DETAILED ACTION
This Office action responds to Applicant’s amendments filed on 12/21/2025.
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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for a 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.
Amendment Status
The present Office action is made with all previously suggested amendments being fully considered Accordingly, pending in this Office action are claims 1, 6, 8, 11, 16, and 18.
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.
Claims 1, 6, 11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (CN 109427846 A) in view of Tanaka (JP 2014142598 A) in further view of Yoon (GB 2425612 A).
Regarding claim 1, Sun shows (see, e.g., Sun: fig. 1) most aspects of the instant invention including an array substrate 10, comprising:
A substrate 110
An array composite layer disposed on the substrate 110
wherein:
The array composite layer comprises a pixel definition layer 130
The pixel definition layer 130 comprises a plurality of pixel definition sections and openings 120 between adjacent pixel definition sections
Photo spacers 140 disposed on the pixel definition sections
A protective layer 150 at least disposed on the photo spacers 140 and disposed steered clear of the openings 120
wherein:
The protective layer 150 is made of an inorganic material (see, e.g., Sun: par. [0045])
The photo spacers 140 comprise top surfaces away from the pixel definition layer 130 and lateral surfaces extending from the top surfaces to the pixel definition layer 130
Sun, however, fails to specify that the photo spacers 140 are made of organic material that is elastic. Tanaka, in a similar device to Sun, teaches (see, e.g., Tanaka: figs. 1-2) columnar photo spacers that are organic and elastic (see, e.g., Tanaka: par. [0003], [0004], and [0007]). Tanaka also teaches that photo spacers have a high elastic recovery to maintain a constant distance between substrates, breaking strength, and adhesion to the substrates (see, e.g., Tanaka: par. [0003]).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include an elastic organic photo elastic of Tanaka in the array substrate of Sun to maintain a constant distance between substrates, breaking strength, and adhesion to the substrates.
Sun in view of Tanaka shows that the protective layer 150 is greater in hardness than the photo spacers to protect the photo spacers 140 from being scratched (see, e.g., Sun: par. [0045], and also see, e.g., Tanaka: claim 2, and par. [0014]) (see also MPEP 2112.01(I) and MPEP 2114(I)) (see further Response to the Arguments).
However, Sun in view of Tanaka fails (see, e.g., Sun: par. [0045], and also see, e.g., Tanaka: claim 2, and par. [0014]) to show that the protective layer 150 is disposed only on the top surfaces of the photo spacers 140. Yoon, in a similar device to Sun in view of Tanaka, shows (see, e.g., Yoon: figs. 6 and 10) that a protective layer 113a is disposed only on the top surfaces of the photo spacers 113b. Yoon further shows (see, e.g., Yoon: figs. 6 and 10) that the protective layer 113a has a hardness greater than the hardness of the organic photo spacers 113b (see, e.g., Yoon: par. [0039]). Moreover, Yoon shows (see, e.g., Yoon: figs. 6 and 10) that (see, e.g., Yoon: figs. 6 and 10) protective layer 113a made to have a hardness greater than that of the spacer lower area 113b. Accordingly, the protective layer 113a has less static friction so that additional spacers and protrusions can come into contact so that with a certain contact density (see, e.g., Yoon: par. [0039]). Thus, the protective layer which has less static friction is resistant to scratch when in contact with other layers and substrates.
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the protective layer (that is only on the top surfaces of the photo spacers) of Yoon in the photo spacers of Sun in view of Tanaka to have less static friction, and implicitly to be resistance to scratch when in contact with other layers and substrates.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Sun in view of Tanaka in view of Yoon shows (see, e.g., Sun: fig. 1) that the thickness of the protective layers 150 is less than a height of the photo spacers 140.
Regarding claim 11, Sun shows (see, e.g., Sun: figs. 1 and 2) shows most aspects of the instant invention including a display panel 20, comprising:
An array substrate 10
A substrate 110
An array composite 10 layer disposed on the substrate 110
A pixel definition layer 130 comprises a plurality of pixel definition sections and openings 120 between adjacent pixel definition sections
Photo spacers 140 disposed on the pixel definition sections
A protective layer 150 at least disposed on the photo spacers 140 and disposed steered clear of the openings 120
wherein:
The protective layer is made of inorganic material (see, e.g., par. [0045])
The display panel comprises light-emitting devices 122 disposed in the openings 120
An encapsulation layer 150 disposed on the light-emitting devices 122
The photo spacers 140 comprise top surfaces away from the pixel definition layer 130 and lateral surfaces extending from the top surfaces to the pixel definition layer 130
Sun, however, fails to specify that the photo spacers 140 are made of organic material that is elastic. Tanaka, in a similar device to Sun, teaches (see, e.g., Tanaka: figs. 1-2) columnar photo spacers that are organic and elastic (see, e.g., Tanaka: par. [0003], [0004], and [0007]). Tanaka also teaches that photo spacers have a high elastic recovery to maintain a constant distance between substrates, breaking strength, and adhesion to the substrates (see, e.g., Tanaka: par. [0003]).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include an elastic organic photo elastic of Tanaka in the array substrate of Sun to maintain a constant distance between substrates, breaking strength, and adhesion to the substrates.
Sun in view of Tanaka shows that the protective layer is greater in hardness than the photo spacers to protect the photo spacers from being scratched (see, e.g., Sun: par. [0045], and also see, e.g., Tanaka: claim 2, and par. [0014]) (see also MPEP 2112.01(I) and MPEP 2114(I)) (see further Response to the Arguments).
However, Sun in view of Tanaka fails (see, e.g., Sun: par. [0045], and also see, e.g., Tanaka: claim 2, and par. [0014]) to show that the protective layer 150 is disposed only on the top surfaces of the photo spacers 140. Yoon, in a similar device to Sun in view of Tanaka, shows (see, e.g., Yoon: figs. 6 and 10) that a protective layer 113a is disposed only on the top surfaces of the photo spacers 113b. Yoon further shows (see, e.g., Yoon: figs. 6 and 10) that the protective layer 113a has a hardness greater than the hardness of the organic photo spacers 113b (see, e.g., Yoon: par. [0039]). Moreover, Yoon shows (see, e.g., Yoon: figs. 6 and 10) that (see, e.g., Yoon: figs. 6 and 10) protective layer 113a made to have a hardness greater than that of the spacer lower area 113b. Accordingly, the protective layer 113a has less static friction so that additional spacers and protrusions can come into contact so that with a certain contact density (see, e.g., Yoon: par. [0039]). Thus, the protective layer which has less static friction is resistant to scratch when in contact with other layers and substrates.
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the protective layer (that is only on the top surfaces of the photo spacers) of Yoon in the photo spacers of Sun in view of Tanaka to have less static friction, and implicitly to be resistance to scratch when in contact with other layers and substrates.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun in view of Tanaka in view of Yoon and in further view of Wu (CN 110299471 A).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Sun in view of Tanaka in view of Yoon shows (see, e.g., Sun: fig. 1) most aspects of the instant invention (see paragraphs 11 and 14 above) including that a protective layer 150. Sun in view of Tanaka in view of Yoon shows that the material of the protective layer 150 is inorganic made from magnesium oxide (see, e.g., Sun: par. [0045]). Sun in view of Tanaka in view of Yoon, however, fails to show that the material of the protective layer is silicon nitride or silica. Wu, in a similar device to Sun in view of Tanaka in view of Yoon, teaches that the material of the protective layer 701 is silicon nitride or silica (see, e.g., Wu: fig. 1 and par. [0062]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use either the magnesium oxide layer of Sun in view of Tanaka in view of Yoon or the silicon nitride/silica layer of Wu because these were recognized in the semiconductor art for their use as protection layer materials in methods of manufacturing array substrates and display panels, as taught by Sun in view of Tanaka in view of Yoon n and by Wu, and selecting between known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.--,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the previous and new grounds of rejection. Examiner has read and considered Applicants’ arguments, and finds them to be unpersuasive. Applicant’s arguments involve discussing why the previously cited prior art documents fail to disclose the amended limitation. Examiner believes that the Sun in view of Tanaka in view of Yoon also discloses the amended limitation. The applicability of Sun reference, Tanaka reference, and Yoon reference to the amended limitation is indicated in the claim rejections above.
The applicants argue:
Sun in view of Tanaka fails to anticipate or render obvious the amended limitation of "the protective layer is greater in hardness than the photo spacers to protect the photo spacers from being scratched", as recited in claims 1 and 11.
The examiner responds:
In view of the previous and new grounds of rejection, Sun in view of Tanaka in view of Yoon shows (see, e.g., Sun: par. [0045], and also see, e.g., Tanaka: claim 2, and par. [0014]) that the protective layer 150 is made of magnesium oxide (or sometimes called magnesia) (see, e.g., Sun: par. [0045]) and Tanaka’s photo spacers have a breaking strength of 160 mN (mili Newtons). Because there is not a specific definition of hardness in the specification of the instant application, the breaking strength can be taken for a measure of the hardness of the photo spacers. Usually, the breaking strength is a general name for other different quantities that measure the hardness of the material as the flexural strength, the tensile strength, or compressive strength, depending of the exterior forcing conditions on the material. The breaking strength can also be measured in MPa (Mega Pascals).
Tanaka’s photo spacers have a breaking strength of 160 mN and a thickness of of about 50 µm (giving a considered area of
25
x
10
-
10
m
2
). Thus, the breaking strength of the photo spacer material (considered as the force over the area) is about 64 MPa. However, the protective layer is made of magnesia that has a breaking strength above 64 MPa such as at least 96 MPa (see the scientific paper: Jose, N. et al., Magnesia (MgO) Production and Characterization, and Its Influence on the Performance of Cementitious Materials: A Review, Material (Basel) 13(21), Oct 23, 2020, sub-chapter 3.1). Thus, Sun in view of Tanaka shows that the protective layer is greater in hardness than the photo spacers.
The property in the limitation of “… to protect the photo spacers from being scratched” is an inherent property of the considered device structure (see also MPEP 2112.01(I) and MPEP 2114(I)).
The applicants argue:
Sun in view of Tanaka fails to anticipate or render obvious the amended limitation of “… the photo spacers comprise top surfaces away from the pixel definition laver and lateral surfaces extending from the top surfaces to the pixel definition laver, and the protective layer is disposed only on the top surfaces of the photo spacers", as recited in amended claims 1 and 11.
The examiner responds:
In view of the previous and new grounds of rejection, Sun in view of Tanaka in view of Yoon shows (see, e.g., Yoon: figs. 6 and 10) that a protective layer 113a is disposed only on the top surfaces of the photo spacers 113b. Yoon further shows (see, e.g., Yoon: figs. 6 and 10) that the protective layer 113a has a hardness greater than the hardness of the organic photo spacers 113b (see, e.g., Yoon: par. [0039]). Moreover, Yoon shows (see, e.g., Yoon: figs. 6 and 10) that (see, e.g., Yoon: figs. 6 and 10) protective layer 113a made to have a hardness greater than that of the spacer lower area 113b. Accordingly, the protective layer 113a has less static friction so that additional spacers and protrusions can come into contact so that with a certain contact density (see, e.g., Yoon: par. [0039]). Thus, the protective layer, which has less static friction is resistant to scratch when in contact with other layers and substrates.
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the protective layer (that is only on the top surfaces of the photo spacers) of Yoon in the photo spacers of Sun in view of Tanaka to have less static friction, and implicitly to be resistance to scratch when in contact with other layers and substrates.
Conclusion
This action is made final. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIBERIU DAN ONUTA whose telephone number is (571) 270-0074 and between the hours of 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM (Eastern Standard Time) Monday through Friday or by e-mail via Tiberiu.Onuta@uspto.gov. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone or email are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Wael Fahmy, can be reached on (571) 272-1705.
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.
/TIBERIU DAN ONUTA/Examiner, Art Unit 2814
/WAEL M FAHMY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2814