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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/20/2026 has been entered.
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s remarks/amendments of claims 1 and 28 in the reply filed on January, 20th, 2026, are acknowledged. Claims 1-2, 5 and 28 have been amended. Claims 6-8, 13-15 and 17-18 have been cancelled. Claims 21-27 have been withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-5, 9-12, 16 and 19-28 are pending.
Action on merits of claims 1-5, 9-12, 16, 19-20 and 28 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 1-4, 9-10, 16, 20 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nireki (JP 2015/050051, hereinafter as Nire ‘051) in view of Ko (US 2021/0057504, hereinafter as Ko ‘504) and further in view of Okuyama (JP 2014/078399, hereinafter as Okuy ‘399).
Regarding Claim 1, Nire ‘051 teaches a display panel, comprising:
a substrate (Fig. 2, (2); [0019]);
at least one wiring layer (16; [0019]), disposed at a side of the substrate (2);
a conductive shielding layer (4b; [0033]), disposed at the side of the substrate (2) same as the wiring layer, and insulated from the wiring layer;
a planar layer (17; [0019]), covering the wiring layer (16) and the conductive shielding layer (4b);
a first electrode layer (3; [0019]), disposed at a surface of the planar layer (17) away from the substrate (2), and the first electrodes distributed at intervals and connected to one of the wiring layer (16) through a first conductor (see Fig. 2) disposed in the planar layer (17);
a pixel definition layer (5; [0019]), covering the planar layer (17) and exposing respective first electrode (3);
a light-emitting layer (6; [0019]), covering the pixel definition layer (5) and the first electrode (3), and is connected to the conductive shielding layer (4b) through a second conductor (see Fig. 2) at least partially disposed in the planar layer, wherein an orthographic projection of the second conductor (4b) on the substrate is located outside an orthographic projection of the first electrode (3) on the substrate (2); and
a second electrode (7; [0019]), covering the light-emitting layer (6).
Thus, Nire ‘051 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “a plurality of first electrodes”.
Ko ‘504 teaches a plurality of first electrodes (Fig. 1 (190); [0052]).
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 Nire ‘051 by having a plurality of first electrodes for the purpose of improving a bonding property of the pixel electrode on the planarization layer (see para. [0071]) as suggested by Ko ‘504.
Nire ‘051 and Ko ‘504 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the second conductor comprises a first end electrically connected to the conductive shielding layer and a second end embedded in and electrically connected to the light-emitting layer”.
Okuy ‘399 teaches the second conductor (4 and 27; [0026] and [0031]) comprises a first end electrically connected to the conductive shielding layer (Fig. 2, (25); [0030]) and a second end (4; [0024]) embedded in and electrically connected to the light-emitting layer (8; [0026]). Examiner considers the wiring layer (25) is the conductive shielding layer.
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 Nire ‘051 and Ko ‘504 by having a first end electrically connected to the conductive shielding layer and a second end embedded in and electrically connected to the light-emitting layer in order to provide an organic EL device which can reduce the occurrence of electrical color mixing (crosstalk) (see para. [0005]) as suggested by Okuy ‘399.
Regarding Claim 28, Nire ‘051 teaches a display device, comprising the display panel, wherein the display panel comprises:
a substrate (Fig. 2, (2); [0019]);
at least one wiring layer (16; [0019]), disposed at a side of the substrate (2);
a conductive shielding layer (4b; [0033]), disposed at the side of the substrate (2) same as the wiring layer, and insulated from the wiring layer;
a planar layer (17; [0019]), covering the wiring layer (16) and the conductive shielding layer (4b);
a first electrode layer (3; [0019]), disposed at a surface of the planar layer (17) away from the substrate (2), and the first electrodes distributed at intervals and connected to one of the wiring layer (16) through a first conductor (see Fig. 2) disposed in the planar layer (17);
a pixel definition layer (5; [0019]), covering the planar layer (17) and exposing respective first electrode (3);
a light-emitting layer (6; [0019]), covering the pixel definition layer (5) and the first electrode (3), and is connected to the conductive shielding layer (4b) through a second conductor (see Fig. 2) at least partially disposed in the planar layer, wherein an orthographic projection of the second conductor (4b) on the substrate is located outside an orthographic projection of the first electrode (3) on the substrate (2); and a second electrode (7; [0019]), covering the light-emitting layer (6).
Nire ‘051 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “a plurality of first electrodes”.
Ko ‘504 teaches a plurality of first electrodes (Fig. 1 (190); [0052]).
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 Nire ‘051 by having a plurality of first electrodes for the purpose of improving a bonding property of the pixel electrode on the planarization layer (see para. [0071]) as suggested by Ko ‘504.
Nire ‘051 and Ko ‘504 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the second conductor comprises a first end electrically connected to the conductive shielding layer and a second end embedded in and electrically connected to the light-emitting layer”.
Okuy ‘399 teaches the second conductor (4 and 27; [0026] and [0031]) comprises a first end electrically connected to the conductive shielding layer (Fig. 2, (25); [0030]) and a second end (4; [0024]) embedded in and electrically connected to the light-emitting layer (8; [0026]). Examiner considers the wiring layer (25) is the conductive shielding layer.
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 Nire ‘051 and Ko ‘504 by having a first end electrically connected to the conductive shielding layer and a second end embedded in and electrically connected to the light-emitting layer in order to provide an organic EL device which can reduce the occurrence of electrical color mixing (crosstalk) (see para. [0005]) as suggested by Okuy ‘399.
PNG
media_image1.png
180
260
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 (Nire ‘051)
Regarding Claim 2, Nire ‘051 teaches the pixel definition layer (5) is provided with a separation groove (opening (10); [0019]) recessed toward the substrate (2), and an orthographic projection of the separation groove (10) on the substrate (2) is located outside the orthographic projection of the first electrode (3) on the substrate; and
the light-emitting the layer (6) is recessed at the separation groove (10); and
the second conductor (7) is penetrated into the separation groove (10) in a direction away from the substrate (2).
Regarding Claim 3, Nire ‘051 teaches the planar layer (17) is provided with a groove, and an orthographic projection of the groove on the substrate is located outside the orthographic projection of the first electrode (3) on the substrate; and the pixel definition layer (5) is extended to a sidewall and a bottom surface of the groove to form the separation groove (10) (see Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 4, Nire ‘051 teaches the pixel definition layer (5) is covered on a surface of the second conductor (7) away from the substrate (2), and the pixel definition layer (5) is intermittently disposed on the sidewall of the second conductor (7).
Regarding Claim 9, Nire ‘051 teaches in a direction perpendicular to the substrate (2), a length of a portion of the second conductor located in the groove is larger than a depth of the groove (10) (see Fig. 2).
Thus, Nire ‘051, Ko ‘504 and Okuy ‘399 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitation: “a length of a portion of the second conductor located in the groove is smaller than a depth of the groove”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a length of a portion of the second conductor located in the groove is smaller than a depth of the groove 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. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have a length of a portion of the second conductor located in the groove is smaller than a depth of the groove in order to improve the performance of the display device.
PNG
media_image2.png
18
19
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 10, Nire ‘051 teaches in a direction perpendicular to the substrate (2), a distance between a surface of the first conductor facing away from the substrate and a bottom surface of the groove is greater than the length of the portion of the second conductor located in the groove (see Fig. 2).
Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a distance between a surface of the first conductor facing away from the substrate and a bottom surface of the groove is greater than the length of the portion of the second conductor located in the groove 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. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have a distance between a surface of the first conductor facing away from the substrate and a bottom surface of the groove is greater than the length of the portion of the second conductor located in the groove in order to improve the performance of the display device.
Regarding Claim 16, Nire ‘051 teaches the conductive shielding layer (4b) is connected to the second electrode (7) (see Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 20, Nire ‘051, Ko ‘504 and Okuy ‘399 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the light-emitting layer is recessed to form a first recessed area in a region corresponding to the groove; and an area of a bottom surface of the first recessed area corresponding to the second conductor is protruded to form a first protruding area; and the second electrode is recessed to form a second recessed area in an area corresponding to the first recessed area; and an area of a bottom surface of the second recessed area corresponding to the first protruding area is protruded to form a second protruding area”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to have the light-emitting layer is recessed to form a first recessed area in a region corresponding to the groove; and an area of a bottom surface of the first recessed area corresponding to the second conductor is protruded to form a first protruding area; and the second electrode is recessed to form a second recessed area in an area corresponding to the first recessed area; and an area of a bottom surface of the second recessed area corresponding to the first protruding area is protruded to form a second protruding area on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See Fig. 1 of Zhou (CN113964174A) as evidence. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have the light-emitting layer is recessed to form a first recessed area in a region corresponding to the groove; and an area of a bottom surface of the first recessed area corresponding to the second conductor is protruded to form a first protruding area; and the second electrode is recessed to form a second recessed area in an area corresponding to the first recessed area; and an area of a bottom surface of the second recessed area corresponding to the first protruding area is protruded to form a second protruding area in order to improve the performance of the display device.
PNG
media_image2.png
18
19
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 5, 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nire ‘051, Ko ‘504 and Okuy ‘399 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Choi (US 2007/0170850, hereinafter as Choi ‘850).
Regarding Claim 5, Nire ‘051 teaches the light-emitting layer (6) is recessed at the groove; and the second conductor (7) is penetrated into the groove in a direction away from the substrate (2).
Thus, Nire ‘051, Ko ‘504 and Okuy ‘399 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the planar layer is provided with a groove, and an orthographic projection of the groove on the substrate is located outside the orthographic projection of the first electrode on the substrate; an orthographic projection of the pixel definition layer on the substrate is located outside the orthographic projection of the groove on the substrate”.
Choi ‘850 teaches the planar layer (Fig. 1, (160); [0054]) is provided with a groove, and an orthographic projection of the groove on the substrate (100; [0053]) is located outside the orthographic projection of the first electrode (170/171; [0056]) on the substrate (100); an orthographic projection of the pixel definition layer (180; [0056]) on the substrate (100) is located outside the orthographic projection of the groove on the substrate (see Fig. 1).
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 Nire ‘051, Ko ‘504 and Okuy ‘399 by having the planar layer is provided with a groove, and an orthographic projection of the groove on the substrate is located outside the orthographic projection of the first electrode on the substrate; an orthographic projection of the pixel definition layer on the substrate is located outside the orthographic projection of the groove on the substrate in order to improve the reliability of the OLED display device (see para. [0082]) as suggested by Choi ‘850.
Regarding Claim 11, Choi ‘850 teaches a bottom surface of the groove has an opening area and a peripheral area outside the opening area, the second conductor is passed through the opening area, and the peripheral area is protruded toward a side of the opening area facing away from the substrate (see Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 12, Choi ‘850 teaches in a direction perpendicular to the substrate, a height of the peripheral region protruding from the opening region is smaller than a height of a portion of the second conductor passing through over the planar layer (160) (see Fig. 1).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nire ‘051, Ko ‘504 and Okuy ‘399 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim (US 2017/0194388, hereinafter as Kim ‘388).
Regarding Claim 19, Nire ‘051, Ko ‘504 and Okuy ‘399 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the light-emitting layer comprises multiple layers of light-emitting sub-layers connected in series, and at least one of the light-emitting sub-layers is connected in series with an adjacent one of the light-emitting sub- layers through a charge generating layer”.
Kim ‘388 teaches the light-emitting layer comprises multiple layers of light-emitting sub-layers connected in series (Fig. 2, (110 and 130); [0046]), and at least one of the light-emitting sub-layers (110) is connected in series with an adjacent one of the light-emitting sub-layers (130) through a charge generating layer (120; [0046]).
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 Nire ‘051, Ko ‘504 and Okuy ‘399 by having multiple layers of light-emitting sub-layers connected in series, and at least one of the light-emitting sub-layers is connected in series with an adjacent one of the light-emitting sub- layers through a charge generating layer in order to provide an organic light emitting device of which color shift caused by variation of a viewing angle is reduced (see para. [0013]) ]) as suggested by Kim ‘388.
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:
Im et al. (US 2017/0170246 A1)
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
Prosecution Insights