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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Remarks filed on 07/30/2025.
Currently, claims 1-20 are pending in the application. Currently, claims 2-5, 8-9, 13-18, and 20 are withdrawn.
Response to Amendments
On Page 7 of Applicant’s remarks filed on 07/30/2025, Applicant traverses the Examiner’s Official notice and submits that documentary evidence should be provided if the rejection is to be maintained. However, Applicant has not specifically pointed out the supposed errors in the Examiner’s action and has not explained why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. To adequately traverse a finding based on official notice, an applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action, which would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. A mere request by the applicant that the examiner provide documentary evidence in support of an officially-noticed fact is not a proper traversal (see MPEP 2144.03).
Furthermore, as Applicant has not made an adequate traversal to the Examiner’s Official notice as explained above, the Examiner’s common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art (see MPEP 2144.03).
Applicant's remaining arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 6-7, 10-12, and 19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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, 10-12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over NAM et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0393444) in view of HAN (US Pub. No. 2011/0147721) and further in view of BOEK et al. (US Pub. No. 2007/0108900).
Regarding independent claim 1, Nam teaches an OLED display panel (Fig. 5A), comprising:
A base substrate (Fig. 5A, BL, ¶ [0099]);
an OLED display substrate (Fig. 5A, DP-OLED, ¶ [0101]) on the base substrate;
a package substrate (Fig. 5A, EC, ¶ [0103] teaches a glass substrate) bonded to the base substrate via a frame sealant (Fig. 5A, SM, ¶ [0106]), opposite to the OLED display substrate, a gap (Fig. 5A, GP, ¶ [0106]) is defined between the package substrate and the OLED display substrate, and the gap is filled with a gas (¶ [0106] teaches that the gap GP can be filled with air or an inert gas) having a refractive index (It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the refractive index of glass is larger than the refractive index of air or inert gasses) less than that of the package substrate.
However, Nam does not explicitly teach a scattering structure, disposed on a side, distal from the OLED display substrate, of the package substrate, wherein the scattering structure is a single-layer or multi-layer structure configured to scatter light passing through the scattering structure, wherein ends of the OLED display substrate abut against the frame sealant.
However, Han is a pertinent art that teaches a scattering structure (Figs. 1A & 2, 190, ¶¶ [0024] & [0054] teaches a polarization film 190 that includes an anti-glare film 198 that scatters light), disposed on a side (Fig. 1A), distal from the OLED display substrate (Fig. 1A, E, ¶ [0024]), of the package substrate (Fig. 1A, 180, ¶ [0024]), wherein the scattering structure is a single-layer or multi-layer structure configured to scatter light passing through the scattering structure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nam’s display panel according to the teaching of Han (Figs. 1A & 2) in order to prevent the contrast ratio of an image from being degraded by internal and/or external light (Han ¶ [0007]).
However, Han does not explicitly teach that ends of the OLED display substrate abut against the frame sealant.
However, Boek is a pertinent art that teaches ends of the OLED display substrate (Fig. 1, 70, ¶ [0029]) abut against the frame sealant (Fig. 1, 90, ¶ [0029] teaches a hermetic sealant 90 implemented with a frit and laser sealing process).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nam modified by Han’s display to abut against a frit sealant according to the teaching of Boek (Fig. 1) in order to increase device lifetime while reducing light interference fringes ( ¶¶ [0007]-[0010] & [0059]-[0060]).
Regarding claim 10, Nam modified by Han modified by Boek teaches the OLED display panel according to claim 1, and Han teaches that a haze of a layer (Fig. 2, 198, ¶ [0054]) in which the scattering structure (Figs. 1A & 2, 190, ¶ [0024]) is disposed is between 10% and 90% (Figs. 3A-3C, ¶¶ [0057]-[0061] teaches that 198 has a range of 10-50%. The haze range taught by Han overlaps with the range claimed. “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05.).).
Regarding claim 11, Nam modified by Han modified by Boek teaches the OLED display panel according to claim 1, and Nam teaches that the gas (¶ [0106] teaches that the gap GP can be filled with air or an inert gas.) is nitrogen or an inert gas.
Regarding claim 12, Nam modified by Han modified by Boek teaches the OLED display panel according to claim 1, and Nam teaches that a base substrate (Fig. 5A, BL, ¶ [0099] teaches a glass substrate in the same manner as Applicant’s glass base substrate) of the OLED display substrate is a rigid substrate, and the package substrate (Fig. 5A, EC, ¶ [0103] teaches a glass substrate in the same manner as Applicant’s glass package substrate) is a rigid substrate.
Regarding independent claim 19, Nam teaches a display device (Fig. 5B), comprising an OLED display panel (Fig. 5A), wherein the OLED display panel, comprises:
a base substrate (Fig. 5A, BL, ¶ [0099]);
an OLED display substrate (Fig. 5A, DP-OLED, ¶ [0101]) on the base substrate;
a package substrate (Fig. 5A, EC, ¶ [0103] teaches a glass substrate) bonded to the base substrate via a frame sealant (Fig. 5A, SM, ¶ [0106]), opposite to the OLED display substrate, a gap (Fig. 5A, GP, ¶ [0106]) is defined between the package substrate and the OLED display substrate, and the gap is filled with a gas (¶ [0106] teaches that the gap GP can be filled with air or an inert gas) having a refractive index (It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the refractive index of glass is larger than the refractive index of air or inert gasses) less than that of the package substrate.
However, Nam does not explicitly teach a scattering structure, disposed on a side, distal from the OLED display substrate, of the package substrate, wherein the scattering structure is a single-layer or multi-layer structure configured to scatter light passing through the scattering structure, wherein ends of the OLED display substrate abut against the frame sealant.
However, Han is a pertinent art that teaches a scattering structure (Figs. 1A & 2, 190, ¶¶ [0024] & [0054] teaches a polarization film 190 that includes an anti-glare film 198 that scatters light), disposed on a side (Fig. 1A), distal from the OLED display substrate (Fig. 1A, E, ¶ [0024]), of the package substrate (Fig. 1A, 180, ¶ [0024]), wherein the scattering structure is a single-layer or multi-layer structure configured to scatter light passing through the scattering structure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nam’s display panel according to the teaching of Han (Figs. 1A & 2) in order to prevent the contrast ratio of an image from being degraded by internal and/or external light (Han ¶ [0007]).
However, Han does not explicitly teach that ends of the OLED display substrate abut against the frame sealant.
However, Boek is a pertinent art that teaches ends of the OLED display substrate (Fig. 1, 70, ¶ [0029]) abut against the frame sealant (Fig. 1, 90, ¶ [0029] teaches a hermetic sealant 90 implemented with a frit and laser sealing process).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nam modified by Han’s display to abut against a frit sealant according to the teaching of Boek (Fig. 1) in order to increase device lifetime while reducing light interference fringes ( ¶¶ [0007]-[0010] & [0059]-[0060]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over NAM et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0393444) in view of HAN (US Pub. No. 2011/0147721) and further in view of BOEK et al. (US Pub. No. 2007/0108900) and further in view of HERO et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0294630).
Regarding claim 6, Nam modified by Han modified by Boek teaches the OLED display panel according to claim 1, and Han teaches that the scattering structure (Figs. 1A & 2, 190, ¶¶ [0024] & [0054] teaches a polarization film 190 that includes an anti-glare film 198 that scatters light) comprises a polarizer (Fig. 2, 196, ¶ [0045]), an adhesive layer (Fig. 2, 198, ¶ [0054] teaches that 198 is resin), and a cover (Fig. 2, ¶ [0045] teaches a protection film on the outside surface of 198); wherein the adhesive layer comprises atomized particles (Fig. 2, 199, ¶ [0055]), and the polarizer, the adhesive layer, and the cover are sequentially laminated on the package substrate along a direction away from the package substrate (Fig. 1A, 180, ¶ [0024]).
However, Nam modified by Han does not explicitly teach that the material of Han’s protection film is glass.
However, Hero is a pertinent art that teaches a cover glass (Fig. 2, 38, ¶ [0085] teaches a glass cover).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the material of Nam modified by Han’s protection film to be glass according to the teaching of Hero (Fig. 2) because glass is an obvious choice for a protection film depending on materials cost and desired protective characteristics. Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the base of its suitability, for its intended use involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over NAM et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0393444) in view of HAN (US Pub. No. 2011/0147721) and further in view of BOEK et al. (US Pub. No. 2007/0108900) and further in view of HERO et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0294630) and further in view of ZHU et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0302328).
Regarding claim 7, Nam modified by Han modified by Boek modified by Hero teaches the OLED display panel according to claim 6.
However, Nam modified by Han modified by Hero does not explicitly teach that the atomized particles comprise acrylic particles.
However, Zhu is a pertinent art that teaches atomized particles [that] comprise acrylic particles (Fig. 2, 22, ¶ [0028] teaches acrylic particles in an anti-glare film similar to Han’s anti-glare film).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the material of Nam modified by Han modified by Hero’s atomized particles to be acrylic particles according to the teaching of Zhu (Fig. 2) because acrylic particles are an obvious choice for scattering particles depending on materials cost and desired performance characteristics. Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the base of its suitability, for its intended use involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Cited Prior Art
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant.
Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RHYS P. SHEKER whose telephone number is (703)756-1348. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am to 5 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 B Gauthier can be reached on 571-270-0373. 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.
/R.P.S./
Examiner, Art Unit 2813
/STEVEN B GAUTHIER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2813