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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed by the Applicant on 4/9/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-3,6,8-9,11-13,18,20,23,24-26 and 30 are hereby examined whereas claims 31 and 34 have been withdrawn.
Claim Objection
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 is dependent on claim 5, however claim 5 is canceled. Appropriate correction is needed. For purposes of examination, it is considered to be dependent on claim 3.
Drawings
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, for claim 1;
the width for the limitation of “a minimum width of the second electrode between these two adjacent sub-pixels is greater than 1 micron in a direction perpendicular to an arrangement direction of these two adjacent sub-pixels “
and
for claim 13 “wherein a distance between orthographic projections of an edge of the protrusion on the base substrate and an orthographic projection of an edge of the surface, away from the base substrate, of the defining structure on the base substrate is less than 0.5 micron “
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
For claim 13, the specification describes this limitation in [0236] (US Publication pertaining to Fig.11C), however it is not clearly shown what the 0.5 micron is, neither in the drawing nor in the disclosure.
For claim 18, the annular defining structure and the notch in “and the first annular defining structure surrounding the at least one sub-pixel comprises a notch, and in the direction perpendicular to the base substrate, the first annular defining structure does not overlap with the connection electrode“ is not shown in the drawings.
Definition of notch: a small cut,
Definition of annular: Annular - Definition, Meaning & Synonyms | Vocabulary.com: shaped like a ring
However, the notch is not clearly shown in the Drawings. A gap is shown but it does not appear to be a notch/cut and the annular shape is not shown in the drawings. The ring shape is not completely shown, it is shown has a portion of a ring and not a complete annular shape in the drawings.
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.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
In claim 1, for the limitation of “the arrangement direction” in “a minimum width of the second electrode between these two adjacent sub-pixels is greater than 1 micron in a direction perpendicular to an arrangement direction of these two adjacent sub-pixels“ is not clearly disclosed.
The arrangement direction is disclosed as:
[0062] (US Publication): The arrangement direction of the light-emitting regions of the adjacent sub-pixels mentioned above can be a direction parallel to the center connecting line of the sub-pixels 10, such as the V direction, the U direction, the X direction or the Z direction as shown in FIG. 2. For example, the defining structure 300 is disposed between any adjacent sub-pixels 10
Or
For example, the arrangement direction of the first sub-pixel 101 and the second sub-pixel 102 can be the U direction or the V direction, and the arrangement direction of the first sub-pixel 101 and the third sub-pixel 103 can be the X direction or the Z direction.
Therefore, the arrangement direction with respect to the width as claimed is not clearly described. Appropriate correction is needed.
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 1-3,6,8-9,11-13,18-20, 23 and 30 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.
In claim 1, the limitation of ““a minimum width of the second electrode between these two adjacent sub-pixels is greater than 1 micron in a direction perpendicular to an arrangement direction of these two adjacent sub-pixels “ is unclear language. It is not clear what is the width and it is not clear what is the arrangement direction.
For purposes of examination, width is considered as thickness and arrangement direction is considered as XY axes.
Further for claim 2, the limitation of “wherein the second electrodes are continuously arranged at the edge of the defining structure” is unclear language. It is not clear what is meant by continuous at an edge of the defining structure.
For claim 3, the limitation of sub-directions is unclear language. It is not clear what is meant by this limitation.
