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 .
The amendments filed on 12/17/2025 have been fully considered and made of record in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
This action is made final.
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)(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, 2, and 13-16, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Zhao et al . (US2023/0247866).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
With respect to Claims 1 and 15, Zhao teaches a base 10 and a pixel definition
layer 10 arranged on a side of the base 101, wherein the pixel definition layer comprise a first definition layer 20 and a second definition layer 10. The first definition layer 20 and the second definition layer 10 comprises a plurality of first definition structures arranged in an array. The second definition layer 10 comprises a plurality of second definition structures arranged at intervals in a first direction. A plurality of first definition structures 20 located between two adjacent second definition structures 10 are arranged at intervals in a second direction. An orthographic projection of a first definition structure 20 on the base 101 is separated from an orthographic projection of a second definition structure on the base 101. The second direction intersects the first direction (see paragraphs 104-117; Figs. 6b, 6c, and 7).
With respect to Claims 2 and 16, Zhao teaches a drive circuit layer 102 arranged on a side of the base close to the pixel definition layer 20. An anode layer 301 arranged on a side of the drive circuit layer close to the pixel definition layer. The drive circuit layer comprises a plurality of drive transistors 101A. The anode layer comprises a plurality of anodes 301 arranged in an array. An anode comprises a first portion configured to be connected in a lapped way with a drain electrode of a corresponding drive transistor through a via hole. A width of the first portion is smaller than a width of the first definition structure, the width refers to a dimensional feature in the first direction (see Figs. 3, 6b, 6c, and 7).
With respect to Claim 13, Zhao teaches in a plane parallel to the display substrate 101, a sectional shape of the second definition structure 10 is an elongated rectangle, or in a plane perpendicular to the base, a sectional shape of the second definition structure 10 is a trapezoid (see Figs. 6a, 6b, 7, and 13b).
With respect to Claim 14, Zhao teaches in a plane parallel to the display substrate, a sectional shape of the first definition structure is any one of a rectangle, a rectangle with a chamfered corner, and a notched rectangle (see Figs. 6a, 6b, 7, and 13b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al . (US2023/0247866).as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hou (US
2019/0305059).
With respect to Claim 11, Zhao discloses the claimed invention except for
a material of the first definition structure is a lyophilic material, and a material of the
second definition structure is a lyophobic material.
However, Hou discloses a material of the first definition structure is a lyophilic
material 002 and a material of the second definition structure is a lyophobic material 003
(see paragraphs 21, 48, and 49; Figs. 1-3). Thus, Zhao and Hou have substantially the
same environment of a plurality of PDL mounted on a substrate for a display device.
Therefore, one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention
would readily recognize incorporating a lyophilic and lyophobic material for the PDL of
Zhao, since the lyophilic and lyophobic materials would facilitate of surrounding the sub
pixels for a display device as taught by Hou.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 3-10, 12, and 17-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the
limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowance subject
matter: none of the prior art of record does not teaches or suggest the combination an organic light emitting layer 303 and a plurality of pixel opening areas, wherein the plurality of pixel opening areas are defined by the plurality of first definition structures and the plurality of second definition structures. At least a portion of the organic light emitting layer is located in a pixel opening area. The anode 301 further comprises a second portion located on a side of the first portion in a direction opposite the second direction. The second portion is configured to be connected with the organic light emitting layer. A width of the second portion is greater than the width of the first portion. There is an overlapping area between an orthographic projection of the second portion on the base and an orthographic projection of the second definition structure on the base in claim 3.
In a plane parallel to the display substrate, a shape of the anode is a notched rectangle in claim 10.
A thickness of the first definition structure is 0.1 microns to 1 micron, and a thickness of the second definition structure is 1 micron to 10 microns in claim 12.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is cited primarily to show the
product of the instant invention.
Conclusion
9. 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.
Any inquiry concerning the communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to Alonzo Chambliss whose telephone number is (571)
272-1927.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's
supervisor, Jacob Y. Choi can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the
Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system Status information for published
applications may be obtained from either Private PMR or Public PMR.
Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PMR
only. For more information about the PMR system see hittp://pair-dkect.uspto. gov.
Should you have questions on access to the Private PMR system contact the
Electronic Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
AC/March 10, 2026 /Alonzo Chambliss/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897