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 Invention I, Species IA (Fig. 5, Claim 1-23) in the reply filed on 04/14/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species IB (Fig. 6) (see additional inorganic layer not present in Fig. 5), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/14/2026
Claim 21 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species IC (Fig. 7) (see filling patterns not present in Fig. 5), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/14/2026
Claim 22 is withdrawn as being dependent on Claim 21.
Claim 23 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species ID (Fig. 8) (see 30 degrees to about 90 degrees not present in Fig. 8), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/14/2026
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the
“the first inorganic layer, the second inorganic layer, and the third inorganic layer are spaced apart from each other on the partition wall and have different thicknesses from each other” of Claim 1,
“the first pixel, the second pixel, and the third pixel each further include a sacrificial pattern covered by the first electrode, the light-emitting pattern, and the pixel-defining layer.” Of Claim 17
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “first to third pixels each including a first electrode, a second electrode, and a light-emitting pattern between the first electrode and the second electrode, which are disposed in a corresponding emission-opening among the first to third emission-openings,”
The Examiner notes that it is not clear if “a first electrode, a second electrode, and a light-emitting pattern between the first electrode and the second electrode” all required to be “disposed in a corresponding emission-opening among the first to third emission-openings” or just some.
Examiner recommends against using pronouns in claim language for the purposes of clarity.
For the purposes of examination, the Examiner will treat limitation met as long as some of “second electrode, and a light-emitting pattern between the first electrode and the second electrode” are “disposed in a corresponding emission-opening among the first to third emission-openings”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation " the second pixel " in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purposes of examination, the examiner will treat “the second pixel” as “a second pixel”.
The Examiner recommends explicitly claiming first pixel, second pixel and third pixels.
Claims 2-19 are rejected as being dependent on Claim 1.
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, 2, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (US 2023/0041252 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Chen (Fig. 1) discloses a display panel comprising:
a base layer (102) including first to third light-emitting regions (regions of 108a-108c) and a non-light emitting region (regions around 110);
a pixel-defining layer (126) disposed on the base layer (102) and defining first to third emission-openings (openings between 126) therein corresponding to the first to third light emitting regions (regions of 108a-108c), respectively;
first to third pixels (108a-108c) each including a first electrode (104), a second electrode (114), and a light-emitting pattern (112) between the first electrode and the second electrode, which are disposed in a corresponding emission-opening (opening between 126) among the first to third emission-openings (openings between 126), wherein
the first to third pixels provide different colors from each other [0027];
a partition wall (110A, B), which is disposed on the pixel-defining layer (124) and in which first to third partition wall-openings (openings between 110A) corresponding to the first to third emission-openings (openings between 126), respectively, are defined; and
an encapsulation layer (116, 118, 120) including a lower inorganic layer (116), an upper inorganic layer (120) [0043-0044], and an organic layer (118 “acrylic material”) between the lower inorganic layer and the upper inorganic layer (Fig. 1), wherein
the lower inorganic layer (116) includes a first inorganic layer (116A) covering the first pixel (108A), a second inorganic layer (116B) covering the second pixel (108B), and a third inorganic layer (116B) covering the third pixel (108C), wherein
the first inorganic layer (116A), the second inorganic layer (116B), and the third inorganic layer (116C) are spaced apart from each other on the partition wall (110A) and have different thicknesses from each other. (T1>T3>T1). [0041-0042].
Regarding Claim 2, Chen (Fig. 1) discloses the display panel of claim 1, wherein
the first inorganic layer (116A), the second inorganic layer (116B), and the third inorganic layer (116C) each include any one of a silicon oxynitride and a silicon nitride. (“The silicon-containing material may include silicon nitride (e.g., Si.sub.3N.sub.4) materials, silicon oxynitride materials (e.g., Si.sub.2N.sub.2O),”) [0043]
Regarding Claim 18, Chen (Fig. 1) discloses the display panel of claim 1, wherein
each of the second electrodes (114) of the first to third pixels contacts a corresponding side surface among side surfaces of the partition wall (110A, B) defining the first to third partition wall-openings, and the second electrodes (114) are spaced apart from each other with the partition wall (110A, B) therebetween. (Fig. 1)
Regarding Claim 19, Chen (Fig. 1) discloses the display panel of claim 18, wherein
the first inorganic layer (116A) contacts the side surface of the partition wall (110A, B) that the second electrode (114 in 118A) of the first pixel contacts, the second inorganic layer (116B) contacts the side surface of the partition wall that the second electrode of the second pixel contacts (114 in 118B), and the third inorganic layer (116C) contacts the side surface of the partition wall (110A, B) that the second electrode of the third pixel (114 in108c) contacts. (See 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) 3-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Chen et al. (US 2023/0041252 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Chen (Fig. 1) discloses the display panel of claim 2, wherein
a first color provided by the first pixel is red (“red”).
Chen does not explicitly disclose a thickness of the first inorganic layer is about 4000 angstroms (Å) to about 6000 Å.
However, in a different embodiment Chen discloses a thickness of a first inorganic layer(116A) is about 4000 angstroms (Å) to about 6000 Å. (“the first encapsulation layer 116A includes a silicon oxynitride material over a silicon nitride material” and “The silicon oxynitride layer has a thickness of about 0.2 μm to about 0.4 μm. The silicon oxide layer has a thickness of about 0.2 μm to about 0.4 μm.”) [0044]
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 display panel in Chen such that a thickness of the first inorganic layer is about 4000 angstroms (Å) to about 6000 Å in order to protect deposited layers during etching of subsequent encapsulation layers. [0042] and since it has been held that the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in a prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 4, Chen (Fig. 1) discloses the display panel of claim 3, wherein
a refractive index of the first inorganic layer (116A, SiO, SiON).
Chen does not explicitly disclose a refractive index of the first inorganic layer is about 1.77 to about 1.89.
However, Chen discloses that the second inorganic layer is silicon-containing material may include silicon oxide materials, silicon oxynitride materials (e.g., Si.sub.2N.sub.2O) and further discloses silicon-containing materials can be tuned to increase or decrease the refractive index. The difference in refractive index can also effect the etching rate of the second inorganic layer. This allows for additional etch selectivity control of the second inorganic layer [0043]
The Examiner notes that refractive index of silicon oxide typically ranges from 1.5 to 2; and refractive index of SiON highly tunable between approximately 1.45 to 2.0.
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 display panel in Chen such that a refractive index of the first inorganic layer is about 1.77 to about 1.89 in order etch selectivity control of the encapsulation layer [0043] and since it has been held that the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in a prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 5, Chen (Fig. 1) discloses the display panel of claim 2, wherein
a second color provided by the second pixel is green (“Green”).
Chen does not explicitly disclose a thickness of the second inorganic layer (116b) is about 2000 Å to about 4000 Å or about 8000 Å to about 11000 Å.
However, Chen discloses thicknesses t.sub.2 of the second inorganic layer (116b) can range between about 0.5 μm and about 2.0 μm, such as about 0.8 μm to about 1.2 μm. [0042].
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 display panel in Chen such that a thickness of the second inorganic layer is about 2000 Å to about 4000 Å or about 8000 Å to about 11000 Å in order to protect deposited layers during etching of subsequent encapsulation layers. [0042] and since it has been held that the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in a prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 6, Chen (Fig. 1) discloses the display panel of claim 5, wherein
a refractive index of the second inorganic layer (116B, SiN, SiON).
Chen does not explicitly disclose a refractive index of the second inorganic layer is about 1.77 to about 1.89.
However, Chen discloses that the second inorganic layer is silicon-containing material may include silicon nitride (e.g., Si.sub.3N.sub.4) materials, silicon oxynitride materials (e.g., Si.sub.2N.sub.2O) and further discloses silicon-containing materials can be tuned to increase or decrease the refractive index. The difference in refractive index can also effect the etching rate of the second inorganic layer. This allows for additional etch selectivity control of the second inorganic layer [0043]
The Examiner notes that refractive index of SiN typically ranges from 1.8 to 2.2 for stoichiometric films at visible wavelengths; and refractive index of SiON highly tunable between approximately 1.45 to 2.0.
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 display panel in Chen such that a refractive index of the second inorganic layer is about 1.77 to about 1.89 in order etch selectivity control of the encapsulation layer [0043] and since it has been held that the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in a prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 7, Chen (Fig. 1) discloses the display panel of claim 2, wherein
a third color provided by the third pixel is blue (Blue), the third inorganic layer includes silicon nitride, (116B, SiN, SiON).
Chen does not explicitly disclose a thickness of the third inorganic layer is about 4000 Å, and a refractive index of the third inorganic layer is about 1.89.
However, in a different embodiment Chen discloses a thickness of a third inorganic layer(116C) is about 4000 Å. (“third encapsulation layer 116C has a silicon oxynitride layer over a silicon oxide layer.” and “The silicon oxynitride layer has a thickness of about 0.2 μm to about 0.4 μm. The silicon oxide layer has a thickness of about 0.2 μm to about 0.4 μm.”) [0044]
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 display panel in Chen such that the third inorganic layer is about 4000 Å in order to protect deposited layers during etching of subsequent encapsulation layers. [0042] and since it has been held that the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in a prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Chen does not explicitly disclose a refractive index of the third inorganic layer is about 1.89.
However, Chen discloses that the third inorganic layer is silicon-containing material may include silicon oxide materials, silicon oxynitride materials (e.g., Si.sub.2N.sub.2O) and further discloses silicon-containing materials can be tuned to increase or decrease the refractive index. The difference in refractive index can also effect the etching rate of the second inorganic layer. This allows for additional etch selectivity control of the second inorganic layer [0043]
The Examiner notes that refractive index of silicon oxide typically ranges from 1.5 to 2; and refractive index of SiON highly tunable between approximately 1.45 to 2.0.
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 display panel in Chen such that a refractive index of the third inorganic layer is about 1.89 in order etch selectivity control of the encapsulation layer [0043] and since it has been held that the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in a prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 8, Chen (Fig. 1) discloses the display panel of claim 2, wherein
a third color provided by the third pixel is blue (Blue), the third inorganic layer includes silicon oxynitride (116B, SiN, SiON),
Chen does not explicitly disclose a thickness of the third inorganic layer is about 8000 Å to about 13000 Å, and a refractive index of the third inorganic layer is about 1.70 to about 1.85.
However, Chen discloses thicknesses t.sub.3 of the third inorganic layer (116C) can range between about 0.5 μm and about 2.0 μm, such as about 0.8 μm to about 1.2 μm. [0042].
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 display panel in Chen such that a thickness of the second inorganic layer is about 2000 Å to about 4000 Å or about 8000 Å to about 11000 Å in order to protect deposited layers during etching of subsequent encapsulation layers. [0042] and since it has been held that the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in a prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Chen does not explicitly disclose a refractive index of the third inorganic layer is about 1.70 to about 1.85.
However, Chen discloses that the third inorganic layer is silicon-containing material may include silicon oxide materials, silicon oxynitride materials (e.g., Si.sub.2N.sub.2O) and further discloses silicon-containing materials can be tuned to increase or decrease the refractive index. The difference in refractive index can also effect the etching rate of the second inorganic layer. This allows for additional etch selectivity control of the second inorganic layer [0043]
The Examiner notes that refractive index of silicon oxide typically ranges from 1.5 to 2; and refractive index of SiON highly tunable between approximately 1.45 to 2.0.
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 display panel in Chen such that a refractive index of the third inorganic layer is about 1.70 to about 1.85 in order etch selectivity control of the encapsulation layer [0043] and since it has been held that the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in a prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 9, Chen (Fig. 1) discloses the display panel of claim 1, wherein
the pixel-defining layer (126) includes an inorganic material. (“The inorganic material of the PDL structures 126 includes, but is not limited to, silicon oxide (SiO.sub.2), silicon nitride (Si.sub.3N.sub.4), silicon oxynitride (Si.sub.2N.sub.2O), magnesium fluoride (MgF.sub.2), or combinations thereof”) [0026]
Regarding Claim 10, Chen (Fig. 1) discloses the display panel of claim 1, wherein
the partition wall (110A, B) includes a lower layer (110A) disposed on the pixel-defining layer (126) and an upper layer (110B) disposed on the lower layer (110A), wherein
the lower layer (110A) and the upper layer (110B) include different metals from each other. Chen further discloses limited number of metal containing materials for the lower layer and the upper layer [0029-0031]
Chen does not explicitly disclose that the lower layer and the upper layer include different metals from each other.
However, 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 display panel in Chen and select metal containing material for the lower layer and the upper layer such that the lower layer and the upper layer include different metals from each other in order to create overhang structures that are able to remain in place thereby eliminating the need for a lift-off procedure also increases throughput [0029-0030] and since the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (See MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding Claim 11, Chen (Fig. 1) discloses the display panel of claim 10, wherein
a thickness of the lower layer (110A) is larger than a thickness of the upper layer (110B), and the lower layer includes aluminum (“The metal-containing materials include at least one of a metal or metal alloy such as titanium (Ti), aluminum (Al), aluminum neodymium (AlNd)”), and the upper layer includes titanium (“top structure 110B include titanium (Ti)”).
Regarding Claim 12, Chen (Fig. 1) discloses the display panel of claim 10, wherein
the upper layer (110B) further protrudes to a corresponding light-emitting region (108a-108c) among the first to third light-emitting regions than the lower layer so as to form a tip portion (top extension 109A). (See Fig. 1)
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Chen et al. (US 2023/0041252 A1) in view of Choung et al. (US 2022/077257 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Chen (Fig. 1) discloses the display panel of claim 1, further comprising
Chen does not explicitly disclose a dummy pattern disposed on the pixel-defining layer and overlapping the non-light emitting region, wherein
the dummy pattern defines a dummy recess therein exposing an upper surface of the partition wall.
Choung (Fig. 1) discloses a dummy pattern (104, 112, 114 above 126) disposed on a pixel-defining layer (126) and overlapping the non-light emitting region (region above 126), wherein the dummy pattern defines a dummy recess (recess exposing 115) therein exposing an upper surface of the partition wall (115) (Fig. 1).
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 display panel in Chen in view of Choung such that a dummy pattern disposed on the pixel-defining layer and overlapping the non-light emitting region, wherein the dummy pattern defines a dummy recess therein exposing an upper surface of the partition wall in order optimize and increase pixel-per-inch and provide improved OLED performance. [0003] and eliminating the need for a lift-off procedure also increases throughput. [0030]
Regarding Claim 14, Chen in view of Choung discloses the display panel of claim 13, wherein
the upper surface of the partition wall (115 Choung) exposed from the dummy recess contacts the organic layer. (118 Choung “inkjet layer 118 may include an acrylic material.”)
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Chen et al. (US 2023/0041252 A1) in view of Choung et al. (US 2022/077257 A1) and further in view of Jeong et al. (US 2016/0240589 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Chen in view of Choung discloses the display panel of claim 14.
Chen in view of Choung does not explicitly disclose the first pixel, the second pixel, and the third pixel each include a capping pattern overlapping a corresponding partition wall-opening among the first to third partition wall-openings and arranged between the second electrode and the lower inorganic layer.
Jeong (Fig. 7) discloses a first pixel (PAr), a second pixel (PAg), and a third pixel (PAb) each include a capping pattern (152a) overlapping a corresponding partition wall-opening among a first to third partition wall-openings (openings between 180) and arranged between a second electrode (140) and a lower inorganic layer (154, 152C).
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 display panel in Chen in view of Choung and Jeong such that the first pixel, the second pixel, and the third pixel each further include a sacrificial pattern covered by the first electrode, the light-emitting pattern, and the pixel-defining layer in order improve planarity of the organic layer [0069] and protect the pixel electrode from the plasma, and thus deterioration of the pixel electrode is prevented. [0056]
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Chen et al. (US 2023/0041252 A1) in view of Choi et al. (US 2013/0288413 A1)A1).
Regarding Claim 17, Chen display panel of claim 1.
Chen does not explicitly disclose the first pixel, the second pixel, and the third pixel each further include a sacrificial pattern covered by the first electrode, the light-emitting pattern, and the pixel-defining layer.
Choi (Fig. 1) discloses pixel include a sacrificial pattern (12) covered by the first electrode (142), the light-emitting pattern (151), and the pixel-defining layer (140).
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 display panel in Chen in view of Choi such that the first pixel, the second pixel, and the third pixel each further include a sacrificial pattern covered by the first electrode, the light-emitting pattern, and the pixel-defining layer in order improve planarity of the organic layer [0069] and protect the pixel electrode from the plasma, and thus deterioration of the pixel electrode is prevented. [0056]
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 is 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DMITRIY YEMELYANOV whose telephone number is (571)270-7920. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a.m.-6p.m.
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, Matthew Landau can be reached at (571) 272-1731. 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.
/DMITRIY YEMELYANOV/Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Prosecution Insights