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 .
Prior Art of Record
The applicant's attention is directed to additional pertinent prior art cited in the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited, which, however, may not be currently applied as a basis for the following rejections. While these references were considered during the examination of this application and are deemed relevant to the claimed subject matter, they are not presently being applied as a basis for rejection in this Office action. The pertinence of these documents, however, may be revisited, and they may be applied in subsequent Office actions, particularly in light of any amendments or further clarification of the claimed invention.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 17, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang (US 20250133908 A1) [Wang 2025].
PNG
media_image1.png
574
920
media_image1.png
Greyscale
CLAIM 1. Wang discloses a display panel, wherein the display panel comprises:
an array substrate SU/BP (driving backplane, Fig. ¶[0061]);
a planarization layer PLN disposed on the array substrate SU (Fig. 1 & ¶[0064]);
a first electrode layer ANO disposed on a surface of the planarization layer away from the array substrate and comprising a plurality of first electrodes ANO spaced at intervals (Fig. 1);
a spacing layer SL disposed on a surface of the planarization layer PLN away from the array substrate SU and comprising a plurality of spacing parts, wherein one or more of the spacing parts are disposed between adjacent two of the first electrodes ANO, a groove CG with an opening direction away from the array substrate is defined in each of the spacing parts, and each of the spacing parts comprises a protrusion COL extending towards a center of the groove CG (Fig. 1);
a pixel definition layer SUL disposed on a surface of the first electrode layer ANO away from the array substrate SL and a surface of the spacing layer SL away from the array substrate SU, wherein a plurality of first openings (Openings defined by part EXP) and a plurality of second openings CG2 are defined on a surface of the pixel definition layer SUL away from the planarization layer PLN, each of the first opening exposes at least a part of corresponding one of the first electrodes ANO, and each of the second openings CG2 is in communication with corresponding groove CG1 (Fig. 1);
a light emitting layer OL disposed on a surface of the pixel definition layer away from the array substrate and comprising a first light emitting sublayer OLP, a charge generation layer CGL, and a second light emitting sublayer OLP stacked in sequence; and
a second electrode layer CAT disposed on a surface of the light emitting layer OL away from the array substrate (Fig. 1);
wherein a maximum depth of the groove is greater than or equal to a sum of thicknesses of the first light emitting sublayer and the charge generation layer (Fig. 1 – Groove passes through the analogous layers, thus is greater or equal to the total thickness.), and at least the first light emitting sublayer and the charge generation layer of the light emitting sublayer are disconnected at the spacing parts (¶[0059] – The cantilevered structure causes the CGL and light-emitting sublayers to be “thinned or even disconnected”.)1.
CLAIM 3. Wang 2025 teaches the display panel of claim 2, wherein the second electrode layer CAT is continuous at the spacing parts (Fig. 1 & 7).
CLAIM 4. Wang 2025 teaches the display panel of claim 1, wherein the spacing layer SL comprises a first spacing sublayer COL and a second spacing sublayer SUL, the first spacing sublayer COL is disposed on a surface of the second spacing sublayer SUL away from the planarization layer, a plurality of third openings CG2 corresponding to the spacing parts are defined in the first spacing sublayer COL, a plurality of fourth openings EXP corresponding to the spacing parts are defined in the second spacing sublayer SUL, the groove CG is provided with one of the third openings CG2 and one of the fourth openings, and the one of the third openings is in communication with the one of the fourth opening (Fig. 1 & ¶[0059, 0064]).
CLAIM 17. Wang 2025 teaches the display panel of claim 1, wherein one or more of the spacing parts SL surround corresponding one of the first electrodes ANO (Fig. 1 & The cut groove is “annular” and “surrounded outside one of the first electrodes” ¶[0030].).
CLAIM 20. Wang 2025 teaches the display panel of claim 1, wherein two of the second openings CG (CG1 & CG2) are defined between adjacent two of the first openings EXP, two of the spacing parts SL are disposed between adjacent two of the first electrodes ANO, and one of the second opening is in communication with the corresponding groove of one of the spacing parts (Fig. 1).
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.
Claim(s) 2, 5-16, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 20250133908 A1) [Wang 2025] in view of Wang et al. (US 20230157133 A1) [Wang 2023]
CLAIM 2. Wang 2025 teaches the display panel of claim 1, comprising a groove (CG and a light emitting layer OL. Wang 2025 teaches that the groove depth is sufficient to cause the light-emitting layer to be “thinned of even disconnected” ¶[0059]. Figures 1 & 7 demonstrate the second electrode CAT spans the groove as a continuous layer. Wang 2025 is silent on the specific relative measurement that the “ the maximum depth of the groove is less than or equal to a thickness of the light emitting layer.” This however would be a obvious design by a POSITA to maintinain continuity of the second electrode CAT.
Wang 2023 teaches in ¶[0063-64] that notch geometry is designed specifically sot the “light-mitting layer 7 is interrupted at the notch” while the “second electrode 8 is formed…in contact with the side surface” to maintain electrical coupling. Wang 2023 further emphasizes in ¶0056] that the profile of the groove (created by the retraction distance of the film layers) is controlled to manage how subsequent layers deposit over the structure.
A POSITA would be motivated to limit the “maximum depth of the groove” to be “less than or equal to a thickness of the light emitting layer” to achieve the specific result shown in Wang 2025: interrupting the internal charge generation layer while maintaining a continuous second electrode CAT. As taught by Wang 2023 in ¶[0063-64], as understood, if the depth exceeded the thickness of the light-emitting layer, the second electrode would be expected break at the step, resulting in a loss of electrical communality across the panel. Thus, the claimed ratio is recognized as a routine design optimization for cathode continuity.
CLAIM 5. Wang 2025 in view of Wang 2023 teach the display panel of claim 4, wherein a thickness of the second spacing sublayer ranges from 0.05 microns to 0.4 microns (Wang 2023 – Claim 11- analogous protection layer is known to be formed at “ a thickness of 500 angstroms to 1000 angstroms.” .
CLAIM 6. Wang 2025 in view of Wang 2023 teach the display panel of claim 4, wherein an opening size of one end of one of the fourth openings close to the first spacing sublayer is smaller than an opening size of corresponding one of the third openings (Wang 2025 discloses the second groove opening smaller than the first to create a cantilevered effect. Wang 2023 teaches in ¶[0054-56] that such structure are formed by dry and wet etching to create the described “retraction distance”.
A POSITA would be motivated to configure the opening sizes as claimed to achieve the functional goal described in Wang 2025: Increasing the “difficulty for the light-emitting layer OL to continuously pass through” ¶[0059]. As taught in Wang 2023 ¶[0056], using a “retraction distance” to make the fourth opening smaller than the third opening is a standard manufacturing technique to create the understood shadowing effect necessary to disconnect organic layers.
CLAIM 7. Wang 2025 in view of Wang 2023 teach the display panel of claim 4, wherein an etching rate of the first spacing sublayer is lower than an etching rate of the second spacing sublayer (Wang 2023 teaches the use of differential etching rates in ¶[0054-56], where it describes using a combination of dry-etching (lower rate/anisotropic) and wet etching (higher rate/isotropic) to create a “retraction distance” or notch).
A PHOSITA would find it obvious to configure the “etching rate of the first spacing sublayer” to be “lower than” the “second spacing sublayer” because this specific rat differential is the standard in the art method taught by Wang 2023 to produce the cantilevered profile required to interrupt/break the light emitting layer.
CLAIM 8. Wang 2025 in view of Wang 2023 teach the display panel of claim 4, wherein an included angle between a connecting line at both ends of a sidewall of one of the third openings of the first spacing sublayer and a surface of the first spacing sublayer close to the array substrate is a first included angle, an included angle between a connecting line at both ends of a sidewall of one of the fourth openings of the second spacing sublayer and a surface of the second spacing sublayer close to the array substrate is a second included angle, and the first included angle is greater than the second included angle (Wang 2023 teaches in ¶[0054-56] that the profile of the notch is controlled by combining different etching processes to create a “retraction distance.” )
A PHOSITA would find it obvious to configure the “first included angle” (upper layer) to be “greater than the second included angle” (lower layer) because, as taught in Wang 2023 ¶[0063], this specific angular relationship creates a sharper overhang. This ensures the “light emitting layer 7 is interrupted” by a shadowing effect at the top while providing a more stable base below to facilitate the “step-coverage” of the continuous second electrode.
CLAIM 9. Wang 2025 in view of Wang 2023 teach the display panel of claim 4, wherein the spacing layer SLfurther comprises a third spacing sublayer SUL, and the third spacing sublayer is disposed between the second spacing sublayer and the planarization layer PLN; and a plurality of sub grooves corresponding to the spacing parts are defined in the third spacing sublayer SUL, the groove CG is provided with one of the sub grooves CG1, and an opening of each of the sub grooves faces the second spacing sublayer and is in communication with corresponding one of the fourth openings (Wang 2025 Fig. 10 & ¶0057-59]).
CLAIM 10. Wang 2025 in view of Wang 2023 teach the display panel of claim 9, wherein the sidewall of the one of the fourth openings of the second spacing sublayer comprises a first curved surface, one of the sub grooves of the third spacing sublayer comprises a second curved surface, and a curvature radius of the second curved surface is greater than a curvature radius of the first curved surface (Wang 2025 Fig. 10 & 11 – The figures show a smooth, arched transition for both the first groove CG1 and the second groove CG2. Para 59 describes thee structures as having “sloped” profiles, which, as shown in the figures, are non-linear, continuous curves.).
CLAIM 11. Wang 2025 in view of Wang 2023 teach the display panel of claim 10, wherein the second curved surface is continuous with the first curved surface adjacent to the second curved surface (Wang 2025 fig. 10).
CLAIM 12. Wang 2025 in view of Wang 2023 teach the display panel of claim 9, wherein an etching rate of the third spacing sublayer is lower than an etching rate of the second spacing sublayer (Wang 2023 teaches the use of differential etching rates in ¶[0054-56], where it describes using a combination of dry-etching (lower rate/anisotropic) and wet etching (higher rate/isotropic) to create a “retraction distance” or notch).
A PHOSITA would find it obvious to configure the “etching rate of the first spacing sublayer” to be “lower than” the “second spacing sublayer” because this specific rat differential is the standard in the art method taught by Wang 2023 to produce the cantilevered profile required to interrupt/break the light emitting layer.
CLAIM 13. Wang 2025 in view of Wang 2023 teach the display panel of claim 9, wherein an included angle between a connecting line at both ends of a sidewall of one of the third openings of the first spacing sublayer and a surface of the first spacing sublayer close to the array substrate is the first included angle, an included angle between a connecting line at both ends of a sidewall of one of the fourth openings of the second spacing sublayer and a surface of the second spacing sublayer close to the array substrate is a second included angle, an included angle between a connecting line at both ends of a sidewall of one of the sub grooves of the third spacing sublayer and a surface of the third spacing sublayer close to the array substrate is a third included angle, the first included angle is greater than the second included angle, and the second included angle is greater than the third included angle (Wang 2025 Figs. 10 & 11 & Wang 2023 ¶[0054-56 & 63 - A PHOSITA would find the gradient 1st>2nd>3rd obvious because Wang 2023 ¶0063] teaches that the structure must simultaneously “interrupt” the light emitting layer and ensure the second electrode is “in contact with the side surface.” Consequently the steep angle of the top sublayer creates the necessary shadow to achieve the “interruption,” while the progressively shallower angles of the lower sublayers ensure the “step coverage” required for the electrode to maintain electrical contact.]) .
CLAIM 14. Wang 2025 in view of Wang 2023 teach the display panel of claim 9, however may be silent upon wherein a thickness of the third spacing sublayer is greater than 3 nanometers. Wang 2023 however teache that the layers of the isolation structure must have a thickness sufficient to facilitate the formation of a “retraction distance” through etching. A PHOSITA would find it obvious to optimizethe third spacing sublayer with a thickness “greater than 3nm” because Wang 2023 [0054] and [0063] require these structures to be large enough to “interrupt” the light emitting layer and support the second electrodes “step coverage”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of making semiconductor devices to determine the workable or optimal value for the thickness through routine experimentation and optimization to obtain optimal or desired device performance because the thickness is a result-effective variable and there is no evidence indicating that it is critical or produces any unexpected results and it has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable within given prior art conditions by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05
Given the teaching of the references, it would have been obvious to determine the optimum thickness, temperature as well as condition of delivery of the layers involved. See In re Aller, Lacey and Hall (10 USPQ 233-237) “It is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed ranges or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 f.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Any differences in the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness. Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992).
An Affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979).
CLAIM 15. Wang 2025 in view of Wang 2023 teach the display panel of claim 4, wherein the first spacing sublayer is provided with the protrusion, a distance between an edge of the protrusion towards the center of the groove and an edge of one end of corresponding one of the fourth openings close to the first spacing sublayer is greater than or equal to 1 micron (A PHOSITA would find the protrusion distance of “greater than or equal to 1 micron” obvious because Wang 2023 ¶[0054-56] teach that the top layer must be etched to create a specific “retraction distance” to shadow the lower layers. Setting this distance to at least 1 micron is a routine optimization to ensure that the protrusion is large enough to effectively interrupt” the light emitting layer as required by the teaching in Wang 2023 ¶[0063].).
CLAIM 16. Wang 2025 in view of Wang 2023 teach the display panel of claim 4, wherein a thickness of the first spacing sublayer ranges from 0.01 microns to 0.1 microns (A PHOSITA would find the thickness range obvious because Wang 2023 ¶[0054] teaches using a thin top layer to create a “retraction distance.” Selecting the specific range is a routine optimization to ensure the layer is thin enough to “interrupt” the light emitting layer while still allowing for the “step coverage” of the second electrode.).
CLAIM 18. Wang 2025 in view of Wang 2023 teach the display panel of claim 17, wherein the one or more of the spacing parts are completely enclosed on a peripheral side of one of the first electrodes (A PHOSITA would find it obvious to have the spacing parts “completely enclosed” because Wang 2023 ¶[0012] and [0063] teach that the structure must “interrupt” the light emitting layer to achieve “isolation.” Completely enclosing the electrode is a routine application of this teaching to ensure that the organic layers are disconnected on all sides of the pixel, preventing electrical leakage across the entire periphery.).
CLAIM 19. Wang 2025 in view of Wang 2023 teach the display panel of claim 17, wherein the one or more of the spacing parts are partially enclosed on a peripheral side of one of the first electrodes (A PHOSITA would find it obvious to have the spacing parts “partially enclosed” because Wang 2023 ¶00125] and [0063] teach that the structure’s purpose is to “interrupt” the light emitting layer for isolation.” Designing the spacing parts t o only partially surround the electrode is a routine variation to this isolation teaching , used when specific directions of electrical leakage need to be blocked while maintaining the second electrode’s “step coverage” in other areas.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JARRETT J STARK whose telephone number is (571)272-6005. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4 M-F.
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, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. 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.
JARRETT J. STARK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2822
1/23/2025
/JARRETT J STARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
1 Wang (2025) - [0059] In the display panel according to the embodiment of the present disclosure, any first electrode ANO and its corresponding light-emitting layer OL and second electrode CAT can form a light-emitting unit. The separation layer SL can separate each light-emitting unit. At the same time, the orthographic projection of at least one side wall of the second groove CG2 on the driving back plate BP is located between the orthographic projection of the boundaries of the two side walls of the first groove CG1 away from the surface of the driving back plate BP on the driving back plate BP, so that at least one side wall of the second groove CG2 is cantilevered on the first groove CG1, which can increase the difficulty for the light-emitting layer OL to continuously pass through the cut groove CG, cause the light-emitting layer OL to be thinned or even disconnected in the cut groove CG, therefore reducing the risk of mutual leakage between adjacent light-emitting units and improve the cross-color. In addition, the orthogonal projections of the cutoff layer COL and the first electrode ANO are distributed separately, which can disconnect the cutoff layer COL and the first electrode ANO and prevent the adjacent first electrode ANO from being short-circuited.