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
An amendment filed on 03/03/2026 in response to the Office Action mailed on 12/03/2025 is
being acknowledged and entered into the record. The present Final rejection is made by taking into fully
consideration all the amendments.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8 of the remarks, filed on 03/03/2026, with respect to the objection of the Drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the Drawings has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-12 of the remarks, filed on 03/03/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 2, 12, 16 and 17 under 35 USC § 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of a different interpretation of the previously applied references of Breakspear et al., Dupre et al. and Kindler et al.. The combination of Breakspear et al., Dupre et al. and Kindler et al. teaches the newly added limitations of amended Claim 1, as outlined in the rejection below.
On pages 12-14 of the remarks, filed on 03/03/2026, with regards to the amended Claim 1, Applicant argues that Breakspear fails to disclose Features A: "wherein the display panel further comprising a reflective layer; the reflective layer comprises first portions and a second portion connected to each other, the first portions are attached to side walls of the groove, and the second portion is attached to a bottom wall of the groove; and wherein the bottom wall of the groove faces the substrate, and each of the side walls of the groove extends from the bottom wall towards the array layer and is inclined toward a middle of the groove". These arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. According to MPEP § 2145 (IV), “One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986)”. As such, while Breakspear alone does not teach the above features A of the amended claim 1, the combination of Breakspear et al., Dupre et al. and Kindler et al. teaches these features as outlined in the rejection below. Therefore, Breakspear is still relied upon to teach some of the limitations of Claim 1 and pertinent dependent claims.
On pages 15-17 of the remarks, filed on 03/03/2026, with regards to the amended Claim 1, Applicant argues that Dupre fails to disclose Features A of amended Claim 1. These arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the same reasons indicated in paragraph 3 of this section. Therefore, Dupre is still relied upon to teach some of the limitations of Claim 1 and pertinent dependent claims.
On pages 17-20 of the remarks, filed on 03/03/2026, with regards to the amended Claim 1, Applicant argues that Kindler teaches the metal layer portion 1310 of the reflective layer 532 on the top surface of the light-emitting devices 401, 402, 403 is later removed later and therefore Kindler discloses the reflective layer 532 is disposed only on the sidewalls of the grooves but not on the bottom of the grooves. These arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In Fig. 13A-13D of Kindler, the bottom layer of the groove is interpreted as the side of the groove closest to the array layer 520 (see annotated Fig. 13B). Only the top portion 1310 of reflective layer 532 is removed in a later step and the portions of reflective layer deposited on the bottom and side walls of the groove are spared. Therefore, Kindler is still relied upon to teach some of the limitations of Claim 1 and pertinent dependent claims.
On pages 20-21 of the remarks, filed on 03/03/2026, with regards to the amended Claim 1, Applicant argues that Kindler fails to disclose "the side wall of the groove is inclined toward the middle of the groove". These arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. While Kindler fails to explicitly teach "the side wall of the groove is inclined toward the middle of the groove", Kindler et al. teaches each of the side walls of the groove is inclined away from a middle of the groove. According to MPEP § 2144.04 (B), the shape of the groove is a matter of design choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape of the groove is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Further, according to paragraph 0065 of the originally filed disclosure, the a side wall of the groove being inclined toward the middle of the groove reads on an optional embodiment and thus does not impart any technical significance. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the shape of the groove of Kindler et al. such that each of the side walls of the groove is inclined toward a middle of the groove. Therefore, Kindler is still relied upon to teach some of the limitations of Claim 1 and pertinent dependent claims.
On pages 22 of the remarks, filed on 03/03/2026, with regards to the Claim 17, Applicant argues that the combination of Huang, Breakspear, Dupre, and Kindler fails to disclose features A and thus claim 17 is novel over these references. These arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As mentioned earlier in paragraph 3, the combination of Breakspear et al., Dupre et al. and Kindler et al. teaches the features A of Claim 17 as outlined in the rejection below. Therefore, Breakspear et al., Dupre et al. and Kindler et al. are still relied upon for the rejection of Claim 17.
On pages 22-24 of the remarks, filed on 03/03/2026, with regards to the Claim 1, Applicant argues that none of the previously cited references disclose features A of the amended claim 1. These arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the same reasons mentioned in the above paragraph. Therefore, the cited references are still relied upon for the rejection of Claim 1 and its dependents.
On pages 24 of the remarks, filed on 03/03/2026, with regards to the Claim 18, Applicant argues that none of the previously cited references disclose features A and thus claim 18 is novel over these references. These arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The combination of Breakspear et al., Dupre et al. and Kindler et al., Kim and Basin teaches all of the limitations of Claim 18 as outlined in the rejection below. Therefore, these references are still relied upon for the rejection of Claim 18 and its dependents.
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 18-20 are 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 18 recites the limitations “a first film layer” in line 7 and “a reflective layer” in line 10. However, it is unclear as to whether “a first film” and “a reflective layer” refers back to the layers recited in independent claim 1 upon which Claim 18 depends, or if these are additional layers.
