CTNF 18/602,289 CTNF 90686 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. DETAILED ACTION This action is responsive to the application No. 18/602,289 filed on March 12, 2024. Priority 02-26 AIA 3 . Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file. Information Disclosure Statement 4 . Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO-1449. These IDS has been considered. Specification 06-11 AIA 5 . 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. 06-11-01 AIA The following title is suggested: “Display Apparatus Comprising Display Panel Including Multiple Partitions and Auxiliary Layer ” . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 6 . 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 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 7 . 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA 8. Claim s 1, 5-7, 9-11, 13-16, 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1)/(a)(2 ) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2022/0102678 A1) . Regarding independent claim 1, Kim et al. teaches a display apparatus comprising (Fig. 8E): a display panel (10, para [0196]) comprising a display area (DA/MA); a plurality of first partitions (lower part of PW1, PW2, PW3, para [0201], see the annotated figure below) disposed on the display panel (10) in the display area (DA/MA); and a first auxiliary layer (330, para [0147]) arranged on at least a portion of outer surfaces of the plurality of first partitions (lower part of PW1, PW2, PW3) and comprising an opening (see the annotated figure below) arranged between adjacent ones of the plurality of first partitions (lower part of PW1, PW2, PW3). PNG media_image1.png 554 868 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 5, Kim et al. teaches wherein (see Fig. 8E), the first auxiliary layer (330) covers the plurality of first partitions (lower part of PW1, PW2, PW3) and the display panel (10). Regarding claim 6, Kim et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 8E), the first auxiliary layer (330) comprises a transparent material (made of tantalum oxide, para [0148], which is transparent material). Regarding claim 7, Kim et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 8E), further comprising: a first stable layer (47 called planarization layer, para [0179]) at least partially arranged in the opening (shown in the annotated figure of claim 1) of the first auxiliary layer (41a). Regarding claim 9, Kim et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 8E), further comprising: a second partition (see the annotated figure in claim 1) arranged on and overlapping at least one of the plurality of first partitions (see the annotated figure in claim 1) in a plan view (while viewing from top). Regarding claim 10, Kim et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 8E), a height (h1) of the second partition (see the annotated figure in claim 1) measured from a top surface of the display panel to a top surface of the second partition is greater (h1>d1) than a distance (d1) between adjacent ones of the plurality of first partitions (lower part of PW1, PW2, PW3). Regarding claim 11, Kim et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 8E), the at least one of the plurality of first partitions (lower part of PW1, PW2, PW3) directly contacts the second partition (see the annotated figure in claim 1). Regarding claim 13, Kim et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 8E), further comprising: a plurality of second partitions (see figure in claim 1), and a second auxiliary layer (41a, para [0150]) arranged on at least a portion of outer surfaces of the plurality of second partitions (middle portion of PW1, PW2, PW3, see the annotated figure in claim 1) and comprising an opening arranged between adjacent ones of the plurality of second partitions (middle portion of PW1, PW2, PW3, see the annotated figure in claim 1). Regarding claim 14, Kim et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 8E), further comprising: a third partition (see the annotated figure in claim 1) arranged on the second partition (see figure in claim 1) and overlapping the second partition in a plan view (while viewing from top). Regarding claim 15, Kim et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 8E), a height (h2) of the third partition (see figure in claim 1) measured from a top surface of the display panel (10) to a top surface of the third partition is greater (h2>d1) than a distance (d1) between adjacent ones of the plurality of first partitions (lower part of PW1, PW2, PW3). Regarding claim 16, Kim et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 8E), the second partition (see the annotated figure in claim 1) directly contacts the third partition. Regarding independent claim 18, Kim et al. teaches a display apparatus comprising (Fig. 8E): a display panel (10, Fig. 8E) comprising a display area (DA/MA) including a plurality of subpixels (see Fig. 1, display panel 1 which comprises plurality of pixels/sub-pixels) and a non-display area (PA, see Fig. 1); a plurality of first partitions (lower part of PW1, PW2, PW3) disposed on the display panel (10) in the display area and overlapping at least one of the plurality of subpixels in a plan view (see Fig. 1: while viewing from the top); and a first auxiliary layer (300: 330) arranged on at least a portion of outer surfaces of the plurality of first partitions (lower part of PW1, PW2, PW3) and comprising an opening (see the annotated figure below) arranged between adjacent ones of the plurality of first partitions (lower part of PW1, PW2, PW3). PNG media_image2.png 554 868 media_image2.png Greyscale Regarding claim 19, Kim et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 8E), the first auxiliary layer (330) covers at least one of the plurality of first partitions (lower part of PW1, PW2, PW3). Regarding claim 20, Kim et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 8E), the first auxiliary layer (330) is arranged on side surfaces of the plurality of first partitions (lower part of PW1, PW2, PW3). Regarding claim 21, Kim et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 8E), further comprising: a first stable layer (47) at least partially arranged in the opening. Regarding claim 22, Kim et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 8E), further comprising: a second partition (see the annotated figure in claim 18) arranged on and overlapping at least one of the plurality of first partitions (lower part of PW1, PW2, PW3) in a plan view (while viewing downwards or from the top). Regarding claim 23, Kim et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 8E), the at least one of the plurality of first partitions (lower part of PW1, PW2, PW3) directly contacts the second partition (see figure in claim 18) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 9 . 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 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. 07-20-aia AIA 10 . 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 11 . 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. 07-23-aia AIA 12 . The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: a. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. b. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. c. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. d. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness. 07-21-aia AIA 13. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2022/0102678 A1) as applied to claim 1 above . Regarding claim 2, Kim et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 from which this claim depends. Kim et al. teaches wherein (see Fig. 8C), a height of at least one of the plurality of first partitions (lower part of PW1, PW2, PW3, see Fig. 1 in claim 1) measured from a top surface of the display panel (10) to a top surface of the at least one of the plurality of first partitions (lower part of PW1, PW2, PW3, see Fig. 1 in claim 1) is with certain distance (see the figure in claim 1) between adjacent ones of the plurality of first partitions (lower part of PW1, PW2, PW3, see Fig. 1 in claim 1). However, Kim et al. is explicitly silent of disclosing wherein the height of at least one of the plurality of first partitions is greater than the distance between adjacent ones of the plurality of first partitions. It would have been obvious to select intended ‘height with respect to distance’ to be within the claim limitation, to optimize the size/shape of the device structure. In addition, to an ordinary artisan practicing the invention, absent evidence of disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed roughness or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen height vs. distance or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen height vs. distance is critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ 2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990) . 07-22-aia AIA 14. Claim s 3, 12, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2022/0102678 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tang et al. (US 2021/0305336 A1) . Regarding claim 3, Kim et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 from which this claim depends. Kim et al. is explicitly silent of disclosing wherein, at least one of the plurality of first partitions comprises an inorganic material. Tang et al. teaches wherein (Figs. 1-2), the partition structure (14, para [0040]) comprises an inorganic material (para [0041]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching as taught by Tang et al., and substitute w/specific inorganic insulating material in the partition layer of Kim et al., in order to isolate the cathodes better, and guarantee the display reliability of the display panel (para [0041]). In addition, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for the intended use as the partition layer. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See also MPEP 2144.07. Regarding claim 12, Kim et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 9 from which this claim depends. Kim et al. is explicitly silent of disclosing wherein, the second partition comprises an inorganic material. Tang et al. teaches wherein (Figs. 1-2), the partition structure (14, para [0040]) comprises an inorganic material (para [0041]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching as taught by Tang et al., and substitute w/specific inorganic insulating material in the partition layer of Kim et al., in order to isolate the cathodes better, and guarantee the display reliability of the display panel (para [0041]). In addition, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for the intended use as the partition layer. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See also MPEP 2144.07. Regarding claim 17, Kim et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 14 from which this claim depends. Kim et al. is explicitly silent of disclosing wherein, the third partition comprises an inorganic material. Tang et al. teaches wherein (Figs. 1-2), the partition structure (14, para [0040]) comprises an inorganic material (para [0041]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching as taught by Tang et al., and substitute w/specific inorganic insulating material in the partition layer of Kim et al., in order to isolate the cathodes better, and guarantee the display reliability of the display panel (para [0041]). In addition, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for the intended use as the partition layer. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See also MPEP 2144.07 . 07-22-aia AIA 15. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2022/0102678 A1) and Tang et al. (US 2021/0305336 A1) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Park et al. (US 2021/0351238 A1) . Regarding claim 4, Kim et al. and Tang et al. teach all of the limitations of claim 3 from which this claim depends. Kim et al. and Tang et al. are explicitly silent of disclosing wherein, the at least one of the plurality of first partitions comprises molybdenum tantalum oxide (MoTaO x , MTO). Park et al. discloses wherein (Figs. 2-3), the partition wall (150, para [0059]) comprises MTO (para [0059]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching as taught by Park et al., and substitute w/ inorganic insulating material in the partition layer of Kim et al. and Tang et al., in order to block light emitted from the first color conversion layer 160 from being introduced into an adjacent pixel area (para [0059]). In addition, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for the intended use as the partition layer. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See also MPEP 2144.07 . 07-22-aia AIA 16. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2022/0102678 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang (US 2018/0337049 A1) . Regarding claim 8, Kim et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 7 from which this claim depends. Kim et al. is explicitly silent of disclosing wherein, the first stable layer comprises a transparent material. Zhang teaches wherein (Fig. 5), the planarization or stable layer (41/50, para [0072]) comprises a transparent material (para [0072]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching as taught by Zhang, and substitute w/organic insulating material on partition layer of Kim et al., in order to having excellent visible light transmission property and good ultraviolet (UV) light blocking property and effectively prevent an IGZO-TFT from causing shifting of threshold voltage due to influence of UV light and the surrounding environment so as to improve stability of a TFT device (para [0071]). Examiner’s Note 17 . Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. See MPEP 2111, 2123, 2125, 2141.02 VI, and 2182. Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns/lines in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. See MPEP 2141.02 VI . In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. Conclusion 18 . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIDARUL MAZUMDER whose telephone number is (571)272-8823. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5. 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. 19 . If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Partridge can be reached at 571-270-1402. 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. /DIDARUL A MAZUMDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812 Application/Control Number: 18/602,289 Page 2 Art Unit: 2812 Application/Control Number: 18/602,289 Page 3 Art Unit: 2812 Application/Control Number: 18/602,289 Page 4 Art Unit: 2812 Application/Control Number: 18/602,289 Page 5 Art Unit: 2812 Application/Control Number: 18/602,289 Page 6 Art Unit: 2812 Application/Control Number: 18/602,289 Page 7 Art Unit: 2812 Application/Control Number: 18/602,289 Page 8 Art Unit: 2812 Application/Control Number: 18/602,289 Page 9 Art Unit: 2812 Application/Control Number: 18/602,289 Page 10 Art Unit: 2812 Application/Control Number: 18/602,289 Page 11 Art Unit: 2812 Application/Control Number: 18/602,289 Page 12 Art Unit: 2812 Application/Control Number: 18/602,289 Page 13 Art Unit: 2812 Application/Control Number: 18/602,289 Page 14 Art Unit: 2812
Prosecution Insights