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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Title
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. (see MPEP § 606.01).
This may result in slightly longer titles, but the loss in brevity of title will be more than offset by the gain in its informative value in indexing, classifying, searching, etc.
The following title is suggested:
“Display panel Having Encapsulation Units with Different Taper Angles, manufacturing method for display panel, and electronic device”
because the claims are directed to display panels and manufacturing methods in which encapsulation units corresponding to different light-emitting units have different taper angles, which constitutes the principal distinguishing feature of the claimed invention over the prior art. Accordingly, applicant is requested to provide a title that more clearly reflects the claimed subject matter.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because the claim fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as the invention. Specifically, the claim first recites "a plurality of encapsulation units spaced apart," but subsequently recites "the encapsulation unit" in the singular ("...a side of a portion of the encapsulation unit...") without identifying which encapsulation unit of the previously recited plurality is being referenced. It is therefore unclear whether the recited taper angle pertains to each encapsulation unit, any encapsulation unit, or only particular encapsulation units. Although the claim later refers to encapsulation units corresponding to the first and second light-emitting units, the earlier recitation of "the encapsulation unit" lacks clear antecedent basis and renders the scope of the claim uncertain.
Applicant may overcome this rejection by amending the claims to provide proper antecedent basis for "the encapsulation unit" and to clearly identify the particular encapsulation unit of the previously recited plurality to which the recited taper-angle limitation applies.
Regarding claims 2-13, because of their dependency on claim 1, these claims are also objected for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because the claim fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
Specifically, the claim first recites "a plurality of encapsulation units" and subsequently recites "the encapsulation unit" in the singular ("...a taper angle being formed between a side of a portion of the encapsulation unit...") without clearly identifying which encapsulation unit of the previously recited plurality is being referenced. Accordingly, it is unclear whether the recited taper angle pertains to each encapsulation unit, any encapsulation unit, or only a particular encapsulation unit. Therefore, the scope of the claim is not reasonably certain.
Applicant may overcome this rejection by amending the claims to provide proper antecedent basis for "the encapsulation unit" and to clearly identify the particular encapsulation unit of the previously recited plurality to which the recited taper-angle limitation applies.
Regarding claim 15, because of the dependency on claim 14, the claim 15 is also objected for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 14.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because the claim fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
Specifically, the claim recites "a plurality of encapsulation units" and subsequently recites "the encapsulation unit" in the singular ("...a taper angle being formed between a side of a portion of the encapsulation unit...") without clearly identifying which encapsulation unit of the previously recited plurality is being referenced. Accordingly, it is unclear whether the recited taper angle pertains to each encapsulation unit, any encapsulation unit, or only the encapsulation units corresponding to the first and second light-emitting units subsequently recited. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are not reasonably certain.
Applicant may overcome this rejection by amending the claims to provide proper antecedent basis for "the encapsulation unit" and to clearly identify the particular encapsulation unit of the previously recited plurality to which the recited taper-angle limitation applies.
Regarding claims 17-20, because of their dependency on claim 16, these claims are also objected for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 16.
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee (US 20250040346).
Regarding claim 14, Lee discloses a display panel (e.g., Figs. 3-5; paragraphs [0032], [0034]) comprising:
• an array substrate (BL) [0059];
• an isolation structure (CPW) disposed on one side of the array substrate, the isolation structure defining isolation openings in which respective light-emitting units are disposed (e.g., ED1-ED3) (Fig. 5; [0108];
• a light-emitting unit (ED1, ED2, ED3) at least partially disposed within a respective isolation opening (Fig. 5); and
• a first encapsulation layer (LIL1, LIL2, LIL3) disposed on a side of the light-emitting units away from the array substrate [0155], the first encapsulation layer comprising a plurality of encapsulation units spaced apart (Fig. 5), the encapsulation units extending over the isolation structures from a side surface of the isolation structure facing the isolation opening toward a side of the isolation structure away from the array substrate (Fig. 5).
Lee further discloses a taper angle formed between a side of a portion of the encapsulation unit located adjacent the isolation structure on the side away from the array substrate and a side of the portion away from the isolation opening. As illustrated in Fig. 5, each encapsulation unit includes an inclined (non-vertical) sidewall adjacent the isolation structure, thereby defining an acute taper angle that is less than 90°, as required by the claim.
Accordingly, Lee discloses every limitation of claim 14, including the recited taper angle being less than 90°. Therefore, Lee anticipates claim 14.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 and 16-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, Lee (US 2025/0040346) discloses a display panel (e.g., Figs. 3-5; paragraphs [0032], [0034], [0155]) comprising:
• an array substrate (BL);
• an isolation structure (CPW) disposed on one side of the array substrate, the isolation structure defining isolation openings in which respective light-emitting units (ED1-ED3) are disposed;
• the light-emitting units including first and second light-emitting units corresponding to different color pixels (e.g., PXA-R and PXA-B);
• a first encapsulation layer (LIL1/LIL2/LIL3) disposed on a side of the light-emitting units away from the array substrate;
• the first encapsulation layer comprising a plurality of encapsulation units spaced apart, the encapsulation units extending over the isolation structures and having tapered sidewall portions defining taper angles.
However, Lee does not disclose or suggest that a taper angle of the encapsulation unit corresponding to the first light-emitting unit is different from a taper angle of the encapsulation unit corresponding to the second light-emitting unit, as recited in claim 1.
A search of the prior art has not identified any reference that teaches or suggests this limitation, either alone or in combination with the closest prior art of record. Accordingly, if the outstanding rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) is overcome, claim 1 would be in condition for allowance.
Regarding claim 16, Lee (US 2025/0040346) discloses a manufacturing method for a display panel (e.g., Figs. 3-5; paragraphs [0032], [0034], [0155]), the method comprising:
• providing an array substrate (BL);
• forming an isolation structure (CPW) on one side of the array substrate, the isolation structure defining isolation openings in which respective light-emitting units are formed;
• forming at least part of a light-emitting unit (ED1-ED3) in the respective isolation openings, the light-emitting units including first and second light-emitting units corresponding to different color pixels (e.g., PXA-R and PXA-B);
• forming a first encapsulation layer (LIL1/LIL2/LIL3) on a side of the light-emitting units away from the array substrate;
• the first encapsulation layer comprising a plurality of encapsulation units spaced apart, the encapsulation units extending over the isolation structures and having tapered sidewall portions defining taper angles.
However, Lee does not disclose or suggest forming the first encapsulation layer such that a taper angle of the encapsulation unit corresponding to the first light-emitting unit is different from a taper angle of the encapsulation unit corresponding to the second light-emitting unit, as required by claim 16.
The closest prior art of record likewise fails to disclose or suggest this limitation. In particular, although the prior art teaches tapered partition structures, tapered encapsulation layers, different pixel widths, and different pixel geometries, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest providing encapsulation units corresponding to different light-emitting units that have different taper angles as recited.
Accordingly, if the outstanding rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) is overcome, claim 16 would be in condition for allowance.
Claim 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 15. the cited prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest, along with the other claimed features, “a taper angle of the encapsulation unit corresponding to the first light-emitting unit ranges from 30° to 60°; a taper angle of the encapsulation unit corresponding to the second light-emitting unit ranges from 30° to 80°; the display panel further comprises a third light-emitting unit, and a taper angle of the encapsulation unit corresponding to the third light-emitting unit is not equal to the taper angles of the encapsulation units corresponding to the first light-emitting unit and the second light-emitting unit; the taper angle of the encapsulation unit corresponding to the third light-emitting unit ranges from 80° to 90°.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Changhyun Yi whose telephone number is (571)270-7799. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 10A-3P.
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, Davienne Monbleau can be reached on 571-272-1945. 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.
/Changhyun Yi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights