DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 35 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/27/2026 has been entered.
Remarks
The 03/25/2026 amendments of claims 1, 19 have been noted and entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pages 9-14, filed 03/25/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-7, 10-13 and 15-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the newly added amendments. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Walker et al, KR 20130097736 A (Walker).
New Grounds of Rejection
New grounds of rejection, prior art reference Walker et al, KR 20130097736 A (Walker) appears below.
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.
Rejection Note: Italicized claim limitations indicate limitations that are not explicitly disclosed in the primary reference, but disclosed in the secondary reference(s).
Claims 1-6, 10-13, 15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pschenitzka, US 11004835 B2 (Pschenitzka) in view of Lee et al, US 20190377223 A1 (Lee) in further view of Park et al, US 20210074769 A1 (Park) in further view of Lin et al, US 20210028327 A1 (Lin) in further view of Walker et al, KR 20130097736 A (Walker).
Regarding claim 1; Pschenitzka teaches a display panel, comprising a light emitting panel comprising
a plurality of light emitting units (Pschenitzka: Fig (1): 109 and 110); and
a color conversion panel (layer containing elements 112 and 113) including a surface opposite a surface of the light emitting panel (panel containing light emitting units),
wherein the plurality of light emitting units (109, 110) comprises a first light emitting unit (109) and a second light emitting unit (110),
the color conversion panel comprises a color conversion layer comprising a first color conversion region (112) and a second color conversion region (113), and
a first partition wall (wall between 112 and 113) defining the first color conversion region (112) and the second color conversion region (113),
the first color conversion region (112) comprises first semiconductor nanoparticles (see Col.: 4, Rows: 7-25 of the specification of Pschenitzka),
wherein the first color conversion region is configured to convert a third light emitted from the first light emitting unit to a first light,
the second color conversion region (113) comprises second semiconductor nanoparticles (see Col.: 4, Rows: 7-25 of the specification of Pschenitzka),
wherein the second color conversion region is configured to convert a third light emitted from the first light emitting unit to a second light,
wherein a first optical diffuser (115) is disposed between the first light emitting unit (109) and the first color conversion region (112) to overlap a light extraction surface of the first light emitting unit (109),
wherein a second optical diffuser (116) is disposed between the second light emitting unit (110) and the second color conversion region (113) to overlap a light extraction surface of the second light emitting unit (110),
wherein the first optical diffuser and the second optical diffuser are spaced apart from one another,
wherein, in a cross-section of the display panel, each of the first optical diffuser and the second optical diffuser is spaced apart from the light emitting panel,
a length of the light extraction surface of the first light emitting unit is greater than or equal to about 500 nm and less than or equal to 100 µm and a ratio of a length of the first optical diffuser (115) to the length of the light extraction surface (surface of 109) of the first light emitting unit (109) is greater than or equal to about 1.4:1 and less than or equal to about 60:1,
a length of the light extraction surface of the second light emitting unit is greater than or equal to about 500 nm and less than or equal to 100 µm and a ratio of a length of the second optical diffuser (116) to the length of the light extraction surface (surface of 110) of the second light emitting unit (110) is greater than or equal to about 1.4:1 and less than or equal to about 60:1, and
wherein a luminance ratio of light entering the first color conversion region with respect to light emitted from the first light emitting unit is greater than or equal to about 0.05:1 and less than or equal to about 0.95:1; or
wherein a luminance ratio of light entering the second color conversion region with respect to light emitted from the second light emitting unit is greater than or equal to about 0.05:1 and less than or equal to about 0.95:1.
PNG
media_image1.png
744
985
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Pschenitzka does not teach wherein the first color conversion region is configured to convert a third light emitted from the first light emitting unit to a first light, and wherein the second color conversion region is configured to convert a third light emitted from the second light emitting unit to a second light.
However, Lee teaches wherein the first color conversion region is configured to convert a third light emitted from the first light emitting unit (Lee: Annotated Fig (1) shared in this OA: First Light Emitting Unit) to a first light ([0042]), the second color conversion region (162) comprises second semiconductor nanoparticles (162a), wherein the second color conversion region (162) is configured to convert a third light emitted from the second light emitting unit (Second Light Emitting Unit) to a second light ([0052]).
Pschenitzka and Lee are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Pschenitzka by using the light conversion regions to convert a third wavelength into first and second wavelengths as disclosed in Lee to improve the performance of the device and its color resolution.
PNG
media_image2.png
877
744
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Pschenitzka in view of Lee does not teach wherein, in a cross-section of the display panel, a length of the light extraction surface of the first light emitting unit is greater than or equal to about 500 nm and less than or equal to about 100 µm a length of the light extraction surface of the second light emitting unit is greater than or equal to about 500 nm and less than or equal to about 100 µm.
Park teaches wherein, in a cross-section of the display panel, a length of the light extraction surface of the first light emitting unit is greater than or equal to about 500 nm and less than or equal to about 100 µm (Park: [0164]) and a length of the light extraction surface of the second light emitting unit is greater than or equal to about 500 nm and less than or equal to about 100 µm ([0164]).
Pschenitzka in view of Lee and Park are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Pschenitzka in view of Lee by using the dimensions of the light extraction surfaces disclosed in Park to capture as much light as possible from the light emitting unit to improve the performance of the device.
However, Pschenitzka in view of Lee in further view of Park does not teach each of the first optical diffuser and the second optical diffuser is spaced apart from the light emitting panel.
Lin teaches each of the first optical diffuser (Lin: Fig (5): 344) and the second optical diffuser (344) is spaced apart from the light emitting panel (panel containing light emitting element 102, see the inorganic layer (327) separating the optical diffuser layer (344) from the light emitting panel).
Pschenitzka in view of Lee in further view of Park and Lin are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Pschenitzka in view of Lee in further view of Park by separating the first and second light diffusers from the light emitting panel using a layer such as the one disclosed in Lin to enhance the reflection of light from that layer and the collection and extraction of light from the device leading to a more efficient display device ([0059]).
PNG
media_image3.png
733
990
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Pschenitzka in view of Lee in further view of Park in further view of Lin does not teach wherein a luminance ratio of light entering the first color conversion region with respect to light emitted from the first light emitting unit is greater than or equal to about 0.05:1 and less than or equal to about 0.95:1; or wherein a luminance ratio of light entering the second color conversion region with respect to light emitted from the second light emitting unit is greater than or equal to about 0.05:1 and less than or equal to about 0.95:1.
However, Walker teaches wherein a luminance ratio of light entering the first color conversion region with respect to light emitted from the first light emitting unit is greater than or equal to about 0.05:1 and less than or equal to about 0.95:1; or wherein a luminance ratio of light entering the second color conversion region with respect to light emitted from the second light emitting unit is greater than or equal to about 0.05:1 and less than or equal to about 0.95:1 (see Page: 6 Lines: 15-20 of the translated copy of Walker attached to this OA: “Relative luminance ratio (RBR) is the ratio (expressed in percent) of the luminance of the same diffused light source measured via LCF to the luminance of the diffused light source measured without LCF. Preferably, the light exits the light output plane with a maximum relative luminance ratio (RBR) of 65 or greater in a direction perpendicular to the light output plane, and the light exits the light output plane with an effective polar viewing angle (EPV) of 45 ° or less.”. Given that the current limitation in the instant applications describes the luminance ratio of light entering the color conversion layer compared to light leaving the light emitting units it appears that this limitation describes the effect of the light diffuser in the instant application on the luminance of the light traveling through the device before it enters the color conversion layer. Thus, Walker discloses similar limitations).
Pschenitzka in view of Lee in further view of Park in further view of Lin and Walker are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Pschenitzka in view of Lee in further view of Park in further view of Lin by using luminance ratios as the ones disclosed in Walker to improve the efficiency of the display device.
Regarding claim 2; Pschenitzka in view of Lee in further view of Park in further view of Lin in further view of Walker discloses all the claimed limitations of the display panel of claim 1.
However, Pschenitzka does not teach wherein a luminescent peak wavelength of the third light is greater than or equal to about 360 nm and less than about 500 nm.
Lee teaches wherein a luminescent peak wavelength of the third light is greater than or equal to about 360 nm and less than about 500 nm ([0034]: "... In an exemplary embodiment, the peak wavelength of the third wavelength band may be about 420 nm to about 480 nm. Accordingly, light having the third wavelength band may be blue light.").
Pschenitzka and Lee are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Pschenitzka and Park and Lin by using the light wavelength disclosed in Lee to improve the image quality and resolution produced by the device leading to a better performing device.
Regarding claim 3; Pschenitzka in view of Lee in further view of Park in further view of Lin in further view of Walker discloses all the claimed limitations of the display panel of claim 1.
Further, Pschenitzka teaches wherein the first light emitting unit (Pschenitzka: Fig (1): 109) and the second light emitting unit (110) are spaced apart from one another, and optionally wherein a partition wall (partition wall between 109 and 110) is disposed between the first light emitting unit (109) and the second light emitting unit (110).
Regarding claim 4; Pschenitzka in view of Lee in further view of Park in further view of Lin in further view of Walker discloses all the limitations of the display panel of claim 1.
However, Pschenitzka do not teach wherein a luminescent peak wavelength of the first light is in a range of greater than or equal to about 500 nm and less than or equal to about 580 nm, or a luminescent peak wavelength of the second light is in a range of greater than about 580 nm and less than or equal to about 680 nm.
Lee teaches wherein a luminescent peak wavelength of the first light is in a range of greater than or equal to about 500 nm and less than or equal to about 580 nm, or a luminescent peak wavelength of the second light is in a range of greater than about 580 nm and less than or equal to about 680 nm. (Lee: [0034]).
Pschenitzka and Lee are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Pschenitzka and Park and Lin by using the light wavelengths disclosed in Lee to improve the quality and resolution of the light emitted from the display device leading to a better performing device.
Regarding claim 5; Pschenitzka in view of Lee in further view of Park in further view of Lin in further view of Walker discloses all the limitations of the display panel of claim 1.
Further, Pschenitzka teaches wherein the first color conversion region (Pschenitzka: Fig (1): 112) comprises a first matrix and optionally metal oxide particles, and the first semiconductor nanoparticles and optionally the metal oxide particles are dispersed in the first matrix, or wherein the second color conversion region (113) further comprises a second matrix and optionally metal oxide particles, and the second semiconductor nanoparticles optionally the metal oxide particles are dispersed in the second matrix (see Col.: 4, Rows: 47 – 67 of the specification of Pschenitzka)
Regarding claim 6; Pschenitzka in view of Lee in further view of Park in further view of Lin in further view of Walker discloses all the limitations of the display panel of claim 1.
Further, Pschenitzka teaches wherein in the cross-section of the display panel, the length of the first optical diffuser (Pschenitzka: Fig (1): 115) is greater than or equal to about 0.1 times and less than or equal to about 1.2 times a length of the first color conversion region (112), and the length of the second optical diffuser (116) is greater than or equal to about 0.1 times and less than or equal to about 1.2 times a length of the second color conversion region (113).
Regarding claim 10; Pschenitzka in view of Lee in further view of Park in further view of Lin in further view of Walker discloses all the limitations of the display panel of claim 1.
Further, Pschenitzka teaches wherein the first optical diffuser (Pschenitzka: Fig (1): 115) or the second optical diffuser (116) comprises metal oxide particles dispersed in a matrix (see Col.: 4, Rows: 7-25 of the specification of Pschenitzka).
Regarding claim 11; Pschenitzka in view of Lee in further view of Park in further view of Lin in further view of Walker discloses all the display panel of claim 10.
Further, Pschenitzka teaches wherein the metal oxide particles comprise a zinc oxide, a titanium oxide, a zirconium oxide, a silicon oxide, a barium oxide, an aluminum oxide, or a combination thereof (see Col.: 4, Rows: 7-25 of the specification of Pschenitzka).
Regarding claim 12; Pschenitzka in view of Lee in further view of Park in further view of Lin in further view of Walker discloses all the limitations of the display panel of claim 10.
Further, Pschenitzka teaches wherein an average size of the metal oxide particles is greater than about 70 nm and less than or equal to about 700 nm (see Col.: 4, Rows: 7-25 of the specification of Pschenitzka).
Regarding claim 13; Pschenitzka in view of Lee in further view of Park in further view of Lin in further view of Walker discloses all the limitations of the display panel of claim 1.
Further, Pschenitzka teaches wherein the first optical diffuser (Pschenitzka: Fig (3): 115) is disposed adjacent to the first color conversion region (112), or wherein the second optical diffuser (116) is disposed adjacent to the second color conversion region (113).
PNG
media_image4.png
716
953
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15; Pschenitzka in view of Lee in further view of Park in further view of Lin in further view of Walker discloses all the limitations of the display panel of claim 1.
Further, Pschenitzka teaches wherein the first optical diffuser (Pschenitzka: Fig (3): 115) is disposed adjacent to the first light emitting unit (109), or wherein the second optical diffuser (116) is disposed adjacent to the second light emitting unit (110).
Regarding claim 17; Pschenitzka in view of Lee in further view of Park in further view of Lin in further view of Walker discloses all the claimed subject matter of claim 1.
Further, Pschenitzka teaches wherein an area of a light extraction surface of the first optical diffuser (Pschenitzka: Fig (1): 115) is greater than or equal to about 2 times and less than or equal to about 200 times an area of the light extraction surface of the first light emitting unit (109), or wherein an area of a light extraction surface of the second optical diffuser (116) is greater than or equal to about 2 times and less than or equal to about 200 times an area of the light extraction surface of the second light emitting unit (110).
Regarding claim 18; Pschenitzka in view of Lee in further view of Park in further view of Lin in further view of Walker discloses all the limitations of the display panel of claim 1.
Further, Pschenitzka teaches wherein the light emitting panel (Pschenitzka: Fig (1): panel containing 109 and 110) comprises a micro light emitting diode, an inorganic nano light emitting diode, or a combination thereof (see Col.:3, Rows: 28-31 of the specification of Pschenitzka: “Light-emitting pixels for micro-light-emitting diode (μLED) based displays are provided. Also provided are methods of fabricating individual pixels and arrays of pixels.”).
Regarding claim 19; ; Pschenitzka in view of Lee in further view of Park in further view of Lin in further view of Walker discloses all the limitations of the display panel of claim 1.
Pschenitzka in view of Lee in further view of Park does not teach wherein the display panel further comprises a light transmitting layer between the light emitting panel and the color conversion panel, and each of the first optical diffuser and the second optical diffuser is spaced apart from the light emitting panel by the light transmitting layer.
However, Lin teaches wherein the display panel further comprises a light transmitting layer (Lin: Fig (5): 126b) between the light emitting panel (Panel containing light emitting elements 102) and the color conversion panel (Panel containing the color conversion layers 306), and each of the first optical diffuser (344) and the second optical diffuser (344) is spaced apart from the light emitting panel (Panel containing light emitting elements 102) by the light transmitting layer (126b).
Pschenitzka in view of Lee in further view of Park and Lin are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Pschenitzka in view of Lee in further view of Park by constructing the light transmitting layer as disclosed in Lin to improve the protection of the light emitting panel against environmental elements such as humidity and dust thus leading to a more reliable device ([0045]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pschenitzka, US 11004835 B2 (Pschenitzka) in view of Lee et al, US 20190377223 A1 (Lee) in further view of Park et al, US 20210074769 A1 (Park) in further view of Lin et al, US 20210028327 A1 (Lin) ) in further view of Walker et al, KR 20130097736 A (Walker) in further view of Kim et al, US 20190074324 A1 (Kim).
Regarding claim 7; Pschenitzka in view of Lee in further view of Park in further view of Lin in further view of Walker discloses all the limitations of the display panel of claim 1.
However, Pschenitzka in view of Lee in further view of Park in further view of Lin in further view of Walker does not teach wherein a length of the first color conversion region and a length of the second color conversion region are each independently greater than or equal to about 1 µm, and less than or equal to about 700 µm.
Kim teaches wherein a length of the first color conversion region (Kim: Fig (2): 170R) and a length of the second color conversion region (170G) are each independently greater than or equal to about 1 µm, and less than or equal to about 700 µm ([0036]: "... The first wavelength conversion pattern 170R, the second wavelength conversion pattern 170G, and the third wavelength conversion pattern 170B may be implemented to have a fine pattern having a size corresponding to that of the subpixel (e.g., a side having a length of 10 μm or less). For example, longest sides of the respective subpixels may be 10 μm or less, e.g., in a plan view.").
Pschenitzka in view of Lee in further view of Park in further view of Lin in further view of Walker and Kim are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Pschenitzka in view of Lee in further view of Park in further view of Lin in further view of Walker by using the size of the light conversion layer disclosed in Kim to improve the resolution of the device leading to a better performing device.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pschenitzka, US 11004835 B2 (Pschenitzka) in view of Lee et al, US 20190377223 A1 (Lee) in further view of Park et al, US 20210074769 A1 (Park) in further view of Lin et al, US 20210028327 A1 (Lin) ) in further view of Walker et al, KR 20130097736 A (Walker) in further view of Zhou et al, CN 108666445 A (Zhuo).
Regarding claim 16; Pschenitzka in view of Lee in further view of Park in further view of Lin in further view of Walker discloses all the limitations of the display panel of claim 1.
However, Pschenitzka in view of Lee in further view of Park in further view of Lin in further view of Walker does not teach wherein the first optical diffuser or the second optical diffuser has each independently a height of greater than or equal to about 100 nm and less than or equal to about 10 µm.
Zhou teaches wherein the first optical diffuser (Zhou: Fig (1): 4) or the second optical diffuser has each independently a height of greater than or equal to about 100 nm and less than or equal to about 10 µm (see Page: 8 Lines: 27-28 of the specification of Zhou: “As an alternative embodiment, scattering layer 4 thickness may be between 200 nm - 10 μm. In the embodiment, the thickness preferably is 5 to μm”).
Pschenitzka in view of Lee in further view of Park in further view of Lin in further view of Walker and Zhou are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Pschenitzka in view of Lee in further view of Park in further view of Lin in further view of Walker by making the thickness of the optical diffuser in the range of 100 nm – 10 μm as disclosed in Zhou to improve the light collection properties of the diffuser leading to a more efficient device.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pschenitzka, US 11004835 B2 (Pschenitzka) in view of Lee et al, US 20190377223 A1 (Lee) in further view of Park et al, US 20210074769 A1 (Park) in further view of Lin et al, US 20210028327 A1 (Lin) in further view of Walker et al, KR 20130097736 A (Walker) in further view of Fukagawa et al, WO 2021014973 A1 (Fukagawa).
Regarding claim 20; Pschenitzka in view of Lee in further view of Park in further view of Lin in further view of Walker discloses the limitations of the display panel of claim 1.
However, Pschenitzka in view of Lee in further view of Park in further view of Lin in further view of Walker does not teach wherein a light entering surface of the first color conversion region or a light entering surface of the second color conversion region is configured to exhibit a luminance deviation of an incident light of less than or equal to about 30%.
Fukagawa teaches wherein a light entering surface of the first color conversion region or a light entering surface of the second color conversion region is configured to exhibit a luminance deviation of an incident light of less than or equal to about 30% (see Page: 4 Lines: 33-50 of the translation of the specification of Fukagawa attached to this OA: The upper limit of Ab (450) / Ab (430) in the relational expression (I) is preferably 0.90 or less, more preferably 0.85 or less, further preferably 0.80 or less, and particularly preferably 0.60 or less. .. The lower limit is not particularly limited, but 0.05 or more is practical, 0.10 or more is preferable, and 0.20 or more is more preferable. The upper limit of Ab (450) / Ab (500) in the relational expression (II) is preferably 0.90 or less, more preferably 0.80 or less, further preferably 0.75 or less, and particularly preferably 0.65 or less. Of these, 0.60 or less is preferable, and 0.50 or less is most preferable. The lower limit is not particularly limited, but 0.05 or more is practical, 0.10 or more is preferable, and 0.20 or more is more preferable…”).
Pschenitzka in view of Lee in further view of Park in further view of Lin in further view of Walker and Fukagawa are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Pschenitzka in view of Lee in further view of Park in further view of Lin in further view of Walker by making the luminance deviation match what is disclosed in Fukagawa to ensure that the device performs in a consistent manner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Moataz Khalifa whose telephone number is (703)756-1770. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (8:30 am - 5:00).
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, Kretelia Graham can be reached at (571) 272-5055. 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.
/M.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/Kretelia Graham/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights