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 § 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.
Claim 6 is 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 6 recites the indefinite limitation of “the supporting layer covers a part of the surface of the side of the supporting layer”, which implies that the supporting layer cover a side of itself. This makes the limitation indefinite since it is not known if the supporting layer made of two distinct layers or does the supporting layer cover a part of another feature in the claim. For examination purposes, any references that teaches the supporting layer that extend to the conductive isolation structures meets the limitation of this claim.
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) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choung et al, US Patent Application Publication 2022/0344417 in view of Tsuji et al, US Patent Application Publication 2007/0087645
Regarding claim 1, Choung teaches a display panel, comprising:
a driving substrate 102;
a pixel defining layer 126, disposed on the driving substrate and extending from the driving substrate to define a plurality of pixel accommodating areas;
a plurality of conductive isolation structures 110, disposed on the pixel defining layer and surrounding an upper surface of each of the plurality of pixel accommodating areas;
wherein each of the plurality of conductive isolation structures comprises a body structure 110A, 110C and a top structure 110B disposed on an upper surface of the body structure and shielding the body structure;
a hanging portion 107 is defined by a portion of the top structure extending from the upper surface of the body structure;
a plurality of sub-pixels 106, disposed in the plurality of pixel accommodating areas;
a supporting layer 116, covering the plurality of sub-pixels and an inner side wall of each of the plurality of conductive isolation structures to support the hanging portion, defining a recess,
a filling layer 122, at least part of the filling layer being filled in the recess and configured to encapsulate the recess and support the hanging portion; and
an encapsulation layer 118a, 118b disposed on a side of the filling layer away from the pixel defining layer and at least covering the filling layer (figure 1B).
Choung fails to teach the support layer comprises an alumina-based ceramic thin film. However, Tsuji teaches alumina ceramics as an alternative, yet generally-known material used as a support sealing layer [0154]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Tsuji with that of Choung because alumina-based ceramic thin film is an alternative, yet generally-known material used as a support sealing layer.
Regarding claim 2, Choung teaches the supporting layer further covers a part of an upper surface of the top structure and the encapsulation layer covers the supporting layer on the upper surface of the top structure (figures 1B).
.
Regarding claim 3, while Choung teaches an upper surface of the filling layer is higher than or at the same level with a surface of a side of the supporting layer on a lower surface of the hanging portion that is close to the pixel defining layer, Choung fails to teach the filling layer is lower than or at the same level with a surface of a side of the supporting layer on an upper surface of the top structure that is away from the pixel defining layer
However, given the teaching of the references, it would have been obvious to determine the optimum thickness filling layer needed because applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. See In re Aller, Lacey, and Hall (10 USPQ 23 3-237) "It is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. Note that the specification contains no disclosure of ether the critical nature of the claimed ranges or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that tile chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 f.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Any differences in the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091,231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Appellants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness. Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992).
An Affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979).
Regarding claim 4, Choung teaches the upper surface of the filling layer is slightly higher than the surface of the side of the supporting layer on the upper surface of the top structure that is away from the pixel defining layer (figure 1B).
Regarding claim 5, Choung and Tsuji fails to teach a height difference between the upper surface of the filling layer and the surface of the side of the supporting layer on the upper surface of the top structure that is away from the pixel defining layer is less than 5 mm.
However, given the teaching of the references, it would have been obvious to determine the optimum thickness height difference between the upper surface of the filling layer and the surface of the side of the supporting layer on the upper surface of the top structure that is away from the pixel defining layer because applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. See In re Aller, Lacey, and Hall (10 USPQ 23 3-237) "It is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. Note that the specification contains no disclosure of ether the critical nature of the claimed ranges or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that tile chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 f.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Any differences in the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091,231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Appellants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness. Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992).
An Affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979).
Regarding claim 6, Choung teaches the supporting layer 107 covers a part of the surface of the side of the supporting layer on the upper surface of the top structure that is away from the pixel defining layer. (figure 1B)
Regarding claim 7, Choung teaches the body structure comprises a conductive structure 110B [0028], a side wall of the conductive structure and the hanging portion are arranged to be inclined to each other, and an angle of inclination between a lower surface of the hanging portion and the side wall of the conductive structure is less than 90 degrees (figure 1B); or the body structure comprises the conductive structure 110A [0028] and an intermediate structure 110B disposed between the conductive structure and the top structure, a side wall of the intermediate structure and the hanging portion are arranged to be inclined to each other, and an angle of inclination between the lower surface of the hanging portion and the side wall of the intermediate structure is less than 90 degrees (figure 1B).
Regarding claim 8, Choung teaches each of the plurality of sub-pixels comprises an anode 104, a light-emitting layer 112, and a cathode 114 arranged in stack; the cathode is disposed between the light-emitting layer and the supporting layer; the cathode is arranged in contact with the conductive structure and is conducted to the conductive structure (figure 1B).
Regarding claim 9, Choung teaches the light-emitting layer of each of the plurality of sub-pixels is isolated by a corresponding one of the plurality of conductive isolation structures, and the cathode of each of the plurality of sub-pixels of different colors is isolated by a corresponding one of the plurality of conductive isolation structures (figure 1B).
Regarding claim 10, Choung and Tsuji fail to teach a thickness of the supporting layer is 1-2mm.
However, given the teaching of the references, it would have been obvious to determine the optimum thickness of the supporting layer because applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. See In re Aller, Lacey, and Hall (10 USPQ 23 3-237) "It is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. Note that the specification contains no disclosure of ether the critical nature of the claimed ranges or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that tile chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 f.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Any differences in the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091,231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Appellants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness. Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992).
An Affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979).
Regarding claim 12, Choung teaches the top structure is arranged in contact with the body structure and an orthographic projection of the top structure on the driving substrate completely overlaps an orthographic projection of the body structure on the driving substrate; the hanging portion is arranged in suspension with respect to the body structure (figure 1B).
Regarding claim 13, Choung teaches any adjacent two of the plurality of conductive isolation structures share a common side (since they are on top of one another, the share a common upper surface figure 1B).
Regarding claim 14, Choung teaches a display device, comprising
a display panel, wherein the display panel comprises:
a driving substrate 102;
a pixel defining layer 16, disposed on the driving substrate and extending from the driving substrate to define a plurality of pixel accommodating areas;
a plurality of conductive isolation structures 110A, 110B, 110C, disposed on the pixel defining layer and surrounding an upper surface of each of the plurality of pixel accommodating areas;
wherein each of the plurality of conductive isolation structures comprises a body structure 110A or 110C and a top structure 110B disposed on an upper surface of the body structure and shielding the body structure;
a hanging portion 107 is defined by a portion of the top structure extending from the upper surface of the body structure;
a plurality of sub-pixels 106, disposed in the plurality of pixel accommodating areas;
a supporting layer 116, covering the plurality of sub-pixels and an inner side wall of each of the plurality of conductive isolation structures to support the hanging portion, defining a recess,
a filling layer 122, at least part of the filling layer being filled in the recess and configured to encapsulate the recess and support the hanging portion; and
an encapsulation layer 118a, 118b, disposed on a side of the filling layer away from the pixel defining layer and at least covering the filling layer (figure 1B).
Choung fails to teach the support layer comprises an alumina-based ceramic thin film. However, Tsuji teaches alumina ceramics as an alternative, yet generally-known material used as a support sealing layer [0154]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Tsuji with that of Choung because alumina-based ceramic thin film is an alternative, yet generally-known material used as a support sealing layer.
Regarding claim 15, Choung teaches the supporting layer further covers a part of an upper surface of the top structure and the encapsulation layer covers the supporting layer on the upper surface of the top structure (figure 1B).
Regarding claim 16, Choung teaches the body structure comprises a conductive structure 110B [0028], a side wall of the conductive structure and the hanging portion are arranged to be inclined to each other, and an angle of inclination between a lower surface of the hanging portion and the side wall of the conductive structure is less than 90 degrees; or the body structure comprises the conductive structure 110A [0028], and an intermediate structure 110B disposed between the conductive structure and the top structure, a side wall of the intermediate structure and the hanging portion are arranged to be inclined to each other, and an angle of inclination between the lower surface of the hanging portion and the side wall of the intermediate structure is less than 90 degrees (figure 1B).
Regarding claim 17, Choung and Tsuji fail to teach a thickness of the supporting layer is 1-2mm.
However, given the teaching of the references, it would have been obvious to determine the optimum thickness of the supporting layer because applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. See In re Aller, Lacey, and Hall (10 USPQ 23 3-237) "It is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. Note that the specification contains no disclosure of ether the critical nature of the claimed ranges or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that tile chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 f.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Any differences in the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091,231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Appellants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness. Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992).
An Affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979).
Regarding claim 19, Choung teaches the top structure is arranged in contact with the body structure and an orthographic projection of the top structure on the driving substrate completely overlaps an orthographic projection of the body structure on the driving substrate; the hanging portion is arranged in suspension with respect to the body structure (Figure 1B)
Regarding claim 20, Choung teaches any adjacent two of the plurality of conductive isolation structures share a common side (since they are on top of one another, the share a common upper surface figure 1B).
Claim(s) 11 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choung and Tsuji as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Yu et al, US Patent 10,822,523
Regarding claim 11 and 18, Choung teaches the display panel further comprises an organic encapsulation layer 118a [acrylic, 0033] and a second encapsulation layer 118b stacked on a side of the encapsulation layer away from the pixel defining layer in sequence, Choung and Tsuji fails to teach the second encapsulant layer is inorganic.
However, Yu teaches an encapsulant stack that includes multi-layered inorganic/organic layers that are used to as a means to seal the device, which improves the quality of the OLED structure formed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Yu with that of Choung and Tsuji because encapsulant stack that includes multi-layered inorganic/organic layers are used to as a means to seal the device, which improves the quality of the OLED structure formed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUOVAUNDA JEFFERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5051. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7AM-4PM.
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, Dale E Page can be reached at 571-270-7877. 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.
QVJ
/DALE E PAGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights