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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/22/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 05/22/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Liu et al. (US 2020/0091249 A1; hereinafter “Liu”) and Qiu et al. (US 2022/0123094 A1; hereinafter “Qiu”).
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 1-2, 8, 11-13 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang (US 2022/0077250 A1), and further in view of Liu et al. (US 2020/0091249 A1; hereinafter “Liu”), Ko et al. (US 2015/0280171 A1; hereinafter “Ko”), and Qiu et al. (US 2022/0123094 A1; hereinafter “Qiu”).
In regard to claim 1, Tang teaches a display panel, comprising:
a substrate (a top-emitting display panel 1) (Fig. 1 and paragraph 42);
a plurality of anodes disposed on the substrate (plurality of reflective electrodes 3 and first anodes 9 function as the anodes) (Fig. 1 and paragraph 42);
an inorganic barrier layer disposed on the substrate and comprising a plurality of barrier parts (an isolation unit 4 and second anode 10 form the inorganic barrier layer), wherein each of the anodes is disposed between two adjacent ones of the barrier parts (the first anodes 9 and the reflective electrodes 3 are shown between the isolation units 4 in Fig. 1); and
a pixel definition layer (a pixel definition layer 6) comprising a plurality of pixel definition parts each covering one of the barrier parts and a part of at least one of the anodes adjacent to the one of the barrier parts (the pixel definition layer 6 wraps around the outer surface of the second anode 10 and the isolation unit 4, and partially covers the edges of the first anode 9) (Fig. 1 and paragraph 55),
wherein each of the barrier parts comprises a first barrier subpart (the portion of the isolation unit 4 annotated as FSP in Fig. 1 below functions as a first barrier subpart) and a second barrier subpart (the portion of the isolation unit 4 annotated as SSP in Fig. 1 below functions as a second barrier subpart) disposed on a side of the first barrier subpart away from the substrate (the portion of the isolation unit 4 annotated as SSP is shown above the portion of the isolation unit 4 annotated as FSP in annotated Fig. 1), and an orthographic projection of the first barrier subpart on the substrate is within an orthographic projection of the second barrier subpart on the substrate(the orthographic projection of FSP is shown within the orthographic projection of SSP in annotated Fig. 1 below); the anodes comprise a first sub-anode, a second sub-anode and a third sub-anode (the plurality of plurality of reflective electrodes 3 and first anodes 9 that can function as a first sub-anode, a second sub-anode and a third sub-anode are shown in Fig. 1).
However, Tang doesn’t explicitly teach a thickness of the first sub-anode is greater than a thickness of the second sub-anode which is greater than a thickness of the third sub-anode; and
the first sub-anode comprises a first anode subpart of a plurality of first anode subparts, a first second anode subpart of a plurality of second anode subparts and a first third anode subpart of a plurality of third anode subparts that are sequentially stacked on the substrate, wherein an orthographic projection of the first third anode subpart on the substrate is entirely contained within an orthographic projection of the first second anode subpart on the substrate, and the orthographic projection of the first second anode subpart on the substrate is within an orthographic projection of the first first anode subpart on the substrate.
Liu teaches a display panel (organic light-emitting diode display panel) (paragraph 38), wherein a thickness of a first sub-anode is greater than a thickness of a second sub-anode which is greater than a thickness of a third sub-anode (the thickness of the anode layer 4 in the red sub-pixel R is larger than the thickness of the anode layer 4 in the green sub-pixel G, and the thickness of the anode layer 4 in the green sub-pixel G is larger than the thickness of the anode layer 4 in the blue sub-pixel B) (Fig. 1 and paragraph 38).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Tang with the teachings of Liu to have a thickness of each of the first sub-anodes, a thickness of each of the second sub-anodes, and a thickness of each of the third sub-anodes decrease successively since this allows for improved saturation of light emitted from the OLED display panel as taught by Liu (paragraph 32).
Ko teaches a display panel (organic light-emitting diode (OLED) display apparatus) (Fig. 1 and paragraph 25), wherein anodes comprise a first sub-anode (anode electrode 300A anode electrode 300A of the red (R) sub-pixel region) (Fig. 2 and paragraph 27), a second sub-anode (anode electrode 300B) and a third sub-anode (anode electrode 300C); and
the first sub-anode comprises a first anode subpart of a plurality of first anode subparts (a first anode electrode 301), a first second anode subpart of a plurality of second anode subparts (a second anode electrode 302) and a first third anode subpart of a plurality of third anode subparts (a third anode electrode 303) that are sequentially stacked on the substrate (the plurality of red (R) sub-pixel regions within the device show the first through third anode electrodes 301-303 sequentially stacked in Fig. 2) (Fig. 2 and paragraph 27), and the orthographic projection of the first second anode subpart on the substrate is within an orthographic projection of the first first anode subpart on the substrate (the orthographic projections of the first through third anode electrodes 301-303 are shown within each other in Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Tang in with the teachings of Ko to have the first sub-anode comprises a first anode subpart of a plurality of first anode subparts, a first second anode subpart of a plurality of second anode subparts and a first third anode subpart of a plurality of third anode subparts that are sequentially stacked on the substrate, and the orthographic projection of the first second anode subpart on the substrate is within an orthographic projection of the first first anode subpart on the substrate since this aids in light extraction efficiency and preventing microcavity effects as taught by Ko (paragraphs 8-9).
Qiu teaches a display panel (a display substrate) (Fig. 1A and paragraph 24),wherein an orthographic projection of a first third anode subpart (a third electrode sublayer 111C) on the substrate is entirely contained within an orthographic projection of a first second anode subpart (a second electrode sublayer 111B) on a substrate (the shapes and sizes of the orthographic projections of the first electrode sublayer 111A, the second electrode sublayer 111B and the third electrode sublayer 111C on the base substrate 14 are the same and therefore the second electrode sublayer 111B would entirely contain the orthographic projection of the third electrode sublayer 111C on a base substrate 14) (Fig. 7 and paragraphs 109 and 117).
It would’ve been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Tang with the teachings of Qiu to have an orthographic projection of the first third anode subpart on the substrate is entirely contained within an orthographic projection of the first second anode subpart on the substrate since this would have been an obvious matter of design choice bounded by well-known manufacturing constraints and ascertainable by routine experimentation and optimization to choose these particular dimensions because applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
PNG
media_image1.png
664
889
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 2, Tang teaches wherein the inorganic barrier layer further comprises a plurality of first openings each disposed between two adjacent ones of the barrier parts (an undercut opening 25 is formed between each isolation unit 4 and would be between two adjacent isolation units 4) (Fig. 1 and paragraph 54), and each of the anodes
In regard to claim 8, Tang teaches wherein a thickness of the first barrier subpart is greater than or equal to 100nm and is less than or equal to 1000nm (the isolation unit 4 has a thickness (h) of 1µm, a first barrier subpart FSP formed from at least half or greater of the total isolation unit 4 thickness, can have a thickness of greater than or equal to 100nm and is less than or equal to 1000nm) (annotated Fig. 1 and paragraph 53); and a thickness of the second barrier subpart is greater than or equal to 10nm and is less than or equal to 500nm (the isolation unit 4 has a thickness (h) of 1µm, a second barrier subpart SSP formed from at most half of the total isolation unit 4 thickness, can have greater than or equal to 10nm and is less than or equal to 500nm) (annotated Fig. 1 and paragraph 53).
In regard to claim 9, Tang teaches the display panel according to claim 1, wherein the anodes comprise;
the display panel further comprises a first light-emitting layer disposed on a side of the first sub-anode away from the substrate to emit red light, a second light-emitting layer disposed on a side of the second sub-anode away from the substrate to emit green light, and a third light-emitting layer disposed on a side of the third sub-anode away from the substrate to emit blue light (each of the multiple reflective electrodes 3 are shown with a light-emitting functional layers 7 on the topside, where light-emitting functional layers 7 can respectively emit red light, green light, and blue light) (Fig. 1 and paragraph 58).
In regard to claim 10, Tang teaches wherein the thickness of each of the third sub-anode is less than a thickness of each of the barrier parts (a thickness h of the isolation unit 4 is greater than a sum of thicknesses of the reflective electrode 3 and the first anode 9) (paragraph 50).
In regard to claim 11, Tang in view of Liu, Ko and Qiu teaches the second sub-anode comprises a second first anode subpart of the first anode subparts and a second second anode subpart of the second anode subparts that are sequentially stacked on the substrate (the anode electrode 300B is shown containing the first anode electrode 301 and the second anode electrode 302) (Ko Fig. 1 and paragraph 27), and the third sub-anode comprises a third first anode subpart of the first anode subparts (anode electrode 300C is shown containing the first anode electrode 301 in Fig. 1) (Ko Fig. 1 and paragraph 27).
In regard to claim 12, Tang teaches wherein a thickness of each of the first anode subparts is less than or equal to a thickness of the first barrier subpart (the thickness of the reflective electrode 3 is shown to be less than the isolation unit 4 in Fig. 1) (Fig. 1 and paragraph 50).
In regard to claim 13, Tang in view of Liu, Ko and Qiu teaches wherein each of the first anode subparts comprises a first electrode sublayer, a second electrode sublayer, and a third electrode sublayer that are sequentially stacked on the substrate (the first anode electrodes 301 have a multilayer structure, including a metal layer and conductive oxide layers disposed above and below the metal layer); and each of the first electrode sublayer and the third electrode sublayer comprises a transparent conductive material (it is well known that induium tin oxide above and below the metal Ag layer functions as a transparent conductive material in the electrode), and the second electrode sublayer comprises a conductive material with a reflective function (the metal layer of first anode electrodes 301 operates as a reflective layer or a reflective electrode) (Ko, Fig. 1 and paragraph 42).
In regard to claim 16, Tang teaches an orthographic projection of the first barrier subpart of one of the barrier parts disposed between two adjacent ones of the first anode subparts on the substrate has a width less than or equal to a distance between adjacent ones of the first anode subparts (the bottom portion of the isolation unit 4 is shown between the multiple reflective electrodes 3 and would have the width D separating them) (Fig. 1 and paragraph 50).
In regard to claim 17, Tang teaches wherein an orthographic projection of the second barrier subpart of the one of the barrier parts disposed between the two adjacent ones of the first anode subparts on the substrate overlaps with an orthographic projection of each of the two adjacent ones of the first anode subparts on the substrate (the upper portion of the isolation unit 4 is shown overlapping with the reflective electrode 3 in annotated Fig. 1 above).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang in view of Liu, Ko and Qiu as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Kuwabara (US 2005/0057151 A1).
In regard to claim 3, Tang in view of Liu, Ko and Qiu doesn’t explicitly teach wherein an orthographic projection of one of the pixel definition parts disposed between two adjacent ones of the second openings on the substrate has a width less than 2.5 microns.
Kuwabara teaches a display panel (an active matrix light-emitting device) (Fig. 1 and paragraph 66), wherein an orthographic projection of one of the pixel definition parts (a first bank 11) disposed between two adjacent ones of the second openings on the substrate has a width less than 2.5 microns (a first bank of 1 µm has a width of 1 µm) (Fig. 1A and paragraphs 17, 67 and 98).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Tang in view of Liu, Ko and Qiu with the teachings of Kuwabara to have an orthographic projection of one of the pixel definition parts disposed between two adjacent ones of the second openings on the substrate having a width less than 2.5 microns since this allows for the pixel defining layers to ensure sufficient coverage of components within the device as taught by Kuwabara (paragraph 17).
Claims 6-7 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang in view of Liu, Ko and Qiu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fuchigami et al. (US 2004/0256984 A1; hereinafter “Fuchigami”).
In regard to claim 6, Tang in view of Liu, Ko and Qiu doesn’t explicitly teach wherein a porosity of a material of the first barrier subpart is greater than a porosity of a material of the second barrier subpart.
Fuchigami teaches a display panel (an organic EL display) (paragraphs 76-77), wherein a porosity degree of a material of the first barrier subpart is greater than a porosity degree of a material of the second barrier subpart (the lower portion of the isolating film 3h functions as a first barrier subpart is made of silicon oxide, and the upper portion of the isolating film 3h functions as a second barrier subpart is made of silicon nitride, which is known to have a lower porosity than silicon oxide) (Fig. 3h and paragraphs 52-54).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Tang in view of Liu, Ko and Qiu with Fuchigami to have a degree of a material of the first barrier subpart is greater than a degree of a material of the second barrier subpart since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
In regard to claim 7, Tang in view of Liu, Ko, Qiu and Fuchigami teach wherein the material of the first barrier subpart is selected from silicon oxide compounds, and the material of the second barrier subpart is selected from silicon nitride compounds (the isolating film 3h is a two-layered structure, in which a silicon nitride film is stacked on a silicon oxide film) (Fig. 3h and paragraph 53).
In regard to claim 21, Tang in view of Liu, Ko and Qiu doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the first barrier subpart does not overlap with the anodes.
Fuchigami teaches wherein the first barrier subpart does not overlap with any one of the anodes (the lower portion of the isolating film 3h is shown not overlapping the anode conductive layer 2 in Fig. 1) (Fig. 1 and paragraph 23).
It would’ve been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Tang in view of Liu, Ko and Qiu with the teachings of Fuchigami to have the first barrier subpart not overlapping with the anodes since this allows for complete electrical disconnection between anodes without fail as taught by Fuchigami (paragraph 30).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang in view of Liu, Ko and Qiu as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of He et al. (US 2023/0157132 A1; hereinafter “He”).
In regard to claim 18, Tang in view of Liu, Ko and Qiu doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the distance is less than 2 micrometers.
He teaches a display panel (organic light-emitting display) (Fig. 7 and paragraph 95), wherein a distance (a distance between sub-anodes 106) is less than 2 micrometers (a distance between orthographic projections of two adjacent sub-anodes onto the base substrate is less than or equal to 2 μm) (Fig. 7 and paragraph 100).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings Tang in view of Liu, Ko and Qiu with the teachings of He to have the distance between adjacent ones of the first anode subparts is less than 2 micrometers since this allows a manufacture of a device with an enhanced display as taught by He (paragraphs 3, 5 and 42).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang in view of Liu, Ko and Qiu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2021/0408441 A1; hereinafter “Lee”).
In regard to claim 19, Tang teaches the display panel according to claim 1, further comprising a second barrier layer (an encapsulation layer 26) disposed on the pixel definition parts (the encapsulation layer 26 is shown over the pixel definition layer 6 in Fig. 1) (Fig. 1 and paragraph 60).
However, Tang in view of Liu, Ko and Qiu doesn’t explicitly teach the second barrier layer comprises an inorganic material.
Lee teaches wherein a material of s second barrier layer (an encapsulation layer structure 200 ) comprises an inorganic material. (the inorganic encapsulation layers 211 of the encapsulation layer 200 is inorganic) (Fig. 2 and paragraph 76).
It would’ve been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time, to combine the teachings of Tang with the teachings of Lee to have the second barrier layer comprise an inorganic material since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
In regard to claim 20, Tang in view of Liu, Ko, Qiu and Lee don’t explicitly teach wherein a material of the second barrier layer is selected from inorganic insulation materials.
However, in order for the device as taught in Lee to function the inorganic encapsulation layers 211 would need to be made of inorganic insulation material. Therefore, the Examiner takes official notice that it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time to have the material of the second barrier layer is selected from inorganic insulation materials.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEYON ALI-SIMAH PUNCHBEDDELL whose telephone number is (571)270-0078. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur: 7:30AM-3:30 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, Sue Purvis can be reached at (571) 272-1236. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/SEYON ALI-SIMAH PUNCHBEDDELL/ Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/SUE A PURVIS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights