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 Arguments
The amended title overcomes the objection.
The amendments to the specification overcome the objections.
The drawings have been corrected to address the previous objection.
The amendment to claim 12 overcomes the previous 112 rejection.
The applicant states on page 10 of the response that “[t]he limitation ‘the communication groove extends along the second direction’ has been removed from claims 7 and 19, and claims 7 and 19 have been further amended to recite that ‘two ends of the communication groove along the second direction are respectively communicated with adjacent two of the first openings.’ This allows the adjacent two first openings to be communicated with each other in the second direction by the connection groove to allow ink to pass between them.” The subpixel openings of the same color are arranged along the first direction f1 in both the claims and the specification; see e.g. FIGS. 8 and 9, vertical rows of blue subpixels B and vertical rows of red subpixels R. They are connected by communication grooves 223, which do not have two ends along the second direction f2 connected to two first openings. The rejection is not overcome.
The applicant states on page 11 of the response that “the Examiner appears to have interpreted either the lower horizontal bank 150 (not shown in the figure) which is connected with the vertical bank 160 and is located in the protruding region (shaded region) between two constricted regions, or a part of the vertical bank 160 itself as corresponding to the claimed ‘filling portion.’” The filling portion is the portion of the light emitting layer 142 that rises onto the bank.
The applicant argues on page 12 of the response that “in amended claim 1, an orthographic projection of the filling portion on the substrate is within an orthographic projection of the pixel opening (in which the light-emitting portion is disposed) on the substrate. Thus, Park does not disclose a ‘filling portion’ within the pixel opening.” The filling portion is within the pixel opening. Here is the pixel opening of Park:
PNG
media_image1.png
245
434
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The filling portion is the portion of light emitting layer EML going up the side walls of banks 160.
The applicant also argues that “Park also fails to disclose that a height of such a filling portion within the pixel opening is less than a height of the pixel definition layer.” As seen above, the filling portions have a lower height than the pixel definition layer. The rejection is not overcome.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 7 recites that “‘two ends of the communication groove along the second direction are respectively communicated with adjacent two of the first openings.” Claim 19 has the same recitation. The subpixel openings of the same color are arranged along the first direction f1 in both the claims and the specification; see e.g. FIGS. 8 and 9, vertical rows of blue subpixels B and vertical rows of red subpixels R. They are connected by communication grooves 223, which do not have two ends along the second direction f2 connected to two first openings. What does it mean for a groove to extend in a certain direction? The most straightforward direction is direction of the groove – that is, the axial direction along which the groove extends. If that were the case here, the groove would not succeed in connecting the relevant first openings to allow ink to pass between them, which is the purpose of the groove. The examiner cannot think of a meaning of this limitation that makes sense in context.
Claims 7 and 19 have not been rejected over the prior art because, in light of the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections supra, there is sufficient uncertainty that it would not be proper to reject the claims on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
Specification
The specification states at [0075] that “as illustrated in FIG. 8, the display panel 20 further includes a plurality of second partition walls 27, and the pixel definition layer 22 includes a plurality of communication grooves 223. Each of the communication grooves 223 extends along the second direction f2, and the communication groove 223 is disposed between two of the second openings 222 adjacent in the first direction f1. Two ends of the connection slot 223 are respectively communicated with adjacent two first openings 221, such that the adjacent two first openings 221 are communicated with each other in the second direction f2 by the connection slot 223, and thus the first openings 221 are a netlike structure.” FIG. 8 illustrates communication grooves 223 extending in the first direction between openings 222 adjacent in the first direction f1. The written disclosure does not match the illustrated structure, and it is not clear how a groove extending in a second direction can connect two openings that are arranged in a first, perpendicular direction.
Claim Interpretation
The claims recite “at least one strip-shaped first opening”, which the examiner interprets as an opening that is much longer than it is wide.
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 (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.
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 1-4, 6, and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, US 2021/0202609, in view of You, CN 111463256, and corresponding US publication 2022/0320205 (citations here will be to the US publication), or alternatively in view of Kim, US 2014/0346468.
Claim 1: Park discloses
a substrate (133);
a pixel definition layer (160), disposed on the substrate and having at least one strip-shaped first opening therein (between 161/162), wherein the first opening comprises a first edge extending along a first (vertical) direction, and an expansion region and a contraction region that are alternately arranged along the first direction, and a size of the expansion region in a second direction is larger than a size of the expansion region in the second (horizontal) direction, the second direction being intersected with the first direction, and wherein the first edge comprises a plurality of recessed edges (A, B, and connected horizontal edges) recessed towards an interior of the first opening (FIG. 3);
a plurality of first partition walls (150), disposed in the first opening, wherein each of the first partition walls extends along the second direction, and two ends of the first partition wall are respectively in contact with two side walls of the first opening to partition the first opening into a plurality of pixel openings;
PNG
media_image2.png
439
386
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and a plurality of light-emitting portions (SP1), respectively disposed in the plurality of pixel openings;
a filling portion (portion of light emitting layer EML going up the side walls of banks 161) disposed at the junction of the adjacent two of the recessed edges, wherein an orthographic projection of the filling portion on the substrate is within an orthographic projection of the pixel opening on the substrate, and a height of the filling portion in direction perpendicular to the substrate is less than the height of the pixel definition layer in the direction perpendicular to the substrate (FIG. 5).
PNG
media_image1.png
245
434
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
236
289
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
300
304
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 1 also recites that two ends of the first partition wall are respectively in contact with two side walls of the first opening to partition the first opening into a plurality of pixel openings. In Park the partition wall is below the definition layer, as seen in FIG. 5. However, it was also known to forth the partition between subpixels with a partition layer to the side of the definition layer. See e.g. You FIGS. 3-6; Kim FIG 2, partition wall 350. It would have been obvious to have used such an arrangement as a known alternative in the art.
Claim 2: Park discloses that “In FIG. 1, each of the first sub-pixel SP1, the second sub-pixel SP2, and the third sub-pixel SP3 is shown as a quadrangular shape, but the shape of the sub-pixels is not limited thereto. The shape of the sub-pixels may be variously changed and for example, each sub-pixel may have a polygonal shape except for [in addition to] a circular shape, an elliptical shape or a quadrangular shape.” [0039]. In a pixel with a circular or elliptical shape, the edge of the first opening, an orthographic projection of the recessed edge on the substrate being arc-shaped; see for comparison You FIG. 1.
Claim 3: Park discloses a plurality of second light-emitting portions (SP2), and the pixel definition layer further comprises a plurality of second openings (between 162 and 163); wherein the plurality of second light-emitting portions are respectively disposed in the plurality of second openings (FIG. 3); and an orthographic projection of the second opening on the substrate is circular (“the sub-pixels may be … a circular shape, an elliptical shape” [0039]), the first opening and the second opening are alternately arranged along the second direction (FIG. 3), in the second direction, and at least one of the plurality of second openings is disposed between adjacent two of the contraction regions (FIG. 3):
PNG
media_image5.png
328
332
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim 4: the plurality of second openings are arranged along the first direction, the plurality of recessed edges of the first edge are successively connected along the first direction, and a junction of adjacent two of the recessed edges is disposed between two of the second openings adjacent in the first direction.
Claim 6: an orthographic projection of at least one of the plurality of first partition walls on the substrate is within an orthographic projection of the contraction region on the substrate:
PNG
media_image6.png
223
358
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In Park in view of You, as explained above with respect to claim 1, the two ends of the first partition wall are respectively in contact with two side walls of the contraction region.
Claim 8: Park discloses the pixel definition layer comprises a plurality of first openings, wherein the plurality of first openings are successively arranged along the second direction, and expansion regions and contraction regions of the plurality of first openings are alternately arranged along the second direction.
PNG
media_image7.png
225
162
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claim 9: an orthographic projection of at least one of the plurality of first partition walls (150) on the substrate is within an orthographic projection of the expansion region on the substrate:
PNG
media_image8.png
223
162
media_image8.png
Greyscale
In Park in view of You, as explained above with respect to claim 1, the two ends of the first partition wall are respectively in contact with two side walls of the contraction region.
Claim 10: Park discloses that “In this case, there is an advantage in that display quality is more excellent due to a low variation in luminance for each color. FIG. 3 illustrates that the area of each of the first sub-pixel SP1, the second sub-pixel SP2, and the third sub-pixel SP3 increases in the order of the first sub-pixel SP1, the second sub-pixel SP2, and the third sub-pixel SP3, but the present disclosure is not limited thereto.” [0058], emphasis added. This suggests to those in the art that the relative areas can be adjusted as needed, according to the luminance and other known factors affecting desired area. Changes in dimensions are not typically a source of patentable distinction absent unexpected results. MPEP 2144.04(IV).
Claim 11: Park discloses a green light-emitting portion, a blue light-emitting portion, and a red light-emitting portion ([0070]); wherein the green light-emitting portion is configured to emit green light, the blue light-emitting portion is configured to emit blue light, and the red light-emitting portion is configured to emit red light ([0070]);
Park does not disclose that the green light-emitting portion is disposed in the pixel opening, and the blue light-emitting portion and the red light-emitting portion are disposed in the second opening. However, Park discloses that “colors and arrangements of the respective sub-pixels are not limited thereto.” [0070]. It would have been obvious to arrange the pixels as desired and convenient in a particular application.
Claim 12 recites that the height of the pixel definition layer in the direction perpendicular to the substrate ranges from 1 µm to 2.5 µm; and the height of the first partition wall in the direction perpendicular to the substrate ranges from 0.3 µm to 0.8 µm. As seen in FIG. 5, the pixel definition layer 160 is higher than the first partition wall 150 (152). Park discloses that “[s]ince the ink used to form the organic light emitting layer has spreadability, and the thicknesses of the red organic light emitting layer EML1, the green organic light emitting layer EML2, and the blue organic light emitting layer EML3 that are finally formed are greater than the heights of the first horizontal bank 151 and the second horizontal bank 152 as described above, the ink is applied in an amount sufficient to cover the horizontal banks 151 and 152.” [0082]. It would have been within ordinary skill in the art to determine the heights of the pixel definition layer and partition wall so as to ensure that the ink is distributed to the different subpixels of the same color without going into subpixels of different colors. This would have been an ordinary design choice for a common structure in the art, and not a source of patentable distinction.
Claims 13-16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of You or alternatively in view of Kim and further in view of Zhang, US 2020/0333844.
Claim 13: Park discloses
a substrate (133);
a pixel definition layer (160), disposed on the substrate and having at least one strip-shaped first opening therein (between 161/162), wherein the first opening comprises a first edge extending along a first (vertical) direction, and an expansion region and a contraction region that are alternately arranged along the first direction, and a size of the expansion region in a second direction is larger than a size of the expansion region in the second (horizontal) direction, the second direction being intersected with the first direction, and wherein the first edge comprises a plurality of recessed edges (A, B, and connected horizontal edges) recessed towards an interior of the first opening (FIG. 3);
a plurality of first partition walls (150), disposed in the first opening, wherein each of the first partition walls extends along the second direction, and two ends of the first partition wall are respectively in contact with two side walls of the first opening to partition the first opening into a plurality of pixel openings;
PNG
media_image2.png
439
386
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and a plurality of light-emitting portions (SP1), respectively disposed in the plurality of pixel openings;
a filling portion (portion of light emitting layer EML going up the side walls of banks 161) disposed at the junction of the adjacent two of the recessed edges, wherein an orthographic projection of the filling portion on the substrate is within an orthographic projection of the pixel opening on the substrate, and a height of the filling portion in direction perpendicular to the substrate is less than the height of the pixel definition layer in the direction perpendicular to the substrate (FIG. 5).
PNG
media_image1.png
245
434
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
236
289
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
300
304
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 13 also recites that two ends of the first partition wall are respectively in contact with two side walls of the first opening to partition the first opening into a plurality of pixel openings. In Park the partition wall is below the definition layer, as seen in FIG. 5. However, it was also known to forth the partition between subpixels with a partition layer to the side of the definition layer. See e.g. You FIGS. 3-6; Kim FIG 2, partition wall 350. It would have been obvious to have used such an arrangement as a known alternative in the art.
Park does not disclose all the elements of the device. However, the claimed elements are ubiquitous in the art. See e.g. Zhang, which discloses a display device, comprising:
a power supply assembly ([0143]-[0144]),
and a display panel ([0132]);
wherein the power supply assembly is configured to supply power to the display panel ([0144]).
It would have been obvious to have had such elements in the finished device of Park as an ordinary device structure.
Claim 14: Park discloses that “In FIG. 1, each of the first sub-pixel SP1, the second sub-pixel SP2, and the third sub-pixel SP3 is shown as a quadrangular shape, but the shape of the sub-pixels is not limited thereto. The shape of the sub-pixels may be variously changed and for example, each sub-pixel may have a polygonal shape except for [in addition to] a circular shape, an elliptical shape or a quadrangular shape.” [0039]. In a pixel with a circular or elliptical shape, the edge of the first opening, an orthographic projection of the recessed edge on the substrate being arc-shaped; see for comparison You FIG. 1.
Claim 15: Park discloses a plurality of second light-emitting portions (SP2), and the pixel definition layer further comprises a plurality of second openings (between 162 and 163); wherein the plurality of second light-emitting portions are respectively disposed in the plurality of second openings (FIG. 3); and an orthographic projection of the second opening on the substrate is circular (“the sub-pixels may be … a circular shape, an elliptical shape” [0039]), the first opening and the second opening are alternately arranged along the second direction (FIG. 3), in the second direction, and at least one of the plurality of second openings is disposed between adjacent two of the contraction regions (FIG. 3):
PNG
media_image5.png
328
332
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim 16: the plurality of second openings are arranged along the first direction, the plurality of recessed edges of the first edge are successively connected along the first direction, and a junction of adjacent two of the recessed edges is disposed between two of the second openings adjacent in the first direction.
Claim 18: an orthographic projection of at least one of the plurality of first partition walls on the substrate is within an orthographic projection of the contraction region on the substrate:
PNG
media_image6.png
223
358
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In Park in view of You, as explained above with respect to claim 1, the two ends of the first partition wall are respectively in contact with two side walls of the contraction region.
Claim 20: the pixel definition layer comprises a plurality of first openings, wherein the plurality of first openings are successively arranged along the second direction, and expansion regions and contraction regions of the plurality of first openings are alternately arranged along the second direction.
PNG
media_image7.png
225
162
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is listed in the attached Notice of References Cited:
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 this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER BRADFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-1596. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30-6:30.
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.
/PETER BRADFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights