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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/31/2025 has been entered.
Response to amendments
The amendment filed on 10/31/2025, responding to the Office action mailed on 09/02/2025 has been entered. Claim 1 has been amended. Accordingly, pending in this application are claims 1-11.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 10/31/2025 regarding Choi et al. is moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Choi for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments regarding Lee et al. have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts FIG. 2 of Lee is a cross-sectional view, and not a plan view.
Applicant further asserts Lee appears to be silent regarding the claim limitation of wherein the first side, the second side, extend in a direction parallel to a plane of the front surface and at an inclined angle relative to an extension direction of the first side surface of the base substrate, when viewed from the front surface in a plan view.
Examiner disagrees with the assertion. The rejection is based on figs. 1-2 of Lee, wherein fig. 1 a plan view.
Furthermore, Lee discloses in fig. 1, a plan view arrangement of the sides of an opening relative to the side surfaces of the base substrate when viewed from the front surface in a plan view. Lee teaches by arranging the opening regions transversely in a zigzag pattern, it is possible to supplement process errors that may be generated in the process of manufacturing the organic light emitting display device. Further, it is possible to reduce the sizes of the red, green, blue sub pixels with minimum reduction of the areas of the emission regions of the sub pixels (¶64-68 of Lee). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Lee with Hanari and arrived at the claimed invention.
Therefore, claims 1-7 and 10-11 are unpatentable and the rejections stand.
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(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Hanari et al. (20180342564 A1; hereinafter “Hanari”) in view of Lee et al. (US 20170287988 A1; hereinafter “Lee”).
In re claim 1, Hanari discloses an electronic apparatus (figs. 1, 13-14), comprising:
an electronic panel 100 including a plurality of emission regions 104; and
a housing unit 100 accommodating the electronic panel,
wherein the electronic panel 100 includes:
a base substrate 102 including a front surface, a rear surface opposed to the front surface (fig. 14 shows a front surface facing the light-emitting element 160 and a rear surface opposed to the front surface of the bases substrate 102), and first to fourth side surfaces connecting the front surface and the rear surface to each other (fig. 1 shows first to fourth side surfaces of the bases substrate 102) (¶39);
a pixel definition layer 170 on the front surface and having a plurality of openings defined therein (“The partition wall 170 possesses the openings for exposing the pixel electrodes 162 in the display region 106”; ¶85) (hereinafter “OPNs”),
the openings (“OPNs”) corresponding to the emission regions (¶63, 85) and;
a plurality of emitting elements 160 in the openings (“OPNs”) (¶50);
a plurality of thin film transistors 130 between the base substrate 102 and the pixel definition layer 170 (¶41; transistors 130 are formed on an insulating substrate 102, 120 having thin film layers formed thereon. Therefore, transistors 130 are thin-film transistors),
the thin film transistors 130 being connected to corresponding emitting elements 160 (“a transistor 130 connected to the light-emitting element 160”; ¶41); and
a plurality of signal lines 226_1 between the pixel definition layer 170 and the base substrate 102 (¶88), the signal lines being 226_1 connected to corresponding thin film transistors 130 (“Image signals are supplied to the pixels 104 through the wirings 226”; ¶81; Thus, signal lines being 226_1 are electrically connected to corresponding thin film transistors 130),
wherein at least one of the signal lines 226_1 extend in a direction parallel to a plane of the front surface (that is the front surface of the substrate 102) and at an inclined angle relative to an extension direction of the first side surface, when viewed from the front surface in a plan view (fig. 13; ¶81. Fig. 1 shows first of fourth side surfaces of the auxiliary wiring 204 are parallel to a corresponding first of fourth side surfaces of the base substrate 102 and Fig. 13 shows at least one of the signal lines 226_1 extend at an inclined angle relative to an extension direction of the first side surface of the auxiliary wiring 204. Therefore, at least one of the signal lines 226_1 also extend at an inclined angle relative to an extension direction of the first side surface, when viewed from the front surface in a plan view).
Hanari does not expressly disclose the openings including a first side and a second side connected to each other; wherein the first side, the second side extend in a direction parallel to a plane of the front surface and at an inclined angle relative to an extension direction of the first side surface, when viewed from the front surface in a plan view.
In the same field of endeavor, Lee discloses an electronic apparatus (figs. 1-2) comprising: a pixel definition layer 116 on a front surface of a base substrate 111 and having a plurality of openings OB, OR, OG defined therein (¶42, 61-62),
Wherein the openings OB, OR, OG including a first side and a second side connected to each other (fig. 1 shows each of the openings OB, OR, OG have a top left side and top right side, which are connected to each other at the vertex);
wherein the first side (i.e., top left side), the second side (i.e., top right side) extend in a direction parallel to a plane of the front surface and at an inclined angle relative to an extension direction of the first side surface of the base substrate 111, when viewed from the front surface in a plan view (fig. 1; ¶38-39).
It 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 to employ the teachings of Lee into the display apparatus of Hanari.
One would have been motivated to do as Lee teaches by arranging the opening regions transversely in a zigzag pattern, it is possible to supplement process errors that may be generated in the process of manufacturing the organic light emitting display device. Further, it is possible to reduce the sizes of the red, green, blue sub pixels with minimum reduction of the areas of the emission regions of the sub pixels (¶64-68 of Lee).
Hanari, as modified by Lee, teaches a smallest value of the inclined angle is an acute angle, with the exception of a specific range of 450±15°.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select an inclination angle in a range of 450±15° on the basis of its 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.
Furthermore, MPEP §2144.05-II (A) states "[W]here 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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.).
In re Claim 2, Hanari, as modified by Lee, discloses the electronic apparatus of claim 1.
Hanari further discloses in figs. 1-7, wherein each of the emitting elements includes
a first electrode 162 (¶47-48);
a second electrode 166 on the first electrode 162 and covering the pixel definition layer 170 (¶50); and
an emitting pattern 164 between the first electrode 162 and the second electrode 166 (¶50),
wherein the first side and the second side are portions of the pixel definition layer 170 that are in contact with the first electrode 162.
10. (Original) The electronic apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a plurality of mesh lines that lie on the pixel definition layer and have a plurality of mesh openings defined therein, the mesh openings corresponding to the emission regions, wherein, when viewed from the front surface, an extending direction of each of the mesh lines is inclined at a certain angle relative to the first side surface, wherein a smallest value of the certain angle is in a range of 450±15°.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanari, in view Lee, as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Okabe et al. (US 20210351263 A1; hereinafter “Okabe”).
In re Claim 3, Hanari, as modified by Lee, discloses the electronic apparatus of claim 2, but does not expressly disclose a spacer on the pixel definition layer and spaced apart from the openings.
In the same field of endeavor, Okabe discloses a display device (figs. 1-3) comprising: a spacer (“in fig. 3, part of a surface of the edge cover 22a projects upward in the drawing and becomes a pixel photospacer provided in an island shape”) on the pixel definition layer 22 and spaced apart from the openings in the pixel definition layer 22 (¶41, 43).
It 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 to employ the teachings of Okabe into the display apparatus of Hanari, as modified by Lee, in order to enhance separation and isolation between adjacent pixels.
In re Claim 4, Hanari, as modified by Lee and Okabe, discloses the electronic apparatus of claim 3. Okabe further discloses wherein the spacer (fig. 3, photospacer) is covered with the second electrode 24 (¶47).
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanari, in view Lee and Okabe and further in view of Sun et al. (CN 208622729 U; hereinafter “Sun”).
Regarding claims 5 and 7, Hanari, as modified by Lee and Okabe, discloses the electronic apparatus of claim 3, but does not expressly disclose wherein a thickness of the spacer is equal to or greater than a thickness of the pixel definition layer on an area where the spacer is located and wherein a ratio of the thickness of the pixel definition layer to a sum of thicknesses of the pixel definition layer and the spacer is equal to or less than 0.3.
In the same field of endeavor, Sun teaches an electronic panel (fig. 11) wherein a thickness of the spacer 3 is equal to or greater than a thickness of the pixel definition layer 2 on an area where the spacer is located and wherein a ratio of the thickness of the pixel definition layer 2 to a sum of thicknesses of the pixel definition layer 2 and the spacer 3 is equal to 0.33 or more (“the sum of the thickness of the pixel defining layer and the spacer layer is 1.5-3 times of the thickness of the pixel define layer”; see para 14 under Contents of this utility model in the English translation). The disclosed ratio by Sun is merely close to the claimed range of the ration equal to or less than 0.3.
MPEP §2144.05-I states a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%).
Referring to MPEP § 2144.05, “…the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results over the prior art range.” (See also MPEP § 716.02 for a discussion of criticality and unexpected results.)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the teachings of Sun into the display panel of Hanari/Lee/Okabe.
One would have been motivated to do so because forming a thicker spacer can increase the contact area between the organic light emitting layer and the substrate, so can effectively improve the adhesive organic light emitting layer to the substrate, is prevented during the folding or bending the film layer separation (see para 1 under Contents of this utility model in the attached English translation of Sun).
In re Claim 6, Hanari, as modified by Lee, Okabe and Sun, discloses the electronic apparatus of claim 5.
Okabe further discloses in figs. 1-3, wherein the spacer (i.e., photospacer of 22a) and the pixel definition layer 22a have a unitary shape.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanari, as modified by Lee, as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Dunphy et al. (US 20140225839 A1; hereinafter “Dunphy”).
In re Claim 10, Hanari, as modified by Lee, discloses the electronic apparatus of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose the electronic apparatus further comprising a plurality of mesh lines that lie on the pixel definition layer and have a plurality of mesh openings defined therein, the mesh openings corresponding to the emission regions, wherein, when viewed from the front surface, an extending direction of each of the mesh lines is inclined at a certain angle relative to the first side surface, wherein a smallest value of the certain angle is in a range of 45°±15°.
In the same field of endeavor, Dunphy discloses an electronic apparatus (fig. 4) comprising a plurality of mesh lines 306 (¶0070) and have a plurality of mesh openings defined therein,
the mesh openings corresponding to the emission regions RGB, wherein,
when viewed from the front surface, an extending direction of each of the mesh lines 202, 210 is inclined at a certain angle relative to the first side surface, wherein a smallest value of the certain angle is in a range of 45°±15° (fig. 4).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the teachings of Dunphy into the display panel of Hanari/Lee.
One would have been motivated to do so to have an improved input device for a display panel having a plurality of low-visibility sensor electrodes for sensing an input object relative to a sensing region of the input device (¶0004 of Dunphy).
The combined teachings of Hanari, Lee and Dunphy disclose a plurality of mesh lines that lie on the pixel definition layer and have a plurality of mesh openings defined therein, the mesh openings corresponding to the emission regions, wherein, when viewed from the front surface, an extending direction of each of the mesh lines is inclined at a certain angle relative to the first side surface, wherein a smallest value of the certain angle is in a range of 45°±15° as explained above.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanari, in view Lee, as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Tanaka et al. (US 20210056902 A1; hereinafter “Tanaka”).
In re claim 11, Hanari, as modified by Lee, discloses the electronic apparatus of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the housing unit is an automotive vehicle.
In the same field of endeavor, Tanaka discloses OLED based devices can be used for vehicle displays (¶0002).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the teachings of Tanaka into the display panel of Hanari/Lee.
One would have been motivated to do so because the display devices formed by specific architecture with OLEDs can achieve both high luminance display and low luminance display needed for a display for a vehicle (¶0002 of Tanaka).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 8, closest prior art of record, alone or combination, does not expressly disclose a first sidewall having a first inclined angle relative to the first side surface; and a second sidewall having a second inclined angle relative to the first side surface, the second sidewall being connected to the first sidewall, wherein each of the first inclined angle and the second inclined angle has a range of 45±15° when viewed from the front surface of the base substrate, in combination with all other limitations cited in the preceding claims 1-3.
Claim 9 is indicated allowable based on its dependency on claim 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NILUFA RAHIM whose telephone number is (571)272-8926. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5:30pm EST.
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, Yara J. Green can be reached on (571) 270-3035. 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.
/NILUFA RAHIM/Primary Examiner, AU 2893