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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant's response of 01/07/2026 has been acknowledged. Claims 1, 12, and 14 have been amended. Claim 2 is canceled. Claim 21 is added. No new matter has been added.
This office action considers claims 1 and 3-21 pending for prosecution and are examined on their merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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.
Notes: when present, hyphen separated fields within the hyphens (- -) represent, for example, as (30A - Fig 2B - [0128]) = (element 30A - Figure No. 2B - Paragraph No. [0128]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. The same conventions apply to Column and Sentence, for example (19:14-20) = (column19:sentences 14-20). These conventions are used throughout this document.
Claims 1, 3, 12, 14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Im et al. (US 20170062755 A1 – hereinafter Im) in view of Lin et al. (US 20170345878 A1 – hereinafter Lin) and Wei et al. (US 20220254845 A1 – hereinafter Wei).
Regarding independent claim 1, Im teaches:
(Currently Amended) A display panel ([0005] – “organic light emitting
display (OLED) device” – this can be a panel), comprising:
a base substrate (100 – Fig. 2 – [0036] – “substrate 100”);
a backplane circuit layer (Fig. 2 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘BCL’)
disposed on a side of the base substrate (100);
light-emitting units (Fig. 2 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘LEU’) arranged
at intervals on a side of the backplane circuit layer (BCL) away from the base substrate (100), wherein each of the light-emitting units (LEU) comprises an anode (200 – Fig. 2 – [0036] – “second anode electrode 200”), a light-emitting layer (240 – Fig. 2 – [0036] – “organic emitting layer 240”), and a cathode (250 – Fig. 2 – [0036] – “cathode electrode 250”) arranged sequentially in a direction pointing away from the backplane circuit layer (BCL), the cathodes (250) of the light-emitting units (LEU) are arranged at intervals, and the light-emitting layers (240) of the light-emitting units (LEU) are arranged at intervals; and
an auxiliary cathode (50 – Fig. 1 – [0009] – “anode electrode 40 and an auxiliary electrode 50” – since 40 is an anode, 50 must be an auxiliary cathode due to its connection) located between the base substrate (10 – Fig. 1 – [0008] – “substrate 10”) and the cathodes (80 – Fig. 1 – [0010] – “cathode electrode 80”), and electrically connected with the cathodes ([0020] – “an auxiliary electrode electrically connected with the cathode electrode” – Fig. 1 shows this), wherein the auxiliary cathode is part of a source drain layer on the backplane circuit layer.
PNG
media_image1.png
666
893
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Im does not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 1.
However, in an analogous art, Lin teaches
arranged at intervals ([0019] – “A range of the self-illumination blocks 310 is
preferably a distribution range of light-emitting materials, and the range may also be divided by forming a repeatedly changing structure in a matrix form on the self-illumination layer 300. Therefore, a structure used as an interval between light-emitting materials may be included” – Fig. 3 shows this – hereinafter ‘INV’).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate interval arrangement structure as taught by Lin into Im.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Lin in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result [0001] – “an effect of enlarging a display range.”
Im and Lin do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 1.
However, in an analogous art, Wei teaches
wherein the auxiliary cathode (30 – Fig. 2B – [0037] – “first auxiliary cathode layer 30 and a source/drain electrode 204a of the TFT 204 are fabricated on a same layer”) is part of a source drain layer (40 – Fig. 2B – [0042] – “planarization layer 40” – this is considered a source/drain layer) on the backplane circuit layer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute auxiliary cathode structure as taught by Wei into Im and Lin.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Wei in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result [0005] – “to overcome a problem of poor display uniformity of current organic electroluminescent display panels caused by a voltage drop.”
Regarding claim 3, Im as modified by Lin and Wei, teaches claim 1 from which claim 3 depends. Im further teaches
(Original) The display panel according to claim 1, wherein an
orthographic projection of the anode (200) onto the base substrate (100) is located within an orthographic projection of the cathode (250) onto the base substrate (100 – fig. 2 shows this), and an orthographic projection of the auxiliary cathode (190) onto the base substrate (100) is located within the orthographic projection of the cathode (250) onto the base substrate (100).
Regarding claim 12, Im as modified by Lin and Wei, teaches claim 1 from which claim 12 depends. Im further teaches
(Currently Amended) The display panel according to claim 1, wherein the backplane circuit layer (BCL) comprises:
an active layer (110 – Fig. 2 – [0038] – “active layer 110”) disposed on the side of the base substrate (100);
a gate insulation layer (120 – Fig. 2 – [0038] – “gate insulating film 120”) disposed on a side of the active layer (110) away from the base substrate (100);
a gate electrode (130 – Fig. 2 – [0038] – “gate electrode 130”) disposed on a side of the gate insulation layer (120) away from the active layer (110);
an interlayer dielectric layer (140 – Fig. 2 – [0038] – “insulating interlayer 140”) disposed on a side of the gate electrode (130) away from the base substrate (100), and covering a surface of the gate insulation layer (120) that is not covered by the gate electrode (130);
the source-drain electrode layer (Fig. 3 – [0038] – “source electrode 150 and a drain electrode 160” – this corresponds to a source-drain electrode layer – hereinafter ‘SDEL’) disposed on a side of the interlayer dielectric layer (140) away from the base substrate (100), and electrically connected with the active layer (110); and
a planarization layer (171 – Fig. 2 – [0036] – “first planarization layer 171”) disposed on a side of the source-drain electrode layer (SDEL) away from the base substrate (100), and covering a surface of the interlayer dielectric layer (140) that is not covered by the source-drain electrode layer (SDEL).
Regarding independent claim 14, Im teaches:
(Currently Amended) A method of manufacturing a display panel
([0005] – “organic light emitting display (OLED) device” – this can be a panel),
comprising:
preparing a backplane circuit layer (Fig. 2 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘BCL’) on a side of a base substrate (100 – Fig. 2 – [0036] – “substrate 100”);
forming light-emitting units (Fig. 2 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘LEU’)
arranged at intervals on a side of the backplane circuit layer (BCL) away from the base substrate (100),
wherein forming the light-emitting units (LEU) comprises:
forming anodes (200 – Fig. 2 – [0036] – “second anode electrode 200”) on the side of the backplane circuit layer (BCL) away from the base substrate (100),
forming light-emitting layers (240 – Fig. 2 – [0036] – “organic emitting layer 240”) on a side of the anodes (200) away from the backplane circuit layer (BCL), and
forming cathodes (250 – Fig. 2 – [0036] – “cathode electrode 250”) on a side of the light-emitting layers (240) away from the anodes (200),
wherein the cathodes (250)
arranged at intervals, and the light-emitting layers (240)
forming an auxiliary cathode (50 – Fig. 1 – [0009] – “anode electrode 40 and
an auxiliary electrode 50” – since 40 is an anode, 50 must be an auxiliary cathode due to its connection) between the base substrate (10 – Fig. 1 – [0008] – “substrate 10”) and the cathodes (80 – Fig. 1 – [0010] – “cathode electrode 80”), and electrically connecting the auxiliary cathode (50) with the cathodes ([0020] – “an auxiliary electrode electrically connected with the cathode electrode” – Fig. 1 shows this), wherein the auxiliary cathode is part of a source drain layer on the backplane circuit layer.
PNG
media_image1.png
666
893
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Im does not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 14.
However, in an analogous art, Lin teaches
arranged at intervals ([0019] – “A range of the self-illumination blocks 310 is
preferably a distribution range of light-emitting materials, and the range may also be divided by forming a repeatedly changing structure in a matrix form on the self-illumination layer 300. Therefore, a structure used as an interval between light-emitting materials may be included” – Fig. 3 shows this – hereinafter ‘INV’).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate interval arrangement structure as taught by Lin into Im.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Lin in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result as stated above in claim 1.
Im and Lin do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 4.
However, in an analogous art, Wei teaches
wherein the auxiliary cathode (30 – Fig. 2B – [0037] – “first auxiliary cathode layer 30 and a source/drain electrode 204a of the TFT 204 are fabricated on a same layer”) is part of a source drain layer (40 – Fig. 2B – [0042] – “planarization layer 40” – this is considered a source/drain layer) on the backplane circuit layer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute auxiliary cathode structure as taught by Wei into Im and Lin.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Wei in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result as stated above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, Im as modified by Lin and Wei, teaches claim 1 from which claim 18 depends. Im further teaches
(Previously Presented) A display apparatus, comprising the display
panel ([0005] – “organic light emitting display (OLED) device” – this can be a panel) according to claim 1.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Im in view of Lin, Wei, and Utsunomiya et al. (US 20100156273 A1 – hereinafter Utsunomiya).
Regarding claim 4, Im as modified by Lin and Wei, teaches claim 1 from which claim 4 depends. Im and Wei do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 4.
However, in an analogous art, Lin teaches
arranged at intervals ([0019] – “A range of the self-illumination blocks 310 is
preferably a distribution range of light-emitting materials, and the range may also be divided by forming a repeatedly changing structure in a matrix form on the self-illumination layer 300. Therefore, a structure used as an interval between light-emitting materials may be included” – Fig. 3 shows this – hereinafter ‘INV’).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate interval arrangement structure as taught by Lin into Im.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Lin in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result as stated above in claim 1.
Im, Wei, and Lin do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 4.
However, in an analogous art, Utsunomiya teaches
(Previously Presented) The display panel according to claim 1, wherein
each of the light-emitting units (101 – Fig. 3 – [0034] – “light-emitting areas are collectively denoted as 101 when they are not differentiated from one another on the basis of colors”) further comprises a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an electron transport layer, and an electron injection layer ([0051] – “The light-emitting function layer 26 has a layered structure that includes a lamination of five layers. A hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an organic EL layer, an electron transport layer, and an electron injection layer are laminated in the order of appearance herein viewed from the element substrate 10 in the upward direction”);
wherein the hole injection layer is disposed between the anode (25 – Fig. 3 – [0047] – “pixel electrode (anode) 25”) and the light-emitting layer ([0051] – “The light-emitting function layer 26), the hole transport layer is disposed between the hole injection layer and the light-emitting layer, the electron transport layer is disposed between the light-emitting layer and the cathode, and the electron injection layer is disposed between the electron transport layer and the cathode (27 – Fig. 3 – {[0048] – “cathode 27 “}, {[0051] – “The light-emitting function layer 26 has a layered structure that includes a lamination of five layers. A hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an organic EL layer, an electron transport layer, and an electron injection layer are laminated in the order of appearance herein viewed from the element substrate 10 in the upward direction”} – this describes the limitation); and
wherein the hole injection layers of the light-emitting units (101) are arranged at intervals, the hole transport layers of the light-emitting units (101) are arranged at intervals, the electron transport layers of the light-emitting units (101) are arranged at intervals, and the electron injection layers (270) of the light-emitting units (101) are arranged at intervals.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the light-emitting unit structure as taught by Utsunomiya into Im, Wei, and Lin.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Utsunomiya in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result [0009] – “to effectively suppress degradation in display quality due to a voltage drop, which means that display quality improves.”
Claims 5, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Im in view of Lin, Wei, and Ha et al. (US 20150115253 A1 – hereinafter Ha).
Regarding claim 5, Im as modified by Lin and Wei, teaches claim 1 from which claim 5 depends. Im further teaches
the light-emitting units (LEU).
Im, Lin, and Wei do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 5.
However, in an analogous art, Ha teaches
(Previously Presented) The display panel according to claim 1, wherein
each of the light-emitting units comprises sub-light-emitting units (Fig. 5B – [0096] – “each of the first light emitting area 581A, the second light emitting area 582A and the third light emitting area 583A can be defined as an individual sub-pixel area” – hereinafter ‘SLEU’), each of which comprises a sub-cathode (Fig. 5B – cathode 560B can be sub-designated for each sub-light-emitting unit – hereinafter ‘SC’), a sub-anode (Fig. 5B – [0101] – “first anode 541B, the second anode 542B, and the third anode 543B” – hereinafter ‘SA’), and a sub-light-emitting layer (Fig. 5B – [0100] – “first organic light emitting layer 551B, the second organic light emitting layer 552B, and the third organic light emitting layer 553B are organic light emitting layers” – hereinafter ‘SLEL’) disposed between the sub-cathode (SC) and the sub-anode (SA -Fig. 5B shows this); and
wherein in each of the light-emitting units, the sub-anodes (SA) are arranged at intervals, the sub-light-emitting layers (SLEL) are arranged at intervals (Fig. 5B shows this), and the sub-cathodes (CA) are joined with each other to form the cathode (560B – Fig. 5B – [0100] – “cathode 560B” – this is a common cathode shared by all sub-light-emitting units).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the sub-light-emitting unit structure as taught by Ha into Im, Lin, and Wei.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Ha in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result [0061] – “to reduce the possibility of occurrence of cracks in an anode, there is provided an anode structure in which a segment length of an anode along a bending direction is reduced. The anode 140A is divided into the first anode 141A and the second anode 142A.”
Regarding claim 15, Im as modified by Lin and Wei, teaches claim 14 from which claim 15 depends. Im further teaches
the light-emitting units (LEU).
Im, Lin, and Wei do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 15.
However, in an analogous art, Ha teaches
(Original) The method according to claim 14, wherein forming the light-
emitting units comprises:
forming sub-anodes (Fig. 5B – [0101] – “first anode 541B, the second anode 542B, and the third anode 543B” – hereinafter ‘SA’) arranged at intervals on the side of the backplane circuit layer (Fig. 5B annotated – hereafter ‘BCL’) away from the base substrate (Fig. 5B – [0099] – “substrate 510B”);
forming sub-light-emitting layers (Fig. 5B – [0100] – “first organic light emitting layer 551B, the second organic light emitting layer 552B, and the third organic light emitting layer 553B are organic light emitting layers” – hereinafter ‘SLEL’) arranged at intervals on a side of the sub-anodes (SA) away from the backplane circuit layer (BCL – Fig. 5B shows this); and
forming sub-cathodes (Fig. 5B – cathode 560B can be sub-designated for each sub-light-emitting unit – hereinafter ‘SC’) on a side of the sub-light-emitting layers (SLEL) away from the sub-anodes (SA), the sub-cathodes (SC) being joined with each other to form the cathodes (560-B – Fig. 5B – [0099] – “cathode 560B”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the sub-light-emitting unit structure as taught by Ha into Im, Lin, and Wei.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Ha in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result as stated above in claim 5.
Regarding claim 20, Im as modified by Lin and Wei, teaches claim 18 from which claim 20 depends. Im further teaches
the light-emitting units (LEU).
Im, Lin, and Wei do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 20.
However, in an analogous art, Ha teaches
(Previously Presented) The display apparatus according to claim 18,
wherein each of the light-emitting units comprises sub-light-emitting units (Fig. 5B – [0096] – “each of the first light emitting area 581A, the second light emitting area 582A and the third light emitting area 583A can be defined as an individual sub-pixel area” – hereinafter ‘SLEU’), each of which comprises a sub-cathode (Fig. 5B – cathode 560B can be sub-designated for each sub-light-emitting unit – hereinafter ‘SC’), a sub-anode (Fig. 5B – [0101] – “first anode 541B, the second anode 542B, and the third anode 543B” – hereinafter ‘SA’), and a sub-light-emitting layer (Fig. 5B – [0100] – “first organic light emitting layer 551B, the second organic light emitting layer 552B, and the third organic light emitting layer 553B are organic light emitting layers” – hereinafter ‘SLEL’) disposed between the sub-cathode (SC) and the sub-anode (SA); and
wherein in each of the light-emitting units, the sub-anodes (SA) are arranged at intervals, the sub-light-emitting layers (SLEL) are arranged at intervals (Fig. 5B shows this), and the sub-cathodes (SC) are joined with each other to form the cathode (560B – Fig. 5B – [0100] – “cathode 560B” – this is a common cathode shared by all sub-light-emitting units).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the sub-light-emitting unit structure as taught by Ha into Im, Lin, and Wei.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Ha in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result as stated above in claim 5.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Im in view of Lin, Wei, Ha, and Utsunomiya.
Regarding claim 6, Im as modified by Lin, Wei, and Ha, teaches claim 5 from which claim 6 depends. Im further teaches
the light-emitting units (LEU).
Im, Lin, and Wei do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 6.
However, in an analogous art, Ha teaches
the sub-light-emitting units (Fig. 5B – [0096] – “each of the first light emitting area 581A, the second light emitting area 582A and the third light emitting area 583A can be defined as an individual sub-pixel area” – hereinafter ‘SLEU’),
are arranged at intervals (ha (Fig. 5B shows the SLEU arranged at intervals therefore the sub-layer of Uts are arranged at intervals),
the sub-cathode (SC),
the sub-anode (SA).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the sub-light-emitting unit structure as taught by Ha into Im, Lin, and Wei.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Ha in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result as stated above in claim 5.
Im, Lin, Wei, and Ha do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 6.
However, in an analogous art, Utsunomiya teaches
(Previously Presented) The display panel according to claim 5, wherein
each of the sub-light-emitting units further comprises a sub-hole injection layer, a sub-hole transport layer, a sub-electron transport layer, and a sub-electron injection layer;
wherein the sub-hole injection layer is disposed between the sub-anode and the sub-light-emitting layer, the sub-hole transport layer is disposed between the sub-hole injection layer and the sub-light-emitting layer, the sub-electron transport layer is disposed between the sub-light-emitting layer and the sub-cathode, and the sub-electron injection layer is disposed between the sub-electron transport layer and the sub-cathode (27 – Fig. 3 – [0051] – “The light-emitting function layer 26 has a layered structure that includes a lamination of five layers. A hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an organic EL layer, an electron transport layer, and an electron injection layer are laminated in the order of appearance herein viewed from the element substrate 10 in the upward direction” – this describes the limitation as each of the sub-light-emitting units of Ha will have the same sub-layer structure as described by Utsunomiya); and
wherein in each of the light-emitting units, the sub-hole injection layers are arranged at intervals, the sub-hole transport layers units are arranged at intervals, the sub-electron transport layers are arranged at intervals, and the sub-electron injection layers ([0051] describes these elements without labeling them) are arranged at intervals.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the light-emitting unit structure as taught by Utsunomiya into Im, Lin, Wei, and Ha.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Utsunomiya in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result as stated above in claim 4.
Regarding claim 7, Im as modified by Lin, Wei, and Ha, teaches claim 5 from which claim 7 depends. Im further teaches
the light-emitting units (LEU).
Im, Lin, and Wei do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 7.
However, in an analogous art, Ha teaches
the sub-light-emitting units (Fig. 5B – [0096] – “each of the first light emitting area 581A, the second light emitting area 582A and the third light emitting area 583A can be defined as an individual sub-pixel area” – hereinafter ‘SLEU’),
the sub-cathode (SC),
the sub-anode (SA).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the sub-light-emitting unit structure as taught by Ha into Im, Lin, and Wei.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Ha in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result as stated above in claim 5.
Im, Lin, Wei, and Ha do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 6.
However, in an analogous art, Utsunomiya teaches
(Previously Presented) The display panel according to claim 5, wherein
each of the sub-light-emitting units further comprises a sub-hole injection layer, a sub-hole transport layer, a sub-electron transport layer, and a sub-electron injection layer;
wherein the sub-hole injection layer is disposed between the sub-anode and the sub-light-emitting layer, the sub-hole transport layer is disposed between the sub-hole injection layer and the sub-light-emitting layer, the sub-electron transport layer is disposed between the sub-light-emitting layer and the sub-cathode, and the sub-electron injection layer is disposed between the sub-electron transport layer and the sub-cathode (27 – Fig. 3 – [0051] – “The light-emitting function layer 26 has a layered structure that includes a lamination of five layers. A hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an organic EL layer, an electron transport layer, and an electron injection layer are laminated in the order of appearance herein viewed from the element substrate 10 in the upward direction” – this describes the limitation as each of the sub-light-emitting units of Ha will have the same sub-layer structure as described by Utsunomiya); and
wherein in the same each of the light-emitting units, the sub-hole injection layers are joined with each other, the sub-hole transport layers are joined with each other, the sub-electron injection layers are joined with each other, and the sub-electron transport layers are joined with each other (Fig. 3 shows this as there is a common cathode 27 and common light-emitting function layer 26 that contains the specified layers joined with each other).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the light-emitting unit structure as taught by Utsunomiya into Im, Lin, Wei, and Ha.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Utsunomiya in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result as stated above in claim 4.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Im in view of Lin, Wei, Ha, and Hideo et al. (US 20180211998 A1 – hereinafter Hideo).
Regarding claim 8, Im as modified by Lin, Wei, and Ha, teaches claim 5 from which claim 8 depends. Im, Lin, Wei, and Ha do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 8.
However, in an analogous art, Hideo teaches
(Previously Presented) The display panel according to claim 5, wherein
each of the light-emitting units (145 – Fig. 3 – [0031] – “sub-pixel 145” – this corresponds to the sub-light-emitting unit), a distance ([0031] – “sub-pixel gap is the minimum distance between the adjacent first cathode block 141 and the second cathode block 142” – although refereeing to cathodes, the sub-anodes correspond with the cathode blocks) between the sub-anodes in adjacent two of the sub-light-emitting units (145) is 5 µm to 15 µm ([0031] – “sub-pixel gap is about 10 micrometers” – this corresponds to the distance between two sub-light-emitting units).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the light-emitting unit positioning as taught by Hideo into Im, Lin, Wei, and Ha.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Hideo in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result of the [0031] – “precision of the display panel may be enhanced.”
Claims 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Im in view of Lin, Wei, and Kim et al. (US 20210167320 A1 – hereinafter Kim).
Regarding claim 9, Im as modified by Lin and Wei, teaches claim 1 from which claim 9 depends. Im, Lin, and Wei do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 9.
However, in an analogous art, Kim teaches
(Previously Presented) The display panel according to claim 1, further
comprising:
a bridge (540a – Fig. 7 – [0067] – “bridge 540a”) connecting the cathodes (540 – Fig. 7 – [0067] – “cathode 540”) in adjacent two of the light-emitting units (EA – Fig. 7 – [0067] – “emission areas EA” – this corresponds to a light-emitting unit), and arranged in a same layer as the cathodes (540 – Fig. 7 shows this).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the bridge (patterned cathode) structure as taught by Kim into Im, Lin, and Wei.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Kim in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result of [0016] – “to improve transparency as a whole by including the patterned cathode.”
Regarding claim 17, Im as modified by Lin and Wei, teaches claim 14 from which claim 17 depends. Im, Lin, and Wei do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 17.
However, in an analogous art, Kim teaches
(Previously Presented) The method according to claim 14, further
comprising:
forming a bridge (540a – Fig. 7 – [0090] – “bridge 540a”) in a same step as the cathodes (540 – Fig. 7 – [0090] – “cathodes 540”) to connect the cathodes (540) in adjacent two of the light-emitting units ([0090] – “the cathode 540 disposed in each emission area EA is connected to the cathode 540 disposed in the emission area adjacent thereto via a first bridge 540a” – this is the step of forming these elements in the same step).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the bridge (patterned cathode) structure as taught by Kim into Im, Lin, and Wei.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Kim in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result as stated above I claim 9.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Im in view of Lin, Wei, Kim and Qiao et al. (US 11003015 B1 – hereinafter Qiao).
Regarding claim 10, Im as modified by Lin, Wei, and Kim, teaches claim 9 from which claim 10 depends. Im, Lin, and Wei do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 10.
However, in an analogous art, Kim teaches
(Original) The display panel according to claim 9, wherein the bridge (240a)
is elongated in shape (240a – Fig. 5 – [0052] – “emission areas EA” – shows bridges 240a as a rectangle which is elongated in shape), and has a width of 50 µm to 70 µm.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the bridge structure as taught by Kim into Im, Lin, and Wei.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Kim in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result as stated above I claim 9.
Im, Lin, Wei, and Kim do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 10.
However, in an analogous art, Qiao teaches
a width of 50 µm to 70 µm ([7:55-56] – “desired spacing 94 (e.g., … greater than 50 microns … less than 80 microns, less than 100 microns, less than 1000 microns, about 50 microns, etc.)” – element 94 is the spacing between element 62 - Fig. 4 – [8:4-11] – “lenticular lenses 62” – each lens is considered a separate light-emitting unit and each unit requires a bridge between them, if a bridge is square than the width is within the range require).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the bridge width as taught by Qiao into Im, Lin, Wei, and Kim.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Qiao in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result [1:38-49] – “To create a seamless display surface between the adjacent displays, a light guiding layer may be provided. The light guiding layer may have a first portion that overlaps the active area of a first display panel, a second portion that overlaps the active area of a second, adjacent display panel, and a third portion that overlaps the inactive areas of the first and second display panels. The light guiding layer may redirect light from the active area of each display panel to the region above the inactive areas of the display panels where it is emitted towards the viewer. The light guiding layer therefore effectively hides the border between the two display panels (by emitting light in that region).”
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Im in view of Lin, Wei, Kim, Qiao, and Lee et al. (US 20070194699 A1 – hereinafter Lee).
Regarding claim 11, Im as modified by Lin, Wei, Kim, and Qiao, teaches claim 10 from which claim 11 depends. Im, Lin, Wei, Kim, and Qiao do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 11.
However, in an analogous art, Lee teaches
(Original) The display panel according to claim 10, wherein an orthographic
projection of the auxiliary cathode (125 – Fig. 3 – [0072] – “auxiliary electrode line 125” – this corresponds to the auxiliary cathode) onto the base substrate (110 – Fig. 3 – [0071] – “substrate 110”) is located within an orthographic projection of the bridge ([0080] – “bridge portion 173”) onto the base substrate (110 – Fig. 3 shows this).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the auxiliary cathode and bridge structure as taught by Lee into Im, Lin, Wei, Kim, and Qiao.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Lee in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result [0072] – “for applying a common voltage to a common electrode 230.”
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Im in view of Lin, Wei, and Chung et al. (US 20190280075 A1 – hereinafter Chung).
Regarding claim 13, Im as modified by Lin and Wei, teaches claim 1 from which claim 13 depends. Im, Lin, and Wei do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 13.
However, in an analogous art, Chung teaches
(Previously Presented) The display panel according to claim 1, wherein the
light-emitting units ({[0085] – “The pixel electrode PE, the emission layer EL, and the common electrode CE of each pixel constitute a light-emitting element as the organic light emitting diode OLED”}, {[0026] – “The display panel may further include a source electrode and a drain electrode positioned in the display area, and the pattern may be made of a same material as the source electrode and the drain electrode” – pixels are light emitting units – hereafter ‘PX’) are arranged in an array ([0052] – “Pixels PX are disposed in a matrix form” – Fig. 8 show shows this – [0013] – “display panel may further include a pixel electrode positioned in the display area, and the pattern may be made of a same material as the pixel electrode” - the pixel array pattern matches the electrode array pattern);
wherein among the light-emitting units (PX) in a same row, a distance (s – Fig. 8 – [0064] – “interval s” this equates to distance) between two adjacent light-emitting units (PX) is equal to a width of the light-emitting unit (PX) in a row direction (s – Fig. 8 – [0064] – “electrodes E of the one length 1 of about 35 μm may be arranged with the interval s of about 35 μm” - the distance between is equal to the width/length since they are squares Fig. 8 shows a column direction but it is obvious that the same applies to the row direction); and
wherein among the light-emitting units (PX) in a same column, a distance (s) between two adjacent light-emitting units (PX) is equal to a width of the light-emitting unit (PX) in a column direction (s – Fig. 8 – [0064] – “electrodes E of the one length 1 of about 35 μm may be arranged with the interval s of about 35 μm” - the distance between is equal to the width/length since they are squares).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the light-emitting pitch structure as taught by Chung into Im, Lin, and Wei.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Chung in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result of [0064] – “The pattern IP may be formed with about10% to about 80% area density, about 20% to about 70% area density, or about 30% to about 60% area density in the bending region BR” thus increasing the density of light-emitting units.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Im in view of Lin, Wei, Ha, Liang, and Liu et al. (US 20220069253 A1 – hereinafter Liu).
Regarding claim 16, Im as modified by Lin and Wei, teaches claim 14 from which claim 16 depends. Im, Lin, and Wei do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 16.
However, in an analogous art, Liang teaches
(Previously Presented) The method according to claim 14, wherein the
auxiliary cathode (9 – Fig. 2 – [0031] – “auxiliary cathode 9”) is electrically connected with the cathodes (18 – Fig. 2 – [0031] – “cathode layer 18”) through a connecting wire (17 – Fig. 2 – [0031] – “conductor layer 17” – Fig. 2 shows this);
wherein the anodes and the light-emitting layers ([0004] – “various layers of OLEDs are formed by adopting an open evaporation mask during vapor depositing”) are formed by evaporation using a patterned mask; and
wherein the cathodes and the connecting wire are formed simultaneously by evaporation using a patterned mask.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the auxiliary cathode structure and deposition method as taught by Liang into Im, Lin, and Wei.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Liang in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result [0006] – “to solve the technical problem that the display devices have a voltage drop and an uneven brightness on the display devices.”
Im, Lin, Wei, and Liang do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 16.
However, in an analogous art, Liu teaches
wherein the anodes ([0016] – “This design can make the cathode connecting wire 1004 and the anode 104 be formed simultaneously in a manufacturing process, thereby simplifying the manufacturing process … cathode lead-out wire 1006 and the cathode 102 can be simultaneously formed during the manufacturing process (such as, simultaneously formed by evaporation), thereby simplifying the manufacturing process”) and the light-emitting layers are formed by evaporation using a patterned mask; and
wherein the cathodes (102 – Fig. 1 – [0016] – “cathode 102”) and the connecting wire (102 – Fig. 1 – [0016] – “cathode lead-out wire 1006” – this is a connection wire) are formed simultaneously by evaporation using a patterned mask ([0016] – “cathode lead-out wire 1006 and the cathode 102 can be simultaneously formed during the manufacturing process (such as, simultaneously formed by evaporation), thereby simplifying the manufacturing process”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the anodes and cathodes structure and deposition method as taught by Liu into Im, Lin, Wei, and Liang.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Liu in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result of ([0016] – “thereby simplifying the manufacturing process”).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Im in view of Lin, Wei, and Ichikawa et al. (US 20200273380 A1 – hereinafter Ichikawa).
Regarding claim 19, Im as modified by Lin and Wei, teaches claim 12 from which claim 19 depends. Im, Lin, and Wei do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 19.
However, in an analogous art, Ichikawa teaches
(Previously Presented) The display panel according to claim 12, wherein
the planarization layer is made of colorless polyimide ([0029] – “TFT flattening film 13a is formed of, for example, a colorless and transparent organic insulating film formed of a polyimide resin” – this is a planarization layer).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the anodes and cathodes structure and deposition method as taught by Ichikawa into Im, Lin, and Wei.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Ichikawa in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result of not decreasing luminosity from using a non-transparent layer.
To do so would have merely been to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143 I. D.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Im in view of Lin, Wei, Shi (US 20210336191 A1 – hereinafter Shi), and Wu et al. (US 20230189606 A1 – hereinafter Wu).
Regarding claim 21, Im as modified by Lin and Wei, teaches claim 1 from which claim 21 depends. Im, Lin, and Wei do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 21.
However, in an analogous art, Shi teaches
(New) The display panel according to claim 1, wherein
the auxiliary cathode (22 – Fig. 5 – [0057] – “auxiliary cathode 22”) is a source
electrode, a drain electrode, a data line, a power signal line, or other signal line in the source-drain electrode layer (22 – Fig. 5 – {[0044] – “low-voltage DC input source 22”}, {[0004] – “those skilled in the art usually add an auxiliary cathode (VSS) in the design”}) and
the light-emitting units are arranged in an array (13 – Fig. – [0063] – “The R sub-pixel, the G sub-pixel, the B sub-pixel and the W sub-pixel may be arranged next to each other in sequence and arranged in a plurality of rows, forming an array. The auxiliary cathode layer 33 may further be arranged in the non-opening region between sub-pixels of two adjacent rows”), and the cathode of one of the light-emitting units in each row or column is electrically connected with the auxiliary cathode ([0024] – “the cathode layer 16 may be connected to the auxiliary cathode layer 13”) and is further electrically connected with a VSS signal line (22 – Fig. 5 – {[0044] – “low-voltage DC input source 22”}, {[0004] – “those skilled in the art usually add an auxiliary cathode (VSS) in the design”}).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the auxiliary cathode structure and deposition method as taught by Shi into Im, Lin, and Wei.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Shi in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result [0008] – “to provide an organic light-emitting diode (OLED) structure and a manufacturing method thereof to solve the technical problem that the cathode compensation effect in a pixel circuit existing in the conventional art is poor, resulting in a significant voltage drop.”
To do so would have merely been to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143 I. D.
Im, Lin, Wei, and Shi do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 21.
However, in an analogous art, Wu teaches
the light-emitting units are arranged in an array (13 – Fig. – [0063] – “The R sub-pixel, the G sub-pixel, the B sub-pixel and the W sub-pixel may be arranged next to each other in sequence and arranged in a plurality of rows, forming an array. The auxiliary cathode layer 33 may further be arranged in the non-opening region between sub-pixels of two adjacent rows”), and the cathode of one of the light-emitting units in each row or column is electrically connected with the auxiliary cathode ([0024] – “the cathode layer 16 may be connected to the auxiliary cathode layer 13”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the array and auxiliary cathode structure and deposition method as taught by Wu into Im, Lin, Wei, and Shi.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Wu in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result of [0008] – “the display panel is arranged with an auxiliary cathode layer and a cathode layer laminated in sequence in the non-opening region of the pixels. The cathode layer in the opening region of the pixels is connected to the cathode layer in the non-opening region of the pixels. The auxiliary cathode layer is spaced apart from the anode layer. In this way, electrical conductivity of the cathode layer may be effectively increased due to connection with the auxiliary cathode layer to reduce an overall impedance of the cathode layer, and the thickness of the cathode layer does not need to be increased to increase the electrical conductivity of the display panel. Therefore, the cathode layer has high light transmission and good electrical conductivity, ensuring a better display effect.”
To do so would have merely been to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143 I. D.
Pertinent Art
For the benefits of the Applicant, US 20180090719 A1 is cited on the record as being pertinent to significant disclosure through some but not all claimed features of the defined invention. These references fail to disclose the combination of limitations including “arranged in an interval”.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to GARY ABEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-0246. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm (Eastern).
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, CHAD M DICKE can be reached at (571) 270-7996. 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 ttps://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.
/GRA/
Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/CHAD M DICKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897