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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/22/2023 is being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to "Claims filed on 8/11/2026". Applicants’ amendments of claim 1; cancellation of claims 11-20 with the same reply have been entered by the Examiner. Upon entry of the amendments, claims 1-10, 21 are pending wherein claim 1 is independent.
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.
Note applicable to all claims being rejected in this Office action: Examiner notes that the limitations "overlap", "layer", "portion" “between” are being interpreted broadly in accordance with MPEP. Per MPEP 2111 and 2111.01, the claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation, and the words of the claims are given their plain meaning consistent with the specification without importing claim limitations from the specification. The claim presently discloses a structural limitation (i.e. overlap, layer, portion, contact) that is taught by prior art of record; therefore, the limitation is considered met by the prior art of record. Additionally, Merriam Webster dictionary defines the above limitations as “to occupy the same area in part”, “one thickness lying over or under another”, “an often-limited part of a whole” “in the intervening space” respectively. Further note the limitation “contact” is being interpreted to include "direct contact" (no intermediate materials, elements or space disposed there between) and "indirect contact" (intermediate materials, elements or space disposed there between).
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (US 20230041252 A1 hereinafter Chen) in view of Park et al (US 2021/0043707 A1 hereinafter Park).
Regarding Claim 1, Chen discloses in Fig 1B: A display panel comprising:
an insulating layer (102) having a groove defined thereon, wherein the insulating layer is disposed on the base layer;
an anode (104) disposed in the groove;
a pixel defining layer (126) disposed on the anode and having a light-emitting opening defined therein and exposing at least a portion of the anode (104);
a partition wall (110A/110B), having a partition wall opening defined therein and corresponding to the light-emitting opening, comprising a tip portion (206), and disposed on the pixel defining layer (126);
a cathode (114) at least partially disposed in the partition wall opening and in contact with an inner side surface of the partition wall defining the partition wall opening; and
a light-emitting pattern (112) disposed between the anode and the cathode, wherein the anode comprises:
a first portion; and
a second portion protruding from the first portion toward the pixel defining layer and covered by the pixel defining layer (126)
wherein the second portion is disposed between the first portion and the pixel defining layer in a cross-sectional view. (See mark-up below and interpretation of “portion” and “between” in the note above) [0024-0035].
PNG
media_image1.png
317
542
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Chen does not disclose: a base layer; an insulating layer is disposed on the base layer
However, Park in a similar device teaches in Fig 7 that a base layer (110) and an insulating layer (180) is formed on the base layer (110) [0076, 0081].
References Chen and Park are analogous art because they both are directed to display devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify device of Chen with the specified features of Park because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing of the invention to combine teachings of Chen and Park so that a base layer; an insulating layer is disposed on the base layer as taught by Park in Chen’s device since, forming an insulating layer since the insulating layer provides isolation between various layers in the display device.
Regarding Claim 2, Chen and Park disclose: The display panel of claim 1, Chen further discloses: wherein an upper surface of the second portion covered by the pixel defining layer (126) is substantially coplanar with an upper surface of the insulating layer (102).
Regarding Claim 5, Chen and Park disclose: The display panel of claim 1, Chen further discloses: wherein the insulating layer (102) is composed of a single film.
Regarding Claim 7, Chen and Park disclose: The display panel of claim 1, Chen further discloses: wherein the pixel defining layer (126) is generally flat.
Regarding Claim 8, Chen and Park disclose: The display panel of claim 1, Chen further discloses: wherein the partition wall comprises:
a first layer (110A) comprising a first inner side surface defining a first region of the partition wall opening; and
a second layer (110B) disposed on the first layer and comprising a second inner side surface defining a second region of the partition wall opening,
wherein:
the first inner side surface is disposed more inward than the second inner side surface;
the tip portion corresponds to the second layer protruding from the first layer; and an upper surface of the second layer is generally flat (See Fig 1B) [0028].
Regarding Claim 9, Chen and Park disclose: The display panel of claim 1, Chen further discloses: wherein the pixel defining layer (126) comprises an inorganic insulating material [0026].
Claim(s) 1, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (US 20230041252 A1 hereinafter Chen) in view of Park et al (US 2021/0043707 A1 hereinafter Parkalt).
Regarding Claim 1, Chen discloses in Fig 1B: A display panel comprising:
an insulating layer (102) having a groove defined thereon, wherein the insulating layer is disposed on the base layer;
an anode (104) disposed in the groove;
a pixel defining layer (126) disposed on the anode and having a light-emitting opening defined therein and exposing at least a portion of the anode (104);
a partition wall (110A/110B), having a partition wall opening defined therein and corresponding to the light-emitting opening, comprising a tip portion (206), and disposed on the pixel defining layer (126);
a cathode (114) at least partially disposed in the partition wall opening and in contact with an inner side surface of the partition wall defining the partition wall opening; and
a light-emitting pattern (112) disposed between the anode and the cathode, wherein the anode comprises:
a first portion; and
a second portion protruding from the first portion toward the pixel defining layer and covered by the pixel defining layer (126)
wherein the second portion is disposed between the first portion and the pixel defining layer in a cross-sectional view. (See mark-up above and interpretation of “portion” and “between” in the note above) [0024-0035].
Chen does not disclose: a base layer; an insulating layer is disposed on the base layer
However, Parkalt in a similar device teaches in Fig 7 that a base layer (110) and an insulating layer (180/164) is formed on the base layer (110) [0076, 0081].
References Chen and Park are analogous art because they both are directed to display devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify device of Chen with the specified features of Park because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing of the invention to combine teachings of Chen and Park so that a base layer; an insulating layer is disposed on the base layer as taught by Park in Chen’s device since, forming an insulating layer since the insulating layer provides isolation between various layers in the display device.
Regarding Claim 6, Chen and Park disclose: The display panel of claim 1.
Chen does not disclose: wherein: the insulating layer comprises a lower film and an upper film, wherein the upper film includes an opening defined therein and is disposed on the lower film; and wherein the groove is defined by the opening and an upper surface of the lower film exposed by the opening.
However, Parkalt in a similar device teaches in Fig 7 that wherein: the insulating layer comprises a lower film (164) and an upper film (180), wherein the upper film includes an opening (181) defined therein and is disposed on the lower film; and wherein the groove (taught by combined device of Chen and Park) is defined by the opening and an upper surface of the lower film exposed by the opening [0101, 0102].
References Chen and Park are analogous art because they both are directed to display devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify device of Chen with the specified features of Park because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing of the invention to combine teachings of Chen and Park so that the insulating layer comprises a lower film and an upper film, wherein the upper film includes an opening defined therein and is disposed on the lower film; and wherein the groove is defined by the opening and an upper surface of the lower film exposed by the opening as taught by Park in Chen’s device since, forming an insulating layer since the insulating layer provides isolation between various layers in the display device.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 8/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claim 1, as amended, recites “The proposed combination of Chen and Park fails to result in at least these elements of claim 1. In the rejection of claim 1, the Examiner cites to Chen as disclosing an anode 104. Chen discloses that the anode 104 has a structure that is patterned and formed on a lower layer. See Chen, paragraph [0025]. As such, the anode 104 in Chen has a flat shape with a generally uniform thickness throughout. This is contrary to claim 1, which recites that the anode has a first section and a second portion disposed between the first portion and the pixel defining layer in a cross-sectional view”.
In response, the Office respectfully disagrees and notes that the prior art of Chen discloses: (1) "a pixel defining layer (126) disposed on the anode (104) and having a light-emitting opening defined therein and exposing at least a portion of the anode (See Fig 1B of Chen).
(2) "wherein the second portion is disposed between the first portion and the
pixel defining layer in a cross-sectional view." Examiner notes that the Fig 1B of Chen is being viewed in a cross-sectional view. Additionally, refer to the note above where in the broadest reasonable interpretation of limitations “between” and “portions” are shown. “portion” is being interpreted to mean a limited part of a whole and since the claim does not specify any other structural details of the first portion and the second portion of the anode, one of ordinary skill in the art could arbitrarily choose the first and second portions to read on the claim. Additionally, the limitation “between” is being interpreted to read as in the intervening space and since the second portion is in the intervening space between the first portion and the pixel defining layer as shown in the Examiner’s mark-up for the Claim 1 rejection, the amended limitations are disclosed by Chen.
Furthermore, Fig 1B of Chen in a magnified version as shown below indicates an alternative interpretation that can be used to read on the claim amendments.
PNG
media_image2.png
690
519
media_image2.png
Greyscale
\
As seen from the mark-up above, one of ordinary skilled in the art could arbitrarily choose the first portion and the second portion so that the second portion is in between the first portion and the pixel defining layer.
In conclusion, claim 1 in its amended form stands rejected by Chen in view of Park.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 21 and 10 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: With respect to claim 3, the primary reason for indication of allowable subject matter is that the prior art of record either singularly or in combination fails to teach or suggest the limitation “further comprising a sacrificial pattern disposed on the first portion, covered by the pixel defining layer, and having a sacrificial opening defined therein and corresponding to the light-emitting opening, wherein the sacrificial pattern is surrounded by the second portion.” as recited in claim 3 in combination with the remaining features.
Dependent claim 4 is allowed based on virtue of their dependencies
The most relevant prior art references, Chen et al (US 20230041252 A1) in Fig 1B in view of Park et al (US 2021/0043707 A1) in Fig 7 substantially teach the limitations of claims 3-4, with the exception of the limitations described in the preceding paragraph.
With respect to claim 10, the primary reason for indication of allowable subject matter is that the prior art of record either singularly or in combination fails to teach or suggest the limitation “a first dummy pattern disposed on the partition wall, comprising the same material as the light-emitting pattern, and spaced apart from the light-emitting pattern; a second dummy pattern disposed on the first dummy pattern, comprising the
same material as the cathode and spaced apart from the cathode; and a lower encapsulation inorganic pattern disposed to correspond to the light-emitting opening and disposed on the cathode and the second dummy pattern” as recited in claim 10 in combination with the remaining features.
The most relevant prior art references, Chen et al (US 20230041252 A1) in Fig 1B in view of Park et al (US 2021/0043707 A1) in Fig 7 substantially teach the limitations of claim 10, with the exception of the limitations described in the preceding paragraph.
With respect to claim 21, the primary reason for indication of allowable subject matter is that the prior art of record either singularly or in combination fails to teach or suggest the limitation “wherein the cathode extends along the inner side surface of the partition wall from the light-emitting pattern to the tip portion of the partition wall” as recited in claim 21 in combination with the remaining features.
The most relevant prior art references, Chen et al (US 20230041252 A1) in Fig 1B in view of Park et al (US 2021/0043707 A1) in Fig 7 substantially teach the limitations of claim 21, with the exception of the limitations described in the preceding paragraph.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NISHATH YASMEEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7564. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM-6PM.
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, Lynne Gurley can be reached at 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.
/NISHATH YASMEEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2811
