DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In response to a Notice of Allowability mailed on 03/17/2026, the Applicant filed an Information Disclosures Statement (IDS) on 06/08/2026.
Claims 2 and 18 are cancelled.
Currently, claims 1, 3-17 and 19 are examined as below.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 06/08/2026. The IDS has been considered.
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 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.
1. Claims 1, 7-10 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 113328054 A to Hu et al. (“Hu”).
PNG
media_image1.png
629
685
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
847
682
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding independent claim 1, Hu in Figs. 3-5 teaches a display panel 200 (Figs. 3-5, p.7, display panel 200), comprising:
a substrate 20 (Figs. 4-5, p.7, substrate 20);
a plurality of light emitting elements 232, 231 (Figs. 3, 5, pp.7, 18, light emitting elements 232 in pixel openings 231, and the pixel openings 231 include first pixel opening 2311, second pixel opening 2312 and third pixel opening 2313) , disposed on the substrate 20;
an optical adjustment pattern 242 (Figs. 4-5, pp.8, 10, a collective of second optical structures 242 adjusts the direction of small viewing angle emitting light of the light emitting element), disposed on a side, departing from the substrate 20, of the light emitting elements 232, 231, wherein the optical adjustment pattern 242 comprises a first bump structure 242 (Figs. 4-5, p.8, second optical structure 242) corresponding to at least one light emitting element 232, 2311, 2312, 2313 (Figs. 3, 5, pp.7, 18, light emitting element 232 in at least one of the pixel openings 2311, 2312, 2313) of the plurality of light emitting elements 232, 231, an overlapping region being present between an orthographic projection of the first bump structure 242 on the substrate 20 and an orthographic projection of the light emitting element 232, 231 corresponding to the first bump structure 242 on the substrate 20 (Figs. 3-5), an area of the overlapping region being less than an area of the orthographic projection of the light emitting element 232, 231 on the substrate 20 (Figs. 3-5, an area of the overlapping region of the structure 242 and the light emitting element 232, 231 is smaller than an area of the light emitting element 232, 231); and
a first planarization layer 2412 (Figs. 4-5, p.11, second optical sub-structure 2412), disposed on a side, departing from the light emitting element 232, 231, of the optical adjustment pattern 242, wherein a refractive index of the first planarization layer 2412 is greater than a refractive index of the optical adjustment pattern 242 (p.13, refractive index of the structure 242 is less than the refractive index of the structure 2412),
wherein the light emitting elements 232, 231 comprise at least two types of light emitting elements 232, 2311, 2312, 2313 (Figs. 3, 5, pp.7, 18, light emitting element 232 in at least one of the pixel openings 2311, 2312, 2313), and the first bump structure 242 comprises at least one sub-bump 242 (Figs. 3-5);
wherein the at least two types of light emitting elements 232, 2311, 2312, 2313 comprise a first color light emitting element 232, 2311 (Figs. 3-5, p.10, light emitting element 232 in the opening 2311 has a red light emitting color) and a second color light emitting element 232, 2312 (Figs. 3-5, pp.17-18, light emitting element 232 in the opening 2312 has a green light emitting color), a sub-bump parameter of the first bump structure 242 corresponding to the first color light emitting element 232, 2311 is different from a sub-bump parameter of the first bump structure 242 corresponding to the second color light emitting element 232, 2312 (Fig. 5, p.22, bumps 242 in each opening 2311, 2312 have different inclined angles θ2 and θ3, which result in different sizes in the bumps 242 in the openings 2311, 2312), and the sub-bump parameter comprises at least one of a quantity and a size of the sub-bumps (Fig. 5, p.22, bumps 242 have different sizes in the openings 2311, 2312).
Regarding claim 7, Hu in Figs. 3-5 further teaches the first bump structure 242 comprises a plurality of sub-bumps 242 (Figs. 3-5, p.8, second optical structures 242), the sub-bumps 242 being strip bumps (Fig. 3), length directions of the plurality of strip bumps 242 being parallel to each other (Fig. 3), the plurality of strip bumps 242 being spaced apart (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 8, Hu in Figs. 4-5 further teaches the first bump structure 242 comprises at least one sub-bump 242 (Figs. 4-5, p.8, second optical structures 242), the at least one sub-bump 242 of the first bump structure 242 being a block bump 242 (Figs. 4-5, structure 242 is in a form of a block), an edge of an orthographic projection of the block bump 242 on the substrate 20 being spaced from an edge of an orthographic projection of the light emitting element 232, 231 corresponding to the block bump 242 on the substrate 20 (Figs. 4-5).
Regarding claim 9, Hu in Figs. 3-5 further teaches a pixel definition layer 23 (Figs. 4-5, p.7, pixel defining layer 23), wherein the pixel definition layer 23 is disposed on a side, facing towards the substrate 20, of the optical adjustment pattern 242 (Figs. 4-5), the pixel definition layer 23 comprises a plurality of pixel openings 231 (Figs. 3-5, p.18, pixel openings 231 comprising pixel openings 2311, 2312, 2313), and the light emitting elements 232, 231 are disposed in the pixel openings 231 (Figs. 3-5);
wherein the optical adjustment pattern 242 further comprises a second bump structure 2411 (Figs. 4-5, p.11, first optical sub-structure 2411), the second bump structure 2411 comprises a plurality of first openings (Figs. 4-5, the openings of structure 2411 corresponding to the structures 242), an orthographic projection of the pixel opening 231 on the substrate 20 is within an orthographic projection of the first opening (Figs. 4-5, openings of the structure 2411) on the substrate 20, and an orthographic projection of the first bump structure 242 on the substrate 20 is within the orthographic projection of the first opening (Figs. 4-5, openings of the structure 2411) on the substrate 20.
Regarding claim 10, Hu in Figs. 4-5 further teaches the first bump structure 242 and the second bump structure 2411 are disposed in one layer (Figs. 4-5) and are formed by one-time patterning process (see Note below).
Note: This limitation “are formed by one-time patterning process” appears to be defining a device/product by a method (i.e., one-time patterning process): As such, ‘[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” see In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted). In the instant case, one-time patterning process does not appear to add anything structural to the actual display panel.
Regarding claim 13, Hu in Fig. 4 further teaches a center of the orthographic projection of the first bump structure 242 on the substrate 20 is coincident with a center of the orthographic projection of the light emitting element 232, 231 corresponding to the first bump structure 242 on the substrate 20 (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 14, Hu in Fig. 4 further teaches a center of the orthographic projection of the first bump structure 242 on the substrate 20 is in a determined direction of a center of the orthographic projection of the light emitting element 232, 231 corresponding to the first bump structure 242 on the substrate 20 (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 15, Hu in Figs. 4-5 further teaches the first bump structure 242 comprises at least one sub-bump 242, the sub-bump 242 has a top surface, a bottom surface and a side surface connecting the bottom surface and the top surface (Figs. 4-5), and an angle between the side surface and the bottom surface is an acute angle (Figs. 4-5, p.21, claim 12).
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 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.
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.
2. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu in view of US 2021/0049954 A1 to Lee et al. (“Lee”),
Regarding independent claim 17, Hu in Figs. 3-5 teaches a display device 200 (Figs. 3-5, p.7, display panel 200), comprising: and a display panel 200 (Figs. 3-5, p.7, display panel 200), wherein the display panel 200 comprises: a substrate 20 (Figs. 4-5, p.7, substrate 20);
a plurality of light emitting elements 232, 231 (Figs. 3, 5, pp.7, 18, light emitting elements 232 in pixel openings 231, and the pixel openings 231 include first pixel opening 2311, second pixel opening 2312 and third pixel opening 2313) , disposed on the substrate 20;
an optical adjustment pattern 242 (Figs. 4-5, pp.8, 10, a collective of second optical structures 242 adjusts the direction of small viewing angle emitting light of the light emitting element), disposed on a side, departing from the substrate 20, of the light emitting elements 232, 231, wherein the optical adjustment pattern 242 comprises a first bump structure 242 (Figs. 4-5, p.8, second optical structure 242) corresponding to at least one light emitting element 232, 2311, 2312, 2313 (Figs. 3, 5, pp.7, 18, light emitting element 232 in at least one of the pixel openings 2311, 2312, 2313) of the plurality of light emitting elements 232, 231, an overlapping region being present between an orthographic projection of the first bump structure 242 on the substrate 20 and an orthographic projection of the light emitting element 232, 231 corresponding to the first bump structure 242 on the substrate 20 (Figs. 3-5), an area of the overlapping region being less than an area of the orthographic projection of the light emitting element 232, 231 on the substrate 20 (Figs. 3-5, an area of the overlapping region of the structure 242 and the light emitting element 232, 231 is smaller than an area of the light emitting element 232, 231);
a first planarization layer 2412 (Figs. 4-5, p.11, second optical sub-structure 2412), disposed on a side, departing from the light emitting element 232, 231, of the optical adjustment pattern 242, wherein a refractive index of the first planarization layer 2412 is greater than a refractive index of the optical adjustment pattern 242 (p.13, refractive index of the structure 242 is less than the refractive index of the structure 2412); and
wherein the light emitting elements 232, 231 comprise at least two types of light emitting elements 232, 2311, 2312, 2313 (Figs. 3, 5, pp.7, 18, light emitting element 232 in at least one of the pixel openings 2311, 2312, 2313), and the first bump structure 242 comprises at least one sub-bump 242 (Figs. 3-5);
wherein the at least two types of light emitting elements 232, 2311, 2312, 2313 comprise a first color light emitting element 232, 2311 (Figs. 3-5, p.10, light emitting element 232 in the opening 2311 has a red light emitting color) and a second color light emitting element 232, 2312 (Figs. 3-5, pp.17-18, light emitting element 232 in the opening 2312 has a green light emitting color), a sub-bump parameter of the first bump structure 242 corresponding to the first color light emitting element 232, 2311 is different from a sub-bump parameter of the first bump structure 242 corresponding to the second color light emitting element 232, 2312 (Fig. 5, p.22, bumps 242 in each opening 2311, 2312 have different inclined angles θ2 and θ3, which result in different sizes in the bumps 242 in the openings 2311, 2312), and the sub-bump parameter comprises at least one of a quantity and a size of the sub-bumps (Fig. 5, p.22, bumps 242 have different sizes in the openings 2311, 2312).
Hu does not teach the display device comprising: a power supply assembly, and the power supply assembly is configured to supply power to the display panel.
Lee recognizes a need for supplying power to a display panel so that pixels can emit light (¶ 79). Lee satisfies the need by providing a power supply assembly 107 (Figs. 1-2 & ¶ 72) in a display apparatus 100 (Figs. 1-2 & ¶ 56) , and the power supply assembly 107 is configured to supply power to the display panel 103 (Figs. 1-2 & ¶ 79).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the display device taught by Hu with the power supply assembly taught by Lee, so as to supply power to a display panel so that pixels can emit light (Lee: ¶ 79).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
3. Claims 3-6, 11-12, 16 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if (i) rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims or (ii) the objected claim and any intervening claims are fully incorporated into the base claim.
Claim 3 would be allowable, because the prior art of record, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other claimed elements in claim 3, wherein in at least one direction parallel to the substrate, an attenuation parameter of the first color light emitting element is less than an attenuation parameter of the second color light emitting element, the attenuation parameter being a ratio of a luminance of the light emitting element at a specified emitting angle to a maximum luminance of the light emitting element in the at least one direction parallel to the substrate.
Claim 4 would be allowable, because the prior art of record, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other claimed elements in claim 4, wherein in at least one direction parallel to the substrate, an attenuation parameter of the first color light emitting element is less than an attenuation parameter of the second color light emitting element, the attenuation parameter being a ratio of a luminance of the light emitting element at a specified emitting angle to a maximum luminance of the light emitting element in the at least one direction parallel to the substrate.
Claim 5 would be allowable, because the prior art of record, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other claimed elements in claim 5, wherein the plurality of light emitting elements comprise at least one target light emitting element, an attenuation parameter of the target light emitting element in a first direction being less than an attenuation parameter in a second direction, the first direction and the second direction being parallel to the substrate, the first direction being perpendicular to the second direction, the attenuation parameter being a ratio of a luminance of the light emitting element at a specified emitting angle to a maximum luminance of the light emitting element in at least one direction parallel to the substrate.
Claim 6 would be allowable, because the prior art of record, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other claimed elements in claim 6, wherein the first bump structure comprises a plurality of sub-bumps, the sub-bumps being strip bumps, length directions of the plurality of strip bumps being intersected with each other.
Claim 11 would be allowable, because the prior art of record, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other claimed elements in claim 11, wherein the first bump structure comprises at least one sub-bump, the sub-bump being a strip bump, both ends of the strip bump being connected to the second bump structure.
Claim 12 would be allowable, because the prior art of record, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other claimed elements in claim 12, wherein the first bump structure comprises at least one sub-bump, the sub-bump being a strip bump, an orthographic projection of the strip bump on the substrate being in contact with two opposite edges of an orthographic projection of the pixel opening on the substrate along a third direction, the third direction being a length direction of the strip bump.
Claim 16 would be allowable, because the prior art of record, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other claimed elements in claim 16, an organic package layer, wherein the organic package layer is disposed on a side, departing from the substrate, of the first planarization layer and the optical adjustment pattern; wherein the first planarization layer comprises a third bump structure, the orthographic projection of the light emitting element on the substrate and an orthographic projection of the optical adjustment pattern on the substrate being within an orthographic projection of the third bump structure on the substrate, a refractive index of the third bump structure being greater than a refractive index of the organic package layer.
Claim 19 would be allowable, because the prior art of record, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other claimed elements in claim 19, wherein in at least one direction parallel to the substrate, an attenuation parameter of the first color light emitting element is less than an attenuation parameter of the second color light emitting element, the attenuation parameter being a ratio of a luminance of the light emitting element at a specified emitting angle to a maximum luminance of the light emitting element in the at least one direction parallel to the substrate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIKKA LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-2568. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-5AM EST M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2895
/ELISEO RAMOS FELICIANO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights