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 Amendment
The Office acknowledges receipt on 24 October 2025 of Applicants’ amendments in which claims 1, 2, and 20 are amended, claims 21-23 are cancelled, and claims 24-26 are newly added. The Office withdraws the drawing objections, the claim objections, the section 112(a) rejections, and the section 112(b) rejections identified in the Office Communication dated 24 July 2025 in view of the amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 24 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue in the first paragraph of page 9 and with respect to claim 1 (and similarly with respect to claim 20) that Park fails to disclose the feature recited in amended claim 1 whereby “the electrode contact region is arranged along a direction surrounding the display region.” More specifically, Applicants argue that Park’s “dummy pixel area (DMA) is not arranged along a direction surrounding the display area (DA).” Amended claim 1 recites (and claim 20 similarly recites), in relevant part, “the non-display region comprises an electrode contact region arranged along a direction surrounding the display region” and is rejected over the combined teachings of Park and Kimura. Obviousness can be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. MPEP §2143.01. As this principle applies to the present circumstance, Park teaches in Figs. 1 and 3: (1) non-display region (NDA2) comprises an electrode contact region (DMA); (2) the electrode contact region (DMA) is arranged along a direction (horizontal direction); and (3) the direction (horizontal direction) surrounds the display region (DA) {see annotated copy of Park’s Fig. 1, below}. More specifically, the horizontal direction extends across and beyond the entirety of the display device (1) and, thus, surrounds the display region (DA) of the display device (1).
PNG
media_image1.png
651
665
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicants argue in the second paragraph of page 9 and with respect to claim 1 (and similarly with respect to claim 20) that Park fails to disclose the feature recited in amended claim 1 whereby “the electrode layer extends from the display region to the non-display region, and is in electrical contact with a contact metal layer in the electrode contact region.” Obviousness can be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. MPEP §2143.01. As this principle applies to the present circumstance, Park teaches in an embodiment illustrated by Fig. 3 and disclosed in paragraph [0079] the electrode layer (530) extends from the display region (DA) to the non-display region (NDA2). Park further teaches in another embodiment illustrated by Figs. 5 and 6 and disclosed in paragraph [0102] that an electrode layer (530) is in electrical contact with a contact metal layer (510D) in the electrode contact region (DMA). The motivation for combining the teachings of the two embodiments is identified below with respect to each of claims 1 and 20.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9, 11-20, and 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US20210167141A1) in view of Kimura et al. (US20240196675A1).
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches in Figs. 1 and 3 a display panel defining a display region (DA) and a non-display region (NDA2) {¶0055}, wherein the non-display region (NDA2) comprises an electrode contact region (DMA) arranged along a direction (horizontal direction) surrounding the display region (DA) {¶0069; the horizontal direction extends across and beyond the entirety of the display device (1) and, thus, surrounds the display region (DA) of the display device (1); see annotated copy of Park’s Fig. 1, below}, and the display panel comprises:
a substrate (100) {¶0052}, and
first dummy pixels (DP) and regular pixels (P) located at a same side of the substrate (100) {¶0054, 0069};
wherein at least a part of the first dummy pixels (DP) overlaps with the electrode contact region (DMA) in a direction perpendicular to the substrate (100) {Fig. 3};
wherein the regular pixels (P) are located in the display region (DA) and comprise first-color pixels (P), and the first-color pixels (P) each comprise a first light-emitting material layer (520) {¶0081};
wherein in a direction parallel to the substrate (100), the first dummy pixels (DP) are discontinuous with the first light-emitting material layer (520) {Fig. 3}, and
wherein each of the regular sub-pixels (P) comprises a first electrode (portion of 530 directly above 520), the first electrodes (portion of 530 directly above 520) of the regular sub-pixels (P) are connected to each other to form an electrode layer (530), and the electrode layer (530) extends from the display region (DA) to the non-display region (NDA2) {¶0079}.
Park does not expressly teach in the embodiment discussed above the pixels are sub-pixels.
In an analogous art, Kimura teaches in paragraph [0120] that a minimum unit of independent operation for a light-emitting device may be either a pixel or a sub-pixel. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park’s display panel based on the teachings of Kimura – such that Park’s pixel is replaced by a sub-pixel as a minimum unit of independent operation – because the substitution of one known element (e.g., a sub-pixel unit of independent operation) for another (e.g., a pixel unit of independent operation) to yield a predictable result (i.e., a light-emitting unit of independent operation) would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(B). Moreover, [t]he selection of a known [device] … based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07. For the purpose of reducing the complexity of the analyses, all further references by Park with respect to pixels in the dependent claims will be identified herein solely as sub-pixels in accordance with Kimura’s teaching, unless otherwise indicated.
Park as modified by Kimura above does not teach the first dummy sub-pixels comprise a same material as the first light-emitting material layer.
However, Park further teaches in paragraph [0090] in the dummy pixel DP … an organic pattern 520D corresponding to the emission layer 520 of the pixel P. The American Heritage College Dictionary, fourth edition, defines “correspond” as “similar or equivalent in character, … origin, … [or] structure.” Thus, Park teaches the dummy pixel (DP) and the first light-emitting material are similar or equivalent in character, … origin, … [or] structure. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park’s display panel as modified by Kimura based on the teachings of Park – such that the first dummy pixels comprise a same material as the first light-emitting material layer – so: (1) as to reduce the manufacturing resources (e.g., processes, materials, time, etc.) for producing the display panel and (2) deterioration of an emission uniformity of pixels … neighboring the through portion … may be prevented or reduced {Park ¶0138}. Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., dummy sub-pixels, material, light-emitting material layer) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Park) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known [structure] … based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Park as modified by Kimura above does not teach the electrode layer is in electrical contact with a contact metal layer in the electrode contact region.
However, Park further teaches in an embodiment illustrated by Figs. 5 and 6 and disclosed in paragraph [0102] an electrode layer (530) is in electrical contact with a contact metal layer (510D) in the electrode contact region (DMA). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park’s display panel of Fig. 4 as modified by Kimura based on the further teachings of Park – such that Park’s electrode layer is in electrical contact with a contact metal layer in the electrode contact region – so: (1) as to reduce capacitive influences of the electrodes (e.g., 510D) on the regular sub-pixels by connecting them directly to a voltage carrying electrode and (2) deterioration of an emission uniformity of pixels … may be prevented or reduced {Park ¶0138}. Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., electrode layer, contact metal layer, electrode contact region) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Park) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known [structure] … based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
PNG
media_image1.png
651
665
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Park as modified by Kimura teaches the display panel according to claim 1, and Park further teaches wherein the first dummy sub-pixels (DP) comprise first edge dummy sub-pixels (DP) overlapping with the electrode contact region (DMA) {¶0069}; and
wherein the electrode layer (530) covers at least a part of the first edge dummy sub-pixels (DP) in the electrode contact region (DMA) {¶0079}.
Regarding claim 3, Park as modified by Kimura teaches the display panel according to claim 2, but Park does not teach in the embodiment discussed above wherein the electrode contact region further comprises insulating portions; and
wherein the contact metal layer has first openings, and the insulating portions are at least partially located in the first openings; and the first edge dummy sub-pixels overlap with at least one of the insulating portions in the direction perpendicular to the substrate.
However, Park teaches in an embodiment illustrated by Fig. 5 and disclosed in paragraph [0102] an electrode contact region (DMA) further comprises insulating portions (150); wherein a contact metal layer (510) has first openings (openings between adjacent 510), and the insulating portions (150) are at least partially located in the first openings (openings between adjacent 510). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park’s display panel of Fig. 4 as modified by Kimura based on the further teachings of Park – such that Park’s electrode contact region of Fig. 3 further comprises insulating portions; and wherein the contact metal layer has first openings, and the insulating portions are at least partially located in the first openings – so: (1) as to reduce capacitive influences of the electrodes (e.g., 510D) on the regular sub-pixels by connecting them directly to a voltage carrying electrode, (2) as to provide a uniform appearance of an upper surface of the display panel by maintaining structural uniformity between the display region and non-display region, and (3) deterioration of an emission uniformity of pixels … neighboring the through portion … may be prevented or reduced {Park ¶0138}. Moreover, [t]he selection of a known [structure] … based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
A consequence of the modification identified in the preceding paragraph is Park’s first edge dummy sub-pixels (510D) illustrated in Fig. 3 overlap with at least one of the insulating portions (130) of Park’s Fig. 5 in a direction perpendicular to a substrate (100).
Regarding claim 4, Park as modified by Kimura teaches the display panel according to claim 3, but Park does not teach in the embodiment discussed above wherein an orthographic projection of the first edge dummy sub-pixels on the substrate is located within an orthographic projection of the insulating portions on the substrate.
However, a consequence of the modification identified with respect to intermediate claim 3 is that an orthographic projection of the first edge dummy sub-pixels (DP) on the substrate (100) is located within an orthographic projection of the insulating portions (150) on the substrate (100).
Regarding claim 5, Park as modified by Kimura teaches the display panel according to claim 3, but Park does not teach in the embodiment discussed above wherein the first edge dummy sub-pixels overlap with m insulating portions in the direction perpendicular to the substrate, where m is a positive integer and m≥2.
However, a consequence of the modification identified with respect to intermediate claim 3 is that the first edge dummy sub-pixels (DP) overlap with m insulating portions (150) in the direction perpendicular to the substrate (100), where m is a positive integer and m≥2.
Regarding claim 6, Park as modified by Kimura teaches the display panel according to claim 5, but Park does not teach in the embodiment discussed above wherein the m insulating portions are arranged in a same direction.
However, a consequence of the modification identified with respect to intermediate claim 3 is that the m insulating portions (150) are arranged in a same direction (e.g., horizontal).
Regarding claim 7, Park as modified by Kimura teaches the display panel according to claim 5, but Park does not teach in the embodiment discussed above wherein m≥3, and the m insulating portions are arranged in rows and columns.
However, Park illustrates in Fig. 2 that the row of first dummy sub-pixels (DP) and regular pixels (P) illustrated in cross-section by Fig. 3 is repeated for numerous additional rows in an array. Accordingly, a consequence of the modification identified with respect to intermediate claim 3 is that m≥3, and the m insulating portions (150) are arranged in rows and columns.
Regarding claim 8, Park as modified by Kimura teaches the display panel according to claim 3, and Park further teaches wherein the electrode contact region (DMA) further comprises an insulation protection portion (430) covering an edge at a side of the contact metal layer (DMA) away from the display region (DA) {¶0093};
wherein at least a part of the first edge dummy sub-pixels (DP) overlaps with the insulation protection portion (430) in the direction perpendicular to the substrate (100) {Fig. 3}.
Regarding claim 9, Park as modified by Kimura teaches the display panel according to claim 2, and Park further teaches wherein the electrode contact region (DMA) further comprises an insulating layer (150) located between the contact metal layer (510D) and the electrode layer (530) {¶0078}.
Park does not teach in the embodiment discussed above:
wherein the insulating layer has second openings, and the electrode layer is in contact with the contact metal layer through the second openings; and
wherein each of the first dummy sub-pixels does not overlap with any of the second openings.
However, Park teaches in Fig. 5 and paragraph [0102] the insulating layer (150) has second openings (OP2), and the electrode layer (530) is in contact with the contact metal layer (510) through the second openings (OP2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park’s display panel of Fig. 4 as modified by Kimura based on the further teachings of Park – such that Park’s insulating layer has second openings, and the electrode layer is in contact with the contact metal layer through the second openings – so: (1) as to reduce capacitive influences of the electrodes (e.g., 510D) on the regular sub-pixels by connecting them directly to a voltage carrying electrode and (2) deterioration of an emission uniformity of pixels … neighboring the through portion … may be prevented or reduced {Park ¶0138}. Moreover, [t]he selection of a known [structure] … based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
A consequence of the modification identified in the preceding paragraph is that each of the first dummy sub-pixels (DP) does not overlap with any of the second openings (OP2).
Regarding claim 11, Park as modified by Kimura teaches the display panel according to claim 2, and Park further teaches wherein in the display region (DA), the first-color sub-pixels (P) are arranged in pixel rows in a first direction {¶0081, emission layer 520 … emits red, green, or blue light}, and two adjacent (diagonally) first edge dummy sub-pixels (DP) are misaligned in a second direction, and the second direction intersects with the first direction {see Examiner’s Note below}.
Examiner’s Note: Park illustrates in Fig. 2 that the row of first dummy sub-pixels (DP) and regular pixels (P) illustrated in cross-section by Fig. 3 is repeated for numerous additional rows in an array.
Regarding claim 12, Park as modified by Kimura teaches the display panel according to claim 2, and Park further teaches wherein an area S3 of an orthographic projection of a single first edge dummy sub-pixel (DP) on the substrate (100) and an area S4 of an orthographic projection of a single first light-emitting material layer (520) on the substrate (100) satisfy |S3- S4|/S3 ≤1 {Fig. 3}.
Examiner’s Note: The claim does not specify what portion of the total area for each of the orthographic projections must be used respectively for S3 and S4. Moreover, Park illustrates in Fig. 2 that the dummy sub-pixel and the regular sub-pixel have an indistinguishable difference in areas from a plan view.
Regarding claim 13, Park as modified by Kimura teaches the display panel according to claim 12, and Park further teaches wherein S3=S4 {Fig. 3}.
Examiner’s Note: The claim does not specify what portion of the total area for each of the orthographic projections must be used respectively for S3 and S4. Moreover, Park illustrates in Fig. 2 that the dummy sub-pixel and the regular sub-pixel have an indistinguishable difference in areas from a plan view.
Regarding claim 14, Park as modified by Kimura teaches the display panel according to claim 2, and Park further teaches wherein the first dummy sub-pixels (DP) further comprise first transition dummy sub-pixels (DP) located at a side of the first edge dummy sub-pixels (DP) adjacent to the display region (DA) {Fig. 3; see Examiner’s Note 1 below}; and
an orthographic projection of each of the first transition dummy sub-pixels (DP) on the substrate (100) has a same shape (e.g., rectangular) as an orthographic projection of the first light-emitting material (520) layer on the substrate (100) {Fig. 3; see Examiner’s Note 2 below}.
Examiner’s Note 1: Park illustrates in Fig. 2 that the row of first dummy sub-pixels (DP) and regular pixels (P) illustrated in cross-section by Fig. 3 is repeated for numerous additional rows in an array. Accordingly, some of the first dummy sub-pixels may be designated first edge dummy sub-pixels, as recited in intermediate claim 2, and others may closest to the display area (DA) may be designated first transition dummy sub-pixels, as recited in claim 14. Supplementary or alternatively, Park teaches in paragraph [0071] that the number of dummy sub-pixels sequentially aligned in a row with the regular pixels may be one to three or more based on numerous factors.
Examiner’s Note 2: Park illustrates in Fig. 2 that the dummy sub-pixel and the regular sub-pixel both have a rectangular shape.
Regarding claim 15, Park as modified by Kimura teaches the display panel according to claim 14, and Park further teaches wherein a single first transition dummy sub-pixel (DP) has the same shape (e.g., rectangular/linear) as a single first light-emitting material layer (520) {Figs. 1, 3}, and
a single first transition dummy sub-pixel (DP) has the same area as a single first light-emitting material layer (520) {see Examiner’s Note below}, in a same unit area, an arrangement of the first transition dummy sub-pixels (DP) is the same as an arrangement of first light-emitting material layers (520) of the first-color sub-pixels (P) {Figs. 1, 3; e.g., arrangement is adjacent/linear/rectangular for an arbitrary unit area}.
Examiner’s Note: The claim does not specify what portion of the total area for each of the orthographic projections must be used respectively for S3 and S4. Moreover, Park illustrates in Fig. 2 that the dummy sub-pixel and the regular sub-pixel have an indistinguishable difference in areas from a plan view.
Regarding claim 16, Park as modified by Kimura teaches the display panel according to claim 1, and Park further teaches wherein the non-display region (NDA2) further comprises an encapsulation region (region to left side of DMA in Fig. 1) located at a side of the electrode contact region (DMA) away from the display region (DA) {Fig. 3}; and
the first dummy sub-pixels (DP) do not overlap with the encapsulation region (region to left side of DMA in Fig. 1) in the direction perpendicular to the substrate (100) {Fig. 3}.
Regarding claim 17, Park as modified by Kimura teaches the display panel according to claim 1, and Park further teaches further comprising second dummy sub-pixels (DP) located at a same side of the substrate (100) as the regular sub-pixels (P) {Fig. 3; see Examiner’s Note below};
wherein the second dummy sub-pixels (DP) are located in the non-display region (NDA2) {Fig. 3};
at least a part of the second dummy sub-pixels (DP) overlaps with the electrode contact region (DMA) in the direction perpendicular to the substrate (100) {Fig. 3};
wherein the regular sub-pixels (P) comprise second-color sub-pixels (P), and the second-color sub-pixels (P) comprise a second light-emitting material layer (implicit) {¶0081}.
Park does not expressly teach wherein the second dummy sub-pixels comprise a same material as the second light-emitting material layer.
However, Park teaches in paragraph [0090] in the dummy pixel DP … an organic pattern 520D corresponding to the emission layer 520 of the pixel P. The American Heritage College Dictionary, fourth edition, defines “correspond” as “similar or equivalent in character, … origin, … [or] structure.” Thus, Park teaches the dummy pixel (DP) and the first light-emitting material are similar or equivalent in character, … origin, … [or] structure. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park’s display panel as modified by Kimura based on the teachings of Park – such that the first dummy sub-pixels comprise a same material as the first light-emitting material layer – so: (1) as to reduce the manufacturing resources (e.g., processes, materials, time, etc.) for producing the display panel and (2) deterioration of an emission uniformity of pixels … neighboring the through portion … may be prevented or reduced {Park ¶0138}. Moreover, [t]he selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Examiner’s Note: Park illustrates in Fig. 2 that the row of first dummy sub-pixels (DP) and regular pixels (P) illustrated in cross-section by Fig. 3 is repeated for numerous additional rows in an array. Accordingly, some of the dummy sub-pixels may be designated first dummy sub-pixels, as recited in base claim 1, and others may be designated second dummy sub-pixels, as recited in claim 16. Supplementary or alternatively, Park teaches in paragraph [0071] that the number of dummy sub-pixels sequentially aligned in a row with the regular pixels may be one to three or more based on numerous factors.
Regarding claim 18, Park as modified by Kimura teaches the display panel according to claim 17, and Park further teaches wherein the first dummy sub-pixel (P) at least partially overlaps with the second dummy sub-pixel (P) in the electrode contact region (DMA) {Fig. 3; the orientation of Park’s Fig. may be rotated to achieve such overlap from a particular viewing perspective}.
Regarding claim 19, Park as modified by Kimura teaches the display panel according to claim 17, but Park does not expressly teach wherein the first-color sub-pixels are red sub-pixels and the second-color sub-pixels are green sub-pixels, or the first-color sub-pixels are green sub-pixels and the second-color sub-pixels are red sub-pixels.
However, Park teaches in paragraph [0081] [t]he emission layer 520 may include an organic material including a fluorescence or phosphorescence material that emits red, green, or blue light …. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park’s display panel as modified by Kimura based on the further teachings of Park – such that the first-color sub-pixels are red sub-pixels and the second-color sub-pixels are green sub-pixels, or the first-color sub-pixels are green sub-pixels and the second-color sub-pixels are red sub-pixels – so the modified display panel is capable of displaying multi-color imagery.
Regarding claim 20, Park teaches in Figs. 1 and 3 a display apparatus comprising a display panel (1) defining a display region (DA) and a non-display region (NDA2) {¶0051, 0055}, wherein the non-display region (NDA2) comprises an electrode contact region (DMA) arranged along a direction (horizontal direction) surrounding the display region (DA) {¶0069; the horizontal direction extends across and beyond the entirety of the display device (1) and, thus, surrounds the display region (DA) of the display device (1); see annotated copy of Park’s Fig. 1, below}, and the display panel (1) comprises:
a substrate (100) {¶0052}, and
first dummy pixels (DP) and regular pixels (P) located at a same side of the substrate (100) {¶0054, 0069};
wherein at least a part of the first dummy pixels (DP) overlaps with the electrode contact region (DMA) in a direction perpendicular to the substrate (100) {Fig. 3};
wherein the regular pixels (P) are located in the display region (DA) and comprise first-color pixels (P), and the first-color pixels (P) each comprise a first light-emitting material layer (520) {¶0081};
wherein in a direction parallel to the substrate (100), the first dummy pixels (DP) are discontinuous with the first light-emitting material layer (520) {Fig. 3}, and
wherein each of the regular sub-pixels (P) comprises a first electrode (portion of 530 directly above 520), the first electrodes (portion of 530 directly above 520) of the regular sub-pixels (P) are connected to each other to form an electrode layer (530), and the electrode layer (530) extends from the display region (DA) to the non-display region (NDA2) {¶0079}.
Park does not expressly teach in the embodiment discussed above the pixels are sub-pixels.
Kimura teaches in paragraph [0120] that a minimum unit of independent operation for a light-emitting device may be either a pixel or a sub-pixel. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park’s display apparatus based on the teachings of Kimura – such that Park’s pixel is replaced by a sub-pixel as a minimum unit of independent operation – because the substitution of one known element (e.g., a sub-pixel unit of independent operation) for another (e.g., a pixel unit of independent operation) to yield a predictable result (i.e., a light-emitting unit of independent operation) would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(B). Moreover, [t]he selection of a known [device] … based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Park as modified by Kimura above does not teach the first dummy sub-pixels comprise a same material as the first light-emitting material layer.
However, Park further teaches in paragraph [0090] in the dummy pixel DP … an organic pattern 520D corresponding to the emission layer 520 of the pixel P. The American Heritage College Dictionary, fourth edition, defines “correspond” as “similar or equivalent in character, … origin, … [or] structure.” Thus, Park teaches the dummy pixel (DP) and the first light-emitting material are similar or equivalent in character, … origin, … [or] structure. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park’s display panel as modified by Kimura based on the teachings of Park – such that the first dummy pixels comprise a same material as the first light-emitting material layer – so: (1) as to reduce the manufacturing resources (e.g., processes, materials, time, etc.) for producing the display panel and (2) deterioration of an emission uniformity of pixels … neighboring the through portion … may be prevented or reduced {Park ¶0138}. Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., dummy sub-pixels, material, light-emitting material layer) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Park) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known [structure] … based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Park as modified by Kimura above does not teach the electrode layer is in electrical contact with a contact metal layer in the electrode contact region.
However, Park further teaches in an embodiment illustrated by Figs. 5 and 6 and disclosed in paragraph [0102] an electrode layer (530) is in electrical contact with a contact metal layer (510D) in the electrode contact region (DMA). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park’s display panel of Fig. 4 as modified by Kimura based on the further teachings of Park – such that Park’s electrode layer is in electrical contact with a contact metal layer in the electrode contact region – so: (1) as to reduce capacitive influences of the electrodes (e.g., 510D) on the regular sub-pixels by connecting them directly to a voltage carrying electrode and (2) deterioration of an emission uniformity of pixels … may be prevented or reduced {Park ¶0138}. Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., electrode layer, contact metal layer, electrode contact region) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Park) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known [structure] … based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
PNG
media_image1.png
651
665
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 24, Park as modified by Kimura teaches the display panel according to claim 1, and Park further teaches in Figs. 1 and 2 wherein at least a part of an edge (edge between DA and NDA2) of the display region (DA) has an arc shape.
Regarding claim 25, Park as modified by Kimura teaches the display panel according to claim 1, and Park further teaches in Figs. 1 and 2 wherein the display region (DA) has a circular or elliptical shape {DA surrounds NDA2 in a circular or elliptical shape).
Regarding claim 26, Park as modified by Kimura teaches the display panel according to claim 1, and Park further teaches in Fig. 3 wherein the display panel further includes an encapsulation region (region of 410 and/or 430) located at a side of the electrode contact region (DMA) away from the display region (DA) {encapsulation (410 and/or 430) is disposed at a side of the electrode contact region (DMA) away from the display region (DA)}.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 DAVID WARD whose telephone number is (703)756-1382. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30-3:30 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Landau can be reached at (571)-272-1731. 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.
/D.W.W./Examiner, Art Unit 2891
/MATTHEW C LANDAU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2891