DETAILED ACTION
This Office action responds to the patent application no. 18/272,570 filed on July 15, 2023.
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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “at least one of the first planarization layer, the first passivation layer, the second passivation layer or the second planarization layer is/are between a bottom of the concave parts and the substrate” in ¶ [0027] as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “at least one of the first planarization layer, the first passivation layer, the second passivation layer or the second planarization layer is/are between a bottom of the concave parts and the substrate” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim 9. No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Figures 1 and 7 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the reference number 3 is used for both the first low-refraction layer and first gate insulating layer in paragraph (¶) [0049] and it is unclear what “between a bottom of” means in ¶ [0027]. According to FIGs. 1 and 3-6, at least one of the first planarization layer 9, the first passivation layer 10, the second passivation layer 11 or the second planarization layer 13 is/are contacting the bottom of the concave parts 20 and/or contacting the substrate 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the second refraction layer" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: what portion of the concave parts is considered as a bottom in relative relationship with “the first planarization layer, the first passivation layer, or the second passivation layer in order to interpret “between a bottom of the concave parts and the substrate” of this claim.
The term “between a bottom of the concave parts and the substrate” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “a bottom” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would interpret a bottom of the concave parts would be the portion of the concave parts that exposes and contacts the substrate 1, not the sidewalls or the side tapered profiles of the second planarization layer 13.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 8, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Guo et al. (Guo hereinafter) (CN 113035901).
Regarding Claims 1, 6, 8, 16, and 18:
Guo (see FIGs. 1-6) teaches {1} a display panel 100, comprising: a drive backplate 110/170, comprising a substrate 110 and a drive circuit layer 120 on the substrate, wherein the drive circuit layer comprises drive circuit regions 121 arranged at intervals and a transparent region 123 around the drive circuit regions, the transparent region comprises concave parts, and a number of layers 130/140 in the respective concave parts of the drive circuit layer is less than a number of layers in the respective drive circuit regions; a side of the drive circuit regions of the drive circuit layer away from the substrate comprises pads for connecting a light-emitting unit 1211; a light-transmissive glue 130/140 for filling the concave parts, and a surface of the light- transmissive glue away from the substrate is on a side of the pads away from the substrate; {6} the light-transmissive glue 130 comprises a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface in a thickness direction of the substrate; a refractive index of the light-transmissive glue remains constant from the first surface to the second surface; {8} the substrate 110 is at a bottom of the concave parts; {16} the light-emitting unit comprises a plurality of pixels, each pixel comprises a plurality of sub-pixels, and one of the drive circuit regions is electrically connected to at least one of the plurality of sub- pixels; and {18} a display apparatus, comprising the display panel according to claim 1.
Guo (see ¶ [0001], [0002], [0043], [0046], [0052]-[0054] ) teaches “This invention belongs to the field of display technology, and particularly relates to a light-transmitting display panel”; “full-screen displays of electronic devices receive more and more attention from the industry”; “Device layer 120 includes a wiring structure, which includes pixel circuit 1211 and connecting lines connecting pixel circuits 1211”; “the transparent filler layer 130 may be made of a transparent organic material, such as transparent polyimide”; “a planarization layer 140 disposed on the side of the pixel circuit layer 1210 facing away from the substrate 110 … made of a transparent material so that … can be reused as a transparent filling layer 130”; “a pixel layer 150, which is stacked on the side the planarization layer 140 … may include a plurality of first sub-pixels 151”; and “the pixel circuit 1211 of the device layer 120 is electrically connected to the first sub-pixel 151 of the pixel layer 150”.
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.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (Guo hereinafter) (CN 113035901) as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Chen et al. (Chen hereinafter) (TW I684270) and further in view of Zhang (CN 110289286).
Regarding Claims 2-5:
Guo does not explicitly teach different materials with different refractive indexes of the transparent filler layer and the planarization layer.
Chen (see ¶ [0069] and [0071]) teaches a predetermined transparent region R2/R2' filled with a fourth interlayer insulation layer 124 including “an organic dielectric material, an inorganic dielectric material, or a combination thereof … a photoresist, acrylic resin, epoxy resin, polyimide resin, or a combination thereof … silicon oxides … silicon nitrides … or combinations thereof” and a pixel definition layer 126 including “an organic dielectric material, an inorganic dielectric material, or a combination thereof … a photoresist, acrylic resin, epoxy resin, polyimide resin, or a combination thereof … silicon oxides … silicon nitrides … or combinations thereof”.
Chen (see ¶ [0053], [0055], [0056], [0060]) teaches “the first insulating layer 121, the second insulating layer 122 and the third insulating 123 in the pixel control layer 12 are all silicon dioxide”; “the light-transmitting hole 133 is filled with a light-guiding medium 134 to replace the original air medium (which theoretically has the lowest refractive index) … the difference between the refractive index of the light guide medium 134 and the refractive index of the pixel control layer 12 is less than or equal to 1 … light guide medium 134 can be composed of silicon dioxide, silicon nitride, or optically transparent resin”; “silicon dioxide with a refractive index of about 1.46 … silicon nitride with a refractive index of about 2.04 … allyl diethylene glycol decarbonate with a refractive index of about 1.5”; “polyimide with a refractive index of about 1.70”.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the teaching of Guo to include the teaching of Chen to utilize more than one transparent materials to fill up the through hole to achieve the same purpose of transmitting lights in the wiring cutout area and to further including the teaching of Zhang to anticipate the transparent polyimide having a refractive index of about 1.7 and silicon dioxide having a refractive index of about 1.46.
The differences in the sequential order of different transparent materials being used to fill up the through hole in the transparent region will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such the sequential order of different transparent materials being used to fill up the through hole in the transparent region are critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Accordingly, since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph below) of the sequential order of different transparent materials being used to fill up the through hole in the transparent region, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use instant invention to form multi-layered materials with different refractive index to fill up the through hole, such as silicon dioxide, transparent polyimide, silicon nitride to improve the light-transmission efficiency.
CRITICALITY
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed invention or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936s (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 7, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (Guo hereinafter) (CN 113035901) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang (CN 110289286).
Regarding Claims 7, 13, and 14:
Guo does not explicitly teach different materials with different refractive indexes of the transparent filler layer and the planarization layer nor a light-shielding layer on a side of the route layer and at the edges of the drive circuit regions.
Zhang (see ¶ [0037], [0053], [0055], [0056], [0060], [0072]) teaches a transistor array layer 124, “the first insulating layer 121, the second insulating layer 122 and the third insulating 123 in the pixel control layer 12 are all silicon dioxide”; “the light-transmitting hole 133 is filled with a light-guiding medium 134 to replace the original air medium (which theoretically has the lowest refractive index) … the difference between the refractive index of the light guide medium 134 and the refractive index of the pixel control layer 12 is less than or equal to 1 … light guide medium 134 can be composed of silicon dioxide, silicon nitride, or optically transparent resin”; “silicon dioxide with a refractive index of about 1.46 … silicon nitride with a refractive index of about 2.04 … allyl diethylene glycol decarbonate with a refractive index of about 1.5”; “polyimide with a refractive index of about 1.70”; “a light shielding layer 135, which is disposed between the pixel definition layer 132 and the light guide medium 134.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the teaching of Guo to further include the teaching of Zhang to anticipate the transparent polyimide having a refractive index of about 1.7 and to form a light-shielding layer at the edge of the pixel circuit above all other conductive connecting lines to prevent light from interfering with the pixel circuit and to enhance the image quality.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (Guo hereinafter) (CN 113035901) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xie et al. (Xie hereinafter) (CN 109887984).
Regarding Claims 9 and 10:
Examiner assumes that the claimed “at least one of the first planarization layer, the first passivation layer, the second planarization layer, or the second planarization layer” contacts the sidewalls of the concave parts and not contacts the exposed substrate surface receiving the light-transmissive glue.
Guo (see ¶ [0054], [0082], [0084], [0086]) teaches “pixel circuit 1211 may include multiple thin-film transistors, capacitors, … pixel circuit 1211 may specifically include a 7T1C or 2T1C circuit structure … other circuit structures can also be used, and this invention does not limit them”; a semiconductor layer is formed on the substrate … can be used to form the active layer of a thin-film transistor”, “a first insulating layer and a first conductive layer are formed sequentially on the semiconductor layer … the first conductive layer can be used to form the gate of the thin-film transistor of the pixel circuit”; “a second insulating layer and a second conductor layer are formed sequentially on the first conductor layer”; “a third insulating layer and a third conductor layer are formed sequentially on the second conductor layer … the third conductor layer can be used to form the source and drain electrodes of the thin-film transistor”. However, Guo does not explicitly teach a second gate layer, a first planarization layer, a first passivation layer, a second passivation layer, and a second planarization layer.
Xie (see FIGs. 3, 8) teaches a light-emitting display panel comprising an opaque display sub-region D1 including a first gate insulating layer 13, a first gate 23, a second gate insulating layer 14, a second gate 24, an interlevel dielectric layer 15 and a transparent sub-region D2 including a planarization layer 31 with a transparent material and a pixel definition layer 32.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the teaching of Guo to further include the teaching of Xie to use dual-gate transistor for the display device to increase ON current and switching speed and to reduce leakage current in the OFF state and to form the insulating layers with openings and patterned conducting layers/pads to connect to the source/drain/gate electrodes regardless if the insulating layers are planarized or not or are contact the substrate or not.
The differences in which insulating layers being planarized or contacting the substrate will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such which insulating layers being planarized or contacting the substrate are critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Accordingly, since the applicant has not established the criticality (see paragraph on pages 9-10) of which insulating layers being planarized or contacting the substrate, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use instant invention to form the insulating layers between patterned conducting layers adjacent to the transparent region to allow light transmitting in the transparent region.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (Guo hereinafter) (CN 113035901) in view of Xie et al. (Xie hereinafter) (CN 109887984) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (Chen hereinafter) (TW I684270).
Regarding Claim 11:
Guo in the device of Xie does not explicitly teach the thickness direction of the substrate, a distance between the surface of the light-transmissive glue away from the substrate and a surface of the second planarization layer away from the substrate is in a range from 2pm to 3pm.
Chen (see FIGs. 1F and 3-5) teaches the thickness of the transparent filling layers, outside the opening of the transparent region R2, can be varied depending how many filling layers are being used.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the combined teaching of Guo in the device of Xie to further include the teaching of Chen to select an appropriate thickness of transparent filling layers, outside the opening of the transparent region, to meet the design requirements and different manufacturing procedures.
The differences in the thickness of the transparent filling layers, outside the opening of the transparent region, will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such the thickness of the transparent filling layers, outside the opening of the transparent region, is critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Accordingly, since the applicant has not established the criticality (see paragraph on pages 9-10) of the thickness of the transparent filling layers, outside the opening of the transparent region, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use instant invention to select an appropriate thickness of transparent filling layers, outside the opening of the transparent region, to accommodate different manufacturing procedures and design requirements.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (Guo hereinafter) (CN 113035901) as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Xie et al. (Xie hereinafter) (CN 109887984) and further in view of Chen et al. (Chen hereinafter) (TW I684270).
Regarding Claim 12:
Guo does not explicitly teach an orthogonal projection of each of the concave parts on the substrate is within an orthogonal projection of the corresponding light-transmissive glue on the substrate, and a distance between a boundary of the orthogonal projection of each of the concave parts on the substrate and a boundary of the orthogonal projection of the corresponding light-transmissive glue on the substrate is in a range from 5pm to 10pm.
Xie (see FIGs. 3 and 8) teaches the transparent filling layer having a T-shape having a portion outside the transparent region D2.
Chen (see FIGs. 1F and 3-5) teaches the transparent filling layers having a T-shape having a portion outside the transparent region R2.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the teaching of Guo to include the teachings of Xie and Chen to form an appropriate T-shaped transparent filling layers having a portion outside the transparent region, to meet the design requirements and different manufacturing procedures.
The differences in the T-shaped transparent filling layers having a portion outside the transparent region, will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such the T-shaped transparent filling layers having a portion outside the transparent region, is critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Accordingly, since the applicant has not established the criticality (see paragraph on pages 9-10) of t the T-shaped transparent filling layers having a portion outside the transparent region, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use instant invention to select an appropriate thickness of transparent filling layers, outside the opening of the transparent region, to accommodate different manufacturing procedures and design requirements.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (Guo hereinafter) (CN 113035901) and in view of Zhang (CN 110289286) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Cho et al. (Cho hereinafter) (US 9,368,760).
Regarding Claim 15:
Guo in the device of Zhang does not explicitly teach the thickness of the light-shielding layer.
Cho (see col./ll.4-5 and 31-33 and FIG. 8) teaches an organic light emitting diode display comprising “the thickness of the lower external light blocking member 2 ranges from for example, about 20 nm to 10 about µm” and “the entire thickness of the upper external light blocking member 20 may range from for example, about 0.02 µm to about 10 µm”.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the combined teaching of Guo in the device of Zhang to further include the teaching of Cho to select an appropriate thickness of the light-shielding layer for the display panel to prevent light from interfering with the pixel circuit and to enhance the image quality.
The differences in the thickness range of the light-shielding layer will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such the thickness range of the light-shielding layer is critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Accordingly, since the applicant has not established the criticality (see paragraph on pages 9-10) of the thickness range of the light-shielding layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use instant invention to select an appropriate thickness for the light-shielding layer of the display panel to prevent light from interfering with the pixel circuit and to enhance the image quality.
Claim 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (Guo hereinafter) (CN 113035901) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (Zhang2 hereinafter) (US 2021/0398952).
Regarding to Claim 17:
Guo does not explicitly teach an encapsulation glue covering the light-transmissive glue.
Zhang2 (see FIGs. 1, 24, 25, 26) teaches micro light-emitting diode display panel comprising a micro light emitting diode 4, an optional light shielding layer 24, a thin film transistor 21/22/23/24/25, and a transparent encapsulation layer 114 on top of all other elements.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the teaching of Guo to further include the teaching of Zhang2 to encapsulate the build-up structure to protect them from oxygen and moisture.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICE W TANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7227. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8:30 am to 5 pm..
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, Wael Fahmy can be reached at (571)272-1705. 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.
/ALICE W TANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2814
/WAEL M FAHMY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2814