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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiu et al. (CN 113480950 A, please see the machine translation attached in this office action) in view of Taniguchi et al. (US 2023/0367045 A1), and further in view of Zhang et al. (CN 110600508 A, please see the machine translation attached in this office action).
Regarding claim 1, Qiu et al. teach in Fig. 3, a display panel (200; [50]), comprising: a substrate (205; [64]); a light emitting layer (2011/2012/2013; [51]), disposed on the substrate (205) and comprising a plurality of light emitting pixels (2011, 2012, 2013; [51]), wherein there is a gap (gap between adjacent two of the 2011, 2012 and 2013) between adjacent two of the light emitting pixels (2011, 2012, 2013); a protective layer (202; [52]), disposed on a side of the light emitting layer (the top side of 2011/2012/2013) away from the substrate (205), wherein the protective layer (202) comprises a plurality of stop blocks (202s; [52]) distributed in an array (see Fig. 3), the plurality of stop blocks (202s) are disposed corresponding to a plurality of gaps (gaps between adjacent two of the 2011, 2012 and 2013) in one-to-one correspondence (see Fig. 3); and a light adjusting layer (101; which can adjust light, [52]), disposed between adjacent two of the stop blocks (202s) and covering the stop blocks (202s), wherein a refractive index of the protective layer (202; [0058]) is less than a refractive index of the light adjusting layer (101; [0058]).
Qiu et al. do not teach a material of the protective layer comprises one or more of acrylics, siloxanes or polyimides, wherein the protective layer is doped with low-refractive-index particles.
In the same field of endeavor of display devices, Taniguchi et al. teach a material of the protective layer (110, a portion of the low-refractive index layer 102, which covers/protects the underlying layers and can be a protective layer; Fig. 3, [144]) comprises one or more of acrylics, siloxanes or polyimides (acrylic ultraviolet curable resin; [144]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the inventions of Qiu et al. and Taniguchi et al., and to use the acrylic ultraviolet curable resin as the material of the protective layer, because Qiu et al. teach the protective layer (202, Qiu et al.) to be a low-refractive index layer having a refractive index of 1.0-1.6 ([58] of Qiu et al.), but is silent about the material of the protective layer, while Taniguchi et al. teach that acrylic ultraviolet curable resin is a common material to fabricate a low-refractive index layer (110; [144] of Taniguchi et al.) having a refractive index of 1.48 ([144] of Taniguchi et al.).
In the same field of endeavor of display devices, Zhang et al. teach wherein the protective layer (10 of a first organic polymer having a lower refractive index than the surrounding second organic polymer; [0044]) is doped with low-refractive-index particles (17; Fig. 3, [0047, 0049]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the inventions of Qiu et al. and Zhang et al., and to further introduce the low-refractive-index particles of Zhang et al. into the protection layer of Qiu et al., because Qiu et al. teach the protective layer (202) being a low refractive index layer ([58] of Qiu et al.) and the low-refractive-index particles can help to reduce the average refractive index of the low refractive index layer ([0049] of Zhang et al.).
Regarding claim 2, Qiu et al. teach in Fig. 3, the display panel according to claim 1, further comprising a polarizer (101/102/103/104; [44, 49]), wherein the polarizer (101/102/103/104) is disposed on a side of the protective layer (the top side of 202) away from the substrate (205), and the polarizer (101/102/103/104) at least comprises a pressure-sensitive adhesive layer (101; [44]), a phase difference layer (102; [44]), a polarizing layer (103; [44]) and a protective film (104; [49]) sequentially stacked away from the substrate (205), wherein the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer (101) also serves as the light adjusting layer (101; which can adjust light, [51]).
Regarding claim 3, Qiu et al. teach in Fig. 3, the display panel according to claim 2, wherein at least part of region of the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer (101) is doped with high-refractive-index particles (1012; [0047]).
Regarding claim 4, Qiu et al. teach in Fig. 3, the display panel according to claim 3, wherein the high-refractive-index particles (1012) are colorless and transparent refraction particles (Qiu et al. teach the high-refractive-index particles (1012) can be zirconium dioxide particles disclosed in Table 1, which is one of the embodiments of “colorless and transparent refraction particles” disclosed in the paragraph [0067-0068] of the current application).
Qiu et al. do not teach the low-refractive-index particles are colorless and transparent refraction particles.
In the same field of endeavor of display devices, Zhang et al. teach low-refractive-index particles (17; Fig. 3, [0047, 0049]) are colorless and transparent refraction particles (17 can be silicon dioxide particles which are colorless and transparent refraction particles ([0048])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the inventions of Qiu et al. and Zhang et al., and to further introduce the low-refractive-index particles of Zhang et al. into the protection layer of Qiu et al., because Qiu et al. teach the protective layer (202) being a low refractive index layer ([58] of Qiu et al.) and the low-refractive-index particles can help to reduce the average refractive index of the low refractive index layer ([0049] of Zhang et al.).
Regarding claim 5, Qiu et al. teach in Fig. 3, the display panel according to claim 3, wherein the high-refractive-index particles (1012) comprise one or more of zirconium oxide particles, and titanium oxide particles, aluminum oxide particles (zirconium dioxide particles; Table 1).
Qiu et al. do not teach the low-refractive-index particles comprise silicon dioxide.
In the same field of endeavor of display devices, Zhang et al. teach the low-refractive-index particles (17; Fig. 3, [0047, 0049]) comprise silicon dioxide ([0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the inventions of Qiu et al. and Zhang et al., and to further introduce the low-refractive-index particles of Zhang et al. into the protection layer of Qiu et al., because Qiu et al. teach the protective layer (202) being a low refractive index layer ([58] of Qiu et al.) and the low-refractive-index particles can help to reduce the average refractive index of the low refractive index layer ([0049] of Zhang et al.).
Regarding claim 6, Qiu et al. teach in Fig. 3, the display panel according to claim 3, wherein a mass ratio of the high-refractive-index particles (1012) to the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer (101) ranges from 1% to 40% (5%; Table 1).
Regarding claim 7, Qiu et al. teach in Fig. 3, the display panel according to claim 2, wherein the refractive index of the light adjusting layer (101) ranges from 1.5 to 2 (1.5; [47]), and the refractive index of the protective layer (202) ranges from 1.1 to 1.4 (1.1; [58]).
Regarding claim 8, Qiu et al. teach in Fig. 3, the display panel according to claim 2, wherein a thickness of the light adjusting layer (101) ranges from 10 microns to 100 microns (20 microns; [48]), and a thickness of the protective layer (202) ranges from 1 micron to 5 microns (2 microns; [59]).
Regarding claim 10, Qiu et al. teach in Fig. 3, the display panel according to claim 1, further comprising: a packaging layer (203; [63]), covering the light emitting layer (2011/2012/2013); and a touch layer (204; [0063]), disposed on a side of the packaging layer (the top side of 203) away from the substrate (205), wherein the protective layer (202) is disposed on a side of the touch layer (the top side of 204) away from the substrate (205).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiu et al., Taniguchi et al. and Zhang et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Huang et al. (CN 113054136 A).
Regarding claim 9, Qiu et al. teach in Fig. 3, wherein a cross-sectional shape of the stop block (202; see Fig. 3).
Qiu et al. do not teach a cross-sectional shape of the stop block is one of a regular triangle or a regular trapezoid.
In the same field of endeavor of display devices, Huang et al. teach a cross-sectional shape of the stop block (510/520; Fig. 3, [31]) is one of a regular triangle or a regular trapezoid (a regular trapezoid; see Fig. 3).
Qiu et al. teach all the claimed elements except that Qiu et al. is using the stop block (202) having a cross-sectional shape of a top rounded rectangular (see Fig. 3) for guiding the light emitted by the LED (see Fig. 8) rather than the stop block having a cross-sectional shape of a regular trapezoid.
In the same field of endeavor of semiconductor manufacturing, Huang et al. teach the stop block (510/520; Fig. 3, [31]) having a cross-sectional shape of a regular trapezoid for guiding the light emitted by the LED (Fig. 3, [31]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the stop block having a cross-sectional shape of a top rounded rectangular and the stop block having a cross-sectional shape of a regular trapezoid are known equivalents for guiding the light emitted by the LED within the semiconductor art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to substitute one know element (the stop block having a cross-sectional shape of a top rounded rectangular) for another known equivalent element (the stop block having a cross-sectional shape of a regular trapezoid) resulting in the predictable result of guiding the light emitted by the LED (KSR rationales B).
Claim(s) 11-17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiu et al. (CN 113480950 A, please see the machine translation attached in the office action mailed on 04/14/2025) in view of Zhang et al. (CN 110600508 A, please see the machine translation attached in this office action).
Regarding claim 11, Qiu et al. teach in Fig. 3, a display panel (200; [50]), comprising a substrate (205; [64]); a light emitting layer (2011/2012/2013; [51]), disposed on the substrate (205) and comprising a plurality of light emitting pixels (2011, 2012, 2013; [51]), wherein there is a gap (gap between adjacent two of the 2011, 2012 and 2013) between adjacent two of the light emitting pixels (2011, 2012, 2013); a protective layer (202; [52]), disposed on a side of the light emitting layer (the top side of 2011/2012/2013) away from the substrate (205), wherein the protective layer (202) comprises a plurality of stop blocks (202s) distributed in an array (see Fig. 3), the plurality of stop blocks (202s) are disposed corresponding to a plurality of gaps (gaps between adjacent two of the 2011, 2012 and 2013) in one-to-one correspondence (see Fig. 3); and a light adjusting layer (101; which can adjust light, [52]), disposed between adjacent two of the stop blocks (202s) and covering the stop blocks (202s), wherein a refractive index of the protective layer (202; [58]) is less than a refractive index of the light adjusting layer (101; [58]).
Qiu et al. do not teach wherein the protective layer is doped with low-refractive-index particles.
In the same field of endeavor of display devices, Zhang et al. teach wherein the protective layer (10 of a first organic polymer having a lower refractive index than the surrounding second organic polymer; [0044]) is doped with low-refractive-index particles (17; Fig. 3, [0047, 0049]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the inventions of Qiu et al. and Zhang et al., and to further introduce the low-refractive-index particles of Zhang et al. into the protection layer of Qiu et al., because Qiu et al. teach the protective layer (202) being a low refractive index layer ([58] of Qiu et al.) and the low-refractive-index particles can help to reduce the average refractive index of the low refractive index layer ([0049] of Zhang et al.).
Regarding claim 12, Qiu et al. teach in Fig. 3, the display panel according to claim 11, further comprising a polarizer (101/102/103/104; [44, 49]), wherein the polarizer (101/102/103/104) is disposed on a side of the protective layer (the top side of 202) away from the substrate (205), and the polarizer (101/102/103/104) at least comprises a pressure-sensitive adhesive layer (101; [44]), a phase difference layer (102; [44]), a polarizing layer (103; [44]) and a protective film (104; [49]) sequentially stacked away from the substrate (205), wherein the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer (101) also serves as the light adjusting layer (101; which can adjust light, [51]).
Regarding claim 13, Qiu et al. teach in Fig. 3, the display panel according to claim 12, wherein at least part of region of the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer (101) is doped with high-refractive-index particles (1012; [0047]).
Regarding claim 14, Qiu et al. teach in Fig. 3, the display panel according to claim 13, wherein the high-refractive-index particles (1012) comprise one or more of zirconium oxide particles, and titanium oxide particles, aluminum oxide particles (zirconium dioxide particles; Table 1).
Qiu et al. do not teach the low-refractive-index particles comprise silicon dioxide.
In the same field of endeavor of display devices, Zhang et al. teach the low-refractive-index particles (17; Fig. 3, [0047, 0049]) comprise silicon dioxide ([0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the inventions of Qiu et al. and Zhang et al., and to further introduce the low-refractive-index particles of Zhang et al. into the protection layer of Qiu et al., because Qiu et al. teach the protective layer (202) being a low refractive index layer ([58] of Qiu et al.) and the low-refractive-index particles can help to reduce the average refractive index of the low refractive index layer ([0049] of Zhang et al.).
Regarding claim 15, Qiu et al. teach in Fig. 3, the display panel according to claim 13, wherein a mass ratio of the high-refractive-index particles (1012) to the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer (101) ranges from 1% to 40% (5%; Table 1).
Regarding claim 16, Qiu et al. teach in Fig. 3, the display panel according to claim 12, wherein the refractive index of the light adjusting layer (101) ranges from 1.5 to 2 (1.5; [47]), and the refractive index of the protective layer (202) ranges from 1.1 to 1.4 (1.1; [58]).
Regarding claim 17, Qiu et al. teach in Fig. 3, the display panel according to claim 12, wherein a thickness of the light adjusting layer (101) ranges from 10 microns to 100 microns (20 microns; [48]), and a thickness of the protective layer (202) ranges from 1 micron to 5 microns (2 microns; [59]).
Regarding claim 19, Qiu et al. teach in Fig. 3, the display panel according to claim 11, further comprising: a packaging layer (203; [63]), covering the light emitting layer (2011/2012/2013); and a touch layer (204; [0063]), disposed on a side of the packaging layer (the top side of 203) away from the substrate (205), wherein the protective layer (202) is disposed on a side of the touch layer (the top side of 204) away from the substrate (205).
Regarding claim 20, Qiu et al. teach in Fig. 3, a display device (200; [50]), comprising a display panel (200; [50]), wherein the display panel (200) comprises: a substrate (205; [64]); a light emitting layer (2011/2012/2013; [51]), disposed on the substrate (205) and comprising a plurality of light emitting pixels (2011, 2012, 2013; [51]), wherein there is a gap (gap between adjacent two of the 2011, 2012 and 2013) between adjacent two of the light emitting pixels (2011, 2012, 2013); a protective layer (202; [52]), disposed on a side of the light emitting layer (the top side of 2011/2012/2013) away from the substrate (205), wherein the protective layer (202) comprises a plurality of stop blocks (202s; [52]) distributed in an array (see Fig. 3), the plurality of stop blocks (202s) are disposed corresponding to a plurality of gaps (gaps between adjacent two of the 2011, 2012 and 2013) in one-to-one correspondence (see Fig. 3); and a light adjusting layer (101; which can adjust light, [52]), disposed between adjacent two of the stop blocks (202s) and covering the stop blocks (202s), wherein a refractive index of the protective layer (202; [58]) is less than a refractive index of the light adjusting layer (101; [58]).
Qiu et al. do not teach wherein the protective layer is doped with low-refractive-index particles.
In the same field of endeavor of display devices, Zhang et al. teach wherein the protective layer (10 of a first organic polymer having a lower refractive index than the surrounding second organic polymer; [0044]) is doped with low-refractive-index particles (17; Fig. 3, [0047, 0049]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the inventions of Qiu et al. and Zhang et al., and to further introduce the low-refractive-index particles of Zhang et al. into the protection layer of Qiu et al., because Qiu et al. teach the protective layer (202) being a low refractive index layer ([58] of Qiu et al.) and the low-refractive-index particles can help to reduce the average refractive index of the low refractive index layer ([0049] of Zhang et al.).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiu et al. and Zhang et al. as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Huang et al. (CN 113054136 A).
Regarding claim 18, Qiu et al. teach in Fig. 3, wherein a cross-sectional shape of the stop block (202; see Fig. 3).
Qiu et al. do not teach a cross-sectional shape of the stop block is one of a regular triangle or a regular trapezoid.
In the same field of endeavor of display devices, Huang et al. teach a cross-sectional shape of the stop block (510/520; Fig. 3, [31]) is one of a regular triangle or a regular trapezoid (a regular trapezoid; see Fig. 3).
Qiu et al. teach all the claimed elements except that Qiu et al. is using the stop block (202) having a cross-sectional shape of a top rounded rectangular (see Fig. 3) for guiding the light emitted by the LED (see Fig. 8) rather than the stop block having a cross-sectional shape of a regular trapezoid.
In the same field of endeavor of semiconductor manufacturing, Huang et al. teach the stop block (510/520; Fig. 3, [31]) having a cross-sectional shape of a regular trapezoid for guiding the light emitted by the LED (Fig. 3, [31]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the stop block having a cross-sectional shape of a top rounded rectangular and the stop block having a cross-sectional shape of a regular trapezoid are known equivalents for guiding the light emitted by the LED within the semiconductor art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to substitute one know element (the stop block having a cross-sectional shape of a top rounded rectangular) for another known equivalent element (the stop block having a cross-sectional shape of a regular trapezoid) resulting in the predictable result of guiding the light emitted by the LED (KSR rationales B).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments, filed 02/06/2026, overcome the rejections to claims 5 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 112. The rejections to claims 5 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1 and 11 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HSIN YI HSIEH whose telephone number is (571)270-3043. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 - 5:00 pm.
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, Zandra V Smith can be reached on 571-272-2429. 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.
/HSIN YI HSIEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899 5/31/2026
Prosecution Insights