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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application and are currently being examined. Claim 19 has been withdrawn per the 11/2/2025 restriction election (see below).
Note on Currently Pending Dependent Claims
A series of singular dependent claims is permissible in which a dependent claim refers to a preceding claim which, in turn, refers to another preceding claim.
A claim which depends from a dependent claim should not be separated by any claim which does not also depend from said dependent claim. It should be kept in mind that a dependent claim may refer to any preceding independent claim. In general, applicant's sequence will not be changed. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
In particular claim 10 depends upon claim 6. However, claims 7-9 do not depend upon claim 6. Should application be allowed, claims will be renumbered according to dependencies.
Election/Restrictions
Claim 19 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/2/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/28/2022, is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Every instance of element 710 refers to the element as a package gule. This is assumed to be a typo meant to be a package glue.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 2 and 3 of claim 16 reference a "package gule". This term is not defined in the specification and also is not known in the art. Examiner assumes this a typo meant to mean "package glue", and will be the interpretation for examination. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 17 appears to refer to the light element as containing numerous light elements within itself. This seems to not align with Figures 29-35 which specify a pixel. The color resist 900 appears to be referring to a color resist layer, as the color resists 910, 920, and 930 all seem to be separate elements in Fig. 44 in the same layer. For the purposes of examination, claim 7 will be interpreted to read:
The display panel according to claim 10, further comprising:
a color resist layer covering a pixel;
wherein the color resist layer comprises a blue color resist and a green color resist, the pixel comprises a blue light emitting element, a green light emitting element and a red light emitting element, the blue color resist covers the blue light emitting element, and the green color resist covers the green light emitting element.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4 and 7-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “first opening” in lines 2-4. It is unclear if the “first opening” in claim 4 is the same as the “opening” in lines 3 and 6 of claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as they appear to be referencing the same opening. For examination purposes, “opening” in lines 3 and 6 of claim 1 is being interpreted as “first opening” and “a first opening” in line 2 of claim 4 will be interpreted as “the first opening.” Appropriate action is required.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “first opening” in lines 3-4. It is unclear if the “first opening” in claim 7 is the same as the “opening” in lines 3 and 6 of claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as they appear to be referencing the same opening. For examination purposes, “opening” in lines 3 and 6 of claim 1 is being interpreted as “first opening” and “a first opening” in line 3 of claim 7 will be interpreted as “the first opening.” Appropriate action is required.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “first opening” in line 2. It is unclear if the “first opening” in claim 9 is the same as the “opening” in lines 3 and 6 of claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as they appear to be referencing the same opening. For examination purposes, “opening” in lines 3 and 6 of claim 1 is being interpreted as “first opening.” Appropriate action is required.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “first opening” in line 4. It is unclear if the “first opening” in claim 10 is the same as the “opening” in lines 3 and 6 of claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as they appear to be referencing the same opening. For examination purposes, “opening” in lines 3 and 6 of claim 1 is being interpreted as “first opening” and “a first opening” in line 4 of claim 10 will be interpreted as “the first opening.” Appropriate action is required.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “first opening” in lines 3 and 5-6. It is unclear if the “first opening” in claim 11 is the same as the “opening” in lines 3 and 6 of claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as they appear to be referencing the same opening. For examination purposes, “opening” in lines 3 and 6 of claim 1 is being interpreted as “first opening.” Appropriate action is required.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “first opening” in lines 8 and 12. It is unclear if the “first opening” in claim 12 is the same as the “opening” in lines 3 and 6 of claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as they appear to be referencing the same opening. For examination purposes, “opening” in lines 3 and 6 of claim 1 is being interpreted as “first opening.” Appropriate action is required.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “first opening” in lines 2-3. It is unclear if the “first opening” in claim 15 is the same as the “opening” in lines 3 and 6 of claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as they appear to be referencing the same opening. For examination purposes, “opening” in lines 3 and 6 of claim 1 is being interpreted as “first opening.” Appropriate action is required.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “first opening” in lines 8. It is unclear if the “first opening” in claim 16 is the same as the “opening” in lines 3 and 6 of claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as they appear to be referencing the same opening. For examination purposes, “opening” in lines 3 and 6 of claim 1 is being interpreted as “first opening.” Appropriate action is required.
Claims 8, 13-14, and 17-18 are also rejected as they are dependent upon a rejected claim.
Claim 10 states “the first organic layer is provided with a first opening and a third opening, the first opening defines the light emitting element setting area, and the third opening defines the pixel light-transmitting area.” However, claim 6 appears to teach the first opening being the same as the third opening of claim 10. For the purposes of examination, the labeling of the first opening and the third opening in claim 10 will be reversed, such that the limitation reads, “the first organic layer is provided with a first opening and a third opening, the third opening defines the light emitting element setting area, and the first opening defines the pixel light-transmitting area.”
Claim 11 recites the limitation “L<10 microns” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As far as the Examiner can tell, there is no definition of “L” anywhere in the specification, and it is not referenced anywhere else in the claims. For the purposes of examination, claim 11 will be interpreted as though this limitation has been omitted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jung et al. (US 2021/0443616 A1, hereafter Jung).
Regarding claim 1, Fig. 18 of Jung teaches a display panel, comprising:
a drive substrate (backplane, 100, [0089]) comprising a first film layer (114, [0110]), the first film layer being provided with a first opening (see annotated Fig. 18);
a light emitting element (300, [0090]) positioned on the drive substrate (100) and comprising a body portion (330 and 370, [0117]) and an electrode (310 and 320, referenced in Fig. 6, [0093]);
wherein the electrode comprises a first portion (310) positioned in the first opening.
PNG
media_image1.png
400
803
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Jung teaches the display panel according to claim 1, wherein
the first film layer (114, [0110]) comprises a first organic layer. Jung states in [0111] that the insulating layers, which would include 114, may be organic.
Regarding claim 3, Jung teaches the display panel according to claim 2, wherein
the drive substrate (100, [0089]) further comprises a planarization layer (113, [0106]) and a connection portion (410, [0107]), the planarization layer (113) is positioned on a side of the first organic layer (114) away from the light emitting element (300, [0090]), the connection portion (410) is positioned between the first organic layer (114, [0110]) and the planarization layer (113), and the first portion of the electrode (310, referenced in Fig. 6, [0093]) is electrically connected to the connection portion (410);
the drive substrate (100) further comprises a drive circuit layer (see annotated Fig. 18), the drive circuit layer is positioned on a side of the planarization layer (113) away from the first organic layer (114), and the drive circuit layer comprises a thin film transistor (200, [0090]) (while Jung does not explicitly state transistor 200 is a thin film transistor, [0090] says the thin film transistor driver circuit includes the driving transistor, meaning the driving transistor 200 would be a thin film transistor);
the connection portion (410) comprises a first connection portion (see annotated Fig. 18), and the thin film transistor (200) is connected to the first connection portion;
the drive substrate (100) further comprises a substrate (101, [0096]) and a passivation layer (112, [0103]), the substrate (101) is positioned on a side of the drive circuit layer (100) away from the first organic layer (114), and the passivation layer (112) is positioned between the drive circuit layer and the planarization layer (113).
PNG
media_image2.png
400
803
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Jung teaches the display panel according to claim 2. Jung does not explicitly disclose the first organic layer (114, [0110]) comprises negative photoresist.
However, Jung teaches the material layer 114 can be made from an organic insulating material ([0111]). Jung lists organic insulating materials including polyimide ([0098]). Polyimide is known in the art to be a negative photoresist material, as taught in [0070] of Lee et al. (US 2011/0096259 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Fig. 18 of Jung teaches a display apparatus comprising a display panel, wherein the display panel comprises:
a drive substrate (100, [0089]) comprising a first film layer (114, [0110]), the first film layer being provided with an opening (see annotated Fig. 18);
a light emitting element (300, [0090]) positioned on the drive substrate (100) and comprising a body portion (330 and 370, [0117]) and an electrode (310 and 320, referenced in Fig. 6, [0093]);
wherein the electrode comprises a first portion (310) positioned in the opening.
PNG
media_image1.png
400
803
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Hou (US 2021/0359042 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Jung teaches the display panel according to claim 2, wherein
the first organic layer (114, [0110]) is provided with the first opening (see annotated Fig. 18).
Jung fails to disclose a sidewall of the first opening is inclined toward an interior of the first opening, as the sidewalls all appear to be rectangular (no incline).
However, Hou teaches in Figs. 5 and 12 a display panel with a bank layer (240a [0053]) similar to layer the organic layer (114) of Jung. In Fig. 12, the edges of the bank have no incline, however, there is an incline in the edges of the bank in Fig. 5. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the edges of layer 114 in Jung to have inclines like those taught in Hou as they are obvious variants of one another.
PNG
media_image3.png
400
803
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 6, 10-12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Noda et al. (US 2013/0026478 A1, hereafter Noda).
Regarding claim 6, Jung teaches the display panel according to claim 2. Jung fails to disclose the first organic layer (114, [0110]) comprises a light absorbing material.
However, Jung teaches the material layer 114 can be made from an organic insulating material ([0111]). Jung lists organic insulating materials including polyimide ([0098]). Noda teaches a similar display device in which an organic insulating layer 19 can also comprise polyimide ([0048]). This layer further contains a material that absorbs visible light, such as an azo-based colorant ([0048]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the organic layer 114 of Jung to include a light absorbing material such as an azo-based colorant, in order to decrease reflection of the display, as Noda teaches in [0048].
Regarding claim 10, Jung in view of Noda discloses the display panel according to claim 6. Jung teaches in Fig. 18 the display panel comprises a pixel light-transmitting area (see annotated Fig. 18) and a non-light-transmitting area (see annotated Fig. 18), and the non-light-transmitting area comprises a light emitting element setting area (area where repair LED 300’ may be disposed, and for the purposes of examination will be disposed, as shown in annotated Fig. 18);
the first organic layer (114, [0110]) is provided with a first opening (see annotated Fig. 18) and a third opening (see annotated Fig. 18), the third opening defines the light emitting element setting area (the third opening denotes an edge of the light emitting element setting area), and the first opening defines the pixel light-transmitting area (the first opening denotes an edge of the pixel light-transmitting area).
PNG
media_image4.png
400
803
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Jung in view of Noda teach the display panel according to claim 10. Fig. 18 of Jung further shows along a first direction (see annotated Fig. 18, a distance between the electrode (310, referenced in Fig. 6, [0093]) of the light emitting element (300, [0090]) and an edge of the first opening (see annotated Fig. 18) is greater than zero;
wherein the first direction is parallel to a plane where the display panel is positioned.
Jung in view of Noda is silent on the distance between the electrode of the light emitting element and the edge of the first opening is less than or equal to 10 microns.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art can adjust the distance between the electrode 310 and edge of the first opening in the organic layer to be less than 10 microns through routine experimentation to get the expected result of maximized electrical contact between the electrode 310 and the contact portion 410, while also avoiding electrical contact between the electrode 310 and the organic layer 114 (see MPEP 2144.05).
PNG
media_image5.png
400
803
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Jung in view of Noda teach the display panel according to claim 11. Fig. 18 of Jung further teaches
the drive substrate (backplane, 100, [0089]) further comprises a drive circuit layer (see annotated Fig. 18), a planarization layer (113, [0106]) and a connection portion (410, [0107]);
the planarization layer (113) is positioned between the drive circuit layer and the connection portion (410);
the connection portion (410) is positioned between the planarization layer and the first organic layer (114, [0110]);
the first opening (see annotated Fig. 18) of the first organic layer (114) exposes the connection portion (410);
the drive circuit layer comprises a thin film transistor (200, [0090]) (while Jung does not explicitly state transistor 200 is a thin film transistor, [0090] says the thin film transistor driver circuit includes the driving transistor, meaning the driving transistor 200 would be a thin film transistor);
the connection portion (410) comprises a first connection portion (see annotated Fig. 18) connected to the thin film transistor (200) through a contact via of the planarization layer (113);
the contact via is not overlapped with the first opening.
PNG
media_image6.png
400
803
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Jung in view of Noda teach the display panel according to claim 10. Jung further teaches in Fig. 18 a height of the first organic layer (114, [0110]) is less than a height of the light emitting element (300, [0090]).
Claim(s) 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung, and further in view of Shin et al. (US 2022/0069165 A1, hereafter Shin).
Regarding claim 7, Jung teaches the display panel according to claim 2. Jung further teaches in Fig. 18 the first organic layer (114, [0110]) is provided with the first opening (see annotated Fig. 18).
Jung fails to disclose the first film layer further comprises a protective layer covering the first organic layer;
the protective layer is provided with a second opening, and the second opening is overlapped with the first opening;
the protective layer covers a sidewall of the first opening of the first organic layer;
the protective layer comprises an inorganic layer.
However, Shin teaches a similar display device in Fig. 6 in which the organic layer (bank, BNL1, [0113]) has a first opening (OP1, [0129]) and is also covered by a protective layer (PAS1, [0110]). The protective layer has a second opening that overlaps the first opening (see annotated Fig. 6). The protective layer also comprises an inorganic layer (Shin discloses PAS1 can comprise silicon oxide, which is inorganic [0150]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display device of Jung to include a protective layer, like the PAS1 of Shin, above the organic layer 114 in order to protect the light emitting element from unwanted contact with other elements, thus preventing damage to the device, as Shin teaches in [0128].
PNG
media_image3.png
400
803
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
486
695
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Jung in view of Shin teach the display panel according to claim 7, wherein the second opening is larger than the first opening (see annotated Fig. 6 of Shin).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of Shin, and further in view of Mori et al. (US 2013/0134536 A1, hereafter Mori).
Regarding claim 8, Jung in view of Shin teaches the display panel according to claim 7. Shin fails to explicitly teach the protective layer comprises a silicon nitride layer and a silicon oxide layer that are stacked, and the silicon nitride layer is positioned between the silicon oxide layer and the first organic layer;
a thickness of the silicon nitride layer is less than a thickness of the silicon oxide layer.
However, Shin discloses the protective layer (PAS1, [0110]) can be multilayered and include both a silicon nitride layer and a silicon oxide layer. Mori shows a display device in Fig. 8 in which a silicon oxide layer (117, [0088]) is above a silicon nitride layer (116, [0088]). The silicon nitride layer is used to reduce reflection of incident light [0104], while the silicon oxide is utilized to improve color mixture as it has a lower refractive index [0007] and [0025]. Mori further teaches in Fig. 8 the silicon oxide being thicker than the silicon nitride. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the protective layer of Jung in view of Shin to comprise a thinner silicon nitride layer below a thicker silicon oxide layer as taught by Mori.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of Noda, and further in view of Han et al. (US 2005/0110403 A1, hereafter Han).
Regarding claim 13, Jung in view of Noda teach the display panel according to claim 12. Jung in view of Noda fail to teach the planarization layer is provided with a fourth opening overlapped with the pixel light- transmitting area, and the first organic layer covers a sidewall of the fourth opening of the planarization layer.
However, Han teaches a display device in Fig. 7 in which the electrode (610a) is formed in a hole in the passivation layer (807, [0075]) similar to the connection portion 410 of Jung. Han teaches the pixel defining layer (615, [0060]) (similar to Jung’s organic layer 114) to fill in the rest of the opening electrode 610a resides in, meaning it covers a sidewall of that opening. The reason 610a is formed in such a way is because 610a is a transparent electrode [0061]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the connection portion 410 of Jung to be made as a thinner transparent electrode with the organic layer filling in the rest of the opening in order to allow the electrode 410 to transmit light as taught by Han in [0061].
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of Noda, and further in view of Shin and Kim et al. (US 2021/0041987 A1, hereafter Kim).
Regarding claim 15, Jung in view of Noda teach the display panel according to claim 10. Jung in view of Noda fail to teach the first film layer further comprises a protective layer covering a sidewall of the first opening and a sidewall of the third opening;
the protective layer is provided with a fifth opening positioned in the pixel light-transmitting area, and a shape of the fifth opening is a rectangle with four corners removed.
However, Shin teaches a similar display device in Fig. 6 in which the organic layer (bank, BNL1, [0113]) has a first opening (OP1, [0129]) and is also covered by a protective layer (PAS1, [0110]). While Shin does not teach a third opening, as PAS1 is deposited across the organic layer BNL1, one of ordinary skill in the art would form a similar covering for the third hole as well. The protective layer also comprises a firth opening (OP1, [0129]) used to allow the light-emitting element to be seated properly in the device [0130]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display device of Jung to include a protective layer, like the PAS1 of Shin, above the organic layer 114 in order to protect the light emitting element from unwanted contact with other elements, thus preventing damage to the device, as Shin teaches in [0128].
Jung in view of Noda in view of Shin fail to teach a shape of the fifth opening is a rectangle with four corners removed. Shin appears to teach the opening to be a rectangle with right angles as depicted by the pixels PX in Fig. 1. However, Kim teaches a display device in which the emission area (which would be defined by the fifth opening of Jung in view of Noda in view of Shin) can be defined by a polygon (like the rectangle of Shin) or polygons with round corners (which would include a rectangle with rounded edges) in [0165], making the rounded corners of the fifth opening an obvious variant of a rectangle with right angles.
Claim(s) 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of Noda, and further in view of Jo et al. (US 2022/0199031 A1, hereafter Jo).
Regarding claim 16, Jung in view of Noda teach the display panel according to claim 10. Jung in view of Noda don’t explicitly teach a package glue covering the drive substrate;
a black matrix positioned on a side of the package glue away from the drive substrate, the black matrix being provided with a first light-transmitting hole and a second light-transmitting hole, the first light-transmitting hole being positioned in the light emitting element setting area, and the second light-transmitting hole being positioned in the pixel light-transmitting area;
wherein along a second direction, a distance between an edge of the first light-transmitting hole and the light emitting element is less than a distance between an edge of the first opening and the light emitting element;
wherein the second direction is parallel to a plane where the display panel is positioned.
However, Jung teaches a sort of bank and passivation layer can be formed to fill the gaps around the connection parts 410 and 420 (and one of ordinary skill in the art would understand this extends to connection parts 430 and 440) in [0190]. Jung further teaches that this bank can further contain a black matrix material in [0191].
The bank described in Jung is similar to the encapsulation/adhesive layer (PAC, [0129]) of Jo in Fig. 11. The black matrix layer (BM, [0131]) of Jo is formed to where the innermost edge of BM is in line with the outermost edge of the light-emitting element (LDL, [0126]). As the black matrix is formed above each light emitting element in Fig. 11, one of ordinary skill in the art would know to have a black matrix to provide both the first light-transmitting hole in the light emitting element setting area and a second light-transmitting area to be positioned in the pixel light-transmitting area (see annotated Fig. 18 of Jung).
As the black matrix is aligned with the edge of the LED in the modified Jung in view of Noda in view of Jo, the distance between an edge of the first light-transmitting hole and the light emitting element (being zero) is less than a distance between an edge of the first opening and the light emitting element (not zero in annotated Fig. 18) when taken from a direction (second direction in annotated Fig. 18) being parallel to a plane where the display panel is positioned. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display panel of Jung in view of Noda to include a black matrix as taught by Jo in order to prevent light leakage between light-emitting areas as taught by Jo in [0131].
PNG
media_image8.png
400
803
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Jung in view of Noda teach the display panel according to claim 10. Jung in view of Noda are silent on a color resist covering the light emitting element;
wherein the drive substrate further comprises a redundant electrode positioned in the light emitting element setting area, and the color resist covers the redundant electrode.
Jo teaches a similar display in Fig. 11 in which color resists (CF, [0131]) are located above light-emitting elements (LDL, [0126]). As the color filters are formed above each light emitting element in Fig. 11, one of ordinary skill in the art would know to have a color resist above both the redundant electrode (300’ of Jung) and the light emitting element (300 of Jung) (see annotated Fig. 18 of Jung).
While Jung states in [0005] that the display doesn’t need a color filter, it does not preclude the addition of one. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display of Jung in view of Noda to include a color filter as taught by Jo in order to filter the light from the light emitting elements to get light emission of a desired wavelength as Jo states in [0131].
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of Noda, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2020/0321322 A1, hereafter Kim2).
Regarding claim 18, Jung in view of Noda teach the display panel according to claim 10. Jung further teaches in Fig. 19 a pixel, wherein the pixel comprises a blue light emitting element (300B, [0143]), a green light emitting element (300G, [0143]), and a red light emitting element (300R, [0143]).
Jung in view of Noda fail to teach a color resist layer covering a pixel;
wherein the color resist layer comprises a blue color resist and a green color resist, the blue color resist covers the blue light emitting element, and the green color resist covers the green light emitting element.
However, Kim2 teaches a display apparatus with light emitting elements similar to Jung in Fig. 5 in which a pixel (P, [0122]) contains a blue light emitting element (410 and 420, [0149]), a green light emitting element (310 and 320, [0139]), and a red light emitting element (210 and 220, [0124]). Kim2 further teaches a color resist layer on top of each of the light emitting elements, including a blue color resist (blue color filter, 430, [0149]) over the blue light emitting element and a green color resist (green color filter, 330, [0139]).
While Jung states in [0005] that the display doesn’t need a color filter, it does not preclude the addition of one. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pixel of Jung to include the color filters of Kim2 in order to get the light emitted from the light emitting elements to peak in a desired wavelength, as Kim teaches for blue in [0158] and green in [0147].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMMANTHA K SALAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-2484. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, N. Drew Richards can be reached at 571-272-1736. 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.
/SAMMANTHA K SALAZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2892
/ERIC W JONES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2892
Prosecution Insights