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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-18, in the reply filed on 03 November 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03 November 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8-9, 11, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tanada (US 9,577,209).
Regarding independent claim 1, Tanada teaches a display panel comprising a substrate (Fig. 7B, Element 101; col. 5, ln. 24-25); light-emitting devices (Fig. 7B; Elements 203, 205, 207 makes up the light-emitting devices); a pixel definition layer (Fig. 7B, Element 209; col. 16, ln. 13), wherein the light emitting devices and the pixel definition layer are located at a side of the substrate, wherein the pixel definition layer comprises apertures (See annotated Fig. 7B of Tanada below), wherein the apertures comprise first apertures provided with the light-emitting devices and a second aperture; and bank portions (See annotated Fig. 7B of Tanada below); and a first spacer structure (Fig. 7B, Element 211; col. 15, ln. 62) provided in the second aperture; wherein along a direction perpendicular to a plane of the substrate, one bank portion of the bank portions comprises a first part, a distance from a surface of the first spacer structure away from the substrate towards the substrate is d1, and a distance from a surface of the first part away from the substrate towards the substrate is d2, where d1 > d2 (See annotated Fig. 7B of Tanada below; height of first spacer structure 211 is d1, height of bank portion is d2).
PNG
media_image1.png
314
456
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Tanada teaches one of the light-emitting devices comprising a first electrode (Fig. 7B, Element 203; col. 15, ln. 64), the first electrode located at a side of the pixel definition layer close to the substrate, and in the direction perpendicular to the plane of the substrate, one of the first apertures overlaps with the first electrode, and the second aperture does not overlap with the first electrode (Fig. 7B).
Regarding claim 9, Tanada teaches the surface of the first spacer structure away from the substrate is a concave-convex surface (Fig. 1C).
Regarding claim 11, Tanada teaches a support post (Fig. 2, Element 111) located at a side of the first part away from the substrate, wherein along the direction perpendicular to the plane of the substrate, a distance from a surface of the support post away from the substrate to the substrate is d3, wherein d3 > d1.
Regarding claim 14, Tanada teaches the second aperture comprising a first sub-aperture located between two adjacent first apertures of the first apertures; a first midline is defined between the two adjacent first apertures, and minimum distances from the first midline to the two first apertures are equal to each other; and wherein the first sub-aperture overlaps with the first midline (Fig. 7B).
Regarding claim 15, Tanada teaches the second aperture comprising a second sub-aperture located between two adjacent first apertures; a first midline is defined between two adjacent first apertures; and minimum distances from the first midline to the two first apertures are equal to each other, wherein the second sub-aperture is located at a side of the first midline (Fig. 7B).
Regarding claim 16, Tanada teaches along the direction perpendicular to the plane of the substrate, the first spacer structure has a height; and in a direction from one of the first apertures to the first spacer structure, a bottom surface of the first spacer structure has a width; wherein the light-emitting devices comprises: a first light-emitting device; and a second light-emitting device in different colors, and wherein the first spacer structure comprises: a type-A first spacer structure; and a type-B first spacer structure, wherein the type-A first spacer structure is arranged around the first light-emitting device, and the type-B first spacer structure is arranged around the second light-emitting device, and wherein the type-A first spacer structure and the type-B first spacer structure are different in at least one of height, width, or number (col. 24, ln. 6-21).
Regarding claim 17, Tanada teaches along the direction perpendicular to the plane of the substrate, the first spacer structure has a height; and in a direction from the first aperture to the first spacer structure, a bottom surface of the first spacer structure has a width; wherein the light-emitting devices comprise: a first light-emitting device, a second light-emitting device, and a third light-emitting device in different colors, and the first spacer structure comprises a type-C first spacer structure, and a type-D first spacer structure, wherein the type-C first spacer structure is located between the first light-emitting device and the second light-emitting device, and the type-D first spacer structure is located between the first light-emitting device and the third light-emitting device, and wherein the type-C first spacer structure and the type-D first spacer structure are different in at least one of height, width, or number (col. 24, ln. 6-21).
Regarding independent claim 18, Tanada teaches a display device (Figs. 11A-C) comprising a display panel, wherein the display panel comprises a substrate (Fig. 7B, Element 101; col. 5, ln. 24-25); light-emitting devices (Fig. 7B; Elements 203, 205, 207 makes up the light-emitting devices); a pixel definition layer (Fig. 7B, Element 209; col. 16, ln. 13) wherein the light emitting devices and the pixel definition layer are located at a side of the substrate, wherein the pixel definition layer comprises apertures (See annotated Fig. 7B of Tanada above); and bank portions (See annotated Fig. 7B of Tanada), wherein the apertures comprise first apertures provided with the light-emitting devices and a second aperture; and a first spacer structure (Fig. 7B, Element 211; col. 15, ln. 62) provided in the second aperture; wherein along a direction perpendicular to a plane of the substrate, one bank portion of the bank portions comprises a first part, a distance from a surface of the first spacer structure away from the substrate to the substrate is d1, and a distance from a surface of the first part away from the substrate to the substrate is d2, where d1 > d2.
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 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanada (US 9,577,209) in view of Hou (US 2019/0305058).
Regarding claim 2, Tanada teaches the limitations of independent claim 1 discussed earlier. Tanada also teaches the first spacer structure comprising a side surface and a bottom surface located at a side of the substrate (Fig. 7B) but fails to exemplify, and an angle formed between the side surface and the bottom surface is an acute angle.
Hou teaches a display substrate comprising a spacer structure (Fig. 1, Element 50) including a side surface and a bottom surface located at a side of the substrate, wherein an angle (Fig. 1, Element α) formed between the side surface and the bottom surface is an acute angle (¶ [0068]). Hou discloses the spacer structure being provided for improving display quality (¶ [0059]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the display panel of Tanada with the spacer structure taught by Hou for improving display quality.
Regarding claim 3, Hou teaches 60° ≤ α ≤ 90° (¶ [0068]). Same motivation applies as for claim 2 earlier.
Regarding claim 4, Tanada teaches a support post (Fig. 2, Element 115; col. 5, ln. 28) located at a side of the first part away from the substrate, wherein the support post comprises a first sidewall and a first bottom surface, wherein the first bottom surface is a surface of the support post close to the substrate.
The combination of Tanada and Hou teaches the limitations of claim 4 discussed earlier but fails to exemplify an angle (β) between the first sidewall and the first bottom surface satisfying β < α.
It would have been an obvious choice of design to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the display panel taught by the combination of Tanada and Hou with a support post satisfying β < α, since where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A)).
Regarding claim 5, Tanada teaches one bank portion of the bank portions comprises a second sidewall, the one bank portion and one of the first apertures share the second sidewall.
The combination of Tanada and Hou teaches the limitations of claim 4 discussed earlier but fails to exemplify an angle formed between the second sidewall and a plane parallel to the plane of the substrate and pointing to the one bank portion as θ, wherein θ > β.
It would have been an obvious choice of design to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the display panel taught by the combination of Tanada and Hou with a bank portion satisfying θ > β, since where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A)).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Tanada and Hou teaches the limitations of claim 2 discussed earlier but fails to exemplify in a direction from one of the first apertures to the first spacer structure, a width of the bottom surface is D, wherein 2µm ≤ D ≤ 10µm.
It would have been an obvious choice of design to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the display panel taught by the combination of Tanada and Hou with a spacer structure satisfying 2µm ≤ D ≤ 10µm, since where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A)).
Claims 7, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanada (US 9,577,209).
Regarding claim 7, Tanada teaches the limitations of independent claim 1 discussed earlier but fails to exemplify along the direction perpendicular to the plane of the substrate, a depth of the second aperture is h1, and a thickness of the first part is H, where 2*H/3 < h1 < H.
It would have been an obvious choice of design to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the display panel taught by Tanada with an aperture structure satisfying 2*H/3 < h1 < H, since where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A)).
Regarding claim 10, Tanada teaches the limitations of independent claim 1 discussed earlier but fails to exemplify a material of the first spacer structure being the same as a material of the pixel definition layer.
It would have been an obvious choice of design to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the display panel taught by Tanada with a material of the first spacer structure being the same as a material of the pixel definition layer, since it is obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding claim 12, Tanada teaches the limitations of claim 11 discussed earlier but fails to exemplify the support post and the first spacer structure formed by a same material.
It would have been an obvious choice of design to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the display panel taught by Tanada with the support post and the first spacer structure being formed by a same material, since it is obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP § 2144.07).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanada (US 9,577,209) in view of Bae (US 2006/0055999).
Regarding claim 13, Tanada teaches the limitations of independent claim 1 discussed earlier but fails to exemplify a second spacer structure provided in the second aperture, wherein a side surface of the first spacer structure and a side surface of the second spacer structure that are opposite to each other intersect each other.
Bae teaches a display device comprising first and second spacers (Fig. 4, Element 535; ¶ [0059]), wherein a side surface of the first spacer structure and a side surface of the second spacer structure that are opposite to each other intersect each other.
Bae discloses the spacers being provided for preventing ink from flowing into the sides of an electrode separator or a stepped portion of a buffer (¶ [0062]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the display panel of Tanada with the spacers taught by Bae for preventing the flow of ink.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jin (US 2023/0209902) teaches a display panel with spacers provided with a via hole. Choi (US 2022/0223667) teaches a display device with spacers protruding in a thickness direction. Hatsumi (US 2022/0173174) teaches a display device with a resin layer. Han (US 2021/0280647) teaches a display apparatus with dam portions on the pixel defining layer. Akiyama (US 2014/0350366) teaches a photoelectric conversion device.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Quarterman whose telephone number is (571)272-2461. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10am-6pm.
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, James Greece can be reached at (571) 272-3711. 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.
/Kevin Quarterman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875 24 January 2026