Appropriate correction is needed.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2,8-9,11,15 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (CN 114628451 A, cited previously) in view of Zhang (US 20190044077 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Zhou teaches a display substrate (see Fig.2,5),
PNG
media_image1.png
317
559
media_image1.png
Greyscale
comprising: a base substrate (180,110), at least comprising a first region; a plurality of sub-pixels (152; Abstract) located in the first region of the base substrate, wherein each sub-pixel in at least part of the plurality of sub-pixels comprises a light-emitting element,
and a first electrode 131 and a second electrode 132 located at both sides of the light-emitting functional layer along a direction perpendicular to the base substrate (see in Zhou: In some examples, as shown in FIG. 2, the light function layer 120 comprises a first light emitting layer 121 and the second light emitting layer 122 located on two sides of the conductive layer 129 in the direction perpendicular to the substrate 110, the conductive layer 129 is a charge generating layer) , the first electrode is located between the light-emitting functional layer and the base substrate, and the light-emitting functional layer comprises a plurality of film layers (121,122), wherein the display substrate further comprises a defining structure (partition 140 OR 141,142) and at least one defining structure is disposed between at least two adjacent sub-pixels; a first orthographic projection of a surface, close to the base substrate, of the defining structure between adjacent sub-pixels on the base substrate is completely located within a second orthographic projection of a surface, away from the base substrate, of the defining structure on the base substrate (length of the pixel defining structure on the top surface and on its bottom surface; wherein top surface length is wider than the bottom surface length);
in an arrangement direction of light- emitting regions of the adjacent sub-pixels, a maximum size of the second orthographic projection is greater than a maximum size of the first orthographic projection (see the broader top and narrower bottom shape of the pixel defining structure that fulfills the requirement above),
and the defining structure comprises an inorganic nonmetallic material (see in Zhou: and the second sub-partition structure 742 is made of an inorganic non-metal material)
in at least a partial region of the first region, at least one film layer in the light-emitting functional layer is disconnected (see two sides of 140 in Fig.2);
at an edge of the defining structure, and second electrodes (top electrode 132) of adjacent sub-pixels are at least partially continuously arranged (also see Trapezoid shape for the partition: For example, as shown in FIG. 19, the cross section of the first sub-partition structure 741 can be trapezoidal, the upper bottom of the trapezoid is located at the lower bottom of the trapezoid far away from one side of the substrate 110, the included angle between the side edge and the lower bottom of the trapezoid is not more than 90 degree).
Zhou further teaches: a pixel defining pattern (pixel defining layer 150), located at a side of the first electrode 131 away from the base substrate 110/180, wherein at least the pixel defining pattern located in the first region comprises a plurality of first openings, one sub-pixel (200) corresponds to at least one first opening (left most 210 and 131 between the pixel defining layers), the light-emitting element of the sub-pixel is at least partially located in the first opening corresponding to the sub-pixel, and the first opening is configured to expose the first electrode, the pixel defining pattern further comprises a second opening (right most 210 and 131 between the pixel defining layers), and at least part of the defining structure is exposed by the second opening, the second electrode of at least one sub-pixel and the second electrode of one sub-pixel adjacent thereto are continuously arranged (see continuous and regular arrangement of sub-pixels 200 in Fig. 3 and 4 from the top view).
Zhou does not teach a minimum width of the second electrode between these two adjacent sub-pixels is greater than 1 micron in a direction perpendicular to an arrangement direction of these two adjacent sub-pixels (minimum width in a direction perpendicular to an arrangement direction of these two adjacent sub-pixels is considered as thickness of the second electrode (see Objections and 112 rejections above).
Zhang teaches thickness of the anode in an OLED as 1-2 microns ([0051]), therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the application was filed, to use the thickness as disclosed in Zhang, in the device of Zhou, in order to achieve a good electrical conductivity and a good chemical stability ([0051] of Zhang).
Regarding claim 2, Zhou in view of Zhang teaches a display substrate, wherein the second electrodes are continuously arranged at the edge of the defining structure (131 that is continuous at the edge of 150 in Zhou).
Regarding claim 8, Zhou in view of Zhang teaches a display substrate, wherein a cross-sectional shape of the defining structure cut by a plane where a center connecting line of the adjacent sub-pixels located comprises a first trapezoid, a length of a first base of the first trapezoid away from the base substrate is greater than a length of a second base of the first trapezoid close to the base substrate, and the plane is perpendicular to the base substrate (from teachings of 150 in Zhou).
Regarding claim 9, Zhou in view of Zhang teaches a display substrate, wherein an included angle between at least part of at least one leg of the first trapezoid and the second base is an obtuse angle (shown by arrow below),
PNG
media_image2.png
292
607
media_image2.png
Greyscale
but does not teach the obtuse angle is in a range of 110-150 degrees (- - - and/ or a thickness of the defining structure is in a range of 300-550 angstroms - -). However, the angle as claimed is a result effective variable, and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use an obtuse angle in the range of 110-150 degrees by routine experimentation and simulation, since where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the “optimum range” involves only routine skill in the art, in order to optimize material deposition during manufacturing.
Regarding claim 11, Zhou in view of Zhang teaches a display device, further comprising: a first insulating layer 180 (in Zhou), located between the defining structure and the base substrate, wherein, in at least the partial region of the first region, the first insulating layer is in contact with the surface of the defining structure facing the base substrate, the first insulating layer is located between the first electrode and the base substrate, and a material of the first insulating layer comprises an organic material (see in Zhou: the material of the flat layer 180 may be an organic material, such as resin, or acrylic terephthalate, polyimide, polyamide, polycarbonate, epoxy resin and so on in the one kind of or the combination of several kinds).
Regarding claim 15, Zhou in view of Zhang teaches a display substrate, further comprising: a pixel defining pattern 150 (Zhou), located at a side of the first electrode away from the base substrate, wherein at least the pixel defining pattern located in the first region comprises a plurality of first openings (openings between the two opposite elements 150, on two sides of partition 140 in Fig.2),
one sub-pixel corresponds to at least one first opening, the light-emitting element of the sub-pixel is at least partially located in the first opening corresponding to the sub-pixel, and the first opening is configured to expose the first electrode, wherein the pixel defining pattern further comprises a second opening, and at least part of the defining structure is exposed by the second opening (first and second openings formed by 150 wherein the openings accommodate the light emitting portion 210 (Fig.2) and the partition 140).
Regarding claim 30, Zhou in view of Zhang teaches a display device, comprising the display substrate (abstract of Zhou).
Claim(s) 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (CN 114628451 A, cited previously) in view of Zhang (US 20190044077 A1) and further in view of Zhao (WO 2019184607 A1)
Regarding claim 3, Zhou in view of Zhang teaches the invention set forth in claim 1 above, but is silent regarding :a display substrate, wherein (- - the second electrode of at least one sub-pixel and the second electrode of one sub-pixel adjacent thereto in a first sub-direction (see 112 rejection above) are continuously arranged, the second electrode of the at least one sub-pixel and the second electrode of one sub-pixel adjacent thereto in a second sub-direction are disconnected, and the first sub-direction is intersected with the second sub-direction;
and/or - -)
the second electrode of at least one sub-pixel and the second electrode of one sub- pixel adjacent thereto in a first sub-direction (see 112 rejection above) are continuously arranged, the second electrode of the at least one sub-pixel and the second electrode of one sub-pixel adjacent thereto in a second sub-direction are continuously arranged, and the first sub- direction is intersected with the second sub-direction.
Zhao teaches: the second electrode of at least one sub-pixel and the second electrode of one sub- pixel adjacent thereto in a first sub-direction (see 112 rejection above) are continuously arranged, the second electrode of the at least one sub-pixel and the second electrode of one sub-pixel adjacent thereto in a second sub-direction are continuously arranged, and the first sub- direction is intersected with the second sub-direction (anode 10 in Figures 1-4 and in Zhao: As shown in FIG. 1, the vent holes 20 currently formed on the anode 10 are arranged in a matrix, and there are distinct anode continuous regions in the row direction (x direction) and the column direction (y direction), that is, the anode 10 is The width remains constant over a longer range, and the apparent continuous area of the anode affects the exhaust effect) and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the anode shape as disclosed in Zhao, in the device of Zhou in view of Zhang in order to easy manufacturing.
Regarding claim 6, Zhou in view of Zhang and Zhao teaches a display substrate,
wherein an orthographic projection of a center connecting line of these two adjacent sub-pixels on a plane where the second electrode is located is within the second electrode (from the combined teachings of Zhou in view of Zhou).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou in view of Zhang and further in view of Lee (US 20210020714 A1, cited previously)
Regarding claim 12, Zhou in view of Zhang teaches the invention set forth in claim 11 above, but is silent regarding the first insulating layer comprises a protrusion in contact with the surface of the defining structure, and the first orthographic projection is completely located within an orthographic projection of the protrusion on the base substrate.
Lee teaches a display device wherein the first insulating layer comprises a protrusion SPRT (Fig.24 ,23 and 22) in contact with the surface of the defining structure PRT ([0179] and [0181]) and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the protrusion as disclosed in Lee, in the device of Chun in view of Kim in order to protect the pixel definition layer ([0179] in Lee).
Further, Zhou in view of Zhang and Lee does not teach the first orthographic projection is completely located within an orthographic projection of the protrusion on the base substrate. However, the size of the protrusion is a result effective variable and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the protrusion such that the first orthographic projection is completely located within an orthographic projection of the protrusion on the base substrate, by routine experimentation, in order to optimize the manufacturing steps and the costs.
Regarding claim 13, Zhou in view of Zhang and Lee display substrate teaches the display substrate, wherein a distance between orthographic projections of an edge of the protrusion on the base substrate and an orthographic projection of an edge of the surface, away from the base substrate, of the defining structure on the base substrate is less than 0.5 micron (see Objection to Drawings).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou in view of Zhang and further in view of Lee (US 20210020714 A1)
Regarding claim 18, Zhou in view of Zhang teaches a display substrate, wherein the plurality of sub-pixels comprises a plurality of first color sub-pixels, a plurality of second color sub-pixels and a plurality of third color sub-pixels, the defining structure comprises a plurality of first annular defining structures (140 in Fig.1 of Zhou), and the plurality of first annular defining structures surrounds at least one sub-pixel among the plurality of first color sub-pixels, the plurality of second color sub-pixels and the plurality of third color sub-pixels (see borders 140 surrounding the pixels in Fig. 1); wherein each sub-pixel in the at least part of the plurality of sub-pixels further comprises a pixel circuit, and in the direction perpendicular to the base substrate, a main electrode 131 (Zhou) overlaps with the light- emitting region of the light-emitting element; a shape of the main electrode is basically the same as the shape of the light emitting region, the pixel circuit is electrically connected to the connection electrode, and the first annular defining structure (surrounding the at least one sub-pixel comprises a notch, and in the direction perpendicular to the base substrate, the first annular defining structure does not overlap with the connection electrode (see Objection to drawings).
Zhou in view of Zhang does not teach: the first electrode of the light-emitting element of at least one sub-pixel comprises a connection electrode as well which does not overlap with the light-emitting region of the light-emitting element
Lee teaches a display device with a main electrode E1 (Fig.7) and a connection electrode (within CH3) which does not overlap with the light-emitting region of the light-emitting element and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the connection electrode in the device of Zhou in view of Zhang, in order to facilitate connection with the transistor ([0090] in Lee).
Claims 20 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou in view of Zhang and further in view of Zhang2 (CN 114628449 A, cited previously)
Regarding claim 20, Zhou in view of Zhang teaches the invention set forth in claim 11 above, but is silent regarding : a second insulating layer, located between the defining structure and the base substrate, wherein the base substrate further comprises a second region, and the first region is located at a periphery of the second region; the second insulating layer comprises at least one annular insulating portion surrounding the second region, the defining structure further comprises a second annular defining structure in contact with a surface, away from the base substrate, of the annular insulating portion, the second insulating layer is located at a side of the first insulating layer facing the base substrate, a material of the second insulating layer comprises an inorganic nonmetallic material, the material of the second insulating layer is different from the material of the defining structure, and the light-emitting functional layer and the second electrode are both disconnected at an edge of the second annular defining structure.
Zhang2 teaches a display device (Fig.11A) wherein: a second insulating layer 011, located between the defining structure and the base substrate, wherein the base substrate further comprises a second region (left side of 400), and the first region (right side of 400) is located at a periphery of the second region; the second insulating layer comprises at least one annular insulating portion 500 surrounding the second region, the defining structure further comprises a second annular defining structure 600 in contact with a surface, away from the base substrate, of the annular insulating portion, the second insulating layer is located at a side of the first insulating layer 400 facing the base substrate, a material of the second insulating layer comprises an inorganic nonmetallic material, the material of the second insulating layer is different from the material of the defining structure, and the light-emitting functional layer 100 and the second electrode 120 are both disconnected at an edge of the second annular defining structure.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the second region as disclosed in Zhang2 in the device of Zhou in view of Zhang in order to reduce crosstalk (see in Zhang: so that the charge generating layer is cut off at the edge of the isolation structure, which is good for reducing the probability of crosstalk between adjacent sub-pixels).
Regarding claim 23, Zhou in view of Zhang and Zhang2 teaches a display substrate, wherein across-section of the second annular defining structure comprises a second trapezoid, and a length of a base of the second trapezoid away from the base substrate is greater than a length of a base of the second trapezoid close to the base substrate; a cross-sectional shape of the defining structure cut by a plane where a center connecting line of the adjacent sub-pixels is located comprises a first trapezoid, a length of a first base of the first trapezoid away from the base substrate is greater than a length of a second base of the first trapezoid close to the base substrate, and the plane is perpendicular to the base substrate (given the shape in Zhou, wherein the top/bottom of the trapezoid is longer than the bottom/top surface of the trapezoidal pixel defining layer) ; but does not explicitly teach a ratio of a size of the first trapezoid in the direction perpendicular to the base substrate to a size of the second trapezoid in the direction perpendicular to the base substrate is in a range of 0.8-1.2, and a ratio of an included angle between a leg of the first trapezoid and the second base to an included angle between a leg of the second trapezoid and the base of the second trapezoid close to the base substrate is in a range of 0.8-1.2. However, However, the ratio as claimed is a result effective variable, and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the ratio as claimed of 0.8-0.12 by routine experimentation and simulation, since where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the “optimum range” involves only routine skill in the art, in order to optimize material deposition during manufacturing.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou
and further in view of Shi (WO 2020134794 A1-CN 113380956 A, cited previously)
Regarding claim 24, Zhou teaches a display substrate, comprising: a base substrate, at least comprising a first region; a plurality of sub-pixels located in the first region of the base substrate, wherein each sub-pixel in at least part of the plurality of sub-pixels comprises a light-emitting element, the light-emitting element comprises a light-emitting functional layer, and a first electrode and a second electrode located at both sides of the light-emitting functional layer in a direction perpendicular to the base substrate, the first electrode is located between the light-emitting functional layer and the base substrate, and the light-emitting functional layer comprises a plurality of film layers; a pixel defining pattern 150, located at a side of the first electrode away from the base substrate, wherein at least the pixel defining pattern located in the first region comprises a plurality of first openings, one sub-pixel (left side 210) corresponds to at least one first opening, the light-emitting element of the sub-pixel is at least partially located in the first opening corresponding to the sub-pixel, and the first opening is configured to expose the first electrode 131, wherein the display substrate further comprises a defining structure, at least one defining structure is disposed between at least two adjacent sub-pixels, the pixel defining pattern further comprises a second opening, and at least part of the defining structure 154 is exposed by the second opening; the plurality of sub-pixels comprises a first sub-pixel, a second sub-pixel and a third sub-pixel (200 in Fig.4), the second sub-pixel and the third sub-pixel are both adjacent to the first sub-pixel (see rejection in claim 1, as the same citations apply).
Zhou does not teach: a maximum size of the defining structure disposed between the first sub-pixel and the second sub-pixel in an arrangement direction of these two sub-pixels is a first size, a maximum size of the defining structure disposed between the first sub-pixel and the third sub-pixel in an arrangement direction of these two sub-pixels is a second size, and the first size is different from the second size.
Shi discloses:
In one embodiment, the pixel structure 100 further includes a first pixel defining layer and a second pixel defining layer. The red sub-pixel group, the green sub-pixel group and the blue sub-pixel group are separated by a first pixel defining layer; each adjacent red sub-pixel, each adjacent green sub-pixel and each adjacent blue sub-pixel It is separated by a second pixel defining layer. The pixel-defining layer refers to a layer for separating sub-pixels. In this embodiment, the first pixel defining layer is used to separate adjacent sub-pixel groups having different colors of light; the second pixel defining layer is used to separate adjacent sub-pixels having the same color of light. Moreover, in this embodiment, the height of the first pixel defining layer is greater than the height of the second pixel defining layer.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the different sizes for the pixel defining layers as disclosed in Shi, in the device of Zhou in order to optimize luminous efficiency.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou
In view of Shi and further in view of Shang (CN 216749902 U)
Regarding claim 25, Zhou in view of Shin teaches the invention set forth in claim 24 above, but is silent regarding the plurality of sub-pixels is arrayed along a first direction and a second direction, some pixels in the plurality of sub-pixels are arrayed along a third direction and a fourth direction, the first direction is perpendicular to the second direction, the third direction is perpendicular to the fourth direction, and the first direction is intersected with the third direction; a maximum size of the defining structure between two adjacent sub-pixels arranged along the first direction or the second direction in an arrangement direction of these two sub-pixels is a third size, a maximum size of the defining structure between two adjacent sub-pixels arranged along the third direction or the fourth direction in an arrangement direction of these two sub-pixels is a fourth size, and the third size is less than the fourth size.
Shang teaches a display device wherein: the plurality of sub-pixels is arrayed along a first direction and a second direction, some pixels in the plurality of sub-pixels are arrayed along a third direction and a fourth direction, the first direction is perpendicular to the second direction, the third direction is perpendicular to the fourth direction, and the first direction is intersected with the third direction; a maximum size of the defining structure between two adjacent sub-pixels arranged along the first direction or the second direction in an arrangement direction of these two sub-pixels is a third size, a maximum size of the defining structure between two adjacent sub-pixels arranged along the third direction or the fourth direction in an arrangement direction of these two sub-pixels is a fourth size, and the third size is less than the fourth size (see Fig. 15 and the arrangement of the pixels in horizontal, vertical and diagonal positions, and the size of the defining structures 140 ;
PNG
media_image3.png
139
311
media_image3.png
Greyscale
).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the shapes as disclosed in Shang, in the device of Zhou in view of Shi in order to avoid the charge generating layer with high conductivity causing crosstalk between adjacent sub-pixels.
(see in Huang: In the display substrate provided by the embodiment of the present disclosure, a partition structure is provided between the adjacent sub-pixels, and the charge generating layer in the light function layer is cut off at the position of the partition structure, so as to avoid the charge generating layer with high conductivity causing crosstalk between adjacent sub-pixels. and the partition structure comprises a plurality of annular partition parts, each annular partition part surrounds a first colour sub-pix; a second color sub-pixel or a third color sub-pixel, so the partition structure can realize the partition of most adjacent sub-pixel by simple annular partition part, so as to avoid the crosstalk between adjacent sub-pixels. On the other hand, because the display substrate can avoid the crosstalk between adjacent sub-pixels through the partition structure, so the display substrate can be designed by using double-layer light emitting (Tandem EL) and improve the pixel density. Therefore, the display substrate can have long service life, low power consumption, high brightness, high resolution and so on).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou
In view of Shi and further in view of Wu (WO 2022014843 A1)
Regarding claim 26, Zhou in view of Shin teaches the invention set forth in claim 24 above, but is silent regarding the plurality of sub-pixels comprises a plurality of green sub-pixels, a plurality of blue sub-pixels and a plurality of red sub-pixels, and a maximum size of the defining structure disposed between two adjacent green sub-pixels in an arrangement direction of these two green sub-pixels is greater than a maximum size of the defining structure disposed between other adjacent sub-pixels in an arrangement direction of the other adjacent sub-pixels.
Wu teaches partitions between pixels with widths that are different for different color pixels. Wu discloses:
According to various embodiments, the pixel defining member 160_4 and the additional pixel defining member 160_4A may have the same width in the second type sub-pixel structure 202 based on the first direction. According to various embodiments, the pixel defining member 160_4 and the additional pixel defining member 160_4A may have different widths. According to an embodiment, the widths of the pixel defining member 160_4 and the additional pixel defining member 160_4A may be different for each color of the sub-pixel. For example, the width of the pixel defining member 160_4 disposed in the pixel structure corresponding to the second type blue sub-pixel 162B is the pixel defining member disposed in the pixel structure corresponding to the second type red sub-pixel 162R. A pixel corresponding to the second-type green sub-pixels 162Ga and 162Gb in which the pixel defining member 160_4 is larger than the width of 160_4 and disposed in the pixel structure corresponding to the second-type red sub-pixel 162R. It may be larger than the width of the pixel defining member 160_4 disposed in the structure. According to various embodiments, the width of the additional pixel defining member 160_4A disposed in the pixel structure corresponding to the second type blue sub-pixel 162B is disposed in the pixel structure corresponding to the second type red sub-pixel 162R. The width of the additional pixel defining member 160_4A that is greater than the width of the additional pixel defining member 160_4A and disposed in the pixel structure corresponding to the second type red sub-pixel 162R is greater than the width of the second type green sub-pixels 162Ga and 162Gb ) may be greater than the width of the additional pixel defining member 160_4A disposed in the pixel structure corresponding to the pixel structure.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the shapes as disclosed in Wu, in the device of Zhou in view of Shi in order to improve the lifespan and performance (see in Wu: so it is easy to design and lifespan performance of the OLED).
Other art
US 20210020714 A1 shows in Fig.11, the annular arrangement of the pixel defining layers
PNG
media_image4.png
778
598
media_image4.png
Greyscale
US 20070241671 A1, CN 114628451 A; CN 115516641 A; CN 105720081 B JP 2008078038 A-102; US 11539019 B2.
Response to Arguments
The arguments filed by the Applicant on 4/9/26 is acknowledged, however it is moot in view of new grounds of rejection for the amended claims.
The objection to drawings pertaining to claim 13 (Fig.11C) have not been addressed and it is not clear what is meant by:
[0236] For example, as shown in FIG. 11C, the distance between the orthographic projections of the edge of the protrusion 210 and the edge of the surface, away from the base substrate 01, of the defining structure 300 on the base substrate 01 is less than 0.5 micron
And
Claim 13. Appropriate correction is needed.
The issues at hand that were discussed in the email sent to Applicant on 6/16/26 have been copied below:
Zhou does not teach a minimum width of the second electrode between these two adjacent sub-pixels is greater than 1 micron in a direction perpendicular to an arrangement direction of these two adjacent sub-pixels
The concerns about the amended claim language in yellow highlight above are:
1. Arrangement direction is disclosed to be one of the many directions like U, V, Y, Z and some much in the disclosure. Therefore, It is not clear what exactly is the arrangement direction? And which axes it covers. This should be clarified very clearly and support for it should be clearly shown from the drawings.
2. But based on the drawings, the top view of the second electrode that is continuously arranged is in the x,y direction such as in x, y direction. So considering the arrangement direction to be for example x,y, then the width as claimed being PERPENDICULAR to the arrangement direction, should be in z direction, or in other words, the width is the height or thickness.
(therefore, minimum width in a direction perpendicular to an arrangement direction of these two adjacent sub-pixels is considered as thickness of the second electrode).
3. Drawings do not show the width anywhere, therefore there is a 112 issue, as to what the width that is PERPENDICULAR to the arrangement direction is really is?. Where is the width shown in the drawings? Is it the height/thickness, that Applicant calls as width?
So basically, arrangement direction and the width should be clarified and support shown for them from the drawings
Also claim 24 may be amended to include the above features, based on the rejection of claim 1 and what is not taught by Zhou, in claim 1 as indicated above.
Further, if all the above issues are resolved, then, it may be a good idea to call the second electrode as second pixel electrode for clarity purposes.
Once all the above are clarified, another updated search would be done.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fatima Farokhrooz whose telephone number is (571)-272-6043. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday, 9 am - 5 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s Supervisor, James Greece can be reached on (571) 272-3711.
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.
/Fatima N Farokhrooz/
Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights