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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 12/15/2025 has been entered and claims 2, 8, 12 and 18 are cancelled, thus claims 1, 3-7, 9-11, 13-17 and 19-20 are currently pending in this application. The amendment to the title overcomes the previous title objection, therefore the objection is hereby withdrawn. The amendment to the claims overcomes the previous 112(b) rejection, therefore the 112(b) rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. US PGPub. 2020/0227489 of record. Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a display panel (fig. 10) [0042], comprising: a substrate (100, fig. 10) [0053]: a light emission layer (OLED, fig. 10) [0080], disposed on one (top) side of the substrate (100), the light emission layer (OLED) comprising multiple luminescent pixels (P1-P3, fig. 10) [0080]; a first refractive index layer (510, fig. 10) [0114], disposed on one (top) side of the light emission layer (OLED), the first refractive index layer (510) comprising multiple openings (510a, 510b, 510c, fig. 10) [0061] corresponding to multiple ones of the luminescent pixels (P1, P2, P3); and a second refractive index layer (530, fig. 10) [0115], disposed on one (top) side of the first refractive index layer (510) that is distant from the substrate (100) and filling in multiple ones of the openings (510a, 510b, 510c), a refractive index (1.6-1.85, [0115]) of the second refractive index layer (530) being greater than a refractive index (1.4-1.55, [0114]) of the first refractive index layer (510); wherein orthographic projections (OP1-3, fig. 10) of the luminescent pixels (P1-P3) cast on the second refractive index layer (530) are located in the openings (510a, 510b, 510c), and the areas (fig. 2A and 2B) of the openings (510a, 510b, 510c) to which luminescent pixels (P1-P3) of different luminescent colors (red, green, blue, [0058]) correspond are different (W1, W2, W3 are different, fig. 2A and 2B); wherein the light emission layer (OLED) comprises multiple first luminescent pixels (P3, fig. 10) that emit light of a first color (red, [0058]), multiple second luminescent pixels (P2, fig. 10) that emit light of a second color (green, [0058]), and multiple third luminescent pixels (P1, fig. 10) that emit light of a third color (blue, [0058]); the openings (510a, 510b, 510c) comprise first openings (510c, fig. 10), second openings (510b, fig. 10), and third openings (510a, fig. 10), the first openings (510c) corresponding to the first luminescent pixels (P3), the second openings (510b) corresponding to the second luminescent pixels (P2), the third openings (510a) corresponding to the third luminescent pixels (P1); wherein the first luminescent pixels (P3) are red luminescent pixels (P3 emits red, [0058]); the second luminescent pixels (P2) are green luminescent pixels (P2 emits green, [0058]); and the third luminescent pixels (P1) are blue luminescent pixels (P1 emits blue, [0058]); and wherein in a top plan view direction of the display panel, an area (W12, fig. 2A-2B) [0123] of the third openings (510a) is greater than an area of the first openings (W32, fig. 2A-2B) [0123], and an area of the first openings (W32, fig. 2A-2B) [0123] is greater than an area of the second openings (W22, fig. 2A-2B) [0123] (W1>W3>W2, [0123]) (Kim et al., fig. 2B, [0123]). Regarding claim 9, Kim teaches the display panel according to claim 1, wherein the display panel further comprises: an encapsulation layer (400, fig. 10) [0080], disposed between the light emission layer (OLED) and the first refractive index layer (510), the encapsulation layer (400) comprising an inorganic encapsulation layer (430, fig. 10) [0104] bonded to the first refractive index layer (510), a refractive index (1.7-1.9, [0128]) of the inorganic encapsulation layer (430) being greater than the refractive index (1.4-1.55, [0114]) of the first refractive index layer (510) (Kim et al., fig. 10, [0128]).
Regarding claim 10, Kim teaches the display panel according to claim 9, wherein the display panel further comprises: a touch control layer (700, fig. 10) [0157], comprising a first touch control metal layer (711, fig. 10) [0163] and a second touch control metal layer (713, fig. 10) [0163] disposed on the encapsulation layer (400), and an insulation layer (712, fig. 10) [0161] disposed between the first touch control metal (711) layer and the second touch control metal layer (713) (Kim et al., fig. 10, [0163]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. US PGPub. 2020/0227489 of record. Regarding claim 5, Kim teaches the display panel according to claim 1, wherein in the top plan view direction of the display panel, the first luminescent pixels (P3) and the first openings (510c) are of a same shape (fig. 2A) and a first spacing distance (d3, fig. 2A) is present between the first luminescent pixels (P3) and the first openings (510c); the second luminescent pixels (P2) and the second openings (510b) are of a same shape (fig. 2A) and a second spacing distance (d2, fig. 2A) is present between the second luminescent pixels (P2) and the second openings (510b); the third luminescent pixels (P1) and the third openings (510a) are of a same shape (fig. 2A) and a third spacing (d1, fig. 2A) distance is present between the third luminescent pixels (P1) and the third openings (510a) (Kim et al., fig. 2A). But Kim fails to teach wherein the second spacing distance (d2) is greater than the first spacing distance (d3), and the first spacing distance (d3) is greater than the third spacing distance(d1). However, Kim teaches the general dimensions of the spacings d1-d3 is 0.5-12µm [0122], therefore, at the time before the effective filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to use spacing distances in the range as claimed in order to increase front light efficiency and simultaneously reducing a white angle difference (Kim et al., [0144]), because it has been held that where the general conditions of the claims are discloses in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 6, Kim teaches the display panel according to claim 5, wherein the third spacing distance (d1) is greater than or equal to 1.5 micrometers (0.5-12µm [0122]); the first spacing distance (d3) is greater than or equal to 2 micrometers (0.5-12µm [0122]); and the second spacing (d2) distance is greater than or equal to 3 micrometers (0.5-12µm [0122]) (Kim et al., fig. 2A, [0122]).
Regarding claim 7, Kim teaches the display panel according to claim 1, wherein an inclination angle (θ1, fig. 10) of the third openings (510a), an inclination angle (θ3, fig. 10) of the first openings (510c), and an inclination angle (θ2, fig. 1) of the second openings (510b) are different ([0170]) but fails to teach wherein an inclination angle (θ1) of the third openings (510a) is greater than an inclination angle (θ3) of the first openings (510c), and the inclination angle (θ3) the first openings (510c) is greater than an inclination angle (θ2, fig. 10) of the second openings (510b).
However, Kim teaches the general angles of the inclination angles of the openings (θ1- θ3, fig. 10, [0170]), therefore, at the time before the effective filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to use the inclination angles in the range as claimed in order to increase front light efficiency and simultaneously reducing a white angle difference (Kim et al., [0144]), because it has been held that where the general conditions of the claims are discloses in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 11, 15-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. US PGPub. 2020/0227489 in view of Seo et al. US PGPub. 2021/0234112, both of record. Regarding claim 11, Kim teaches a display panel (fig. 10) [0042] comprising: a substrate (100, fig. 10) [0053]: a light emission layer (OLED, fig. 10) [0080], disposed on one (top) side of the substrate (100), the light emission layer (OLED) comprising multiple luminescent pixels (P1-P3, fig. 10) [0080]; a first refractive index layer (510, fig. 10) [0114], disposed on one (top) side of the light emission layer (OLED), the first refractive index layer (510) comprising multiple openings (510a, 510b, 510c, fig. 10) [0061] corresponding to multiple ones of the luminescent pixels (P1, P2, P3); and a second refractive index layer (530, fig. 10) [0115], disposed on one (top) side of the second refractive index layer (530) that is distant from the substrate (100) and filling in multiple ones of the openings (510a, 510b, 510c), a refractive index (1.6-1.85, [0115]) of the second refractive index layer (530) being greater than a refractive index (1.4-1.55, [0114]) of the first refractive index layer (510); wherein orthographic projections (OP1-3, fig. 10) of the luminescent pixels (P1-P3) cast on the first refractive index layer (510) are located in the openings (510a, 510b, 510c), and the areas (fig. 2A and 2B) of the openings (510a, 510b, 510c) to which luminescent pixels (P1-P3) of different luminescent colors (red, green, blue, [0058]) correspond are different (W1, W2, W3 are different, fig. 2A and 2B); wherein the light emission layer (OLED) comprises multiple first luminescent pixels (P3, fig. 10) that emit light of a first color (red, [0058]), multiple second luminescent pixels (P2, fig. 10) that emit light of a second color (green, [0058]), and multiple third luminescent pixels (P1, fig. 10) that emit light of a third color (blue, [0058]); the openings (510a, 510b, 510c) comprise first openings (510c, fig. 10), second openings (510b, fig. 10), and third openings (510a, fig. 10), the first openings (510c) corresponding to the first luminescent pixels (P3), the second openings (510b) corresponding to the second luminescent pixels (P2), the third openings (510a) corresponding to the third luminescent pixels (P1); wherein the first luminescent pixels (P3) are red luminescent pixels (P3 emits red, [0058]); the second luminescent pixels (P2) are green luminescent pixels (P2 emits green, [0058]); and the third luminescent pixels (P1) are blue luminescent pixels (P1 emits blue, [0058]); and wherein in a top plan view direction of the display panel, an area (W12, fig. 2A-2B) [0123] of the third openings (510a) is greater than an area of the first openings (W32, fig. 2A-2B) [0123], and an area of the first openings (W32, fig. 2A-2B) [0123] is greater than an area of the second openings (W22, fig. 2A-2B) [0123] (W1>W3>W2, [0123]) (Kim et al., fig. 2B, [0123]).
But Kim fails to teach a mobile terminal, wherein the mobile terminal comprises a terminal body and the display panel (fig. 10), the terminal body and the display panel being combined as a unity. However, Seo teaches a mobile terminal (fig. 7C) [0262], wherein the mobile terminal (fig. 7C) comprises a terminal body (7401, fig. 7C) [0262] and a display panel (7402, fig. 7C), the terminal body (7401) and the display panel (7402) being combined as a unity (fig. 7C) (Seo et al., fig. 7C). At the time before the effective filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the display panel of Kim in to the mobile terminal of Seo in order to make a mobile terminal that has a display with increased front light efficiency and reduced white angle difference (Kim et al., [0144]) Regarding claim 15, Kim in view of Seo does not teach the mobile terminal according to claim 11, wherein in the top plan view direction of the display panel, the first luminescent pixels (P3) and the first openings (510c) are of a same shape (fig. 2A) and a first spacing distance (d3, fig. 2A) is present between the first luminescent pixels (P3) and the first openings (510c); the second luminescent pixels (P2) and the second openings (510b) are of a same shape (fig. 2A) and a second spacing distance (d2, fig. 2A) is present between the second luminescent pixels (P2) and the second openings (510b); the third luminescent pixels (P1) and the third openings (510a) are of a same shape (fig. 2A) and a third spacing (d1, fig. 2A) distance is present between the third luminescent pixels (P1) and the third openings (510a) (Kim et al., fig. 2A). But Kim fails to teach wherein the second spacing distance (d2) is greater than the first spacing distance (d3), and the first spacing distance (d3) is greater than the third spacing distance(d1). However, Kim teaches the general dimensions of the spacings d1-d3 is 0.5-12µm [0122], therefore, at the time before the effective filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to use spacing distances in the range as claimed in order to increase front light efficiency and simultaneously reducing a white angle difference (Kim et al., [0144]), because it has been held that where the general conditions of the claims are discloses in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05. Regarding claim 16, Kim in view of Seo teaches the mobile terminal according to claim 15, wherein the third spacing distance (d1) is greater than or equal to 1.5 micrometers (0.5-12µm [0122]); the first spacing distance (d3) is greater than or equal to 2 micrometers (0.5-12µm [0122]); and the second spacing (d2) distance is greater than or equal to 3 micrometers (0.5-12µm [0122]) (Kim et al., fig. 2A, [0122]).
Regarding claim 17, Kim in view of Seo teaches the mobile terminal according to claim 11, wherein an inclination angle (θ1, fig. 10) of the third openings (510a), an inclination angle (θ3, fig. 10) of the first openings (510c), and an inclination angle (θ2, fig. 1) of the second openings (510b) are different ([0170]) but fails to teach wherein an inclination angle (θ1) of the third openings (510a) is greater than an inclination angle (θ3) of the first openings (510c), and the inclination angle (θ3) the first openings (510c) is greater than an inclination angle (θ2, fig. 10) of the second openings (510b).
However, Kim teaches the general angles of the inclination angles of the openings (θ1- θ3, fig. 10, [0170]), therefore, at the time before the effective filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to use the inclination angles in the range as claimed in order to increase front light efficiency and simultaneously reducing a white angle difference (Kim et al., [0144]), because it has been held that where the general conditions of the claims are discloses in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 19, Kim in view of Seo teaches the mobile terminal according to claim 11, wherein the display panel further comprises: an encapsulation layer (400, fig. 10) [0080], disposed between the light emission layer (OLED) and the first refractive index layer (510), the encapsulation layer (400) comprising an inorganic encapsulation layer (430, fig. 10) [0104] bonded to the first refractive index layer (510), a refractive index (1.7-1.9, [0128]) of the inorganic encapsulation layer (430) being greater than the refractive index (1.4-1.55, [0114]) of the first refractive index layer (510) (Kim et al., fig. 10, [0128]).
Regarding claim 20, Kim in view of Seo teaches the mobile terminal according to claim 19, wherein the display panel further comprises: a touch control layer (700, fig. 10) [0157], comprising a first touch control metal layer (711, fig. 10) [0163] and a second touch control metal layer (713, fig. 10) [0163] disposed on the encapsulation layer (400), and an insulation layer (712, fig. 10) [0161] disposed between the first touch control metal (711) layer and the second touch control metal layer (713) (Kim et al., fig. 10, [0163]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argue that “Kim does not disclose, teach, or otherwise suggest this required relationship among opening areas corresponding to blue, red, and green luminescent pixels. For example, paragraph [0058] of Kim merely states that pixels may emit blue, red, or green light, but fails to associate any particular pixel color with a corresponding opening size. Kim nowhere indicates that blue pixels must have the largest opening area, red pixels an intermediate opening area, and green pixels the smallest opening area, as now expressly required by amended claim 1.” The examiner respectfully submits that paragraph [0058] of Kim states that “For example, the first pixel P1 may emit blue light, the second pixel P2 may emit green light, and the third pixel P3 may emit red light.” The examiner interprets P1 as the third pixel, P2 as the second pixel and P3 as the first pixel. Furthermore, paragraph [0060] of Kim states that “For example, an area of the second pixel P2 may be less than areas of the first pixel P1 and the third pixels P3, and the area of the first pixel P1 may be greater than the area of the third pixel P3” which Kim also supports with figures 2A and 2B. Therefore, Kim in view of fig. 2A-2B and paragraphs [0058] and [0060] teaches and indicates that blue pixels (P1) must have the largest opening area (fig. 2A-2B), red pixels (P3) an intermediate opening area (fig. 2A-2B), and green pixels (P2) the smallest opening area (fig. 2A-2B). As a result, the rejection of claim 1 is proper, hereby maintained and made final.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 and 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior arts of record taken alone or in combination neither anticipates nor renders obvious a display panel wherein “a ratio between the area of the first opening and an area of the red luminescent pixel is a first ratio; a ratio between the area of the second opening and an area of the green luminescent pixel is a second ratio; a ratio between the area of the third opening and an area of the blue luminescent pixel is a third ratio; and the second ratio corresponding to the green luminescent pixel is greater than the first ratio corresponding to the red luminescent pixel, and the first ratio corresponding to the red luminescent pixel is greater than the third ratio corresponding to the blue luminescent pixel” as recited in claim 3 in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 1; and
a mobile terminal wherein “a ratio between the area of the first opening and an area of the red luminescent pixel is a first ratio; a ratio between the area of the second opening and an area of the green luminescent pixel is a second ratio; a ratio between the area of the third opening and an area of the blue luminescent pixel is a third ratio; and the second ratio corresponding to the green luminescent pixel is greater than the first ratio corresponding to the red luminescent pixel, and the first ratio corresponding to the red luminescent pixel is greater than the third ratio corresponding to the blue luminescent pixel” as recited in claim 13 in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 11. Claims 4 and 14 are is also objected to as allowable for further limiting and depending upon allowable claims 3 and 13.
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 NDUKA E OJEH whose telephone number is (571)270-0291. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 9am - 5pm..
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, DREW N RICHARDS can be reached at (571) 272-1736. 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.
/NDUKA E OJEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2892