DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/30/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed Document has been viewed in this session 06/30/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Gregory et al (US 2013/0277649 A1).
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 1-5, 10-12 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Youn et al. (US 2020/0212148 A1; hereinafter “Youn”), and further in view of Wei et al. (US 11056544 B1; hereinafter “Wei”) and Gregory et al (US 2013/0277649 A1; hereinafter “Gregory”).
In regard to claim 1, Youn teaches a display panel (an organic light-emitting display device 100) (Fig. 3 and paragraph 40), comprising a displaying base plate having a substrate base plate (the first substrate 110 functions as a displaying base plate having a substrate base plate) (Fig. 3A and paragraph 49), and a pixel definition layer (the first, second and third bank layer 142, 144 and 146 respectively) disposed on one side of the substrate base plate (the first, second and third bank layer 142, 144 and 146 are disposed on the topside of the substrate 110 as shown in Fig. 3A) (Fig. 3A and paragraph 58), the pixel definition layer defining a plurality of sub-pixel openings (the first, second and third bank layer 142, 144 and 146 are used to define the pixels of the same and different colors) (Fig. 3A and paragraphs 41-42 and 58),
wherein the pixel definition layer comprises:
primary pixel blocking walls configured for separating sub-pixel openings that display different colors (the second bank layer 144 is formed in a boundary between pixels of different colors) (Fig. 3A and paragraph 59); and
a plurality of sub-pixel blocking walls that are separately disposed (the first bank layer 142 and third bank layer 146 function as the sub-pixel blocking walls as shown in Fig. 3A); wherein the sub-pixel blocking walls intersect with the primary pixel blocking walls (the first and third bank layers 142 and 146 are shown intersecting the second bank layer 144 in Fig. 5), and are configured for separating the sub-pixel openings that display same colors (the first and third bank layers 142 and 146 are shown between pixels of the same color in Fig. 3A),
wherein the plurality of sub-pixel blocking walls include first sub-pixel blocking walls and second sub-pixel blocking walls (the first and third bank layers 142 and 146 function as the first sub-pixel blocking walls and second sub-pixel blocking walls respectively), both of heights of the first sub-pixel blocking walls and heights of the second sub-pixel blocking walls are less than heights of the primary pixel blocking walls, and the first sub-pixel blocking walls and the second sub-pixel blocking walls have different heights and/or different materials (a height of the third bank layer 146 can be greater than that of the first bank layer 142 and less than that of the second bank layer 144) (Fig. 3A and paragraph 60).
However, Youn doesn’t explicitly teach wherein lyophilicities of the primary pixel blocking walls are greater than lyophilicities of the sub-pixel blocking walls, and lyophilicities of the first sub-pixel blocking walls are greater than lvophilicities of the second sub-pixel blocking walls,
wherein a liquid contact angle is an included angle between an edge of ink droplet formed by pixel liquid at a surface of material and a flat face of the material, wherein liquid contact angles of the second sub-blocking walls are greater than or equal to 38°, and less than or equal to 45°; and/or
the liquid contact angles of the second sub-pixel blocking walls are greater than or equal to 10°, and less than or equal to 38° ; and/or
liquid contact angles of the first sub-pixel blocking walls are greater than or equal to 0°, and less than or equal to 5°.
Wei teaches a display panel (a display panel 100) (Fig. 1 and [col. 3 lns. 52]), wherein lyophilicities of primary pixel blocking walls (hydrophilic third pixel defining layers 23) are greater than lyophilicities of the sub-pixel blocking walls (hydrophobic second pixel defining layers 22) (Fig. 1, Fig. 2 and [col. 5 lns. 50-54]), and lyophilicities of first sub-pixel blocking walls (hydrophilic first pixel defining layers 21) are greater than lvophilicities of the second sub-pixel blocking walls (hydrophobic second pixel defining layers 22) (Fig. 1, Fig. 2 and [col. 5 lns. 50-54]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Youn in view of Wei to have the primary pixel blocking walls are greater than lyophilicities of the sub-pixel blocking walls, and lyophilicities of the first sub-pixel blocking walls are greater than lyophilicities of the second sub-pixel blocking walls since this aids in uniformity of printing film formation as taught by Wei ([col. 5 lns. 17-27]). Further, Youn can contain hydrophilic and hydrophobic layers comparable to Wei and it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Gregory teaches a display panel (an organic electronic device) (Fig. 5A and paragraph 51), wherein a liquid contact angle is an included angle between an edge of ink droplet formed by pixel liquid at a surface of material and a flat face of the material (contact angle is conveyed as the angle the surface of the dissolved material makes with the (bank) material it contacts) (paragraph 19), wherein liquid contact angles of the second sub-blocking walls are greater than or equal to 38°, and less than or equal to 45°; and/or
the liquid contact angles of second sub-pixel blocking walls (bank layers 504) are greater than or equal to 10°, and less than or equal to 38° (the bank layer 504 is hydrophobic with a wetting angle of less than 30 degrees for the LEP solvent 512) (Fig. 5a and paragraphs 27 and 65); and/or
liquid contact angles of the first sub-pixel blocking walls are greater than or equal to 0°, and less than or equal to 5°.
It would’ve been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time to combine the teachings of Youn with the teachings of Gregory to have a liquid contact angle which is an angle between an edge of ink droplet formed by pixel liquid at a surface of material and a flat face of the material, have the liquid contact angles of the second sub-pixel blocking walls greater than or equal to 10°, and less than or equal to 38°, since this allows improved wetting of the LEP to the bank material as taught by Gregory (paragraph 27).
In regard to claim 2, Youn teaches wherein the heights of the first sub-pixel blocking walls are less than the heights of the second sub-pixel blocking walls (a height of the third bank layer 146 can be greater than that of the first bank layer 142 and less than that of the second bank layer 144) (Fig. 3A and paragraph 60).
In regard to claim 3, Youn teaches wherein at least one of the first subpixel blocking walls is separately disposed between two neighboring second sub-pixel blocking walls (the third bank layer 146 divides the organic light-emitting layer formed in each of the plurality of groups GR1, GR2, and GRn adjacent to each other, therefore the first banks in the second group GR2 would be between the third banks 146 in GR1 and GRn-1 as shown in Fig. 2) (Fig. 2 and paragraph 45).
In regard to claim 4, Youn teaches wherein the pixel definition layer further comprises third sub-pixel blocking walls (the second bank layers 144 at the far left and right ends of the substrate 110 function as the third sub-pixel blocking walls as shown in Fig. 5); and
the third sub-pixel blocking walls are disposed on a surface of one side of two first sub-pixel blocking walls on an outmost side of the substrate base plate that is away from the substrate base plate (the second bank layers 144 at the far left and right ends of the substrate 110 are on the top surface of the first bank 142 as shown in Fig. 5) (Fig. 5 and paragraph 89), and orthographic projections of second sub-blocking walls on the substrate base plate are located within an area of orthographic projections on the substrate base plate of two first sub-pixel blocking walls on the outmost side of the substrate base plate (the orthographic projections of the third banks 146 are shown within the orthographic projections of the first bank layers on the far left and right sides of the substrate 110 as shown in Fig. 5).
In regard to claim 5, Youn teaches wherein the third sub-pixel blocking walls and the primary pixel blocking walls have an equal height and a same material (the second bank layers 144 at the edges of the device and within the device would be made of the same material) (paragraph 97).
In regard to claim 10, Youn teaches The display panel according claim 1 , wherein neighboring sub-pixel openings that have different colors are arranged in a row direction, and neighboring sub-pixel openings that have same colors are arranged in a column direction (different colors of the pixels are shown in the row direction and similar colors are shown in the column direction in Fig. 5) (Fig. 5 and paragraph 98);
Youn doesn’t explicitly teach each of the sub-pixel openings comprises longer side edges, and the longer side edges extend in the column direction.
Wei teaches a display panel (a display panel 100) (Fig. 1 [col. 3 lns. 52]), wherein each of the sub-pixel openings comprises longer side edges, and the longer side edges extend in the column direction (a subpixel 30 can be rectangular, therefore as shown in Fig. 1 the long side of the subpixel 30 are shown in the column direction) (Fig. 1 [col. 4 lns. 54]).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Youn with the teachings of Wei to have each of the sub-pixel openings comprises longer side edges, and the longer side edges extend in the column direction since it would have been an obvious matter of design choice bounded by well-known manufacturing constraints and ascertainable by routine experimentation and optimization to choose these particular dimensions because applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension.
In regard to claim 11, Youn teaches the display panel according to claim 1. wherein the display panel further comprises an organic-material layer (an organic light-emitting layer 132) disposed inside each of the sub-pixel openings (the organic light-emitting layer 132 is shown over the pixels in Fig. 3A);
a surface of one side of the organic-material layer that is away from the substrate base plate is higher than a surface of one side of the first sub-pixel blocking walls that is away from the substrate base plate, and lower than a surface of one side of the primary pixel blocking walls that is away from the substrate base plate (the top portion of the organic light-emitting layer 132 is shown above the lower portion the second bank layer 144 within the central portion of the device and the bottom portion of the organic light-emitting layer 132 is shown below the upper portion the second bank layer 144 within the central portion of the device in Fig. 3A); and
the heights of the first sub-pixel blocking walls are less than the heights of the second sub-pixel blocking walls (a height of the third bank layer 146 can be greater than that of the first bank layer 142 and less than that of the second bank layer 144) (Fig. 3A and paragraph 60).
In regard to claim 12, Youn teaches a method for manufacturing a display panel (an organic light-emitting display device 100) (Fig. 3 and paragraph 40), the method comprising: providing a substrate base plate (the first substrate 110 functions as a displaying base plate) (Fig. 3A and paragraph 49); and
forming a pixel definition layer on one side of the substrate base plate (the first, second and third bank layer 142, 144 and 146 are disposed on the topside of the substrate 110 as shown in Fig. 3A) (Fig. 3A, Fig. 4 and paragraph 88), wherein the pixel definition layer is configured for defining a plurality of sub-pixel openings (the first, second and third bank layer 142, 144 and 146 are used to define the pixels of the same and different colors) (Fig. 3A and paragraphs 41-42 and 58),
wherein the pixel definition layer comprises: primary pixel blocking walls for separating subpixel openings of different colors (the second bank layer 144 is formed in a boundary between pixels of different colors) (Fig. 3A and paragraph 59); and
a plurality of sub-pixel blocking walls that are separately disposed (the first bank layer 142 and third bank layer 146 function as the sub-pixel blocking walls as shown in Fig. 3A); wherein the sub-pixel blocking walls intersect with the primary pixel blocking walls, and are configured for separating the sub-pixel openings of same colors (the first and third bank layers 142 and 146 are shown between pixels of the same color in Fig. 3A) (Fig. 3A and paragraphs 43 and 46),
wherein the plurality of sub-pixel blocking walls include first sub-pixel blocking walls and second sub-pixel blocking walls (the first and third bank layers 142 and 146 function as the first sub-pixel blocking walls and second sub-pixel blocking walls respectively), both of heights of the first sub-pixel blocking walls and heights of the second sub-pixel blocking walls are less than heights of the primary pixel blocking walls, and the first sub-pixel blocking walls and the second sub-pixel blocking walls have different heights and/or different materials (a height of the third bank layer 146 can be greater than that of the first bank layer 142 and less than that of the second bank layer 144) (Fig. 3A and paragraph 60).
However, Youn doesn’t explicitly teach wherein lyophilicities of the primary pixel blocking walls are greater than lyophilicities of the sub-pixel blocking walls, and lyophilicities of the first sub-pixel blocking walls are greater than lvophilicities of the second sub-pixel blocking walls,
wherein a liquid contact angle is an included angle between an edge of ink droplet formed by pixel liquid at a surface of material and a flat face of the material, wherein liquid contact angles of the second sub-blocking walls are greater than or equal to 38°, and less than or equal to 45°; and/or
the liquid contact angles of the second sub-pixel blocking walls are greater than or equal to 10°, and less than or equal to 38° ; and/or
liquid contact angles of the first sub-pixel blocking walls are greater than or equal to 0°, and less than or equal to 5°.
Wei teaches a method for manufacturing a display panel (a display panel 100) (Fig. 1 and [col. 3 lns. 52]), wherein lyophilicities of primary pixel blocking walls (hydrophilic third pixel defining layer 23) are greater than lyophilicities of the sub-pixel blocking walls (a hydrophobic second pixel defining layer 22) (Fig. 1, Fig. 2 and [col. 5 lns. 50-54]), and lyophilicities of first sub-pixel blocking walls (hydrophilic first pixel defining layer 21) are greater than lyophilicities of the second sub-pixel blocking walls (a hydrophobic second pixel defining layer 22) (Fig. 1, Fig. 2 and [col. 5 lns. 50-54]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Youn in view of Wei to have the primary pixel blocking walls are greater than lyophilicities of the sub-pixel blocking walls, and lyophilicities of the first sub-pixel blocking walls are greater than lyophilicities of the second sub-pixel blocking walls since this aids in uniformity of printing film formation as taught by Wei ([col. 5 lns. 17-27]). Further, Youn can contain hydrophilic and hydrophobic layers comparable to Wei and it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Gregory teaches a display panel (an organic electronic device) (Fig. 5A and paragraph 51), wherein a liquid contact angle is an included angle between an edge of ink droplet formed by pixel liquid at a surface of material and a flat face of the material (contact angle is conveyed as the angle the surface of the dissolved material makes with the (bank) material it contacts) (paragraph 19), wherein liquid contact angles of the second sub-blocking walls are greater than or equal to 38°, and less than or equal to 45°; and/or
the liquid contact angles of second sub-pixel blocking walls (bank layers 504) are greater than or equal to 10°, and less than or equal to 38° (the bank layer 504 is hydrophobic with a wetting angle of less than 30 degrees for the LEP solvent 512) (Fig. 5a and paragraphs 27 and 65); and/or
liquid contact angles of the first sub-pixel blocking walls are greater than or equal to 0°, and less than or equal to 5°.
It would’ve been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time to combine the teachings of Youn with the teachings of Gregory to have a liquid contact angle which is an angle between an edge of ink droplet formed by pixel liquid at a surface of material and a flat face of the material, have the liquid contact angles of the second sub-pixel blocking walls greater than or equal to 10°, and less than or equal to 38°, since this allows improved wetting of the LEP to the bank material as taught by Gregory (paragraph 27).
In regard to claim 15, Youn teaches a displaying device, wherein the displaying device comprises the display panel according to claim 1 (a flat panel display device could be used with the aforementioned organic light-emitting display device 100) (paragraph 3).
In regard to claim 16, Youn teaches wherein the heights of the first sub-pixel blocking walls are less than the heights of the second sub-pixel blocking walls (a height of the third bank layer 146 can be greater than that of the first bank layer 142 and less than that of the second bank layer 144) (Fig. 3A and paragraph 60), and/or lyophilicities of the first sub-pixel blocking walls is greater than lyophilicities of the second subpixel blocking walls.
In regard to claim 17, Youn teaches wherein at least one of the first sub-pixel blocking walls is separately disposed between two neighboring second sub-pixel blocking walls (the third bank layer 146 divides the organic light-emitting layer formed in each of the plurality of groups GR1, GR2, . . . , and GRn adjacent to each other, therefore the first banks in the second group GR2 would be between the third banks 146 in GR1 and GRn-1 as shown in Fig. 2) (Fig. 2 and paragraph 45).
In regard to claim 18, Youn teaches wherein the pixel definition layer further comprises third sub-pixel blocking walls (the second bank layers 144 at the far left and right ends of the substrate 110 function as the third sub-pixel blocking walls as shown in Fig. 5); and
the third sub-pixel blocking walls are disposed on a surface of one side of two first sub-pixel blocking walls on an outmost side of the substrate base plate that is away from the substrate base plate (the second bank layers 144 at the far left and right ends of the substrate 110 are on the top surface of the first bank 142 as shown in Fig. 5) (Fig. 5 and paragraph 89), and orthographic projections of second sub-blocking walls on the substrate base plate are located within an area of orthographic projections on the substrate base plate of two first sub-pixel blocking walls on the outmost side of the substrate base plate (the orthographic projections of the third banks 146 are shown within the orthographic projections of the first bank layers on the far left and right sides of the substrate 110 as shown in Fig. 5).
In regard to claim 19, Youn teaches wherein the third sub-pixel blocking walls and the primary pixel blocking walls have an equal height and a same material (the second bank layers 144 at the edges of the device and within the device would be made of the same material) (paragraph 97).
Claims 6-7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Youn in view of Wei and Gregory as applied to claim 1 or 15 above, and further in view of Cui et al. (CN 111463353 A; hereinafter “Cui”).
In regard to claim 6, Youn teaches the heights of the second sub-pixel blocking walls are less than the heights of the primary pixel blocking walls (the height of the third bank layer 146 can be greater than that of the first bank layer 142 and less than that of the second bank layer 144) (Fig. 3A and paragraph 60).
Youn in view of Wei and Gregory doesn’t explicitly teach the display panel according to claim 1, wherein the heights of the second sub-pixel blocking walls are greater than to 0.5 time the heights of the primary pixel blocking walls; and/or
the heights of the first sub-pixel blocking walls are greater than or equal to 0.1 time the heights of the primary pixel blocking walls, and less than or equal to 0.4 time the heights of the primary pixel blocking walls.
Cui teaches the display panel (a display substrate) (Fig. 2 and paragraph 48), wherein the heights of the second sub-pixel blocking walls are greater than or equal to 0.5 time the heights of the primary pixel blocking walls (the height d1 of the first pixel partition wall 21 which functions as the second sub-pixel blocking wall is 0.1 μm to 0.8 μm, and the height d2 of the second pixel partition wall 22 which functions as the primary pixel blocking wall is 0.9 μm to 1.5 μm) (Fig. 3, Fig. 4 and paragraph 84); and/or
the heights of the first sub-pixel blocking walls are greater than or equal to 0.1 time the heights of the primary pixel blocking walls, and less than or equal to 0.4 time the heights of the primary pixel blocking walls (as shown above there exist a height where d1 is greater than 0.1*d2 and less than 0.4*d2) (Fig. 3, Fig. 4 and paragraph 84).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Youn in view of Wei and Gregory with the teachings of Cui to have the heights of the second sub-pixel blocking walls are greater than or equal to 0.5 time the heights of the primary pixel blocking walls; and/or
the heights of the first sub-pixel blocking walls are greater than or equal to 0.1 time the heights of the primary pixel blocking walls, and less than or equal to 0.4 time the heights of the primary pixel blocking walls since it aids in ensuring uniform film thicknesses within the device as taught by Cui (paragraphs 8 and 83). Further, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice bounded by well-known manufacturing constraints and ascertainable by routine experimentation and optimization to choose these particular dimensions because applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension.
In regard to claim 7, Youn in view of Wei, Gregory and Cui teach wherein the heights of the first subpixel blocking walls are greater than or equal to 10nm, and less than or equal to 0.3µm; and/or
the heights of the second sub-pixel blocking walls are greater than or equal to 50um, and less than or equal to 0.6µm; and/or
the heights of the primary pixel blocking walls are greater than or equal to 100nm, and less than or equal to 5µm (the height d2 of the second pixel partition wall 22 which functions as the primary pixel blocking wall is 0.9 μm to 1.5 μm) (Fig. 3, Fig. 4 and paragraph 84).
In regard to claim 20, Youn teaches the heights of the second sub-pixel blocking walls are less than the heights of the primary pixel blocking walls (the height of the third bank layer 146 can be greater than that of the first bank layer 142 and less than that of the second bank layer 144) (Fig. 3A and paragraph 60).
Youn in view of Wei and Gregory doesn’t explicitly teach the display panel according to claim 1, wherein the heights of the second sub-pixel blocking walls are greater than or equal to 0.5 time the heights of the primary pixel blocking walls; and/or
the heights of the first sub-pixel blocking walls are greater than or equal to 0.1 time the heights of the primary pixel blocking walls, and less than or equal to 0.4 time the heights of the primary pixel blocking walls.
Cui teaches a displaying device (a display substrate) (Fig. 2 and paragraph 48), wherein the heights of the second sub-pixel blocking walls are greater than or equal to 0.5 time the heights of the primary pixel blocking walls (the height d1 of the first pixel partition wall 21 which functions as the second sub-pixel blocking wall is 0.1 μm to 0.8 μm, and the height d2 of the second pixel partition wall 22 which functions as the primary pixel blocking wall, is 0.9 μm to 1.5 μm) (Fig. 3, Fig. 4 and paragraph 84); and/or
the heights of the first sub-pixel blocking walls are greater than or equal to 0.1 time the heights of the primary pixel blocking walls, and less than or equal to 0.4 time the heights of the primary pixel blocking walls (as shown above there exist a height where d1 is greater than 0.1*d2 and less than 0.4*d2) (Fig. 3, Fig. 4 and paragraph 84).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Youn in view of Wei and Gregory with the teachings of Cui to have the heights of the second sub-pixel blocking walls are greater than or equal to 0.5 time the heights of the primary pixel blocking walls; and/or
the heights of the first sub-pixel blocking walls are greater than or equal to 0.1 time the heights of the primary pixel blocking walls, and less than or equal to 0.4 time the heights of the primary pixel blocking walls since it aids in ensuring uniform film thicknesses within the device as taught by Cui (paragraphs 8 and 83). Further, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice bounded by well-known manufacturing constraints and ascertainable by routine experimentation and optimization to choose these particular dimensions because applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Youn in view of Wei and Gregory as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takei et al. (US 2009/0128020 A1; hereinafter “Takei”).
In regard to claim 9, Youn in view of Wei and Gregory doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the primary pixel blocking
walls comprise fluorine containing PI or a resin; and/or
the first sub-pixel blocking walls comprise any one of PI, acrylic, a resin and an inorganic film layer; and/or the second sub-pixel blocking walls comprise PI or a resin.
Takei teaches a display panel (an organic EL device) (paragraph 4), teach wherein the primary pixel blocking
walls comprise fluorine containing PI or a resin; and/or
the first sub-pixel blocking walls comprise any one of PI, acrylic, a resin and an inorganic film layer; and/or
a second sub-pixel blocking walls comprise PI or a resin (an organic bank 150 is made of an insulating resin) (Fig. 3B and paragraph 89).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Youn in view of Wei and Gregory with the teachings of Takei to have the second sub-pixel blocking walls comprise PI or a resin since this allows the bank to be liquid repellent (paragraph 89).
Claim 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Youn in view of Wei and Gregory as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Gee et al. (US 2021/0193761 A1; hereinafter “Gee”).
In regard to claim 13, Youn teaches wherein the step of forming the pixel definition layer on one side of the substrate base plate comprises:
forming third sub-pixel blocking walls on one side of two first subpixel blocking walls on an outmost side of the substrate base plate that is away from the substrate base plate (the second bank layers 144 at the far left and right ends of the substrate 110 function as the third sub-pixel blocking walls as shown in Fig. 5), wherein orthographic projections of the third sub-pixel blocking walls on the substrate base plate are located within an area of orthographic projections on the substrate base plate of two first sub-pixel blocking walls on the outmost side of the substrate base plate (since the second bank layers 144 are formed over the first bank layers 142 the second bank layers 144 at the far left and right ends of the substrate 110 would be in the orthographic projections of the first bank layers 142 at the far left and right ends as shown in Fig. 5).
Youn in view of Wei and Gregory doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the step of forming the pixel definition layer on one side of the substrate base plate comprises:
by using a first patterning process, forming the first sub-pixel blocking walls and the second sub-pixel blocking walls on one side of the substrate base plate; and
by using a second patterning process, forming the primary pixel blocking walls on a same side of the substrate base plate.
Gee teaches a display panel (an electroluminescent display device) (Fig. 2 and paragraph 28), wherein the step of forming a pixel definition layer (the first bank 170 and the second bank 172) on one side of a substrate base plate (the first and second bank 170 and 172 are formed on the topside of the substrate 110) (Fig. 4 and paragraphs 32 and 45), comprises:
by using a first patterning process, forming first sub-pixel blocking walls and second sub-pixel blocking walls on one side of the substrate base plate (the first bank 170 and the first pattern 174 of the second bank 172 are formed in the same patterning process on the topside of the substrate) (Fig. 4 and paragraphs 32 and 66); and
by using a second patterning process, forming a primary pixel blocking walls on a same side of the substrate base plate (the second pattern 176 of the second bank 172 would be formed from a different patterning process that the first pattern 174 as the name states) (Fig. 4 and paragraphs 32 and 66).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Youn in view of Wei and Gregory with the teachings of Gee to form the pixel definition layer on one side of the substrate base comprise using a first patterning process, forming the first sub-pixel blocking walls and the second sub-pixel blocking walls on one side of the substrate base plate and using a second patterning process, forming the primary pixel blocking walls on a same side of the substrate base plate since it provides advantages in view angles as taught by Gee (paragraph 2 and 7). Further it is well known within the art to pattern pixel definition layers during formation.
In regard to claim 14, Youn in view of Wei and Gregory doesn’t explicitly teach wherein after the step of forming the pixel definition layer on one side of the substrate base plate, the method further comprises:
by using an ink-jet printing process, forming an organic-material layer inside each of the subpixel openings.
Gee teaches wherein after the step of forming the pixel definition layer on one side of the substrate base plate, the method further comprises:
by using an ink-jet printing process, forming an organic-material layer inside each of the subpixel openings (the light emitting layer 162 is formed through an inkjet-printing method in a pixel column of the first pixels P1) (paragraphs 76-77).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Youn in view of Wei and Gregory with the teachings of Gee to have after the step of forming the pixel definition layer on one side of the substrate base plate, the method further comprise using an ink-jet printing process to form an organic-material layer inside each of the subpixel openings since this process can be simplified and used on large-size high resolution devices as taught by Gee (paragraph 77).
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hou (US 2019/0267437 A1)
Ueno et al. (US 2012/0119200 A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEYON ALI-SIMAH PUNCHBEDDELL whose telephone number is (571)270-0078. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur: 7:30AM-3:30 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, Sue Purvis can be reached at (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 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.
/SEYON ALI-SIMAH PUNCHBEDDELL/Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/SUE A PURVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights