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 Amendment/Argument
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 01/12/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-2, 5-16 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 an updated prior art search.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7-13, 15 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan et al. (US-20210151702-A1 – hereinafter Fan) in view of Heo et al (US-20230107331-A1 – hereinafter Heo).
Regarding claim 1, Fan teaches a display panel (Fig.3; ¶0032), comprising:
a first substrate (Fig.3 2; ¶0029) and a second substrate (Fig.3 1; ¶0029) which are arranged opposite to each other;
a bank (Fig.3 31; ¶0038) located between the first substrate (2) and the second substrate (1), wherein the bank (31) comprises a plurality of openings (Fig.3 gaps between 31), and at least some of the openings (gaps between 31) are each provided with a light conversion layer (Fig.3 20; ¶0028); and
light emitting elements (Fig.3 10; ¶0028), which are located between the light conversion layers (20) and the second substrate (1), wherein the light conversion layers (20) are arranged corresponding to at least some of the light emitting elements (10).
Fan does not teach wherein the bank is a metal bank.
Heo teaches a metal bank (Fig.10 1150; ¶0125 and ¶0127 of Heo).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the bank of Fan (31 of Fan) to comprise a metal material as taught by Heo (1150 of Heo) to arrive at the claimed invention. A practitioner of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of shielding an electric field from leaking (¶0020 of Heo).
Regarding claim 2, the aforementioned combination of Fan in view of Heo from claim 1 teaches the display panel according to claim 1, wherein a side wall of the metal bank (31 of Fan) at the openings is a reflecting surface (¶0045 of Fan).
Regarding claim 7, the aforementioned combination of Fan in view of Heo from claim 1 teaches the display panel according to claim 1.
The aforementioned combination does not explicitly teach wherein a material of the metal bank comprises at least one of Ni and Al.
However, it would be obvious to use nickel as a metal because it is a well-known material for preventing electric field leakage, as evidenced by NPL reference number 1 (NPL1).
Regarding claim 8, the aforementioned combination of Fan in view of Heo from claim 1 teaches the display panel according to claim 1, wherein a sectional area of one opening (gaps between 31 of Fan) on a surface parallel to the second substrate (1 of Fan) remains the same in a direction from the first substrate (2 of Fan) to the second substrate (1 of Fan).
Regarding claim 9, the aforementioned combination of Fan in view of Heo from claim 1 teaches the display panel according to claim 1, wherein two adjacent light conversion layers (20 of Fan) are a first light conversion layer (leftmost 20 of Fan) and a second light conversion layer (center 20 of Fan), in a direction parallel to a direction from the first light conversion layer (leftmost 20 of Fan) to the second light conversion layer (center 20 of Fan) and in a section parallel to a direction from the first substrate (2 of Fan) to the second substrate (1 of Fan):
a portion of the metal bank (31 of Fan) between two adjacent openings is in a T shape (Fig.3 32; ¶0046 of Fan).
Regarding claim 10, the aforementioned combination of Fan in view of Heo from claim 9 teaches the display panel according to claim 9, wherein in a direction from the first substrate (2 of Fan) to the second substrate (1 of Fan), the metal bank (31 of Fan) comprises a first part (31 of Fan) and a second part (Fig.3 32; ¶0046 of Fan), wherein the first part (31 of Fan) is located at a side close to the first substrate (2 of Fan);
a joint between the first part (31 of Fan) and the second part (32 of Fan) is in a step shape; and at the joint between the first part (31 of Fan) and the second part (32 of Fan), a width of the second part (32 of Fan) is greater than a width of the first part (31 of Fan).
Regarding claim 11, the aforementioned combination of Fan in view of Heo from claim 1 teaches the display panel according to claim 1, wherein the metal bank (Fig.3 6; ¶0047 of Fan can also be interpreted as part of the metal bank) comprises a first bank surface (bottom surface of 6 of Fan) facing away from the first substrate (2 of Fan), and the light conversion layer (20 of Fan) comprises a first light conversion surface (bottom surface of 20 of Fan) facing away from the first substrate (2 of Fan);
in the direction from the first substrate (2 of Fan) to the second substrate (1 of Fan), a distance between the first bank surface (bottom surface of 6 of Fan) and a surface of the first substrate (2 of Fan) is smaller than that between the first light conversion surface (bottom surface of 20 of Fan) and the same surface of the first substrate (2 of Fan).
Regarding claim 12, the aforementioned combination of Fan in view of Heo from claim 1 teaches the display panel according to claim 1.
The aforementioned combination does not explicitly teach wherein in the direction from the first substrate to the second substrate:
a thickness of the metal bank is greater than 1 μm; and
a thickness of the light conversion layer is 2 μm to 6 μm.
However, it would have been obvious to form the metal bank and the light conversion layer within the claimed range, since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Regarding claim 13, the aforementioned combination of Fan in view of Heo from claim 1 teaches the display panel of claim 1, wherein the light conversion layer (20 of Fan) is a quantum dot light conversion layer (¶0031 of Fan).
Regarding claim 15, the aforementioned combination of Fan in view of Heo from claim 1 teaches the display panel according to claim 1, wherein the display panel further comprises a color resistance layer (Fig.3 201; ¶0032 of Fan) located between the light conversion layer (Fig.3 202; ¶0032 of Fan) and the first substrate (2 of Fan), and a color of light allowed to be transmitted through the color resistance layer (201 of Fan) is the same as a color of light converted by the light conversion layer (¶0032 of Fan).
Regarding claim 18, Fan teaches a display device (Fig.1; ¶0028), comprising a display panel (Fig.3; ¶0032), wherein the display panel comprises:
a first substrate (Fig.3 2; ¶0029) and a second substrate (Fig.3 1; ¶0029) which are arranged opposite to each other;
a bank (Fig.3 31; ¶0038) located between the first substrate (2) and the second substrate (1), wherein the bank (31) comprises a plurality of openings (Fig.3 gaps between 31), and at least some of the openings (gaps between 31) are each provided with a light conversion layer (Fig.3 20; ¶0028);
light emitting elements (Fig.3 10; ¶0028), which are located between the light conversion layers (20) and the second substrate (1), wherein the light conversion layers (20) are arranged corresponding to at least some of the light emitting elements (10).
Fan does not teach wherein the bank is a metal bank.
Heo teaches a metal bank (Fig.10 1150; ¶0125 and ¶0127 of Heo).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the bank of Fan (31 of Fan) to comprise a metal material as taught by Heo (1150 of Heo) to arrive at the claimed invention. A practitioner of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of shielding an electric field from leaking (¶0020 of Heo).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan in view of Heo, and further in view of Kim et al. (US-12302669-B2 – hereinafter Kim).
Regarding claim 5, the aforementioned combination of Fan in view of Heo from claim 1 teaches the display panel according to claim 1.
The aforementioned combination does not teach wherein a side of one of the light emitting elements facing away from the second substrate is in contact with a side of the light conversion layer facing away from the first substrate.
Kim teaches an embodiment where an LED element (Fig.9 172; col.16 line 17-23 of Kim) makes contact with a color conversion layer (Fig.9 QDL; col.8 line 15-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrange the light emitting element of Fan (10 of Fan) to contact the light conversion layer of Fan (20 of Fan) as taught by Kim (Fig.9 of Kim) to arrive at the claimed invention. A practitioner of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of reducing the distance emitted light must travel to reach the color conversion layer to reduce light loss.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan in view of Heo, and further in view of Kurosawa et al. (US-20170244003-A1 – hereinafter Kurosawa).
Regarding claim 6, the aforementioned combination of Fan in view of Heo from claim 1 teaches the display panel according to claim 1.
The aforementioned combination does not teach wherein the metal bank is electrically connected to a reference signal terminal.
Kurosawa teaches an LED device (Fig.4; ¶0044 of Kurosawa) comprising a reference terminal (Fig.4 GND1; ¶0044 of Kurosawa).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the reference terminal of Kurosawa (GND1 of Kurosawa) to the device taught by Fan in view of Heo (Fig.3 of Fan) to arrive at the claimed invention. A practitioner would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of regulating electrical current through the LED device.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan in view of Heo, and further in view of Baek et al. (US-20230093367-A1 – hereinafter Baek).
Regarding claim 14, the aforementioned combination of Fan in view of Heo from claim 1 teaches the display panel according to claim 1.
The aforementioned combination does not teach wherein the light conversion layer comprises a first light conversion surface facing away from the first substrate, the first light conversion surface is a convex surface or a concave surface.
Baek teaches a color conversion layer (Fig.11B 115; ¶0252 of Baek) with a first surface (bottom surface closer to the LED) that has a convex surface (Fig.11B 130a; ¶0253 of Baek).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the convex surface of the color conversion layer of Baek (115 of Baek) with the bottom surface of the color conversion layer of Fan (20 of Fan) to arrive at the claimed invention. A practitioner of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of reduced light loss by shortening the path of light reaching the color conversion layer (¶0252 of Baek).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan in view of Heo, and further in view of Lee et al. (US-20210159378-A1 – hereinafter Lee).
Regarding claim 16, the aforementioned combination of Fan in view of Heo from claim 15 teaches the display panel according to claim 15.
The aforementioned combination does not teach wherein the display panel further comprises a bank seed layer located between the metal bank and the first substrate, a side of the bank seed layer facing away from the first substrate is in contact with the metal bank.
Lee teaches a seed layer (Fig.4 124; ¶0074 of Lee) with a corresponding metal bank (Fig.4 122; ¶0074 of Lee) with the seed layer in contact with the metal bank (122 of Lee).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the seed layer of Lee (122 of Lee) with the metal bank of Fan in view of Heo (31 of Fan) where the metal bank (31 of Fan) contacts the first substrate (2 of Fan) to arrive at the claimed invention.
A practitioner of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification because seed layers are a well-known component in semiconductor device manufacturing where metal components are grown on seed layers.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 are 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 3, the most relevant prior art reference US-20210151702-A1 to Fan et al. teaches most of the limitations of claim 3, but not the limitations of “wherein a surface of the metal bank facing away from the first substrate is a non-reflecting surface” as recited. Therefore, claim 3 is deemed patentable over the prior art.
Regarding claim 4, it is allowable as being dependent on allowable claim 3.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THADDEUS J KOLB whose telephone number is (571)272-0276. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 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, 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.
/T.J.K./ Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/ELISEO RAMOS FELICIANO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817