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 papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/17/2025, 08/07/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1,20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a )(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al, (US 20220352251 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
550
692
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Pertaining to claim 1, Lee teaches using BRI ( see fig7 above flip in this 90 degree configuration) A display panel, comprising: a substrate[SUB] on which a first pixel [PXA1] that emits light in a first wavelength band, a second pixel [PXA2] that emits light in a second wavelength band, and a third pixel[PXA3] that emits light in a third wavelength band are disposed, each of the first to third pixels including a pixel circuit[PXC]; a first emission layer[EMA1] disposed on the substrate, and that emits light in the first wavelength band; a second emission layer [EMA2] disposed on the first emission layer[EMA1], and that emits light in the second wavelength band; a third emission layer[EMA3] disposed on the second emission layer[EMA2], and that emits light in the third wavelength band; an a-th first electrode[TE1] electrically connected to the pixel circuit of the first pixel[PXA1], and electrically connected to the first emission layer[EMA1] in a first contact hole; a b-th first electrode[TE1 under PXA2] electrically connected to the pixel circuit of the second pixel [PXA2], and electrically connected to the second emission layer[ EMA2] in a second contact hole; a c-th first electrode [TE1 under PXA3] electrically connected to the pixel circuit of the third pixel[PXA3], and electrically connected to the third emission layer in a third contact hole; and a second electrode[ET2] electrically connected to the pixel circuit of each of the first to the third pixels ( see para 0154), and electrically connected to the first to the third emission layers in a fourth contact hole,
As per the claim limitation “second contact hole formed by removing at least a portion of the first emission layer or third contact hole formed by removing at least respective portions of the first and the second emission layers; or fourth contact hole formed by removing at least respective portions of the first to the third emission layers ” which is drawn to process steps of a product-by-process claim, such method step(s) are not considered to render an old apparatus patentable where the prior art teaches a product that appears to be the same as, or an obvious variant of, the product set forth in a product-by-process claim although produced by a different process. In that regard, both the claimed product and the prior art product would be the same or substantially the same. That is even though product-by-process claims are limited and defined by the process, the determination of patentability of the claims is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. See MPEP 2113.
Pertaining to claim 20, Lee teaches using BRI ( see fig7 above flip in this 90 degree configuration) Smart glasses ( see para 0276), comprising: a lens component that displays an image( see para 0280,0283); and a frame that supports the lens component ( see para 0276-0277), wherein the lens component comprises: A display panel, comprising: a substrate[SUB] on which a first pixel [PXA1] that emits light in a first wavelength band, a second pixel [PXA2] that emits light in a second wavelength band, and a third pixel[PXA3] that emits light in a third wavelength band are disposed, each of the first to third pixels including a pixel circuit[PXC]; a first emission layer[EMA1] disposed on the substrate, and that emits light in the first wavelength band; a second emission layer [EMA2] disposed on the first emission layer[EMA1], and that emits light in the second wavelength band; a third emission layer[EMA3] disposed on the second emission layer[EMA2], and that emits light in the third wavelength band; an a-th first electrode[TE1] electrically connected to the pixel circuit of the first pixel[PXA1], and electrically connected to the first emission layer[EMA1] in a first contact hole; a b-th first electrode[TE1 under PXA2] electrically connected to the pixel circuit of the second pixel [PXA2], and electrically connected to the second emission layer[ EMA2] in a second contact hole; a c-th first electrode [TE1 under PXA3] electrically connected to the pixel circuit of the third pixel[PXA3], and electrically connected to the third emission layer in a third contact hole; and a second electrode[ET2] electrically connected to the pixel circuit of each of the first to the third pixels ( see para 0154), and electrically connected to the first to the third emission layers in a fourth contact hole,
As per the claim limitation “second contact hole formed by removing at least a portion of the first emission layer or third contact hole formed by removing at least respective portions of the first and the second emission layers; or fourth contact hole formed by removing at least respective portions of the first to the third emission layers ” which is drawn to process steps of a product-by-process claim, such method step(s) are not considered to render an old apparatus patentable where the prior art teaches a product that appears to be the same as, or an obvious variant of, the product set forth in a product-by-process claim although produced by a different process. In that regard, both the claimed product and the prior art product would be the same or substantially the same. That is even though product-by-process claims are limited and defined by the process, the determination of patentability of the claims is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. See MPEP 2113.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-19 allowed.
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance: The closest prior art of record of Lee et al, (US 20220352251 A1) teaches the limitation of " . A method of fabricating a display panel, the method comprising: forming a third emission layer, a third transmissive conductive layer, a third insulating layer, a second emission layer, a second transmissive conductive layer, a second insulating layer, a first emission layer, a first transmissive conductive layer, but it does not teach or suggest, singularly or in combination, at least the limitations of the independent claim 10 including “a temporary substrate; forming a first via hole, a second via hole, and a third via hole in the first insulating layer, the first via hole exposing at least a portion of the third emission layer, the second via hole exposing at least a portion of the second emission layer, and the third via hole exposing at least a portion of the first emission layer; forming a first passivation layer enclosing the first to the third via holes; forming a first contact hole, a second contact hole, and a third contact hole in the first passivation layer, the first contact hole exposing at least a portion of the third transmissive conductive layer, the second contact hole exposing at least a portion of the second transmissive conductive layer, and the third contact hole exposing at least a portion of the first transmissive conductive layer; forming a second passivation layer enclosing the first to the third contact holes; removing the second passivation layer from areas corresponding to the first to the third contact holes; forming a fourth contact hole in the second passivation layer; forming a c-th first electrode in the first contact hole, forming a b-th first electrode in the second contact hole, forming an a-th first electrode in the first contact hole, and forming a second electrode in the second contact hole; electrically connecting the a-th to c-th first electrodes and the second electrode to a pixel circuit of a substrate; and removing the temporary substrate.”
Because no reference alone, nor is there any motivation to combine the details over the prior art to create such limitations in these independent claims, the claims are deemed patentable over the prior art.Claims 11-19 are also allowed as being directly or indirectly dependent of the allowed base claim(s).
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled "Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance."
Claims 2-9 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.
The closest prior art of record of Dip (US 2012/0003825 A1) teaches the limitation of claim1, but it does not teach or suggest, singularly or in combination, at least the limitations of the independent claim 2 including “ wherein the first emission layer comprises: a first semiconductor layer that provides electrons; a second semiconductor layer that provides holes; and an active layer disposed between the first semiconductor layer and the second semiconductor layer, the first semiconductor layer is electrically connected to any one of the a-th first electrode and the second electrode, and the second semiconductor layer is electrically connected to a remaining one of the a-th first electrode and the second electrode.” in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
The closest prior art of record of Dip (US 2012/0003825 A1) teaches the limitation of claim1, but it does not teach or suggest, singularly or in combination, at least the limitations of the independent claim 4 including “ a passivation layer disposed on the substrate, and covering side surfaces of the a-th to the c-th first electrodes; a first insulating layer disposed on the passivation layer; a first transmissive conductive layer disposed between the passivation layer and the first emission layer, and electrically connected to the a-th first electrode in an area formed by removing at least a portion of the passivation layer; a second insulating layer disposed on the second emission layer; a second transmissive conductive layer disposed between the second insulating layer and the second emission layer, and electrically connected to the b-th first electrode in an area formed by removing at least a portion of the passivation layer; a third insulating layer disposed on the second emission layer; and a third transmissive conductive layer disposed between the third insulating layer and the third emission layer, and electrically connected to the c-th first electrode in an area formed by removing at least a portion of the passivation layer.” in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAMADOU L DIALLO whose telephone number is (571)270-5449. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM-5PM.
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, FERNANDO TOLEDO can be reached at (571)272-1867. 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.
/MAMADOU L DIALLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights