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 .
Request for Continued Examination
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/22/2025 has been entered.
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s remarks/amendments of claims 1-15 and 17-20 in the reply filed on July 22nd, 2025 are acknowledged. Claims 1 and 17 have been amended. Claims 3 and 13 have been cancelled. Claim 16 has been withdrawn. Claims 1-12 and 14-20 are pending.
Action on merits of claims 1-12, 14-15 and 17-20 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, 4-9, 12, 14 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuta (US 2018/0151830, hereinafter as Furu ‘830) in view of Park (US 2017/0148860, hereinafter as Park ‘860).
Regarding Claim 1, Furu ‘830 teaches a display panel, comprising:
a base substrate (Fig. 1, (10); [0024]); and
a plurality of sub-pixels (see para. [0024]) disposed on a side of the base substrate, each of the sub-pixels comprising:
a first electrode (Fig. 1, (15); [0024]), a light-emitting film layer (17; [0026]), and a second electrode (18; [0026]) laminated in sequence along a direction going away from the base substrate, wherein the first electrode comprises a first portion (152; [0024]) and a second portion (151; [0024]) surrounding the first portion, a thickness of the second portion being greater than a thickness of the first portion (see Fig. 1);
the display panel further comprising: an organic functional layer (Fig. 2, (17a/b/d/e); [0027]) disposed between the first electrode (15) and the second electrode (18); wherein a sidewall of the second portion (151) is perpendicular to a bearing surface of the base substrate (10) (see Fig. 1).
a protective layer (16; [0026]); wherein the protective layer covers the second portion, to insulate the second portion (151) from the light-emitting film layer (17) (see Fig. 1).
Furu ‘830 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the protective layer covers a sidewall of the second portion close to the light-emitting film layer, to insulate the second portion from the light-emitting film layer; the organic functional layer does not cover the sidewall, and the organic functional layers of adjacent sub-pixels are not connected”.
Park ‘860 teaches the protective layer (Fig. 2, (310); [0041]) covers a sidewall of the second portion (360; [0041]) close to the light-emitting film layer (335; [0041]), to insulate the second portion from the light-emitting film layer; the organic functional layer (335) does not cover the sidewall, and the organic functional layers of adjacent sub-pixels are not connected (see Fig. 2).
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 Furu ‘830 by having the protective layer covers a sidewall of the second portion close to the light-emitting film layer, to insulate the second portion from the light-emitting film layer; the organic functional layer does not cover the sidewall, and the organic functional layers of adjacent sub-pixels are not connected in order to prevent the generation of dark pixels in the organic EL layer (see para. [0011] and [0067]) as suggested by Park ‘860.
Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select the organic functional layer does not cover the sidewall on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have the organic functional layer does not cover the sidewall in order to improve the performance of the display device.
Regarding Claims 2 and 18, Furu ‘830 teaches a planarization layer (12; [0024]); wherein the planarization layer is disposed between the base substrate (10) and the first electrode (15), and a surface of the first electrode close to the base substrate is a flat surface (see Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 19, Furu ‘830 teaches a protective layer (16; [0026]); wherein the protective layer covers the second portion, to insulate the second portion (151) from the light-emitting film layer (17) (see Fig. 1).
Regarding Claims 4 and 20, Furu ‘830 teaches the protective layer (16) comprises: a middle portion and an edge portion connected to the middle portion; wherein an orthographic projection of the edge portion on the base substrate (10) covers an orthographic projection of the second portion on the base substrate (see Fig. 1), and an orthographic projection of the middle portion on the base substrate covers a gap between the first electrodes of two adjacent sub-pixels (see Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 5, Furu ‘830 teaches a distance between the middle portion and the base substrate (10) is smaller than a distance between the edge portion and the base substrate (10) (see Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 6, Furu ‘830 teaches the protective layer (16; [0040]) is made from an inorganic material.
Regarding Claim 7, Furu ‘830 and Park ‘860 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitation: “the protective layer has a thickness less than 20 nm”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a thickness of the protective layer is less than 20 nm 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_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The claim would have been obvious in the absence of a showing that the claimed range(s) achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges of a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize to adjust the thickness of the protective layer is less than 20 nm as a result effective variable that depends on the design of the device.
Regarding Claim 8, Furu ‘830 and Park ‘860 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitation: “the thickness of the second portion is 1.1 times to 1.5 times the thickness of the first portion”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select the thickness of the second portion is 1.1 times to 1.5 times the thickness of the first 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_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The claim would have been obvious in the absence of a showing that the claimed range(s) achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges of a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize to adjust the thickness of the second portion is 1.1 times to 1.5 times the thickness of the first portion as a result effective variable that depends on the design of the device.
Regarding Claim 9, Furu ‘830 and Park ‘860 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitation: “the thickness of the first portion ranges from 50 nm to 1200 nm”.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the thickness of the first portion ranges from 50 nm to 1200 nm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The claim would have been obvious in the absence of a showing that the claimed range(s) achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges of a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize to adjust the thickness of the first portion ranges from 50 nm to 1200 nm as a result effective variable that depends on the design of the device.
Regarding Claim 12, Furu ‘830 teaches a sidewall of the second portion (151) is perpendicular to a bearing surface of the base substrate.
Park ‘860 teaches the light-emitting film layer (Fig. 2, (335); [0041]) does not cover the sidewall (360).
Regarding Claim 14, Furu ‘830 teaches a transistor connected to the first electrode (not shown, see Fig. 1; [0025]).
Regarding Claim 15, Furu ‘830 teaches display panel is a silicon-based organic light-emitting diode display panel (see para. [0024]-[0025]).
Regarding Claim 17, Furu ‘830 teaches a base substrate (Fig. 1, (10); [0024]); and
a plurality of sub-pixels (see para. [0024]) disposed on a side of the base substrate, each of the sub-pixels comprising:
a first electrode (Fig. 1, (15); [0024]), a light-emitting film layer (17; [0026]), and a second electrode (18; [0026]) laminated in sequence along a direction going away from the base substrate, wherein the first electrode comprises a first portion (152; [0024]) and a second portion (151; [0024]) surrounding the first portion, a thickness of the second portion being greater than a thickness of the first portion (see Fig. 1); and
the drive circuit (11; [0024]-[0025]) is connected to then plurality of sub-pixels in the display panel and is configured to provide a drive signal for each of the sub-pixels.
the display panel further comprising: an organic functional layer (Fig. 2, (17a/b/d/e); [0027]) disposed between the first electrode (15) and the second electrode (18); wherein a sidewall of the second portion (151) is perpendicular to a bearing surface of the base substrate (10) (see Fig. 1).
Furu ‘830 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the protective layer covers a sidewall of the second portion close to the light-emitting film layer, to insulate the second portion from the light-emitting film layer; the organic functional layer does not cover the sidewall, and the organic functional layers of adjacent sub-pixels are not connected”.
Park ‘860 teaches the protective layer (Fig. 2, (310); [0041]) covers a sidewall of the second portion (360; [0041]) close to the light-emitting film layer (335; [0041]), to insulate the second portion from the light-emitting film layer; the organic functional layer (335) does not cover the sidewall, and the organic functional layers of adjacent sub-pixels are not connected (see Fig. 2).
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 Furu ‘830 by having the protective layer covers a sidewall of the second portion close to the light-emitting film layer, to insulate the second portion from the light-emitting film layer; the organic functional layer does not cover the sidewall, and the organic functional layers of adjacent sub-pixels are not connected in order to prevent the generation of dark pixels in the organic EL layer (see para. [0011] and [0067]) as suggested by Park ‘860.
Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select the organic functional layer does not cover the sidewall on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have the organic functional layer does not cover the sidewall in order to improve the performance of the display device.
Examiner notes that claim 17 contains functional limitation “to provide a drive signal for each of the sub-pixels” (emphasis added). According to MPEP 2173(05) g. "the use of functional language in a claim may fail “to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim” and thus be indefinite. In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971). For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2008)”. In the instant case, “to provide a drive signal for each of the sub-pixels” is nothing else than the result achieved by the invention.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Furu ‘830 and Park ‘860 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee (US 2018/0211979, hereinafter as Lee ‘979).
Regarding Claim 10, Furu ‘830 and Park ‘860 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the light-emitting film layer comprises: a first light-emitting material layer and a second light-emitting material layer laminated in sequence along the direction going away from the base substrate; wherein light emitted from the first light-emitting material layer and light emitted from the second light-emitting material layer is mixed into white light”.
Lee ‘979 teaches the light-emitting film layer (Fig. 5, (135); [0091]) comprises: a first light-emitting material layer (1352; [0091]) and a second light-emitting material layer (1353; [0091]) laminated in sequence along the direction going away from the base substrate (50; [0051]); wherein light emitted from the first light-emitting material layer and light emitted from the second light-emitting material layer is mixed into white light (see para. [0091]).
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 Furu ‘830 and Park ‘860 by having the light-emitting film layer comprises: a first light-emitting material layer and a second light-emitting material layer laminated in sequence along the direction going away from the base substrate; wherein light emitted from the first light-emitting material layer and light emitted from the second light-emitting material layer is mixed into white light in order to mix to emit the white light (see para. [0091]) as suggested by Lee ‘979.
Regarding Claim 11, Furu ‘830 teaches a color filter layer (Fig. 1, (21); [0028]) disposed on a side, away from the base substrate (10), of the plurality of sub-pixels.
Lee ‘979 teaches the color filter layer comprises a plurality of color resistance blocks of different colors (340R/340G/340B; [0098]), an orthographic projection of each of the sub-pixels on the base substrate (50) being within an orthographic projection of one of the color resistance blocks on the base substrate (see Fig. 1).
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:
Itonaga (US 2019/0386248 A1)
Jinbo et al. (US 2017/0271421 A1)
Codama (US 6,091,078)
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