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 .
Remarks
The 04/20/2026 amendment of claim 1 has been noted and entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pages 5-9, filed 04/20/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-13 and 15-19 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 Sun et al, US 20240268159 A1 (Sun).
New Grounds of Rejection
New grounds of rejection, prior art reference Sun et al, US 20240268159 A1 (Sun) 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 1-5, 7-11, 13 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung et al, US 20200251623 A1 (Chung) in view of Shin et al, US 20210118962 A1 (Shin) in further view of Tsai et al, US 20220029062 A1 (Tsai) in further view of Sun et al, US 20240268159 A1 (Sun).
Regarding claim 1; Chung teaches A display device, comprising:
a display module (Chung: Annotated Fig (7) shared in this OA: 20) having a substrate (210),
a plurality of photoelectric units (220a) and a protective layer (220b),
wherein the substrate (210) has a first surface (top surface) and a second surface (bottom surface) opposite to each other,
the photoelectric units (220a) are arranged on the first surface (top surface) of the substrate (210), each of the photoelectric units (220a) has at least one photoelectric element,
the at least one photoelectric element has a photoelectric chip or a photoelectric package ([0049]: “… In an embodiment, the light-emitting element packages 220a may include semiconductor light emitting chips such as a light emitting diode (“LED”), for example.”), and
the protective layer (220b) is arranged on the first surface of the substrate (210) and fills between the photoelectric elements (220a); and
a light-shielding structure (110) arranged on and connected to the protective layer (220b),
wherein the light-shielding structure (110) has a light-shielding layer (110) including light-absorption materials, and
a plurality of windows (Windows) defined in the light-shielding layer (110);
the windows (Windows) respectively correspond to the photoelectric units (220a), and
when the photoelectric units (220a) are viewed through the corresponding windows (Windows) it will be in a direction (D3) perpendicular to the first surface (top surface) of the substrate (210),
wherein the light-shielding structure further includes a reflective layer arranged along the light-shielding layer, and
the reflective layer is located between the protective layer and the light- shielding layer, and
wherein, in a direction perpendicular to the first surface of the substrate, an orthographic projection of each of the photoelectric elements is at least partially non-overlapping with an orthographic projection of the reflective layer.
PNG
media_image1.png
872
681
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Chung does not teach wherein the light-shielding structure has a light-shielding layer includes light-absorption materials.
Shin teaches wherein the light-shielding structure has a light-shielding layer (Shin: Fig (1B): 150+143+152) includes light-absorption materials (152, [0067]: “… Therefore, the external light is absorbed by both the variable light shielding unit 151A and the light shielding unit 152A so that the external light reflectance may be effectively reduced without using a polarizing plate.”).
Chung and Shin 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 Chung by using light-absorption materials in the light-shielding layer such as disclosed in Shin to improve the light-blocking performance of the light-shielding layer leading to better performance of the device.
PNG
media_image2.png
713
961
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Chung in view of Shin does not teach wherein the light-shielding structure further includes a reflective layer arranged along the light-shielding layer, and the reflective layer is located between the protective layer and the light- shielding layer.
Tsai teaches wherein the light-shielding structure (Tsai: Fig (6A): 5+8) further includes a reflective layer (8) arranged along the light-shielding layer (5), and the reflective layer (8) is located between the protective layer (2) and the light- shielding layer (5).
Chung in view of Shin and Tsai 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 Chung in view of Shin by using the reflective layer disclosed by Tsai to improve the light reflection properties of the light shielding structure leading to a better performance of the display device.
PNG
media_image3.png
620
859
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Chung in view of Shin in further view of Tsai does not teach and wherein, in a direction perpendicular to the first surface of the substrate, an orthographic projection of each of the photoelectric elements is at least partially non-overlapping with an orthographic projection of the reflective layer.
Sun teaches and wherein, in a direction (Sun: Annotated Fig (5) shared in this OA: Z-direction) perpendicular to the first surface (top surface) of the substrate (1), an orthographic projection of each of the photoelectric elements (3) is at least partially non-overlapping with an orthographic projection of the reflective layer (9).
Chung in view of Shin in further view of Tsai and Sun are considered analogous art. Rhus, 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 Chung in view of Shin in further view of Tsai by constructing the reflective structures as disclosed in Sun to allow for better light extraction from the photoelectric elements leading to a better performing device.
PNG
media_image4.png
588
831
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2; Chung in view of Shin in further view of Tsai in further view of Sun teaches all the limitations of the display device of claim 1.
Further, Chung teaches wherein the protective layer (Chung: Annotated Fig(7) shared in this OA: 220b) is a light-permeable layer ([0055]).
Regarding claim 3; Chung in view of Shin in further view of Tsai in further view of Sun teaches all the limitations of the display device of claim 1.
Further, Chung teaches wherein the windows (Chung: Annotated Fig (7) shared in this OA: Windows) respectively correspond to the photoelectric elements (220a), and the photoelectric elements (220a) are viewed through the windows (Windows) in the direction (D3) perpendicular to the first surface of the substrate (210).
Regarding claim 4; Chung in view of Shin in further view of Tsai in further view of Sun teaches all the limitations of the display device of claim 1.
Further, Chung teaches wherein a pitch between adjacent two of the windows (Chung: Annotated Fig (7) shared in this OA: Windows) is equal to a pitch between adjacent two of the photoelectric units (220a).
Regarding claim 5; Chung in view of Shin in further view of Tsai in further view of Sun teaches all the limitations of the display device of claim 1.
Further, Chung teaches wherein a pitch between adjacent two of the windows (Chung: Annotated Fig (7) shared in this OA: Windows) is equal to a pitch between adjacent two of the photoelectric elements (220a).
Regarding claim 7; Chung in view of Shin in further view of Tsai in further view of Sun teaches all the limitations of the display device of claim 1.
Further, Chung teaches wherein the protective layer (Chung: Annotated Fig (7) shared in this OA: 220b) covers top surfaces of the photoelectric elements (220a).
Regarding claim 8; Chung in view of Shin in further view of Tsai in further view of Sun teaches all the limitations of the display device of claim 1.
Further, Chung teaches wherein the light-shielding layer (Chung: Annotated Fig (7) shared in this OA: 110) directly connects the protective layer (220b).
Regarding claim 9; Chung in view of Shin in further view of Tsai in further view of Sun teaches all the limitations of the display device of claim 1.
However, Chung does not teach wherein the light-shielding structure further has a transparent substrate connecting the protective layer, and the light-shielding layer is arranged on a surface of the transparent substrate away from the protective layer.
Shin teaches wherein the light-shielding structure (Shin: Fig (1B): 150+143+152) further has a transparent substrate (143) connecting the protective layer (140), and the light-shielding layer (150 +143+152) is arranged on a surface of the transparent substrate (143) away from the protective layer (140).
Chung and Tsai and Shin are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing this application to modify Chung and Tsai by using the transparent layer disclosed in Shin to enhance the protection and durability of the device.
Regarding claim 10; Chung in view of Shin in further view of Tsai in further view of Sun teaches all the limitations of the display device of claim 1.
Further, Chung teaches wherein each of the windows (Chung: Annotated Fig (7) shared in this OA: Windows) is an opening defined through the light-shielding layer (110).
Regarding claim 11; Chung in view of Shin in further view of Tsai in further view of Sun teaches all the limitations of the display device of claim 10.
Further, Chung teaches wherein the light-shielding structure (Chung: Annotated Fig (7) shared in this OA: layer that contains 110) further has a light-permeable element (120R) filling a corresponding one of the openings (Windows).
Regarding claim 13; Chung in view of Shin in further view of Tsai in further view of Sun teaches all the limitations of the display device of claim 1.
Further, Chung teaches wherein, in the direction (Chung: Annotated Fig (7) shared in this OA: D3) perpendicular to the first surface (top surface) of the substrate (210), a dimension of each of the windows (Windows) is greater than or equal to a dimension of corresponding one of the photoelectric units (220a).
Regarding claim 15; Chung in view of Shin in further view of Tsai in further view of Sun teaches all the limitations of the display device of claim 1.
However, Chung in view of Shin does not teach wherein a width of the reflective layer is not greater than a width of the light-shielding layer.
Tsai teaches wherein a width of the reflective layer (Tsai: Fig (6A): 8) is not greater than a width of the light-shielding layer (5).
Chung in view of Shin and Tsai 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 sill in the art, to modify Chung in view of Chin by making the reflective layer width not greater than a width of the light-shielding layer as disclosed in Tsai to make the footprint of the device smaller and thus make the device more efficient.
Regarding claim 16; Chung in view of Shin in further view of Tsai in further view of Sun teaches all the limitations of the display device of claim 1.
However, Chung does not teach wherein the light-shielding layer comprises a light absorption material.
Shin teaches wherein the light-shielding layer (Shin: Fig (1B): 150+143+152) comprises a light absorption material (152, [0067]: “Therefore, the external light is absorbed by both the variable light shielding unit 151A and the light shielding unit 152A so that the external light reflectance may be effectively reduced without using a polarizing plate.”).
Chung and Shin 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 Chung by using light-absorption materials in the light-shielding layer such as disclosed in Shin to improve the light-blocking performance of the light-shielding layer leading to better performance of the device.
.
Regarding claim 17; Chung in view of Shin in further view of Tsai in further view of Sun teaches all the limitations of the display device of claim 1.
However, Chung does not teach wherein the light-shielding structure further comprises a light absorption layer arranged along the light-shielding layer, and the light absorption layer is located at one side of the light-shielding layer away from the protective layer.
Shin teaches wherein the light-shielding structure (Shin: Fig (1B): 150+143+152) further comprises a light absorption layer (152) arranged along the light-shielding layer (150+143+152), and the light absorption layer (152) is located at one side of the light-shielding layer (150+143+152) away from the protective layer (140).
Chung and Shin 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 Chung by using light-absorption materials in the light-shielding layer such as disclosed in Shin to improve the light-blocking performance of the light-shielding layer leading to better performance of the device.
Regarding claim 18; Chung in view of Shin in further view of Tsai in further view of Sun teaches all the limitations of the display device of claim 1.
Further, Chung teaches wherein the light-shielding structure (Chung: Annotated Fig (7) shared in this OA: 110) further defined plural of window areas (Windows) corresponding to the widows respectively, and a non-window area (areas blocked by the 110 structures) representing a remaining area other than the widow areas, an ambient-light reflectivity of the non-window area (areas blocked by the (110) structures) is less than that of at least one of the window areas (Windows).
Regarding claim 19; Chung in view of Shin in further view of Tsai in further view of Sun teaches all the limitations of the display device of claim 1.
Further, Chung teaches wherein the protective layer (Chung: Annotated Fig (7) shared in this OA: 220b) defines a light-emitting surface away from the substrate (210), and the light-emitting surface is a roughened surface.
However, Chung does not teach the light-emitting surface is a roughened surface.
Shin teaches the light-emitting surface is a roughened surface (Shin: [0016]: “The display device according to the present disclosure further reduces the reflectance by adjusting a surface roughness of the variable light shielding unit that is changed to the transmission mode and the shielding mode.”).
Chung and Shin 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 Chung by using the roughened light-emitting surface disclosed in Shin to improve the performance of the device.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung et al, US 20200251623 A1 (Chung) in view of Shin et al, US 20210118962 A1 (Shin) in further view of Tsai et al, US 20220029062 A1 (Tsai) in further view of Sun et al, US 20240268159 A1 (Sun) in further view of Zhong et al, JP 2017139464 A (Zhong)
Regarding claim 6; Chung in view of Shin in further view of Tsai in further view of Sun teaches all the limitations of the display device of claim 1.
However, Chung in view of Shin in further view of Tsai in further view of Sun does not teach wherein a top surface of the protective layer and top surfaces of the photoelectric elements together define a coplanar surface.
Zhong teaches wherein a top surface of the protective layer (Zhong: Fig (11D): 104) and top surfaces of the photoelectric elements (2a+32, 2b+64, 2c+66) together define a coplanar surface.
Chung in view of Shin in further view of Tsai in further view of Sun and Zhong 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 Chung in view of Shin in further view of Tsai in further view of Sun by introducing the coplanar feature of the photoelectric elements and the protective layer as disclosed in Zhong to improve the packageability of the device by planarizing the top surface of the light emitting portion of the device.
PNG
media_image5.png
431
748
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung et al, US 20200251623 A1 (Chung) in view of Shin et al, US 20210118962 A1 (Shin) in further view of Tsai et al, US 20220029062 A1 (Tsai) in further view of Sun et al, US 20240268159 A1 (Sun) in further view of Han et al, CN 107195748 B (Han).
Regarding claim 12; Chung in view of Shin in further view of Tsai in further view of Sun teaches all the limitations of the display device of claim 11.
However, Chung in view of Shin in further view of Tsai in further view of Sun does not teach wherein the light-permeable element defines a refractive index decreasing away from the protective layer.
Han teaches wherein the light-permeable element (Han: Fig (12): 122) defines a refractive index decreasing away from the protective layer (18, see Page: 13 Lines: 16-19 of the translated copy of Han attached to this OA: “the window layer 122 of refractive index between the second transparent structure 18 and the refractive index of the environment, can be reduced at the interface of the second transparent structure 18 to the environment has probability of total reflection. the window layer 122 of refractive index greater than about 1 and/or less than 2, preferably between 1.4 and 1.1.”).
Chung in view of Shin in further view of Tsai in further view of Sun and Han 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 Chung in view of Shin in further view of Tsai in further view of Sun by decreasing the refractive index of the light permeable element away from the protective layer as disclosed in Han leading to a better performance of the device.
PNG
media_image6.png
898
703
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Prior art made of record but not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Bae et al, US 20220077121 A1 (Bae); discloses light shielding structures containing reflective elements which partially do not overlap the photoelectric units.
Cha et al, US 20210367124 A1 (Cha); discloses photoelectric units, light shielding layer and openings in the light shielding layer.
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, 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