG
media_image3.png
18
19
media_image3.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have the orthographic projection of the platform portion on the substrate has an area larger than or equal to 0.64 times the area of the first display area when this improves the performance of the display device.
Regarding Claim 26, Xu ‘048 and Hai ‘763 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the orthographic projection of the platform portion on the substrate has an area smaller than or equal to 0.9 times the area of the first display area”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select the orthographic projection of the platform portion on the substrate has an area smaller than or equal to 0.9 times the area of the first display area on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
PNG
media_image3.png
18
19
media_image3.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have the orthographic projection of the platform portion on the substrate has an area smaller than or equal to 0.9 times the area of the first display area when this improves the performance of the display device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following patents are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to semiconductor devices:
Lou et al. (US 2021/0408152 A1)
Helander et al. (US 2020/0280017 A1)
Choi et al. (US 2015/0076456 A1)
Kawato et al. (US 2015/0380469 A1)
For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DZUNG T TRAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-3911. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8 AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sue Purvis can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DZUNG TRAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893