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. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Claim Objections Claims 1, 2, 8, 10 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: “ the plurality of first electrode” should read “the plurality of first electrodes” (claim 1, line 8 and claim 10, line 8); “surround” should read “surrounding” (claim 2, line 3 and claim 11, line 3); “ the plurality of light-emitting unit” should read “the plurality of light-emitting units” (claim 2, line 3 and claim 11, line 3); “ the first electrode is” should read “the first electrodes are” (claim 8, line 4); “ the first electrode” should read “the first electrodes” (claim 8, lines 11-12); “ the gap” should read “the gaps” (claim 8, line 12). Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.— The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. In claim 15, line 1, the limitation “The display device as claimed in claim 5” renders the claim indefinite because claim 5 is directed to a display panel, not a display device. It is believed that this is a typographical error. To overcome the rejection, it is suggested that Applicant change the dependency of claim 15 from claim 5 to claim 14. For examination purposes, claim 15 will be treated as depending from claim 14 rather than from claim 5. Correction is respectfully requested. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 8-11, 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by CN109285963A (hereinafter “Zhu”) . Regarding claim 1 , Zhu discloses in Figs. 3- 5 and related text a display panel ([0036] of the attached English machine translation) , comprising: an array substrate (1; [0036]; note : the substrate 1 supports a 3×2 array of pixels, as shown in the top view of Fig. 4) ; an electrode layer (3; [0036]) on the array substrate, comprising a plurality of first electrodes connected to the array substrate; a pixel definition layer (2; [0036]) on the array substrate, comprising a plurality of first embankments surrounding to form a plurality of pixel openings which expose the plurality of first electrodes, and a gap (5; [0036]) is disposed between one of the plurality of first embankments and one of the plurality of first electrode and is arranged around the first electrode; a light-emitting layer (6; [0036]) , comprising a plurality of light-emitting units that are correspondingly arranged within the plurality of pixel openings and cover the plurality of first electrodes and the gaps. Regarding claim 2 , Zhu discloses the pixel definition layer further comprises a plurality of second embankments (4; Figs. 3, 4; [0038]) correspondingly disposed within the gaps and surround the plurality of first electrodes, and the plurality of light-emitting unit cover the plurality of second embankments (Fig. 5). Regarding claim 4 , Zhu discloses the array substrate has a thickness direction, the second embankment has a first height h along the thickness direction, and the first electrode has a second height H along the thickness direction, satisfying: h ≤ H ([0038]) . Regarding claim 5 , Zhu discloses a thickness direction and a width direction of the array substrate are perpendicular, and a pitch d of the gap along the width direction satisfies: 1 m ≤ d ≤ 10 m ( [0043] -[ 0044]). Regarding claim 8 , Zhu discloses in Figs. 3-5 and related text a method for manufacturing a display panel ([0050]) , comprising: providing an array substrate (1; [0051]; note : the substrate 1 supports a 3×2 array of pixels, as shown in the top view of Fig. 4) ; forming an electrode layer (3; [0051]) on the array substrate, wherein the electrode layer comprises a plurality of first electrodes, and the first electrode is connected to the array substrate; forming a first pixel definition layer (2; [0052]) on the array substrate, wherein the first pixel definition layer comprises a plurality of first embankments surrounding to form pixel openings which expose the plurality of first electrodes, and a gap (5; [0052]) is disposed between the first embankment and the first electrode and is arranged around the first electrode; forming a light-emitting layer (6; [0053]) comprising a plurality of light-emitting units that are correspondingly arranged within the plurality of pixel openings and cover the first electrode and the gap. Regarding claim 9 , Zhu discloses the light-emitting layer is formed by printing ([0053]). Regarding claim 1 0 , Zhu discloses in Figs. 3-5 and related text a display device, comprising a display panel ([0036]) , the display panel comprising: an array substrate (1; [0036]; note : the substrate 1 supports a 3×2 array of pixels, as shown in the top view of Fig. 4) ; an electrode layer (3; [0036]) on the array substrate, comprising a plurality of first electrodes connected to the array substrate; a pixel definition layer (2; [0036]) on the array substrate, comprising a plurality of first embankments surrounding to form a plurality of pixel openings which expose the plurality of first electrodes, and a gap (5; [0036]) is disposed between one of the plurality of first embankments and one of the plurality of first electrode and is arranged around the first electrode; a light-emitting layer (6; [0036]) , comprising a plurality of light-emitting units that are correspondingly arranged within the plurality of pixel openings and cover the plurality of first electrodes and the gaps. Regarding claim 11 , Zhu discloses the pixel definition layer further comprises a plurality of second embankments (4; Figs. 3, 4; [0038]) correspondingly disposed within the gaps and surround the plurality of first electrodes, and the plurality of light-emitting unit cover the plurality of second embankments (Fig. 5). Regarding claim 13 , Zhu discloses the array substrate has a thickness direction, the second embankment has a first height h along the thickness direction, and the first electrode has a second height H along the thickness direction, satisfying: h ≤ H ([0038]) . Regarding claim 14 , Zhu discloses a thickness direction and a width direction of the array substrate are perpendicular, and a pitch d of the gap along the width direction satisfies: 1 m ≤ d ≤ 10 m ([0043] -[ 0044]). 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) 3 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of US 2020/0176530 A1 (hereinafter “Baek”). Regarding claim 3 , Zhu discloses the display panel as claimed in claim 2 . Zhu does not disclose a material of the second embankment is a hydrophilic material. Baek teaches in Fig. 9 and related text a material of the second embankment (262; [0105]) is a hydrophilic material. Zhu and Baek are analogous art because they both are directed to organic light-emitting display technology and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Zhu with the specified features of Baek because they are from the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select a hydrophilic material as a material of the second embankment , as taught by Baek, in order to ensure the continuity of the light-emitting layer within the pixel opening . Furthermore, 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 , 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). MPEP 2144.07 . Regarding claim 12 , Zhu discloses the display device as claimed in claim 11. Zhu does not disclose a material of the second embankment is a hydrophilic material. Baek teaches in Fig. 9 and related text a material of the second embankment (262; [0105]) is a hydrophilic material. Zhu and Baek are analogous art because they both are directed to organic light-emitting display technology and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Zhu with the specified features of Baek because they are from the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select a hydrophilic material as a material of the second embankment , as taught by Baek, in order to ensure the continuity of the light-emitting layer within the pixel opening. Furthermore, 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 , 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). MPEP 2144.07 . Claim (s) 6 and 15, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of US 2016/0372528 A1 (hereinafter “ Kamura ”). Regarding claim 6 , Zhu discloses the display panel as claimed in claim 5 . Zhu does not explicitly disclose a width D of the first embankment along the width direction satisfies: 0.1 ≤ d/D ≤ 0.5. Kamura teaches in Fig. 1 and related text a width D (width W 1 ) of the first embankment (13; [0155]) along the width direction is in a range of 0.5 m to 100 m, and is preferably in a range of 2 m to 20 m. Zhu discloses the pitch d of the gap along the width direction is in a range of 5 m to 10 m (Zhu: [0043] -[ 0044]). One of ordinary skill in the art may select d = 10 m based on Zhu’s disclosure and D = 20 m based on Kamura’s disclosure. Therefore, Zhu and Kamura in combination teach d/D = 10 m/20 m = 0.5, thereby satisfying the claimed range of 0.1 ≤ d/D ≤ 0.5. Zhu and Kamura are analogous art because they both are directed to organic light-emitting display technology and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Zhu with the specified features of Kamura because they are from the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to define a width D of the first embankment along the width direction to be in a range of 0.5 m to 100 m, and preferably in a range of 2 m to 20 m, as taught by Kamura , because when the width D of the first embankment is set to be equal to or larger than the lower limit value, it is possible to stably maintain the structure of the embankment , and when the width D of the first embankment is set to be equal to or smaller than the upper limit value, it is possible to display a higher high-resolution image ( Kamura : [0155]). Regarding claim 15 , Zhu discloses the display device as claimed in claim 14. Zhu does not explicitly disclose a width D of the first embankment along the width direction satisfies: 0.1 ≤ d/D ≤ 0.5. Kamura teaches in Fig. 1 and related text a width D (width W 1 ) of the first embankment (13; [0155]) along the width direction is in a range of 0.5 m to 100 m, and is preferably in a range of 2 m to 20 m. Zhu discloses the pitch d of the gap along the width direction is in a range of 5 m to 10 m (Zhu: [0043] -[ 0044]). One of ordinary skill in the art may select d = 10 m based on Zhu’s disclosure and D = 20 m based on Kamura’s disclosure. Therefore, Zhu and Kamura in combination teach d/D = 10 m/20 m = 0.5, thereby satisfying the claimed range of 0.1 ≤ d/D ≤ 0.5. Zhu and Kamura are analogous art because they both are directed to organic light-emitting display technology and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Zhu with the specified features of Kamura because they are from the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to define a width D of the first embankment along the width direction to be in a range of 0.5 m to 100 m, and preferably in a range of 2 m to 20 m, as taught by Kamura , because when the width D of the first embankment is set to be equal to or larger than the lower limit value, it is possible to stably maintain the structure of the embankment , and when the width D of the first embankment is set to be equal to or smaller than the upper limit value, it is possible to display a higher high-resolution image ( Kamura : [0155]). Claim (s) 7 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of US 2016/0293683 A1 (hereinafter “Hou”). Regarding claim 7 , Zhu discloses the display panel as claimed in claim 1. Zhu does not explicitly disclose a material of the first embankment is a drainage material. Applicant’s specification describes in [0052] that photoresist is an example of a drainage material. Hou teaches in Fig. 2 and related text a material of the first embankment (2011; [0034]) is photoresist ([0036]). Zhu and Hou are analogous art because they both are directed to organic light-emitting display technology and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Zhu with the specified features of Hou because they are from the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select a drainage material (e.g., photoresist) as a material of the first embankment, as taught by Hou, in order to facilitate inkjet printing of the light-emitting layer (Hou: [0057]). Furthermore, 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 , 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). MPEP 2144.07 . Regarding claim 16 , Zhu discloses the display device as claimed in claim 10. Zhu does not explicitly disclose a material of the first embankment is a drainage material. Applicant’s specification describes in [0052] that photoresist is an example of a drainage material. Hou teaches in Fig. 2 and related text a material of the first embankment (2011; [0034]) is photoresist ([0036]). Zhu and Hou are analogous art because they both are directed to organic light-emitting display technology and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Zhu with the specified features of Hou because they are from the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select a drainage material (e.g., photoresist) as a material of the first embankment, as taught by Hou, in order to facilitate inkjet printing of the light-emitting layer (Hou: [0057]). Furthermore, 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 , 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). MPEP 2144.07 . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT PETER M ALBRECHT whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-7813 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM (CT) . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Lynne Gurley can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-1670 . 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. /PETER M ALBRECHT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2811