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 amendment filed by the Applicant on 4/22/26 is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 1 ,2, 4 ,5 ,8 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (CN 111129103 A, cited previously) in view of Shen (CN 109061934 A, cited previously)
Regarding claim 1, Chang teaches a display panel (Fig.1 and 2) comprising
PNG
media_image1.png
338
555
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a first display area, which is a light-transmitting display area, the first display area comprising: a first central sub-area AA1 centered on a center of the first display area; and a first edge sub-area TA being a semi-annular area surrounding the first central sub-area; a substrate (10,20); a pixel definition layer 40 disposed on the substrate and including a plurality of sub-pixels (on two sides of 40 in at least Fig.5) arranged in columns along a column direction of the display panel; a plurality of first spacers (separation column/spacers 51,52,53, in Fig. 2,5 and 6) disposed on a side of the pixel definition layer facing away from the substrate and positioned in the first central sub-area and the first edge sub-area, wherein each of the first spacers is disposed between two adjacent sub-pixels in a same column.
Chang does not teach: a first edge sub-area TA being an annular area surrounding the first central sub-area.
However, using a semi-annular shape or an annular shape are some of the many well-known shapes in the art, for the configurations of edge areas.
Shen teaches a first edge sub-area TA being an annular area surrounding the first central sub-area (A1, A2 in Fig.3) and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use shape as disclosed in Shen, in the device of Chang in order to achieve easier design and manufacturing.
Regarding claim 2, Chang in view of Shen teaches a display panel, further comprising: a cover plate disposed on a side of the plurality of first spacers facing away from the substrate (80 in Fig.2 of Chang).
Regarding claim 4, Chang in view of Shen, teaches a display panel, wherein, along the direction from center to edge of the first display area, a width from a center of the first central sub-area to an edge of the first central sub-area is the same as a width from a first edge of the first edge sub-area to a second edge of the first edge sub-area (embodiment of Fig. 4 of Chang, as it is a matter of design to adjust the width of the central and surrounding sub-areas)
Regarding claim 5, Chang in view of Shen, teaches a display panel, wherein ( - -an area of an orthographic projection of a first spacer in the first central sub-area on the substrate is greater than an area of an orthographic projection of a first spacer in the first edge sub-area - -) or a number of first spacers 53 per unit area in the first central sub-area is greater than a number of first spacers 51 per unit area in the first edge sub-area (Fig.4 of Chang).
Regarding claim 8, Chang in view of Shen teaches the display panel, wherein the plurality of first spacers further comprises: an annular spacer centered on the center of the first display area (see in Shen: the support column 40 the first base plate 10 of the orthographic projection of the shape is round, elliptic, square or strip of any one kind of or more).
Regarding claim 15, Chang in view of Shen (in Chang) teaches a second display area AA2 adjoining the first display area (AA1 and TA), a light transmittance of the second display area being less than a light transmittance of the first display area; a plurality of second spacers 53 positioned in the second display area; wherein a proportion of a total area of orthographic projections of the plurality of first spacers on the substrate to an area of the first display area is a first proportion, a proportion of a total area of orthographic projections of the plurality of second spacers on the substrate to an area of the second display area is a second proportion, and the first proportion is less than the second proportion (AA2 is the second display area and TA with AA1 is the first display area; claim 5 of Chang wherein the spacing between the spacers of TA and AA2 are analogous, Note: instant Fig.2 is relied upon in the rejection, as the spacings of the spacers is analogous).
Regarding claim 16, Chang in view of Shen teaches the display panel, wherein the proportion of the total area of orthographic projections of the plurality of second spacers on the substrate to the area of the second display area is from 11% to 25% (second column AA2, that is analogous to spacing between spacers in TA, and claim of 5 Chang).
Regarding claims 17 and 18,Chang in view of Shen teaches the display panel, wherein the second display area further comprises a second central sub-area and a second edge sub-area on at least a part of an outer circumference of the second central sub-area (see [0022],[0027]-[0034] in Chang and description of second spacers 52 throughout Chang) but does not teach a proportion of a total area of orthographic projections of second spacers in the second central sub-area on the substrate to an area of the second central sub-area is greater than a proportion of a total area of orthographic projections of second spacers in the second edge sub-area on the substrate to an area of the second edge sub-area (for claim 17) and wherein the second display area further comprises: a second central sub-area and a second edge sub-area on at least a part of an outer circumference of the second central sub-area, and a proportion of a total area of orthographic projections of the plurality of second spacers in the second central sub-area on the substrate to an area of the second edge sub- area is greater than a proportion of a total area of orthographic projections of the plurality of first spacers in the first edge sub-area on the substrate to an area of the first edge sub-area (for claim 18).
However, since the variation of spacing and size of the support columns are already disclosed for the first display region in Chang in view of Shen, therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use an analogous variation for the support columns for the second display region as claimed, in the device of Chang in view of Shen in order to optimize the integral strength of the display panel (Abstract of Chang; [0025]).
Regarding claim 19, Chang in view of Shen teaches the display apparatus comprising the display panel (Title of Chang).
Regarding claim 20, Chang in view of Shen teaches the display apparatus; wherein a side of at least one first spacer 51 (in Chang) of the plurality of first spacers faces away from the substrate and a side of at least one second spacer 52 of the plurality of second spacers faces away from the substrate is flush in a thickness direction of the display panel.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Shen and further in view of Kobayashi (US 20130162939 A1, cited previously)
Regarding claim 7, Chang in view of Shen teaches the invention set forth in claim 1 above, but is silent regarding a proportion of a total area of orthographic projections of the plurality of first spacers in the first edge sub-area on the substrate to an area of the first edge sub-area is from 5% to 10%.
Kobayashi teaches the total area of orthographic projections of the plurality of first spacers in the first edge sub-area on the substrate to an area of the first edge sub-area, as a result effective variable, with various values listed in the Table in Fig.7, wherein the values 5-10% are also listed in the Table (also see [0068] in Kobayashi).
And it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the ratio, as disclosed in Kobayashi, in the device of Chang in view of Shen in order to suppress the deformation caused by stress ([0066] in Kobayashi).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (CN 111129103 A) in view of Shen (CN 109061934 A, cited previously) and further in view of Zhou (CN 111244112 A)
Regarding claim 10, Chang in view of Shen teaches the invention set forth in claim 8 above, but is silent regarding a display panel, wherein the annular spacer is positioned in the first edge sub-area (edge spacers in Park).
Zhou teaches the annular spacer (preferably column spacer 41 is ring-shaped) is positioned in the edge areas and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the shape, as disclosed in Zhou, in the device of Chang in view of Shen in order to provide extra support to the spacers.
Regarding claim 11, Chang in view of Shen and Zhou teaches the display panel, wherein the plurality of first spacers further comprises: a column-shaped spacer positioned in the first central sub-area (from the teachings of Chang and Shen).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Shen and further in view of Iguchi (JP 2001092121 A, cited previously)
Regarding claim 13, Chang in view of Shen teaches the invention set forth in claim 1 above, but is silent regarding a material of the rigid bars or the rigid particles is at least one of silicon, titanium, steel, and a fiber-reinforced composite material.
Iguchi teaches:
The above-mentioned titanium oxide-based fine particles and the like also function as a filler component, and can improve the shape retention and the strength of the partition walls in the firing step
And it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the material, as disclosed in Iguchi, in the device of Chang in view of Shen in order to add strength to the wall.
Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (CN 111129103 A) in view of Shen (CN 109061934 A, cited previously) and further in view of Park (US 20190064572 A1, cited previously) and Gao (US 20210043867 A1, cited previously)
Regarding claim 22, Chang in view of Shen does not teach the plurality of first spacers positioned in the first central sub-area and the first edge sub-area, wherein a proportion of a total area of orthographic projections of the plurality of first spacers in the first central sub-area on the substrate to an area of the first central sub-area is greater than a proportion of a total area of orthographic projections of the plurality of first spacers in the first edge sub-area on the substrate to an area of the first edge sub-area.
Park teaches a display area wherein Park discloses (also see [0037], [0039] and [0038] of Park):
[0008] In an exemplary embodiment, a ratio of the arrangement density (wherein the density refers to the area occupied by the spacers with respect to the total area of the central position) of the spacers at a central position of the curved display panel to the arrangement density (wherein the density refers to the area occupied by the spacers with respect to the total area of the edge regions) of the spacers at either side of the non-curved edges of the curved display panel is greater than 1 and equal to or less than 3.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the density ratios as disclosed in Park, in the device Chang in view of Shen in order to provide strength to the device disposed between the top and bottom substrates.
Chang in view of Shen and Park does not teach: the plurality of first spacers in the first edge sub-area are doped with at least one of rigid bars and rigid particles.
Gao teaches a display panel wherein a plurality of spacers are doped with at least one of rigid bars and rigid particles ([0009]- [0010] and throughout Gao as supporting particles).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the supporting particles as disclosed in Gao, in the device of Chang in view of Shen and Park in order to provide extra support to the spacers.
Regarding claim 23, Chang in view of Shen, Park and Gao the display panel, wherein the pixel definition layer 40 (Fig.6 of Chang) comprises a non-opening area and a plurality of pixel openings, the plurality of first spacers 51 are disposed on the non-opening area, and organic light-emitting structures of the sub-pixels are disposed in the pixel openings, and wherein each of the sub-pixels further comprises a first electrode 3111 located on a side of the organic light-emitting structure 3112 of the sub-pixel facing the substrate and a second electrode 3113 located on a side of the organic light-emitting structure of the sub- pixel away from the substrate (Fig.5 of Chang).
Other art
Cited Previously: For claim 7: US 20250244320 A1 and filling factor of 1-5%
Response to Arguments
The arguments filed by the Applicant on 4/22/26 is acknowledged. However, they are moot in light of new grounds of rejection for the amended claims.
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 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fatima Farokhrooz whose telephone number is (571)-272-6043. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday, 9 am - 5 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s Supervisor, James Greece can be reached on (571) 272-3711.
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.
/Fatima N Farokhrooz/
Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Other art
Cited Previously: For claim 7: US 20250244320 A1 and filling factor of 1-5%
Response to Arguments
The arguments filed by the Applicant on 4/22/26 is acknowledged. However, they are moot in light of new grounds of rejection for the amended claims.
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 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fatima Farokhrooz whose telephone number is (571)-272-6043. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday, 9 am - 5 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s Supervisor, James Greece can be reached on (571) 272-3711.
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.
/Fatima N Farokhrooz/
Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights