DETAIELD 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 .
Remarks
The 12/23/2025 amendments of claim 1 have been noted and entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pages 9-16, filed 12/23/2025, 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 Lin et al, US 20210028327 A1 (Lin).
New Grounds for Rejection
New grounds for rejection, prior art reference Lin et al, US 20210028327 A1 (Lin) 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.
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).
Regarding claim 1; Pschenitzka teaches a display panel, comprising a light emitting panel comprising a plurality of light emitting units ((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) and (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) , the second color conversion region (113) comprises second semiconductor nanoparticles (see Col.: 4, Rows: 7-25 of the specification of Pschenitzka), 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), 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, 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.
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 (First Light Emitting Unit – Annotated Fig (1) of Lee) to a first light (see paragraph [0042] of the specification of Lee), the second color conversion region (162) comprises second semiconductor nanoparticles (162a), wherein the second color conversion region is configured to convert a third light emitted from the second light emitting unit (Second Light Emitting Unit – Annotated Fig (1) of Lee) to a second light (see paragraph [0052] of the specification of Lee). 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
Pschenitzka in view of Lee teaches all the above disclosed subject matter.
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 (see paragraph [0164] of the specification of Park) 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 (see paragraph [0164] of the specification of Park). 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.
Pschenitzka in view of Lee in further view of Park teach all the above disclosed subject matter.
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 (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 in Fig (5) of Lin shared in this OA for convenience). 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 (see paragraph [0059] of the specification of Lin).
PNG
media_image3.png
733
990
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2; Pschenitzka in view of Lee in further view of Park in further view of Lin discloses all the claimed subject matter of claim 1.
However, Pschenitzka and Park and Lin do 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 (see paragraph [0034] of the specification of Lee: " [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 Park and Lin 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 discloses all the claimed subject matter of claim 1.
Further, Pschenitzka teaches wherein the first light emitting unit (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) – Fig (1) – Pschenitzka) 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 discloses all the claimed subject matter of claim 1.
However, Pschenitzka and Park and Lin 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. (see paragraph [0034] of Lee: “[0034]… The third-color light L3 may have a third wavelength band. The first, second, and third wavelength bands may differ from one another. In an exemplary embodiment, the central wavelength or peak wavelength of the first wavelength band may be about 600 nm to about 670 nm. Accordingly, light having the first wavelength band may be red light. In an exemplary embodiment, the peak wavelength of the second wavelength band may be about 500 nm to about 570 nm. Accordingly, light having the second wavelength band may be green light. 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 Park and Lin 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 discloses all the claimed subject matter of claim 1.
Further, Pschenitzka teaches wherein the first color conversion region (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: “The light-emission layers include phosphor particles and/or phosphor molecules and, optionally, scattering particles disposed in (e.g., dispersed in) in a polymeric matrix. In some embodiments, the phosphors are quantum dots. However, other phosphors can be used, such as potassium fluorosilicate. In the embodiments of the pixels shown in FIGS. 1-3, quantum dots are represented by solid circles. The scattering particles in the light-emission layers may the same as, or different from, the scattering particles in the scattering layers. Quantum Dots (QDs) are small crystalline, inorganic particles that absorb incident radiation having a first wavelength, or a first range of wavelengths, and convert the energy of the radiation into light having a different wavelength, or a different range of wavelengths, which is emitted from the QDs within a very narrow part of the optical spectrum”).
Regarding claim 6; Pschenitzka in view of Lee in further view of Park in further view of Lin discloses the claimed subject matter of claim 1.
Further, Pschenitzka teaches wherein in the cross-section of the display panel, the length of the first optical diffuser (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 discloses all the claimed subject matter of claim 1.
Further, Pschenitzka teaches wherein the first optical diffuser (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: “… Scattering by GSPs is accomplished by refraction at the surface of the particle. Examples of GSPs include metal oxide particles, such as particles of zirconium oxide (i.e., zirconia), titanium oxide (i.e., titania), and aluminum oxide (i.e., alumina). A PSNP is characterized in that incident light excites an electron density wave in the nanoparticle that creates a local oscillating electric field extending out from the surface of the nanoparticle. Examples of PSNPs include metal nanoparticles, such as nanoparticles of silver.”).
Regarding claim 11; Pschenitzka in view of Lee in further view of Park in further view of Lin discloses all the claimed subject matter 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: “… Scattering by GSPs is accomplished by refraction at the surface of the particle. Examples of GSPs include metal oxide particles, such as particles of zirconium oxide (i.e., zirconia), titanium oxide (i.e., titania), and aluminum oxide (i.e., alumina). A PSNP is characterized in that incident light excites an electron density wave in the nanoparticle that creates a local oscillating electric field extending out from the surface of the nanoparticle. Examples of PSNPs include metal nanoparticles, such as nanoparticles of silver.”).
Regarding claim 12; Pschenitzka in view of Lee in further view of Park in further view of Lin discloses all the claimed subject matter 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: “… The scattering particles (abbreviated SPs), may be geometric scattering particles (abbreviated GSPs), plasmonic scattering nanoparticles (abbreviated PSNPs), or a combination thereof. It should be noted that, although the PSNPs will generally have at least one nanoscale dimension—that is, at least one dimension of not greater than about 1000 nm—the nanoparticles need not be round particles.”).
Regarding claim 13; Pschenitzka in view of Lee in further view of Park in further view of Lin discloses the claimed subject matter of claim 1.
Further, Pschenitzka teaches wherein the first optical diffuser (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 discloses all the claimed subject matter of claim 1.
Further, Pschenitzka teaches wherein the first optical diffuser (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 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 (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) (see Fig(1) – Pschenitzka).
Regarding claim 18; Pschenitzka in view of Lee in further view of Park in further view of Lin discloses all the claimed subject matter of claim 1.
Further, Pschenitzka teaches wherein the light emitting panel (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.”).
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 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 discloses all the claimed subject matter of claim 1.
However, Pschenitzka in view of Lee in further view of Park in further view of Lin 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 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 (See paragraph [0036] of the specification of Kim: " [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 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 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 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 discloses all the claimed subject matter of claim 1.
However, Pschenitzka in view of Lee in further view of Park in further view of Lin 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 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 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 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 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.
Claims 19-20 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 Fukagawa et al, WO 2021014973 A1 (Fukagawa).
Regarding claim 19; Pschenitzka in view of Lee in further view of Park in further view of Lin discloses all the claimed subject matter of claim 1.
However, 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.
Fukagawa 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 the specification of Fukagawa: 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 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 by making the luminance ratio match what is disclosed in Fukagawa to ensure that enough light goes through the diffuser and the color conversion layer to make the device effective and efficient.
Regarding claim 20; Pschenitzka in view of Lee in further view of Park in further view of Lin discloses the claimed subject matter of claim 1.
However, Pschenitzka in view of Lee in further view of Park in further view of Lin 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 the specification of Fukagawa: 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 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 by making the luminance deviation match what is disclosed in Fukagawa to ensure that the device performs in a consistent manner.
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 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, Joshua Benitez can be reached at 571-270-1435. 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.
/MOATAZ KHALIFA/Examiner, Art Unit 2815
/MONICA D HARRISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815
Prosecution Insights