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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s election, without traverse, of Specie 2 (Fig. 5), claims 1-12 and 14-18 in the reply filed on December 15th, 2025 is acknowledged. Non-elected invention and species, claim 13 has been withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-18 are pending.
Action on merits of Species 2, claims 1-12 and 14-18 as follows.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on July, 26th, 2023; June 27th, 2024 and July 02nd, 2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 07/26/2023 are objected.
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 features: “a photosensitive component spaced apart from the pixel electrode” as recited in claim 18, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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 has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claims 1, 3 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Yuan (CN 211238258, hereinafter as Yuan ‘258).
Regarding Claim 1, Yuan ‘258 teaches a display panel, comprising:
a base plate (Fig. 5, (100); [0044]);
a pixel electrode layer (Fig. 5, (340); [0059]) arranged on the base plate (100) and comprising a plurality of pixel electrodes (341) distributed in an array; and
a pixel definition layer (220; [0048]) located at a side of the pixel electrode layer (341) away from the base plate (100), the pixel definition layer comprising a plurality of first isolation portions (221; [0048]) distributed at intervals, each of the first isolation portions (221) being ring-shaped (see Fig. 2) and surrounding and defining a pixel opening (230; [0049]), and an edge of a first orthographic projection of the pixel electrode (341) on the base plate (100) being within a second orthographic projection of the first isolation portion (221) on the base plate (100).
PNG
media_image1.png
530
347
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
180
568
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figs. 2 and 5 (Yuan ‘258)
Regarding Claim 3, Yuan ‘258 teaches second isolation portions (222; [0048]) each filled between adjacent first isolation portions (see Fig. 5), and a light transmittance of the first isolation portion (a light shielding portion (221)) is less than a light transmittance of the second isolation portion (a light transmitting portion (222).
Regarding Claim 17, Yuan ‘258 teaches a display apparatus (see para. [0004]).
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, 4-6, 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan ‘258 as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 2, Yuan ‘258 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “a light transmittance of the first isolation portion is equal to or less than 70%.”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a material for the first isolation portion such that a light transmittance of the first isolation portion is equal to or less than 70% on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select a light transmittance of the first isolation portion is equal to or less than 70% in order to improve the performance of the display device.
Regarding Claim 4, Yuan ‘258 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the first isolation portion has a light transmittance ranging from 20% to 70%”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a material for the first isolation portion such that the first isolation portion has a light transmittance ranging from 20% to 70% on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select the first isolation portion has a light transmittance ranging from 20% to 70% in order to improve the performance of the display device.
Regarding Claim 5, Yuan ‘258 teaches a plurality of light-emitting units emitting lights of different colors (310; [0050]), each of the light-emitting units (310) being located in one pixel opening (230), the second orthographic projection comprising second inner edges facing the pixel opening (230) and second outer edges away from the pixel opening, the second outer edges enclosing an isolation area and isolation areas (see Figs. 2 and 5),
Yuan ‘258 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “at least two light-emitting units emitting lights of a same color are located being of different sizes”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select at least two light-emitting units emitting lights of a same color are located being of different sizes on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
PNG
media_image3.png
18
19
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 6, Yuan ‘258 teaches the first orthographic projection comprises first outer edges, for the first orthographic projection within the isolation area, a distance between the second outer edge and the first outer edge is a first distance D1 greater than 0 (see Fig. 5).
Yuan ‘258 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the first distances D1 corresponding to at least two of the pixel electrodes are different”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select the first distances D1 corresponding to at least two of the pixel electrodes are different on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
PNG
media_image3.png
18
19
media_image3.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select the first distances D1 corresponding to at least two of the pixel electrodes are different in order to improve the performance of the display device.
Regarding Claim 15, Yuan ‘258 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the isolation areas where at least two light-emitting units emitting lights of a same color are located are of different shapes”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to have the isolation areas where at least two light-emitting units emitting lights of a same color are located are of different shapes on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
PNG
media_image3.png
18
19
media_image3.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have the isolation areas where at least two light-emitting units emitting lights of a same color are located are of different shapes in order to improve the performance of the display device.
Regarding Claim 16, Yuan ‘258 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the isolation areas where two adjacent light-emitting units emitting lights of a same color are located are of different shapes”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to have the isolation areas where two adjacent light-emitting units emitting lights of a same color are located are of different shapes on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
PNG
media_image3.png
18
19
media_image3.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have the isolation areas where two adjacent light-emitting units emitting lights of a same color are located are of different shapes in order to improve the performance of the display device.
Regarding Claim 18, Yuan ‘258 teaches a photosensitive component spaced apart from the pixel electrode (see para. [0005]).
Yuan ‘258 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “a light transmittance function of the first isolation portion satisfying the following equation: wherein
PNG
media_image4.png
90
454
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein (x0, y0) is a coordinate of a position of the first isolation portion, F-1 represents inverse Fourier transform, ε0 is a distance from a position of an n-th first isolation portion to an axis x0, η0 is a distance from the position of the n-th first isolation portion to an axis y0, fx = x/(λ x z), fy = y/(λ x z), and z is a distance from the pixel electrode to the photosensitive component”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to have a light transmittance function of the first isolation portion satisfying the following equation:
PNG
media_image4.png
90
454
media_image4.png
Greyscale
on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have a light transmittance function of the first isolation portion satisfying the above equation in order to improve the performance of the display device.
Claims 7-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan ‘258 as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Yang (US 2020/0075698, hereinafter as Yang ‘698).
Regarding Claim 7, Yuan ‘258 teaches a plurality of the light-emitting units (310; [0050]) emitting lights of different colors (e.g. red, green and blue) are combined to form a repeating unit, a plurality of repeating units are distributed in an array in the display panel (see Fig. 2).
Yuan ‘258 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the first distances D1 corresponding to the light-emitting units in at least two of the repeating units are different”.
Yang ‘698 teaches the first distances D1 corresponding to the light-emitting units in at least two of the repeating units are different (301; [0086]) (see Fig. 12).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yuan ‘258 by having the first distances D1 corresponding to the light-emitting units in at least two of the repeating units are different for the purpose of providing a display apparatus with minimum unwanted deformation (see para. [0004]) as suggested by Yang ‘698.
Regarding Claim 8, Yuan ‘258 teaches the first distances D1 corresponding to the light-emitting units within the repeating units are equal (see Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 9, Yang ‘698 teaches the first distances D1 corresponding to the light-emitting units in adjacent repeating units are different (301; [0086]) (see Fig. 12).
Regarding Claim 10, Yuan ‘258 and Yang ‘698 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “at least two light-emitting units emitting lights of a same color are located being of different sizes”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to have at least two light-emitting units emitting lights of a same color are located being of different sizes on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have at least two light-emitting units emitting lights of a same color are located being of different sizes in order to improve the performance of the display device.
PNG
media_image5.png
18
19
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 11, Yuan ‘258 and Yang ‘698 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the first distances D1 corresponding to two adjacent light-emitting units emitting lights of a same color are different”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to have the first distances D1 corresponding to two adjacent light-emitting units emitting lights of a same color are different on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have the first distances D1 corresponding to two adjacent light-emitting units emitting lights of a same color are different in order to improve the performance of the display device.
Regarding Claim 12, Yuan ‘258 a plurality of the light-emitting units (310; [0050]) emitting lights of different colors (e.g. R, G, B) are combined to form a repeating unit, a plurality of repeating units are distributed in an array in the display panel (see Fig. 2),
Yang ‘698 teaches the isolation areas (Fig. 12, (114P); [0129]) corresponding to the light-emitting units in at least two of the repeating units are of different shapes.
Regarding Claim 14, the isolation areas (Fig. 12, (114P); [0129]) corresponding to the light-emitting units in adjacent repeating units are of different shapes.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following patents are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to semiconductor devices:
Sim et al. (US 2017/0141169 A1)
Kang et al. (US 2015/0001485 A1)
Chen et al. (US 2013/0134449 A1)
Sugimoto et al. (US 2012/0181525 A1)
For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DZUNG T TRAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-3911. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8 AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sue Purvis can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DZUNG TRAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893