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 .
Response to Amendment(s)
The Preliminary Amendment, filed on 3/18/2026, has been entered and acknowledged by the Examiner.
Claim(s) 1-20 are pending in the instant application.
Claim(s) 17-20 are withdrawn from consideration due to being directed to a non-elected invention.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1, claims 1-16, in the reply filed on 3/18/2026 is acknowledged.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55, which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/19/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 9/18/2023. These drawings are considered acceptable by Examiner.
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(s) 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is indefinite as it is not clear if the newly defined “pixel definition layer (103)” is one and the same as the previously defined “pixel defining layer” (as recited originally in line 12) or a new and distinct pixel definition layer (103). The Applicant is advised that, in comparing the claimed invention with the Prior Art, the Examiner understands, based upon the originally filed description and drawings, that the “pixel definition layer (103)” of lines 15, 17 are intended to actually recite -- the pixel defining layer --.
Claim 9 is indefinite as it is not clear if the newly defined “pixel definition layer (103)” is one and the same as the previously defined “pixel defining layer” (as recited originally in line 11) or a new and distinct pixel definition layer (103). The Applicant is advised that, in comparing the claimed invention with the Prior Art, the Examiner understands, based upon the originally filed description and drawings, that the “pixel definition layer (103)” of lines 14, 16 are intended to actually recite -- the pixel defining layer --.
Claim(s) 2-8, 10-16 are rejected at least for their dependency on independent Claim(s) 1, 9.
America Invents Act
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.
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 of this title, 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.
1. Claim(s) 1-4, 8-12, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Zhang et al., (CN 112310306) in view of Song et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0376248 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Zhang et al., teaches an organic light-emitting diode display panel (see at least Figs. 2E-2F), comprising a display area (110, display area, ¶ [0085]-¶ [0095]) and a bonding area (111, non-display area), and further comprising: a substrate (1011); a buffer layer (1012, barrier layer), disposed on the substrate (1011); an array structure layer (1017, electric crystal device), disposed on a side of the buffer layer (1012) away from the substrate (1011); a pad (104 & 105), disposed on a side of the array structure layer (1017) away from the substrate (1011) and located in the bonding area (111), wherein the pad (104 & 105) comprises a first metal layer (1041 [Wingdings font/0xE0] of conductive layer, 104) and a second metal layer (1051 [Wingdings font/0xE0] of metal layer 105) stacked, the second metal layer (1051) is disposed on a side of the first metal layer (1041) away from the array structure layer (1017), and an edge of the second metal layer (1051) protrudes from an edge of the first metal layer (1041); an anode (102, auxiliary electrode), disposed on the side of the array structure layer (1017) away from the substrate (1011) and located in the display area (110); a pixel defining layer (103, flat layer), disposed on a side of the anode (102) away from the substrate (1011), extending to cover the array structure layer (1017), and located in the display area (110), wherein the pixel defining layer (103) is provided with a pixel hole (hole in 103) at a position corresponding to the anode (102); a light-emitting material layer (1072), disposed in the pixel hole (hole in 103) of the pixel definition layer (103); and a cathode (108), covering a side of the second metal layer (1051) adjacent to the array structure layer (1017).
Zhang et al., is silent regarding an electronic functional layer, disposed on the light-emitting material layer.
In the same field of endeavor, Song et al., teaches a display device including an electronic functional layer (156, 157, ETL, EIL ¶ [0451]; see at least Fig. 2), disposed over a light-emitting material layer (153) in order to advantageously improve emission efficiency and reduce color deviation, thereby improving marketability.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the electronic functional layer, as disclosed by Song et al., in the device of Zhang et al., in order to advantageously improve emission efficiency and reduce color deviation, thereby improving marketability.
It should be noted that the superimposition of Zhang et al., and Song et al., would intrinsically result in a configuration such that the electronic functional layer would extend to cover the pixel definition layer (103), the array structure layer (1017), and the pad (104 & 105); wherein the electronic functional layer (as modified by Song et al.,) covered on the second metal layer (1051) is disconnected (as clearly depicted in Fig. 2F of Zhang) from the electronic functional layer (as modified by Song et al.,) covered on the array structure layer (1017) and the cathode (108), disposed on a side of the electronic functional layer away from the array structure layer (1017)..
Regarding Claim(s) 2, 10, Zhang et al., as modified by Song et al., teaches the claimed invention (see rejection in the claim above) except for the specific limitation of a thickness of the electronic functional layer located in the bonding area is less than a thickness of the first metal layer.
However, Examiner reasonably contemplates that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the a thickness of the electronic functional layer located in the bonding area to be less than a thickness of the first metal layer, since optimization of workable ranges is considered within the skill of the art as it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would entertain the idea of providing a thickness of the electronic functional layer located in the bonding area to be less than a thickness of the first metal layer in order to improve light-emission efficacy while maintaining a reduced thickness.
Regarding Claim(s) 3, 11, Zhang et al., as modified by Song et al., teaches the claimed invention (see rejection in the claim above) except for the specific limitation of the thickness of the first metal layer is less than or equal to a sum of the thickness of the electronic functional layer located in the bonding area and a thickness of the cathode
However, Examiner reasonably contemplates that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the thickness of the first metal layer to be less than or equal to a sum of the thickness of the electronic functional layer located in the bonding area and a thickness of the cathode, since optimization of workable ranges is considered within the skill of the art as it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would entertain the idea of providing the thickness of the first metal layer to be less than or equal to a sum of the thickness of the electronic functional layer located in the bonding area and a thickness of the cathode in order to improve light-emission efficacy while maintaining a reduced thickness.
Regarding Claim 4, Zhang et al., as modified by Song et al., teaches the OLED display panel according to claim 1, wherein the electronic functional layer (156, 157, ETL, EIL ¶ [0451]; see at least Fig. 2 of Song et al.,) comprises: an electron transport layer (156), disposed on a side of the light-emitting material layer (153) away from the anode (110); and an electron injection layer (157), disposed on a side of the electron transport layer (156) away from the light-emitting material layer (153).
Motivation to combine would be the same as stated above.
Regarding Claim 8, Zhang et al., teaches the OLED display panel according to claim 1, further comprising: an encapsulation layer (not shown, however, housing of device), disposed on a side of the cathode (108) away from the array structure layer (1017).
Regarding Claim 9, Zhang et al., teaches an organic light-emitting diode (OLED) display panel, comprising a display area (110) and a bonding area (111), and further comprising: a substrate (1011); an array structure layer (1017), disposed on the substrate (1011); a pad (104 & 105), disposed on a side of the array structure layer (1017) away from the substrate (1011) and located in the bonding area (111), wherein the pad (104 & 105) comprises a first metal layer (1041) and a second metal layer (1051) stacked, the second metal layer (1051) is disposed on a side of the first metal layer (1041) away from the array structure layer (1017), and an edge of the second metal layer (1051) protrudes from an edge of the first metal layer (1041); an anode (102), disposed on the side of the array structure layer (1017) away from the substrate (1011) and located in the display area (110); a pixel defining layer (103), disposed on a side of the anode (102) away from the substrate (1011), extending to cover the array structure layer (1017), and located in the display area (110), wherein the pixel defining layer (103) is provided with a pixel hole (hole in 103) at a position corresponding to the anode (102); a light-emitting material layer (1072), disposed in the pixel hole (hole in 103) of the pixel definition layer (103);
wherein the electronic functional layer covered on the second metal layer (1051) is disconnected from the electronic functional layer covered on the array structure layer (1017); and a cathode (108), disposed on a side of the electronic functional layer away from the array structure layer (1017) and covering a side of the second metal layer (1051) adjacent to the array structure layer (1017).
Zhang et al., is silent regarding an electronic functional layer, disposed on the light-emitting material layer.
In the same field of endeavor, Song et al., teaches a display device including an electronic functional layer (156, 157, ETL, EIL ¶ [0451]; see at least Fig. 2) disposed over a light-emitting material layer (153) in order to advantageously improve emission efficiency and reduce color deviation, thereby improving marketability (¶ [0078]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the electronic functional layer, as disclosed by Song et al., in the device of Zhang et al., in order to advantageously improve emission efficiency and reduce color deviation (¶ [0078]), thereby improving marketability.
It should be noted that the superimposition of Zhang et al., and Song et al., would intrinsically result in a configuration such that the electronic functional layer would extend to cover the pixel definition layer (103), the array structure layer (1017), and the pad (104 & 105); wherein the electronic functional layer (as modified by Song et al.,) covered on the second metal layer (1051) is disconnected (as clearly depicted in Fig. 2F of Zhang) from the electronic functional layer (as modified by Song et al.,) covered on the array structure layer (1017) and the cathode (108), disposed on a side of the electronic functional layer away from the array structure layer (1017).
Regarding Claim 12, Zhang et al., as modified by Song et al., teaches the OLED display panel according to claim 1, wherein the electronic functional layer (156, 157, ETL, EIL ¶ [0451]; see at least Fig. 2 of Song et al.,) comprises: an electron transport layer (156), disposed on a side of the light-emitting material layer (153) away from the anode (110); and an electron injection layer (157), disposed on a side of the electron transport layer (156) away from the light-emitting material layer (153).
Regarding Claim 16, Zhang et al., teaches the OLED display panel according to claim 9, further comprising: an encapsulation layer (not shown, however, housing of device), disposed on a side of the cathode (108) away from the array structure layer (1017).
2. Claim(s) 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Zhang et al., in view of Song et al., in further view of He et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0190742 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Zhang et al., as modified by Song et al., teaches the invention set forth above (see rejection in the corresponding claim(s) above). Zhang et al., as modified by Song et al., is silent regarding stacked anodes.
In the same field of endeavor, He et al., teaches an anode comprises: a first film layer (OL11, ¶ [0094]), disposed on the side of the array structure layer away from the substrate (00); a second film layer (OL12), disposed on a side of the first film layer away from the array structure layer; and a third film layer (OL13), disposed on a side of the second film layer away from the first film layer in order to create a desired effect of greater reflection and greater electrical conductivity overall (¶ [0094]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the anode, as disclosed by He et al., in the device of Zhang et al., as modified by Song et al., in order to create a desired effect of greater reflection and greater electrical conductivity overall (¶ [0094]).
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to using stacked anodes as a matter of choice. Applicant(s) has not disclosed that the materials is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected or significant result, or are otherwise critical and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another configuration (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
Regarding Claim 15, Zhang et al., as modified by Song et al., as further modified by He et al., teaches the OLED display panel according to claim 14, wherein a material of the first film layer and a material of the first film layer are same, a material of the second film layer and a material of the second film layer are same, and a material of the third film layer and a material of the third film layer are same (¶ [0094] of He et al.,).
Motivation to combine would be the same as stated above.
Allowable Subject Matter
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a). See claim objection/rejection above.
A. Claim(s) 5-7 are objected 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
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art of record (most comprehensive prior art of record to Zhang et al.,) suggests an organic light-emitting diode (OLED) display panel, comprising a display area and a bonding area, and further comprising: a substrate; a buffer layer, disposed on the substrate; an array structure layer, disposed on a side of the buffer layer away from the substrate; a pad, disposed on a side of the array structure layer away from the substrate and located in the bonding area, wherein the pad comprises a first metal layer and a second metal layer stacked, the second metal layer is disposed on a side of the first metal layer away from the array structure layer, and an edge of the second metal layer protrudes from an edge of the first metal layer; an anode, disposed on the side of the array structure layer away from the substrate and located in the display area; a pixel defining layer, disposed on a side of the anode away from the substrate, extending to cover the array structure layer, and located in the display area, wherein the pixel defining layer is provided with a pixel hole at a position corresponding to the anode; a light-emitting material layer, disposed in the pixel hole of the pixel definition layer; an electronic functional layer, disposed on the light-emitting material layer, and extending to cover the pixel definition layer, the array structure layer, and the pad; wherein the electronic functional layer covered on the second metal layer is disconnected from the electronic functional layer covered on the array structure layer; and a cathode, disposed on a side of the electronic functional layer away from the array structure layer and covering a side of the second metal layer adjacent to the array structure layer.
However, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art the organic light-emitting diode (OLED) display panel comprising the various elements as claimed above in combination with the specific limitation of the pad further comprises a third metal layer disposed on a side of the second metal layer away from the first metal layer, and the edge of the second metal layer protrudes from an edge of the third metal layer. as set forth in Claim 5.
Claim(s) 6-7 are allowable because of their dependency status from Claim 5.
B. Claim(s) 13 are objected 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
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art of record (most comprehensive prior art of record to Zhang et al.,) suggests an organic light-emitting diode (OLED) display panel, comprising a display area and a bonding area, and further comprising: a substrate; an array structure layer, disposed on the substrate; a pad, disposed on a side of the array structure layer away from the substrate and located in the bonding area, wherein the pad comprises a first metal layer and a second metal layer stacked, the second metal layer is disposed on a side of the first metal layer away from the array structure layer, and an edge of the second metal layer protrudes from an edge of the first metal layer; an anode, disposed on the side of the array structure layer away from the substrate and located in the display area; a pixel defining layer, disposed on a side of the anode away from the substrate, extending to cover the array structure layer, and located in the display area, wherein the pixel defining layer is provided with a pixel hole at a position corresponding to the anode; a light-emitting material layer, disposed in the pixel hole of the pixel definition layer; an electronic functional layer, disposed on the light-emitting material layer, and extending to cover the pixel definition layer, the array structure layer, and the pad; wherein the electronic functional layer covered on the second metal layer is disconnected from the electronic functional layer covered on the array structure layer; and a cathode, disposed on a side of the electronic functional layer away from the array structure layer and covering a side of the second metal layer adjacent to the array structure layer.
However, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art the organic light-emitting diode (OLED) display panel comprising the various elements as claimed above in combination with the specific limitation of the pad further comprises a third metal layer disposed on a side of the second metal layer away from the first metal layer, and the edge of the second metal layer protrudes from an edge of the third metal layer. as set forth in Claim 13.
Examiner's Note
The Examiner cites particular figures, paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the reference(s), as applied to the claims above. Although the particular citations are representative teachings and are applied to specific limitations within the claims, other passages, internally cited references, and figures may also apply. In preparing a response, it is respectfully requested that the Applicant fully consider the references, in their entirety, as potentially disclosing or teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as fully consider the context of the passage as taught by the reference(s) or as disclosed by the Examiner.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner H. Featherly whose telephone number is 571-272-8654. The examiner can normally be reached on M-. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James Greece can be reached on 571-272-3711.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-272-8300. 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).
/H. Featherly/
Examiner Featherly
Art Unit 2875 Patent Examiner
/JAMES R GREECE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights