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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-11, 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kondo (JP2011249089; hereinafter Kondo).
PNG
media_image1.png
560
891
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig 2_Edited
Regarding claim 1, Fig 2 and Fig 2_edited of Kondo discloses a display panel comprising:
a drive backplane (10; Fig 2);
a first electrode layer (105; Fig 2) arranged on a surface of the drive backplane and comprising a plurality of first electrodes (Fig 4) distributed in an array (Fig 4), wherein the first electrode (105; Fig 2) comprises a flat middle part (102; fig 2) and an edge part (104a; Fig 2) surrounding the middle part (102; fig 2);
a leakage cut-off layer (104; Fig 2) provided on the same surface of the drive backplane as the first electrode layer;
a light-emitting function layer (107; Fig 2), wherein the light emitting function layer is a continuous film layer, at least partially covers a top of the leakage cut-off layer (104; Fig 2) and covers at least a partial area of the first electrode (105; Fig 2); and
a second electrode (108; Fig 2) covering the light-emitting function layer (107; Fig 2); wherein the second electrode comprises a plurality of flat parts (Flat part; Fig 2_edited) and a separating part (Protruding part/Recessed parts; Fig 2_edited) located between the plurality of flat parts; orthographic projections of the flat parts (Flat part; Fig 2_edited) on the drive backplane are overlapped with an orthographic projections of the first electrode (105; Fig 2) on the drive backplane (Fig 2), the separating part (Protruding part/Circled part (A); Fig 2_edited) comprises a protruding area (Protruding part; Fig 2_edited) and a first recessed area (Recessed part; fig 2_edited), the first recessed area is recessed toward a side of the flat part close to the drive backplane (Fig 2), the protruding area (Protruding part; Fig 2_edited) protrudes toward a side of the flat parts facing away from the drive backplane, the first recessed area is located between the protruding area and the flat part and a bottom of the first recessed area is located on a side of the leakage cut -off layer away from the drive backplane.
Regarding claim 2, Fig 2 and Fig 2_edited of Kondo discloses the first recessed area (Recessed part; fig 2_edited) comprises a first side surface (Fig 2_edited) close to a side of the flat part (Flat part; Fig 2_edited) and a second side surface (Fig 2_edited) close to a side of the protruding area (Protruding part; Fig 2_edited) and the first side surface and the second surface shrink along a direction (Fig 2) close to the drive backplane.
Regarding claim 3, Fig 2 and Fig 2_edited of Kondo discloses a slope of the first side surface (Side surface (Right side); Fig 2_edited) relative to the middle part is equal to that of the second surface (Side surface (Left surface); Fig 2_edited) relative to the middle part.
Regarding claim 4, Fig 2 and Fig 2_edited of Kondo discloses the protruding area (Protruding part; Fig 2_edited) is provided with a second recessed area (Recessed are in circled area A; Fig 2_edited) recessed toward the drive backplane and the second recessed area has a smaller depth (Fig 2) than the first recessed area.
Regarding claim 5, Fig 2 and Fig 2_edited of Kondo discloses a bottom of the second recessed area is higher than the flat part (Fig 2).
Regarding claim 6, Fig 2 and Fig 2_edited of Kondo discloses a thickness of the flat part close to the first side surface is greater than a thickness of the protruding area close to the second side surface.
Second Interpretation
Regarding claim 1, Fig 2 and Fig 2_edited of Kondo discloses a display panel comprising:
a drive backplane (10; Fig 2);
a first electrode layer (105; Fig 2) arranged on a surface of the drive backplane and comprising a plurality of first electrodes (Fig 4) distributed in an array (Fig 4), wherein the first electrode (105; Fig 2) comprises a flat middle part (102; fig 2) and an edge part (104a; Fig 2) surrounding the middle part (102; fig 2);
a leakage cut-off layer (104/106; Fig 2) provided on the same surface of the drive backplane as the first electrode layer;
a light-emitting function layer (107; Fig 2), wherein the light emitting function layer is a continuous film layer, at least partially covers a top of the leakage cut-off layer (104; Fig 2) and covers at least a partial area of the first electrode (105; Fig 2); and
a second electrode (108; Fig 2) covering the light-emitting function layer (107; Fig 2); wherein the second electrode comprises a plurality of flat parts (Flat part; Fig 2_edited) and a separating part (Protruding part/Recessed parts; Fig 2_edited) located between the plurality of flat parts; orthographic projections of the flat parts (Flat part; Fig 2_edited) on the drive backplane are overlapped with an orthographic projections of the first electrode (105; Fig 2) on the drive backplane (Fig 2), the separating part (Protruding part/Circled part (A); Fig 2_edited) comprises a protruding area (Protruding part; Fig 2_edited) and a first recessed area (Recessed part in circle A; fig 2_edited), the first recessed area is recessed toward a side of the flat part close to the drive backplane (Fig 2), the protruding area (Protruding part; Fig 2_edited) protrudes toward a side of the flat parts facing away from the drive backplane, the first recessed area is located between the protruding area and the flat part and a bottom of the first recessed area is located on a side of the leakage cut -off layer away from the drive backplane.
Regarding claim 8, Fig 2 and Fig 2_edited of Kondo discloses the edge part comprises a horizontal part (1051/1052; Fig 2) surrounding the middle part (102; Fig 2) and a climbing part (104a; Fig 2) connected between the middle part (102; Fig 2) and the horizontal part (1051/1052; Fig 2);
the light-emitting function layer (107; Fig 2) at least partially covers the middle part (102; Fig 2) in a direct manner; and
the orthographic projections of the flat parts (Flat part; Fig 2_edited) on the drive backplane are located in one-to-one correspondence within the orthographic projections of the first electrodes (105; Fig 2) on the drive backplane; and an orthographic projection of the first recessed area (Recessed part in circle A; fig 2_edited) on the drive backplane is at least partially located outside (Fig 2) an orthographic projection on the drive backplane of the middle part (102; Fig 2) of the first electrode.
Regarding claim 9, Fig 2 and Fig 2_edited of Kondo discloses an orthographic projection on the drive backplane of a lowest point of the first recessed area (Recessed part in circle A; fig 2_edited) is located outside an orthographic projection on the drive backplane of the middle part (102; Fig 2) of the first electrode (105; Fig 2).
Regarding claim 10, Fig 2 and Fig 2_edited of Kondo discloses a minimum thickness (Fig 2) of an area of the second electrode (108; Fig 2) corresponding to the first side surface is greater than a minimum thickness of an area of the second electrode corresponding to the second side surface (Fig 2).
Regarding claim 11, Fig 2 and Fig 2_edited of Kondo discloses the slope of the first side surface relative to the middle part is less than 60° and the slope of the second side surface relative to the middle part is not less than 60° and not greater than 90°.
Regarding claim 15, Fig 2 and Fig 2_edited of Kondo discloses a slope of the climbing part relative to the drive backplane is not less than 30°. (Fig 2)
Regarding claim 16, Fig 2 and Fig 2_edited of Kondo discloses a minimum value of a distance, in a direction perpendicular to the drive backplane, between the bottom of the first recessed area (Recessed part in circle A; fig 2_edited) and the middle part (102; Fig 2) of an adjacent one of the first electrodes is not less than 70% of a total thickness of the flat part and the light-emitting function layer.
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) 7, 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo (JP2011249089; hereinafter Kondo).
Regarding claim 7, Kondo does not expressly disclose a maximum distance between middle parts of two adjacent ones of the first electrodes is in a range of 0.1 µm – 1 µm.
However, the ordinary artisan would have recognized the maximum distance to be a result effective variable affecting optical characteristics and leakage cut-off. Thus, it would have been obvious to vary the maximum distance within the claimed range, since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B
Regarding claim 12, Kondo does not expressly disclose a width of an orthographic projection of the first recessed area on the drive backplane is not greater of 0.2 µm.
However, the ordinary artisan would have recognized the width to be a result effective variable affecting optical characteristics and leakage cut-off. Thus, it would have been obvious to vary the maximum distance within the claimed range, since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B
Regarding claim 13, Kondo does not expressly disclose a depth of the first recessed area is less than twice a maximum thickness of the second electrode.
However, the ordinary artisan would have recognized the depth to be a result effective variable affecting optical characteristics and leakage cut-off. Thus, it would have been obvious to vary the maximum distance within the claimed range, since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B
Regarding claim 14, Kondo does not expressly disclose a maximum thickness of the second electrode is 90 nm and the depth of the first recessed area is less than 120 nm.
However, the ordinary artisan would have recognized the maximum thickness to be a result effective variable affecting optical characteristics and leakage cut-off. Thus, it would have been obvious to vary the maximum distance within the claimed range, since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6, 8-10, 17-24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 12563903. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claims 1-6, 8-10, 17-24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 12507532. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kato et al (US 9236581)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RATISHA MEHTA whose telephone number is (571)270-7473. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9:00am - 5:00 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, Eliseo Ramos Feliciano can be reached on 571-272-7925. 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.
/RATISHA MEHTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights