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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “d2” has been used to designate both a maximum distance in Fig. 4A and a minimum distance in Fig. 5. The examiner suggests using “d3” in Fig. 5 and in paragraphs [0099] and [0100], changing all occurrences of “d2” to read “d3”.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains reference numerals for elements of the display panel. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. For example, a more descriptive title could be, “DISPLAY PANEL AND DISPLAY APPARATUS WITH A PLURALITY OF CONDUCTIVE VIAS CONNECTED TO A SINGLE ANODE”.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraphs [0099] and [0100], the examiner suggests changing all occurrences of “d2” to read “d3” because the reference character/numeral “d2” has been used to denote a maximum distance in Fig. 4A. Furthermore, it is noted reference number “163” in Fig. 1 is not disclosed or described in the current specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 2 of claim 9, “projections” should be inserted after “orthographic”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 10, 11, 14, 19 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (US 2020/0212346 A1).
Regarding claim 1:
Lee discloses (in Fig. 5) a display panel, comprising:
a backplane, comprising:
a base substrate 100 [0037],
a plurality of pixel driving circuits 200 (i.e., only one pixel and driving transistor are shown, however, the display panel will comprise numerous driving circuits) located on one side of the base substrate 100,
a first insulating layer 130 [0055] located on one side of the plurality of pixel driving circuits 200 away from the base substrate 100,
a plurality of conductive portions 400 (i.e., the horizontal portion of “400” directly below lower electrode “310” in Fig. 5; furthermore, one conductive portion “400” will be associated with each pixel in the display panel, accordingly, the display panel will include a plurality of conductive portions) located on one side of the first insulating layer 130 away from the base substrate 100, wherein each of the plurality of conductive portions 400 is connected to a corresponding pixel driving circuit 200 via a first connecting member (i.e., vertical portion of “400” penetrating layer “130”) penetrating through the first insulating layer 130, and
a second insulating layer 700 [0087] (i.e., layer 700 is an insulating layer because contact holes 700h are formed therein in order to electrically connect electrode “310” to conductive portion “400”) located on one side of the first insulating layer 130 and the plurality of conductive portions 400 away from the base substrate 100; and
a plurality of light-emitting devices 300 [0059] (only one shown in Fig. 5; however, the display panel will comprise a plurality of devices 300) located on one side of the second insulating layer 700 away from the base substrate 100, wherein an anode 310 of at least one of the plurality of light-emitting devices 300 is connected to a corresponding conductive portion 400 via a plurality of second connecting members (i.e., the conductive material in the contact holes 700h in Fig. 5, or in the enlarged portion of Fig. 5 below, a combination of “first portion”, “second portion”, “third portion” and “fourth portion”) penetrating through the second insulating layer 700.
Therefore, claim 1 is anticipated by Lee.
PNG
media_image1.png
626
1191
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 2-4, 10, 11, 14, 19 and 21:
re claim 2, Lee discloses the display panel according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the plurality of second connecting members comprises:
a first portion (see “first portion” in the enlarged portion of Fig. 5 above) located inside the second insulating layer 700 (Fig. 5); and
a second portion (see “second portion” in the enlarged portion of Fig. 5 above) located outside the second insulating layer 700 and connected to the first portion, wherein the second portion is in contact with the anode 310 (Note: the current claim language does not restrict what may or may not be considered first and second portions, i.e., the second connecting members within the contact holes 700h are electrically connected to the electrode 310, therefore, any portion(s) above the contact holes and within the electrode 310 could be chosen to read on the current claim language. Furthermore, the current specification does not disclose exactly how the first, second, third and fourth portions CM21/CM22/CM22a/CM22b in Fig. 2A are formed/acquired such that the shapes and extensions of these portions would be anything more than a chosen region of the electrode 201, i.e., the specification [0054] discloses the second conductive members CM2 may be tungsten in some implementation, and in [0076] the first metal layer 211a in Fig. 2B comprises titanium; accordingly, in an embodiment that specifically comprises CM2 made of tungsten and 211a made of titanium, the limitation, “a second portion located outside the second insulating layer and connected to the first portion”, may distinguish over the prior art, Lee; however, the current claim language does not distinguish over Lee);
re claim 3, Lee discloses the display panel according to claim 2, wherein the second portion comprises:
a third portion (see “third portion” in the enlarged portion of Fig. 5 above); and
a fourth portion (see “fourth portion” in the enlarged portion of Fig. 5 above) located on one side of the third portion away from the first portion and connected to the third portion, wherein an orthographic projection of the fourth portion on the base substrate is within an orthographic projection of the third portion on the base substrate;
re claim 4, Lee discloses the display panel according to claim 3, wherein in a direction (vertically up as viewed in Fig. 5) from the first portion to the second portion, an area of a section of the second portion parallel to a surface of the base substrate gradually decreases (i.e., the second portion chosen in enlarged portion of Fig. 5 above has a domed shape such that an area of parallel portions gradually decreases in the upward, vertical direction);
re claim 10, Lee discloses the display panel according to claim 1, wherein:
each of the at least one of the plurality of light-emitting devices (in Exhibit B below, see the light-emitting device on the left side) further comprises a cathode 330 [0059] and a functional layer 320 [0059] located between the anode 310 and the cathode 330;
a maximum distance D4 (see Exhibit B) between edges of two orthographic projections of two adjacent second connecting members of the plurality of second connecting members on the base substrate is greater than a thickness of the functional layer 320;
re claim 11, Lee discloses the display panel according to claim 1, wherein:
a line (see “Line” in Exhibit A below) passing through two orthographic projections of two adjacent second connecting members of the plurality of second connecting members on the base substrate 100 intersects with an edge of an orthogonal projection of the anode on the base substrate at a first point (see “Point 1” in Exhibit A) and a second point (see “Point 2” in Exhibit A); and
a minimum distance (see each of the “minimum distance…” in Exhibit A) between each of the first point (“Point 1”) and the second point (“Point 2”) and edges of the two orthogonal projections (“Edge 1” and “Edge 2” in Exhibit A) is greater than 1/5 of a distance (“distance between Point 1 and Point 2” in Exhibit A) between the first point and the second point; and
re claim 14, Lee discloses the display panel according to claim 1, wherein a plurality of orthogonal projections of the plurality of second connecting members on the base substrate have a same shape (i.e., the plurality of second connecting members have the same shape such that their orthogonal projections have a same shape).
re claim 19, Lee discloses the display panel according to claim 1,wherein:
the plurality of conductive portions 400 (horizontal portion of “400” in Fig. 5) is connected to the plurality of pixel driving circuits 200 in one-to-one correspondence;
a plurality of anodes 310 of the plurality of light-emitting devices is connected to the plurality of conductive portions in one-to-one correspondence (e.g., [0078], each pixel comprises a light-emitting device 300 connected to a driving transistor/circuit 200 that realizes a color corresponding to each pixel); and
the backplane is a silicon-based backplane (e.g., [0039, 0042, 0046]); and
re claim 21, Lee discloses a display apparatus [0006], comprising the display panel according to claim 1.
Therefore, Lee anticipates claims 2-4, 10, 11, 14, 19 and 21.
PNG
media_image2.png
424
524
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 7-9 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee, evidenced by Kobayashi (US 2009/0108743 A1).
Regarding claim 7:
Lee does not show a plurality adjacent light-emitting devices in Fig. 5, however, Kobayashi is provided as evidence to show (in Fig. 2) how a plurality adjacent light-emitting devices are typically arranged in a display panel; accordingly, in Lee’s display panel, two adjacent light-emitting devices would be arranged as shown in Exhibit B below. Therefore, when two adjacent light-emitting devices are taken into consideration (as shown in Exbibit A below), in at least one section perpendicular to the base substrate 100, on a straight line passing through two adjacent second connecting members (see “adjacent second conducting members” in Exhibit B) of the plurality of second connecting members, a distance (“D1” in Exhibit B) between the two adjacent second connecting members on the straight line is greater than a distance (“D2” in Exhibit B) between two anodes of two adjacent light-emitting devices (see “two anodes of two adjacent light-emitting devices” in Exhibit B) of the plurality of light-emitting devices on the straight line.
Therefore, claim 7 is anticipated by Lee (evidenced by Kobayashi).
PNG
media_image3.png
475
971
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 8 and 9:
re claim 8, Lee does not show a plurality adjacent light-emitting devices in Fig. 5, however, Kobayashi is provided as evidence to show (in Fig. 2) how a plurality adjacent light-emitting devices are typically arranged in a display panel; accordingly, in Lee’s display panel, two adjacent light-emitting devices would be arranged as shown in Exhibit B above. Therefore, two cathodes 330 (see “first cathode” and “second cathode” in Exhibit B) of two adjacent light-emitting devices of the plurality of light-emitting devices comprise a first cathode and a second cathode, wherein the first cathode has a first protrusion portion (see “first protrusion” in Exhibit B) close to the second cathode and a second protrusion (see “second protrusion” in Exhibit B) portion away from the second cathode, and the second cathode has a third protrusion portion (see “third protrusion” in Exhibit B) close to the first cathode and a fourth protrusion portion (see “fourth protrusion” in Exhibit B) away from the first cathode; and
a minimum distance D4 (see “D4” in Exhibit B) between edges of two orthographic projections of two adjacent second connecting members of the plurality of second connecting members on the base substrate 100 is smaller than a distance D3 (see “D3” in Exhibit B) between the first protrusion portion and the third protrusion portion; and
re claim 9, wherein a maximum distance D5 (see “D5” in Exhibit B) between the edges of the two orthographic projections is smaller than the distance D3 (see Exhibit B) between the first protrusion portion and the third protrusion portion.
Therefore, claims 8 and 9 are anticipated by Lee (evidenced by Kobayashi).
Regarding claim 12:
Lee does not show a plurality adjacent light-emitting devices in Fig. 5, however, Kobayashi is provided as evidence to show (in Fig. 2) how a plurality adjacent light-emitting devices are typically arranged in a display panel; accordingly, in Lee’s display panel, two adjacent light-emitting devices would be arranged as shown in Exhibit C below. Accordingly, when two adjacent light-emitting devices are taken into consideration, Lee discloses the display panel according to claim 1, wherein:
an anode of one of any two adjacent light-emitting devices in a same row of the plurality of light-emitting devices is a first anode (“first anode” in Exhibit C below), and an anode of the other of the any two adjacent light-emitting devices in the same row is a second anode (“second anode” in Exhibit C below); and orthographic projections (“first orthographic projections” in Exhibit C) of the plurality of second connecting members connected to the first anode on the base substrate is centrally symmetrical (see “line of central symmetry” in Exhibit C) with orthographic projections (“second orthographic projections” in Exhibit C) of the plurality of second connecting members connected to the second anode on the base substrate.
Therefore, claim 12 is anticipated by Lee (evidenced by Kobayashi).
PNG
media_image4.png
432
971
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Kim et al. (US 2016/0020422 A1; hereinafter, “Kim”), Matsuura et al. (US 2009/0108743 A1; hereinafter, “Matsuura”) and Kobayashi.
Regarding claim 5:
Lee anticipates claim 2 but does not disclose the anode 310 comprises first and second portions as currently claimed.
Kim teaches, in a similar display panel, an anode comprising at least first and second portions (e.g., in Fig. 3, a first portion 137 [0078] and a second portion 385 [0089]). Kim discloses the second anode portion 138 (Fig. 3) comprises a third anode portion covering the first anode portion 137 and a fourth anode portion in contact with a second insulating layer 115 [0078]. However, Kim does not specify any particular height (thickness) or minimum distance for the anode portions; however, it is noted Kim further discloses such an anode structure suppresses damage which may occur in an electrode and improves device reliability [0014-0017]
Matsuura teaches, in an anode structure similar to that of Kim, a minimum distance (which equals to “22” minus “21” minus “24” in Fig. 1 and [0026]) between a first edge of a fourth anode portion 18 [0026] away from a first anode portion 16 [0026] and a second edge of the fourth anode portion close to the first anode portion is 500nm (i.e., 0.5µm in [0026]). However, similar to Kim, Matsuura does not specify any particular height (thickness) for the anode portions.
Kobayashi is cited to show, in an anode structure similar to that of Kim and Matsuura, thicknesses of individual layers within the anode structure, wherein a thickness of a first anode portion 58/81/82 is about 205nm (100nm/85nm/20nm, see [0068] and [0073]) and a thickness of a second anode portion 56 (Fig. 2 and [0067]) ranges from 22nm to 124nm; accordingly, a maximum total height of a multi-portion anode is about 424nm (i.e., 205nm + 124nm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lee by incorporating a multilayers anode structure, as taught by Kim and Matsuura, because the modification could suppress electrode damage and improve device reliability. Furthermore, when Lee is modified (as taught by Kim and Matsuura), Kobayashi shows that the minimum distance (500nm taught by Matsuura) is greater that even a maximum height (424nm, shown by Kobayashi) of a multi-portion anode, i.e., a height of the second portion (shown in the enlarged portion of Fig. 5 above) is within a maximum height of the anode 310, therefore, the minimum distance (500nm) will be greater than a height of the second portion, which is within the maximum height of anode 130.
Regarding claim 6:
Kobayashi shows a thickness (or height) of layer 58 is about 100nm; accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a height ranging from 15nm to 50nm for the second portion because this range would ensure the second portion remains within a bottom layer of the multilayered anode 56 obtained by Lee (in view of Kim, Matsuura and Kobayashi), thereby ensuring subsequent, thin, flat layers of the multilayered anode can be obtained because the first layer 58 is thick enough to provide a planar upper surface for the subsequent anode layers.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (evidenced by Kobayashi) in view of Toyoda et al. (US 2018/0175118 A1; hereinafter, “Toyoda”).
Regarding claim 13:
Lee (evidenced by Kobayashi) discloses claim 12, wherein two light-emitting devices in a same row; however, the prior art does not explicitly disclose two-light emitting devices in a same column; accordingly, Lee (evidenced by Kobayashi) does not disclose the limitations in the current claim.
Toyoda is cited to show/teach it was well known in the art to arrange light-emitting devices (e.g., 100R, 100G, or 100 B in Fig. 3 and [0032]) in columns and rows, wherein the light-emitting devices in the rows and columns have the same connecting structures for their anodes 40 (e.g., Fig. 5 and [0025]), i.e., in a well-known arrangement, a display panel comprises a matrix of light-emitting elements arranged in rows and columns, wherein the anodes of the light-emitting elements have the same structure.
Therefore, because Lee (evidenced by Kobayashi) does not disclose exactly how all the light-emitting devices (pixels) of the display panel are arranged, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to specifically arrange the pixels in a matrix as shown/taught by Toyoda, because it was a well-known and suitable way to arrange pixels in a display panel. Furthermore, when Lee (evidenced by Kobayashi) is incorporated into a well-known display panel having such a matrix arrangement, the limitations in the current claim are rendered obvious primarily because the limitations are directed to two light-emitting devices adjacent to each other in one column (e.g., such as Toyoda’s two light-emitting devices 100R in one column, in Fig. 4); accordingly each of the light-emitting devices in a column will have the same anode structure; therefore, the orthographic projections of the second connecting members (in Lee) of each anode in each pixel (e.g., 100R) will have the same pattern for the pixels (in a column and row), and this will result in the third orthographic projections completely overlapping with the first orthographic projections in a case wherein the second pattern is moved so that the fourth orthographic projection (which an orthographic projection of the fourth anode, wherein the orthographic projection of each anode has the same pattern for all the pixels) completely overlaps the second orthographic projections (which an orthographic projection of the third anode, wherein the orthographic projection of each anode has the same pattern for all the pixels).
Claim(s) 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of WO 2021/189495 A1 (Note: Yang et al., US 2022/0140277 A1; hereinafter, “Yang”, is the US equivalent to WO 2021/189495 A1; accordingly, Yang will be referenced for the current claims).
Regarding claims 15-18:
Lee anticipates claim 14 but does not explicitly disclose the shape of orthogonal projections comprises a circle and does not specify sizes and distances related to the orthogonal projections.
Yang teaches a display panel comprising a plurality of connecting members 121 (Fig. 16 and [0050]) having circular shape;
wherein a ratio of a minimum distance between two adjacent orthogonal projections 121 of the plurality of orthogonal projections to a diameter of the circle ranges from 0.5 to 1.5 (i.e., Fig. 16 shows projections 121 are spaced such that a distance between two projections 121 is around 0.5);
wherein a ratio of a minimum distance between each of the plurality of orthogonal projections 121 (Fig. 16) and an edge of an orthogonal projection of a corresponding conductive portion 131 (Fig. 16 and [0037]) on a base substrate to a diameter of the circle ranges from 0.5 to 2.5 (i.e., Fig. 16 shows projections 121 are spaced such that a distance between two projection is about half the diameter of one projection 121, and a distance from one projection 121 to an edge of 131 is equal to about one diameter of 121; accordingly, a ratio of a minimum distance, 0.5, to an edge, 1.0, is about 2); and
wherein a diameter of the circle 121 ranges from 200 nm to 300 nm [0050].
Yang discloses such a display panel allows brightness to be adjusted and enhance user experience [0004].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lee by incorporating connecting members having shapes and sizes positioned at specific locations and distances, as taught by Yang, because the modification could allow better brightness adjustment resulting in enhanced user experience.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references listed on the attached PTO-892 discloses display devices with multiple connecting members for a single anode, multi-layered anode with overlap, or circular shaped connecting members, wherein the display devices have some similarity to that of the current invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEX H MALSAWMA whose telephone number is (571)272-1903. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (4-12 Hours, between 5:30AM-10PM).
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, N. Drew Richards can be reached at 571-272-1736. 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.
/LEX H MALSAWMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2892