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 .
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) 1-3, 5-7, 16, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (US 2014/0319479 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses a display device, comprising: a substrate (SU1); a first light emitting unit (A, indicated in Fig. 1 below), a second light emitting unit (B, indicated in Fig. 1 below), and a third light emitting unit (C, see Fig, 1 below) disposed on the substrate and configured to emit a first light with a first color respectively (¶[0045]), wherein the first light emitting unit is adjacent to the second light emitting unit and the third light emitting unit (Fig. 1); a first spacer (SP3) disposed on the substrate; and a second spacer (SP2) disposed on the substrate; wherein in a top view of the display device, the first spacer (SP3) is disposed between the first light emitting unit (A) and the second light emitting unit (B), the second spacer (SP2) is disposed between the first light emitting unit (A) and the third light emitting unit (C), an extending line of a first long axis of the first spacer (SP3) passes through the first light emitting unit and the second light emitting unit, and an extending line of a second long axis of the second spacer (SP2) passes through the first light emitting unit and the third light emitting unit (Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
691
565
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Park discloses a display device further comprising: a fourth light emitting unit (E2), disposed on the substrate and configured to emit a second light with a second color; and a fifth light emitting unit (E3), disposed on the substrate and configured to emit a third light with a third color; wherein in the top view of the display device, an area of the first light emitting unit (A) is less than an area of the fourth light emitting unit (E3), and the area of the first light emitting unit (A) is less than an area of the fifth light emitting unit (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Park discloses a display device wherein a minimum distance between the first spacer (SP3) and the second spacer (SP2) is less than a minimum distance between the first light emitting unit (A) and the second light emitting unit (B) in the top view of the display device (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Park discloses a display device wherein in the top view of the display device, the first light emitting unit (A) and the second light emitting unit (B) are arranged along a first direction, and the first light emitting unit (A) and the third light emitting unit (C) are arranged along a second direction different from the first direction (Fig. 1 above).
Regarding claim 6, Park discloses a display device wherein an included angle between the first direction and the second direction is in a range from 80o to 100o (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Park discloses a display device wherein in the top view of the display device, the first spacer (SP3) and the second spacer (SP2) are arranged along a third direction, and a first acute angle between the first direction and the third direction is in a range from 40o to 50o (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 16, Park discloses a display device wherein a long axis of the first light emitting unit (A) is different from a long axis of the second light emitting unit (B), and the long axis of the second light emitting unit (B) is the same as a long axis of the third light emitting unit (C).
Regarding claim 19, Park discloses a display device wherein a minimum distance between the first spacer (SP3) and the second spacer (SP2) is less than a minimum distance between the first light emitting unit (A) and the third light emitting unit (C) in the top view of the display device (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 20, Park discloses a display device, comprising: a substrate (SU1); a first light emitting unit (A), a second light emitting unit (B), and a third light emitting unit (C) disposed on the substrate and configured to emit a light with a first color respectively (¶[0045]), wherein the first light emitting unit (A) is adjacent to the second light emitting unit (B) and the third light emitting unit (C); a first spacer (SP3) disposed on the substrate; and a second spacer (SP2) disposed on the substrate; wherein in a top view of the display device, the first spacer (SP3) is disposed between the first light emitting unit (A) and the second light emitting unit (B), the second spacer (SP2) is disposed between the first light emitting unit (A) and the third light emitting unit (C), the first light emitting unit (A) and the second light emitting unit (B) are arranged along a first direction, and the first light emitting (A) unit and the third light emitting unit (C) are arranged along a second direction different from the first direction (Fig. 1).
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2014/0319479 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Park fails to exemplify the minimum distance between the first spacer and the second spacer is greater than 0 and less than 20 um. One skilled in the art would have reasonably contemplate optimizing the distance between the first spacer and the second spacer in order to provide appropriate support for the deposition masks during the deposition process of the organic emission layer, as an obvious matter of design engineering. 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the minimum distance between the first spacer and the second spacer is greater than 0 and less than 20 um in order to provide appropriate support for the deposition masks during the deposition process of the organic emission layer, since optimization of workable ranges is considered within the skill of the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-15 and 17-18 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim(s) 8, the references of the Prior Art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations as set forth in claim(s) 8, and specifically comprising the limitation of a first distance between a bottom surface of the pixel defining layer and a top surface of the first spacer is different from a second distance between the bottom surface of the pixel defining layer and a top surface of the second spacer along a normal direction of the substrate.
Regarding claim(s) 9, claims(s) 9 is/are allowable for the reasons given in claim(s) 8 because of its/their dependency status from claim(s) 8.
Regarding claim(s) 10, the references of the Prior Art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations as set forth in claim(s) 10, and specifically comprising the limitation of in the top view of the display device, the first spacer, the second spacer, the third spacer, and the fourth spacer are arranged along a third direction, an area of the first spacer is greater than an area of the second spacer, and an area of the third spacer is greater than an area of the fourth spacer.
Regarding claim(s) 11-15, claims(s) 11-15 is/are allowable for the reasons given in claim(s) 10 because of its/their dependency status from claim(s) 10.
Regarding claim(s) 17, the references of the Prior Art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations as set forth in claim(s) 17, and specifically comprising the limitation of an area of the first spacer is greater than an area of the second spacer.
Regarding claim(s) 18, claims(s) 18 is/are allowable for the reasons given in claim(s) 17 because of its/their dependency status from claim(s) 17.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee (US 2022/0416193 A1) discloses a display device comprising a thin film transistor disposed on a substrate, a bank disposed on the thin film transistor, and a spacer structure assembly including at least two spacers disposed on the bank, a first separation distance between a first separator and a second separator, among the spacers, at a first area of the display device is different from a second separation distance between the first separator and the second separator at a second area of the display device.
Wang et al. (CN 215644495 U) discloses a display substrate comprising a substrate, a plurality of sub-pixels, a pixel defining layer and a plurality of spacers, the spacer is located at one side of the pixel defining layer far away from the substrate base plate.
Cao (CN 113540197 A) discloses a display substrate comprising a substrate, a plurality of sub-pixels, a pixel defining layer and a plurality of spacers.
The rejections above rely on the references for all the teachings expressed in the text of the references and/or one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably understood or implied from the texts of the references. To emphasize certain aspects of the prior art, only specific portions of the texts have been pointed out. Each reference as a whole should be reviewed in responding to the rejection, since other sections of the same reference and/or various combinations of the cited references may be relied on in future rejections in view of amendments.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mariceli Santiago whose telephone number is (571) 272-2464. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 AM to 4:00 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, James R. Greece, can be reached on (571) 272-3711. 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.
/Mariceli Santiago/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2879
Prosecution Insights