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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election, without traverse, of Group 1: claims 1:13 in “Response to Election / Restriction Filed - 08/04/2026”, is acknowledged.
This office action considers claims 1-20 pending for prosecution, of which, non-elected claims 14-20 are withdrawn, and elected claims 1-13 are examined on their merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Notes: when present, semicolon separated fields within the parenthesis (; ;) represent, for example, as DP; Fig 1; [0057]) = (element 100; Figure No. 1g; Paragraph No. [0057]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. The primary reference, in this case Park citation may not be preceded by the inventor tag, wherein the other reference citation will carry inventor tag. These conventions are used throughout this document.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by PARK; Seunghyun et al. (US 20200303466 A1) hereinafter referenced as Park.
Regarding Claim 10. Park teaches a display panel (DP, Figs 1-2; [0057]), comprising (see the entire document; Figs 1-5 along with other relevant figures and disclosures; specifically, as cited below):
PNG
media_image1.png
428
700
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Park Figure 4A
a base layer (BS; Fig 4A; [0073]);
a pixel definition layer (40; [0086] 40 may be a pixel definition layer) on the base layer (BS) and including a plurality of emission openings (plurality of light-emitting regions PXA# i.e PXA2, PXA1, PXA3; Fig. 4A; and [0099]) that are spaced apart from each other;
a partition wall ({EL,EP} over 40) on the pixel definition layer (40) and including a plurality of partition openings (EL/EP) that overlap the plurality of emission openings (regions PXA#) in a plan view, the partition wall having conductivity (because EL/EP are of materials electrode;
a first emission element (OLED device underlying PXA2/CC2; Fig 4A; [0078,0084, 0100-0105]) in a first emission opening (PXA2 region) of the plurality of emission openings (PXA# i.e., PXA2, PXA1, PXA3; Fig. 4A) the first emission element (OLED device underlying PXA2/CC2) including a first anode (E1), a first emission layer (EP underlying PXA2)) on the first anode and including a light emitting material that generates light of a first color (CC2, [0113] modulated by EL [0100]) , and a first cathode (E2) on the first emission layer and coupled to the partition wall ({EL,EP} over 40);
a second emission element (OLED device underlying PXA1/CC1; Fig 4A; [0078,0084, 0100-0105])in a second emission opening (PXA1 region) of the plurality of emission openings (PXA# i.e PXA2, PXA1, PXA3; Fig. 4A), the second emission element (OLED device underlying PXA2/CC2) including a second anode (E1), a second emission layer (Ep) on the second anode (E1) and including a light emitting material that generates light of a second color (CC2, [0113] modulated by EL [0100]) different from the first color, and a second cathode (E2) on the second emission layer and coupled to the partition wall ({EL,EP} over 40),
a third emission element (OLED device underlying PXA3/CC3; Fig 4A; [0078,0084, 0100-0105])in a third emission opening (PXA3 region) of the plurality of emission openings (PXA# i.e PXA2, PXA1, PXA3; Fig. 4A), the second emission element (OLED device underlying PXA3/CC3) including a third anode (E2), a third emission layer (Ep) on the third anode (E1) and including a light emitting material that generates light of a third color (CC3, [0113] modulated by EL [0100]) different from the first color, and a third cathode (E2) on the third emission layer and coupled to the partition wall ({EL,EP} over 40); and
a first encapsulation layer (ECL, Fig 4A;;[0073], Fig 5) that includes a first encapsulation pattern (portion of ECL labelled as delimited as L2; Fig 5) covering the first emission opening and a second encapsulation pattern (portion of PCL labelled as {PXA1, PXA3} or PXA in fig 5) spaced apart from the first encapsulation pattern (Fig 5 space between L1 and PXA) , the second encapsulation pattern covering the second (PXA1) and third emission openings ( PXA3).
Regarding Claim11. Park as applied to the display panel of claim 10, further teaches, (the DP) further comprising:
a second encapsulation layer (RL1; figs 4B) that covers the first encapsulation pattern (L1 of ECL) and the second encapsulation pattern (PXA of ECL).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-2, 5-9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK; Seunghyun et al. (US 20200303466 A1) hereinafter referenced as Park.
Regarding Claim 1. Park teaches a display panel (DP, Figs 1-2; [0057]), comprising (see the entire document; Figs 1-5 along with other relevant figures and disclosures; specifically, as cited below)::
a base layer (BS; Fig 4A; [0073]);
a pixel definition layer (40; [0086] 40 may be a pixel definition layer) on the base layer (BS) and including a plurality of emission openings (plurality of light-emitting regions PXA# i.e PXA2, PXA1, PXA3; Fig. 4A; and [0099]) that are spaced apart from each other;
a partition wall ({EL,EP} over 40) on the pixel definition layer (40) and including a plurality of partition openings (EL/EP) that overlap the plurality of emission openings (regions PXA#) in a plan view, the partition wall having conductivity (because EL/EP are of materials electrode;
a first emission element (OLED device underlying PXA2/CC2; Fig 4A; [0078,0084, 0100-0105]) in a first emission opening (PXA2 region) of the plurality of emission openings (PXA# i.e PXA2, PXA1, PXA3; Fig. 4A) the first emission element (OLED device underlying PXA2/CC2) including a first anode (E1), a first emission layer (EP) on the first anode and including a light emitting material that generates light of a first color (CC2, [0113] modulated by EL [0100]) , and a first cathode (E2) on the first emission layer and coupled to the partition wall ({EL,EP} over 40); and
a second emission element (OLED device underlying PXA1/CC1; Fig 4A; [0078,0084, 0100-0105])in a second emission opening (PXA1 region) of the plurality of emission openings (PXA# i.e PXA2, PXA1, PXA3; Fig. 4A), the second emission element (OLED device underlying PXA2/CC2) i including a second anode (E1), a second emission layer (Ep) on the second anode (E1) and including a light emitting material that generates light of a second color (CC2, [0113] modulated by EL [0100]) different from the first color, and a second cathode (E1) on the second emission layer and coupled to the partition wall ({EL,EP} over 40),
But, Park is silent on “wherein a contact area (CTA1; Fig 7B [0144]) between the first emission layer (EP underlying PBA2) and the partition wall (EP underlying NPXA) and a contact area (EP underlying PBA1) between the second emission layer (EP underlying NPXA) and the partition wall (EP underlying NPXA) are different from each other.
However, the instant specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed relative contact area i.e., “contact area between the first emission layer and the partition wall and a contact area between the second emission layer and the partition wall are different from each other” or of any unexpected results arising therefrom. Applicant has not disclosed that having a thickness of the semiconductor substrate is less than that of the interconnect structure i.e., the ratio of thickness value, solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Where patentability is aid to be based upon particular chosen dimensions, alignment, positioning, or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimension are critical. (.In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990).). In view of the above, inter alia, the limitation “wherein a contact area (CTA1; Fig 7B [0144]) between the first emission layer (EP underlying PBA2) and the partition wall (EP underlying NPXA) and a contact area (EP underlying PBA1) between the second emission layer (EP underlying NPXA) and the partition wall (EP underlying NPXA) are different from each other” is not patentable over Park.
Regarding Claim 2. Park as applied to the display panel of claim 1, does not expressly disclose “wherein a cross-sectional shape of a portion of the first emission layer contacting the partition wall and a cross-sectional shape of a portion of the second emission layer contacting the partition wall are different from each other”.
Examiner would like to note that MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline, where change of shape is a Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
PNG
media_image2.png
18
19
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It is noted that, the instant specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed “cross-sectional shape are different” relative shape i.e., “a cross-sectional shape of a portion of the first emission layer contacting the partition wall and a cross-sectional shape of a portion of the second emission layer contacting the partition wall are different from each other” or of any unexpected results arising therefrom. Applicant has not disclosed that having “a cross-sectional shape of a portion of the first emission layer contacting the partition wall and a cross-sectional shape of a portion of the second emission layer contacting the partition wall are different from each other” i.e., the shape difference, solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Where patentability is aid to be based upon particular chosen dimensions, alignment, positioning, shape, or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen shape are critical. (.In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990).).
In view of the above, inter alia, the claimed limitation ““a cross-sectional shape of a portion of the first emission layer (EP underlying PXA2) contacting the partition wall ({EL,EP} over 40) and a cross-sectional shape of a portion of the second emission layer (EP underlying PXA1) contacting the partition wall ({EL,EP} over 40) are different from each other” is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious as per MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline. Therefore, the claimed limitation of “a cross-sectional shape of a portion of the first emission layer (EP underlying PXA2) contacting the partition wall ({EL,EP} over 40) and a cross-sectional shape of a portion of the second emission layer (EP underlying PXA1) contacting the partition wall ({EL,EP} over 40) are different from each other” is not patentable over Park.
Regarding Claim 5. Park as applied to the display panel of claim 1, further teaches, wherein the first color is a blue color ([0087]).
Regarding Claim 6. Park as applied to the display panel of claim 1, further teaches, (the DP) further comprising:
a first encapsulation layer (ECL, Fig 4A;;[0073], Fig 5) that includes a first encapsulation pattern (portion of ECL labelled as delimited as L2; Fig 5) covering the first emission opening (PXA2) and a second encapsulation pattern (portion of PCL labelled as {PXA1, PXA3} or PXA in fig 5) covering the second emission opening; and a second encapsulation layer (RL1; Fig 4B) that covers the first encapsulation layer (ECL).
Regarding Claim 7. Park as applied to the display panel of claim 6, further teaches, (the DP) further comprising:
a third emission element (OLED device underlying PXA3/CC3; Fig 4A; [0078,0084, 0100-0105])in a third emission opening (PXA3 region) of the plurality of emission openings (PXA# i.e PXA2, PXA1, PXA3; Fig. 4A), the second emission element (OLED device underlying PXA3/CC3) including a third anode (E2), a third emission layer (Ep) on the third anode (E1) and including a light emitting material that generates light of a third color (CC3, [0113] modulated by EL [0100]) different from the first color, and a third cathode (E2) on the third emission layer and coupled to the partition wall ({EL,EP} over 40); and wherein
the second color is one of green and red colors ([0087]), and
the third color is another one of green and red colors ([0087]).
Regarding Claim 8. Park as applied to the display panel of claim 7, further teaches, wherein the second encapsulation pattern (portion of PCL labelled as {PXA1, PXA3} or PXA in fig 5) further covers the third emission element (OLED device underlying PXA3/CC3).
Regarding Claim 9. Park as applied to the display panel of claim 7, further teaches, wherein cross-sectional shape of the portion of the second emission layer (EP underlying PXA2) contacting the partition wall ({EL,EP} over 40) and a cross-sectional shape of a portion of the third emission layer (EP underlying PXA3) contacting the partition wall are substantially same (EL,EP} over 40).
Regarding Claim 12. Park as applied to the display panel of claim 10, further teaches ,wherein the cross-sectional shape of the portion of the second emission layer (EP underlying PXA2) contacting the partition wall ({EL,EP} over 40) and a cross-sectional shape of a portion of the third emission layer (EP underlying PXA3) contacting the partition wall are substantially same (EL,EP} over 40).
But. Park is silent on “cross-sectional shape are different” in limitation “a cross-sectional shape of a portion of the first emission layer (EP underlying PXA2) contacting the partition wall ({EL,EP} over 40) and a cross-sectional shape of a portion of the second emission layer (EP underlying PXA1) contacting the partition wall ({EL,EP} over 40) are different from each other”.
Examiner would like to note that MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline, where change of shape is a Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
PNG
media_image2.png
18
19
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It is noted that, the instant specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed “cross-sectional shape are different” relative shape i.e., “a cross-sectional shape of a portion of the first emission layer contacting the partition wall and a cross-sectional shape of a portion of the second emission layer contacting the partition wall are different from each other” or of any unexpected results arising therefrom. Applicant has not disclosed that having “a cross-sectional shape of a portion of the first emission layer contacting the partition wall and a cross-sectional shape of a portion of the second emission layer contacting the partition wall are different from each other” i.e., the shape difference, solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Where patentability is aid to be based upon particular chosen dimensions, alignment, positioning, shape, or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen shape are critical. (.In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990).).
In view of the above, inter alia, the claimed limitation ““a cross-sectional shape of a portion of the first emission layer (EP underlying PXA2) contacting the partition wall ({EL,EP} over 40) and a cross-sectional shape of a portion of the second emission layer (EP underlying PXA1) contacting the partition wall ({EL,EP} over 40) are different from each other” is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious as per MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline. Therefore, the claimed limitation of “a cross-sectional shape of a portion of the first emission layer (EP underlying PXA2) contacting the partition wall ({EL,EP} over 40) and a cross-sectional shape of a portion of the second emission layer (EP underlying PXA1) contacting the partition wall ({EL,EP} over 40) are different from each other” is not patentable over Park.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 and 13 are 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance, which paraphrases and summarizes the claimed invention without intending to be limiting, wherein the legally defined scope of the claimed invention is defined by the allowed claims themselves in view of the written description under 35 USC 112.
Regarding claims 3-4,13, the references of the Prior Art of record, supra and given in PTO-892 and considered pertinent to the applicant's disclosure and to the examiner’s knowledge does not teach or render obvious, at least to the skilled artisan, the instant invention regarding: recited features of a detection substrate of claims 3 and or 13, specifically, the second height of the top surface of the second emission layer part increases with decreasing distance from the partition wall., and the fourth height of the top surface of the second cathode part increases with decreasing distance from the partition wall as recited by claim 4.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOAZZAM HOSSAIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7960. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30AM - 6:00 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, Julio J. Maldonado can be reached on 571-272-1864. 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.
/MOAZZAM HOSSAIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
September 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights