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 § 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2014/0183479 A1; hereinafter, “Park”, which is a prior art of record) in view of Moon et al. (US 2021/0126081 A1; hereinafter, “Moon”, which is a prior art of record).
Regarding claim 21:
Park discloses a display panel 400 (Fig. 4 and [0037, 0040]), comprising a plurality of light emitting areas EA (Fig. 4 and [0045]) arranged at intervals and a non-light emitting area C (Fig. 4 and [0046]) located between the light emitting areas, and comprising:
a substrate 310 [0051];
a pixel definition layer 315 [0077], disposed on a side of the substrate 310, and comprising first grooves correspondingly disposed in the light emitting areas EA and second grooves disposed in the non-light emitting area C;
a plurality of partitions 480 (i.e., only one shown in Fig. 4; however, a complete display will require a plurality of partitions, e.g., see “1260” in area C in Fig. 12), disposed in the non-light emitting area C and on a side of the pixel definition layer 315 away from the substrate 310 (partitions 480 extend above layer 315 in Fig. 4), wherein each of the partitions comprises a first portion (lower portion of “480” in contact with “360” in Fig. 4) disposed corresponding to one of the second grooves and a second portion (upper portion of “480” above the tops of “315” in Fig. 4) disposed on a side of the first portion away from the substrate 310, a width of the second portion is greater than a width of the first portion (i.e.., in Fig. 4, the upper portion of “480” has a larger width that than that of the lower portion), and the second portion is spaced apart from a surface of the pixel definition layer away from the substrate 310 (Fig. 4);
a light emitting layer 352 (Fig. 4 and [0050]), disposed on the side of the pixel definition layer 315 and sides of the partitions 480 away from the substrate 310, wherein the light emitting layer 352 comprises pixels disposed corresponding to the first grooves (Fig. 4), the light emitting layer 352 comprises [
wherein a first layer 470 (Fig. 4 and [0089]) is provided in the non-light emitting area (Fig. 4, region C) and is disposed between the pixel definition layer 315 and each of the partitions 480, and an end of the light emitting layer 352 at an interrupted portion (in region C) of the light emitting layer 352 on a side of the partitions 480 is spaced apart from the first layer 470 (i.e., in Fig. 4, the end of the light emitting layer 352 is covered by layer 353 such that layer 352 is spaced apart from layer 470).
Park does not explicitly disclose the light emitting layer 352 comprises a plurality of sub-film layers stacked. However, Moon teaches, in a similar display panel, a light emitting layer 220 (Fig. 4 and [0113]) comprises a plurality of sub-film layers stacked, wherein the sub-film layers 222/223 include at least hole-injection and electron-injection layers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Park by incorporating a light-emitting layer comprising a plurality of sub-film layers stacked, as taught by Moon, because the modification could reduce energy barriers at the electrode interfaces, thereby improving the efficiency of the light-emitting layer.
Regarding claim 22:
Park discloses the first layer 470 (Fig. 4) is disposed between the surface of the pixel definition layer 315 away from the substrate 310 and the second portion (upper portion of “480” above the tops of “315” in Fig. 4), and is disposed adjacent to the first portion (lower portion of “480” in Fig. 4); or
the first layer is disposed between a sidewall of the first portion and a sidewall of a
corresponding one of the second grooves, and the first layer further extends between the surface
of the pixel definition layer away from the substrate and the second portion.
Therefore, claim 22 is rendered obvious by Park in view of Moon.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Moon and Kwak (US 2010/0097295 A1).
Regarding claim 23:
Park discloses a display panel 400 (Fig. 4 and [0037, 0040]), comprising a plurality of light emitting areas EA (Fig. 4 and [0045]) arranged at intervals and a non-light emitting area C (Fig. 4 and [0046]) located between the light emitting areas, and comprising:
a substrate 310 [0051];
a pixel definition layer 315 [0077], disposed on a side of the substrate 310, and comprising first grooves correspondingly disposed in the light emitting areas EA and second grooves disposed in the non-light emitting area C;
a plurality of partitions 480 (i.e., only one shown in Fig. 4; however, a complete display will require a plurality of partitions, e.g., see “1260” in area C in Fig. 12), disposed in the non-light emitting area C and on a side of the pixel definition layer 315 away from the substrate 310 (partitions 480 extend above layer 315 in Fig. 4), wherein each of the partitions comprises a first portion (lower portion of “480” in contact with “360” in Fig. 4) disposed corresponding to one of the second grooves and a second portion (upper portion of “480” above the tops of “315” in Fig. 4) disposed on a side of the first portion away from the substrate 310, a width of the second portion is greater than a width of the first portion (i.e.., in Fig. 4, the upper portion of “480” has a larger width that than that of the lower portion), and the second portion is spaced apart from a surface of the pixel definition layer away from the substrate 310 (Fig. 4);
a light emitting layer 352 (Fig. 4 and [0050]), disposed on the side of the pixel definition layer 315 and sides of the partitions 480 away from the substrate 310, wherein the light emitting layer 352 comprises pixels disposed corresponding to the first grooves (Fig. 4), the light emitting layer 352 comprises [
wherein a first layer 470 (Fig. 4 and [0089]) is provided in the non-light emitting area (Fig. 4, region C) and is disposed between the pixel definition layer 315 and each of the partitions 480, and an end of the light emitting layer 352 at an interrupted portion (in region C) of the light emitting layer 352 on a side of the partitions 480 is spaced apart from the first layer 470 (i.e., in Fig. 4, the end of the light emitting layer 352 is covered by layer 353 such that layer 352 is spaced apart from layer 470).
Park does not explicitly disclose the light emitting layer 352 comprises a plurality of sub-film layers stacked, and Park does not disclose a completed display panel.
Moon teaches, in a similar display panel, a light emitting layer 220 (Fig. 4 and [0113]) comprises a plurality of sub-film layers stacked, wherein the sub-film layers 222/223 include at least hole-injection and electron-injection layers.
Kwak teaches, in a completed display panel, an upper substrate 200 (Figs. 1-2 and [0025]) is incorporated, wherein the upper substrate is supported by a plurality of spacers 118.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Park by incorporating a light-emitting layer comprising a plurality of sub-film layers stacked, as taught by Moon, because the modification could reduce energy barriers at the electrode interfaces, thereby improving the efficiency of the light-emitting layer. Furthermore, when Moon’s display panel is completed, Kwak teaches/shows a plurality of spacers will be used to support an upper substrate; accordingly, when a plurality of spacers are incorporated, Moon’s second grooves around each spacer are arranged in a closed loop and at least one of the pixels will be surrounded by some of the grooves/spacers (e.g., see spacers surrounding pixels in Fig. 2 of Kwak).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 and 12-18 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 1-10 and 12-18 are allowed primarily because the prior art of record cannot anticipate or render obvious the following limitations, in combination as recited in independent claim 1: wherein each of the partitions further comprise a third groove defined on a top surface of the second portion…and the third groove is filled with at least part of the sub-film layers of the light emitting layer therein.
The objections to the tittle and abstract are withdrawn in view of the amendments.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Applicant’s remarks have been fully considered, but with respect to claims 21-23, they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejections.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references (US 2022/0262878 A1 to Lee et al. and US 2022/0310721 A1 to Ma et al.) listed on the attached PTO-892 disclose display panels including partitions having a groove on a top surface, however, neither reference suggests the groove being filled with at least a part of sub-film layers of a light emitting layer.
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 LEX H MALSAWMA whose telephone number is (571)272-1903. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (4-12 Hours, between 5:30AM-10PM).
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, N. Drew Richards can be reached at 571-272-1736. 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.
/LEX H MALSAWMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2892
Prosecution Insights