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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/19/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 9 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai et al. (CN 107623082 A, please see the machine translation attached in the office action mailed on 11/07/2024) in view of Hou et al. (CN 103367391 A, please see the machine translation attached in the office action mailed on 8/20/2025).
Regarding claim 1, Cai et al. teach in Figs. 3-5 and 10-11, a display panel (display panel; [0001]), wherein the display panel (display panel) comprises: a substrate (100; Fig. 4, [0068]); and a light-emitting structural layer (2 and 1; Fig. 4, [0068]) disposed on a side of the substrate (the top side of 100), and comprising: a pixel definition layer (1; Fig. 4, [0068]) disposed on the side of the substrate (the top side of 100) and comprising a plurality of dams (horizontal and vertical stripes of 1 in Fig. 5) intersecting with each other (see Fig. 5), wherein a plurality of printing grooves (grooves of 1 occupied by 2; Figs. 4-5, [0068]) arranged in an array (the array of the grooves of 1; Figs. 4-5; [0068]) are defined and surrounded by the plurality of dams (horizontal and vertical stripes of 1 in Fig. 5); and a light-emitting functional layer (light-emitting layers; Figs. 4-5, [0068]) arranged in the printing grooves (grooves of 1 occupied by 2); wherein diversion grooves (11; Figs. 4-5, [0068]) are defined on the plurality of dams (horizontal and vertical stripes of 1 in Fig. 5), and each of the plurality of dams (horizontal and vertical stripes of 1 in Fig. 5) is provided with at least one of the diversion grooves (11); each of the diversion grooves (11) comprises an opening (the opening of the top horizontal surface of 11) on a top surface of a corresponding one of the dams (the top side surfaces of one of the horizontal and vertical stripes of 1 in Fig. 5) facing away from the substrate (100; see Fig. 4), an extension direction of each of the diversion grooves (the extending direction of 11 in Fig. 5) is same as an extension direction of the corresponding one of the dams (the extending direction of the one of the horizontal and vertical stripes of 1 in Fig. 5), and the diversion grooves (11) intersect with each other and are communicated at intersections of the diversion grooves (see Fig. 5); each of the dams (horizontal and vertical stripes of 1 in Fig. 5) comprises a first subsection (the upper half of the left protrusion; see Fig. 4 below) and a second subsection (the right protrusion; see Fig. 4 below) separated by a corresponding one of the diversion grooves (11), a top surface (the top side surface) of the first subsection (the upper half of the left protrusion) facing away from the substrate (100) is a convex surface facing away from the substrate (100), and a top surface (the top side surface)of the second subsection (the right protrusion) facing away from the substrate (100) is a convex surface facing away from the substrate (100), and a first maximum distance between a vertex (a peak) of the top surface of the first subsection (the top side surface of the upper half of the left protrusion; see Fig. 4 below) facing away from the substrate (100) and a top surface of the substrate (100), a second maximum distance between a vertex (a peak) of the top surface of the second subsection (the top side surface of the right protrusion; see Fig. 4 below) facing away from the substrate (100) and the top surface of the substrate (100; see Fig. 4 below).
Cai et al. do not teach a top surface of the first subsection facing away from the substrate is a convex arched surface facing away from the substrate, and a top surface of the second subsection facing away from the substrate is a convex arched surface facing away from the substrate (emphasis added), a first maximum distance is greater than a second maximum distance.
In the same field of endeavor of light emitting devices, Hou et al. teach a top surface of the first subsection (the upper half of the left protrusion of 15; Figs. 3 and 9, [0051]) facing away from the substrate (11) is a convex arched surface facing away from the substrate (11), and a top surface of the second subsection (the right protrusion of 15; Figs. 3 and 9, [0051]) facing away from the substrate (11) is a convex arched surface facing away from the substrate (11).
Cai et al. teach all the claimed elements except that Cai et al. is using non-arched shape protrusions of the pixel definition layer (1; Fig. 4, [0068]) for forming the diversion grooves (grooves of 1 occupied by 2; Figs. 4-5, [0068]) rather than arched shape protrusions of the pixel definition layer.
In the same field of endeavor of semiconductor manufacturing, Hou et al. teach using arched shape protrusions of the pixel definition layer (15; Figs. 3 and 9, [0051]) for forming the diversion grooves ([0050-0051]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that non-arched shape protrusions of the pixel definition layer and arched shape protrusions of the pixel definition layer are known equivalents for forming the diversion grooves within the semiconductor art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to substitute one know element (non-arched shape protrusions of the pixel definition layer) for another known equivalent element (arched shape protrusions of the pixel definition layer) resulting in the predictable result of forming the diversion grooves (KSR rationales B).
Cai et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the limitation “a first maximum distance is greater than a second maximum distance”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have a first maximum distance being greater than a second maximum distance since it was known in the art that the process of Cai et al. of coating organic material on the substrate 110 to form the pixel definition layer 1 ([0098]) would have thickness variations of the pixel definition layer 1 due to the process limitation (evident form the paragraph [0049] of Gee et al., US 2020/0212133 A1). This thickness variation would cause the variation in a first maximum distance (the distance between the tip of the first subsection of the pixel definition layer 1 and the top surface of the substrate 110) and a second maximum distance (the distance between the tip of the second subsection of the pixel definition layer 1 and the top surface of the substrate 110) such that a first maximum distance is greater than a second maximum distance.
PNG
media_image1.png
563
488
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Horizontal dams)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Vertical dams)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
Fig. 5 of Cai et al.
[AltContent: textbox ()][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image3.png
234
532
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (First subsection)][AltContent: textbox (Second subsection)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
Fig. 4 of Cai et al showing the first subsection and the second subsection.
Regarding claim 2, Cai et al. teach the display panel according to claim 1, wherein a material of the light-emitting functional layer (light-emitting layers; [0070]) is a printing ink ([0070]) added with light-emitting functional materials (organic light-emitting material; [0070]), and all of inner wall surfaces (the left side of 110s; Fig. 4, [0068]) and inner bottom surfaces (the bottom side of 110s; Fig. 4, [0068]) of the diversion grooves (11) are hydrophilic ([0068]).
Regarding claim 3, Cai et al. teach the display panel according to claim 2, wherein the top surface of each of the plurality of dams (the top side surfaces of horizontal and vertical stripes of 1 in Fig. 5, i.e. 10’; Fig. 4, [0068]) facing away from the substrate (100) is hydrophobic ([0068]).
Regarding claim 4, Cai et al. teach the display panel according to claim 2, wherein an inner wall of each of the printing grooves (grooves of 1 occupied by 2) comprises a first annular sidewall (101; Figs. 4-5, [0068]) and a second annular sidewall (102; Figs. 4-5, [0068]), the first annular sidewall (101) is close to the substrate (100) and its surface is hydrophilic ([0068]), and the second annular sidewall (102) is away from the substrate (100) and its surface is hydrophobic ([0068]).
Regarding claim 6, Cai et al. teach the display panel according to claim 1, wherein a width of each of the diversion grooves (11) at the opening (the opening of the top horizontal surface of 11) is a, and a width of a side (the top side) of the corresponding one of the dams (the leftmost vertical stripes of 1 in Fig. 5) facing away from the substrate (100) is b.
Cai et al. do not teach wherein 1/5≤a/b≤1/3.
Parameters such as the size of the opening of the diversion groove and the size of the top surface of the dam in the art of semiconductor manufacturing process are subject to routine experimentation and optimization to achieve the desired ability of collecting ink droplets overflowing or dripping from various angles and directions into the receiving groove structure during device fabrication ([0076] of Cai et al.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the ratio of the size of the opening of the diversion groove and the size of the top surface of the dam within the range as claimed in order to achieve the desired ability of collecting ink droplets overflowing or dripping from various angles and directions into the receiving groove structure ([0076] of Cai et al.).
Regarding claim 9, Cai et al. teach the display panel according to claim 1, wherein a depth of each of the diversion grooves (11) is less than a depth of each of the printing grooves (grooves of 1 occupied by 2; see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 11, Cai et al. teach in Figs. 3-5 and 10-11, a display panel (display panel; [0001]), wherein the display panel (display panel) comprises: a substrate (100; Fig. 4, [0068]); and a light-emitting structural layer (2 and 1; Fig. 4, [0068]) disposed on a side of the substrate (the top side of 100), and comprising: a pixel definition layer (1; Fig. 4, [0068]) disposed on the side of the substrate (the top side of 100) and comprising a plurality of dams (horizontal and vertical stripes of 1 in Fig. 5) intersecting with each other (see Fig. 5), wherein a plurality of printing grooves (grooves of 1 occupied by 2; Figs. 4-5, [0068]) arranged in an array (the array of the grooves of 1; Figs. 4-5; [0068]) are defined and surrounded by the plurality of dams (horizontal and vertical stripes of 1 in Fig. 5); and a light-emitting functional layer (light-emitting layers; Figs. 4-5, [0068]) arranged in the printing grooves (grooves of 1 occupied by 2); wherein a top surface of each of the plurality of dams (the top side surfaces of horizontal and vertical stripes of 1 in Fig. 5, i.e. 10’; Fig. 4, [0068]) facing away from the substrate (100) is hydrophobic ([0068]), diversion grooves (11) are defined on the plurality of dams (horizontal and vertical stripes of 1 in Fig. 5), and each of the plurality of dams (horizontal and vertical stripes of 1 in Fig. 5) is provided with at least one of the diversion grooves (11); each of the diversion grooves (11) comprises an opening (the opening of the top horizontal surface of 11) on the top surface of a corresponding one of the plurality of dams (the top side surfaces of one of the horizontal and vertical stripes of 1 in Fig. 5) facing away from the substrate (100), an extension direction of each of the diversion grooves (the extending direction of 11 in Fig. 5) is same as an extension direction of the corresponding one of the plurality of dams (the extending direction of the one of the horizontal and vertical stripes of 1 in Fig. 5), and the diversion grooves (11) intersect with each other and are communicated at intersections of the diversion grooves (see Fig. 5); each of the plurality of dams (horizontal and vertical stripes of 1 in Fig. 5) comprises a first subsection (the upper half of the left protrusion; see Fig. 4 above) and a second subsection (the right protrusion; see Fig. 4 above) separated by a corresponding one of the diversion grooves (11), a top surface (the top side surface) of the first subsection (the upper half of the left protrusion) facing away from the substrate (100) is a convex surface facing away from the substrate (100), and a top surface (the top side surface) of the second subsection (the right protrusion) facing away from the substrate (100) is a convex surface facing away from the substrate (100), and a first maximum distance between a vertex (a peak) of the top surface of the first subsection (the top side surface of the upper half of the left protrusion; see Fig. 4 above) facing away from the substrate (100) and a top surface of the substrate (100), a second maximum distance between a vertex (a peak) of the top surface of the second subsection (the top side surface of the right protrusion; see Fig. 4 above) facing away from the substrate (100) and the top surface the substrate (100; see Fig. 4 above).
Cai et al. do not teach a top surface of the first subsection facing away from the substrate is a convex arched surface facing away from the substrate, and a top surface of the second subsection facing away from the substrate is a convex arched surface facing away from the substrate (emphasis added), a first maximum distance is greater than a second maximum distance.
In the same field of endeavor of light emitting devices, Hou et al. teach a top surface of the first subsection (the upper half of the left protrusion of 15; Figs. 3 and 9, [0051]) facing away from the substrate (11) is a convex arched surface facing away from the substrate (11), and a top surface of the second subsection (the right protrusion of 15; Figs. 3 and 9, [0051]) facing away from the substrate (11) is a convex arched surface facing away from the substrate (11).
Cai et al. teach all the claimed elements except that Cai et al. is using non-arched shape protrusions of the pixel definition layer (1; Fig. 4, [0068]) for forming the diversion grooves (grooves of 1 occupied by 2; Figs. 4-5, [0068]) rather than arched shape protrusions of the pixel definition layer.
In the same field of endeavor of semiconductor manufacturing, Hou et al. teach using arched shape protrusions of the pixel definition layer (15; Figs. 3 and 9, [0051]) for forming the diversion grooves ([0050-0051]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that non-arched shape protrusions of the pixel definition layer and arched shape protrusions of the pixel definition layer are known equivalents for forming the diversion grooves within the semiconductor art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to substitute one know element (non-arched shape protrusions of the pixel definition layer) for another known equivalent element (arched shape protrusions of the pixel definition layer) resulting in the predictable result of forming the diversion grooves (KSR rationales B).
Cai et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the limitation “a first maximum distance is greater than a second maximum distance”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have a first maximum distance being greater than a second maximum distance since it was known in the art that the process of Cai et al. of coating organic material on the substrate 110 to form the pixel definition layer 1 ([0098]) would have thickness variations of the pixel definition layer 1 due to the process limitation (evident form the paragraph [0049] of Gee et al., US 2020/0212133 A1). This thickness variation would cause the variation in a first maximum distance (the distance between the tip of the first subsection of the pixel definition layer 1 and the top surface of the substrate 110) and a second maximum distance (the distance between the tip of the second subsection of the pixel definition layer 1 and the top surface of the substrate 110) such that a first maximum distance is greater than a second maximum distance.
Regarding claim 12, Cai et al. teach the display panel according to claim 11, wherein an inner wall of each of the printing grooves (grooves of 1 occupied by 2) comprises a first annular sidewall (101; Figs. 4-5, [0068]) and a second annular sidewall (102; Figs. 4-5, [0068]), the first annular sidewall (101) is close to the substrate (100) and its surface is hydrophilic ([0068]), and the second annular sidewall (102) is away from the substrate (100) and its surface is hydrophobic ([0068]).
Regarding claim 13, Cai et al. teach the display panel according to claim 12, wherein a material of the light-emitting functional layer (light-emitting layers; [0070]) is a printing ink ([0070]) added with light-emitting functional materials (organic light-emitting material; [0070]), and all of inner wall surfaces (the left side of 110s; Fig. 4, [0068]) and inner bottom surfaces (the bottom side of 110s; Fig. 4, [0068]) of the diversion grooves (11) are hydrophilic ([0068]).
Claim(s) 5 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai et al. and Hou et al. as applied to claims 4 and 12-13 above, and further in view of Shi (US 2018/0090682 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Cai et al. teach the display panel according to claim 4, wherein a material of the plurality of dams (the material of horizontal and vertical stripes of 1 in Fig. 5) is a hydrophilic material (Figs. 10-11, [0090-0091]), and a surface of the second annular sidewall (102) and the top surface of each of the plurality of dams (10’) facing away from the substrate (100) are surface-treated (UV exposure; Fig. 11, [0093]).
Cai et al. do not teach “a hydrophilic material” is a hydrophilic photoresist, “surface treated” is surface-treated to contain fluorine ions or fluorine groups.
In the same field of endeavor of light emitting devices, Shi teaches “a hydrophilic material” (the material of the pixel definition layer) is a hydrophilic photoresist (the material of the pixel definition layer, i.e. the material of the bank layer, which is a negative photoresist; [0006]; the negative photoresist is hydrophilic is disclosed in paragraph [0096] of the specification of Shin et al., US 2019/0229162 A1), “surface treated” (the process of making the surfaces of the pixel definition layer to be hydrophobic) is surface-treated to contain fluorine ions or fluorine groups (S304, Figs. 3, 7; [0050-0053]).
Cai et al. teach all the claimed elements except that Cai et al. is using a hydrophilic organic material ([0093]) and a process of surface treated with UV exposure (Fig. 11, [0093]) for forming the pixel definition layer and converting portions of the surfaces of the pixel definition layer into hydrophobic surfaces, respectively ([0093]), rather than a hydrophilic photoresist and a process of surface-treated to contain fluorine ions or fluorine groups.
In the same field of endeavor of semiconductor manufacturing, Shi teaches a hydrophilic negative photoresist and a process of surface-treated to contain fluorine ions or fluorine groups ([0006, 0093]) for forming the pixel definition layer and converting portions of the surfaces of the pixel definition layer into hydrophobic surfaces, respectively ([0006, 0093]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that “a hydrophilic organic material and a process of surface treated with UV exposure” and “a hydrophilic negative photoresist and a process of surface-treated to contain fluorine ions or fluorine groups” are known equivalents for forming the pixel definition layer and converting portions of the surfaces of the pixel definition layer into hydrophobic surfaces, respectively, within the semiconductor art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to substitute one know element (a hydrophilic organic material and a process of surface treated with UV exposure) for another known equivalent element (a hydrophilic negative photoresist and a process of surface-treated to contain fluorine ions or fluorine groups) resulting in the predictable result of forming the pixel definition layer and converting portions of the surfaces of the pixel definition layer into hydrophobic surfaces, respectively (KSR rationales B).
Regarding claim 14, Cai et al. teach the display panel according to claim 12, wherein a material of the plurality of dams (the material of horizontal and vertical stripes of 1 in Fig. 5) is a hydrophilic material (Figs. 10-11, [0090-0091]), and a surface of the second annular sidewall (102) and the top surface of each of the plurality of dams (10’) facing away from the substrate (100) are surface-treated (UV exposure; Fig. 11, [0093]).
Cai et al. do not teach “a hydrophilic material” is a hydrophilic photoresist, “surface treated” is surface-treated to contain fluorine ions or fluorine groups.
In the same field of endeavor of light emitting devices, Shi teaches “a hydrophilic material” (the material of the pixel definition layer) is a hydrophilic photoresist (the material of the pixel definition layer, i.e. the material of the bank layer, which is a negative photoresist; [0006]; the negative photoresist is hydrophilic is disclosed in paragraph [0096] of the specification of Shin et al., US 2019/0229162 A1), “surface treated” (the process of making the surfaces of the pixel definition layer to be hydrophobic) is surface-treated to contain fluorine ions or fluorine groups (S304, Figs. 3, 7; [0050-0053]).
Cai et al. teach all the claimed elements except that Cai et al. is using a hydrophilic organic material ([0093]) and a process of surface treated with UV exposure (Fig. 11, [0093]) for forming the pixel definition layer and converting portions of the surfaces of the pixel definition layer into hydrophobic surfaces, respectively ([0093]), rather than a hydrophilic photoresist and a process of surface-treated to contain fluorine ions or fluorine groups.
In the same field of endeavor of semiconductor manufacturing, Shi teaches a hydrophilic negative photoresist and a process of surface-treated to contain fluorine ions or fluorine groups ([0006, 0093]) for forming the pixel definition layer and converting portions of the surfaces of the pixel definition layer into hydrophobic surfaces, respectively ([0006, 0093]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that “a hydrophilic organic material and a process of surface treated with UV exposure” and “a hydrophilic negative photoresist and a process of surface-treated to contain fluorine ions or fluorine groups” are known equivalents for forming the pixel definition layer and converting portions of the surfaces of the pixel definition layer into hydrophobic surfaces, respectively, within the semiconductor art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to substitute one know element (a hydrophilic organic material and a process of surface treated with UV exposure) for another known equivalent element (a hydrophilic negative photoresist and a process of surface-treated to contain fluorine ions or fluorine groups) resulting in the predictable result of forming the pixel definition layer and converting portions of the surfaces of the pixel definition layer into hydrophobic surfaces, respectively (KSR rationales B).
Regarding claim 15, Cai et al. teach the display panel according to claim 13, wherein a material of the plurality of dams (the material of horizontal and vertical stripes of 1 in Fig. 5) is a hydrophilic material (Figs. 10-11, [0090-0091]), and a surface of the second annular sidewall (102) and the top surface of each of the plurality of dams (10’) facing away from the substrate (100) are surface-treated (UV exposure; Fig. 11, [0093]).
Cai et al. do not teach “a hydrophilic material” is a hydrophilic photoresist, “surface treated” is surface-treated to contain fluorine ions or fluorine groups.
In the same field of endeavor of light emitting devices, Shi teaches “a hydrophilic material” (the material of the pixel definition layer) is a hydrophilic photoresist (the material of the pixel definition layer, i.e. the material of the bank layer, which is a negative photoresist; [0006]; the negative photoresist is hydrophilic is disclosed in paragraph [0096] of the specification of Shin et al., US 2019/0229162 A1), “surface treated” (the process of making the surfaces of the pixel definition layer to be hydrophobic) is surface-treated to contain fluorine ions or fluorine groups (S304, Figs. 3, 7; [0050-0053]).
Cai et al. teach all the claimed elements except that Cai et al. is using a hydrophilic organic material ([0093]) and a process of surface treated with UV exposure (Fig. 11, [0093]) for forming the pixel definition layer and converting portions of the surfaces of the pixel definition layer into hydrophobic surfaces, respectively ([0093]), rather than a hydrophilic photoresist and a process of surface-treated to contain fluorine ions or fluorine groups.
In the same field of endeavor of semiconductor manufacturing, Shi teaches a hydrophilic negative photoresist and a process of surface-treated to contain fluorine ions or fluorine groups ([0006, 0093]) for forming the pixel definition layer and converting portions of the surfaces of the pixel definition layer into hydrophobic surfaces, respectively ([0006, 0093]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that “a hydrophilic organic material and a process of surface treated with UV exposure” and “a hydrophilic negative photoresist and a process of surface-treated to contain fluorine ions or fluorine groups” are known equivalents for forming the pixel definition layer and converting portions of the surfaces of the pixel definition layer into hydrophobic surfaces, respectively, within the semiconductor art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to substitute one know element (a hydrophilic organic material and a process of surface treated with UV exposure) for another known equivalent element (a hydrophilic negative photoresist and a process of surface-treated to contain fluorine ions or fluorine groups) resulting in the predictable result of forming the pixel definition layer and converting portions of the surfaces of the pixel definition layer into hydrophobic surfaces, respectively (KSR rationales B).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai et al. and Hou et al. as applied to claims 9 above, and further in view of Wang (US 2021/0376294 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Cai et al. teach the display panel according to claim 9, wherein the light-emitting structural layer (2 and 1), the substrate (100), and the pixel definition layer (1).
Cai et al. do not teach the light-emitting structural layer further comprises a first electrode layer, the first electrode layer is disposed on the substrate, and the pixel definition layer is disposed on the substrate and the first electrode layer, and in a thickness direction of the display panel, a distance between a bottom of each of the diversion grooves (11) and the first electrode layer is greater than 100 nm.
In the same field of endeavor of display panel, Wang teaches the light-emitting structural layer (30, 40, 70; Fig. 2, [0048]) further comprises a first electrode layer (30; Fig. 2, [0048]), the first electrode layer (30) is disposed on the substrate (21), and the pixel definition layer (40) is disposed on the substrate (21) and the first electrode layer (30), and in a thickness direction of the display panel (the vertical direction in Fig. 2), a distance between a bottom of each of the diversion groove (60; Fig. 2, [0048]) and the first electrode layer (30; see Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the inventions of Cai et al., Hou et al. and Wang, and to further include the first electrode layer into the device of Cai et al. as taught by Wang, because the first electrode layer is one of the two key electrodes of the OLED as taught by Wang ([0052]).
Wang does not teach a distance between a bottom of each of the diversion groove and the first electrode layer is greater than 100 nm.
Parameters such as the distance between a bottom of the diversion groove and the first electrode layer in the art of semiconductor manufacturing process are subject to routine experimentation and optimization to achieve the desired depth of the diversion groove for preventing the ink droplets from crossing the retaining wall and entering adjacent pixel openings to result in mixing of different ink drop materials and to reduce the risk of color mixing as forming the luminescent material layer by using ink jet printing, and enough thickness of the first electrode layer for conducting current for the light emitting layer during device fabrication ([0038, 0052]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the distance between a bottom of the diversion groove and the first electrode layer as claimed in order to achieve the desired depth of the diversion groove for preventing the ink droplets from crossing and enough thickness of the first electrode layer for conducting current for the light emitting layer ([0038, 0052]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1 and 11 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HSIN YI HSIEH whose telephone number is (571)270-3043. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 - 5:00 pm.
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, Zandra V Smith can be reached on 571-272-2429. 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.
/HSIN YI HSIEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899 5/26/2026
Prosecution Insights