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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 11, 14, 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (20140292622).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a automotive light-emitting panel (please note that par. 5 teaches that this OLED can use for various types of displays), comprising at least one light-emitting unit (please see fig. 9) arranged on a side of a base substrate (fig. 9: 101),
wherein the light-emitting unit comprises a light-emitting device (fig. 9: OLED device) and a signal distribution line (fig. 9: CM2) driving the light-emitting device (CM1 helps drive the OLED, as taught in par. 105), and the light-emitting device comprises a light-emitting electrode (fig. 9: 120), a light-emitting region definition layer (fig. 9: PDL), an organic light-emitting layer (fig. 9: 130), and a common electrode (fig. 9: 140) that are sequentially stacked on the side of the base substrate: and wherein the light-emitting unit further comprises a patching line (fig. 9: CM3),
wherein the signal distribution line is electrically connected to the light-emitting electrode of the light-emitting device through the patching line (fig. 9 shows CM3 between CM2 and 120), and a sheet resistance of the patching line is greater than a sheet resistance of the signal distribution line (par. 105 teaches CM2 can me composed of Al; par. 107 teaches CM3 can be composed of Pt).
Please note that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim
Regarding claim 2, Lee teaches a automotive light-emitting panel according to claim 1, wherein the signal distribution line is arranged around the light-emitting electrode (please see fig. 9 which shows this configuration).
Regarding claim 4, Lee teaches a automotive light-emitting panel according to claim 1, wherein an orthographic projection of the patching line on the base substrate is located within an orthographic projection of the signal distribution line on the base substrate (please see the elements are stacked over each other in fig. 9).
Regarding claim 5, Lee teaches a automotive light-emitting panel according to claim 1, wherein the patching line and the light-emitting electrode are arranged in the same layer (please see fig. 9).
Regarding claim 6, Lee teaches a automotive light-emitting panel according to claim 1, further comprising an inorganic insulation layer (ILD2; par. 104) covering the signal distribution line, wherein the inorganic insulation layer comprises an opening groove that exposes at least part of the signal distribution line, and the patching line is electrically connected to the signal distribution line through the opening groove (please see fig. 9).
Regarding claim 11, Lee teaches a automotive light-emitting panel according to claim 1, wherein the light-emitting unit further comprises an electrode tab (please see the wide portion of 120 directly abutting layer 130) connected to the light-emitting electrode, wherein a size of a connection between the electrode tab and the light-emitting electrode is greater than a width of the patching line (please see fig. 9 which shows this element relationship), and the patching line is electrically connected to the electrode tab (please see fig. 9 which shows this connection).
Regarding claim 14, Lee teaches a automotive light-emitting panel according to claim 11, further comprising an inorganic insulation layer (ILD2; par. 104) covering the signal distribution line, wherein the electrode tab overlaps with the signal distribution line, and the electrode tab is insulated with the signal distribution line through the inorganic insulation layer (please see fig. 9).
Regarding claim 20, Lee teaches a automotive light-emitting panel according to claim 1, further comprising an inorganic insulation layer (fig. 9: ILD2) covering the signal distribution line, wherein the light-emitting region definition layer comprises multiple light-emitting openings (please see fig. 6 and 9) that expose the light-emitting electrode, the inorganic insulation layer comprises a light output groove, and orthographic projections of the light-emitting openings on the base substrate are located within an orthographic projection of the light output groove on the base substrate (please fig. 6, 9 and 10).
Regarding claim 22, Lee teaches a light-emitting apparatus comprising the automotive light-emitting panel according to claim 1 (please note that par. 5 teaches that this OLED can use for various types of displays). Please note that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art
apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 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.
Claim 7 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.
Claim 8 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.
Claim 9 and 10 are objected to based on their dependence on claim 8.
Claim 12 (please note dependency on claim 11) 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.
Claim 13 (please note dependency on claim 11) 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.
Claim 15 (please note dependency on claim 11) 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.
Claim 19 is objected to based on their dependence on claim 15.
Claim 16 (please note dependency on claim 11) 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.
Claim 21 (please note dependency on claim 11) 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 CALEB E HENRY whose telephone number is (571)270-5370. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri.
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, Eva Montalvo can be reached at (571) 270-3829. 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.
/CALEB E HENRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights