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 .
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, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akira et al. (JP 2014026200A, of record) in view of Cheng et al. (US 2022/0384541).
Regarding claim 1, Akira et al. discloses, as shown in Figures 1-2, a display panel provided with a display region (10) and a peripheral region disposed around the display region, the display panel comprising:
a display substrate, comprising a base substrate (100) and a first electrode layer (107);
at least one alignment mark (60) disposed in the peripheral region, wherein
the display substrate further comprises: a first packaging layer (300), a light-shielding layer (202), and a second packaging layer (200) sequentially disposed at a side, distal to the base substrate, (of the second electrode layer), wherein the first packaging layer covers the display region and the peripheral region, the light-shielding layer is disposed in the peripheral region, and the second packaging layer covers the display region and the peripheral region; the light-shielding layer is provided with an opening hole, and the opening hole is disposed opposite to the alignment mark; and
a distance between a medial edge of the opening hole and a first end of the light-shielding layer is greater than a distance between a lateral edge of the opening hole and a second end of the light-shielding layer, wherein the first end is an end, close to the display region, of the light0shielding layer, and the second end is an end, distal to the display region, of the light-shielding layer.
Akira et al. does not disclose a display substrate comprising a first electrode layer, a pixel definition layer, a light-emitting unit, and a second electrode layer sequentially disposed at a side of the base substrate, wherein the pixel definition layer is provided with an opening region and a non-opening region surrounding the opening region, and the light-emitting unit is disposed n the opening region. However, Cheng et al. discloses a display panel comprising a display region and a peripheral region disposed around the display region, a display substrate (10) comprising a base substrate (11) and a first electrode layer (121), a pixel definition layer (PDL), a light-emitting unit (123), and a second electrode layer (122) sequentially disposed at a side of the base substrate, wherein the pixel definition layer is provided with an opening region and a non-opening region surrounding the opening region, and the light-emitting unit is disposed in the opening region, and alignment marks (141-144). Note Figures 1A-2B of Cheng et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was made to form the display panel of Akira et al. comprising a first electrode layer, a pixel definition layer, a light-emitting unit, and a second electrode layer sequentially disposed at a side of the base substrate, wherein the pixel definition layer is provided with an opening region and a non-opening region surrounding the opening region, and the light-emitting unit is disposed in the opening region, such as taught by Cheng et al. in order to further improve the fast response speed, lightness, and flexibility.
Regarding claim 2, Akira et al. and Cheng et al. disclose an orthographic projection of the opening hole on the base substrate falls within an orthographic projection of the alignment mark on the base substrate [Figures].
Regarding claim 3, Akira et al. and Cheng et al. disclose the display substrate further comprises a cathode ring disposed in the peripheral region, the alignment mark is spaced apart from the cathode ring, and a spacing distance between the alignment mark and the cathode ring is greater than a width of the cathode ring [Figures].
Regarding claim 4, Akira et al. and Cheng et al. disclose the display panel further comprises a cover plate (30) disposed at a side, distal to the base substrate, of the second packaging layer and connected to the display substrate; and an orthographic projection of an end, distal to the display region, of the cover plate on the light-shielding layer falls within the opening hole (alignment mark 14) [Figures 1F,1H].
Regarding claim 5, Akira et al. and Cheng et al. disclose the alignment mark is disposed on a same layer as the first electrode layer or the second electrode layer (alignment mark 60 is formed simultaneously with the pattern of the metal electrode).
Regarding claim 6, Akira et al. and Cheng et al. disclose a first overlapping region and a second overlapping region are present between an orthographic projection of the light-shielding layer on the base substrate and an orthographic projection of the alignment mark on the base substrate, the first overlapping region is disposed at a side, distal to the display region, of the opening hole, the second overlapping region is disposed at a side, close to the display region, of the opening hole, and a width of the first overlapping region is greater than a width of the second overlapping region [Figures].
Regarding claim 7, Akira et al. and Cheng et al. disclose the width of the second overlapping region is smaller than the spacing distance between the alignment mark and the cathode ring disposed in the peripheral region [Figures].
Regarding claim 8, Akira et al. and Cheng et al. disclose a longitudinal section of the opening hole has a stepped structure [Figure 1C].
Regarding claim 9, Akira et al. and Cheng et al. disclose a section of the alignment mark in a direction parallel to a major plane of the base substrate is L-shaped or T-shaped or cross-shaped [Figures 2-9 of Akira et al. or Figures 1A, 1H, 2A, 4 of Cheng et al.].
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Akira et al. and Cheng et al. do not disclose vertex corners and/or edge corners of the alignment mark contacting the first packaging layer are rounded corners, or the alignment mark is L-shaped, and a curvature of a medial rounded corner is greater than a curvature of a lateral rounded corner of the alignment mark. However, Akira et al. discloses the shape of the alignment mark 60 can be other shape. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the vertex corners and/or edge corners of the alignment mark contacting the first packaging layer of Akira et al. and Cheng et al. being rounded corners, or the alignment mark is L-shaped, and a curvature of a medial rounded corner is greater than a curvature of a lateral rounded corner of the alignment mark, such as taught by Akira et al. in order to have the desired shape. Further, it is well settled that, the change in shape of the alignment corner was a matter of design choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the alignment was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPTO 47 (CCPA 1996).
Regarding claim 12, Akira et al. and Cheng et al. disclose at least two of the alignment marks are provided, and every two of the alignment marks adjacent to each other are symmetrically distributed relative to a center of the display panel [Figures].
Regarding claim 13, Akira et al. and Cheng et al. disclose the display panel is rectangular, diamond-shaped, or square, and the alignment marks are opposite respectively to positions of vertex corners of the display panel; or the display panel is circular [Figures].
Regarding claim 14, Akira et al. and Cheng et al. disclose the display panel is rectangular, diamond-shaped, or square, and four of the alignment marks are provided opposite respectively to positions of four vertex corners of the display panel [Figures].
Regarding claim 15, Akira et al. and Cheng et al. disclose edge corners and vertex corners of the light-shielding layer at sides, close to the base substrate and/or distal to the base substrate. Akira et al. and Cheng et al. do not disclose the opening hole are rounded corners. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the corners having rounded corners since it is well settled that, the change in shape of the opening corner was a matter of design choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the opening was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPTO 47 (CCPA 1996).
Regarding claims 16-17, Akira et al. and Cheng et al. disclose the light-shielding layer comprises a first peripheral color resistance layer (70) and a second peripheral color resistance layer (80) sequentially disposed at a side, distal to the base substrate, of the first packaging layer. Akira et al. and Cheng et al. do not disclose the first peripheral color resistance layer and the second peripheral color resistance layer are each one of a red color resistance layer, a green color resistance layer, and a blue color resistance layer, or a third peripheral color resistance layer. However, it is well-known that the OLED display comprising a plurality of colors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the light-shielding layer of Akira et al. and Cheng et al. comprising a plurality of color resistance layer, and one of a red color resistance layer, a green color resistance layer, and a blue color resistance layer, such as a common knowledge, in order to filter out the desired color.
Regarding claim 18, Akira et al. and Cheng et al. disclose the light-shielding layer is a black coating (black matrix).
Regarding claim 19, Akira et al. and Cheng et al. disclose the display panel further comprises a frame (EPL), and a surface at a side, distal to the base substrate, of the rubber frame is higher than a surface at a side, distal to the base substrate, of the cover plate. Akira et al. and Cheng et al. do not disclose the material of the frame. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the frame of Akira et al. and Cheng et al. having the material as that claimed by Applicant, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 20, Akira et al. discloses, as shown in Figures 1-2, a display device comprising a display panel provided with a display region (10) and a peripheral region disposed around the display region, the display panel comprising:
a display substrate, comprising a base substrate (100) and a first electrode layer (107);
at least one alignment mark (60) disposed in the peripheral region, wherein
the display substrate further comprises: a first packaging layer (300), a light-shielding layer (202), and a second packaging layer (200) sequentially disposed at a side, distal to the base substrate, (of the second electrode layer), wherein the firs packaging layer covers the display region and the peripheral region, the light-shielding layer is disposed in the peripheral region, and the second packaging layer covers the display region and the peripheral region; the light-shielding layer is provided with an opening hole, and the opening hole is disposed opposite to the alignment mark; and
a distance between a medial edge of the opening hole and a first end of the light-shielding layer is greater than a distance between a lateral edge of the opening hole and a second end of the light-shielding layer, wherein the first end is an end, close to the display region, of the light0shielding layer, and the second end is an end, distal to the display region, of the light-shielding layer.
Akira et al. does not disclose a display substrate comprising a first electrode layer, a pixel definition layer, a light-emitting unit, and a second electrode layer sequentially disposed at a side of the base substrate, wherein the pixel definition layer is provided with an opening region and a non-opening region surrounding the opening region, and the light-emitting unit is disposed n the opening region. However, Cheng et al. discloses a display panel comprising a display region and a peripheral region disposed around the display region, a display substrate (10) comprising a base substrate (11) and a first electrode layer (121), a pixel definition layer (PDL), a light-emitting unit (123), and a second electrode layer (122) sequentially disposed at a side of the base substrate, wherein the pixel definition layer is provided with an opening region and a non-opening region surrounding the opening region, and the light-emitting unit is disposed in the opening region, and alignment marks (141-144). Note Figures 1A-2B of Cheng et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was made to form the display panel of Akira et al. comprising a first electrode layer, a pixel definition layer, a light-emitting unit, and a second electrode layer sequentially disposed at a side of the base substrate, wherein the pixel definition layer is provided with an opening region and a non-opening region surrounding the opening region, and the light-emitting unit is disposed in the opening region, such as taught by Cheng et al. in order to further improve the fast response speed, lightness, and flexibility.
It is inherent that the display device of Akira et al. and Cheng et al. are connected to a power supply assembly in order to operate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNG K VU whose telephone number is (571)272-1666. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7am - 5pm.
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, JACOB CHOI can be reached at (469) 295-9060. 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.
/HUNG K VU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights