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
This office action is in response to the Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed on 12/11/2025. Currently, claims 1, 3-4, 6-13 and 15-20 are pending in the application. Claims 2, 5 and 14 have been cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6, 11 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by LIU et al (CN 207883217 U). An English translation of LIU was attached with the previous office action.
Regarding claim 1, Figures 1-2 of LIU disclose a display panel, comprising:
a base layer (101);
a pixel defining layer (between 0111/0112 and between 0112/0113), which is on the base layer and formed with a plurality of openings (For 0111, 0112 and 0113);
red pixels (0112), green pixels (0111) and blue pixels (0113), which are on the base layer and each are corresponding to one of the plurality of opening; and
spacers (010), which are on the pixel defining layer and each are between the green pixel and the blue pixel adjacent to each other,
wherein the display panel comprises a plurality of spacer units, which are arranged periodically and each comprise several of the spacers, and any two adjacent ones of the plurality of spacer units do not overlap each other (please see the annotated Figure below and only one spacer unit is shown but more can be drawn in the whole device without overlapping each other, Figure 2B is a portion of a big display substrate wherein more spacers are located), wherein each of the plurality of spacer units (please see the annotated Figure below) comprises four spacers, the four spacers enclose in a diamond shape, two arranged diagonally ones of the four spacers are arranged along an extending direction of a first side of the display panel, and the other two spacers of the four spacers are arranged along an extending direction of a second side of the display panel, the first side is connected to the second side, and each of the four spacers is shared by adjacent spacer units (please see the annotated Figure 2D below).
PNG
media_image1.png
478
497
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Figures 1-2 of LIU disclose that the display panel according to claim 1, wherein each of the spacers has a rectangular cross-section, and comprises a first edge and a second edge opposite to the first edge, and in the green pixel and the blue pixel, which are adjacent to the spacer, a light emitting region of the green pixel comprises a third edge parallel and opposite to the first edge, and a light emitting region of the blue pixel comprises a fourth edge parallel and opposite to the second edge (please see the above annotated Figure, C1 is green pixel and C3 is blue pixel).
Regarding claim 11, Figures 1-2 of LIU disclose a display apparatus, comprising the display panel according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, Figures 1-2 of LIU disclose that the display apparatus according to claim 11, wherein each of the plurality of spacer units comprises four spacers, the four spacers enclose in a diamond shape, two arranged diagonally ones of the four spacers are arranged along an extending direction of a first side of the display panel, and the other two spacers of the four spacers are arranged along an extending direction of a second side of the display panel, and the first side is connected to the second side (please see the above annotated Figure).
Regarding claim 18, Figures 1-2 of LIU disclose that the display apparatus according to claim 11, wherein each of the spacers has a rectangular cross-section, and comprises a first edge and a second edge opposite to the first edge, and in the green pixel and the blue pixel, which are adjacent to the spacer, a light emitting region of the green pixel comprises a third edge parallel and opposite to the first edge, and a light emitting region of the blue pixel comprises a fourth edge parallel and opposite to the second edge (please see the above annotated Figure, C1 is green pixel and C3 is blue pixel).
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 3-4, 7-10, 12-13, 15-16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over LIU et al (CN 207883217 U).
Regarding claims 3-4, Figures 1-2 of LIU do not teach that the display panel according to claim 1, wherein a distance between any two spacers in each of the plurality of spacer units is in a range of 100 μm to 500 μm. Or
The display panel according to claim 3, wherein a ratio of a total cross-sectional area of the spacers to an area of an active area of the display panel is less than 0.5%.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to use the above claimed ranges in order to improve video quality and reduce cost (Page 1 of LIU). Further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claims 7-10, 12-13, 15-16 and 19-20, Figures 1-2 of LIU do not teach that the display panel according to claim 6, wherein a distance between the first edge and the third edge is equal to a distance between the second edge and the fourth edge. Or
The display panel according to claim 6, wherein a distance between the first edge and the third edge is greater than 4 micrometers. Or
The display panel according to claim 1, wherein a cross-sectional area of each of the spacers is less than 130 square micrometers. Or
The display panel according to claim 1, wherein each of the spacers has a cross-section in a shape of a rectangle, and a size of each side of the rectangle is less than 13 μm. Or
The display panel according to claim 6, wherein a distance between the second edge and the fourth edge is greater than 4 micrometers. Or
The display panel according to claim 6, wherein a distance between the second edge and the fourth edge is greater than 4 micrometers. Or
The display apparatus according to claim 11, wherein a distance between any two spacers in each of the plurality of spacer units is in a range of 100 μm to 500 μm. Or
The display apparatus according to claim 15, wherein a ratio of a total cross-sectional area of the spacers to an area of an active area of the display panel is less than 0.5%. or
The display apparatus according to claim 18, wherein a distance between the first edge and the third edge is equal to a distance between the second edge and the fourth edge. Or
The display apparatus according to claim 11, wherein a cross-sectional area of each of the spacers is less than 130 square micrometers.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to use the above claimed ranges in order to improve video quality and reduce cost (Page 1 of LIU). Further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s main argument regarding claim 1 includes: Figures 1-2 of LIU do not teach wherein each of the plurality of spacer units comprises four spacers, the four spacers enclose in a diamond shape, two arranged diagonally ones of the four spacers are arranged along an extending direction of a first side of the display panel, and the other two spacers of the four spacers are arranged along an extending direction of a second side of the display panel, the first side is connected to the second side, and each of the four spacers is shared by adjacent spacer units.
In response, the Examiner respectfully points out that rearranging the spacer units as shown in the annotated Figure 2D of LIU above teaches the limitation of “wherein each of the plurality of spacer units comprises four spacers, the four spacers enclose in a diamond shape, two arranged diagonally ones of the four spacers are arranged along an extending direction of a first side of the display panel, and the other two spacers of the four spacers are arranged along an extending direction of a second side of the display panel, the first side is connected to the second side, and each of the four spacers is shared by adjacent spacer units”.
However, by amending the claim 1 to recite that “each of the diamond shape including plurality of red pixels, green pixels and the blue pixels without any spacer among the pixels” would overcome the teaching of LIU.
Examiner Notes
A reference to specific paragraphs, columns, pages, or figures in a cited prior art reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or any specific examples. It is well settled that a prior art reference, in its entirety, must be considered for all that it expressly teaches and fairly suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, a prior art disclosure reading on a limitation of Applicant's claim cannot be ignored on the ground that other embodiments disclosed were instead cited. Therefore, the Examiner's citation to a specific portion of a single prior art reference is not intended to exclusively dictate, but rather, to demonstrate an exemplary disclosure commensurate with the specific limitations being addressed. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). In re: Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Merck& Co. v. BiocraftLabs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792,794 n.1, 215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHAJA AHMAD whose telephone number is (571)270-7991. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM (Eastern Time).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, GAUTHIER STEVEN B, can be reached on (571)270-0373. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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 .
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.
/KHAJA AHMAD/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2813