DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 28 February 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 28 February 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 11, filed 28 February 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 8-18, 20, 26 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Gong (US 2015/0070374 A1). Specifically, newly added limitations describing hexagon shaped light emitting elements are not taught by the art previously of record, but such light emitting devices are known from Gong and described as providing the benefit of providing higher quality images compared to rectangular light emitting elements (Gong paragraph 58).
Applicant's arguments filed 28 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach protrusions in the shape of a cone. The examiner disagrees. Choe teaches protrusions in the shape of a cone (Choe paragraph 117).
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2020/0144333 A1) in view of Choe et al. (US 2020/0381484 A1), and Gong (US 2015/0070374 A1).
With respect to claim 1: Kim teaches a display panel (11’), comprising a light-emitting substrate (10), a light extraction structure layer (150) and a color conversion layer (130), wherein the light-emitting substrate is configured to provide incident light (L1) to the light extraction structure (see Fig. 2), the light-emitting substrate comprises at least one light-emitting device (120); the light extraction structure layer is located between the light-emitting substrate and the color conversion layer (see Fig. 4), the light extraction structure layer is configured to form at least a portion of the incident light provided by the light-emitting substrate into collimated light (paragraph 155), and emit the collimated light towards the color conversion layer (paragraph 155), the light extraction structure layer comprises at least one light extraction pattern (see Figs. 4-12), an orthographic projection of a light extraction pattern on a plane where the display panel is located overlaps at least partially with an orthographic projection of a light-emitting device on the plane where the display panel is located (see Figs. 4, 12), and the light extraction pattern comprises a plurality of protrusions (150a, 150b, 150c), and the color conversion layer is configured to convert the collimated light into light with a specific color (red for 130r, green for 130g), or to transmit the collimated light (in the case of 130b), the color conversion layer comprises at least one first color conversion pattern (130r), at least one second color conversion pattern (130g) and at least one light transmission pattern (130b), the light-emitting substrate comprises at least one first light-emitting device (120a), at least one second light-emitting device (120b) and at least one third light-emitting device (120c), in a case that an incident light provided by the first light-emitting device, the second light-emitting device and the third light-emitting device in the light-emitting substrate enters the protrusion from the surface of the protrusion, the incident light is refracted in the protrusion, and the incident light is formed into a collimated light and is emitted (paragraph 152)”.
Kim does not specifically teach “at least two protrusions in the light extraction pattern have different sizes, and at least one of the plurality of protrusions is in a shape of a cone, a surface of the protrusion close to the light-emitting substrate is in a shape of a circle”.
However, Choe teaches “at least two protrusions (SLP1, SLP2) in the light extraction pattern (CLL3) have different sizes (Fig. 10, paragraph 118), and at least one of the plurality of protrusions is in a shape of a cone (paragraph 117), a surface of the protrusion close to the light-emitting substrate is in a shape of a circle (Fig. 10, paragraph 117)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display panel of Kim with the protrusions having different sizes as taught by Choe in order to accommodate different pixel sizes and to use a cone shape as an art recognized equivalent to a hemisphere for use as a focusing lens (Choe paragraph 117-118).
Kim does not specifically teach “orthographic projections of the first light-emitting device, the second light-emitting device and the third light-emitting device on the plane where the display panel is located are each in a shape of a hexagon; each orthographic proj ection of the first light-emitting device, the second light-emitting device and the third light-emitting device comprises: a first vertex angle and a second vertex angle diametrically opposed, a first side angle and a second side angle disposed at two sides of the first vertex angle, and a third side angle and a fourth side angle disposed at two sides of the second vertex angle respectively, wherein the first vertex angle is within 600 to 1200, the second vertex angle is within 600 to 120°, and the first side angle, the second side angle, the third side angle and the fourth side angle are all within 1200 to 150°, each orthographic projection of the first light-emitting device, the second light-emitting device and the third light-emitting device further comprises: a first side and a second side which are both connected to the first vertex corner, a third side and a fourth side which are both connected to the second vertex corner, a fifth side located between the first side and the fourth side, and a sixth side located between the second side and the third side, wherein the first side, the fourth side, the fifth side, the first side angle and the fourth side angle are located at a same side of the first vertex angle and the second vertex angle, and the second side, the third side, the sixth side, the second side angle and the third side angle are located at a same side of the first vertex angle and the second vertex angle; the first side is parallel to the third side, the second side is parallel to the fourth side, and the fifth side is parallel to the sixth side; the first side, the second side, the third side and the fourth side are of a same length, and the fifth side and the sixth side are of a same length”.
However, Gong teaches “orthographic projections of the first light-emitting device (105), the second light-emitting device and the third light-emitting device (see Fig. 1) on the plane where the display panel (100) is located are each in a shape of a hexagon (see Fig. 1); each orthographic projection (Fig. 1) of the first light-emitting device, the second light-emitting device and the third light-emitting device comprises: a first vertex angle and a second vertex angle diametrically opposed (top and bottom in perspective of Fig. 1), a first side angle and a second side angle disposed at two sides of the first vertex angle (see Fig. 1), and a third side angle and a fourth side angle disposed at two sides of the second vertex angle respectively (see Fig. 1), wherein the first vertex angle is within 60° to 120° (see Fig. 1), the second vertex angle is within 60° to 120° (see Fig. 1), and the first side angle, the second side angle, the third side angle and the fourth side angle are all within 120° to 150° (see Fig. 1), each orthographic projection of the first light-emitting device, the second light-emitting device and the third light-emitting device further comprises: a first side and a second side which are both connected to the first vertex corner (northwest and northeast, where the first vertex corner is north), a third side and a fourth side which are both connected to the second vertex corner (southwest and southeast), a fifth side located between the first side and the fourth side, and a sixth side located between the second side and the third side (east and west), wherein the first side, the fourth side, the fifth side, the first side angle and the fourth side angle are located at a same side of the first vertex angle and the second vertex angle, and the second side, the third side, the sixth side, the second side angle and the third side angle are located at a same side of the first vertex angle and the second vertex angle (see Fig. 1); the first side is parallel to the third side (see Fig. 1), the second side is parallel to the fourth side (see Fig. 1), and the fifth side is parallel to the sixth side (see Fig. 1); the first side, the second side, the third side and the fourth side are of a same length (see Fig. 1), and the fifth side and the sixth side are of a same length (see Fig. 1)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display panel of Kim with the hexagonal pixels taught by Gong in order to improve the quality of the images displayed (Gong paragraph 58).
With respect to claim 2: Kim in view of Choe and Gong teaches “the display panel according to claim 1 (see above)”.
Kim does not specifically teach “wherein the at least two protrusions in the light extraction pattern have different shapes”.
However, Choe teaches “wherein the at least two protrusions in the light extraction pattern have different shapes (paragraph 119)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display panel of Kim by adjusting the shapes of the protrusions as taught by Choe in order to control the travelling direction of the light passing therethrough (Choe paragraph 119).
With respect to claim 4: Kim in view of Choe and Gong teaches “the display panel according to claim 1 (see above)”.
Kim further teaches “wherein the plurality of protrusions in the light extraction pattern are arranged in a shape of at least one of a rectangle (Fig. 11), a hexagon, a circle, a rhombus, a triangle and a trapezoid”.
With respect to claim 5: Kim in view of Choe and Gong teaches “the display panel according to claim 1 (see above)”.
Kim further teaches “wherein a part of the protrusions in the light extraction pattern are arranged along a second direction to form columns of protrusions (see Fig. 11), the columns of protrusions are arranged along a first direction (see Fig. 11), protrusions located in a same column of protrusions have a same size (see Fig. 11), and the first direction intersects the second direction (see Fig. 11)”.
Kim does not specifically teach “protrusions located in different columns of protrusions have different sizes”.
However, Choe teaches “protrusions located in different columns (SLA1, SLA2) of protrusions have different sizes (see Fig. 10)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display panel of Kim with the protrusions having different sizes as taught by Choe in order to accommodate different pixel sizes (Choe paragraph 118).
With respect to claim 6: Kim in view of Choe and Gong teaches “The display panel according to claim 5 (see above)”.
Kim further teaches “wherein the light extraction pattern comprises a first column of protrusions, a second column of protrusions and a third column of protrusions (see Fig. 11), the first column of protrusions, the second column of protrusions and the third column of protrusions are sequentially arranged along the first direction (see Fig. 11), protrusions in the first column of protrusions and protrusions in the third column of protrusions have a same size (see Fig. 11)”.
Kim does not teach “a height of protrusions in the second column of protrusions are greater than or less than a height of the protrusions in the first column of protrusions”.
However, Choe teaches “a height of protrusions in the second column of protrusions are greater than or less than a height of the protrusions in the first column of protrusions (see Fig. 10)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display panel of Kim with the protrusions having different sizes as taught by Choe in order to accommodate different pixel sizes (Choe paragraph 118).
With respect to claim 8: Kim in view of Choe and Gong teaches “The display panel according to claim 1 (see above)”.
Kim further teaches “an orthographic projection of the at least one first color conversion pattern on the plane where the display panel is located overlaps at least partially with an area where the at least one first light-emitting device is located (see Fig. 4), an orthographic projection of the at least one second color conversion pattern on the plane where the display panel is located overlaps at least partially with an area where the at least one second light-emitting device is located (see Fig. 4), and an orthographic projection of the at least one light transmission pattern on the plane where the display panel is located overlaps at least partially with an area where the at least one third light-emitting device is located (see Fig. 4)”.
With respect to claim 26: Kim in view of Choe and Gong teaches “a display apparatus, comprising the display panel according to claim 1 (see above)”.
Claims 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Choe and Gong as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2020/0119237 A1), hereinafter Kim II.
With respect to claim 9: Kim in view of Choe and Gong teaches “the display panel according to claim 1 (see above)”.
Kim does not specifically teach “further comprising spacer posts disposed between the light-emitting substrate and the color conversion layer, and the spacer posts are configured to reflect at least a portion of light directed towards the spacer posts towards the color conversion layer”.
However, Kim II teaches “further comprising spacer posts (BR) disposed between (see Fig. 2) the light-emitting substrate (IDP) and the color conversion layer (CF), and the spacer posts are configured to reflect at least a portion of light (LT) directed towards the spacer posts towards the color conversion layer (see Fig. 2)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display panel of Kim with the reflective spacers taught by Kim II in order to prevent light from one pixel from crossing over to another pixel (Kim II paragraph 82).
With respect to claim 10: Kim in view of Choe, Gong and Kim II teaches “the display panel according to claim 9 (see above)”.
Kim further teaches “wherein the color conversion layer comprises a light blocking pattern (117)”.
Kim does not specifically teach “an orthographic projection of the spacer posts on the plane where the display panel is located overlaps at least partially with an orthographic projection of the light blocking pattern on the plane where the display panel is located”.
However, Kim II teaches “an orthographic projection of the spacer posts on the plane where the display panel is located overlaps at least partially with an orthographic projection of the light blocking pattern (BM) on the plane where the display panel is located (see Fig. 2)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display panel of Kim with the reflective spacers taught by Kim II in order to prevent light from one pixel from crossing over to another pixel (Kim II paragraph 82), a function which requires them to be placed between pixels in the same location as the light blocking layer (Kim II paragraph 82).
With respect to claim 11: Kim in view of Choe, Gong and Kim II teaches “the display panel according to claim 9 (see above)”.
Kim further teaches “wherein the light-emitting substrate further comprises a pixel definition layer (113) located at a periphery of the light-emitting device (see Fig. 4)”.
Kim does not specifically teach “an orthographic projection of the spacer posts on the plane where the display panel is located is within an orthographic projection of the pixel definition layer on the plane where the display panel is located”.
However, Kim II teaches “an orthographic projection of the spacer posts on the plane where the display panel is located is within an orthographic projection of the pixel definition layer (PDL) on the plane where the display panel is located (the pixel definition layers (PDL) in Fig. 3a are located in the areas surrounding pixel areas PXA, while the spacer posts (BR) in Fig. 2 are similarly located in the areas surrounding pixel areas OPAR, OPAG, OPAB; see paragraph 86))”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display panel of Kim with the reflective spacers taught by Kim II in order to prevent light from one pixel from crossing over to another pixel (Kim II paragraph 82), a function which requires them to be placed between pixels in the same location as the pixel definition layer (Kim II paragraph 86).
With respect to claim 12: Kim in view of Choe, Gong and Kim II teaches “the display panel according to claim 9 (see above)”.
Kim does not teach “wherein a cross section of a spacer post in a plane perpendicular to a plane where the light-emitting substrate is located is in a shape of a regular trapezoid or an inverted trapezoid”.
However, Kim II teaches “wherein a cross section of a spacer post in a plane perpendicular to a plane where the light-emitting substrate is located is in a shape of a regular trapezoid or an inverted trapezoid (see Figs. 6, 7)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display panel of Kim with the reflective trapezoidal spacers taught by Kim II in order to prevent light from one pixel from crossing over to another pixel (Kim II paragraph 82)
With respect to claim 13: Kim in view of Choe, Gong and Kim II teaches “the display panel according to claim 9 (see above)”.
Kim does not teach “wherein the plurality of the spacer posts, along with the light extraction structure layer and the color conversion layer, form closed chambers, a refractive index of the spacer posts is less than a refractive index of a medium in the closed chambers”.
However, Kim II teaches “wherein the plurality of the spacer posts, along with the light extraction structure layer and the color conversion layer, form closed chambers, a refractive index of the spacer posts is less than a refractive index of a medium in the closed chambers (paragraph 79)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display panel of Kim with the totally internally reflective spacers taught by Kim II in order to prevent light from one pixel from crossing over to another pixel (Kim II paragraph 82).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Choe and Gong as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Peng (US 2021/0351369 A1).
With respect to claim 14: Kim in view of Choe and Gong teaches “the display panel according to claim 1 (see above)”.
Kim does not specifically teach “further comprising a light dispersion layer located between the light-emitting substrate and the color conversion layer, the light dispersion layer is configured to scatter at least a portion of light directed towards the light dispersion layer to form emergent light of uniform intensity, and to emit emergent light towards the color conversion layer”.
However, Peng teaches “further comprising a light dispersion layer (12) located between the light-emitting substrate (11) and the color conversion layer (R, G, B), the light dispersion layer is configured to scatter at least a portion of light directed towards the light dispersion layer to form emergent light of uniform intensity, and to emit emergent light towards the color conversion layer (see Fig. 1)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display panel of Kim with the light dispersion layer of Peng in order to increase light conversion efficiency (Peng paragraph 35).
With respect to claim 15: Kim in view of Choe, Gong and Peng teaches “the display panel according to claim 14 (see above)”.
Kim does not specifically teach “wherein the light dispersion layer comprises a first matrix and additive particles disposed in the first matrix, the first matrix is made of an organic material, and the additive particles are made of oxides”.
However, Peng teaches “wherein the light dispersion layer comprises a first matrix (“dispersion medium”; see paragraph 53) and additive particles disposed in the first matrix (124), the first matrix is made of an organic material (paragraph 54), and the additive particles are made of oxides (paragraph 43)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display panel of Kim with the light dispersion layer of Peng in order to increase light conversion efficiency (Peng paragraph 35).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Choe, Gong and Peng as applied to claims 1, 14-15 above, and further in view of Cho et al. (US 2018/0105658 A1).
With respect to claim 16: Kim in view of Choe, Gong and Peng teaches “the display panel according to claim 15 (see above)”.
Kim does not specifically teach “wherein a diameter of the additive particles is 20 nm to 100 nm, and a mass concentration of the additive particles in the light dispersion layer is 10% to 40%”.
However, Peng teaches “wherein a diameter of the additive particles is 20 nm to 100 nm (paragraph 43)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display panel of Kim with the light dispersion layer of Peng in order to increase light conversion efficiency (Peng paragraph 35).
However, Cho teaches “a mass concentration of the additive particles in the light dispersion layer is 10% to 40% (paragraph 48)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the display panel of Kim by including the additive particles in the concentration taught by Cho in order to prevent light utilization efficiency from being lowered (Cho paragraph 48).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Choe and Gong as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park et al. (US 2020/0172806 A1).
With respect to claim 17: Kim in view of Choe and Gong teaches “the display panel according to claim 1 (see above)”.
Kim does not specifically teach “further comprising a reflective layer located between the light-emitting substrate and the color conversion layer, the reflective layer is configured to reflect at least a portion of light directed towards the reflective layer towards the color conversion layer”.
However, Park teaches “further comprising a reflective layer (311) located between the light-emitting substrate (120) and the color conversion layer (230), the reflective layer is configured to reflect at least a portion of light directed towards the reflective layer towards the color conversion layer (paragraph 275)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the display panel of Kim by including the reflective layer taught by Park in order to recycle light from the color conversion layer (Park paragraph 275).
Claims 18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Choe, Gong and Park as applied to claims 1, 17 above, and further in view of Peng.
With respect to claim 18: Kim in view of Choe, Gong, and Park teaches “the display panel according to claim 17 (see above)”.
Kim does not specifically teach “further comprising a light dispersion layer located between the light-emitting substrate and the color conversion layer, the light dispersion layer is configured to scatter at least a portion of light directed towards the light dispersion layer to form emergent light of uniform intensity and emit emergent light towards the color conversion layer, and the reflective layer is disposed on one side of the light dispersion layer close to the light-emitting substrate; or the reflective layer is disposed on one side of the light dispersion layer away from the light-emitting substrate; orthe reflective layer comprises at least one high-refractive-index material layer and at least one low-refractive-index material layer, the at least one high-refractive-index material layeroverlaps with the at least one low-refractive-index material layer along a direction perpendicular to the plane where the display panel is located”.
However, Peng teaches “further comprising a light dispersion layer (12) located between the light-emitting substrate (11) and the color conversion layer (R, G, B), the light dispersion layer is configured to scatter at least a portion of light directed towards the light dispersion layer to form emergent light of uniform intensity, and to emit emergent light towards the color conversion layer (see Fig. 1)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display panel of Kim with the light dispersion layer of Peng in order to increase light conversion efficiency (Peng paragraph 35).
However, Park teaches “the reflective layer is disposed on one side of the light dispersion layer close to the light-emitting substrate; or the reflective layer is disposed on one side of the light dispersion layer (“diffusion plate”; paragraph 262) away from the light-emitting substrate (see Fig. 3); or the reflective layer comprises at least one high-refractive-index material layer and at least one low-refractive-index material layer, the at least one high-refractive-index material layer overlaps with the at least one low-refractive-index material layer along a direction perpendicular to the plane where the display panel is located (paragraph 279)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the display panel of Kim by including the reflective layer taught by Park in order to recycle light from the color conversion layer (Park paragraph 275).
With respect to claim 20: Kim in view of Choe, Gong, Park, and Peng teaches “The display panel according to claim18”.
Kim does not specifically teach “wherein the reflective layer is disposed on one side of the light dispersion layer close to the light-emitting substrate, the reflective layer comprises n high-refractive-index material layers and m low-refractive-index material layers, with n being a natural number greater than or equal to 1, m being a natural number greater than or equal to 2, m being greater than n, a surface of the reflective layer away from the light-emitting substrate is a surface of the low-refractive-index material layers away from the light-emitting substrate, and a surface of the reflective layer close to the light-emitting substrate is a surface of the low-refractive-index material layers close to the light-emitting substrate; or the reflective layer is disposed on one side of the light dispersion layer away from the light-emitting substrate, the reflective layer comprising n high-refractive-index material layers and n low-refractive-index material layers, n being a natural number greater than or equal to 1, a surface of the reflective layer close to the light-emitting substrate is a surface of the high-refractive-index material layers close to the light-emitting substrate, and a surface of the reflective layer away from the light-emitting substrate is a surface of the low-refractive-index material layers away from the light-emitting substrate; or a low-refractive-index material layer comprises a second matrix and hollow particles disposed in the second matrix, and a concentration of the hollow particles in the low-refractive-index material layer is 20% to 40%; or the low-refractive-index material layers comprise one of or a combination of aluminum oxide, silicon dioxide, magnesium fluoride and boron oxide; or the high-refractive-index material layers comprise one of or a combination of titanium dioxide, zirconium dioxide and silicon nitride; or a thickness of a high-refractive-index material layer is 60 nm to 100 nm, and a thickness of a low-refractive-index material layer is 100 nm to 150 nm”.
However, Park teaches “wherein the reflective layer is disposed on one side of the light dispersion layer close to the light-emitting substrate, the reflective layer comprises n high-refractive-index material layers and m low-refractive-index material layers, with n being a natural number greater than or equal to 1, m being a natural number greater than or equal to 2, m being greater than n, a surface of the reflective layer away from the light-emitting substrate is a surface of the low-refractive-index material layers away from the light-emitting substrate, and a surface of the reflective layer close to the light-emitting substrate is a surface of the low-refractive-index material layers close to the light-emitting substrate; or the reflective layer is disposed on one side of the light dispersion layer away from the light-emitting substrate, the reflective layer comprising n high-refractive-index material layers and n low-refractive-index material layers, n being a natural number greater than or equal to 1, a surface of the reflective layer close to the light-emitting substrate is a surface of the high-refractive-index material layers close to the light-emitting substrate, and a surface of the reflective layer away from the light-emitting substrate is a surface of the low-refractive-index material layers away from the light-emitting substrate; or a low-refractive-index material layer comprises a second matrix and hollow particles disposed in the second matrix, and a concentration of the hollow particles in the low-refractive-index material layer is 20% to 40%; or the low-refractive-index material layers comprise one of or a combination of aluminum oxide, silicon dioxide, magnesium fluoride and boron oxide (paragraph 278); or the high-refractive-index material layers comprise one of or a combination of titanium dioxide, zirconium dioxide and silicon nitride (paragraph 280); or a thickness of a high-refractive-index material layer is 60 nm to 100 nm (paragraph 283), and a thickness of a low-refractive-index material layer is 100 nm to 150 nm (paragraph 283)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the display panel of Kim by including the reflective layer taught by Park in order to recycle light from the color conversion layer (Park paragraph 275).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL J. LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-5721. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 EST M-F.
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, ABDULMAJEED AZIZ can be reached at (571)270-5046. 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.
/NATHANIEL J LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2875
/ABDULMAJEED AZIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875