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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3 April 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 3 April 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 3 April 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-8, 18-19, 21-26 under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 3 December 2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect the 35 USC 103 rejections of claims 1-8, 18-19, 21-27 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 18, 21-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zang (CN 109148709) in view of Jin et al. (US 2019/0326552 A1) and Gao et al. (US 2019/0279548 A1).
With respect to claim 1: Zang teaches “a display panel (throughout reference), comprising: an array substrate (1); a light-emitting device layer (3) disposed on the array substrate (see Figs. 1-4); and an ultraviolet light conversion layer (5, 51, 52) disposed on a light-emitting side of the light- emitting device layer (see Figs. 1-4) and configured to lower energy of high-energy ultraviolet light (page 5 last paragraph “For example, Tb3+ and Ce3+ ions to wavelength in the range of 350nm ~ 250nm ultraviolet has good absorbing effect. the energy transfer to Yb3+ is converted into 900 to 1100nm of near infrared light emitted by both Eu3+ and Bi3+ ions to wavelength in the range of 400nm ~ 300 ultraviolet has good absorption effect, the energy transfer to Yb3+ 1100nm into 900 % of near infrared”), wherein the ultraviolet light conversion layer comprises a first ultraviolet light conversion layer (52) and a second ultraviolet light conversion layer (51) on the first ultraviolet light conversion layer (see Fig. 2), wherein the ultraviolet light conversion layer comprises light- absorbing ions (page 5 last paragraph “For example, Tb3+ and Ce3+ ions to wavelength in the range of 350nm ~ 250nm ultraviolet has good absorbing effect. the energy transfer to Yb3+ is converted into 900 to 1100nm of near infrared light emitted by both Eu3+ and Bi3+ ions to wavelength in the range of 400nm ~ 300 ultraviolet has good absorption effect, the energy transfer to Yb3+ 1100nm into 900 % of near infrared”), wherein a concentration of the light-absorbing ions in the first ultraviolet light conversion layer is less than a concentration of the light-absorbing ions in the second ultraviolet light conversion laver (page 7 “Specifically, the embodiment of the invention provided in the electroluminescent display panel, as shown in FIG. 4, the sensitizer ions and activator ion is 1% to 51 in mass percentage of the first conversion layer 10%, so that the refractive index of the first conversion layer 51 between 1.5~1.6, the mass fraction of the second conversion layer 1% the sensitizer ion and activator ion is 10% to 52”).
Zang does not specifically teach that “a pixel opening area and a pixel non-aperture area that are arranged adjacent to each other, wherein the concentration of the light-absorbing ions in the ultraviolet light conversion layer at the position corresponding to the pixel non-aperture area is greater than zero”.
However, Jin teaches “a pixel opening area (area of 31) and a pixel non-aperture area (area of 32) that are arranged adjacent to each other (see Fig. 4), a concentration of the light-absorbing ions (40), wherein the concentration of the light-absorbing ions in the ultraviolet light conversion layer at the position corresponding to the pixel non-aperture area is greater than zero (see Fig. 4; the light absorbing structure is present in the non-aperture area)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display panel of Zang to have pixel non-aperture areas as taught by Jin in order to define distinct red, green, and blue pixels (Jin paragraph 19).
Zang in view of the Fig. 4 embodiment of Jin does not specifically teach “a concentration of the light-absorbing ions at a position corresponding to the pixel opening area is greater than a concentration of the light-absorbing ions at a position corresponding to the pixel non-aperture area”.
However, Gao teaches that a higher concentration of UV absorbers confers greater protection from the damage caused by UV rays (paragraph 30) and further teaches that the red and green pixels have an increased need for UV protection (paragraph 30), thus suggesting increasing the concentration of light absorbing ions in these pixels as compared to in the blue pixels and pixel non-aperture areas. Gao’s UV absorber concentration is stated to be in a range of 5-40 % (paragraph 25), which is significantly higher than the 1-10% taught by Zhang.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the display panel of Zang in view of Jin by increasing the concentration of UV absorbers in at least the green and red pixel opening areas as taught by Gao in order to offer better protection (Gao paragraph 30).
With respect to claim 2: Zang in view of Jin and Gao teaches “the display panel according to claim 1 (see above)”.
Zang teaches “wherein the light-absorbing ions comprise at least one of Yb3+, Tm3+, or Ce3+ (page 3 paragraphs 4-5 “In one possible implementation, the embodiment of the invention provided by the electroluminescent display panel, the sensitizer ions include Tb3+, Pr3+, Nd3+, Eu3+, Ce3+, Bi3+, or Mn2+; the activator ion comprises Yb3+, Nd3+, or Ho3+”).
With respect to claim 3: Zang in view of Jin and Gao teaches “the display panel according to claim 1 (see above)”.
Zang teaches “wherein a content of the light-absorbing ions ranges from 1% to 10% (page 3 paragraph 6 “In one possible implementation, the embodiment of the invention provided by the electroluminescent display panel, the sensitizer ions and the activator ion occupies the first conversion layer or the mass fraction of the second conversion layer is 1% to 10%”).
With respect to claim 5: Zang in view of Jin and Gao teaches “the display panel according to claim 1 (see above)”.
Zang teaches “wherein wavelengths of photons in the light whose energy is lowered by the ultraviolet light conversion layer range from 900 nm to 1100 nm (page 5 last paragraph “For example, Tb3+ and Ce3+ ions to wavelength in the range of 350nm ~ 250nm ultraviolet has good absorbing effect. the energy transfer to Yb3+ is converted into 900 to 1100nm of near infrared light emitted by both Eu3+ and Bi3+ ions to wavelength in the range of 400nm ~ 300 ultraviolet has good absorption effect, the energy transfer to Yb3+ 1100nm into 900 % of near infrared”)”.
With respect to claim 6: Zang in view of Jin and Gao teaches “the display panel according to claim 1 (see above)”.
Zang teaches “further comprising an encapsulation layer (7, 8, or 9) and a protective layer (7, 9, or 6), wherein the encapsulation layer is disposed on the light-emitting side of the light-emitting device layer (see Fig. 4), and the protective layer is disposed on the encapsulation layer (see Fig. 4)”.
With respect to claim 7: Zang in view of Jin and Gao teaches “the display panel according to claim 6 (see above)”.
Zang teaches “wherein the encapsulation layer (9) is disposed on the light-emitting device layer (see Fig. 4), the ultraviolet light conversion layer (7) is disposed on the encapsulation layer (see Fig. 4), and the protective layer (6) is disposed on the ultraviolet light conversion layer (see Fig. 4)”.
With respect to claim 8: Zang in view of Jin and Gao teaches “the display panel according to claim 6 (see above)”.
Zang teaches “wherein the ultraviolet light conversion layer (8) is disposed on the light-emitting device layer (see Fig. 4), the encapsulation layer (9) is disposed on the ultraviolet light conversion layer (see Fig. 4), and the protective layer (6) is disposed on the encapsulation layer (see Fig. 4)”.
With respect to claim 18: Zang teaches “a display device (Fig. 5), comprising a display panel (throughout reference), wherein the display panel comprises: an array substrate (1): a light-emitting device layer (3) disposed on the array substrate (see Figs. 1-4): and an ultraviolet light conversion layer (5, 51, 52) disposed on a light-emitting side of the light- emitting device layer (see Figs. 1-4) and configured to lower energy of high-energy ultraviolet light (page 5 last paragraph “For example, Tb3+ and Ce3+ ions to wavelength in the range of 350nm ~ 250nm ultraviolet has good absorbing effect. the energy transfer to Yb3+ is converted into 900 to 1100nm of near infrared light emitted by both Eu3+ and Bi3+ ions to wavelength in the range of 400nm ~ 300 ultraviolet has good absorption effect, the energy transfer to Yb3+ 1100nm into 900 % of near infrared”); wherein the ultraviolet light conversion layer comprises a first ultraviolet light conversion layer (52) and a second ultraviolet light conversion layer (51) on the first ultraviolet light conversion layer (see Fig. 2); wherein the ultraviolet light conversion layer comprises light-absorbing ions (page 5 last paragraph “For example, Tb3+ and Ce3+ ions to wavelength in the range of 350nm ~ 250nm ultraviolet has good absorbing effect. the energy transfer to Yb3+ is converted into 900 to 1100nm of near infrared light emitted by both Eu3+ and Bi3+ ions to wavelength in the range of 400nm ~ 300 ultraviolet has good absorption effect, the energy transfer to Yb3+ 1100nm into 900 % of near infrared”)”.
Zang does not specifically teach that “a pixel opening area and a pixel non-aperture area that are arranged adjacent to each other, wherein the concentration of the light-absorbing ions in the ultraviolet light conversion layer at the position corresponding to the pixel non-aperture area is greater than zero”.
However, Jin teaches “a pixel opening area (area of 31) and a pixel non-aperture area (area of 32) that are arranged adjacent to each other (see Fig. 4), a concentration of the light-absorbing ions (40), wherein the concentration of the light-absorbing ions in the ultraviolet light conversion layer at the position corresponding to the pixel non-aperture area is greater than zero (see Fig. 4; the light absorbing structure is present in the non-aperture area)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display panel of Zang to have pixel non-aperture areas as taught by Jin in order to define distinct red, green, and blue pixels (Jin paragraph 19).
Zang in view of the Fig. 4 embodiment of Jin does not specifically teach “a concentration of the light-absorbing ions at a position corresponding to the pixel opening area is greater than a concentration of the light-absorbing ions at a position corresponding to the pixel non-aperture area”.
However, Gao teaches that a higher concentration of UV absorbers confers greater protection from the damage caused by UV rays (paragraph 30) and further teaches that the red and green pixels have an increased need for UV protection (paragraph 30), thus suggesting increasing the concentration of light absorbing ions in these pixels as compared to in the blue pixels and pixel non-aperture areas. Gao’s UV absorber concentration is stated to be in a range of 5-40 % (paragraph 25), which is significantly higher than the 1-10% taught by Zhang.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the display panel of Zang in view of Jin by increasing the concentration of UV absorbers in at least the green and red pixel opening areas as taught by Gao in order to offer better protection (Gao paragraph 30).
With respect to claim 21: Zang in view of Jin and Gao teaches “the display device according to claim 18 (see above)”.
Zang teaches “wherein the light-absorbing ions comprise at least one of Yb3+, Tm3+, or Ce3+ (page 3 paragraphs 4-5 “In one possible implementation, the embodiment of the invention provided by the electroluminescent display panel, the sensitizer ions include Tb3+, Pr3+, Nd3+, Eu3+, Ce3+, Bi3+, or Mn2+; the activator ion comprises Yb3+, Nd3+, or Ho3+”).
With respect to claim 22: Zang in view of Jin and Gao teaches “the display device according to claim 18 (see above)”.
Zang teaches “wherein a content of the light-absorbing ions ranges from 1% to 10% (page 3 paragraph 6 “In one possible implementation, the embodiment of the invention provided by the electroluminescent display panel, the sensitizer ions and the activator ion occupies the first conversion layer or the mass fraction of the second conversion layer is 1% to 10%”).
With respect to claim 23: Zang in view of Jin and Gao teaches “the display panel according to claim 18 (see above)”.
Zang teaches “wherein wavelengths of photons in the light whose energy is lowered by the ultraviolet light conversion laye range from 900 nm to 1100 nm (page 5 last paragraph “For example, Tb3+ and Ce3+ ions to wavelength in the range of 350nm ~ 250nm ultraviolet has good absorbing effect. the energy transfer to Yb3+ is converted into 900 to 1100nm of near infrared light emitted by both Eu3+ and Bi3+ ions to wavelength in the range of 400nm ~ 300 ultraviolet has good absorption effect, the energy transfer to Yb3+ 1100nm into 900 % of near infrared”)”.
With respect to claim 24: Zang in view of Jin and Gao teaches “the display device according to claim 118 (see above)”.
Zang teaches “further comprising an encapsulation layer (7, 8, or 9) and a protective layer (7, 9, or 6), wherein the encapsulation layer is disposed on the light-emitting side of the light-emitting device layer (see Fig. 4), and the protective layer is disposed on the encapsulation layer (see Fig. 4)”.
With respect to claim 25: Zang in view of Jin and Gao teaches “the display device according to claim 24 (see above)”.
Zang teaches “wherein the encapsulation layer (9) is disposed on the light-emitting device layer (see Fig. 4), the ultraviolet light conversion layer (7) is disposed on the encapsulation layer (see Fig. 4), and the protective layer (6) is disposed on the ultraviolet light conversion layer (see Fig. 4)”.
With respect to claim 26: Zang in view of Jin and Gao teaches “the display panel according to claim 24 (see above)”.
Zang teaches “wherein the ultraviolet light conversion layer (8) is disposed on the light-emitting device layer (see Fig. 4), the encapsulation layer (9) is disposed on the ultraviolet light conversion layer (see Fig. 4), and the protective layer (6) is disposed on the encapsulation layer (see Fig. 4)”.
With respect to claim 27: Zang in view of Jin and Gao teaches “The display panel according to claim 1 (see above)”.
Zang implicitly teaches “wherein the light-absorbing ions are configured to perform quantum-cutting on external ultraviolet light passing therethrough (page 5 last paragraph “For example, Tb3+ and Ce3+ ions to wavelength in the range of 350nm ~ 250nm ultraviolet has good absorbing effect. the energy transfer to Yb3+ is converted into 900 to 1100nm of near infrared light emitted by both Eu3+ and Bi3+ ions to wavelength in the range of 400nm ~ 300 ultraviolet has good absorption effect, the energy transfer to Yb3+ 1100nm into 900 % of near infrared”; since the Ce3+ ions are the same as applicant uses (see paragraph 46 of the specification), they must necessarily have the same properties)”.
Claims 4, 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zang in view of Jin and Gao as applied to claims 1, 18 above, and further in view of Nishimura (US 2020/0103570 A1).
With respect to claim 4: Zang in view of Jin teaches “the display panel according to claim 1 (see above)”.
Zang does not specifically teach “wherein a thickness of the ultraviolet light conversion layer ranges from 1 µm to 10 µm”.
However, Nishimura teaches “wherein a thickness of the ultraviolet light conversion layer ranges from 1 µm to 10 µm (paragraph 83)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display panel of Zang to form the UV conversion layer of Zang to the thickness taught by Nishimura due to the art recognized suitability of a layer of this thickness for the purpose of protecting a display panel from the UV content of sunlight (Nishimura paragraph 83).
With respect to claim 19: Zang in view of Jin teaches “the display panel according to claim 18 (see above)”.
Zang does not specifically teach “wherein a thickness of the ultraviolet light conversion layer ranges from 1 µm to 10 µm”.
However, Nishimura teaches “wherein a thickness of the ultraviolet light conversion layer ranges from 1 µm to 10 µm (paragraph 83)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display panel of Zang to form the UV conversion layer of Zang to the thickness taught by Nishimura due to the art recognized suitability of a layer of this thickness for the purpose of protecting a display panel from the UV content of sunlight (Nishimura paragraph 83).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Suzuki et al. (US 2010/0104775 A1), which teaches UV absorbers for a display panel.
Luo et al. (US 2020/0098838 A1), which teaches a display panel.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL J. LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-5721. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 EST M-F.
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, ABDULMAJEED AZIZ can be reached at (571)270-5046. 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.
/NATHANIEL J LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2875
/ABDULMAJEED AZIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights