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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference signs mentioned in the description:
Figure 3 is missing reference signs 412, 4121, 4122, 432, 4321, and 4322 described in paragraph 0104 of the specification.
Figure 4 is missing the heights H3 and H4 described in paragraph 0078 of the specification.
Figure 10 is missing the reference sign 20 described in paragraph 0111 of the specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “4111” has been used to designate both the first metal sub-layer and the third metal sub-layer in figure 9. Furthermore, character “4112” has been used to designate both the second metal sub-layer and the fourth metal sub-layer in figure 9. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the orthographic projections of claims 19 and 20 must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 8, 9, 17, and 18 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 8 recites the limitation "the first metal sub-layer and the third metal sub-layer" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether this is intended to refer to the metal sub-layers from claim 7, or some other sub-layers. For applying prior art, claim 8 was treated as depending from claim 7.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the second metal sub-layer and the fourth metal sub-layer" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. . It is unclear whether this is intended to refer to the metal sub-layers from claim 7, or some other sub-layers. For applying prior art, claim 9 was treated as depending from claim 7.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the pixel-defining layer" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether this is intended to refer to the pixel-defining layer from claim 16, or some other pixel-defining layer. For applying prior art, claim 17 was treated as depending from claim 16.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the third inorganic insulating sub-layer" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether this is intended to refer to the third inorganic insulating sub-layer from claim 17, or some other inorganic insulating sub-layer. For applying prior art, the limitation was interpreted as “a third inorganic insulating sub-layer”.
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.
(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.
PNG
media_image1.png
784
455
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
582
448
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
694
1011
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Bang figures 1, 5, and 9
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bang et al. (US 20230337487 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Bang”.
Regarding claim 21, Bang discloses a display panel (paragraph 0057. The display apparatus includes a display panel), comprising a display region (DA in figure 1) and a non-display region (PA in figure 1), and further comprising: a substrate (100 in figure 5 and 9); a light-emitting unit (210 220 and 230 in figure 5 form a light emitting diode, see paragraph 0136), arranged on a side of the substrate and located within the display region (See figure 5, the light emitting unit is on the top side of the substrate and in display area DA); a packaging layer, comprising an organic packaging sub-layer (320 in figure 9) covering the light-emitting unit (320 covers the light emitting unit in figure 5); and a dam structure (DAM 1 and DAM2 in figure 9), arranged on the side of the substrate (DAM1 and DAM2 are on top side of the substrate) and located within the non-display region (in PA, see figure 9), the dam structure comprising a first dam (DAM2 in figure 9), and the first dam comprising a first metal layer (portion of ML1 in DAM2 in figure 9) and a first insulating layer (1201/1202/1203 in figure 9) arranged in a stacked manner (ML1 and the insulating layer are stacked in figure 9).
Regarding claim 22, Bang discloses all of the limitations of claim 21. Bang further discloses that the dam structure further comprises a second dam (DAM1 in figure 9) adjacent to the first dam (DAM1 and DAM2 are adjacent in figure 9), and an overflow groove is formed between the first dam and the second dam (valley area VA in figure 9).
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.
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.
PNG
media_image4.png
460
1002
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Ju figure 1
Claims 1-15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bang in view of Ju et al. (CN 116615053 A), hereinafter referred to as "Ju".
Regarding claim 1, Bang discloses a display panel (paragraph 0057. The display apparatus includes a display panel), comprising a display region (DA in Bang figure 1) and a non-display region (PA in figure 1), and further comprising: a substrate (100 in figure 1, 5, and 9); at least one light-emitting unit (210 220 and 230 in figure 5 form a light emitting diode, see paragraph 0136), arranged on a side of the substrate and located within the display region (see figure 5. Light emitting structure is on top side of substrate and in display area DA); a packaging layer, comprising an organic packaging sub-layer covering the light-emitting unit (320 in figures 5 and 9); and a dam structure (DAM1 and DAM2 in figure 9), arranged on the side of the substrate and located within the non-display region (see figure 9. Dam structures are on top side of substrate and in non-display area PA), and comprising a first dam (DAM2 in figure 9) provided with a first metal layer (ML1 in DAM2).
