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
Acknowledgment is made of the amendment filed 03/03/2026, in which: claims 1 and 7 are amended; claims 3-4 are cancelled; claims 17 and 19 stand withdrawn; and the rejection of the claims are traversed. Claims 1-2, 5-16, 18, and 20 are currently pending an Office action on the merits as follows.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 5-6, 14-15, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cho et al. (US Publication 20210036073).
Regarding independent claim 1, Cho teaches a display panel (fig. 2, 1) comprising a substrate (fig. 3, 101), wherein a display area (fig. 2, DA) of the display panel comprises a plurality of sub-pixel regions (SP1, SP2, SP3), each sub-pixel of the plurality of sub-pixel regions comprises a first pixel electrode (fig. 4, 130) on the substrate and a second pixel electrode (150) on a side of the first pixel electrode facing away the substrate,
wherein the display panel further comprises an auxiliary electrode connection region (fig. 2, CP), the auxiliary electrode connection region comprises an auxiliary electrode (fig. 9, 123) and an electrode connection structure (135 and 165_1) on the substrate, the second pixel electrode is connected to the auxiliary electrode via the electrode connection structure (fig. 9), and an orthogonal projection of the auxiliary electrode connection region on the substrate has no overlap with orthogonal projections of the plurality of sub-pixel regions on the substrate (fig. 2, PX and CP do not overlap),
wherein the electrode connection structure comprises a first connection electrode (135) on the auxiliary electrode, a second connection electrode (165b) on a side of the first connection electrode facing away the substrate, and a third connection electrode (165a) between the first connection electrode and the second connection electrode,
wherein the third connection electrode comprises an upper surface (top surface of 165a below 165b) contacting the second connection electrode, a lower surface (bottom surface of 165a above 135) contacting the first connection electrode and opposite to the upper surface, and a vertical section (see figure below) perpendicular to the upper surface or the lower surface, the vertical section comprises a top edge (see figure below) in the upper surface and a bottom edge (see figure below) in the lower surface,
wherein an area of an orthogonal projection of the bottom edge on the substrate is greater than an area of an orthogonal projection of the top edge on the substrate (paragraph 0207, see also figure below), and a boundary of the orthogonal projection of the top edge on the substrate is completely within a boundary of the orthogonal projection of the bottom edge on the substrate (see figure below),
PNG
media_image1.png
457
780
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the vertical section comprises a side edge (see figure below) connecting the top edge to the bottom edge, the side edge intersects the lower surface at an intersecting point (see figure below) in the lower surface, wherein a connection line from any point on the side edge to the intersecting point forms an angle (see figure below) with the lower surface, an opening of the angle faces the third connection electrode (see figure below), wherein the angle is greater than or equal to 45 degrees and smaller than or equal to 70 degrees (paragraph 0196, "first tapered angle e1 between the side surface of the conductive partition wall 165 and the upper surface of the auxiliary electrode 135 may range from about 95° to about 150°” in reference to the reverse-tapered shape of the vertical cross section of 165 as shown in fig. 8, but when reversed the tapered angle has a range from 30°- 85°, in which 85 is greater than or equal to 45 and 30 is smaller than or equal to 70).
Regarding dependent claim 2, Cho further teaches the display panel according to claim 1, wherein an orthogonal projection of the first connection electrode on the substrate covers an orthogonal projection of the second connection electrode on the substrate (fig. 9, orthogonal projection of 135 partially covers orthogonal projection of 165b), an orthogonal projection of the third connection electrode on the substrate does not exceed the orthogonal projection of the second connection electrode on the substrate (fig. 9, length of 165b greater than 165a therefore orthogonal projection of third connection electrode does not exceed orthogonal projection of second connection electrode).
Regarding dependent claim 5, Cho further teaches the display panel according to claim 1, wherein the display panel further comprises a pixel definition layer (fig. 4, 161) on the substrate, the display area is divided into the plurality of sub-pixel regions (SP1, SP2, and SP3) by the pixel definition layer (paragraph 0126), the second pixel electrode extends beyond the pixel definition layer to contact at least one of the first connection electrode and the third connection electrode (fig. 9), the first pixel electrode and the electrode connection structure are isolated from each other by the pixel definition layer (paragraph 0117, “light emitting areas and the non-light emitting areas may be distinguished by the pixel defining layer 161”, see also fig. 12).
PNG
media_image2.png
395
474
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding dependent claim 6, Cho further teaches the display panel according to claim 5, wherein an orthogonal projection of the second connection electrode on the substrate covers an orthogonal projection of the third connection electrode on the substrate (fig. 9, orthogonal projection of 165b covers orthogonal projection of 165a), such that the first connection electrode, the second connection electrode and the third connection electrode form a cavity (see figure below) having an opening, wherein the opening faces the pixel definition layer (fig. 18, cavity faces 161), the second pixel electrode extends into the cavity through the opening and contacts the first connection electrode and the third connection electrode (fig. 9, 150 contacts 165b and 135 in cavity).
PNG
media_image3.png
321
471
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding dependent claim 14, Cho further teaches the display panel according to claim 1, wherein the display panel further comprises a pixel driving circuit configured to drive the plurality of sub-pixel regions to emit light (paragraph 0058), the pixel driving circuit comprises a transistor (see figure below), wherein the auxiliary electrode and a drain or a source of the transistor are at a same layer (fig. 12, 123 and 120 at a same layer) and comprise a same material (paragraphs 0072 and 0075).
Regarding dependent claim 15, Cho further teaches the display panel according to claim 1, wherein respective second pixel electrodes in the plurality of sub-pixel regions are connected with each other to form an integral structure (fig. 4, second pixel electrode 150 forms integral structure).
Regarding dependent claim 18, Cho further teaches the display panel according to claim 1, wherein the display area comprises a plurality of display units (fig. 2, PX), each display unit comprises at least three sub-pixel regions of the plurality of the sub-pixel regions (fig. 2, SP1, SP2, and SP3 make up PX), wherein the display panel comprises a plurality of auxiliary electrode connection regions (CP) comprising the auxiliary electrode connection region, wherein at least some of the plurality of auxiliary electrode connection regions are located between adjacent pixel units of the plurality of pixel units (fig. 2).
Regarding dependent claim 20, Cho further teaches a display device, comprising the display panel according to claim 1 (paragraph 0054).
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 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho in view of Kim et al. (US Publication 20180190935).
PNG
media_image4.png
411
647
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding dependent claim 7, Cho further teaches the display panel according to claim 6, wherein the cavity comprises an upper wall, a lower wall and a side wall, wherein a portion of the second connection electrode extending towards the pixel definition layer and exceeding the third connection electrode electrode wall
Cho does not teach wherein a length of the upper wall along a horizontal direction parallel to a surface of the substrate is smaller than a length of the lower wall
PNG
media_image5.png
394
830
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Kim teaches wherein a length of the upper wall along a horizontal direction parallel to a surface of the substrate is smaller than a length of the lower wall
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the display device of Cho and the opening of Kim in order to "provide a space for electrically connecting the upper emission electrode 530 to the auxiliary electrode 410" (Kim paragraph 0079).
Regarding dependent claim 8, Cho in view of Kim teaches the display panel according to claim 7.
Cho in view of Kim does not teach wherein the length of the lower wall along the horizontal direction is 4 to 10 times of the length of the upper wall along the horizontal direction, however, Cho discloses the length of the lower wall to be significantly longer than the length of the upper wall (Cho fig. 2A, se also marked figure above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to obtain the length ratio between the lower and upper wall with routine experiment and optimization. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding dependent claim 9, Cho in view of Kim teaches the display panel according to claim 7.
Cho in view of Kim does not explicitly teach wherein a height of the third connection electrode in a second direction is 1.5 to 6 times of a height of the second pixel electrode in the second direction, the second direction is a vertical direction perpendicular to the horizontal direction, however, Kim discloses a height of the second third connection electrode to be significant taller than a height of the second pixel electrode (Cho fig. 2A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to obtain the height ratio between the third connection electrode and the second pixel electrode with routine experiment and optimization. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho in view of Lee et al. (US Publication 20170133620).
Regarding dependent claim 10, Cho teaches the display panel according to claim 1.
Cho does not teach the third connection electrode and the first pixel electrode are at a same layer and comprise a same material.
Lee teaches the third connection electrode (fig. 4, 212) and the first pixel electrode (202) are at a same layer and comprise a same material (paragraph 0107, “the second center auxiliary electrode 212 may be formed of the same material and the same thickness as those of the second center anode electrode 202”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the display device of Cho and the third connection electrode material of Lee in order to form the second auxiliary electrode and the second anode at the same time (Lee paragraph 0107).
Regarding dependent claim 11, Lee further teaches the display panel according to claim 10, wherein each of the third connection electrode and the first pixel electrode comprises a light reflective material (paragraph 0100, “second center anode electrode 202 is made of a material having a resistance lower than that of the second lower anode electrode 201 and the second upper anode electrode 203 and a reflectance more excellent than that of them, and may be, for example, made of, but not limited to, Ag”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the display device of Cho and the material of Lee per the reason(s) stated above in claim 10.
Regarding dependent claim 12, Cho in view of Lee teaches the display panel according to claim 11.
Cho in view of Lee does not explicitly teach wherein the light reflective material comprises aluminum alloy, however, Lee discloses “second center anode electrode 202 is made of a material having a resistance lower than that of the second lower anode electrode 201 and the second upper anode electrode 203 and a reflectance more excellent than that of them” (paragraph 0100).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a light reflective material comprising of an aluminum alloy, since it has been held to be within the general skill of worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design variation and choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding dependent claim 13, Cho teaches the display panel according to claim 5.
Cho does not teach wherein the sub-pixel region further comprises a first conductive sub-layer and a second conductive sub-layer, the second conductive sub-layer is between the first pixel electrode and the second pixel electrode, the first conductive sub-layer is on a side of the first pixel electrode facing the substrate, wherein the first conductive sub-layer and the first connection electrode are at a same layer and comprise a same material, the second conductive sub-layer and the second connection electrode are at a same layer and comprise a same material, wherein the first conductive sub-layer and the second conductive sub-layer are isolated from the electrode connection structure by the pixel definition layer.
Lee teaches wherein the sub-pixel region further comprises a first conductive sub-layer (fig. 4, 201) and a second conductive sub-layer (203), the second conductive sub-layer is between the first pixel electrode (202) and the second pixel electrode (250), the first conductive sub-layer is on a side of the first pixel electrode facing the substrate (fig. 4), wherein the first conductive sub-layer and the first connection electrode (211) are at a same layer and comprise a same material (paragraph 0107, “the second lower auxiliary electrode 211 may be formed of the same material and thickness as those of the second lower anode electrode 201”), the second conductive sub-layer and the second connection electrode (213) are at a same layer and comprise a same material (paragraph 0107, “second upper auxiliary electrode 213 may be formed of the same material and the same thickness as those of the second upper anode electrode 203”), wherein the first conductive sub-layer and the second conductive sub-layer are isolated from the electrode connection structure (210) by the pixel definition layer (220).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the display device of Cho and the conductive sub-layers of Lee in order to form the second auxiliary electrode and the second anode at the same time (Lee paragraph 0107).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho in view of Yoon et al. (US Publication 20210359047).
Regarding dependent claim 16, Cho teaches the display panel according to claim 14.
Cho does not teach wherein the display panel further a light shielding layer between the substrate and the pixel driving circuit, an orthogonal projection of the light shielding layer on the substrate covers an orthogonal projection of an active layer of the transistor on the substrate.
Yoon teaches wherein the display panel further a light shielding layer (fig. 8, BML) between the substrate (100) and the pixel driving circuit (PCm), an orthogonal projection of the light shielding layer on the substrate covers an orthogonal projection of an active layer of the transistor on the substrate (fig. 8, orthogonal projection of BML covers orthogonal projection of A1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the display panel of Cho and the light shielding layer of in order to “block external light reaching the auxiliary thin film transistor TFTa” (Yoon paragraph 0074).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9, filed 03/03/2026, with respect to the specification, claim objections, and 112(b) rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections and 112(b) rejection of 12/03/2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed 03/03/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 11 of the instant Remarks: “Figure 9 shows that the cross-section of the first metal layer 165a has a normal trapezoidal shape. However, Figure 9 does not disclose "the angle is greater than or equal to 45 degrees and smaller than or equal to 70 degrees". Nor can it be considered that the base angle of the normal trapezoidal shape in Figure 9 is 30 to 85 degrees based on the first taper angle el in the embodiment of Figure 8, because Figure 9 and Figure 8 are two distinct parallel embodiments, and Cho does not give any angle information regarding the cross-sectional shape of the first metal layer 165a of Figure 9.”
However, Cho in fact gives angle information regarding the cross-sectional shape of the first metal layer of 165a in figure 9, where the angle clearly appears to be acute. As stated above, based off the angle range given in paragraph 0196 of Cho, in reference to the reverse-tapered shape of the vertical cross section of 165 as shown in fig. 8, the tapered angle can have a range from 30°- 85° when the shape is reversed, in which 85 is greater than or equal to 45 and 30 is smaller than or equal to 70. Cho also discloses the “width of an upper surface of the first metal layer 165a may be smaller than that of a lower surface thereof” (paragraph 0207), and when connected with the side surface the angle formed is acute, giving more information regarding the angle. Therefore, claim 1 is not patentable. In addition, the recent response to the Office action does not distinctly specify, provide evidence, and/or support from the originally filed specification, indicating such angle(s) is critical. Alternatively, where the general conditions of a claims are disclosed/taught in the prior art, the claimed range does not appear inventive but rather discovery of optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 including In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233d 235 (CCPA 1955), Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382, and the like. The applicant should show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. At this time, it is unclear that the claimed angles and its range provide criticality and unexpected results compared to what were taught by the cited and relevant prior art of record, as discussed above.
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 GRACE Y CHA whose telephone number is (703)756-5393. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm and every other Friday 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Jacob Choi can be reached at (469) 295-9060. 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.
/GRACE CHA/Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/JACOB Y CHOI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights