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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
This office acknowledges receipt of the following items from the applicant: Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 25 September 2024, 29 October 2025, 2 February 2026 and 10 August 2026. The references cited on the PTOL 1449 form have been considered.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification recites “one layer of the hole transport layer, the emission layer, and the electron transport layer” (par. 61) which makes unclear applicant’s intended scope. The language "one of A, B and C" means one of A and one of B and one of C. The language "one of A, B or C" means one of A or one of B or one of C. See Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Does applicant require one layer of the hole transport layer and one layer of the emission layer and one layer of the electron transport layer? Does applicant require one layer of the hole transport layer or one layer of the emission layer or one layer of the electron transport layer?
The specification recites “at least one of the emission layer, the hole block layer, the electron transport layer, and the electron injection layer contacts the sidewall” (par. 64) which makes unclear applicant’s intended scope. The language "at least one of A, B and C" means at least one of A and at least one of B and at least one of C. The language "at least one of A, B or C" means at least one of A or at least one of B or at least one of C. See Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Does applicant require at least one of the emission layer and at least one of the hole block layer and at least one of the electron transport layer and at least one of the electron injection layer? Does applicant require at least one of the emission layer or at least one of the hole block layer or at least one of the electron transport layer or at least one of the electron injection layer?
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
Claim 2 recites “the light-emitting material layer contacts the sidewall” and “an interval is formed between the light-emitting material and the sidewall” however these two limitations are contradictory to the applicant’s written description (par. 48). The applicant’s disclosure shows an embodiment of Fig. 4 where the light-emitting material layer contacts the sidewall, and a mutually exclusive embodiment of Fig. 5 where the light-emitting material does not contact the sidewall, an interval is formed (par. 48). There is no single figure showing both of these limitations to exist in the same embodiment as claimed.
No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2, 6, 7 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 2 recites “the light-emitting material layer contacts the sidewall” and “an interval is formed between the light-emitting material and the sidewall” however these two limitations are contradictory to the applicant’s written description (par. 48). The applicant’s disclosure shows an embodiment of Fig. 4 where the light-emitting material layer contacts the sidewall, and a mutually exclusive embodiment of Fig. 5 where the light-emitting material does not contact the sidewall, an interval is formed (par. 48). Therefore, there is no written description support for both of these limitations to exist in the same embodiment as claimed. Claims 6, 7 and 9-11 include and do not cure the deficiencies of claim 2.
(See also MPEP 2163.03 V. ORIGINAL CLAIM NOT SUFFICIENTLY DESCRIBED):
While there is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present in the specification as filed, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976), a question as to whether a specification provides an adequate written description may arise in the context of an original claim. An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved or (2) a broad genus claim is presented but the disclosure only describes a narrow species with no evidence that the genus is contemplated. See Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). The written description requirement is not necessarily met when the claim language appears in ipsis verbis in the specification. "Even if a claim is supported by the specification, the language of the specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed. The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy that requirement." Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 1-19 are 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 1 recites “the isolation opening” at line 4 which makes unclear which of the “plurality of isolation openings” is being referenced. The claim further recites “the isolation opening” at lines 6-7 which makes unclear which of the “plurality of isolation openings” is being referenced. The claim does not reference each of the plurality of openings or at least one of the plurality of openings, for example.
Claim 1 also recites “the light-emitting device” at line 6 which makes unclear which of the “plurality of light-emitting devices” is being referenced. The claim does not reference each of the plurality of light-emitting devices or at least one of the plurality of light-emitting devices, for example.
Claim 1 recites a “wherein” clause (see MPEP 2111.04) directed towards “a first normal section” at line 8, which makes unclear if a “normal section” of the display panel is required, and then if the subsequent limitations are required if a normal section is not present. The preamble of the claim denotes that the body is defining the structure of a display panel. The body of the claim does not define any structure of a section, let alone a “normal” section, and to what degree of “normal” if required. If an undefined “normal section” is not present in a prior art display panel then it’s unclear if the subsequent limitations of the claim are required. The claim does not clearly recite that the display panel comprises a first normal section having any particular existing or additional structural elements and then does not further limit with “wherein on the first normal section …” in order to require a defined first normal section and on that first normal section the subsequent structural relationships are required.
Claims 2-16 include the limitations and do not cure the deficiencies of claim 1.
Claim 2 also references “the first normal section” and further makes unclear if the subsection limitations are required on the undefined basis as previously indicated.
Claims 6, 7 and 9 include the limitations and do not cure the deficiencies of claim 2.
Claim 3 recites “the isolation opening” at lines 2-3 which makes unclear which of the “plurality of isolation openings” is being referenced.
Claim 4 includes the limitations and do not cure the deficiencies of claim 3.
Claim 4 also references “the first normal section” and further makes unclear if the subsection limitations are required on the undefined basis as previously indicated.
Claim 7 also references “the first normal section” and further makes unclear if the subsection limitations are required on the undefined basis as previously indicated.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 8 recites the broad recitation “wherein the first angle is greater than 0 degrees, and the first angle is less than 90 degrees,” and the claim also recites “the first angle is not less than 30 degrees, and the first angle is not greater than 80 degrees” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 9 recites “one layer of the hole transport layer, the emission layer, and the electron transport layer” which makes unclear applicant’s intended scope. It’s noted that this recitation also occurs in the written specification (par. 61). The language "one of A, B and C" means one of A and one of B and one of C. The language "one of A, B or C" means one of A or one of B or one of C. See Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Does applicant require one layer of the hole transport layer and one layer of the emission layer and one layer of the electron transport layer? Does applicant require one layer of the hole transport layer or one layer of the emission layer or one layer of the electron transport layer?
Claim 9 also recites “the other layers” at line 5 which lacks antecedent basis.
Claims 10 and 11 include the limitations and do not cure the deficiencies of claim 9.
Claim 10 recites “wherein the electron transport layer is the one layer” which is unclear based on the limitations of claim 9 that requires one layer of the hole transport layer and one layer of the emission layer and one layer of the electron transport layer.
Claim 10 recites “the hole transport layer and the emission layer are the other layers” which is unclear based on the limitations of claim 9 which requires one layer of the hole transport layer and one layer of the emission layer and one layer of the electron transport layer and lacks antecedent basis for “the other layers” in the claim.
Claim 11 recites “at least one of the emission layer, the hole block layer, the electron transport layer, and the electron injection layer contacts the sidewall” which makes unclear applicant’s intended scope. It’s noted that this recitation also occurs in the written specification (par. 64). The language "at least one of A, B and C" means at least one of A and at least one of B and at least one of C. The language "at least one of A, B or C" means at least one of A or at least one of B or at least one of C. See Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Does applicant require at least one of the emission layer and at least one of the hole block layer and at least one of the electron transport layer and at least one of the electron injection layer? Does applicant require at least one of the emission layer or at least one of the hole block layer or at least one of the electron transport layer or at least one of the electron injection layer?
Claim 12 recites “the light-emitting device” at line 3 which makes unclear which of the “plurality of light-emitting devices” is being referenced. The claim does not reference each of the plurality of light-emitting devices or at least one of the plurality of light-emitting devices, for example.
Claim 12 also recites “the pixel opening” at line 4 which makes unclear which of the “plurality of pixel openings” is being referenced. The claim does not reference each of the plurality of pixel openings or at least one of the plurality of pixel openings, for example.
Claim 12 also recites “the isolation opening” at line 6 and again at line 8 which each makes unclear which of the “plurality of isolation openings” is being referenced. The claim does not reference each of the plurality of isolation openings or at least one of the plurality of isolation openings, for example.
Claim 13 also references “the first normal section” and further makes unclear if the subsection limitations are required on the undefined basis as previously indicated.
Claim 17 recites “the isolation opening” at line 5-6 which makes unclear which of the “plurality of isolation openings” is being referenced. The claim further recites “the isolation opening” at line 7 which makes unclear which of the “plurality of isolation openings” is being referenced. The claim does not reference each of the plurality of openings or at least one of the plurality of openings, for example.
Claim 17 recites a “wherein” clause (see MPEP 2111.04) directed towards “an evaporation angle of the first electrode” at line 8. The claim recites “forming a light-emitting device in the isolation opening by evaporation” at line 7 but does not provide a required antecedent basis for forming the first electrode by evaporation in order to then define an evaporation angle of the first electrode. The scope of “forming a light-emitting device in the isolation opening by evaporation” does not require forming a first electrode by evaporation, as a second electrode and/or light emitting layer could be formed by evaporation while the first electrode could be formed by a solution process, brush coating, sputtering, etc. It’s also unclear if “evaporation angle” is to reference the process angle at which evaporation occurs or the structural angle of the first electrode as a result of evaporation. As currently written in the claim, an evaporation angle is unclear as there is no structurally linked evaporation process required for forming the first electrode.
Claims 18 and 19 include the limitations and do not cure the deficiencies of claim 17.
Claim 18 recites a “wherein” clause (see MPEP 2111.04) directed towards “a first normal section” at lines 1-2, which makes unclear if a “normal section” of the display panel is required, and then if the subsequent limitations are required if a normal section is not present. The preamble of the claim denotes that the body is defining the structure of a display panel. The body of the claim does not define any structure of a section, let alone a “normal” section, and to what degree of “normal” if required. If an undefined “normal section” is not present in a prior art display panel then it’s unclear if the subsequent limitations of the claim are required. The claim does not clearly recite that the display panel comprises a first normal section having any particular existing or additional structural elements and then does not further limit with “wherein on the first normal section …” in order to require a defined first normal section and on that first normal section the subsequent structural relationships are required.
Claim 19 includes the limitations and do not cure the deficiencies of claim 18.
Claim 19 recites “evaporating the light-emitting material layer before evaporating the first electrode” at line 4. As previously indicated, there is no positively recited active step requiring evaporating the first electrode, therefore antecedent basis is lacking. Claim 19 also references “the first normal section” and further makes unclear if the subsection limitations are required on the undefined basis as previously indicated.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-10, 12, 13 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applied Materials Incorporated (JP2023540317), cited by applicant and hereinafter referred to as “AMI”, in view of Zhou et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2026/0033151).
As insofar as Claim 1 is definite, AMI teaches a display panel, comprising: a base plate (102 and/or 126); an isolation structure (110), the isolation structure (110) being located on the base plate (102 and/or 126), enclosing and forming a plurality of isolation openings, and having a sidewall (111) facing the isolation opening, and a first angle being formed between the sidewall (111) and the base plate (102 and/or 126); a plurality of light-emitting devices (108), the light-emitting device being located in the isolation opening and comprising a first electrode (114; cathode; par. 31) contacted with the sidewall (111); wherein on a first normal section of the display panel, the first electrode (114) comprises a first end portion (226), the isolation structure (110) comprises a second end portion (206), the second end portion (206) extends from the sidewall (111) to an isolation opening corresponding to the first end portion (226) in a direction away from the first end portion (226), a second angle is formed between the base plate (102 and/or 126) and a connecting line (224) from the first end portion (226) to the second end portion (206), and a complementary angle of the second angle is θCATHODE. AMI does not explicitly state one way or the other, if the first angle is less than the complementary angle of the second angle. AMI does teach the known structural relationship between the angles and shadowing effect with respect to the disposition of the second end portion (206) (par. 31, 40-42, 47, 50, 56, 58, 62, 64 and 66).
PNG
media_image1.png
598
1089
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In the same field of endeavor, Zhou teaches in Fig. 5 (par. 28, 30 and 35) for example, a display panel, comprising: a base plate (50); an isolation structure (22), the isolation structure (22) being located on the base plate (50), enclosing and forming a plurality of isolation openings (11), and having a sidewall (of 22A) facing the isolation opening, and a first angle being formed between the sidewall (of 22A) and the base plate (50); a plurality of light-emitting devices (21), the light-emitting device being located in the isolation opening (11) and comprising a first electrode (213; cathode) contacted with the sidewall (of 22A); wherein on a first normal section of the display panel, the first electrode (213) comprises a first end portion (312 in contact with 22A), the isolation structure (22) comprises a second end portion (overhang), the second end portion (overhang) extends from the sidewall (22A) to an isolation opening (11) corresponding to the first end portion (213 in contact with 22A) in a direction away from the first end portion (213 in contact with 22A), a second angle is formed between the base plate (50) and a connecting line from the first end portion (213in contact with 22A) to the second end portion (overhang), and a complementary angle of the second angle is evaporation angle (par. 28). Zhou teaches that the shielding structure may be configured to adjust the evaporation angle (par. 41) and further teaches that the evaporation angle during the evaporation of the cathode (213) may be adjusted. In this way, the cathode (213) may be ensured to be electrically overlapped with at least part of the conductive portion (22A) of the inclined sidewall (223). As a result, the cathode (213) of the sub-pixel (21) may be enabled to be reliably overlapped with the conductive portion (22A) of each sidewall (220) of the isolation structure (22), thereby enhancing the conductive overlapping stability between the cathode (213) and the conductive portion (22A). It can be understood that a conductive overlapping stability between the cathode (213) of the sub-pixel (21) and the inclined sidewall (223) may be lower than a conductive overlapping stability between the cathode (213) of the sub-pixel (21) and the first sidewall (221), but may be higher than a conductive overlapping stability between the cathode (213) of the sub-pixel (21) and the second sidewall (222) (par. 65).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to adjust the complementary / evaporation angle of AMI as taught by Zhou through routine experimentation to be higher than the first angle in order to provide the desired electrical and stability properties as envisioned.
As insofar as Claim 2 is supported and definite, AMI further teaches wherein the light-emitting device further comprises: a light-emitting material layer (112) located at a side of the first electrode (114) facing the base plate (102); wherein on the first normal section, the light-emitting material layer (112) comprises a third end portion (214) close to the first end portion (226), a third angle is formed between the base plate (102) and a connecting line (216) from the third end portion (214) to the second end portion (206), and the third angle is greater than the second angle; an interval is formed between the light-emitting material layer (112) and the sidewall (111).
As insofar as Claim 3 is definite, AMI further teaches wherein the isolation structure (110) comprises: a first isolation portion (110A), wherein the first isolation portion (110A) has a first surface facing the isolation opening and located in the sidewall (111); a second isolation portion (110B), wherein the second isolation portion (110B) is located at a side of the first isolation portion (110A) away from the base plate (102), an orthographic projection of the first isolation portion (110A) on the base plate (102) is located within an orthographic projection of the second isolation portion (110B) on the base plate (102); the second end portion (203) is located on the second isolation portion (110B).
As insofar as Claim 5 is definite, AMI further teaches wherein a first perpendicular distance is formed between the first end portion (226) and the base plate (102 and/or 126), a second perpendicular distance is formed between the second end portion (206) and the base plate (102 and/or 126), and the first perpendicular distance is less than the second perpendicular distance.
As insofar as Claim 6 is supported and definite, AMI further teaches wherein a first perpendicular distance is formed between the first end portion (226) and the base plate (102 and/or 126), a third perpendicular distance is formed between the third end portion (214) and the base plate (102 and/or 126), and the first perpendicular distance is greater than the third perpendicular distance.
As insofar as Claim 8 is definite, AMI appears to further teach wherein the first angle is greater than 0 degrees, and the first angle is less than 90 degrees; and the first angle is not less than 30 degrees, and the first angle is not greater than 80 degrees as shown. However, if one were to interpret the reference so narrowly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to adjust the angle to provide the sidewall coverage for electrical connectivity as well as structural stability of the first electrode, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
As insofar as Claim 9 is supported and definite, AMI further teaches wherein the light-emitting material layer (112) comprises a hole transport layer, an emission layer, and an electron transport layer that are stacked in sequence (par. 24, 32 and 40) in a direction away from the base plate (102 and/or 126), wherein: one layer of the hole transport layer, the emission layer, and the electron transport layer has a first orthographic projection on the base plate (102 and/or 126), the other layers of the hole transport layer, the emission layer, and the electron transport layer have a second orthographic projection on the base plate (102 and/or 126), and the second orthographic projection is located within the first orthographic projection; and the third end portion (214) is located on the one layer (of 112).
As insofar as Claim 10 is supported and definite, AMI further teaches wherein the electron transport layer is the one layer (of 112), and the hole transport layer and the emission layer are the other layers (of 112); and an orthographic projection of the hole transport layer and the emission layer on the base plate (102 and/or 126) is located within an orthographic projection of the electron transport layer on the base plate (102 and/or 126).
As insofar as Claim 12 is definite, AMI further teaches a pixel definition layer (126) located at one side of the base plate (102), wherein the pixel definition layer (126) encloses and forms a plurality of pixel openings, and the light-emitting device is at least partially located in the pixel opening; the isolation structure (110) is located at a side of the pixel definition layer (126) away from the base plate (102), the isolation opening is connected with a pixel opening corresponding to the isolation opening, and an orthographic projection of the pixel opening on the base plate (102) is located within an orthographic projection of the isolation opening on the base plate (102).
As insofar as Claim 13 is definite, AMI further teaches wherein the light-emitting device further comprises: a second electrode (104; anode; par. 26, 27, 40) located at a side of the first electrode (114) facing the base plate (102); wherein on the first normal section, the second electrode (104) has a fourth end portion extending towards the first end portion (226), and the fourth end portion is located between the pixel definition layer (126) and the base plate (102).
As insofar as Claim 15 is definite, AMI further teaches in Fig. 1 and 2 for example, a first encapsulation layer (116); wherein the first encapsulation layer (116) comprises a plurality of encapsulation units, each of the encapsulation units are configured to encapsulate a corresponding one of the light-emitting devices disposed in an isolation opening of the isolation openings, and two adjacent encapsulation units are disconnected at a side of the isolation structure (110) away from the base plate (102 and/or 126); and at the side of the isolation structure (110) away from the base plate (102 and/or 126), a gap is formed between the encapsulation unit and the isolation structure (110).
As insofar as Claim 16 is definite, AMI further teaches a second encapsulation layer (118); wherein the second encapsulation layer (118) is located at a side of the first encapsulation layer (116) away from the base plate (102 and/or 126), and the second encapsulation layer (118) covers at least the first encapsulation layer (116); the second encapsulation layer (118) is disposed in the gap between the encapsulation unit (or 116) and the isolation structure (110); the second encapsulation layer (118) has a flat surface at a side away from the base plate (102 and/or 126); the display panel further comprises a third encapsulation layer (120), and the third encapsulation layer (120) is located at a side of the second encapsulation layer (118) away from the base plate (102 and/or 126); and the first encapsulation layer (116) and the third encapsulation layer (120) are inorganic encapsulation layers (par. 24, 33 and 35), and the second encapsulation layer (118) is an organic encapsulation layer (par. 35).
As insofar as Claim 17 is definite, AMI tehaces a method for manufacturing a display panel, comprising: providing a base plate (102 and/or 126);
preparing an isolation structure layer on the base plate (102 and/or 126), and patterning the isolation structure layer to obtain an isolation structure (110) and a plurality of isolation openings enclosed and formed by the isolation structure (110), wherein the isolation structure (110) has a sidewall (111) facing the isolation opening, and a first angle is formed between the sidewall (111) and the base plate (102 and/or 126); and
forming a light-emitting device (108) in the isolation opening by evaporation, to contact a first electrode (114) of the light-emitting device (108) with the sidewall (111), and a complementary angle of an evaporation angle is θCATHODE. AMI does not explicitly state one way or the other, if the first angle is less than the complementary angle of the evaporation angle. AMI does teach the known structural relationship between the angles and shadowing effect with respect to the disposition of the second end portion (206) (par. 31, 40-42, 47, 50, 56, 58, 62, 64 and 66).
PNG
media_image1.png
598
1089
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In the same field of endeavor, Zhou teaches in Fig. 5 (par. 28, 30 and 35) for example, a display panel, comprising: a base plate (50); an isolation structure (22), the isolation structure (22) being located on the base plate (50), enclosing and forming a plurality of isolation openings (11), and having a sidewall (of 22A) facing the isolation opening, and a first angle being formed between the sidewall (of 22A) and the base plate (50); a plurality of light-emitting devices (21), the light-emitting device being located in the isolation opening (11) and comprising a first electrode (213; cathode) contacted with the sidewall (of 22A); wherein on a first normal section of the display panel, the first electrode (213) comprises a first end portion (312 in contact with 22A), the isolation structure (22) comprises a second end portion (overhang), the second end portion (overhang) extends from the sidewall (22A) to an isolation opening (11) corresponding to the first end portion (213 in contact with 22A) in a direction away from the first end portion (213 in contact with 22A), a second angle is formed between the base plate (50) and a connecting line from the first end portion (213in contact with 22A) to the second end portion (overhang), and a complementary angle of the second angle is evaporation angle (par. 28). Zhou teaches that the shielding structure may be configured to adjust the evaporation angle (par. 41) and further teaches that the evaporation angle during the evaporation of the cathode (213) may be adjusted. In this way, the cathode (213) may be ensured to be electrically overlapped with at least part of the conductive portion (22A) of the inclined sidewall (223). As a result, the cathode (213) of the sub-pixel (21) may be enabled to be reliably overlapped with the conductive portion (22A) of each sidewall (220) of the isolation structure (22), thereby enhancing the conductive overlapping stability between the cathode (213) and the conductive portion (22A). It can be understood that a conductive overlapping stability between the cathode (213) of the sub-pixel (21) and the inclined sidewall (223) may be lower than a conductive overlapping stability between the cathode (213) of the sub-pixel (21) and the first sidewall (221), but may be higher than a conductive overlapping stability between the cathode (213) of the sub-pixel (21) and the second sidewall (222) (par. 65).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to adjust the complementary / evaporation angle of AMI as taught by Zhou through routine experimentation to be higher than the first angle in order to provide the desired electrical and stability properties as envisioned.
As insofar as Claim 18 is definite, AMI further teaches wherein on a first normal section of the display panel, the first electrode (114) has a first end portion (226), the isolation structure (110) has a second end portion (206), the second end portion (206) extends from the sidewall (111) to an isolation opening corresponding to the first end portion (226) in a direction away from the first end portion (226), a second angle is formed between the base plate (102 and/or 126) and a connecting line (224) from the first end portion (226) to the second end portion (206), and the second angle is equal to the evaporation angle of the first electrode (114).
As insofar as Claim 19 is definite, AMI further teaches wherein the light-emitting device further comprises a light-emitting material layer (112), and forming the light-emitting device in the isolation opening by evaporation further comprises: evaporating the light-emitting material layer (112) before evaporating the first electrode (114), wherein an evaporation angle of the light-emitting material layer (112) is greater than the evaporation angle of the first electrode (114); on the first normal section of the display panel, the light-emitting material layer (112) has a third end portion (214), the third end portion (214) is close to the first end portion (226), a third angle is formed between the base plate (102 and/or 126) and a connecting line (212) from the third end portion (214) to the second end portion (206), and the third angle is equal to the evaporation angle of the light-emitting material layer (112).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, 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:
As insofar as Claim 4 is definite, the prior art of record alone or in combination neither teaches nor makes obvious the invention of the display panel comprising wherein a material of the first isolation portion comprises aluminum, a material of the second isolation portion comprises titanium, and a material of the adhesive portion comprises molybdenum in combination with all of the limitations of Claim 1, 3 and 4.
Regarding Claim 14, the prior art of record alone or in combination neither teaches nor makes obvious the invention of the display panel wherein: an orthographic projection of the fourth end portion on the base plate is located within the orthographic projection of the first isolation portion on the base plate in combination with all of the limitations of Claim 1, 12, 13 and 14.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EARL N TAYLOR whose telephone number is (571)272-8894. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, William Kraig can be reached on (571) 272-8660. 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.
/EARL N TAYLOR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
EARL N. TAYLOR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2896
