DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot in light of new grounds of rejection made below.
For above mentioned reasons, the rejection is deemed proper and considered final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-6, 8, 12, 14-18, 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al (US 2018/0166519; hereinafter Kim).
Regarding claim 1, Fig 9 of Kim discloses a display panel including a first region (Display region with pixels), wherein the display panel comprises:
a substrate (110; Fig 9; ¶ [0038]);
a light-emitting device layer (201; Fig 9; ¶ [0038]) stacked on the substrate (110; Fig 9; ¶ [0038]), wherein the light-emitting device layer comprises a pixel-defining layer (190; Fig 9; ¶ [0042]) disposed on the substrate and a plurality of first light- emitting devices distributed in an array in the first region (Fig 1), and wherein the first light-emitting device comprises
a first electrode (211; Fig 9; ¶ [0043]),
a particle unit (190a; Fig 9; ¶ [0059]) disposed at least partially in a same layer with the first electrode (211; Fig 9; ¶ [0043]) and surrounding (Fig 9) the first electrode,
a first light-emitting module (212; Fig 9; ¶ [0043]) located on the first electrode (211; Fig 9; ¶ [0043]), and
a second electrode (213; Fig 9; ¶ [0043]) located on the first light-emitting module and the pixel-defining layer (190; Fig 9; ¶ [0042]) covers the particle unit (190a; Fig 9; ¶ [0059]);
wherein the particle unit (190a; Fig 9; ¶ [0059]) comprises an glue layer (190a; Fig 9; ¶ [0059]) and a plurality of particles (190a; Fig 9; ¶ [0059]) distributed within the glue layer, an orthographic projection of at least part of one particle of at least part of the particles on the substrate does not completely overlap with an orthographic projection of the first electrode on the substrate and the thickness of the particle unit is less than the thickness of the pixel-defining layer (Fig 9).
Regarding claim 2, Fig 9 of Kim discloses wherein orthographic projections of at least part of the particles (190a; Fig 9; ¶ [0059]) on the substrate are staggered with the orthographic projection of the first electrode (211; Fig 9; ¶ [0043]) on the substrate (Fig 9).
Regarding claim 3, Fig 9 of Kim discloses distribution patterns of orthographic projections of the plurality of particles (190a; Fig 9; ¶ [0059]) of particle units included in at least two of the first light-emitting devices are different from each other. (Since projection of particles (190a) is random, therefore the projections will be different for each light emitting unit)
Regarding claim 4, Fig 9 of Kim discloses a difference between number of the particles included in at least two of the first light emitting devices is greater than 0.
Regarding claim 5, Fig 9 of Kim discloses a ratio of a number of the particles (190a; Fig 9; ¶ [0059]) included in the light-emitting device layer to a number of the first light-emitting devices is greater than or equal to 50. (The number of quantum dots 191a in order of magnitude is larger than the number of pixels)
Regarding claim 6, Fig 9 of Kim discloses an orthographic projection (Fig 9) of the particle unit (190a; Fig 9; ¶ [0059]) of the first light emitting device on the substrate protrudes (Fig 9) from an orthographic projection of the first electrode (211; Fig 9; ¶ [0043]), which is surrounded by the particle unit on the substrate (Fig 9).
Regarding claim 8, Fig 9 of Kim discloses the particles (190a; Fig 9; ¶ [0059]) are high refractive light-pervious particles. (190a; Fig 9; ¶ [0059])
Regarding claim 12, Fig 9 of Kim discloses the particles comprise carbon particles (¶ [0059]).
Regarding claim 14, Fig 9 of Kim discloses particle units of two adjacent first light-emitting devices are arranged at intervals with each other (Fig 9).
Regarding claim 15, Fig 1 of Kim discloses the display panel further includes a second region surrounding at least part of the first region (a set of light emitting devices can be used to read on first light-emitting devices in first region and a set of light emitting devices can be used to read on second light emitting devices in second region), the light-emitting device layer further comprises a plurality of second light-emitting devices (Fig 1) distributed in an array in the second region, and
wherein the second light-emitting device comprises a third electrode (211; Fig 9; ¶ [0043]), a second light- emitting module (212; Fig 9; ¶ [0043]) located on the third electrode, and a fourth electrode (213; Fig 9; ¶ [0043]) located on the second light-emitting module.
Regarding claim 16, Figs 1 and 9 of Kim discloses the first light emitting devices are distributed in an array of a first density in the first region and the second light emitting devices are distributed in an array of a second density in the second region (First density and second density are same as all the light emitting devices have similar structure).
Regarding claim 17, Fig 9 of Kim discloses the first density is equal to the second density.
Regarding claim 18, Fig 9 of Kim discloses a display device comprising a display panel including a first region (Display region with pixels), wherein the display panel comprises:
a substrate (110; Fig 9; ¶ [0038]);
a light-emitting device layer (201; Fig 9; ¶ [0038]) stacked on the substrate (110; Fig 9; ¶ [0038]), wherein the light-emitting device layer comprises a pixel-defining layer (190; Fig 9; ¶ [0042]) disposed on the substrate and a plurality of first light- emitting devices distributed in an array in the first region (Fig 1), and wherein the first light-emitting device comprises
a first electrode (211; Fig 9; ¶ [0043]),
a particle unit (190a; Fig 9; ¶ [0059]) disposed at least partially in a same layer with the first electrode (211; Fig 9; ¶ [0043]) and surrounding (Fig 9) the first electrode,
a first light-emitting module (212; Fig 9; ¶ [0043]) located on the first electrode (211; Fig 9; ¶ [0043]), and
a second electrode (213; Fig 9; ¶ [0043]) located on the first light-emitting module and the pixel-defining layer (190; Fig 9; ¶ [0042]) covers the particle unit (190a; Fig 9; ¶ [0059]);
wherein the particle unit (190a; Fig 9; ¶ [0059]) comprises an glue layer (190a; Fig 9; ¶ [0059]) and a plurality of particles (190a; Fig 9; ¶ [0059]) distributed within the glue layer, an orthographic projection of at least part of one particle of at least part of the particles on the substrate does not completely overlap with an orthographic projection of the first electrode on the substrate and the thickness of the particle unit is less than the thickness of the pixel-defining layer (Fig 9).
Regarding claim 21, Fig 9 of Kim discloses an orthographic projection of the glue layer (190a; Fig 9; ¶ [0059]) on the substrate overlaps with the orthographic projection of the first electrode on the substrate.
Regarding claim 22, Figs 1 and 9 of Kim discloses two adjacent particle units of two adjacent light-emitting devices are located within a same pixel defining layer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 2018/0166519; hereinafter Kim) in view of Chou et al (US 2020/0319176; hereinafter Chou).
Regarding claim 7, Fig 9 of Kim discloses a size of a part of the orthographic projection of the particle unit on the substrate protrudes from the orthographic projection of the first electrode which is surrounded by particle unit (Fig 9).
However Kim does not expressly disclose size is from 1 µm to 5 µm.
In the same field of endeavor, Chou discloses size of the nanoparticles is 4 µm which anticipates the claimed range (¶ [0629]).
Accordingly it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention such that size of the nanoparticles is within claimed range as it is well known and suitable size known in the art for nano-scale particles (¶ [0629]).
Regarding claim 13, Kim does not expressly disclose a diameter value of the particle ranges from 0.1 µm to 1 µm.
In the same field of endeavor, Chou discloses size of the nanoparticles is 1 µm which anticipates the claimed range (¶ [0629]).
Accordingly it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention such that size of the nanoparticles is within claimed range as it is well known and suitable size known in the art for nano-scale particles (¶ [0629]).
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 2018/0166519; hereinafter Kim) in view of Nojima et al (US 2022/0204845; hereinafter Nojima).
Regarding claim 9, Kim does not expressly disclose the high refractive light-pervious particles comprise zirconia particles.
In the same field of endeavor, Nojima discloses quantum dot can comprise zirconia particles (¶ [0049]).
Accordingly it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention such that high refractive light-pervious particles comprise zirconia particles for the purpose of using well known and suitable materials known in the art for forming quantum dots. (¶ [0049])
Claim(s) 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 2018/0166519; hereinafter Kim) in view of Boardman et al (US 2020/0243616; hereinafter Boardman).
Regarding claim 10, Kim does not expressly disclose the particles are light-impervious particles.
In the same field of endeavor, Boardman discloses quantum dots may include a carbon or a metal particles (metal particles are light-impervious particles).
Accordingly it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention such that the particles comprises metal particles or carbon for the purpose of substituting art recognized equivalents known to be used for the same purpose (MPEP 2144.06) and therefore the particles can be light-impervious particles.
Regarding claim 11, Kim does not expressly disclose the particles comprise metal particles.
In the same field of endeavor, Boardman discloses quantum dots may include a carbon or a metal particles (metal particles are light-impervious particles).
Accordingly it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention such that the particles comprises metal particles or carbon for the purpose of substituting art recognized equivalents known to be used for the same purpose (MPEP 2144.06) and therefore the particles can be light-impervious particles.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 23, the prior art of record, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the combination of limitations including “the particle unit is L-shaped and a cross section of the pixel-defining layer is an upwardly protruding semi-circle surrounding two particle unit at opposite corners”.
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 RATISHA MEHTA whose telephone number is (571)270-7473. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9:00am - 5:00 pm.
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, Eliseo Ramos Feliciano can be reached at 571-272-7925. 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.
/RATISHA MEHTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817