DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-9, 12-13, 16-17, 19, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “another portion of the orthographic projection of the first spacing or the second spacing on the substrate is outside the orthographic projection of the second part on the substrate" does not appear to have support in the originally filed disclosure. It is specifically noted that drawings are not to scale, and therefore Fig. 4 cannot be relied upon to establish the extent to which 382 and 321-32/331-33 extent toward each other.
Note the dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies of the claims on which they depend.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 8-9, 12-13, 16-17, 19, and 23 is/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.
Regarding claim 1, the recitation “a pixel region in an array,” is unclear as to how a single pixel region is in an array.
Regarding claim 1, the recitation “a reflective part spaced apart” is unclear as to spaced apart from what other element(s).
Regarding claim 1, the recitation “a first conductive part spaced apart” is unclear as to spaced apart from what other element(s).
Regarding claims 1, 4, the recitation “one of the reflective part” is unclear as to what is intended or required by “one of” a single reflective part.
Regarding claim 1, the recitation “one of the first conductive part” is unclear as to what is intended or required by “one of” a single first conductive part.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “an orthographic projection of the first subpart on the substrate overlaps with the orthographic projection of the first conductive part on the substrate, and an overlapping area, between an orthographic projection of the second subpart on the substrate and the orthographic projection of the first conductive part on the substrate, is zero,” is unclear which of the aspects following “or” are required (i.e. an orthographic projection of the first subpart on the substrate overlaps with the orthographic projection of the first conductive part on the substrate or both the orthographic projection of the first subpart on the substrate overlaps with the orthographic projection of the first conductive part on the substrate and the overlapping area is zero).
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “an orthographic projection of the second subpart on the substrate,” (line 8) is unclear as to how it is related to the previously recited orthographic projection of the second subpart on the substrate.
Regarding claim 4, the recitation “a second conductive part spaced apart” is unclear as to spaced apart from what other element(s).
Regarding claims 4, 5, the recitation “one of the second conductive part” is unclear as to what is intended or required by “one of” a single second conductive part.
Regarding claim 5, the recitation “one of the opening” is unclear as to what is intended or required by “one of” a single opening.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “a side, away from the substrate, of a cross section of the second part,” is unclear as to what constitutes a side of a cross section.
Regarding claims 12, 19, the recitation “a first insulating part spaced apart” is unclear as to spaced apart from what other element(s).
Note the dependent claims necessarily inherit the indefiniteness of the claims on which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 8-9, 12-13, 16-17, 19, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bang et al. (US 20180122875; herein “Bang”).
Regarding claim 1, Bang discloses in Fig. 10 and related text a display panel, comprising a substrate (111) and a light-emitting structure on one side of the substrate, wherein the light-emitting structure comprises:
a pixel defining structure (270, see [0065]) on one side of the substrate, configured to define a plurality of pixel regions arranged in an array, wherein a distance between a middle portion of a pixel region and the pixel defining structure, is equal to or greater than a distance between an edge portion of the pixel region and the pixel defining structure (see Fig. 10);
a reflective layer (264, when e.g. Al, see [0066]) on one side of the substrate, comprising a plurality of reflective parts spaced apart, a reflective part being within the pixel region;
a first conductive layer (261/266, see [0065] and [0067]) on one side, away from the substrate, of the reflective layer, the first conductive layer comprising a plurality of first conductive parts spaced apart; and
a hole injection layer (e.g. at least a portion of 262, see [0075] and [0076]) on one side, away from the substrate, of the first conductive layer, the hole injection layer comprising a first subpart and a second subpart, wherein the first subpart is disposed in the middle portion of the pixel region, and the second subpart is disposed in the edge portion of the pixel region; and
in a direction perpendicular to the substrate, at least a portion of the second subpart has a size greater than a size of the first subpart (note that one can choose “parts” of the layer such that the claimed limitation is met);
wherein one reflective part (264) corresponds to one first conductive part (261/266), and an orthographic projection of the first conductive part on the substrate at least partially overlaps with an orthographic projection of the reflective part on the substrate see Fig. 10); and
in a direction parallel to the substrate, a first spacing is provided between a side of the reflective part close to the pixel defining structure and a corresponding side of the pixel defining structure close to the reflective part, and/or a second spacing is provided between a side of the first conductive part close to the pixel defining structure and a corresponding side of the pixel defining structure close to the first conductive part (see Fig. 10);
wherein along a direction away from the substrate, the pixel defining structure comprises a first part (e.g. at least a part of 271) and a second part (e.g. at least a part of 272) connected in sequence; and
an orthographic projection of the first part on the substrate is within an orthographic projection of the second part on the substrate, and an area of the orthographic projection of the first part on the substrate is smaller than an area of the orthographic projection of the second part on the substrate (note that one can choose a part of 271 and a part of 272 such that the claimed limitation is met);
an overlapping area between the orthographic projection of the first conductive part on the substrate and the orthographic projection of the reflective part on the substrate, does not overlap with the orthographic projection of the second part on the substrate (261/266 does not overlap part of 272, see Fig. 10); and
a portion of an orthographic projection of the first spacing or the second spacing on the substrate is within the orthographic projection of the second part on the substrate, and another portion of the orthographic projection of the first spacing or the second spacing on the substrate is outside the orthographic projection of the second part on the substrate (note that one can choose a part of 272 as the second part such that a portion of the space between 271 and 261/266 overlaps with the part of 272 and another portion does not overlap with the part of 272, see Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 2, Bang further discloses wherein
an orthographic projection of the first subpart on the substrate overlaps with the orthographic projection of the reflective part on the substrate, and an overlapping area, between an orthographic projection of the second subpart on the substrate and the orthographic projection of the reflective part on the substrate, is zero (see Fig. 10; also note that one can choose “parts” of the layer such that the claimed limitation is met); and/or
an orthographic projection of the first subpart on the substrate overlaps with the orthographic projection of the first conductive part on the substrate, and an overlapping area, between an orthographic projection of the second subpart on the substrate and the orthographic projection of the first conductive part on the substrate, is zero (see Fig. 10; also note that one can choose “parts” of the layer such that the claimed limitation is met).
Regarding claim 4, Bang further discloses wherein the light-emitting structure further comprises:
a second conductive layer (e.g. 214, see [0057]) between the substrate and the reflective layer, comprising a plurality of second conductive parts spaced apart, wherein
an orthographic projection of the pixel region on the substrate is within (at least partially) an orthographic projection of a second conductive part on the substrate (see Fig. 10); and
in the direction perpendicular to the substrate, one reflective part corresponds to one second conductive part, and an orthographic projection of the second conductive part on the substrate at least partially overlaps with the orthographic projection of the reflective part on the substrate (see Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 5, Bang further discloses
wherein the pixel defining structure has, in the direction perpendicular to the substrate, a bottom end close to the substrate, a top end away from the substrate, and a middle part between the bottom end and the top end, the bottom end of the pixel defining structure is configured to define a plurality of openings, the middle part or the top end of the pixel defining structure is configured to define a plurality of light outlets, and one opening corresponds to one second conductive part to expose the second conductive part (see Fig. 10);
an orthographic projection of a light outlet on the substrate is within an orthographic projection of the opening on the substrate (e.g. GP is within opening at 271); and
the orthographic projection of the light outlet on the substrate, the orthographic projection of the reflective part on the substrate, and the orthographic projection of the first conductive part on the substrate are at least partially overlapped (see Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 8, Bang further discloses wherein in the direction perpendicular to the substrate, a height of the first part is greater than or equal to a sum of a thickness of the reflective part and a thickness of the first conductive part (e.g. 271 thicker than 261/266 and 264, see Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 9, Bang further discloses wherein a side, away from the substrate, of a cross section of the second part is an arc protruding in a direction away from the substrate; and/or a cross section of the pixel defining structure is in a mushroom shape (mushroom shape, see Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 12, Bang further discloses wherein the light-emitting structure further comprises:
a first insulating layer (251, see [0122] and [0126]) between the reflective layer (264) and the first conductive layer (261/266), the first insulating layer comprising a first insulating part spaced apart, wherein the first insulating part is within the pixel region, and the orthographic projection of the reflective part on the substrate is within an orthographic projection of the first insulating part on the substrate (e.g. in the interpretation where a portion of 264 is the “reflective part”; note that one can choose a “part” of the layer such that the claimed limitation is met).
Regarding claim 13, Bang further discloses wherein the first insulating part contacts a sidewall of the reflective part and a surface of the reflective part on a side away from the substrate (see Fig. 10), and the first insulating part contacts (e.g. thermally) an area of the second conductive part exposed by the reflective part.
Regarding claim 16, Bang further discloses
a planarization layer (230, see [0092]) on a side of the light-emitting structure close to the substrate, wherein
the first conductive part (261/266) is connected to a pixel circuit through a via hole (via hole for 214) in the planarization layer, and an orthographic projection of the via hole on the substrate and an orthographic projection of the pixel defining structure on the substrate are at least partially overlapped (see Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 17, Bang further discloses wherein the first insulating part comprises:
a first insulating subpart on a side of the reflective part away from the substrate;
a second insulating subpart in contact (e.g. thermal contact) with the second conductive part; and
a third insulating subpart connected between the first insulating subpart and the second insulating subpart, wherein an angle is between an extension direction of the third insulating subpart and the substrate, the angle being acute (note that one can choose “parts” of the layer such that the claimed limitation is met).
Regarding claim 19, Bang further discloses
a first insulating layer (250 and 251, see [0064] and [0122]) between the reflective layer (264) and the first conductive layer (261/266), the first insulating layer comprising a first insulating part spaced apart, wherein a first insulating part at least partially covers a portion of the second conductive part exposed by the reflective part (a part of 250 covers portion of 214 exposed by 264, see Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 23, Bang further discloses a display device comprising the display panel according to claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/9/2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented above. It is specifically noted that the reference has been newly interpreted in regards to the claimed “first part” and “second part.” In particular, the Examiner notes that in accordance with MPEP 2111, USPTO personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997).Therefore the claim limitation “part” has been given its broadest reasonable interpretation, and a portion of the layers can be chosen such that the claimed limitation is met.
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 Lauren R Bell whose telephone number is (571)272-7199. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, William Kraig can be reached at (571) 272-8660. 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.
/LAUREN R BELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights