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 Species I, Fig 7a-7c in the reply filed on 05/12/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. Claim 20 is withdrawn for further consideration as being drawn to nonelected species. Claims 1-19 being examined in this office action.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al (US20230044947A1).
Re claim 1 Lee teaches a display panel (fig 6A) comprising:
a plurality of first display regions (UA-N, fig 6A) [0147] arranged along a first direction (DR4) [0141];
a second display region (UA-P, fig 6A) [0147] between the first display regions (UA-N, fig 6A) [0147];
a first pixel (PU-N, fig 6A) [0161] in each of the first display regions (UA-N, fig 6A); and
a second pixel (PU-P, fig 6A) [0161] in the second display region (UA-P), each of the first pixel (PU-N, fig 6A) and the second pixel (PU-N, fig 6A) comprising:
a first color emission element (PP-G, PN-G, fig 6A) [0151];
a second color emission element (PP-R, PN-R, fig 6A) spaced apart from the first color emission element (see fig6A) in the first direction (DR4); and
a third color emission element (PP-B, PN-B, fig 6A) spaced apart from the first color emission element (PP-G, PN-G, fig 6A) in the first direction (DR4) and from the second color emission element (PP-R, fig 6A) in a second direction (DR5, fig 6A), the second direction (DR5) crossing the first direction (DR4, fig 6A),
wherein a shape of an emission region (region of PN-R, fig 6) of the second color emission element (PN-R, fig 6A) in the first pixel (PU-N, fig 6A) is different from a shape of an emission region (region of PP-R, fig 6) of the second color emission element (PP-R, fig 6A) in the second pixel (PU-P, fig 6).
Re claim 2 Lee teaches the display panel of claim 1, wherein a shape (whole square) of an emission region (region of PN-B, fig 6A) [0149] of the third color emission element (PN-B, fig 6A) in the first pixel (PU-N, fig 6) is different from a shape (4 square shape) of an emission region (region of PP-B, fig 6A) [0172] of the third color emission element (PP-B, fig 6A) in the second pixel (PU-P, fig 6A).
Re claim 3 Lee teaches the display panel of claim 1, wherein a shape (whole square) of an emission region (region of PN-R, fig 6A) of the first color emission element (PN-R, fig 6A) in the first pixel (PU-N) is different from a shape (4square shape) of an emission region (area PP-R, fig 6A) of the first color emission element (PP-R, fig 6A) in the second pixel (PU-P, fig 6A)[0161].
Re claim 5 Lee teaches the display panel of claim 1, wherein each of the first pixel (PU-N, fig 6) [0161] and the second pixel (PU-P, fig 6) [0161]is provided in plural (see fig 6), and wherein the second color emission elements (PP-R, fig 6) of the second pixels (PU-P, fig 6) and the third color emission elements (PP-B, fig 6) [0161] of the second pixels (PU-P, fig 6) are alternately arranged along the second direction (DR5, fig 6).
Re claim 6 Lee teaches the display panel of claim 5, wherein the second color emission elements (PN-R, fig 6A) of the first pixels (PU-N, fig 6A) and the third color emission elements (PN-B, fig 6A) of the first pixels (PU-N, fig 6A) are alternately arranged along the second direction (DR5, fig 6A) [0161].
Re claim 7 Lee teaches the display panel of claim 1, wherein the first pixel (PU-N, fig 6A) [0161] and the second pixel (PU-P, fig 6A) [0161] are aligned along the first direction or the second direction (DR5, fig 6).
Re claim 11 Lee teaches the display panel of claim 1, wherein each of the first pixel (PU-N, fig 6A) [0147] and the second pixel (PU-P, fig 6A) is provided in plural (see fig 6A) [0147],
wherein the emission region of the second color emission element (PP-R, fig 6A) [0158] in each of the second pixels (PU-P, fig 6A) [0158] has a first polygonal shape (shape of PP-R) [0158] in a plan view,
wherein an emission region of the third color emission element (PP-B, fig 6A) [0151] in each of the first pixels (PU-N, fig 6A) has a second polygonal shape (shape of PP-B) [0151] in a plan view (fig 6A),
wherein the first polygonal shape (shape of PP-R) [0158] of each of the second pixels (PU-P, fig 6A) is line-symmetric about a direction parallel to the first direction (DR4), and
wherein the second polygonal shape (shape of PP-B) of each of the first pixels (PU-N) is line-symmetric about the direction parallel to the first direction (DR4).
Re claim 12 Lee teaches the display panel of claim 11, wherein emission regions (regions of PN-G/PN-R/PN-B and PP-R/PP-G/PP-B, fig 6A) [0151,0152,0153], of the first, second, and third color emission elements (PN-G/PN-R/PN-B and PP-R/PP-G/PP-B, fig 6A) have different areas from each other (see fig 6A/6B).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Lee II et al (US20210013267A1).
Re claim 1 Lee II teaches a display panel (5B) comprising:
a plurality of first display regions (SP1, fig 5B) [0158] arranged along a first direction (DR1, fig 5B) [0158];
a second display region (SP2, fig 5B) [0158] between the first display regions (fig 5B);
a first pixel (see fig 6A below) in each of the first display regions (SP1); and
a second pixel (see fig 6A below) in the second display region (SP2), each of the first pixel and the second pixel comprising:
a first color emission element (OP-R, fig 6A)[0138];
a second color emission element (OP-G, fig 6A) [0138] spaced apart from the first color emission element in the first direction (DR1); and
a third color emission element (OP-B, fig 6A) [0138] spaced apart from the first color emission element (OP-R, fig 6A) [0138] in the first direction and from the second color emission element (OP-G, fig 6A) in a second direction (DR2), the second direction (DR2) crossing the first direction (DR1),
wherein a shape of an emission region (region of OP-G, fig 6A) of the second color emission element (OP-G, fig 6A) in the first pixel (top pixel) is different from a shape of an emission region (region of bottom OP-G, fig 6A, different orienttaion) of the second color emission element (bottom OP-G, fig 6A) in the second pixel (bottom pixel).
PNG
media_image1.png
677
506
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US20230044947A1).
Re claim 4 Lee teaches the display panel of claim 3,
Lee fig 6A does not teach an area of the emission region of the first color emission element in the first pixel is substantially the same of the emission region of the first color emission element in the second pixel.
Lee different embodiment fig 7A-7B teaches wherein an area (area of PN-G) of the emission region of the first color emission element (PN-G, fig 7) in the first pixel (PU-N1) is substantially the same (see fig 7A, T2-GP same as T2- GN) as an area (area of PP-G, fig 7) [0161] of the emission region of the first color emission element in the second pixel (PU-P, fig 7A-7B).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Lee to include an area of the emission region of the first color emission element in the first pixel is substantially the same of the emission region of the first color emission element in the second pixel as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Lee based on the teaching of Lee fig 7A-7B in the above manner for the purpose of improving process reliability [0006].
Further, a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US20230044947A) in view of Joe et al (US20200328259A1).
Re claim 8 Lee teaches the display panel of claim 1,
Lee does not teach the emission region of the second color emission element in the second pixel has a first triangular shape in a plan view, the first triangular shape being line-symmetric about a direction parallel to the first direction, and
an emission region of the third color emission element in the second pixel has a second triangular shape in a plan view, the second triangular shape being line-symmetric about the direction parallel to the first direction.
Joe the emission region of the second color emission element in the second pixel (520C, fig 5) [0086] has a first triangular shape (triangular) [0034] in a plan view (fig 5), the first triangular shape [0034] being line-symmetric about a direction parallel to the first direction (vertical), and
an emission region of the third color emission element in the second pixel (520a, fig 5) [0086] has a second triangular shape [0034] in a plan view (fig 5), the second triangular shape being line-symmetric about the direction parallel to the first direction (vertical, fig 5).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Joe into the structure of Lee to include the emission region of the second color emission element in the second pixel has a first triangular shape in a plan view, the first triangular shape being line-symmetric about a direction parallel to the first direction, and
an emission region of the third color emission element in the second pixel has a second triangular shape in a plan view, the second triangular shape being line-symmetric about the direction parallel to the first direction as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Lee based on the teaching of Joe in the above manner in order to improve pixel arrangement density.
Further, a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey ,357F.3d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) and it has been held that rearranging part of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Re claim 9 Lee in view of Joe teaches the display panel of claim 8, wherein an emission region of the first color emission element in the second pixel (510, fig 5) [0086] has a rectangular shape (see fig 5) in a plan view (top view fig 5),
wherein one side of the first triangular shape (side of 520a facing 510, fig. 5) and one end of the second triangular shape (side /corner of 520C facing 510, fig. 5) face one side of the rectangular shape (fig 5), and wherein the one side of the first triangular shape and one side of the second triangular shape extend in the same direction. (extend in vertical direction) (520C, fig 5) [Joe 0086].
Re claim 10 Lee in view of Joe the display panel of claim 8, wherein each of the first pixel (PU-N, fig 6A) [0043] and the second pixel (PU-P, fig 6A) [0043] is provided in plural (see fig 6A),
Lee does not teach the first triangular shapes of neighboring ones of the second pixels are line-symmetric about the direction parallel to the first direction, and
wherein the second triangular shapes of neighboring ones of the second pixels are line-symmetric about the direction parallel to the first direction.
Joe teaches teach the first triangular shapes (left triangular shapes in 400b, fig 4) [0077] of neighboring ones of the second pixels (400b, fig 4) are line-symmetric about the direction parallel to the first direction (vertical), and
wherein the second triangular shapes (left triangular shapes in 400b, fig 4) of neighboring ones of the second pixels (400b, fig 4) are line-symmetric about the direction parallel to the first direction (vertical).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Lee into the structure of Joe to include as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Lee based on the teaching of Kim in the above manner to improve subpixel arrangement density.
Further, a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey ,357F.3d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) and it has been held that rearranging part of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee US20230044947A in view of Kim et al (US 20180151660 A1).
Re claim 13 Lee teaches the display panel of claim 1,
Lee does not teach a width of each of the first display regions in the first direction is greater than a width of the second display region in the first direction.
Kim teaches a width (W1) [0060] of each of the first display regions (PXA1, fig 1) in the first direction (DR1, fig 1) [0052] is greater than a width (W2) of the second display region (PXA2, fig 1) in the first direction (DR1, fig 1) [0052].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Kim into the structure of Lee to include a width of each of the first display regions in the first direction is greater than a width of the second display region in the first direction as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Lee based on the teaching of Kim in the above manner for the purpose of reducing sizes in the formed device, and achieving high integrated structure, further a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Diley, 357 F.2d 669, 148 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) and it has been held that rearranging part of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al (US 20140353611A1) in view of Lee et al (US20230054040A1).
Re claim 14 Choi teaches a deposition apparatus (fig 27) comprising:
a deposition source (S1, fig 6) [0116] configured to provide a substrate (101, fig 6) with a deposition material (140) [0116]; and
a plurality of mask assemblies (170, fig 6)[0116] between the deposition source (S1) and the substrate (101, fig 6),
wherein the plurality of mask assemblies (170, fig 6) comprises a first mask assembly (left 170s, fig 6) [0116] comprising:
a first frame (right 171, fig 6) [0117] having a first frame opening (172 opening between first 171 and second 171, fig 6) [0117] that penetrates the first frame (right 171) along a thickness direction (top to bottom, 171) of the first frame.
Choi does not teach a first mask connected to the first frame and having a plurality of first openings, each of which overlaps the first frame opening in a plan view; and
a second mask connected to the first frame and spaced apart from the first mask in a first direction and having a plurality of second openings, each of which overlaps the first frame opening in a plan view and has the same shape as the first opening, and
Lee teaches a first mask (right MSK, fig 5) [0114] connected to the first frame ( right FM, fig 5) [0102] and having a plurality of first openings (right openings between MM, fig 5) , each of which overlaps the first frame opening ( opening between left FM and right FM , fig 5) in a plan view (see, fig 5); and
a second mask (left MSK, fig 5) [0114] connected to the first frame (right FM, fig 5) [0102] and spaced apart from the first mask (right MSK, fig 5) in a first direction (DR1, fig 5) [0106] and having a plurality of second openings (left side opening in MM, fig 5) each of which overlaps the first frame opening in a plan view (see fig 5) and has the same shape as the first opening (left side openings have same shape in right side openings, fig 5), and
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Lee to include a first mask connected to the first frame and having a plurality of first openings, each of which overlaps the first frame opening in a plan view; and
a second mask connected to the first frame and spaced apart from the first mask in a first direction and having a plurality of second openings, each of which overlaps the first frame opening in a plan view and has the same shape as the first opening as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Choi based on the teaching of Lee in the above manner for the purpose of improving aperture ratio and reduced defect ratio [0006].
Choi and Lee do not teach a plurality of first sub-openings are defined between the first mask and the second mask, the first sub-opening having a shape different from the shape of the first opening and the second opening.
Lee different embodiment fig 7A-7G teaches a plurality of first sub-openings (OP-M1)[0115] are defined between the first mask (MSK1) and the second mask (MSK2), the first sub-opening (OP-M2, fig 7D) [0120] having a shape different (small and bigger square shape) from the shape of the first opening (OP-M1, fig 7B) and the second opening (MSK2).[0116].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Lee into the structure of Choi to include a plurality of first sub-openings are defined between the first mask and the second mask, the first sub-opening having a shape different from the shape of the first opening and the second opening as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Choi based on the teaching of Lee in the above manner for the purpose of improving aperture ratio and reduced defect ratio [0006].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chae (US12494461B2) teaches a display apparatus.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRATIKSHA J LOHAKARE whose telephone number is (571)270-1920. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7.30 am-4.30 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, EVA MONTALVO can be reached at 571-270-3829. 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.
/PRATIKSHA JAYANT LOHAKARE/Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/DUY T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818 9/8/26
Prosecution Insights