Bang does not teach a separating structure in combination with a pixel-defining layer (although it should be noted that the pixel defining layer from Bang used in dependent claim 16 below can be considered a separating structure).
Ju teaches a separating structure (400 in Ju figure 1), arranged on the side of the substrate (located on the top side of the substrate 100 in Ju figure 1) and located within the display region (the separating structures are immediately surrounding each sub-pixel of the display, thus in the display region), and the separating structure being provided with at least one separating opening to accommodate the light-emitting unit (the structures have gaps for the light to go through, thus accommodating the light emitting unit). Ju also teaches that the separating structures improve the display effect of the panel by eliminating crosstalk between the pixels (Ju translation page 9, lines 10-11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add separating structures like in Ju in order to improve the display effect of the panel by avoiding crosstalk between the pixels.
Regarding claim 2, Bang in view of Ju discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Bang further discloses that the first dam further comprises a first insulating layer (1202/1203 and 310 on DAM2 in Bang figure 9) stacked with the first metal layer (see figure 9. The insulating layer is stacked with the metal layer); the display panel comprises a driving circuit layer arranged on the side of the substrate (TFT, Cst, CM1 and CM2 in figure 5 are part of a pixel circuit, see paragraph 0105), the driving circuit layer comprises a first conductive layer (CE1 in figure 5), a second conductive layer (CE2 in figure 5), a third conductive layer (source electrode SE in figure 5) and a fourth conductive layer (CM1 in figure 5) arranged in a stacked manner (these layers are stacked in figure 5), and the first metal layer is formed with the same material and at a same layer as at least one of the first conductive layer, the second conductive layer, the third conductive layer or the fourth conductive layer (The metal layer ML1 is formed with the same material as third conductive layer, source electrode SE, see paragraph 0166, and it is formed on the same layer 205, see paragraph 0166 and figures 5 and 9).
Regarding claim 3, Bang in view of Ju discloses all of the limitations of claim 2. Bang further discloses that the dam structure further comprises a second dam (DAM1 in figure 9) adjacent to the first dam (DAM1 is adjacent to DAM2), and an overflow groove formed between the first dam and the second dam (valley area VA between DAM1 and DAM2).
PNG
media_image5.png
742
589
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Bang figure 8
Regarding claim 4, Bang in view of Ju discloses all of the limitations of claim 2. Bang further discloses that the second dam is located on a side of the first dam away from the display region (see figures 1 and 8. The second dam DAM1 is located on the outside of first dam DAM2, the side with the edge of the apparatus 100E1 [left side f figure 8], which therefore means that the first dam DAM2 is closer to the display area DA and the second dam DAM1 is further from the display area. Thus, the second dam is on the side of the first dam that is away from the display region), and a height of the second dam is higher than a height of the first dam (see figure 9); and the dam structure is arranged to surround the display region (The dam structures follow the edge which surrounds the display region, see figures 8 and 1).
Regarding claim 5, Bang in view of Ju discloses all of the limitations of claim 3. Bang further discloses that the second dam comprises a second metal layer (The portion of ML1 in the DAM1 area. It should be noted that the continuous layer metal layer ML1, and ML2 described later, can be considered two separate layers, one under each dam structure. Not only is using one layer to form two metal layers in different locations essentially the same as what is described in the specification of the instant application, it is also yields the same result as laying down those two layers, removing the part electrically connecting them, and then replacing it with some other electrically conductive material, but with less steps, and thus would be preferrable to having these layers be discontinuous) and a second insulating layer stacked with the second metal layer (1102/1103/1104 and 310 on DAM1); and the second metal layer is formed with the same material and at a same layer as at least one of the first conductive layer, the second conductive layer, the third conductive layer or the fourth conductive layer (The metal layer ML1 is formed with the same material as third conductive layer, source electrode SE, see paragraph 0166, and it is formed on the same layer 205, see paragraph 0166 and figures 5 and 9).
Regarding claim 6, Bang in view of Ju discloses all of the limitations of claim 5. Bang further discloses that the first metal layer is spaced apart from the second metal layer (the portion of ML1 in DAM2 is spaced apart from the portion of ML1 in DAM1 by the VA region); and the first metal layer is conducted with (“conducted with” here and below is taken to mean that they are in electrical contact, as it is not a term of art) the second metal layer (The two metal layers are conducted with each other by the metal layer in the VA region).
Regarding claim 7, Bang in view of Ju discloses all of the limitations of claim 5. Bang further discloses that the first metal layer comprises a first metal sub-layer (ML1 in DAM2) and a second metal sub-layer (ML2 in DAM2) sequentially stacked in a direction away from the substrate (see figure 9, the metal layers are stacked away from substrate 100), the first metal sub-layer and the third conductive layer are arranged in the same layer and formed with the same material (The metal layer ML1 is formed with the same material as third conductive layer, source electrode SE, see paragraph 0166, and it is formed on the same layer 205, see paragraph 0166 and figures 5 and 9), and the second metal sub-layer and the fourth conductive layer are arranged in the same layer and formed with the same material (The metal layer ML2 is formed with the same material as fourth conductive layer, CM1, see paragraph 0166, and it is formed on the same layer 206, see paragraph 0166 and figures 5 and 9); and the second metal layer comprises a third metal sub-layer (ML1 in DAM1) and a fourth metal sub-layer (ML2 in DAM1) sequentially stacked in a direction away from the substrate (see figure 9, the metal layers are stacked away from substrate 100).
Regarding claim 8, Bang in view of Ju discloses all of the limitations of claim 5 (and 7, see 112b rejection above). Bang further discloses that the first metal sub-layer and the third metal sub-layer are arranged in the same layer and conducted with each other (the portion of ML1 in DAM2 and the portion of ML1 in DAM1 are on the same layer, 205, and are conducted with each other through the portion of ML1 in VA area).
Regarding claim 9, Bang in view of Ju discloses all of the limitations of claim 5 (and 7, see 112b rejection above). Bang further discloses that the second metal sub-layer and the fourth metal sub-layer are arranged in the same layer and conducted with each other (the portion of ML2 in DAM2 and the portion of ML2 in DAM1 are on the same layer, ML1 or 206, and are conducted with each other through the portion of ML2 in VA area).
PNG
media_image6.png
718
577
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
795
1166
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Bang figures 7 and 10
Regarding claim 10, Bang in view of Ju discloses all of the limitations of claim 5. Bang further discloses that the dam structure further comprises a connecting layer (the portions of ML1, ML2, ML3 and 310 in valley area VA between DAM1 and DAM2), and the connecting layer is arranged between the first dam and the second dam and conducts the first metal layer with the second metal layer (the area of ML1 between DAM1 and DAM2 conducts ML1 in each of those dams together); and the connecting layer comprises a conductive region (metal lines 13 in figure 9 and 7) and a via hole region (rectangular region cut out of 13 in figure 7), the conductive region conducts the first metal layer and the second metal layer (ML1 in each dam is conducted through the conducting part of the connection region), the via hole region is provided with a via hole in a direction perpendicular to the substrate (comparing the cross sections along B to B’ [figure 9] and C to C’ [figure 10] of figure 7, the bottom of the trench decreases in height due to the lack of the metal layers ML1, ML2, and ML3 that comprise 13. This extends along the length of the rectangular area seen in figure 8, and thus defines a hole in that region), and the overflow groove comprises the via hole (the hole is a part of the groove that is the valley area between the two dams, see figure 9 and 10).
Regarding claim 11, Bang in view of Ju discloses all of the limitations of claim 10. Bang further discloses that the connecting layer comprises a plurality of conductive regions and a plurality of via hole regions (the structure of figure 8 is repeated for the other metal patterns 520, 530, and 540, therefore repeating the conductive and via hole sections of that structure. See figure 1), and the plurality of conductive regions and the plurality of via hole regions are arranged alternately in an extending direction of an edge of the display region (See figure 1. The metal line 13 alternates between the full width and the reduced width [which corresponds to the holes] as it goes along the edge of the display).
Regarding claim 12, Bang in view of Ju discloses all of the limitations of claim 10. Bang further discloses that the first insulating layer comprises a first organic insulating sub-layer (1202 in figure 9) and a first inorganic insulating sub-layer (310 on DAM2 in figure 9), the first metal layer, the first organic insulating sub-layer and the first inorganic insulating sub-layer are arranged in a stacked manner (ML1 1202 and 310 are stacked in DAM2); the second insulating layer comprises a second organic insulating sub-layer (1101/1102 in figure 9) and a second inorganic insulating sub-layer (310 on DAM1 in figure 9), and the second metal layer, the second organic insulating sub-layer and the second inorganic insulating sub-layer are arranged in a stacked manner (ML1, 1101/1102 and 310 are stacked in DAM1).
Regarding claim 13, Bang in view of Ju discloses all of the limitations of claim 12. Bang further discloses a first planarization layer (207 in figure 5 and 9) located within the display region (it is in display area DA, see figure 5), wherein the first planarization layer, the first organic insulating sub-layer and at least a portion of the second organic insulating sub-layer are arranged in the same layer (1102 and 1202 and 207 are aligned in the same layer in figure 9) and formed with the same material (1102, 1202, and 207 can be formed of the same material, see paragraph 0171).
Regarding claim 14, Bang in view of Ju discloses all of the limitations of claim 13. Bang further discloses that the display panel further comprises a second planarization layer (206 in figure 5 and 9) located within the display region (it is in display area DA, see figure 5), the second organic insulating sub-layer comprises a first sub-layer (1102 in figure 9) and a second sub-layer (1101 in figure 9), the first sub-layer and the first planarization layer are arranged in the same layer (1102 and 207 are aligned in the same layer in figure 9) and formed with the same material (see paragraph 0171), and the second sub-layer and the second planarization layer are arranged in the same layer (1101 and 206 are aligned in the same layer in figure 9) and formed with the same material (see paragraph 0171).
Regarding claim 15, Bang in view of Ju discloses all of the limitations of claim 14. Bang further discloses that the second sub-layer extends from one end of the third metal sub-layer to cover one portion of the third metal sub-layer (1101 covers part of ML1 in figure 9), the fourth metal sub-layer covers the other portion of the third metal sub-layer (the rest of the portion of ML1 in DAM1 is covered by ML2), and the first sub-layer covers the second sub-layer and the second metal layer (1102 covers 1101 and part of ML2); and the first organic insulating sub-layer covers the first metal layer (1202 covers the portions of ML1 and ML2 in DAM2).
Regarding claim 18, Bang in view of Ju discloses all of the limitations of claim 12. Bang further discloses a third insulating layer (interlayer insulating layer 205 in figure 9), wherein the third insulating layer is located between the dam structure and the substrate in the direction perpendicular to the substrate (205 is between the dam structures of DAM1 and DAM2 and the substrate 100 in figure 9), the third inorganic insulating sub-layer (see 112b rejection above) is attached to a side of the third insulating layer away from the substrate (a third inorganic sub-layer being the portion of 310 in the VA area is attached to the third insulating layer 205 on the top side, which is away from the substrate, in the cross section shown in figure 10) when the first metal layer is spaced apart from the second metal layer (This is temporally still the case when the metal layers are spaced apart from each other as in figure 9), and the third inorganic insulating sub-layer is attached to a side of the connecting layer away from the substrate (the portion of the metal lines between DAM1 and DAM2 in VA forming the connecting layer is attached to the third insulating layer 205 on the top side, which is away from the substrate, in the cross section shown in figure 9) when the connecting layer conducts the first metal layer with the second metal layer (This occurs while the connecting layer conducts the first and second metal layers).
Regarding claim 19, Bang in view of Ju discloses all of the limitations of claim 12. Bang further discloses that both an orthographic projection of the first metal layer on the substrate and an orthographic projection of the first organic insulating sub-layer on the substrate are located within an orthographic projection of the first inorganic insulating sub-layer on the substrate (first insulating layer 310 fully covers the portion of ML1 in the DAM2 and the organic layer 1202 of DAM2, and thus the orthographic projection onto the substrate would contain both), and both an orthographic projection of the second metal layer on the substrate and an orthographic projection of the second organic insulating sub-layer on the substrate are located within an orthographic projection of the second inorganic insulating sub-layer on the substrate (first insulating layer 310 fully covers the portion of ML1 in the DAM1 and the organic layer 1102 of DAM1, and thus the orthographic projection onto the substrate would contain both).
Regarding claim 20, Bang in view of Ju discloses all of the limitations of claim 12. Bang further discloses that the packaging layer further comprises a second inorganic packaging sub-layer (330 in figure 9) covering the organic packaging sub-layer (330 covers 320 in figure 9), the second inorganic packaging sub-layer extends to the non-display region and covers the dam structure (330 covers both dams DAM1 and DAM2 in figure 9), and an orthographic projection of a portion of the second inorganic packaging sub-layer within the non-display region on the substrate overlaps with both an orthographic projection of the first inorganic insulating sub-layer on the substrate and an orthographic projection of the second inorganic insulating sub-layer on the substrate (since 330 covers the top of both dams, its orthographic projection onto the substrate overlaps with sub layers of both dams).
Regarding claim 26, Bang in view of Ju discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Bang further discloses that the display panel is part of a display apparatus “such as smartphones, tablet personal computers (PCs), laptops, televisions, or billboards” (paragraph 0057).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bang in view of Ju as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Park et al. (US 20220310972 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Bang in view of Ju discloses all of the limitations of claim 12. Bang further discloses a pixel-defining layer located within the display region (209 in figure 5 and 9), wherein the pixel-defining layer comprises a pixel-defining portion (209 in figure 5) and a pixel opening (OP1 in figure 5) formed and enclosed by the pixel-defining portion (emission area EA is formed by the sides of the pixel defining layer 209 and fully enclosed by them), the pixel opening is configured to arrange the light-emitting unit (the pixel opening defines the size and shape of a pixel, thus arranging the light-emitting unit. see paragraph 0124).
Bang does not disclose a separating structure arranged on top of the pixel-defining layer.
Ju further discloses that the separating structure is arranged on a side of the pixel-defining portion away from the substrate (Ju figure 1. The separating structure 400 is on the side of pixel defining layer 300 facing away from substrate 100). This placement allows the separating structure to perform its intended purpose.
Bang does disclose that the pixel defining layer can be formed in the same layer and of the same material as the uppermost organic insulating layers of the dams, 1104 and 1203, but does not disclose that these layers are inorganic layers.
Park discloses a pixel-defining layer and upper layer of a dam that can be both be inorganic materials and made of at same layer and of the same material (upper insulating layer of the dam PW3 and pixel definition layer 215 can be made of the same material and the same layer, see paragraph 0119. They can also be inorganic materials, see paragraph 0107). Forming multiple layers at the same time and of the same material reduces the number of processing steps in the manufacture process, thus reducing the number of unique masks when forming the device and lowering costs.
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the in inorganic layers at the same time as the pixel definition layer in order to simplify the manufacture process and reduce costs.
PNG
media_image8.png
373
956
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
407
944
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Chen figures 4 and 7
Claims 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bang in view of Ju and Park as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (WO 2025015788 A1), hereinafter referred to as "Chen".
Regarding claim 17, Bang in view if Ju discloses all of the limitations of claim 12 (and Bang in view of Ju and Park teaches all of the limitations of claim 16, see 11b rejection above).
Bang further discloses a third inorganic insulating sub-layer arranged between the first dam and the second dam (portion of 310 between DAM1 and DAM2 in valley area VA in figure 9), and the third inorganic insulating sub-layer, the first inorganic insulating sub-layer, the second inorganic insulating sub-layer are arranged in the same layer and formed with the same material (they are all formed on and from the common layer 310), and the overflow groove is located on a side of the third inorganic insulating sub-layer away from the substrate (the overflow groove is above this layer, which is on a side away from the substrate).
Bang does not teach that this layer is formed at the same time and at the same layer as the pixel defining layer.
Chen teaches a barrier layer (22 in Chen figure 4 or 7) that both extends between and is part of a retaining wall structure (which is functionally a dam. See Chen figure 4 or 7), and can also be formed at the same time as a pixel definition layer in the display area (Chen page 7, lines 25-27). Forming multiple layers at the same time and of the same material reduces the number of processing steps in the manufacture process, thus reducing the number of unique masks when forming the device and lowering costs.
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the third inorganic layer at the same time as the pixel definition layer in order to simplify the manufacture process and reduce costs.
Claims 23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bang.
Regarding claim 23, Bang discloses all of the limitations of claim 22. Bang further discloses that the second dam is located on a side of the first dam away from the display region (DAM1 is located on the side of DAM2 that includes edge 100E1, which is away from the display area), and a height of the second dam is higher than a height of the first dam (see figure 9); the second dam comprises a second metal layer (portion of ML1 in DAM1 in figure 9) and a second insulating layer (1101, 1102, 1103, and 1104 in figure 9) arranged in a stacked manner, a thickness of the first metal layer is equal to a thickness of the second metal layer (both are formed from ML1, and thus would be obvious to be the same thickness), and a thickness of the second insulating layer is larger than a thickness of the first insulating layer (the second insulating layer both comprises more sub layers and is taller than the first insulating layer, thus clearly showing a greater thickness in the direction perpendicular to the substrate).
Bang does not explicitly disclose that the height of the first dam satisfies: 3.5µm ≤ H3 ≤ 5µm, nor that the height of the second dam satisfies: 5.5µm ≤ H4 ≤ 8.5µm. Bang does disclose dam heights greater than 1.4 µm, and explicitly disclosing heights up to 4 µm (paragraph 0192). Bang discloses that dams help prevent organic encapsulant from overflowing (see paragraph 0174), and it is obvious to even a layman that a taller dam will block more of a substance.
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the heights of the dams by routine optimization (see MPEP 2144.05) in order to block more of the organic encapsulant to prevent overflowing.
Regarding claim 25, Bang teaches all of the limitations of claim 23. Bang further discloses the first insulating layer comprises a first organic insulating sub-layer (1201, 1202, and 1203 in figure 9) and a first inorganic insulating sub-layer (the portion of 310 over DAM2), the second insulating layer comprises a second organic insulating sub-layer (1101, 1102, 1103, and 1104 in figure 9) and a second inorganic insulating sub-layer (portion of 310 over DAM1), the first metal layer, the first organic insulating sub-layer and the first inorganic insulating sub-layer are arranged in a stacked manner (see figure 9), and the second metal layer, the second organic insulating sub-layer and the second inorganic insulating sub-layer are arranged in a stacked manner (see figure 9); and a thickness of the second organic insulating sub-layer in the direction perpendicular to the substrate is larger than a thickness of the first organic insulating sub-layer in the direction perpendicular to the substrate (the second organic insulating sub-layer both comprises more sub layers and is taller than the first organic insulating sub-layer, thus clearly showing a greater thickness in the direction perpendicular to the substrate).
PNG
media_image10.png
643
1144
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Ji figure 3
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bang as applied to claim 21 and 22 above, and further in view of Ji et al. (KR 20200075493 A), hereinafter referred to as "Ji".
Regarding claim 24, Bang discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Bang further discloses a third insulating layer (205 in figure 9), wherein the third insulating layer is located between the dam structure and the substrate in a direction perpendicular to the substrate (205 is between the substrate 100 and the dams DAM1 and DAM2 in figure 9), and a groove is provided on a side of the third insulating layer away from the substrate (IILOP in figure 9).
However, Bang does not disclose that this groove is part of the overflow groove.
Ji teaches a groove in an insulating layer between dam structures and a substrate where the overflow groove comprises the groove in the substrate (Ji figure 3. There is a groove OP in insulating layers 112 and 113 which contributes to the depth of the larger overflow groove that exists between DAM1 and DAM2 on the left of the figure). Ji also teaches that this groove helps in preventing organic encapsulant from overflowing beyond the outer dam (Ji page 15, last paragraph).
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the groove in the third insulating layer be part of the overflow groove as in Ji in order to help prevent organic encapsulant from overflowing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL K ELLIOTT whose telephone number is (571)357-4606. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00 -5:00.
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, Brent Fairbanks can be reached at 408-918-7532. 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.
/DANIEL KURT ELLIOTT/ Examiner, Art Unit 2899
/Brent A. Fairbanks/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights