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 Invention I (a product), Species A (Fig. 6A) in the reply filed on 7/1/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention (Invention II, a method), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/1/2026.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/6/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-3, 8-9, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Choung (US 20230013772 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Choung discloses a display panel (Fig. 2B) comprising:
a base layer (102);
a first anode (104) disposed on the base layer;
a pixel definition layer (126) in which a first light-emitting opening (106, See annotated figure) exposing at least a portion of the first anode (“exposing” the first anode occurs in method step Fig. 4F) is defined (the opening is “defined” in method step Fig. 4F) and which is disposed on (vertically “on”) the base layer;
a partition wall (110) which includes a first partition wall layer (110C) and a second partition wall layer (110B) disposed on (vertically “on”) the first partition wall layer, in which a first partition wall opening (See annotated figure) corresponding to the first light-emitting opening is defined, and which is disposed on (vertically “on”) the pixel definition layer;
a first cover pattern (130) disposed inside the first partition wall opening;
a first cathode (114) in contact (indirect “contact”) with the first cover pattern and disposed on (vertically “on”) the first anode; and
a first light-emitting pattern (112) disposed between (vertically “between”) the first anode and the first cathode,
wherein the second partition wall layer protrudes (horizontally “protrudes”¸ annotated as protrusion 109) from the first partition wall layer so that a lower surface of the second partition wall layer (surface 107) is exposed (“exposed” at protrusion 109), and
the first cover pattern is in contract (direct “contact”) with an exposed portion of the lower surface of the second partition wall layer and overlaps (vertically “overlaps”) an entirety of a portion of the second partition wall layer, which protrudes from the first partition wall layer (“an entirety of a portion, which protrudes from the first partition wall layer” as claimed reasonably encompasses a plurality of “portion” designations beyond Applicant’s disclosure, such as a segment of the entire protrusion. This interpretation is relied upon here, MPEP 2111), in a plan view (horizontal “plan view”).
Illustrated below is a marked and annotated figure of Fig. 2B of Choung.
PNG
media_image1.png
748
747
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Choung discloses the display panel of claim 1 (Fig. 2B), wherein the first partition wall layer includes a first inner surface (See annotated figure) defining a first area of the first partition wall opening (See annotated figure), and the second partition wall layer includes a second inner surface (See annotated figure) defining a second area of the first partition wall opening (See annotated figure), and a width of the second area (horizontal “width”) in one direction (horizontal direction) is smaller than (“smaller than” because this layer 110B “protrudes”, as cited in the claim 1 rejection) a width of the first area (horizontal “width”) in the one direction.
Regarding claim 3, Choung discloses the display panel of claim 2 (Fig. 2B), wherein the first cover pattern is disposed only in the first area and is not disposed in the second area (See dashed reference line 208, which shows all of pattern 130 is within the 1st area).
Regarding claim 8, Choung discloses the display panel of claim 1 (Fig. 2B), wherein the first cover pattern has a closed-line shape (this shape is depicted for the embodiment of Fig. 1C, which shows a ring “closed line shape”) in the plan view.
Regarding claim 9, Choung discloses the display panel of claim 1 (Fig. 2B), wherein the first partition wall layer includes one of a conductive material and an insulating material ([0037]: “metal alloy”), and each of the second partition wall layer ([0028]: “a metal material”) and the first cover pattern ([0028]: “the conductive oxide of a metal oxide surface”) includes a conductive material.
Regarding claim 11, Choung discloses the display panel of claim 1 (Fig. 2B), wherein the partition wall further includes a third partition wall layer (110A) disposed on (vertically “on”) the second partition wall layer.
Regarding claim 14, Choung discloses the display panel of claim 1 (Fig. 1B: [0037]: “FIG. 2B includes the second configuration 101B”), further comprising:
a second anode (another 104) disposed on the base layer (102 is shared for each anode 104) and spaced apart (horizontally “spaced apart”) from the first anode;
a second cover pattern (another 130) spaced apart (horizontally “spaced apart”) from the first cover pattern;
a second cathode (another 114) disposed on (vertically “on”) the second anode and in contact (indirect “contact”) with the second cover pattern; and
a second light-emitting pattern (another 112) disposed between (vertically “between”) the second anode and the second cathode,
wherein a second light-emitting opening (another 106) exposing at least a portion of the second anode (“exposing” the second anode occurs in method step Fig. 4F) is further defined (the opening is “defined” in method step Fig. 4F) in the pixel definition layer,
a second partition wall opening (Fig. 2B: another 2nd Partition Wall Opening) corresponding to the second light-emitting opening is further defined in the partition wall, and
the second cover pattern is disposed inside the second partition wall opening (as shown in Fig. 1B).
Illustrated below is a marked and annotated figure of Fig. 1B of Choung.
PNG
media_image2.png
474
749
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Choung, with supporting evidence taught by Tomioka (US 20170371194 A1) and Smith (US 20220005694 A1). MPEP 2112 (III); MPEP 2131.01 (III).
Regarding claim 12, Choung discloses the display panel of claim 11, wherein a modulus of the third partition wall layer ([0028]: “110A includes a conductive oxide… oxides of Ru, V, Ti, Zn, Cu, Mo, or combinations thereof”. Note: titanium oxide is selected here.) is greater than (“greater than” is an inherent property and relation of these disclosed materials. Supporting references are provided below teaching modulus values for these known materials.) a modulus of the second partition wall layer ([0028]: “110B includes a metal material that includes, but is not limited to, Ti, Cu, Mo, ITO, IZO or combinations thereof”. Note: titanium is selected here.). MPEP 2112 (III); MPEP 2131.01 (III).
Tomioka teaches titanium inherently has a modulus equal to 107 GPa ([0073]: “Each of the titanium layers has a Young's modulus of 107 GPa”).
Smith teaches titanium oxide inherently has a modulus equal to 210 GPa ([0060]: “the modulus of titanium dioxide (210 GPa)”), and this modulus is “greater than” the modulus of titanium.
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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choung as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Lin (US 20230263014 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Choung discloses the display panel of claim 9 (Fig. 2B), wherein the second partition wall layer includes titanium nitride ([0028]: “includes…Ti” teaches including titanium but is not specific enough to teach the claimed material TiN), and the first cover pattern includes any one of tungsten, molybdenum ([0037]: “incudes, but is not limited to, Cu, Ti, Al, Mo, Ag, Sn”), and titanium nitride.
Choung teaches “the second partition wall layer” but fails to teach the claimed material configuration “includes titanium nitride”.
Lin discloses the second partition wall layer (Fig. 1A: 110B) includes titanium nitride ([0036]: “titanium (Ti), silicon nitride (Si.sub.3N.sub.4)…or combinations thereof”). Modifying the material composition of the second partition wall layer (of Choung) by including nitride would arrive at the claimed material configuration. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have had a reasonable expectation of success doing so because in each situation the second partition wall layer is a conductive layer (Choung: [0028]: “Ti, Cu, Mo, ITO, IZO or combinations thereof” is an exemplary list of conductive materials; Lin: [0036]: “a conductive inorganic material”) including titanium (Choung: [0028]: “Ti”; Lin: [0036]: “titanium”). Absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try using a different material configuration for the second partition wall layer. Therefore, the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technique grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” MPEP 2143 (1)(E).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choung as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ok (US 20200135927 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Choung discloses the display panel of claim 1 (Fig. 2B), but fails to teach a specific thickness range for the first cover pattern. Thus, Choung fails to teach “wherein a thickness of the first cover pattern is 100 angstroms or less”.
Ok teaches a thickness of the first cover pattern ([0016]: “titanium oxide”) is 100 angstroms or less ([0016]: “1 nm to 5 nm”). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have had a reasonable expectation of success incorporating the claimed thickness range for the first cover pattern (of Choung) because in each situation, the first cover pattern is a metal oxide layer (Choung: [0028]: “metal alloy material…Ti…oxides of the metal alloy material” with [0049]: “metal oxide”; Ok: [0016]: “titanium oxide”) formed in the same way by surface oxidation (Choung: [0049]: “oxidized…plasma”; Ok: [0016]: “plasma oxidation”). The only difference between the prior art (Choung) and the claims was a recitation of thickness of the first cover pattern. A first cover pattern having the claimed thickness would not perform differently than the first cover pattern (of Choung), because elsewhere in the prior art (Ok) a similar pattern is formed in the same way with the claimed thickness. Therefore, the claimed “first cover pattern” is not patentably distinct from Choung. MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A): Gardner: “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”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7 and 15 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:
The primary reason for the allowable subject matter of claims 4-6 is the inclusion of the limitation “wherein the first cover pattern includes: a first portion covering an entirety of the exposed portion of the lower surface of the second partition wall layer; and a second portion extending from the first portion and covering an entirety of the first inner surface” in combination with the other limitations in the claim. For example, prior art of record fails to teach or be reasonably combined to render obvious the claimed limitations “an entirety”, “exposed portion of the lower surface of the second partition wall layer”, and “the first inner surface” in combination with all other limitations in claims 4, 2, and 1. The claimed shape configuration was not found or rendered obvious by the prior art of record and was not found or rendered obvious by teachings elsewhere in the prior art.
The primary reason for the allowable subject matter of claim 7 is the inclusion of the limitation “wherein the first cover pattern includes: a first portion covering an entirety of the exposed portion of the lower surface of the second partition wall layer; and a second portion extending from the first portion and covering an entirety of an oxide film formed on the first inner surface” in combination with the other limitations in the claim. For example, prior art of record fails to teach or be reasonably combined to render obvious the claimed limitations “an entirety”, “exposed portion of the lower surface of the second partition wall layer”, and “an oxide film formed on the first inner surface” in combination with all other limitations in claims 7, 2, and 1. The claimed shape configuration was not found or rendered obvious by the prior art of record and was not found or rendered obvious by teachings elsewhere in the prior art.
The primary reason for the allowable subject matter of claim 15 is the inclusion of the limitation “a sacrificial pattern which is disposed on the first anode, an entirety of which is covered by the pixel definition layer and in which a sacrificial opening corresponding to the first light-emitting opening is defined; and a dummy cover pattern which is disposed inside the sacrificial opening, an entirety of which is covered by the pixel definition layer, and which is spaced apart from the first cover pattern” in combination with the other limitations in the claim. For example, prior art of record fails to teach or be reasonably combined to render obvious the claimed limitations “sacrificial opening”, “dummy cover pattern”, and “inside” in combination with all other limitations in claims 15 and 1. Sacrificial patterns were found elsewhere in the prior art, however, the claimed combination of this feature with the dummy cover pattern was not found or reasonably rendered obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM H ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2534. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00-5:00.
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, Kretelia Graham can be reached at (571) 272-5055. 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.
/WILLIAM H ANDERSON/ Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights