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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s remarks/amendments of claims 1-14 in the reply filed on January 09th, 2026, are acknowledged. Claims 1 and 14 have been amended. Claims 15-23 have been withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-23 are pending.
Action on merits of claims 1-14 as follows.
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.
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claims 1-11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sung (US 10,541,380, hereinafter as Sung ‘380) in view of Paek (US 2016/0093680, hereinafter as Paek ‘680) and further in view of Yamada (US 2012/0248475, hereinafter as Yama ‘475).
Regarding Claim 1, Sung ‘380 teaches a display panel comprising:
a substrate comprising a first area having a first light transmissivity (Fig. 7, (OA); col. 6, lines 14-16) and a second area (Fig. 7, (DA); col. 6, lines 14-16) having a second light transmissivity lower than the first light transmissivity;
a circuit layer comprising a plurality of transistors (TFT) and a driving voltage line (PL) (see Fig. 4);
a plurality of pixel electrodes (221; col. 12, lines 25-26) on the circuit layer in the second area, each of the pixel electrodes (221) being connected to at least one of the transistors (TFT);
a pixel definition layer (211; col. 12, lines 44-46) at which first openings respectively exposing at least portions of the plurality of pixel electrodes;
a plurality of light emitting layers (222a/b/c; col. 12, lines 55-67) in the first openings;
a common electrode (223; col. 13, lines 14-16) on the plurality of light emitting layers, and the common electrode (223) connected to the driving voltage line;
an encapsulation layer (300; col. 13, lines 25-30) on the common electrode; and
a functional layer (222a and 222c) between the pixel definition layer (211) and the common electrode (223).
Thus, Sung ‘380 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “a blocking electrode on the substrate and spaced apart from the plurality of pixel electrodes; and a second opening exposing at least a portion of the blocking electrode are defined; wherein an area except for the portion exposed by the second opening in the blocking electrode contacts the pixel definition layer, and the functional layer is connected in the first openings and is disconnected in the second opening”.
However, Paek ‘680 teaches a blocking electrode (Fig. 2, (164); [0043]) on the substrate (110) and spaced apart from the plurality of pixel electrodes (162; [0043]); and a second opening (170b; [0044]) exposing at least a portion of the blocking electrode (164) are defined; wherein an area except for the portion exposed by the second opening in the blocking electrode contacts the pixel definition layer (170; [0044]), and the functional layer (181; [0045]) is connected in the first openings (170a; [0044]) and is disconnected in the second opening (170b).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Sung ‘380 by having a blocking electrode on the substrate and spaced apart from the plurality of pixel electrodes; and a second opening exposing at least a portion of the blocking electrode are defined; wherein an area except for the portion exposed by the second opening in the blocking electrode contacts the pixel definition layer, and the functional layer is connected in the first openings and is disconnected in the second opening
for the purpose of providing uniform brightness, a large size and high definition of an organic light emitting diode display device (see para. [0003]) as suggested by Paek ‘680.
Thus, Sung ‘380 and Paek ‘680 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the blocking electrode being electrically insulated from the circuit layer”.
Yama ‘475 teaches the blocking electrode (Fig. 38, (60); [0173]) being electrically insulated from the circuit layer (140; [0058]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Sung ‘380 and Paek ‘680 by having the blocking electrode being electrically insulated from the circuit layer in order to block light entrance to the drive transistor or the writing transistor of the pixel drive circuit of the drive circuit layer (see para. [0166]) as suggested by Yama ‘475.
PNG
media_image1.png
511
708
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 7 (Sung ‘380)
PNG
media_image2.png
262
464
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 38 (Yama ‘475)
Regarding Claim 2, Paek ‘680 teaches an inclination angle of a side surface defining the second opening (170b) in the pixel definition layer (170) is in a range of 50 to 90 degrees (see Fig. 2).
Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select an inclination angle of a side surface defining the second opening is in a range of 50 to 90 degrees
on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select an inclination angle of a side surface defining the second opening is in a range of 50 to 90 degrees in order to improve the performance of the display device.
Regarding Claim 3, Sung ‘380, Paek ‘680 and Yama ‘475 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “an inclination angle of a side surface defining the first openings in the pixel definition layer is smaller than that of the side surface defining the second opening in the pixel definition layer”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select an inclination angle of a side surface defining the first openings in the pixel definition layer is smaller than that of the side surface defining the second opening in the pixel definition layer on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select an inclination angle of a side surface defining the first openings in the pixel definition layer is smaller than that of the side surface defining the second opening in the pixel definition layer in order to improve the performance of the display device.
Regarding Claim 4, Sung ‘380 teaches the pixel definition layer (211; col. 12, lines 42-46) comprises an organic material.
Regarding Claim 5, Sung ‘380 teaches a hole (10H) penetrating the first area; and a groove part (G1) between the hole (10H) and the pixel definition layer (211), with a portion of a top surface being removed, wherein the functional layer (222a) is disconnected in the groove part and the hole (see Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 6, Sung ‘380 teaches a base layer comprising an organic material (103; col. 10, lines 65-67); a first intermediate barrier layer under the base layer and comprising an inorganic material (102; col. 11, lines 5-10); and a second intermediate barrier layer (104; col. 11, lines 5-10) on the base layer and comprising an inorganic material, wherein the hole (10H) penetrates through the base layer, the first intermediate barrier layer, and the second intermediate barrier layer, and the groove part (G1-G3) penetrates the base layer (103) and the second intermediate barrier layer (104) and exposes the first intermediate barrier layer (102) (see Fig. 26).
Regarding Claim 7, Sung ‘380 teaches additional pixel electrodes (left side, see Fig. 2A) in the first area, wherein the first area comprises a transmission region and a light emitting region, the additional pixel electrodes are spaced apart from the transmission region to be in the light emitting region.
Sung ‘380, Paek ‘680 and Yama ‘475 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “an inclination angle of a side surface adjacent to the transmission region in the pixel definition layer is larger than that of the side surface defining the first opening”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select an inclination angle of a side surface adjacent to the transmission region in the pixel definition layer is larger than that of the side surface defining the first opening on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select an inclination angle of a side surface adjacent to the transmission region in the pixel definition layer is larger than that of the side surface defining the first opening in order to improve the performance of the display device.
Regarding Claim 8, Sung ‘380 teaches the functional layer (222a) is disconnected in the transmission region (see Figs. 7 and 8).
Regarding Claim 9, Paek ‘680 teaches the second opening (170b).
Sung ‘380, Paek ‘680 and Yama ‘475 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “a plurality of sub-openings spaced apart from each other”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a plurality of sub-openings spaced apart from each other, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. (see Fig. 4 of Lee et al. (US 2013/0056784) as evidence). A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select a plurality of sub-openings spaced apart from each other in order to improve the performance of the display device.
Regarding Claim 10, Paek ‘680 teaches the blocking electrode (164) is provided in the second opening (170b).
Sung ‘380, Paek ‘680 and Yama ‘475 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the blocking electrode is provided in plurality, the plurality of blocking electrodes respectively overlapping the sub-openings”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to have the blocking electrode is provided in plurality, the plurality of blocking electrodes respectively overlapping the sub-openings, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have the blocking electrode is provided in plurality, the plurality of blocking electrodes respectively overlapping the sub-openings in order to improve the performance of the display device.
Regarding Claim 11, Paek ‘680 teaches the blocking electrode (164) overlaps the second openings (170b).
Regarding Claim 14, Sung ‘380 teaches the encapsulation layer comprises one inorganic layer (310; col. 18, lines 32-35), and the disconnected portions of the functional layer (222a) are covered with the inorganic layer (310) (see Fig. 7).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sung ‘380, Paek ‘680 and Yama ‘475 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jung (US 2019/0131365, hereinafter as Jung ‘365).
Regarding Claim 12, Sung ‘380, Paek ‘680 and Yama ‘475 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “a laminated structure in the second opening, wherein the laminated structure is separated from the functional layer and the common electrode”.
Jung ‘365 teaches a laminated structure in the second opening (Fig. 4, (210); [0152]), wherein the laminated structure is separated from the functional layer and the common electrode
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Sung ‘380, Paek ‘680 and Yama ‘475 by having a laminated structure in the second opening, wherein the laminated structure is separated from the functional layer and the common electrode for the purpose of enhancing the reliability and minimizing a defect of each pixel of the display panel (see para. [0009] and [0011]) as suggested by Jung ‘365.
Regarding Claim 13, Sung ‘380, Yama ‘475, Paek ‘680 and Jung ‘365 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the laminated structure comprises a same material as any one of the functional layer and the common electrode”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select the laminated structure comprises a same material as any one of the functional layer and the common electrode on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select the laminated structure comprises a same material as any one of the functional layer and the common electrode in order to improve the performance of the display device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-14, filed on January 09th, 2026, have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
Interviews After Final
Applicants note that an interview after a final rejection is permitted in order to place the application in condition for allowance or to resolve issues prior to appeal. However, prior to the interview, the intended purpose and content of the interview should be presented briefly, preferably in writing. Upon review of the agenda, the Examiner may grant the interview if the examiner is convinced that disposal or clarification for appeal may be accomplished with only nominal further consideration. Interviews merely to restate arguments of record or to discuss new limitations will be denied. See MPEP § 714.13
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Dzung Tran whose telephone number is (571) 270-3911. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8 AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Supervisor Sue Purvis can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DZUNG TRAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893