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
1. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/24/2025 has been entered.
Status of the Application
2. Acknowledgement is made of the amendment received on 12/24/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
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.
3. Claims 1, 5, 7-11, 15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan (CN 110098230) in view of Yu (US 2021/0184178).
Re claim 1, Fan teaches, under BRI, Figs. 1-6, claims 1, 2, 6 & 7, pages 5-9, a display panel (200), comprising:
-a substrate (10);
-a pixel definition layer (40) disposed on a side of the substrate (10), wherein the pixel definition layer (40) comprises a plurality of first pixel openings (between patterns of 40);
-a light-emitting layer (50) disposed on a side of the pixel definition layer (40) away from the substrate (10), wherein the light-emitting layer (50) comprises a plurality of first light-emitting pixel units displaying a first color (e.g., via color filter) and a plurality of second light-emitting pixel units displaying a second color (e.g., via color filter), and the first light-emitting pixel units are arranged corresponding to the first pixel openings (between patterns of 40); and
-a color filter layer (20) disposed on the side of the pixel definition layer away from the substrate (10) (e.g., portions of 22 & 23 over 21 away from 10), wherein the color filter layer comprises a light-shielding layer (21 and/or 24), and the light-shielding layer (21 and/or 24) comprises a plurality of first openings (between patterns of 21/24) arranged corresponding to the first pixel openings,
wherein the color filter layer (20) further comprises: a first color resist layer (22) allowing transmittance of the first color and a second color resist layer (23) allowing transmittance of the second color, the first color resist layer (22) is at least disposed at the first openings corresponding to the first pixel openings, the second color resist layer (23) is disposed on a side of the light-shielding layer (21 and/or 24) away (portions of 23 over 22) from the substrate (10), the second color resist layer (23) and the first color resist layer (22) overlap or contact (*) with the light- shielding layer (21/24), the second color resist layer (23) is also provided with second openings (between patterns of 23, space defined by opposite sides of 23) corresponding to the first pixel openings, and overlapping portions of the first openings (between patterns of 21/24) and the second openings (between 23) form light-transmitting openings of the color filter layer (20).
Note: (*) when considering “or contact”, layer 24 can be considered as light shielding layer.
PNG
media_image1.png
238
550
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
382
505
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fan does not explicitly teach the second color different from the first color.
Yu teaches “… light sources of the display panel generate different colors of light through different color sub-pixels” [0030].
As taught by Yu, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize & modify the above teaching into Fan to obtain the second color different from the first color in the pixel units as claimed, because it aids in increasing luminous efficiency of the OLED displays.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Yu in combination with Fan due to above reason.
Note: Yu teaches shielding layers in color filter substrate.
Re claim 5, Fan teaches, Fig. 6, orthographic projections of the second openings (between 23) on the display panel are located within orthographic projections of the first openings (between 21/24) on the display panel.
Re claim 7, Fan teaches, under BRI, Fig. 6, the first color resist layer (22) is disposed on a side of the second color resist layer (23) away from the substrate (10) (e.g., portion of 22 above 21/24), or the first color resist layer (22) is disposed between the second color resist layer (23) and the light-shielding layer (21/24), and the first color resist layer (22) covers at least an area corresponding to the second openings (between 23).
Re claim 8, Fan teaches, Fig. 6, the second color resist layer (23) partially overlaps the light-shielding layer (21/24), and the second color resist layer (23) partially overlaps the first color resist layer (22).
Re claim 9, Fan teaches, Fig. 6, at least part of an orthographic projection of the second color resist layer (part of 23) on the display panel (200) is outside the orthographic projections of the first openings (between 21/24) on the display panel (200), and at least part of an orthographic projection of the first color resist layer (part of 22) on the display panel (200) is outside the orthographic projections of the second openings (between 23) on the display panel (200).
Re claim 10, Fan/Yu does not explicitly teach light transmittance of the light- transmitting openings of the color filter layer is greater than or equal to 40%, and the light-shielding layer comprises a material with an optical density greater than or equal to 1.5.
Fan does teach, Fig. 6, the light transmitting openings of the color filter (20) & the light-shielding layer (color resisting layer 21 and/or 24) (similar to the claimed invention).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice bounded by well-known manufacturing constraints and ascertainable by routine experimentation and optimization to choose particular light transmittance/optical density, because applicant has not disclosed that, in view of the applied prior art, the light/transadmittance/optical destiny are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. For that matter, applicant has not disclosed that the light/transadmittance/optical destiny are for any purpose or produce any result. Moreover, it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another concentration(s). Indeed, it has been held that mere light/transadmittance/optical destiny limitation(s) are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to try the particular claimed light/transadmittance/optical destiny, because a change in light/transadmittance/optical destiny would have been a known option within the technical grasp of a person of ordinary skill in the art and, "a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007). See also, Pfizer Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1852 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Re claim 11, Fan teaches, under BRI, Figs. 1-6, claims 1 & 6, pages 5-9, a display panel, comprising:
-a substrate (10);
-a pixel definition layer (40) disposed on a side of the substrate (10), wherein the pixel definition layer (40) comprises a plurality of first pixel openings (between patterns of 40);
-a light-emitting layer (50) disposed on a side of the pixel definition layer (40) away from the substrate (10), wherein the light-emitting layer (50) comprises a plurality of first light-emitting pixel units displaying a first color (e.g., via color filter) and a plurality of second light-emitting pixel units displaying a second color (e.g., via color filter), and the first light-emitting pixel units are arranged corresponding to the first pixel openings (between patterns of 40); and
-a color filter layer (20) disposed on the side of the pixel definition layer away from the substrate (10) (e.g., portions of 22 & 23 over 21 away from 10), wherein the color filter layer comprises a light-shielding layer (21 and/or 24), and the light-shielding layer (21) comprises a plurality of first openings (between patterns of 21/24) arranged corresponding to the first pixel openings,
wherein the color filter layer (20) further comprises: a first color resist layer (22) allowing transmittance of the first color and a second color resist layer (23) allowing transmittance of the second color, the first color resist layer (22) is at least disposed at the first openings corresponding to the first pixel openings, the second color resist layer (23) is disposed on a side of the light-shielding layer (21/24) away (portions of 23 over 22) from the substrate (10), the second color resist layer (23) and the first color resist layer (22) overlap or contact (*) with the light- shielding layer (21/24), the second color resist layer (23) is also provided with second openings (between patterns of 23, space defined by opposite sides of 23) corresponding to the first pixel openings, and overlapping portions of the first openings (between patterns of 21/24) and the second openings (between 23) form light-transmitting openings (between 22, 23) of the color filter layer (20), and
wherein the first light-emitting pixel units (of 50) are located in the first pixel openings (between 40), and the first pixel openings (between 40) are greater than or equal to the light-transmitting openings (between 22 & 23) of the color filter layer (20).
Note: (*) when considering “or contact”, layer 24 can be considered as light shielding layer.
PNG
media_image1.png
238
550
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
382
505
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fan does not explicitly teach the second color different from the first color.
Yu teaches “… light sources of the display panel generate different colors of light through different color sub-pixels” [0030].
As taught by Yu, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize & modify the above teaching into Fan to obtain the second color different from the first color in the pixel units as claimed, because it aids in increasing luminous efficiency of the OLED displays.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Yu in combination with Fan due to above reason.
Note: Yu teaches shielding layers in color filter substrate.
Re claim 15, Fan teaches, Fig. 6, orthographic projections of the second openings (between 23) on the display panel are located within orthographic projections of the first openings (between 21/24) on the display panel.
Re claim 17, Fan teaches, under BRI, Fig. 6, the first color resist layer (22) is disposed on a side of the second color resist layer (23) away from the substrate (10) (e.g., portion of 22 above 21/24), or the first color resist layer (22) is disposed between the second color resist layer (23) and the light-shielding layer (21/24), and the first color resist layer (22) covers at least an area corresponding to the second openings (between 23).
Re claim 18, Fan teaches, Fig. 6, the second color resist layer (23) partially overlaps the light-shielding layer (21/24), and the second color resist layer (23) partially overlaps the first color resist layer (22).
Re claim 19, Fan teaches, Fig. 6, at least part of an orthographic projection of the second color resist layer (part of 23) on the display panel (200) is outside the orthographic projections of the first openings (between 21/24) on the display panel (200), and at least part of an orthographic projection of the first color resist layer (part of 22) on the display panel (200) is outside the orthographic projections of the second openings (between 23) on the display panel (200).
Re claim 20, Fan/Yu does not explicitly teach light transmittance of the light- transmitting openings of the color filter layer is greater than or equal to 40%, and the light-shielding layer comprises a material with an optical density greater than or equal to 1.5.
Fan does teach, Fig. 6, the light transmitting openings of the color filter (20) & the light-shielding layer (color resisting layer 21 and/or 24) (similar to the claimed invention).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice bounded by well-known manufacturing constraints and ascertainable by routine experimentation and optimization to choose particular light transmittance/optical density, because applicant has not disclosed that, in view of the applied prior art, the light/transadmittance/optical destiny are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. For that matter, applicant has not disclosed that the light/transadmittance/optical destiny are for any purpose or produce any result. Moreover, it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another concentration(s). Indeed, it has been held that mere light/transadmittance/optical destiny limitation(s) are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to try the particular claimed light/transadmittance/optical destiny, because a change in light/transadmittance/optical destiny would have been a known option within the technical grasp of a person of ordinary skill in the art and, "a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007). See also, Pfizer Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1852 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
4. Claims 2, 6, 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan as modified by Yu as applied to claims 1 & 11 above, and further in view of Yokozawa (US 2010/0253819).
The teachings of Fan/Yu have been discussed above.
Re claims 2, 6, 13 & 16, Fan/Yu does not explicitly teach a top view pattern of each of the light-transmitting openings of the color filter layer comprises a circle or a quasi-circular polygon, the quasi-circular polygon comprises a plurality of sides and a plurality of inflection points connecting adjacent ones of the sides, the quasi-circular polygon further comprises a center point, and distances from the center point to the plurality of inflection points are all equal.
Yokazawa teaches, Figs. 1A, 16A & 17A, a top view pattern of each of the light-transmitting openings of the color filter layer (22, 122) comprises a circle or a quasi-circular polygon, the quasi-circular polygon comprises a plurality of sides and a plurality of inflection points connecting adjacent ones of the sides, the quasi-circular polygon further comprises a center point, and distances from the center point to the plurality of inflection points are all equal.
As taught by Yokazawa, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize & modify the above teaching into Fan to obtain a top view pattern of each of the light-transmitting openings of the color filter layer comprises a circle or a quasi-circular polygon, the quasi-circular polygon comprises a plurality of sides and a plurality of inflection points connecting adjacent ones of the sides, the quasi-circular polygon further comprises a center point, and distances from the center point to the plurality of inflection points are all equal as clamed, because it aids preventing a reduction in image quality. Further, a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Yokazawa in combination with Fan/Yu due to above reason.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 3, 4, 13 & 14 are 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.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant's arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Response to arguments on newly added limitations are responded to in the above rejection.
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUY T.V. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7431. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7AM-4PM, alternative Friday off.
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, EVA MONTALVO can be reached at (571) 270-3829. 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.
/DUY T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818 5/4/26
Prosecution Insights