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 .
Election/Restrictions and Response to Arguments
Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR
1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking
claim. An election with traverse was made for Group I in the reply on May 13th, 2026, where the Applicant’s statements on the Claims 1-15 reading on the elected group are acknowledged.
Applicant’s arguments filed May 13th, 2026 have been fully considered but are found not fully persuasive.
With regard to arguments made towards the lack of unity the Examiner finds the arguments the method of manufacturing described in Group II as being specifically tailored for the device in Group I as said on page 5 of Remarks to be unpersuasive, as there is reason to believe the method of making could be different and still produce the device represented in Group I. The independent Claim 16 is mentioned to express how method is specific to device described but Claim 16 merely recites elementary steps of forming the device such as supplying a layer, attaching a layer to another, and etching which are all typical forms of device manufacturing. On lines 5 and 6 of Claim 16, there is a distinct step of manufacture but an inventor could achieve the placement of a light absorbing layer in the described gaps by specifically filling them or by using a liquid filler instead of a coating across the light emitting elements. Therefore, the manufacturing process is not unique to the device at hand. As pursuant 37 CFR 1.475(b), the applicant must provide a specific process adapted for manufacturing this device but as of the current record, only well understood manufacturing processes are presented.
In regard to the arguments made on page 6 pertaining to a shared technical feature, the Examiner finds the argument unpersuasive. Per the argument made of Group I and II sharing a technical feature, the Examiner finds there are no linking concepts between the product and the process of making from claims pertaining to said areas do not define a shared technical feature. There is motivation for there to be a shared feature but at the present disclosure the technical feature is not fully realized in the claim language.
In regards to arguments made pertaining to contribution over prior art (a), the Examiner finds that Liu et al. (CN 213025159 U, hereinafter “L1”) use of a “bearing substrate” to be similarly described to the “array substrate” as disclosed by the applicant, and therefore the arguments are unpersuasive. Within the description of L1, it is mentioned on pg. 2 par. 13 “the bearing substrate comprises a plurality of through holes passing through the bearing substrate; the inner part of the through hole is provided with an auxiliary wiring; the driving array is electrically connected with the circuit control unit set on the second surface through the auxiliary wiring” and on pg. 4 par. 7 “light emitting element connected to the driving array”. This bearing substrate as provided is connected to the light emitting elements and would have the ability to control such through the driving array within the substrate.
With regards to contributions over prior art (b), the argument of technical feature needing to be overcome by the prior art is unpersuasive as the applicant is importing claim limitations from the specification that are not explicitly described within the claims (see MPEP 2111.01). Specifically, the claims are interpreted as their plain meaning, not their intended use, and the use described within the specification is not disputed within the claims. Therefore, the structural elements in combination from another device with the intention of another use can be used as they have the same plain meaning.
As mentioned on page 7 of the Remarks with regard to the presents of search
burden, the Examiner finds the inclusion of multiple classification areas provided for this
invention as reason to believe for search burden. There are multiple areas of classification that
would require searching in multiple different way even before any additional areas the Examiner
might deem necessary for a thorough and complete search of the available art. Even if there is overlap between the two groups, the prior art necessary to properly cover the method and device could be found outside of the groups provided.
For the reasons set forth above, the examiner finds the restriction requirement is still
deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Note by the Examiner
For clarity, the reference to specific claim numbers are presented in bold. Cited claim limitations are presented in bold the first time they are associated with a particular prior art disclosing the cited limitations, and subsequent reference to the already disclosed claim limitations are presented un-bolded. Certain elements from prior art which are not required by the claims are also presented un-bolded if they are particularly pertinent to understanding how the references are being combined. Item-to-item matching and Examiner explanations for 102 &/or 103 rejections have been provided in parenthesis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 9 is 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 9 cites “a third gap is provided between the light absorbing layer and the adjacent light emitting element” where the third gap has a different structure than the first gap of Claim 1 and second gap of Claim 5. Appropriate correction is required where the “third gap” of Claim 9 needs to be the second gap of Claim 5, or Claim 9 needs to be dependent on Claim 5.
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.
Claims 1-7, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Liu et al. (CN 213025159 U, see attached translation), hereinafter as L1, in view of Peng et al. (CN-112713175-A, see attached translation), hereinafter as P1.
Regarding Claim 1, L1 discloses a display screen (see pg. 2 par. 16 “the utility model claims a display device”), comprising:
a display panel (see FIGs 1-3, elements 4 and 5, and pg. 3 par. 13 “4, a first sub-display panel; 5, a second sub display panel”); and
a light bar, attached on a display surface of the display panel (see FIG. 1-3 where the light bar composition as described below is attached to the surface of the sub-display panels 4 and 5); wherein
L1 does not explicitly disclose the light bar comprises an array substrate and
L1 discloses a plurality of light emitting elements arranged on the array substrate in parallel (see FIG. 1-3, elements 1, 11, and 12, and pg. 4 par. 8 “ a first light emitting element 11…a second light emitting element 12…light emitting element is a flip-chip LED chip 1” where in FIG. 1-3 it can be seen how these elements are arranged in parallel), a first gap being provided between two adjacent light emitting elements (see FIG. 1-3 where the left and right light emitting elements 12 have gaps between them);
and wherein the light bar further comprises a light absorbing layer (see FIG. 1-3, element 2, and pg. 4 par. 5 “light absorbing layer 2”) arranged on the array substrate (see FIG. 5 where the light absorbing layer 2 is disposed on the sub-display panels which contain substrates as mentioned prior), and the light absorbing layer is arranged in the first gap between at least two adjacent light emitting elements (see FIG. 1-3 where the light absorbing element 2 is between the two light emitting elements 12 on the left and right sides of the device).
P1 discloses the light bar comprises an array substrate (see FIG. 1 elements 30 and 10, pg. 4 par. 4 “array substrate 10” and pg. 4 par. 6 “light emitting layer 30”)
The array substrate as disclosed by P1 is incorporated and replaces the bearing substrate mentioned prior as disclosed by L1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to incorporate P1 into L1 as there is motivation to have an array substrate attached to the light bar in order to properly control the light emitting layer. Being able to properly control the light emitting elements separate to those within the display panel is obvious and provides predictable results (see P1 pg. 4 par. 2-4).
Regarding Claim 2, L1 and P1 disclose the display screen of claim 1, where L1 further discloses wherein the display screen comprises at least two display panels (elements 4 and 5), a splicing slit exists between the two display panels (see FIG. 1 and 2, element 3, pg. 5 par. 2 “splicing gap 3”), and the light bar covers the splicing slit (see FIGs. 1 and 3 where the splicing gap shown in FIG. 1 is later covered in FIG. 3 by the created light bar made by elements 11, 12, and 2, also see pg. 5 par. 2 “the light absorbing layer 2 is set in the top part of each sub display panel and the splicing gap 3”).
Regarding Claim 3, L1 and P1 disclose the display screen of claim 2, where L1 further discloses wherein the display screen comprises a plurality of display panels (see FIG. 2, elements 4, 5, 6, and 7 and pg. 5 par. 8 “first sub-display panel 4, the second sub display panel 5, the third sub-display panel 6, the fourth sub-display panel 7” being a plurality of display panels in the display device), and the light bar covers the splicing slit between any two adjacent display panels (see FIGs. 2 and 3 where the created light bar covers these display panels and the splicing gap 3 of the panels).
Regarding Claim 4, L1 and P1 disclose the display screen of claim 1, wherein where L1 further discloses the light absorbing layer (element 2) is arranged in the first gap between any two adjacent light emitting elements (see FIG. 3 where the light absorbing layer 2 is between the light emitting elements 12, see attached marked figure below Claim 5).
Regarding Claim 5, L1 and P1 disclose the display screen of claim 1, wherein where L1 further discloses the light bar comprises a plurality of light emitting units (see FIG. 3 where each light emitting unit is made up of two light emitting elements 12 and one light emitting unit 11. One unit being on sub-display panel 4 and the other being on sub-display panel 5, see attached image below), each of the light emitting units comprises a number of the light emitting elements (each of the light emitting elements 11 and 12 contain LED Chips 1 as seen in FIG. 2, see attached image below),
PNG
media_image1.png
458
712
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and a second gap is provided between two adjacent light emitting units (see FIG. 3 and the gap between the light emitting elements 11, is defined as the gap between the described light emitting units, see the marked figure below this claim); and wherein the light absorbing layer is arranged in the second gap between at least two adjacent light emitting units (see FIG. 3 and the light absorbing layer 2 between the light emitting units on each sub-display panels 4 and 5, specifically between the two light emitting elements 11 in the center, see the marked figure below this claim).
PNG
media_image2.png
458
712
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 6, L1 and P1 disclose the display screen of claim 5, wherein where L1 further discloses the light absorbing layer (element 2) is arranged in the second gap between any two adjacent light emitting units (see FIG. 3 where the light absorbing element 2 is between the two light emitting units, specifically between the light emitting elements 11 going between the sub-display panels 4 and 5).
Regrading Claim 7, L1 and P1 disclose the display screen of claim 1, where L1 further discloses wherein a height of the light absorbing layer (element 2) in relative to the array substrate is less than or equal to a height of the light emitting element (elements 11 and 12) in relative to the array substrate (see FIG. 3 where the light absorbing element 2 is less than the height of the light emitting layers 11 and 12).
Regarding Claim 15, L1 and P1 disclose a display device comprising the display screen as claimed in claim 1 (see pg. 2 par. 16 “the utility model claims a display device” where the elements and composition disclosed in Claim 1 are included in a display device by L1).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN 213025159 U, see attached translation), hereinafter as L1, and view Peng et al. (CN-112713175-A, see attached translation), hereinafter as P1, in view of Matsuo et al. (US 2005/0258728 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, L1 and P1 disclose the display screen of claim 1, but do not explicitly disclose wherein an absorbance of the light absorbing layer is greater than or equal to 95%.
M1 discloses wherein an absorbance of the light absorbing layer (see FIG. 1 element 21, and [0129] ln.1 “the display panel (anode panel AP) in Example 1, a black matrix (light absorbing layer) 21 is formed”) is greater than or equal to 95% (see [0066] ln. 5 “a material constituting the light absorbing layer, a material which absorbs 99% or more of the light emitted from the fluorescent region is preferably selected… such materials include carbon, metal thin films…”).
The light absorbing layer being made of a black matrix material as disclosed by M1 is incorporated into the disclosure of L1 and P1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to incorporate M1 into L1 and P1 as there is motivation to have an absorption percentage as high as possible for a light absorbing element. Being able to absorb the most amount of light is paramount for a light absorbing element and coating this element or making it of a material for this purpose is obvious and yields predictable results. This motivation to absorb as much light as possible is an obvious use of the light absorbing element and yields predictable results of absorbing light with minimal leakage (see M1 [0066]).
Claims 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN 213025159 U, see attached translation), hereinafter as L1, and Peng et al. (CN-112713175-A, see attached translation), hereinafter as P1, in view of Han et al. (US 2020/0075820 A1), hereinafter as H1.
Regarding Claim 13, L1 and P1 disclose the display screen of claim 1, but do not explicitly disclose wherein the light bar further comprises a light transparent layer, and the light transparent layer is located on the light emitting elements.
H1 discloses wherein the light bar further comprises a light transparent layer (see FIG. 8, element 90, and [0052] ln. 4 “an encapsulation layer 90” and [0084] ln. 1 “encapsulation layer 90 may be formed by applying a transparent molding resin”), and the light transparent layer is located on the light emitting elements (see FIG. 8, element 50, [0059] ln. 1 “light emitting element 50” where the encapsulation layer 90 is disposed on these light emitting elements).
The transparent encapsulation layer covering the light emitting elements as disclosed by H1 is incorporated into the disclosure of L1 and P1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to incorporate the disclosure of H1 into L1 and P1 as there is motivation to include a transparent layer on the light emitting elements and therefore produces predictable results. Using a transparent layer on top of the light emitting elements allows for proper packaging and protection of these elements and also allows for the light from said elements to still be emitted outside the device. The motivation to protect the device while still allowing for proper light emittance is obvious and yields predictable results (see H1 [0084])
Regarding Claim 14, L1, P1, and H1 disclose the display screen of claim 13, where H1 further discloses wherein a material of the light transparent layer (element 90) is one or more selected from a group of silica gel, epoxy resin, and silicone resin (see [0084] ln. 1 ‘encapsulation layer 90 may be formed by applying a transparent molding resin…molding resin may include a translucent or fluorescent material that is in a liquid state at room temperature, such as…an epoxy resin”).
Claims 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN 213025159 U, see attached translation), hereinafter as L1, and Peng et al. (CN-112713175-A, see attached translation), hereinafter as P1, in view of Le Toquin (US 2011/0001151 A1), hereinafter as T1.
Regarding Claim 11, L1 and P1 discloses the display screen of claim 1, but do not explicitly disclose wherein an emission angle of the light bar is less than or equal to 120°.
T1 discloses wherein an emission angle of the light bar (see FIG. 5 element 302, [0085] ln. 6 “LED 302”) is less than or equal to 120° (see FIG. 5, elements 310 and 312, and [0085] ln. 19 “the first region 310 can be arranged to cover emission angles from the LED in the range of approximately 0 to 45 degrees, and the second region 312 can be arranged to cover emission angles in the range of approximately 45-90 degrees” where the range of the LED is confined to these regions 310 and 312 and the angle of emission is therefore only within these ranges).
The LED as disclosed by T1 is incorporated as the LED element 1 disclosed by L1 and P1. Through the incorporation of this element into L1 and P1 the LED is replaced with the one of T1 and therefore the emission angles are within the required range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to incorporate the disclosure of T1 into L1 and P1 as there is motivation to include light emitting elements with a specific emission angle to properly contain the light without leakage into other parts of the device. Containing the emission angles to this range yields predictable results since it keeps the light pointed away from the device and projects it outwards. If the emission range 180° or higher the light could leak into the layers below the LED. Due to this predictable range, the motivation to include an LED with this range of emission yields predictable results (see T1 [0085]).
Claims 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN 213025159 U, see attached translation), hereinafter as L1, and Peng et al. (CN-112713175-A, see attached translation), hereinafter as P1, in view of Le Toquin (US 2011/0001151 A1), hereinafter as T1, and Chang et al. (US 2016/0061653 A1), hereinafter as C1.
Regarding Claim 12, L1 and P1 disclose the display screen of claim 1, but do not explicitly disclose wherein a difference between an emission angle of the light bar and an emission angle of the display panel is less than or equal to 20°.
T1 discloses a difference between an emission angle of the light bar (see FIG. 5 element 302, [0085] ln. 6 “LED 302”. Also see elements 310 and 312, and [0085] ln. 19 “the first region 310 can be arranged to cover emission angles from the LED in the range of approximately 0 to 45 degrees” The light emitting LED of T1 is integrated as the LED in L1 and P1.) and an
C1 discloses emission angle of the display panel (see FIG. 8. Element 1, 20, and θ1, [0052] ln. 1 “FIG. 8 illustrates how the optical module 1” , [0040] ln. 1 “medium 20… medium 20 may be, but is not limited to…surface glass of a display screen”, and [0069] ln. 3 “first incident angle θ1 or the emission angle may have a critical value of about 25.7 degrees” The optical module and display screen of C1 is integrated into L1 and P1 as the display panel.)
T1 and CI disclose is less than or equal to 20° (Taking the difference between the emission angle of 0 to 45 degrees in T1 from the emission angle of 25.7 degrees from the optical module in C1 can give a difference from the given range. Specifically, any angle within the range 5.7 to 45 degrees from T1.).
The LED as disclosed by T1 and the display screen as disclosed by C1 is incorporated as the LED and display screen as disclosed by L1 and P1. Through the incorporation of this element into L1 and P1 the LED is replaced with the one of T1 and therefore the emission angles are within the required range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to incorporate the disclosure of T1 and C1 into L1 and P1 as there is motivation to include light emitting elements with a specific emission angle to properly contain the light without leakage into other parts of the device, as well as limiting the difference between interfering angles. Containing the emission angles to this range yields predictable results since it keeps the light pointed away from the device and projects it outwards. If the emission range 180° or higher the light could leak into the layers below the LED. By limiting the range of two opposing emission angles, the interference of the two light sources is lessened and allows for the light to be properly emitted from both sources. Due to this predictable range for difference between emission angles, the motivation to include an LED with this range of emission yields predictable results (see T1 [0085] and [0069-0070]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reason for indicating allowable subject matter-
The prior art made of record, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest at least the claim limitations of:
Claim 8, “a height of the light absorbing layer in relative to the array substrate is greater than a height of the light emitting element in relative to the array substrate; a height difference between the light absorbing layer and the light emitting element is less than or equal to 10% of a height of the light emitting element.” – as instantly claimed and in combination with the additionally claimed limitations.
All claims depending on the current claim incorporate the same allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENNEN STUART CUDA whose telephone number is (571)272-6563. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 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, Steven Loke can be reached at (571) 272-1657. 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.
/B.S.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/STEVEN H LOKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights