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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 20th, 2024, was filed after the mailing date of the first office action on the merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 § 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 7, 10, and 12-13 are 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 7 recites the limitation "the other aperture" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as “an other aperture”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the second main body part" in lines 8 and 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation “the second main body part” will be interpreted as “the second body part”.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "one aperture" in line 2. It is unclear if this limitation refers to the same aperture as the one defined in line 2 of Claim 7 or a different aperture. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as “the one aperture”.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "one aperture" in line 2. It is unclear if this limitation refers to the same aperture as the one defined in line 2 of Claim 7 or a different aperture. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as “the one aperture”.
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.
Claims 1-7, 10, 16, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (KR 20240126492 A; hereinafter Lee).
Regarding Claim 1, Lee (figs. 1-3, 7a, and 8) teaches a display panel ([0037], 10, see fig. 2), comprising
a base ([0038], 100, see fig. 2),
pixel circuits ([0043], TFT, see fig. 2),
an array of pixel units ([0039], [0043], PX including ED, see figs. 1 and 2), and
a color filter layer ([0068], 180, see fig. 2), wherein
the pixel circuits (TFT), the array of pixel units (ED), and the color filter layer are sequentially stacked (see fig. 2) on a side of the base (100);
each pixel unit (PX) comprises a first subpixel ([0072], PX3, see fig. 7a) and a second subpixel ([0072], PX2, see fig. 7a),
the first subpixel (PX3) has an aperture ratio greater than an aperture ratio ([0089], aperture ratio of PX3 may be greater than PX2, see fig. 9) of the second subpixel (PX2),
the first subpixel (PX3) has more apertures ([0081], PX3 has two apertures for EA3a and EA3b while PX2 has one aperture for EA2, see fig. 7a) than the second subpixel (PX2) has, and
the number of pixel circuit (TFT) for driving the first subpixel (PX3) is equal ([0087], PX3 implements both apertures to one TFT similar to the other pixels, see fig. 8) to the number of pixel circuit (TFT) for driving the second subpixel (PX2);
the color filter layer (180) comprises a first color filter ([0070], 182c, see fig. 3) and a second color filter ([0070], 182b, see fig. 3),
an orthographic projection of the first color filter (182c) on the base (100) covers an orthographic projection ([0070], 182c corresponds to a pixel and is shown to completely overlap the emission area EA, see fig. 3) of the aperture (EA3a and EA3b) in the first subpixel (PX3) on the base (100), and
an orthographic projection of the second color filter (182b) on the base (100) covers an orthographic projection ([0070], 182b corresponds to a pixel and is shown to completely overlap the emission area EA, see fig. 3) of the aperture (EA2) in the second subpixel (PX2) on the base (100); and
the orthographic projections of the first color filter (182c) and the second color filter (182b) on the base (100) each have a shape, at least part of edges of which are curved ([0081]-[0082], the emitting-areas EA may be defined to be circular by the pixel definition layer 119, [0068], the color filters 182 may be defined between the black matrices 183 and corresponding to the pixel definition layer 119, as a result the color filters may be similarly curved).
Regarding Claim 2, Lee (figs. 1-3, 7a, and 8) teaches the display panel according to claim 1, wherein the pixel unit further comprises
a third subpixel ([0072], PX1, see fig. 7a),
the first subpixel (PX3) has an aperture ratio greater than an aperture ratio ([0089], aperture ratio of PX3 may be greater than PX1, see fig. 9) of the third subpixel (PX1),
the first subpixel (PX3) has more apertures ([0081], PX3 has two apertures for EA3a and EA3b while PX1 has one aperture for EA1, see fig. 7a) than the third subpixel (PX1) has, and the number of pixel circuit (TFT) for driving the first subpixel (PX3) is equal ([0087], PX3 implements both apertures to one TFT similar to the other pixels, see fig. 8) to the number of pixel circuit (TFT) for driving the third subpixel (PX1);
the color filter layer (180) further comprises a third color filter ([0070], 182a, see fig. 3), and
an orthographic projection of the third color filter (182a) on the base (100) covers an orthographic projection ([0070], 182a corresponds to a pixel and is shown to completely overlap the emission area EA, see fig. 3) of the aperture (EA1) in the third subpixel (PX1) on the base (100); and
the orthographic projection of the third color filter (182a) on the base (100) has a shape, at least part of edges of which are curved ([0081]-[0082], the emitting-areas EA may be defined to be circular by the pixel definition layer 119, [0068], the color filters 182 may be defined between the black matrices 183 and corresponding to the pixel definition layer 119, as a result the color filters may be similarly curved).
Regarding Claim 3, Lee (figs. 1-3, 7a, and 8) teaches the display panel according to claim 2, wherein
for the shape of the orthographic projection of the first color filter (182c) on the base (100), a ratio of a dimension in a row direction (x direction, see fig. 7a) of the array of pixel units (PX) to a dimension in a column direction (y direction, see fig. 7a) of the array of pixel units (PX) is in a range of 0.8 to 1.2 (emitting areas may be circular, so 182c may have a ratio of 1, see fig. 7c);
for the shape of the orthographic projection of the second color filter (182b) on the base (100), a ratio of a dimension in the row direction (x) of the array of pixel units (PX) to a dimension in the column direction (y) of the array of pixel units (PX) is in a range of 0.8 to 1.2 (emitting areas may be circular, so 182b may have a ratio of 1, see fig. 7c); and
for the shape of the orthographic projection of the third color filter (182a) on the base (100), a ratio of a dimension in the row direction (x) of the array of pixel units (PX) to a dimension in the column direction (y) of the array of pixel units (PX) is in a range of 0.8 to 1.2 (emitting areas may be circular, so 182a may have a ratio of 1, see fig. 7c).
Regarding Claim 4, Lee (figs. 1-3, 7a, and 8) teaches the display panel according to claim 2, wherein
the shape of the orthographic projection (emitting areas may be circular, so 182c may be symmetric, see fig. 7c) of the first color filter (182c) on the base (100) is symmetrical in both a row direction (x direction, see fig. 7a) and a column direction (y direction, see fig. 7a) of the array of pixel units (PX);
the shape of the orthographic projection (emitting areas may be circular, so 182b may be symmetric, see fig. 7c) of the second color filter (182b) on the base (100) is symmetrical in both the row direction (x) and the column direction (y) of the array of pixel units (PX); and
the shape of the orthographic projection (emitting areas may be circular, so 182a may be symmetric, see fig. 7c) of the third color filter (182a) on the base (100) is symmetrical in both the row direction (x) and the column direction (y) of the array of pixel units.
Regarding Claim 5, Lee (figs. 1-3, 7a, and 8) teaches the display panel according to claim 2, wherein
the orthographic projection of the aperture (EA3) in the first subpixel (PX3) on the base (100) has the same shape ([0081]-[0082], the emitting-areas EA may be defined to be circular by the pixel definition layer 119, [0068], the color filters 182 may be defined between the black matrices 183 and corresponding to the pixel definition layer 119, as a result the color filters may have the same shape).
as the orthographic projection of the first color filter (182c) on the base (100);
the orthographic projection of the aperture (EA2) in the second subpixel (PX2) on the base (100) has the same shape ([0081]-[0082], the emitting-areas EA may be defined to be circular by the pixel definition layer 119, [0068], the color filters 182 may be defined between the black matrices 183 and corresponding to the pixel definition layer 119, as a result the color filters may have the same shape) as the orthographic projection of the second color filter (182b) on the base (100); and
the orthographic projection of the aperture (EA1) in the third subpixel (PX1) on the base (100) has the same shape ([0081]-[0082], the emitting-areas EA may be defined to be circular by the pixel definition layer 119, [0068], the color filters 182 may be defined between the black matrices 183 and corresponding to the pixel definition layer 119, as a result the color filters may have the same shape) as the orthographic projection of the third color filter (182a) on the base (100).
Regarding Claim 6, Lee (figs. 1-3, 7a, and 8) teaches the display panel according to claim 5, wherein
the first subpixel (PX3) has two apertures ([0081], EA3a and EA3b, see fig. 7a);
the second subpixel (PX2) has one aperture (EA2);
the third subpixel (PX1) has one aperture (EA1);
in each pixel unit (PX), the second subpixel (PX2) and the third subpixel (PX1) are arranged in a first direction (y), the second subpixel (PX2) and the first subpixel (PX3) are arranged in a second direction (x), and the third subpixel (PX1) and the first subpixel (PX3) are arranged in the second direction (x);
in each pixel unit (PX), the two apertures (EA3a, EA3b) in the first subpixel (PX3) are arranged in the first direction (y); and the first direction (y) is a column direction (see fig. 7a) of the array of pixel units (PX), and the second direction (x) is a row direction (see fig. 7a) of the array of pixel units (PX).
Regarding Claim 7, Lee (figs. 1-3, 7a, and 8) teaches the display panel according to claim 6, wherein
the aperture (EA2) in the second subpixel (PX2) and one aperture (EA3b) in the first subpixel (PX3) are adjacent to each other (see fig. 7a) and located in a first row (first row, see annotated fig. 7a), and
the aperture (EA1) in the third subpixel (PX1) and the other aperture (EA3a) in the first subpixel (PX3) are adjacent to each other (see fig. 7a) and located in a second row (second row, see annotated fig. 7); and
the first row (first row) is adjacent (see annotated fig. 7a) to the second row (second row), the aperture (EA2) in the second subpixel (PX2) and the aperture (EA1) in the third subpixel (PX1) are located in the same column (see annotated fig. 7a), and
the one aperture (EA3b) in the first subpixel (PX3) and the other aperture (EA3a) in the first subpixel (PX3) are located in the same column (see annotated fig. 7a).
PNG
media_image1.png
531
1008
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 7a
Regarding Claim 10, Lee (figs. 1-4, 7a, and 8) teaches the display panel according to claim 6, wherein
the first subpixel (PX3) comprises a first anode ([0051], 121 in PX3, see fig. 8);
the first anode (121 in PX3) comprises a first main body part (first main body part, see annotated fig. 4) and a first connection part (first connection part, see annotated fig. 4), and the first main body part (first main body part) is electrically connected to the first connection part (first connection part) which is further electrically connected to the pixel circuit (TFT) for the first subpixel (PX3);
the second subpixel (PX2) comprises a second anode ([0051], 121 in PX2, see fig. 7a);
the second anode (121 in PX2) comprises a second body part (second main body part, see annotated fig. 4) and a second connection part (second connection part, see annotated fig. 4), and the second main body part (second main body part) is electrically connected to the second connection part (second connection part, see annotated fig. 4) which is further electrically connected to the pixel circuit (TFT) for the second subpixel (PX2);
the third subpixel (PX1) comprises a third anode ([0051], 121 in PX1, see fig. 7a);
the third anode (121 in PX1) comprises a third main body part (third main body part, see annotated fig. 4) and a third connection part (third connection part, see annotated fig. 4), and the third main body part (third main body part) is electrically connected to the third connection part (third connection part) which is further electrically connected to the pixel circuit (TFT) for the third subpixel (PX1);
an orthographic projection of the first main body part (first main body part) on the base (100) has a shape the same as or similar to the shape of the orthographic projection ([0085]-[0086], 121 may be formed to have the same shape as the emitting area EA and therefore the color filter 182 as discussed in Claim 5, see fig. 7c) of the first color filter (182c) on the base (100);
an orthographic projection of the second main body part (second main body part) on the base (100) has a shape the same as or similar to the shape of the orthographic projection ([0085]-[0086], 121 may be formed to have the same shape as the emitting area EA and therefore the color filter 182 as discussed in Claim 5, see fig. 7c) of the second color filter (182b) on the base (100); and
an orthographic projection of the third main body part (third main body part) on the base (100) has a shape the same as or similar to the shape of the orthographic projection ([0085]-[0086], 121 may be formed to have the same shape as the emitting area EA and therefore the color filter 182 as discussed in Claim 5, see fig. 7c) of the third color filter (182a) on the base (100).
PNG
media_image2.png
481
747
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 4
Regarding Claim 16, Lee (figs. 1-3, 7a, and 8) teaches the display panel according to claim 6, wherein the first subpixel (PX3) comprises a first anode ([0051], 121 in PX3); and the first anode (121 in PX3) corresponds to all apertures (EA3a, EA3b) in the first subpixel (PX3) in the pixel unit (PX) and has a one-piece structure (see fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 28, Lee (figs. 1-3, 7a, and 8) teaches a display apparatus ([0135], electronic device), comprising the display panel (10) according to claim 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.
Rejection Note: Italicized claim limitations indicate that the corresponding limitations are addressed with a secondary reference/embodiment in an obviousness analysis.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (KR 20240144691 A; hereinafter Lee2).
Regarding Claim 8, Lee (figs. 1-3, 7a, and 8) teaches the display panel according to claim 6, wherein the aperture (EA2) in the second subpixel (PX2) is in a first row (first row, see annotated fig. 7a), the aperture (EA1) in the third subpixel (PX3) and one aperture (EA3a) in the first subpixel (PX3) are adjacent to each other and located in a second row (second row, see annotated fig. 7a), and the other aperture in the first subpixel is in a third row; and the first row, the second row, and the third row are sequentially arranged in the first direction, the aperture (EA2) in the second subpixel (PX2) and the aperture (EA1) in the third subpixel (PX1) are located in the same column (see annotated fig. 7a), and the one aperture (EA3a) in the first subpixel (PX3) and the other aperture (EA3b) in the first subpixel (PX3) are located in the same column (see annotated fig. 7a).
Lee2 (fig. 10) teaches the other aperture ([0125], EA3a) in the first subpixel ([0124], PX3) is in a third row (third row, see annotated fig. 10); and the first row (first row, see annotated fig. 10), the second row (second row, see annotated fig. 10), and the third row (third row) are sequentially arranged in the first direction (DR2, see annotated fig. 10). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to try and arrange the apertures as depicted above and yielded the predictable results of forming a functional display panel with varying aperture sizes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the apertures as depicted above since this limitation is one of a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions. This is an appropriate rationale to support a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
PNG
media_image3.png
522
753
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 10
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to Claims 2 and 7 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (2015/0129856 A1; hereinafter Kim).
Regarding Claim 11, Lee (figs. 1-3, 7a, and 8) teaches the display panel according to claim 2, wherein
the first subpixel (PX3), the second subpixel (PX2), and the third subpixel (PX1) are different in color ([0072]),
the apertures (EA3a, EA3b) in the first subpixel (PX3) have different areas ([0091]);
a shortest distance between aperture outlines of the aperture in the first subpixel and the aperture in the second subpixel adjacent to each other in the pixel unit is greater than 10μm; and
a shortest distance between aperture outlines of the aperture in the second subpixel and the aperture in the third subpixel adjacent to each other in the pixel unit is greater than 10μm.
Lee doesn’t teach a shortest distance between aperture outlines of the aperture in the first subpixel and the aperture in the second subpixel adjacent to each other in the pixel unit is greater than 10μm; and a shortest distance between aperture outlines of the aperture in the second subpixel and the aperture in the third subpixel adjacent to each other in the pixel unit is greater than 10μm.
However, Kim (fig. 7) teaches a shortest distance between aperture outlines of the aperture in the first subpixel ([0080], B) and the aperture in the second subpixel ([0080], G) adjacent to each other in the pixel unit ([0076], 120) is greater than 10μm ([0119]-[0121], may be 23 μm, see fig. 7); and a shortest distance between aperture outlines of the aperture in the second subpixel (G) and the aperture in the third subpixel ([0080], R) adjacent to each other in the pixel unit (120) is greater than 10μm ([0119]-[0121], may be 30 μm, see fig. 7). Distances, however, will not support the patentability of the subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such distances are critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Accordingly, since the applicant has not established the criticality of the claimed distance, and similarly spaced sub-pixel apertures are used for display devices in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the appropriate distance for adjacent sub-pixels.
Regarding Claim 12, Lee doesn’t teach the display panel according to claim 7, wherein outlines on the same side of the aperture in the second subpixel and one aperture in the first subpixel in the same row as the aperture in the second subpixel in the pixel unit are on a first straight line, outlines on the same side of the aperture in the third subpixel and the other aperture in the first subpixel in the same row as the aperture in the third subpixel in the pixel unit are on a second straight line, outlines on the same side of the aperture in the second subpixel and the aperture in the third subpixel in the same column as the aperture in the second subpixel in the pixel unit are on a third straight line, outlines on the same side of the one aperture in the first subpixel and the other aperture in the first subpixel in the same column as the one aperture in the first subpixel in the pixel unit are on a fourth straight line, the first straight line, the second straight line, the third straight line, and the fourth straight line are spliced to form a rectangle, and orthographic projections of the two apertures in the first subpixel, the aperture in the second subpixel, and the aperture in the third subpixel in the pixel unit on the base are within an orthographic projection of the rectangle on the base.
However, Kim (annotated fig. 7) teaches
outlines on the same side of the aperture in the second subpixel ([0080], G) and one aperture in the first subpixel ([0080], top B) in the same row as the aperture in the second subpixel (G) in the pixel unit ([0076], 120) are on a first straight line (first straight line, see annotated fig. 7),
outlines on the same side of the aperture in the third subpixel ([0080], R) and the other aperture in the first subpixel ([0080], bottom B) in the same row as the aperture in the third subpixel (R) in the pixel unit (120) are on a second straight line (second straight line, see annotated fig. 7),
outlines on the same side of the aperture in the second subpixel (G) and the aperture in the third subpixel (R) in the same column as the aperture in the second subpixel (G) in the pixel unit (120) are on a third straight line (third straight line, see annotated fig. 7),
outlines on the same side of the one aperture in the first subpixel (top B) and the other aperture in the first subpixel (bottom B) in the same column as the one aperture in the first subpixel (top B) in the pixel unit (120) are on a fourth straight line (fourth straight line),
the first straight line (first straight line), the second straight line (second straight line), the third straight line (third straight line), and the fourth straight line (fourth straight line) are spliced to form a rectangle (see annotated fig. 7), and orthographic projections of the two apertures in the first subpixel (top and bottom B), the aperture in the second subpixel (G), and the aperture in the third subpixel (R) in the pixel unit (120) on the base ([0008], lower substrate, not labeled) are within an orthographic projection (see annotated fig. 7) of the rectangle on the base (lower substrate).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to try and arrange the apertures as depicted above and yielded the predictable results of forming a functional display panel with varying aperture sizes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the apertures as depicted above since this limitation is one of a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions. This is an appropriate rationale to support a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
PNG
media_image4.png
832
915
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 7
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to Claim 7 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (KR 20240023279 A; hereinafter Lee3).
Regarding Claim 13, Lee (figs. 1-3, 7a, and 8) teaches the display panel according to claim 7, wherein
centers of the aperture (EA2) in the second subpixel (PX2) and one aperture (EA3b) in the first subpixel (PX3) in the same row as the aperture (EA2) in the second subpixel (PX2) in the pixel unit (PX) are on a first straight line (see fig. 7a),
centers of the aperture (EA1) in the third subpixel and the other aperture (EA3a) in the first subpixel (PX3) in the same row as the aperture (EA1) in the third subpixel (PX1) in the pixel unit (PX) are on a second straight line (see fig. 7a),
centers of the aperture (EA2) in the second subpixel (PX2) and the aperture (EA1) in the third subpixel (PX1) in the same column as the aperture (EA2) in the second subpixel (PX2) in the pixel unit (PX) are on a third straight line (see. fig. 7a),
centers of the one aperture (EA3b) in the first subpixel (PX3) and the other aperture (EA3a) in the first subpixel (PX3) in the same column as the one aperture (EA3b) in the first subpixel (PX3) in the pixel unit (PX) are on a fourth straight line (see fig. 7a), and
the first straight line, the second straight line, the third straight line, and the fourth straight line are spliced to form a rectangle.
Lee doesn’t teach the first straight line, the second straight line, the third straight line, and the fourth straight line are spliced to form a rectangle.
However, Lee3 (fig. 11a) teaches the first straight line ([0136], AL3), the second straight line ([0136], AL4), the third straight line ([0136], AL2), and the fourth straight line ([0136], AL1) are spliced to form a rectangle ([0138]). Lee3 also teaches that aligned centers can reduce the visibility of the boundary between display areas ([0139]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the display panel of Lee to include the arrangement of sub pixels of Lee2 to reduce boundary visibility.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to Claim 7 above, and further in view of Jiehuang. (2017/0092700 A1; hereinafter Jiehuang).
Regarding Claim 14, Lee (figs. 1-3, 7a, and 8) teaches the display panel according to claim 2, wherein
the first subpixel (PX3) comprises a blue subpixel ([0105]);
the second subpixel (PX2) comprises a green subpixel ([0105]);
the third subpixel (PX1) comprises a red subpixel ([0105]);
the first subpixel (PX3) has an aperture area greater than an aperture area ([0089], PX3 may have a larger aperture ratio than PX2) of the second subpixel (PX2), and
the second subpixel (PX2) has an aperture area greater than an aperture area (see fig. 7a) of the third subpixel (PX1);
a ratio of the aperture area of the second subpixel to the aperture area of the first subpixel in the pixel unit is greater than or equal to 1:3 and less than 1:1; and
a ratio of an area of the aperture in the third subpixel to an area of any aperture in the first subpixel in the pixel unit is greater than or equal to 1:3 and less than 1:0.
However, Jiehuang (fig. 2) teaches a ratio of the aperture area of the second subpixel ([0059], 101) to the aperture area of the first subpixel ([0059], 102) in the pixel unit ([0064], pixel area 3 and 4) is greater than or equal to 1:3 and less than 1:1 ([0056], the area of 102 is double the area of 101, i.e., 1:2); and a ratio of an area of the aperture in the third subpixel ([0060], 103) to an area of any aperture in the first subpixel (102) in the pixel unit (3,4) is greater than or equal to 1:3 and less than 1:0 ([0056], the area of 102 is double the area of 103, i.e., 1:2). Jiehuang also teaches this ratio reduces the requirement of manufacturing precision of the fine metal mask ([0040]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the display panel of Lee to include the aperture area ratios of Jiehuang to reduce the requirement of manufacturing precision.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to Claim 7 above, and further in view of Kim and Jiehuang.
Regarding Claim 15, Lee (figs. 1-3, 7a, and 8) teaches the display panel according to claim 2, wherein
the first subpixel comprises a green subpixel;
the second subpixel comprises a blue subpixel;
the third subpixel comprises a red subpixel;
the first subpixel (PX3) has an aperture area greater than an aperture area ([0089], PX3 may have a larger aperture ratio than PX2) of the second subpixel (PX2), and
the second subpixel (PX2) has an aperture area greater than an aperture area (see fig. 7a) of the third subpixel (PX1);
a ratio of the aperture area of the second subpixel to the aperture area of the first subpixel in the pixel unit is greater than or equal to 1:3 and less than 1:1; and
a ratio of an area of the aperture in the third subpixel to an area of any aperture in the first subpixel in the pixel unit is greater than or equal to 1:3 and less than 1:0.
Lee doesn’t teach the first subpixel comprises a green subpixel; the second subpixel comprises a blue subpixel; the third subpixel comprises a red subpixel.
However, Kim (fig. 5) teaches the first subpixel ([0080], OLED1) comprises a green subpixel ([0085], OLED1 may be green); the second subpixel ([0080], OLED3) comprises a blue subpixel ([0044], [0080], [0085], OLED2 must be blue to complete a pixel unit); the third subpixel ([0080], OLED2) comprises a red subpixel ([0080], OLED2 may be red). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to try and arrange the colors as depicted above and yielded the predictable results of forming a functional display panel.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the colors as depicted above since this limitation is one of a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions. This is an appropriate rationale to support a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Lee doesn’t teach a ratio of the aperture area of the second subpixel to the aperture area of the first subpixel in the pixel unit is greater than or equal to 1:3 and less than 1:1; and a ratio of an area of the aperture in the third subpixel to an area of any aperture in the first subpixel in the pixel unit is greater than or equal to 1:3 and less than 1:0.
However, Jiehuang (fig. 2) teaches a ratio of the aperture area of the second subpixel ([0059], 101) to the aperture area of the first subpixel ([0059], 102) in the pixel unit ([0064], pixel area 3 and 4) is greater than or equal to 1:3 and less than 1:1 ([0056], the area of 102 is double the area of 101, i.e., 1:2); and a ratio of an area of the aperture in the third subpixel ([0060], 103) to an area of any aperture in the first subpixel (102) in the pixel unit (3,4) is greater than or equal to 1:3 and less than 1:0 ([0056], the area of 102 is double the area of 103, i.e., 1:2). Jiehuang also teaches this ratio reduces the requirement of manufacturing precision of the fine metal mask ([0040]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the display panel of Lee to include the aperture area ratios of Jiehuang to reduce the requirement of manufacturing precision.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to Claim 16 above, and further in view of Hwang et al. (KR 20240107639 A; hereinafter Hwang).
Regarding Claim 17, Lee (figs. 1-4, 7a, and 8) teaches the display panel according to claim 16, wherein
the pixel circuit (TFT) comprises a first connecting electrode ([0046], DE, see annotated fig. 4), the first connecting electrode (DE) is on a side of the first anode (121) close to the base (100);
a first planarization layer ([0045], 117, see annotated fig. 4) is between the first connecting electrode (DE) and the first anode (121);
an orthographic projection of the first connecting electrode (DE) on the base (100) is at least partially overlapped with an orthographic projection (121 partially overlaps DE, see fig. 8) of the first anode (121) on the base (100), and
the first planarization layer (117) is provided with a first via ([0052], 121 connects to DE through a via in 117, referred to as a first connection part in annotated fig. 4) in an overlap region of the orthographic projections, and the first anode (121) is connected to the first connecting electrode (DE) through the first via (first connection part); and
an orthographic projection of the first via on the base is not overlapped with the orthographic projection of the aperture in the first subpixel on the base.
Lee doesn’t teach an orthographic projection of the first via on the base is not overlapped with the orthographic projection of the aperture in the first subpixel on the base.
However, Hwang (fig. 3) teaches an orthographic projection of the first via ([0039], contact hole formed in 124 connecting 131 to S) on the base ([0039], 110) is not overlapped with the orthographic projection (see fig. 3) of the aperture in the first subpixel ([0039], SP1) on the base (110) while still maintaining connection between an anode and the pixel circuit. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the first via of Hwang for the first via of Lee and obtained the predictable results of a functional display panel.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the first via of Hwang for the first via of Lee, since simple substitution of vias for another is an appropriate rationale to support a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claims 18-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to Claim 6 above, and further in view of An et al. (2022/0336564 A1; hereinafter An).
Regarding Claim 18, Lee doesn’t teach the display panel according to claim 6, wherein the first subpixel comprises a first anode; the first anode comprises a plurality of sub-electrodes distributed at intervals; and orthographic projections of the apertures in the first subpixel in the pixel unit on the base are respectively within orthographic projections of different sub-electrodes on the base.
However, An (annotated fig. 7) teaches the first subpixel ([0142], OLED1) comprises a first anode ([0132], 211); the first anode (211) comprises a plurality of sub-electrodes ([0174], each OLED1 has its own 211, see fig. 7) distributed at intervals; and orthographic projections of the apertures (aperture, see annotated fig. 7) in the first subpixel (OLED1) in the pixel unit ([0142], OLED) on the base ([0061], 100) are respectively within orthographic projections of different sub-electrodes (each 211) on the base (100) while still connecting multiple sub-electrodes to a single pixel circuit. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the anode of An for the anode of Lee and obtained the predictable results of a functional display panel with a reduced number of pixel circuits.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the anode of An for the anode of Lee, since simple substitution of vias for another is an appropriate rationale to support a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
PNG
media_image5.png
607
942
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 7
Regarding Claim 19, An (annotated fig. 7) teaches the display panel according to claim 18, wherein the pixel circuit comprises
a first connecting electrode (first connecting electrode, see annotated fig. 7) and a second connecting electrode ([0153], LWL), the first connecting electrode (first connecting electrode) and the second connecting electrode (LWL) are in the same layer (see annotated fig. 7);
the first connecting electrode (first connecting electrode) and the second connecting electrode (LWL) are on a side of the first anode (211) close to the base (100);
a first planarization layer ([0102], 117) is between the first anode (211) and the first (first connecting electrode) and second connecting electrodes (LWL);
an orthographic projection of the first connecting electrode (first connecting electrode) on the base (100) is at least partially overlapped with an orthographic projection of one sub-electrode (left 211) of the first anode on the base (100), and
the first planarization layer (117) is provided with a first via (MCM) in an overlap region (region where 211 and first connecting electrode overlap) of the orthographic projections, and the one sub-electrode (left 211) of the first anode is connected to the first connecting electrode (first connecting electrode) through the first via (MCM);
an orthographic projection of the first via (MCM) on the base (100) is not overlapped with the orthographic projection of the aperture (aperture, see annotated fig. 7) in the first subpixel (OLED1) on the base (100);
an orthographic projection of the second connecting electrode (LWL) on the base (100) is at least partially overlapped with orthographic projections of any two adjacent sub-electrodes (both left and right 211) of the first anode on the base (100), and
the first planarization layer (117) is further provided with a second via (second via, see annotated fig. 7) in an overlap region (region where 211 and LWL overlap) of the orthographic projections, and the two adjacent sub-electrodes (both left and right 211) of the first anode are respectively connected to the second connecting electrode (LWL) through the second via (second via); and
an orthographic projection of the second via (second via) on the base (100) is not overlapped with the orthographic projection of the aperture (aperture, see annotated fig. 7) in the first subpixel (OLED1) on the base (100).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. None of the cited references, either singly or in combination, teach or render obvious the limitations presented in Claim 9 wherein “an odd column of the pixel units, the aperture in the second subpixel is in a first row, the aperture in the third subpixel and one aperture in the first subpixel are adjacent to each other and located in a second row, and the other aperture in the first subpixel is in a third row; and the first row, the second row, and the third row are sequentially arranged in the first direction, the aperture in the second subpixel and the aperture in the third subpixel are located in the same column, and the one aperture in the first subpixel and the other aperture in the first subpixel are located in the same column; in an even column of the pixel units, the aperture in the second subpixel and one aperture in the first subpixel are adjacent to each other and located in a first row, and the aperture in the third subpixel and the other aperture in the first subpixel are adjacent to each other and located in a second row; and the first row is adjacent to the second row, the aperture in the second subpixel and the aperture in the third subpixel are located in the same column, and the one aperture in the first subpixel and the other aperture in the first subpixel are located in the same column”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADIN HRNJIC whose telephone number is (571)270-1794. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM.
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.
/A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/Kretelia Graham/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights