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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s remarks/amendments of claims 1-17 in the reply filed on November 17th, 2025 are acknowledged. Claims 1, 4-5, 7-11, 14 and 17 have been amended. Claims 3 and 20 have been cancelled. Claims 18-19 have been withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-2 and 4-19 are pending.
Action on merits of claims 1-2 and 4-17 as follows.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claims 1-2, 6, 14 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng (CN 111430438, hereinafter as Zeng ‘438) in view of Kim (US 2016/0190225, hereinafter as Kim ‘225).
Regarding Claim 1, Zeng ‘438 teaches a display panel, comprising: a driving backplane comprising a substrate (Fig. 2, (100); [0037]), a first electrode layer (101; [0037]) comprising a plurality of first electrodes spaced apart from each other;
a pixel definition layer (102; [0037]) exposing each of the plurality of anodes (101), wherein the pixel definition layer (102) is provided with at least one separation protrusion (108; [0037]) which protrudes along a direction away from the substrate, and an orthographic projection of the at least one separation protrusion on the planarization layer is located outside the anodes;
a conductive shielding layer (109; [0038]) arranged on a side of the planarization layer away from the substrate and insulated from the anodes (101), wherein an orthographic projection of the conductive shielding layer on the planarization layer is located outside the anodes (101);
a light emitting layer (110; [0037]) covering the pixel definition layer (102) and the anodes (101), wherein the light emitting layer (110) protrudes at the at least one separation protrusion (108), and the light emitting layer is electrically connected to the conductive shielding layer; and a cathode (107; [0037]) covering the light emitting layer (110).
Thus, Zeng ‘438 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “at least one wiring layer and a planarization layer, wherein the at least one wiring layer is arranged on a side of the substrate, and the planarization layer covers the at least one wiring layer; a first electrode layer arranged on a surface of the planarization layer away from the substrate; a pixel definition layer arranged on the surface of the planarization layer away from the substrate; wherein the conductive shielding layer is connected to the cathode”.
Kim ‘225 teaches at least one wiring layer (Fig. 2, (161); [0045]) and a planarization layer (150; [0045]), wherein the at least one wiring layer (161) is arranged on a side of the substrate (100; [0045]), and the planarization layer (150) covers the at least one wiring layer (161) (see Fig. 2); a first electrode layer (171; [0045]) arranged on a surface of the planarization layer (150) away from the substrate (100); a pixel definition layer (180; [0045]) arranged on the surface of the planarization layer (150) away from the substrate (100); wherein the conductive shielding layer (165; [0045], [0057]-[0058]) is connected to the cathode (172; [0045]). Examiner considers the auxiliary line (65) made of conductive material (e.g. Al; Ti, Cu..; [0057]-[0058]) 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 Zeng ‘438 by having at least one wiring layer and a planarization layer, wherein the at least one wiring layer is arranged on a side of the substrate, and the planarization layer covers the at least one wiring layer; a first electrode layer arranged on a surface of the planarization layer away from the substrate; a pixel definition layer arranged on the surface of the planarization layer away from the substrate; wherein the conductive shielding layer is connected to the cathode for the purpose of reducing the resistance of a second electrode and which may prevent corrosion and metal migration of a pad electrode without adding a separate mask process, or while reducing the number of mask processes (see para. [0018]) as suggested by Kim ‘225.
PNG
media_image1.png
200
588
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 (Zeng ‘438 )
PNG
media_image2.png
374
446
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 (Kim ‘225)
Regarding Claim 2, Zeng ‘438 teaches the conductive shielding layer (109) covers at least a partial region of the at least one separation protrusion (108), and the light emitting layer (110) covers the conductive shielding layer (109) and is in direct contact with the conductive shielding layer (see Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 4, Zeng ‘438 teaches at least one separation ring (108), and one of the at least one separation ring surrounds outside of one of the anodes; the conductive shielding layer (109) comprises at least one shielding ring, and at least partial region of one of the at least one protrusion is provided with one of the at least one shielding ring; and any one of the at least one separation ring (108) and a shielding ring (109) which covers the one of the at least one separation ring surrounds a same one of the anodes (see Figs. 3 and 4).
Zeng ‘438 and Kim ‘225 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “annular separation ring”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to have the annular separation ring on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. 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 annular separation ring when this allows a good flow with the other steps in the fabrication process.
PNG
media_image3.png
18
19
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5, Zeng ‘438 teaches the number of the at least one separation ring (108) is the same as the number of the anodes (101), and each of the anodes (101) is surrounded by one of the at least one separation ring (108), and at least partial region of each of the at least one separation ring (108) is covered by one of the at least one shielding ring (109) (see Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 6, Zeng ‘438 teaches the at least one separation ring (108) is connected to form an integral structure, and the at least one shielding ring (109) is connected to form an integral structure (see Figs. 2 and 4).
Regarding Claim 14, Kim ‘225 teaches the pixel definition layer (180; [0045]) has at least one extension portion, each of the at least one the extension portion is arranged on a surface of a corresponding one of the anodes (171; [0045]) away from the substrate (100; [0047]), and has an opening exposing the corresponding one of the anodes (171); wherein a surface of each of the at least one separation protrusion (180; see Fig.10F) away from the driving backplane is located on a side of the at least one extension portion away from the driving backplane (see Fig. 10F).
Regarding Claim 16, Zeng ‘438 teaches the light emitting layer comprises multiple light emitting sub-layers connected in series, and at least one of the multiple light emitting sub-layers is connected in series with an adjacent one of the light emitting sub-layers through a charge generation layer (403) (see Fig. 7; para. [0056], [0063] and [0065]).
Regarding Claim 17, Zeng ‘438 teaches the conductive shielding layer (209) covers a partial region of a surface of each of the at least one the separation (208) protrusion away from the substrate (see Fig. 6); the cathodes (207) protrudes in a region corresponding to the at least one separation protrusion to form a first protruding region (see Fig. 6); and a region of the first protruding region corresponding to the conductive shielding layer (209) protrudes in a direction away from the conductive shielding layer to form a second protruding region (see Fig. 6).
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng ‘438 and Kim ‘225, as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Yamazaki (US 2004/0004214, hereinafter as Yama ‘214).
Regarding Claim 7, Zeng ‘438 and Kim ‘225 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the at least one shielding ring is connected to the cathodes”.
Yama ‘214 teaches the at least one shielding ring (Fig. 1, (106); [0053]) is connected to the cathodes (107; [0053]).
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 Zeng ‘438 and Kim ‘225 by having the shielding ring is connected to the cathodes in order to improve the performance of the display device (see para. [0105]) as suggested by Yama ‘214.
Regarding Claim 8, Yama ‘214 teaches at least a part of the at least one shielding ring (106) is connected to the cathodes through at least one first via hole penetrating the light emitting layer (110), and an orthographic projection of the at least one first via hole on the planarization layer is located between two adjacent ones of the plurality of anodes (14; [0057]) (see Figs. 9D and 9E).
Regarding Claim 9, Kim ‘225 teaches a pixel region (AA; [0044]) and a peripheral region (PA; [0044]) located outside the pixel region; an orthographic projection of each of the plurality of anodes (171) on the driving backplane is located in the pixel region (see Fig. 2); the cathode (172) is connected to the at least one shielding ring (165) through the at least one connection body (see Fig. 2).
Zeng ‘438 teaches at least one connection body connected to the at least one shielding ring (see Fig. 4), and an orthographic projection of each of the at least one connection body on the driving backplane extends from the pixel region to the peripheral region (see Fig. 4); and
an orthographic projection of an edge of the cathode (107) on the driving backplane is located in the peripheral region (see Fig. 7);
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng ‘438 and Kim ‘225, as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Lin (US 2020/0343315, hereinafter as Lin ‘315).
Regarding Claim 10, Zeng ‘438 and Kim ‘225 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “a connection portion connected to the second electrode; and the at least one shielding ring is connected to the connection portion through a second via hole penetrating the planarization layer”.
Lin ‘315 teaches a connection portion connected to the cathodes (134; [0035]); and the at least one shielding ring (AE; [0031] and [0063]) is connected to the connection portion through a second via hole penetrating the planarization layer (128; [0032]) (see Fig. 14).
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 Zeng ‘438 and Kim ‘225 by having a connection portion connected to the cathodes; and the at least one shielding ring is connected to the connection portion through a second via hole penetrating the planarization layer in order to improve the brightness uniformity of the display devices (see para. [0002]) as suggested by Lin ‘315.
Regarding Claim 11, Lin ‘315 teaches the conductive shielding layer (AE) is arranged on the surface of the planarization layer (128) away from the substrate (110), and is spaced apart from the anodes (130; [0035]) (see Fig. 13).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng ‘438 and Kim ‘225, as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Im (US 2019/0097161, hereinafter as Im ‘161).
Regarding Claim 12, Zeng ‘438 teaches the conductive shielding layer (109).
Zeng ‘438 and Kim ‘225 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the conductive shielding layer comprises a first conductive layer, a second conductive layer and a third conductive layer which are sequentially stacked in a direction away from the substrate”.
Im ‘161 teaches the conductive shielding layer (Fig. 4A, (125); [0103]) comprises a first conductive layer (125a), a second conductive layer (125b) and a third conductive layer (125c) which are sequentially stacked in a direction away from the substrate (110). Examiner considers the auxiliary electrode (125) 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 Zeng ‘438 and Kim ‘225 by having the conductive shielding layer comprises a first conductive layer, a second conductive layer and a third conductive layer which are sequentially stacked in a direction away from the substrate in order to improve the reflectivity of the conductive shielding layer (see para. [0090]) as suggested by Im ‘161.
Regarding Claim 13, Im ‘161 teaches a material of the second conductive layer is metal aluminum (see para. [0090]) and materials of the first conductive layer and the third conductive layer are both metal titanium (see para. [0190]).
Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select materials of the first conductive layer and the third conductive layer are both metal titanium on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select metal titanium materials for the first conductive layer and the third conductive layer in order to improve the reflectivity of the conductive shielding layer.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng ‘438 and Kim ‘225, as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Nam (US 2017/0186831, hereinafter as Nam ‘831).
Regarding Claim 13, Zeng ‘438 teaches the pixel definition layer (102)
Zeng ‘438 and Kim ‘225 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “a groove between one of the at least one separation protrusion and an adjacent extension portion”.
Nam ‘831 teaches a groove between one of the at least one separation protrusion (145) and an adjacent extension portion (138; [0036]) (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 Zeng ‘438 and Kim ‘225 by having a groove between one of the at least one separation protrusion and an adjacent extension portion in order to improved production efficiency (see para. [0009]) as suggested by Nam ‘831.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2 and 4-17, filed on Nov 17th, 2025, have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
Interviews After Final
Applicants note that an interview after a final rejection is permitted in order to place the application in condition for allowance or to resolve issues prior to appeal. However, prior to the interview, the intended purpose and content of the interview should be presented briefly, preferably in writing. Upon review of the agenda, the Examiner may grant the interview if the examiner is convinced that disposal or clarification for appeal may be accomplished with only nominal further consideration. Interviews merely to restate arguments of record or to discuss new limitations will be denied. See MPEP § 714.13
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Dzung 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, 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