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 1/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, Page 12, with respect to the Drawing Objections that the mask has been shown in Fig. 9 because the mask openings are defined by metal lines 4 (Paragraph 134). However, the sub-pixels are depicted and the mask itself is not shown. If the metal lines 4 were truly a part of the mask, how would the light-emitting layers be deposited such that there is no light-emitting material in the gap S4 and the spacing between the vertical dotted line of the left side and the sub-pixels 11/13?
Applicant argues, Page 13, second paragraph that the amendments overcome the antecedent basis issue. However, as discussed in the 112 Rejections, below, the claims as currently presented do not always distinguish which of the first, second and third sub-pixels are being referred to when there were previously recited multiple first, second and third sub-pixels. Is it to each of the sub-pixels? Only one of the plurality of sub-pixels? Some of the sub-pixels?
Applicant argues, Page 13, last two paragraphs, with respect to the 112 rejection of “each of the second sub-pixel columns is between the consecutively arranged first sub-pixel columns.” that there could be N columns of first sub-pixels and N-1 columns of second sub-pixels.
It is believed that Applicant is relying on Fig. 1A which is drawn to show a first column at the left and right sides. However, this is merely a schematic drawing and one having ordinary skill in the art would understand that it only shows a small portion of the overall display.
As shown in Fig. 1A, a single pixel is drawn to be #101/102, wherein one of each sub-pixel 11, 12, 13 is included in the pixel 101. Extending this pattern toward the right of the Figure, each pair of sub-pixels 11, 13 with the corresponding sub-pixel 12 to the right would form a pixel, leaving only the last row of first and third sub-pixels 11, 13 unpaired. One having ordinary skill in the art would understand that rather than having one unpaired row that doesn’t form a pixel, the pattern repeats, but is cut off. Having the first and third pixels be on the left and right edges would necessarily leave an entire row of first and third sub-pixels unable to form a pixel with a corresponding second sub-pixel.
For this reason, the Examiner suggests using the phrase “the second sub-pixel columns are arranged in alternating fashion with the first sub-pixel columns.” (emphasis added). While still encompassing the previous scope, the phrase does not limit the claim to having an first column that does not appear to form a full pixel.
Applicant argues, Page 14, first paragraph that a single mask is used with a plurality of mask openings to form the different light-emitting layers of the first, second and third sub-pixels.
As seen in Zhang et al. (US PGPub 2020/0258441 A1), it is known in the prior art to use multiple masks, as seen in Figs. 3-6, with each of the masks 301-304 respectively corresponding to the formation of the first through fourth sub-pixels 101-104. (Paragraph 96)
As understood by the Examiner, the reason that there are separate masks appears to be that a mask is placed in front of an front of an vapor deposition source, allowing the desired material to be deposited through all of the holes of the mask simultaneously (Paragraph 106). That is, the first-light emitting material would go through holes K11 to form first light-emitting layers, the second light-emitting material would go through holes K12 to form second light-emitting materials and so on.
Assuming that only one mask really is being used for all of the different sub-pixels in Applicant’s invention, it is unclear how the organic material from the first light-emitting layer would be stopped from going through the holes for the other light-emitting layers and also for the other light-emitting layers to be stopped from going through the holes for the first light-emitting layer. That is, it would appear that the light-emitting material from the three different sub-pixels would be applied to all sub-pixels since there if there is only one mask used, the evaporated material would be applied through all the plurality of holes.
It would appear that the issue of enablement would potentially apply if Applicant were really using only one mask for all of the light-emitting layers.
For these reasons, the Examiner suspects that the recitation of only one mask is a typo and rather a mask group comprising a plurality of masks is what is being used to form the different light-emitting layers.
Applicant argues, Page 16 that the interval h in Fig. 14 of Sung et al. (US PGPub 2009/0121983 A1) does not correspond to the claimed distance between effective parts of consecutively arranged sub-pixels because the distance is recited to be between the electrodes rather than the effective parts.
However Sung et al. Paragraph 105 recites that “the interval between neighboring first and second red pixels R1 and R2 is substantially determined by the interval h between the pixel electrodes…” Herein, the effective parts in the claim correspond to what Sung et al. is describing as the red pixels R1 and R2. The interval between the effective parts is recited to be substantially determined by the interval h between the pixel electrodes. The same is repeated with respect to the Green pixels in Paragraph 105. Similar language is used with respect to the previous embodiment with respect to Paragraphs 86 and Fig. 10 with respect to the blue pixels and interval e. Based on the fact that Fig. 14 shows the interval corresponding to the interval e as also being interval h, it is implied that the same is true for the blue pixels as well.
Furthermore, even if Sung et al. does not teach the effective areas in the same group being the same as distance from other effective areas in other color groups, the rejection is made in further view of Madigan (US PGPub 2014/0197396 A1). Applicant argues that the disclosure of Madigan fails to render the claimed invention obvious because, allegedly, Madigan does not disclose the distances between the same color adjacent pixels effective parts to be the same. However, Madigan discloses (Fig. 12) the distances c=d=e=3 µm (Paragraph 132).
Specification
The amendments filed 1/22/2026 are sufficient to overcome the objections to the specification stated in the previous office action. Therefore, said objections are withdrawn.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 1/22/2026. These drawings are unacceptable. The mask recited in claim 38 has not been depicted.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the mask (claim 38) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show how the mask is a single mask with different openings that serves to deposit the three different color sub-pixels as described in the specification. What do the openings look like? How is the deposition process allowed to go through one of the holes but not the others to deposit an individual light-emitting color layer? Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Applicant’s drawing amendments to Figs. 10A and 10B now properly show reference numeral 34.
Claim Objections
The amendments filed 1/22/2026 are sufficient to overcome the objections to the claims stated in the previous office action. Therefore, said objections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 5 recites that “in each second sub-pixel group of at least part of the second sub-pixel groups, the second light-emitting layers of the second sub-pixels that are consecutively arranged do not constitute an integral structure.”
This limitation corresponds to Applicant’s Fig. 2A in which there is space between the light-emitting layers of second sub-pixels 12.
Parent claim 1 now recites that “a first distance between edges of effective parts of two consecutively arranged first sub- pixels in each of the first sub-pixel groups that are close to each other and opposite to each other, a second distance between edges of effective parts of two consecutively arranged second sub- pixels in each of the second sub-pixel groups that are close to each other and opposite to each other, and a third distance between edges of effective parts of two consecutively arranged third sub-pixels in each of the third sub-pixel groups that are close to each other and opposite to each other are basically equal and are less than or equal to 8 µm.”
This limitation corresponds to Fig. 1, wherein distances h1, h2, h3 are recited to be basically equal and less than or equal to 8 µm (Paragraphs 76 and 77) and the sub-pixel groups have integral light-emitting layers.
Applicant’s Paragraph 77 additionally recites that “Compared with the case where two consecutively arranged sub-pixels in the first sub-pixel group 31, in the second sub-pixel group 32 and in the third sub-pixel group 33 do not constitute an integral structure (for example, an interval or a gap exists between two consecutively arranged sub-pixels), the first distance hi, the second distance h2 and the third distance h3 are relatively small, which can improve the arrangement density of the sub-pixels and is beneficial to improving the PPI of the display panel 10.”
That is, the integral structure allows for closer packing of the adjacent sub-pixels.
Therefore, the claimed embodiment of claim 5 wherein the second light-emitting layers of the second sub-pixels that are consecutively arranged do not constitute an integral structure would not necessarily have the distances h1, h2 and h3 be basically equal and less than or equal to 8 µm because the non-integral structure would require more minimum distance than the integral structure of the other sub-pixel group colors.
Therefore, the specification as originally filed would not convey to one having ordinary skill in the art that the inventors had possession of the claimed combination of non-integral second sub-pixel light-emitting layers and distances between adjacent sub-pixels within sub-pixel groups being basically the same and less than or equal to 8 µm.
Claim 6 is dependent on claim 5 and contains the same deficiencies.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-6, 11, 15-18, 38 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2, line 5; Claim 6, lines 2-3; Claim 11, line 2; Claim 15, line 1 recite “the first sub-pixel.”
Claim 2, line 6; Claim 6, line 2; Claim 11, lines 2; Claim 15, lines 2-3 recite “the second sub-pixel.”
Claim 2, line 9; Claim 6, lines 3; Claim 11, line 3; Claim 15, line 2 recite “the third sub-pixel.”
While the claim previously recites the singular version of these terms, the claim also recites the plural version. It is unclear which term is being referred to by the first sub-pixel and the third sub-pixel.
For example, Claim 2, lines 3-5 recites that “the plurality of the sub-pixels of one of the pixels comprise: the first sub-pixel…” However, parent claim 1 recites “a first sub-pixel” (claim 1, line 10) and also “at least two first sub-pixels.” (claim 1, line 12). To what element is “the first sub-pixel” of claim 2, line 5 referring? Is it referring to the first instance of a first sub-pixel in line 10? Is it any one of the at least two first two sub-pixels? Is it two of the at least two first sub-pixels? Is it all of the at least two first two sub-pixels?
For the purposes of examination, claim 2, line 5 will be examined as though it recited “one of the first sub-pixels.”
Claim 6, lines 2-3; Claim 11, line 2; Claim 15, line 1; will be examined as though it recited “each of the first sub-pixels.”
Claim 2, line 6 will be examined as though it recited “one of the second sub-pixels.”
Claim 6, line 2; Claim 11, lines 2; Claim 15, lines 2-3 will be examined as though it recited “each of the second sub-pixels.”
Claim 2, line 9 will be examined as though it recited “one of the third sub-pixels.”
Claim 6, lines 3; Claim 11, line 3; Claim 15, line 2 will be examined as though it recited “each of the third sub-pixels.”
Claims 3-6 and 39 are dependent on claim 2 and contain the same deficiencies.
Similarly, claim 2, lines 2-3 now recites “each pixel of the plurality of pixels comprises the plurality of sub-pixels.” To what element is “the first sub-pixel” of claim 2, line 5 referring? It does not make sense for each pixel to have all of the recited sub-pixels of claim 1, line 2. Does each pixel comprise a subset of the plurality of sub-pixels? For the purposes of examination, the claim will be examined as though it recited that the “the plurality of sub-pixels” in claim 2, lines 2-3 refers to a subset of the plurality of sub-pixels, the subset including the subsequently recited (one of the) first sub-pixels, (one of the) second sub-pixels, and (one of the) third sub-pixels.
Claim 16 recites “each of the second sub-pixel columns is between the consecutively arranged first sub-pixel columns.” In the claims, the first sub-pixel columns correspond to the Red and Green sub-pixels and the second sub-pixel columns correspond to the Blue sub-pixel columns. Furthermore, as seen in Parent Claim 2, “each pixel of the plurality of sub-pixels, the plurality of sub-pixels comprise: the first sub-pixel…the second sub-pixel…and the third sub-pixel.”
Fig. 1A is a schematic illustration of a display that has 5 first sub-pixel columns (Red and Green column having elements 21 and 23) and 4 second sub-pixel columns (Blue Column having element 22). While Fig. 1A depicts each second sub-pixel column being between adjacent first sub-pixel column, the unequal number of columns also leaves the extra fifth column of first sub-pixel columns without the other parts of its corresponding pixel of blue sub-pixels.
Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that in order to manufacture a display with functioning pixels, that there would be the same number of first and second columns. Having the same number of first and second columns would mean that there is a second column on the edge of the display that does not have first columns on both sides. Therefore, the display would not have each of the second columns be between consecutively arranged first columns, as recited in claim 16.
It is not clear if the claim scope should be interpreted as written or if the claim language is not indicative of the intended scope. The Examiner believes that the intended scope is that “the second sub-pixel columns are arranged in alternating fashion with the first sub-pixel columns.”
For the purposes of examination, the limitation of claim 16 will be examined as though it recited that “the first sub-pixel columns and the second sub-pixel columns are alternately arranged.”
Claims 17 and 18 are dependent on claim 16 and contain the same deficiencies.
Claim 38, lines 5-6 recite “wherein a mask is used to form the light-emitting layers of the plurality of sub-pixels through a patterning process, the mask comprises a plurality of mask openings”
Since the pixels are different colors and therefore require different light-emitting layers, it appears that the method of manufacturing would not require a singular mask, but a plurality of masks. It is not clear if Applicant is trying to claim that a singular mask comprising a plurality of mask openings is used to form each of the different colors. It appears unlikely that this is the case as the shapes of the first, second and third pixels are different. Therefore, it appears the claim as written does not accurately describe Applicant’s intended manufacturing process. It is not clear what actual scope is intended. For example it could be intended to mean that the light-emitting layers are formed through a patterning process via a plurality of mask openings.
For the purposes of examination, claim 38 will be examined as though it recited that the light-emitting layers are formed through a patterning process via a plurality of mask openings.
The amendments filed 1/22/2026 are sufficient to overcome the other 112 rejections stated in the previous office action. Therefore, said 112 rejections are withdrawn.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 11, 13, 16, 17, and 37-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sung et al. (US PGPub 2009/0121983 A1) in view of Madigan (US PGPub 2014/0197396 A1).
As to claim 1, Sung et al. discloses (Figs. 14 and 15) a display panel, comprising: a base substrate 110, wherein a plurality of sub-pixels R1, R2, G1, G2, B1, B2 are arranged on the base substrate 110, at least part of the plurality of sub-pixels R1, R2, G1, G2, B1, B2 comprises a light-emitting layer 370R, 370G, 370 B; at least two sub-pixels R1, R2 (or G1, G2 or B1, B2) consecutively arranged among the plurality of sub-pixels constitute one sub-pixel group R1R2/G1G2/B1B2, the display panel comprises a plurality of the sub-pixel groups R1R2/G1G2/B1B2, in each sub-pixel group of at least part of the sub-pixel groups, the light-emitting layers 370R, 370G, 370B of at least two consecutively arranged sub-pixels are made of a same material and constitute an integral structure (Fig. 15, Paragraphs 102 and 103); the at least part of the sub-pixel groups comprises at least two sub-pixel groups R1R2/G1G2/B1B2 that respectively emit light of different colors (Paragraph 103, Red, Green, Blue), wherein the plurality of sub-pixels R1R2/G1G2/B1B2 comprise: a first sub-pixel R2 comprising a first light-emitting layer 370R, a second sub-pixel B1 comprising a second light-emitting layer 370B and a third sub-pixel G1 comprising a third light-emitting layer 370G: at least two first sub-pixels R1, R2 are consecutively arranged to constitute one first sub-pixel group R1R2, at least two second sub-pixels B1, B2 are consecutively arranged to constitute one second sub-pixel group B1B2, and at least two third sub-pixels G1, G2 are consecutively arranged to constitute one third sub-pixel group G1, G2, the plurality of sub-pixel groups R1R2/G1G2/B1B2 comprise a plurality of first sub-pixel groups R1R2, a plurality of second sub-pixel groups B1B2, and a plurality of third sub-pixel groups G1G2; in each first sub-pixel group R1R2 of at least part of the first sub-pixel groups R1R2, the first light- emitting layers 370R of the first sub-pixels R1, R2 that are consecutively arranged constitute an integral structure (Paragraph 103), in each third sub-pixel group G1G2 of at least part of the third sub-pixel groups G1G2, the third light-emitting layers 370G of the third sub-pixels G1, G2 that are consecutively arranged constitute an integral structure (Paragraph 103); wherein the display panel further comprises a pixel definition layer 361, comprising a plurality of openings 365 (Paragraph 109) and a main body 361 defining the plurality of openings 365, wherein the plurality of openings are in one-to-one correspondence with the plurality of sub-pixels R1, R2, G1, G2, B1, B2 (Paragraph 109, openings 365 expose respective pixel electrodes 191R1, 191R2, 191G1, 191G2, 191B1 191B2 corresponding to each sub-pixel); in each sub-pixel group R1R2/G1G2/B1B2 of the at least part of the sub-pixel groups, the light-emitting layer 370R, 370G, 370B of each of the sub-pixels comprises an effective part (part of 370R, 370G, 370B in opening 365) in the corresponding opening 365 among the openings 365 of the pixel definition layer 361, and an edge part (part of 370R, 370G, 370B on 361) on the main body 361 of the pixel definition layer 361, and a first distance h between edges of effective parts of two consecutively arranged first sub-pixels R1, R2 in each of the first sub- pixel groups R1R2 that are close to each other and opposite to each other, a second distance h between edges of effective parts of two consecutively arranged second sub-pixels B1, B2 in each second sub- pixel groups B1B2 that are close to each other and opposite to each other, and a third distance h between edges of effective parts of two consecutively arranged third sub-pixels G1, G2 in each of the third sub- pixel groups G1G2 that are close to each other and opposite to each other.
PNG
media_image1.png
636
358
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Sung et al.
PNG
media_image2.png
212
586
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 15
Sung et al. uses the same interval reference “h” for each of the first, second and third distances, but does not explicitly state that the distances are basically equal and less than or equal to 8 µm.
Madigan teaches (Fig. 12) making the first, second and third distances (c, d, e) to be equal because of restriction by processing method (Paragraph 132) in order to maximize fill factor (Paragraphs 53 and 132), wherein the distances are less than or equal to 8 µm (Paragraph 89, 1 or 6 micrometers, Paragraph 132, 3 micrometers).
PNG
media_image3.png
392
540
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Madigan
Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the first, second and third distances to be equal and less than 8 µm in order to maximize fill factor within the manufacturing process constraints, as taught by Madigan.
As to claim 2, Sung et al. discloses that a plurality of pixels (R2B1G1 and R1B2G2) are arranged on the base substrate 110, each pixel (R2B1G1 and R1B2G2) of the plurality of pixels comprises a plurality of the sub-pixels, the plurality of the sub-pixels of one of the pixels comprise: the first sub-pixel (R2 or R1), comprising the first light-emitting layer 370R, wherein the first light-emitting layer emits a first color light (Paragraph 103, red); the second sub-pixel (B1 or B2), comprising the second light-emitting layer 370B, wherein the second light-emitting layer emits a second color light (Paragraph 103, blue); and the third sub-pixel (G1 or G2), comprising the third light-emitting layer 370G, wherein the third light-emitting layer emits a third color light (Paragraph 103, green), color of the first color light, color of the second color light and color of the third color light are different from each other (Paragraph 103), the at least part of the sub-pixel groups (the part of the sub-pixel groups that are integral structure and have same light-emitting material: R1R2/G1G2/B1B2) comprises at least two selected from a group consisting of the first sub-pixel group R1R2, the second sub-pixel group B1B2, and the third sub-pixel group G1G2.
As to claim 3, Sung et al. discloses that in each second sub-pixel group B1B2 of at least part of the second sub-pixel groups B1B2, the second light-emitting layers 370B of the second sub-pixels B1, B2 that are consecutively arranged constitute an integral structure (Fig. 15).
As to claim 11, Sung et al. discloses (Figs. 14 and 15) that a planar shape of the effective part of the first sub-pixel (corresponding to regions of 191R1, 191R2), a planar shape of the effective part of the second sub-pixel pixel (corresponding to regions of 191B1, 191B2), and a planar shape of the effective part of the third sub-pixel pixel (corresponding to regions of 191G1, 191G2) are respectively consistent with an planar shape of the entire first light-emitting layer 370R, an planar shape of the entire second light-emitting layer 370G, and an planar shape of the entire third light-emitting layer 370B.
As to claim 13, Sung et al. discloses (Figs. 14 and 15) that a planar shape of the effective part (part of 370R, 370G, 370B in opening 365) of the first light-emitting layer 370R, a planar shape of the effective part of the second light-emitting layer 370G, and a planar shape of the effective part of the third light-emitting layer 370B are all rectangular.
As to claim 16, Sung et al. discloses (Figs. 14 and 15) that the display panel comprises a pixel array comprising the pixels (R2B1G1 and R1B2G2), the pixel array comprises a plurality of sub- pixel rows extending in a first direction (horizontal direction of Fig. 14), a plurality of first sub-pixel columns (corresponding to the Red and Green Subpixel columns) extending in a second direction (vertical direction of Fig. 14,), and a plurality of second sub-pixel columns (corresponding to the blue subpixels columns) extending in the second direction, the first sub-pixel columns (red and green) and the second sub-pixel columns (blue) are alternately arranged, the second direction (vertical) intersects the first direction (horizontal); in each of the first sub-pixel columns (red and green), the first sub-pixel groups R1R2 and the third sub-pixel groups G1G2 are alternately arranged; in each of the second sub-pixel columns, a plurality of the second sub-pixel groups B1B2 are arranged in sequence; and the second light-emitting layer 370B of one of the second sub-pixel groups B1B2 and the second light-emitting layer 370B of another one of the second sub-pixel groups B1B2 consecutively arranged with the one of the second sub-pixel groups B1B2 in the second sub-pixel column do not constitute an integral structure (light-emitting layers 370B of one second sub-pixel group B1B2 and another second sub-pixel group are not a continuous layer).
As to claim 17, Sung et al. discloses (Figs. 14 and 15) that a gap (interval I, Paragraph 101) is between the second light-emitting layer 370R of the one of the second sub-pixel groups R1R2 and the second light- emitting layer 370R of the another one of the second sub-pixel groups R1R2 consecutively arranged with the one of the second sub-pixel groups R1R2; and a distance (interval h, Paragraphs 105 and 106) between two adjacent effective parts in the second light-emitting layers 370R constituting the integral structure in the second sub-pixel group R1R2 is smaller than a distance between the effective parts of, two adjacent second light-emitting layers that are spaced apart by the gap (interval i) between each other (Paragraphs 98-106, interval h is unrelated to shadow mask and is implied to be smaller as it allows reduction of the emission area).
As to claim 37, Sung et al. discloses (Figs. 14 and 15) a display device comprising the display panel of claim 1.
As to claim 38, Sung et al. discloses (Figs. 14 and 15) a manufacturing method of a display panel, comprising: providing a base substrate 110; and forming a plurality of sub-pixels R1, R2, G1, G2, B1, B2 on the base substrate 110, wherein at least part of the plurality of sub-pixels R1, R2, G1, G2, B1, B2 comprises a light-emitting layer 370R, 370G, 370B, the light-emitting layers 370R, 370G, 370B are formed through a patterning process via a plurality of mask openings (Figs. 16A, 16B, #50a, 60a); at least two sub-pixels R1, R2 arranged consecutively among the plurality of sub-pixels constitute one sub-pixel group R1R2, in the patterning process, the light-emitting layer 370R of each sub- pixel group R1R2 in at least part of the sub-pixel groups R1R2 is formed by using one same mask opening 60a among the plurality of mask openings 50a, 60a and is made of a same material 370R; and the at least part of the sub-pixel groups comprises at least two sub-pixel groups R1R2, G1G2, B1B2 that respectively emit light of different colors (Paragraphs 112-114), wherein the plurality of sub-pixels comprise: a first sub-pixel R2 comprising a first light-emitting layer 370R, a second sub-pixel B1 comprising a second light-emitting layer 370B and a third sub-pixel G1 comprising a third light-emitting layer 370G; at least two of the first sub-pixels R1, R2 are consecutively arranged to constitute one first sub-pixel group R1R2, and at least two of the third sub-pixels G1, G2 are consecutively arranged to constitute one third sub-pixel group G1G2; in each first sub-pixel group R1R2 of at least part of the first sub-pixel groups, the first light-emitting layers 370R of the first sub-pixels R1, R2 that are consecutively arranged constitute an integral structure (Paragraph 103), and in each third sub-pixel group G1G2 of at least part of the third sub-pixel groups G1G2, the third light-emitting layers 370G of the third sub-pixels G1, G2 that are consecutively arranged constitute an integral structure (Paragraph 103); wherein the display panel further comprises a pixel definition layer 361, comprising a plurality of openings 365 (Paragraph 109) and a main body 361 defining the plurality of openings 365, wherein the plurality of openings are in one-to-one correspondence with the plurality of sub-pixels R1, R2, G1, G2, B1, B2 (Paragraph 109, openings 365 expose respective pixel electrodes 191R1, 191R2, 191G1, 191G2, 191B1 191B2 corresponding to each sub-pixel); in each sub-pixel group R1R2/G1G2/B1B2 of the at least part of the sub-pixel groups, the light-emitting layer 370R, 370G, 370B of each of the sub-pixels comprises an effective part (part of 370R, 370G, 370B in opening 365) in the corresponding opening 365 among the openings 365 of the pixel definition layer 361, and an edge part (part of 370R, 370G, 370B on 361) on the main body 361 of the pixel definition layer 361, and a first distance h between edges of effective parts of two consecutively arranged first sub-pixels R1, R2 in each of the first sub- pixel groups R1R2 that are close to each other and opposite to each other, a second distance h between edges of effective parts of two consecutively arranged second sub-pixels B1, B2 in each second sub- pixel groups B1B2 that are close to each other and opposite to each other, and a third distance h between edges of effective parts of two consecutively arranged third sub-pixels G1, G2 in each of the third sub- pixel groups G1G2 that are close to each other and opposite to each other.
Sung et al. uses the same interval reference “h” for each of the first, second and third distances, but does not explicitly state that the distances are basically equal and less than or equal to 8 µm.
Madigan teaches (Fig. 12) making the first, second and third distances (c, d, e) to be equal because of restriction by processing method (Paragraph 132) in order to maximize fill factor (Paragraphs 53 and 132), wherein the distances are less than or equal to 8 µm (Paragraph 89, 1 or 6 micrometers, Paragraph 132, 3 micrometers).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the first, second and third distances to be equal and less than 8 µm in order to maximize fill factor within the manufacturing process constraints, as taught by Madigan.
As to claim 39, Sung et al. discloses (Figs. 14 and 15) that a shorter bottom edge of the first light-emitting layer 370R of the first sub-pixel R2 and a shorter bottom edge of the third light-emitting layer 370G of the third sub-pixel G1 that is adjacent to the first sub-pixel R2 are close to each other and opposite to each other (separated by gap “g”).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sung et al. in view of Madigan as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Park et al. (US PGPub 2012/0056531 A1).
As to claim 4, Sung et al. discloses (Fig. 14) that each first sub-pixel group R1R2 and third sub-pixel group G1G2 have a rectangular (Fig. 10) planar shape.
Sung et al. in view of Madigan is silent as to first and third sub-pixel groups having planar shape of hexagon, octagon, ellipse, rhombus, or fusiform shapes.
Park et al. discloses wherein the pixel group shape is provided as octagonal (Fig. 14, Paragraph 173) or as rectangular, thus recognizing equivalent structures in the art.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the first and third sub-pixel groups as octagonal instead of as rectangular, since the selection of from among known suitable alternatives is generally within the abilities of one having ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sung et al. in view of Madigan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matsueda (US PGPub 2018/0315801 A1) and Li et al. (CN 108231861 A, citations herein refer to the attached machine translation).
As to claim 14, Sung et al. discloses (Figs. 14 and 15) in each sub-pixel group of the at least part of the sub-pixel groups, edges of the effective part (effective part corresponds to areas openings 365 of pixel electrodes 191R1, 191R2, 191G1, 191G2, 191B1, 191B2) are in one-to- one correspondence with edges of an outer contour of the edge part, each pair of mutually corresponding edges of the effective part and the outer contour of the edge part are close to and opposite to each other,
Sung et al. in view of Madigan does not explicitly state the distance between each pair of mutually corresponding edges of the effective part and the outer contour of the edge part is less than or equal to 9 micrometers.
Matsueda teaches that the distance between each pair of mutually corresponding edges of the effective part and the outer contour of the edge part is dependent on manufacturing process (Paragraph 69).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to minimize the distance as much as possible, based on the manufacturing process, as taught by Matsueda in order to leave as much space as possible for the light-emitting area.
Li et al. teaches (Fig. 2) that the width w of the spacing between adjacent effective areas is 17-20 microns. (Paragraph 71)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the spacing between the effective areas to be 17-20 microns, since it is taught as suitable by Li et al. and the selection from among known suitable widths for their known purposes is generally within the abilities of one having ordinary skill in the art.
Since the spacing between the openings is about 17 microns and the distance between each pair of mutually corresponding edges of the effective part and the outer contour of the edge part is present twice between openings, (one for each sub-pixel), the distance between each pair of mutually corresponding edges of the effective part and the outer contour of the edge part would be about 8.5 microns.
As to claim 15, Sung et al. in view of Matsueda and Li et al. teaches that in the first sub-pixel, in the second sub-pixel, and in the third sub-pixel, distances between each pair of mutually corresponding edges of the effective part and the outer contour of the edge part are same. Since the distance is limited by process, as taught by Matsueda Paragraph 69, it would be obvious to make all of the distances for each sub-pixel to be equal and the minimum distance in order to leave as much space as possible for the light-emitting area.
Claim(s) 1 and 12 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du (US PGPub 2019/0058017 A1) in view of Sung et al.
As to claim 1, Du discloses (Figs. 1 and 5-9) a display panel, comprising: a base substrate (not shown, Paragraph 33), wherein a plurality of sub-pixels (R11, R21, G11, G21, B11, B21, for example) are arranged on the base substrate, at least part of the plurality of sub-pixels comprises a light-emitting layer (Paragraph 28); at least two sub-pixels R11, R21 consecutively arranged among the plurality of sub-pixels constitute one sub-pixel group (formed by mask opening 10a of Fig. 5), the display panel comprises a plurality of the sub-pixel groups (each pair of R, G and B sub-pixels), in each sub-pixel group of at least part of the sub-pixel groups, a layers of at least two consecutively arranged sub-pixels are made of a same material and constitute an integral structure (Figs. 5-9, hexagon mask openings for forming the two adjacent sub-pixels); the at least part of the sub-pixel groups comprises at least two sub-pixel groups that respectively emit light of different colors (R, G, B), wherein the plurality of sub-pixels comprise: a first sub-pixel R11, a second sub-pixel B11 and a third sub-pixel G11: at least two of the first sub-pixels R11, R12 are consecutively arranged to constitute one first sub-pixel group R11R12, and at least two of the third sub-pixels G11, G12 are consecutively arranged to constitute one third sub-pixel group G11, G12; in each first sub-pixel group of at least part of the first sub-pixel groups, a layer of the first sub-pixels that are consecutively arranged constitute an integral structure (Figs. 5-9, hexagon mask openings for forming the two adjacent sub-pixels), and in each third sub-pixel group of at least part of the third sub-pixel groups, the third layers of the third sub-pixels that are consecutively arranged constitute an integral structure (Fig. 7): and a shorter bottom edge of the first layer of the first sub-pixel R11 and a shorter bottom edge of the third layer of the third sub-pixel G11 that is adjacent to the first sub- pixel are close to each other and opposite to each other.
PNG
media_image4.png
302
316
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Du
PNG
media_image5.png
432
388
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Du
Du discloses that the pixels have light-emitting layers (Paragraph 28) and that adjacent sub-pixels of the same color are formed integrally (Paragraphs 30-39) in order to reduce the difficulty in fabricating and increase the strength of the mask (Paragraph 40), but calls the shared layers “color film material” and not explicitly light-emitting layers.
Sung et al. teaches (Figs. 14 and 15) integrating adjacent sub-pixels of the same color by forming an integral light emitting layer 370R, 370G, 370B. Furthermore, wherein the display panel further comprises a pixel definition layer 361, comprising a plurality of openings 365 (Paragraph 109) and a main body 361 defining the plurality of openings 365, wherein the plurality of openings are in one-to-one correspondence with the plurality of sub-pixels R1, R2, G1, G2, B1, B2 (Paragraph 109, openings 365 expose respective pixel electrodes 191R1, 191R2, 191G1, 191G2, 191B1 191B2 corresponding to each sub-pixel); in each sub-pixel group R1R2/G1G2/B1B2 of the at least part of the sub-pixel groups, the light-emitting layer 370R, 370G, 370B of each of the sub-pixels comprises an effective part (part of 370R, 370G, 370B in opening 365) in the corresponding opening 365 among the openings 365 of the pixel definition layer 361, and an edge part (part of 370R, 370G, 370B on 361) on the main body 361 of the pixel definition layer 361, and a first distance h between edges of effective parts of two consecutively arranged first sub-pixels R1, R2 in each of the first sub- pixel groups R1R2 that are close to each other and opposite to each other, a second distance h between edges of effective parts of two consecutively arranged second sub-pixels B1, B2 in each second sub- pixel groups B1B2 that are close to each other and opposite to each other, and a third distance h between edges of effective parts of two consecutively arranged third sub-pixels G1, G2 in each of the third sub- pixel groups G1G2 that are close to each other and opposite to each other.
Therefore, it would be obvious to make the integrated color film material layers to include light-emitting layers, as taught by Sung et al. since it is taught as suitable by Sung et al. and the selection from among known suitable alternatives for their known purposes is generally within the abilities of one having ordinary skill in the art and in order to share the mask opening for masks for light-emitting layers, reducing difficulty in fabricating and strengthening the mask, as taught by Du. Furthermore, it would be obvious to include the pixel definition layers and opening therein with the recited adjacent effective parts close to each other since it is taught as suitable for making the integral light-emitting layers as taught by Sung et al. since it is taught as suitable by Sung et al. and the selection from among known suitable alternatives for their known purposes is generally within the abilities of one having ordinary skill in the art and in order to share the mask opening for masks for light-emitting layers, reducing difficulty in fabricating and strengthening the mask, as taught by Du.
Sung et al. uses the same interval reference “h” for each of the first, second and third distances, but Du et al. in view of Sung et al. does not explicitly state that the distances are basically equal and less than or equal to 8 µm.
Madigan teaches (Fig. 12) making the first, second and third distances (c, d, e) to be equal because of restriction by processing method (Paragraph 132) in order to maximize fill factor (Paragraphs 53 and 132), wherein the distances are less than or equal to 8 µm (Paragraph 89, 1 or 6 micrometers, Paragraph 132, 3 micrometers).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the first, second and third distances to be equal and less than 8 µm in order to maximize fill factor within the manufacturing process constraints, as taught by Madigan.
As to claim 12, Du discloses (Fig. 1) that in each of the at least part of the first sub-pixel groups (Red groups), a planar shape of each effective part of the consecutively arranged first sub-pixels is a proper trapezoid R11, R21, and longer bottom edges of the effective parts of the two consecutively arranged first light-emitting layers are close to each other and opposite to each other (R11, R21 long edges); and/or in each of the at least part of the third sub-pixel groups (Green groups), a planar shape of each effective part of the consecutively arranged third sub-pixels is a proper trapezoid G21 and adjacent unlabeled green sub-pixel), and longer bottom edges of the effective parts of the two consecutively arranged third light-emitting layers are close to each other and opposite to each other (G21 and adjacent green sub-pixel long edges).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if the 112 rejection were overcome and if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 18, the prior art does not teach or suggest that a ratio of an area of the effective part of each of the first sub-pixels to an area of an entirety of the light- emitting layer of each of the first sub-pixels is 17%; a ratio of an area of the effective part of each of the second sub-pixels to an area of an entirety of the light-emitting layer of each of the second sub-pixels is 21%; and a ratio of an area of the effective part of each of the third sub- pixels to an area of an entirety of the light-emitting layer of each of the third sub-pixels is 30%.
Since the light-emitting layers are combined in adjacent sub-pixels, at least some of the recited ratios compare the effective area of one sub-pixel to the light-emitting material area of two pixels. Therefore, it is unlikely that a display type that does not combine light-emitting areas of two adjacent sub-pixels would satisfy these ratios, as the ratios would likely be higher for when each pixel has an individual light-emitting layer and likely be lower if the light-emitting layer of three or more adjacent sub-pixels were combined. While combining the light-emitting layers of adjacent sub-pixels is known per se, as seen in the Rejections of claim 1 above, the prior art is silent as to the specific values of the recited ratios.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wacyk (US PGPub 2018/0053811 A1) discloses (Fig. 4) having adjacent red and adjacent green sub-pixels.
Okita (USPN 9,904,122 B2) discloses (Fig. 3) Parallelogram shaped sub-pixels.
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 STEVEN Y HORIKOSHI whose telephone number is (571)270-7811. The examiner can normally be reached Monday and Tuesday 2-10PM EDT.
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, ABDULMAJEED AZIZ can be reached at 571-270-5046. 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.
/S.Y.H/Examiner, Art Unit 2875
/ABDULMAJEED AZIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights