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 group I in the reply filed on 07/06/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-10, 16-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Choung et al. (US. Pub: 2022/0077252 A1~ hereinafter “Choung”).
Regarding claim 1, Choung discloses (in at least fig. 1) a display panel comprising: a base layer (102); a pixel defining layer (126) disposed on the base layer and including a plurality of pixel defining patterns spaced apart from each other (see at least fig. 1); a partition wall (110) which is disposed on the base layer and of which at least a portion covers a portion of each of the plurality of pixel defining patterns (see at least fig. 1); and a light emitting element including an anode (104; abstract; [0005]; [0027]), a light emitting pattern (112; [0029]-[0030]), and a cathode (114; [0030]; [0032]) in contact with the partition wall, wherein a partition wall opening overlapping the anode is defined in the partition wall (see at least fig. 1), and the light emitting pattern (112) and the cathode are arranged in the partition wall opening (see at least fig. 1).
Regarding claim 2, Choung discloses (in at least fig. 1) the plurality of pixel defining patterns are arranged spaced apart from each other in a first direction and a second direction which intersects the first direction.
Regarding claim 3, Choung discloses (in at least fig. 1) a separation space is defined between the plurality of pixel defining patterns, and the partition wall (110) fills the separation space.
Regarding claim 4, Choung discloses (in at least fig. 1) one pixel defining pattern among the plurality of pixel defining patterns surrounds the anode (104).
Regarding claim 5, Choung discloses (in at least fig. 1) the one pixel defining pattern (126) includes: an inner surface which overlaps the anode (104) of the light emitting element, and an outer surface which is opposite to the inner surface and does not overlap the anode (see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Choung discloses (in at least fig. 1) the partition wall (110) includes: a first partition wall layer (110A) which is on the plurality of pixel defining patterns (126) and defines a first area of the partition wall opening (see fig. 1); and a second partition wall layer (110B) which is on the first partition wall layer and defines a second area of the partition wall opening (see at least fig. 1A), the second partition wall layer (110B) being further from the plurality of pixel defining patterns (126) than the first partition wall layer (110B).
Regarding claim 9, Choung discloses (in at least fig. 1) the partition wall (110) has an undercut shape defined by the first partition wall layer (110A) together with the second partition wall layer (110B), and the cathode (102) of the light emitting element is electrically connected to the partition wall at the first partition wall layer (110A).
Regarding claim 10, Choung discloses (in at least fig. 1) the pixel defining layer (126) includes an inorganic material ([0028]).
Regarding claim 16, Choung discloses (in at least fig. 1) a display panel comprising: a pixel defining layer (126) including a plurality of pixel defining patterns spaced apart from each other with a separation space therebetween (see at least fig. 1), each of the pixel defining patterns defining a light emitting opening of the pixel defining layer (see fig. 1); a partition wall (110) which is on the pixel defining layer (126) and fills the separation space between the plurality of pixel defining patterns spaced apart from each other (see fig. 1), the partition wall (110) defining a partition wall opening corresponding to the light emitting opening of the pixel defining layer (see fig. 1); and a light emitting element (OLED) including an anode (104; abstract; [0005]; [0027]), a light emitting pattern (112; [0029]-[0030] and a cathode (114; [0032]), wherein the cathode (114) of the light emitting element is in the partition wall opening and is electrically connected to the partition wall (see at least fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 17, Choung discloses (in at least fig. 1) a pixel defining pattern among the plurality of pixel defining patterns has a closed curve shape surrounding the anode.
Regarding claim 20, Choung discloses (in at least fig. 1) the pixel defining layer (126) includes an inorganic material ([0028]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 6-7, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choung et al. (US. Pub: 2022/0077252 A1~ hereinafter “Choung”) in view of Zhang et al. (CN: 207116433 U~ hereinafter “Zhang”). The Examiner is using a machine generated English translation of the foreign reference.
Regarding claims 6 and 18, Choung discloses (in at least fig. 1) the pixel defining layer (126), but does not expressly disclose the pixel defining layer includes a plurality of connection patterns which respectively connect the plurality of pixel defining patterns to each other.
Zhang in the same field of a display device discloses (in at least fig. 2-1) a pixel defining layer (21) includes a plurality of connection patterns (211) which respectively connect the plurality of pixel defining patterns (212) to each other.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the display device of Choung with the pixel defining layer connection patterns teaching of Zhang in order to respectively connect the plurality of pixel defining patterns to each other.
Regarding claims 7 and 19, Zhang discloses (in at least fig. 2-1) the plurality of connection patterns (211) and the plurality of pixel defining patterns (212) are respective patterns of a same material layer (i.e. photosensitive resin material).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELMITO BREVAL whose telephone number is (571)270-3099. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th~ 7:30-5:30.
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 at 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.
ELMITO BREVAL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2875
/ELMITO BREVAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights