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 Office acknowledges receipt on 5 February 2026 of Applicants’ amendments in which claims 1 and 23.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following features must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Claim 1, lines 6-9 and 16-23, recites: (1) “the total reflection electrode layer comprises a plurality of total reflection patterns, the pixel definition layer is provided with a plurality of via holes, and each of the plurality of via holes exposes one of the plurality of total reflection patterns” and (2) “in each of the plurality of via holes, the display panel further comprises a hole injection pattern, a hole transport pattern, an electron barrier pattern, a light-emitting pattern, a hole barrier pattern, an electron transport pattern, and an electron injection pattern that are sequentially laminated between a corresponding total reflection pattern and the semi-reflection electrode layer; and the total reflection pattern, the hole injection pattern, the hole transport pattern, the electron barrier pattern, the light-emitting pattern, the hole barrier pattern, the electron transport pattern, the electron injection pattern, and the semi-reflection electrode layer form a light-emitting unit,” which is not illustrated by the drawings. Specifically, the drawings do not illustrate a plurality of via holes in the claimed product. And although a plurality of via holes may be made in the process of manufacturing the product defined by claim 1, claim 1 is directed to the final product, in which such plurality of via holes are filled with the layers (e.g., layers 102-117 in Fig. 12) constituting the light-emitting layer (e.g., 103 of Fig. 2). Accordingly, the plurality of via holes and the light-emitting layers do not exist simultaneously in the product.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 13-21, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1, lines 6-9 and 16-23, recites: (1) “the total reflection electrode layer comprises a plurality of total reflection patterns, the pixel definition layer is provided with a plurality of via holes, and each of the plurality of via holes exposes one of the plurality of total reflection patterns” and (2) “in each of the plurality of via holes, the display panel further comprises a hole injection pattern, a hole transport pattern, an electron barrier pattern, a light-emitting pattern, a hole barrier pattern, an electron transport pattern, and an electron injection pattern that are sequentially laminated between a corresponding total reflection pattern and the semi-reflection electrode layer; and the total reflection pattern, the hole injection pattern, the hole transport pattern, the electron barrier pattern, the light-emitting pattern, the hole barrier pattern, the electron transport pattern, the electron injection pattern, and the semi-reflection electrode layer form a light-emitting unit,” which is new matter. Specifically, the original application does not disclose a plurality of via holes in the claimed product. And although a plurality of via holes may be made in the process of manufacturing the product defined by claim 1, claim 1 is directed to the final product, in which such plurality of via holes are filled with the layers (e.g., layers 102-117 in Fig. 12) constituting the light-emitting layer (e.g., 103 of Fig. 2). Accordingly, the plurality of via holes and the light-emitting layers do not exist simultaneously in the product. Claims 2-4, 6, 7, 13-21, 23, and 24 are rejected due to their dependence from base claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 13, 17, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuno (US20110101855A1) in view of Stubbs et al. (US20210155849A1).
Regarding claim 1, Mizuno teaches in Figs. 1A-1C a display panel, comprising:
a base substrate (1) {¶0015}; and
a total reflection electrode layer (layer of 2) {¶0022, a reflective surface of the first electrode 2},
a pixel definition layer (7) {¶0015},
a semi-reflection electrode layer (4) {¶0021, the reflectance of the second electrode is low, ¶0022, a reflective surface of the second electrode 4},
a first resonance layer (51/52) {¶0033}, and a second resonance layer (52/53) which are sequentially laminated in a direction distal from the base substrate (1), the first resonance layer (51/52) being directly in contact with the second resonance layer (52/53) {¶0033};
wherein the total reflection electrode layer (layer of 2) comprises a plurality of total reflection patterns (2), the pixel definition layer (7) is provided with a plurality of via holes (holes within 7 that are filled by 3), and each of the plurality of via holes (holes within 7 that are filled by 3) exposes one of the plurality of total reflection patterns (2) {¶0015};
wherein the first resonance layer (51/52) is configured to reflect first light and allow second light to pass through; the second resonance layer (52/53) is configured to reflect third light and allow fourth light to pass through; all of the first light, the second light, the third light, and the fourth light are light passing through the semi-reflection electrode layer (4) {¶0041}; and
a refractive index of the first resonance layer (51/52) is different from a refractive index of the second resonance layer (52/53) {¶0033};
in each of the plurality of via holes (holes within 7 that are filled by 3), the display panel further comprises a light-emitting unit (11/12/13)
the display panel comprises a plurality of light-emitting units (11-13) {Fig. 1A; ¶0015},
the plurality of light-emitting units (11-13) comprise a red light-emitting unit (13), a green light-emitting unit (12), and a blue light-emitting unit (11) {Fig. 1A; ¶0015};
the first resonance layer (52) comprises a plurality of first resonance patterns (segments of 52) which corresponds to the plurality of light-emitting units (11-13) in one-to-one correspondence {Figs. 1A-1C; ¶0015, 0033};
an orthographic projection of each first resonance pattern (segment of 52) onto the base substrate (1) covers an orthographic projection of a light-emitting region of a light-emitting unit (11, 12, 13) corresponding to the first resonance pattern (segment of 52) onto the base substrate (1) {Figs. 1A-1C};
the second resonance layer (53) comprises a plurality of second resonance patterns (segments of 53) which corresponds to the plurality of light-emitting units (11-13) in one-to-one correspondence {Figs. 1A-1C; ¶0015, 0033};
an orthographic projection of each second resonance pattern (segment of 53) onto the base substrate (1) covers an orthographic projection of a light-emitting region of a light-emitting unit (11, 12, 13) corresponding to the second resonance pattern (segment of 53) onto the base substrate (1) {Figs. 1A-1C}.
Mizuno does not teach a hole injection pattern, a hole transport pattern, an electron barrier pattern, a light-emitting pattern, a hole barrier pattern, an electron transport pattern, and an electron injection pattern that are sequentially laminated between a corresponding total reflection pattern and the semi-reflection electrode layer; and the total reflection pattern, the hole injection pattern, the hole transport pattern, the electron barrier pattern, the light-emitting pattern, the hole barrier pattern, the electron transport pattern, the electron injection pattern, and the semi-reflection electrode layer form a light-emitting unit.
In an analogous art, Stubbs teaches in Figs. 7 and 8 and paragraphs [0119, 0120] a hole injection pattern (20/220), a hole transport pattern (30/230), an electron barrier pattern (40/240), a light-emitting pattern (50/250), a hole barrier pattern (60/260), an electron transport pattern (70/270), and an electron injection pattern (80/280) that are sequentially laminated between a corresponding total reflection pattern (10/210) and the semi-reflection electrode layer (90/290); and the total reflection pattern (10/210), the hole injection pattern (20/220), the hole transport pattern (30/230), the electron barrier pattern (40/240), the light-emitting pattern (50/250), the hole barrier pattern (60/260), the electron transport pattern (70/270), the electron injection pattern (80/280), and the semi-reflection electrode layer (90/290) form a light-emitting unit (101/200). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mizuno’s display panel based on the teachings of Stubbs, as identified above, to form a distributed Bragg reflector or micro cavity. Stubbs ¶0119, 0120. Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., as identified above) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Stubbs) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Regarding claim 2, Mizuno as modified by Stubbs teaches the display panel according to claim 1, and Mizuno further teaches wherein the refractive index of the first resonance layer (51/52) is less than the refractive index of the second resonance layer (52/53) {¶0033, 0047}.
Regarding claim 3, Mizuno as modified by Stubbs teaches the display panel according to claim 2, and Mizuno further teaches wherein the refractive index of the first resonance layer (51/52) ranges from 1.6 to 1.7 {¶0031}.
Mizuno does not expressly teach the refractive index of the second resonance layer ranges from 1.8 to 1.9. However, Mizuno teaches in paragraph [0031] the optical adjustment layer include high-refractive-index layers (having a refractive index higher than 1.7). 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(I).
Regarding claim 4, Mizuno as modified by Stubbs teaches the display panel according to claim 1, and Mizuno further teaches wherein there is at least one of:
a material of the first resonance layer is different from a material of the second resonance layer {unselected alternative of Markush Group}; or
a thickness (30nm or 178nm) of the first resonance layer (51/52) is different from a thickness (120nm) of the second resonance layer (52/53) {¶0052, 0053}.
Regarding claim 13, Mizuno as modified by Stubbs teaches the display panel according to claim 1, and Mizuno further teaches wherein the display panel further comprises a light-extracting layer (51) disposed between the semi-reflection electrode layer (4) and the first resonance layer (52) {Figs. 1A-1C; ¶0033}; and
the light-extracting layer (51) is configured to transmit, the light passing through the semi-reflection electrode layer (4), to the first resonance layer (52) {Figs. 1A-1C; ¶0033}.
Regarding claim 17, Mizuno as modified by Stubbs teaches the display panel according to claim 1, and Mizuno further teaches wherein the display panel further comprises a packaging layer (6) {Figs. 1A-1C; ¶0016}; and
the packaging film layer (6) is disposed on the side, distal from the base substrate (1), of the second resonance layer (53) {Figs. 1A-1C; ¶0016}.
Regarding claim 21, Mizuno as modified by Stubbs teaches the display panel according to claim 1, and Mizuno further teaches wherein the display panel further comprises a third resonance layer (53) disposed on the side, distal from the base substrate (1), of the second resonance layer (52) {Figs. 1A-1C; ¶0033}; and
the third resonance layer (53) is configured to reflect fifth light and allow sixth light to pass through, wherein the fifth light and the sixth light are light passing through the semi-reflection electrode layer (4) {¶0041}; and a refractive index of the third resonance layer (53) is different from both the refractive index of the first resonance layer (51) and the refractive index of the second resonance layer (52) {Table 1 of ¶0045}.
Claim(s) 6 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuno in view of Stubbs as applied to claims 4 and 13 respectively above, and further in view of Noh et al. (US20170373277A1).
Regarding claim 6, Mizuno as modified by Stubbs teaches the display panel according to claim 4, but Mizuno does not teach wherein the materials of the first resonance layer and the second resonance layer each comprise at least one of silicon nitride and silicon oxynitride.
In an analogous art, Noh teaches in Fig. 7 and paragraph [0071] the materials of the first resonance layer (121) and the second resonance layer (122) each comprise at least one of silicon nitride and silicon oxynitride. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mizuno’s display panel as modified by Stubbs based on the teachings of Noh – such that the materials of the first resonance layer and the second resonance layer each comprises at least one of silicon nitride and silicon oxynitride – because the refractive indexes of silicon oxide SiOx and silicon oxynitride SiON are smaller than that of silicon nitride SiNx {Noh ¶0071} so that a higher reflectance can be formed between the optical adjustment layers (e.g., the first and second resonance layers) {Mizuno ¶0047}.
Regarding claim 14, Mizuno as modified by Stubbs teaches the display panel according to claim 13, and Mizuno further teaches wherein a thickness of the light-extracting layer (51) ranges from 150 nm to 300 nm {Figs. 1B; ¶0051}.
Mizuno does not teach the light-extracting layer is made of an organic material.
Noh teaches in Fig. 7 and paragraph [0058] a light-extracting layer (110) made of an organic material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mizuno’s display panel based as modified by Stubbs on the teachings of Noh – such that Mizuno’s light-extracting layer is made of an organic material – because [t]he selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuno in view of Stubbs as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Kirita (US20210098745A1).
Regarding claim 7, Mizuno as modified by Stubbs teaches the display panel according to claim 4, but Mizuno does not teach wherein there is one of:
a total of the thickness of the first resonance layer and the thickness of the second resonance layer ranges from 1.7 μm to 2.1 μm; or a total of the thickness of the first resonance layer and the thickness of the second resonance layer ranges from 1.8 μm to 2.3 μm.
In an analogous art, Kirita teaches in Figs. 2 and 10A and paragraphs [0112]-[0117] and [0174]-[0177] that the total thickness of the first and second resonance layers (211, 212) is a result-effective variable for optimizing the intensity of light extracted from resonant cavities. See, e.g., MPEP §2144.05(II)(B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to discover the optimal or workable ranges of the intensity of light extracted from the resonant cavities – such that a total of the thickness of the first resonance layer and the thickness of the second resonance layer ranges from 1.7 μm to 2.1 μm; or a total of the thickness of the first resonance layer and the thickness of the second resonance layer ranges from 1.8 μm to 2.3 μm – because where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP §2144.05(II)(A).
Claim(s) 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuno in view of Stubbs as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Kim (US20060097264A1).
Regarding claim 15, Mizuno as modified by Stubbs teaches the display panel according to claim 13, and Mizuno further teaches wherein the display panel further comprises a layer (6) disposed on a side, distal from the base substrate (1), of the second resonance layer (53) {Fig. 1A; ¶0015}; and
the refractive index of the first resonance layer (52) is less than a refractive index of the light-extracting layer (51) and the refractive index of the second resonance layer (53) {¶0033}.
Mizuno does not expressly teach the layer is a planarization layer.
However, Mizuno teaches in paragraph [0044] the layer is made of silicon nitride (SiN).
Kim teaches in Fig. 6 and paragraphs [0067], [0076], and [0109] using silicon nitride as a planarization layer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mizuno’s display panel as modified by Stubbs based on the further teachings of Kim – such that Mizuno’s silicon nitride layer is used as a planarization layer – so that an upper surface of the display panel has a planarized surface for orthogonally emitting light and thereby improving a view angle. Kim ¶0151.
Mizuno does not expressly teach the refractive index of the second resonance layer is less than a refractive index of the planarization layer.
Mizuno teaches: (1) in paragraph [0033] the refractive index of the second resonance layer (53) may be greater than 1.5 and (2) in paragraph [0017] the refractive index of the planarization layer (6) may be between 1.6 and 2.1. 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(I).
Regarding claim 16, Mizuno as modified by Stubbs and Kim teaches the display panel according to claim 15, but Mizuno does not expressly teach wherein the refractive index of the light-extracting layer ranges from 1.7 to 2.0; and the refractive index of the planarization layer ranges from 1.9 to 2.1.
However, Mizuno teaches: (1) in paragraph [0033] the refractive index of the light-extracting layer (51) may be greater than 1.5 and (2) in paragraph [0017] the refractive index of the planarization layer may be between 1.6 and 2.1. 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(I).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuno in view of Stubbs as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Noh, Kirita, Yamazaki (US20120161166A1), and Seo et al. (US20210234112A1).
Regarding claim 18, Mizuno as modified by Stubbs teaches the display panel according to claim 17, but Mizuno does not teach:
wherein the packaging film layer comprises a first packaging layer, a second packaging layer, and a third packaging layer which are sequentially laminated in the direction distal from the base substrate;
the first packaging layer is made of an inorganic material; a thickness of the first packaging layer ranges from 500 nm to 1500 nm; and a refractive index of the first packaging layer ranges from 1.6 to 1.9;
the second packaging layer is made of organic material; a thickness of the second packaging layer ranges from 8 μm to 15 μm; and a refractive index of the second packaging layer ranges from 1.1 to 1.8; and
the third packaging layer is made of an inorganic material; a thickness of the third packaging layer ranges from 500 nm to 1500 nm; and a refractive index of the third packaging layer ranges from 1.6 to 1.9.
Noh teaches the packaging film layer (120) comprises a first packaging layer (121), a second packaging layer (122), and a third packaging layer (123) which are sequentially laminated in the direction distal from the base substrate (104) {Fig. 7; ¶0061}; the first packaging layer (121) is made of an inorganic material (SiNx) {¶0071, 0072}; a thickness of the first packaging layer (121) ranges from 500 nm to 1500 nm {see Table 1}; and a refractive index of the second packaging layer (122, SiON) ranges from 1.1 to 1.8 {¶0071}; and the third packaging layer (123) is made of an inorganic material (SiNx). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mizuno’s display panel as modified by Stubbs based on the teachings of Noh – such that the packaging film layer comprises a first packaging layer, a second packaging layer, and a third packaging layer which are sequentially laminated in the direction distal from the base substrate; the first packaging layer is made of an inorganic material; a thickness of the first packaging layer ranges from 500 nm to 1500 nm; and a refractive index of the second packaging layer ranges from 1.1 to 1.8; and the third packaging layer is made of an inorganic material – to reduce the color shift depending on a viewing angle {Noh ¶0025}.
Noh further teaches in paragraphs [0071] and [0072] a refractive index of the first packaging layer (121; SiNx) ranges from 1.9 to 2.35 and a refractive index of the third packaging layer ranges from 1.9 to 2.35. 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(I).
Kirita teaches in Figs. 2 and 10A and paragraphs [0112]-[0117] and [0174]-[0177] that the thicknesses of the first and second packaging layers (211, 212) are a result-effective variable for optimizing the intensity of light extracted from resonant cavities. See, e.g., MPEP §2144.05(II)(B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to discover the optimal or workable ranges of the intensity of light extracted from resonant cavities – such that a thickness of the second packaging layer ranges from 8 μm to 15 μm; and a thickness of the third packaging layer ranges from 500 nm to 1500 nm – because where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP §2144.05(II)(A).
In an analogous art, Yamazaki teaches in Fig. 12B and paragraph [0132] a second packaging layer (242) is made of organic material (polymethyl methacrylate {PMMA} resin). And PMMA resin is an organic material {see Seo ¶0076}. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mizuno’s display panel as modified by Stubbs, Noh, and Kirita based on the teachings of Yamazaki and Seo – such that the second packaging layer is made of organic material – to provide efficient light extraction. Yamazaki ¶0123.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuno in view of Stubbs as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Huang (CN110491923A) (English translation enclosed) and Li et al. (US20190363276A1).
Regarding claim 19, Mizuno as modified by Stubbs teaches the display panel according to claim 1, but Mizuno does not teach wherein the total reflection electrode layer comprises a first film layer, a second film layer, and a third film layer which are sequentially laminated in the direction distal from the base substrate; and
both the first film layer and the third film layer are made of indium tin oxide; and a reflectivity of the second film layer is greater than 80%.
In an analogous art, Huang teaches in Fig. 1 and paragraph [0041] the total reflection electrode (210) layer comprises a first film layer, a second film layer, and a third film layer which are sequentially laminated in the direction distal from the base substrate (10); and both the first film layer and the third film layer are made of indium tin oxide; and a reflectivity of the second film layer is greater than 80%. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mizuno’s display panel as modified by Stubbs based on the teachings of Huang – such that the total reflection electrode layer comprises a first film layer, a second film layer, and a third film layer which are sequentially laminated in the direction distal from the base substrate; and both the first film layer and the third film layer are made of indium tin oxide; and a reflectivity of the second film layer is greater than 80% – to increase the utilization rate of the light[,] … increase the adhesion of the second sub-electrode layer … to the base substrate[, and] prevent the second sub-electrode layer … from being oxidized. Li ¶0043.
Examiner’s Note: Huang teaches the electrode 210 provides “total reflection.” The adjective “total” is defined by the American Heritage Dictionary, 4th edition, as “[c]onstituting the whole; entire.” Accordingly, Huang teaches the electrode 210 reflects the whole or entirety of the light.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuno in view of Stubbs as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kawano et al. (US20230292544A1).
Regarding claim 20, Mizuno as modified by Stubbs teaches the display panel according to claim 1, and Mizuno further teaches wherein a material of the semi-reflection electrode layer (4) comprises at least one of magnesium, silver, and aluminum {¶0028}.
Mizuno does not expressly teach a reflectivity of the semi-reflection electrode layer ranges from 20% to 30%.
In an analogous art, Kawano teaches in Fig. 1A and paragraphs [0242] and [0243] a reflectivity of the semi-reflection electrode layer (102) ranges from 20% to 30%. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mizuno’s display panel as modified by Stubbs based on the teachings of Kawano – such that a reflectivity of the semi-reflection electrode layer ranges from 20% to 30% – so a wavelength that is resonated between the reflective electrode and the transflective electrode can be intensified while light with a wavelength that is not resonated therebetween can be attenuated. Kawano ¶0245.
Claim(s) 23 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuno in view of Stubbs as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jinta (US20230180578A1).
Regarding claim 23, Mizuno as modified by Stubbs teaches the display panel (device of Fig. 1A) as defined in claim 1, but Mizuno does not teach a display device, comprising a power supply assembly and the display panel (device of Fig. 1A), wherein the power supply assembly is configured to supply power to the display panel.
In an analogous art, Jinta teaches in Fig. 20 and paragraph [0201] a power supply assembly (20) configured to supply power to a display panel (2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mizuno’s display panel as modified by Stubbs based on the teachings of Jinta – such that a power supply assembly configured to supply power to the display panel – for the purpose of providing electrical power to the display panel. Jinta ¶0245.
Regarding claim 24, Mizuno as modified by Stubbs and Jinta teaches the display device of claim 23 but Mizuno does not teach a vehicle, comprising a vehicle body and the display device as defined in claim 23 and disposed in the vehicle body.
Jinta teaches in Figs. 55A and 55B a vehicle (100), comprising a vehicle body (body of 100) and the display device (1) and disposed in the vehicle body (body of 100). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mizuno’s display panel as modified by Stubbs and Jinta based on the further teachings of Jinta – such that a vehicle comprises a vehicle body and the display device disposed in the vehicle body – to display, for example, at least one of safety-related information, operation-related information, a life log, health-related information, authentication/identification-related information, or entertainment-related information. Jinta ¶0273.
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 DAVID WARD whose telephone number is (703)756-1382. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30-3:30 EST.
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, Matthew Landau can be reached at (571)-272-1731. 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.
/D.W.W./Examiner, Art Unit 2891
/MATTHEW C LANDAU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2891