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 .
This Office Action is in response to the election filed August 18, 2026.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-6 and 20 in the reply filed on August 18, 2026 is acknowledged.
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)(4) because:
reference characters "113" and "1131" have both been used to designate first wiring;
reference characters "113" and "113’" have both been used to designate wiring layer.
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 “113” has been used to designate both wiring layer and first wiring layer. 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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: DISPLAY PANEL INCLUDING CONTACT HOLE WITH EXTENDED PIXEL DEFINITION LAYER.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-2 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Im et al. (US 2007/0052352 A1) in view of Choi et al. (US 2014/0353595 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Im et al. teach a display panel, comprising: a substrate 300; a wiring layer (at 355a/355b) located on a side of the substrate 300, wherein the wiring layer (at 355a/355b) comprises a first wiring (at 355a); an organic layer 370a located on a side of the wiring layer (at 355a/355b) away from the substrate 300, wherein the organic layer 370a comprising a contact hole 355a exposing at least a part of the first wiring (at 355a); and a pixel definition layer 370b located on a side of the organic layer 370a away from the substrate 300 (Figure 2, pages 2-3, paragraphs [0026]-[0043]).
However, Im et al. fail to teach the pixel definition layer extending into the contact hole and covering a side of the organic layer facing the contact hole, and a part of the pixel definition layer located within the contact hole and at least a part of the first wiring exposed in the contact hole.
Choi et al. teach the pixel definition layer 223 extending into the contact hole 209 and covering a side of the organic layer 219 facing the contact hole 209, and a part of the pixel definition layer 223 located within the contact hole 209 and at least a part of the first wiring 221 exposed in the contact hole 209 (Figure 4G, pages 3-8, paragraphs [0070]-[0139]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display device structure as taught by Im et al. with the display device having a pixel definition layer extending into the contact hole and covering a side of the organic layer facing the contact hole, and a part of the pixel definition layer located within the contact hole and at least a part of the first wiring exposed in the contact hole as taught by Choi et al. to improve light efficiency (page 1, paragraph [0007]).
In regard to claim 2, Choi et al. teach a material of the pixel definition layer 223 comprising an inorganic material, the display panel further comprising a display region (at OLED) and a contact region (area outside of OLED) located at a side of the display region (at OLED), and the contact hole 209 disposed in the contact region (area outside of OLED) (Figure 4G, pages 3-8, paragraphs [0070]-[0139]).
In regard to claim 20, Choi et al. teach an electronic device 1, comprising the display panel 22 according to claim 1 (Figures 1 and 4G, pages 3-8, paragraphs [0055]-[0139]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is 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.
Claims 4-6 are objected to as being dependent upon objected claim 3.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following patents are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to display devices:
Choi et al. (US 2014/0361253 A1) Choi et al. (EP 3496150 A1)
Kim et al. (US 2020/0105854 A1) Sim et al. (US 11,165,001 B2)
Son et al. (US 11,456,343 B2) Sun et al. (WO 2023092683 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IDA M SOWARD whose telephone number is (571)272-1845. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, 7am to 5:30pm.
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, Leonard Chang can be reached at 571-270-3691. 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.
IMS
September 22, 2026
/IDA M SOWARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights