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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/09/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
PNG
media_image1.png
534
1238
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Xie (as labeled by examiner above) discloses wherein the chain region 400 comprises a connecting circuit (as labeled by examiner above which is a circuit connected to the elements around it) distributed along an extending direction of the chain region, wherein an end of the connecting circuit is connected to the island region (there is a physical connection as all elements are directly or indirectly connected as a whole); and
the undercut structures comprise:
a first undercut structure 910 defined in the island region and surrounding the subpixel; and
a second undercut structure 920 defined in the chain region;
wherein the second undercut structure is a strip structure, and extends across the connecting circuit of the chain region.
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 1-8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 111370454 (Xie) in view of Zhu et al. 20220407023.
PNG
media_image2.png
595
508
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, figs. 1-2 of Xie discloses a display panel, comprising:
an island region 300;
a chain region 400 connected to the island region and extending to an outer side of the island region;
an array substrate provided with at least one subpixel and comprising a first organic layer (an organic luminescent layer 802);
a plurality of undercut structures defined on the array substrate and recessed in the first organic layer (an organic luminescent layer 802) of the array substrate; and
an encapsulation layer 600 covering the array substrate and in the undercut structures;
PNG
media_image1.png
534
1238
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the chain region 400 comprises a connecting circuit (as labeled by examiner above which is a circuit connected to the elements around it) distributed along an extending direction of the chain region, wherein an end of the connecting circuit is connected to the island region (there is a physical connection as all elements are directly or indirectly connected as a whole); and
the undercut structures comprise:
a first undercut structure 910 defined in the island region and surrounding the subpixel; and
a second undercut structure 920 defined in the chain region;
wherein the second undercut structure is a strip structure, and extends across the connecting circuit of the chain region.
Xie does not disclose that an encapsulation layer 600 covering the array substrate and filled in the undercut structures.
PNG
media_image3.png
706
619
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, figs. 10-11 of Zhu discloses an encapsulation layer 401 covering an array substrate and filled in hollow structures (fig. 10).
In view of such teaching, it would have been obvious to form a display panel of Xie comprising wherein the encapsulation layer covering the array substrate and filled in the undercut structures such as taught by Zhu in order to provide a thick enough structure to prevent defects in the undercuts.
Regarding claim 2, Xie and Zhu disclose claim 1, and
wherein the array substrate further comprises:
an pixel defining layer 803 inorganic layer disposed on a side of the first organic layer; and
a second organic layer flat layer 830 disposed on a side of the pixel away from the first organic layer;
wherein each of the first undercut structure and the second undercut structure sequentially penetrates the pixel defining layer and the flat layer and is recessed in the pixel defining layer, and each of each of the first undercut structure and the second undercut structure is a groove structure.
Xie and Zhu do not disclose of pixel defining layer is inorganic layer and the flat layer is a second organic layer.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a pixel defining layer of inorganic layer and the flat layer of a second organic layer because such material is conventional in the art for forming the display device. Note that although Xie and Zhu do not teach exact the material as that claimed by Applicant, the material differences are considered obvious design choices and are not patentable unless unobvious or unexpected results are obtained from these changes. It appears that these changes produce no functional differences and therefore would have been obvious. Note In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416, In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Circ. 1990).
Regarding claim 3, Xie discloses wherein the array substrate comprises a cathode layer disposed on a side of the second organic layer, and part of the cathode layer is disposed on a bottom of the first undercut structure; and the resulting structure would have been one comprising wherein the encapsulation layer completely covers the cathode layer.
Regarding claim 4, Xie discloses wherein the island region further comprises: a flexible base layer; and a thin-film transistor disposed on a side of the flexible base layer facing the subpixel.
Regarding claim 5, Xie discloses wherein the chain region further comprises: a flexible base layer; and an filling layer disposed on a side of the flexible base layer facing the second undercut structure.
XIe does not disclose that the filling layer is organic.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a filling layer of organic layer in order use organic process step for forming the display device. Note that although Xie and Zhu do not teach exact the material as that claimed by Applicant, the material differences are considered obvious design choices and are not patentable unless unobvious or unexpected results are obtained from these changes. It appears that these changes produce no functional differences and therefore would have been obvious. Note In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416, In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Circ. 1990).
Regarding claim 6, fig. 1 of Xie discloses wherein the chain region is positioned between two adjacent island regions to connect the two adjacent island regions; and the chain region comprises a straight portion and a curved portion, the straight portion is connected to one of the two adjacent island regions, and the curved portion is connected to the straight portion and is a stretchable portion.
Regarding claim 7, fig. 2 of Xie disclose wherein the first undercut structure in the island region is ring-shaped first undercut structure; the ring-shaped first undercut structure is a closed-ring structure or an open-ring structure; at least two the first undercut structures are defined in the island region and are positioned at a periphery of the island region adjacent to the chain region; and in response to the island region being defined with the at least two first undercut structures, one of the at least two first undercut structures and another one of the at least two first undercut structures adjacent to the one of the at least two first undercut structures form a homocentric pattern.
PNG
media_image1.png
534
1238
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, fig. 2 of Xie discloses wherein the first undercut structure corresponding to an end of the connecting circuit connected to the island region is the closed-ring structure or the open-ring structure.
Regarding claim 20, Zhu discloses of a substrate comprising a flexible base layer is made of a polyimide material (par [0088] of Zhu). As such it would have been obvious to form a display panel wherein the flexible base layer is made of a polyimide material in order to use desired material for desired fabrication steps.
Xie and Zhi do not disclose with a thickness ranging from 5 μm to 10 μm.
In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., 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.
As such it would have been obvious to form a display panel comprising wherein the flexible base layer is made of a polyimide material with a thickness ranging from 5 μm to 10 μm in order to form a thickness that is thickness enough to be flexibly structural.
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 VONGSAVANH SENGDARA whose telephone number is (571)270-5770. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM 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 PURVIS A. Sue 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 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.
/VONGSAVANH SENGDARA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893