For the purpose of examination, the above limitations will be interpreted as referring back to the layers recited in independent claim 1.
Claims 19-20 are rejected due to their dependency on Claim 18.
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.
Rejection note: Italicized claim limitations are limitations not explicitly disclosed in the primary
reference but disclosed in the secondary reference(s).
Claim 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breakspear et al. (US 20230352466 A1), in view of Dupre et al. (US 20240153986 A1) and Kindler et al. (US 20090116107 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Breakspear et al. teaches a display panel, comprising:
a substrate 1130 (Fig. 11C: 1130, paragraph 0130);
an array layer 1132, 1134 disposed on the substrate 1130 (Fig. 11C: 1132, 1134, 1130, paragraph 0130);
light-emitting devices 1108 arranged on a side of the array layer 1132, 1134 facing away from the substrate 1130 (Fig. 11E: 1108, 1132, 1134, 1130, paragraph 0130);
and a first film layer disposed on the side of the array layer facing away from the substrate, wherein the first film layer is provided with at least one groove,
and a groove of the at least one groove is located between adjacent light-emitting devices 1108 (Fig. 5, Fig. 13A: 401, 402, 403);
Note that the opening between adjacent light-emitting devices 1108 in Fig. 11E is interpreted as a groove.
wherein the display panel further comprising a reflective layer 1152 (Fig. 11F: 1152, paragraph 0133);
and the reflective layer 1152 comprises first portions and a second portion connected to each other, the first portions are attached to side walls of the groove, and the second portion is attached to a bottom wall of the groove (Fig. 11F: 1152, paragraph 0133);
and wherein the bottom wall of the groove faces the substrate 1130, and each of the side walls of the groove extends from the bottom wall towards the array layer 1132, 1134 and is inclined toward a middle of the groove (see Fig.11E: 1130).
Dupre et al. teaches a display panel, comprising the following limitation not disclosed in Breakspear et al.:
a first film layer 4 disposed on the side of the layer 12 facing away from the substrate 11, wherein the first film layer 4 is provided with at least one groove 2 (see Fig. 5D: 2, 11,, 12, Fig. 5E: 2, 4, 11, 12, paragraph 0104, 0118).
Therefore, it would have been obvious the a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Breakspear et al. and Dupre et al. in order to have a first film layer disposed on the side of the array layer facing away from the substrate, wherein the first film layer is provided with at least one groove. Doing so would encapsulate and isolate the light-emitting devices from each other.
Kindler et al. teaches a display panel, comprising the following limitations:
and the reflective layer 532 comprises first portions and a second portion connected to each other, the first portions are attached to side walls of the groove, and the second portion is attached to a bottom wall of the groove (see Fig. 5, annotated Fig. 13B: 532, paragraph 0064);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Breakspear et al. and Kindler et al. in order to have the reflective layer comprise first portions and a second portion connected to each other, and the second portion attached to a bottom wall of the groove, and each of the side walls of the groove be inclined toward a middle of the groove. Doing so would ensure more light is reflected off and exits the light-emitting devices.
The combination of Breakspear et al., Dupre et al. and Kindler et al. fails to teach each of the side walls of the groove is inclined toward a middle of the groove. However, Kindler et al. teaches each of the side walls of the groove is inclined away from a middle of the groove. According to MPEP § 2144.04 (B), the shape of the groove is a matter of design choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape of the groove is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Since the Applicant has not shown persuasive evidence that the particular shape of the groove is significant (see Examiner note below), a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the shape of the groove of Kindler et al. such that each of the side walls of the groove is inclined toward a middle of the groove.
Examiner note: According to paragraph 0065 of the originally filed disclosure, the a side wall of the groove being inclined toward the middle of the groove reads on an optional embodiment and thus does not impart any technical significance.
PNG
media_image1.png
589
1429
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 13B of Kindler et al. (US 20090116107 A1)
Regarding Claim 2, Dupre et al. teaches the display panel of claim 1, wherein the first film layer 4 is an encapsulation layer 4, and the encapsulation layer 4 covers the light-emitting devices M and is attached to outer walls of the light-emitting devices M (see Fig. 5E: 4, M, paragraph 0118).
Regarding Claim 6, Kindler et al. teaches the display panel of claim 1, wherein an included angle [Symbol font/0x71] between each of the side walls of the groove and a top surface of the array layer 520 ranges from greater than 0° to less than 90° (see annotated Fig. 13B: [Symbol font/0x71]).
While Kindler et al. fails to explicitly teach a range from 50° to less than 60°, the disclosed range overlaps with the claimed range. According to MPEP § 2144.05 (I), “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, it would have been obvious the a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the above range to be from 50° to 60° through routine optimization.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Breakspear et al. and Dupre et al. fails to teach the display panel of claim 1, further comprising: a light-shielding portion at least disposed in the at least one groove.
However, Kindler et al. teaches the display panel further comprising: a light-shielding portion 531 at least disposed in the groove (see Fig. 13B: 531, paragraph 0085).
Therefore, it would have been obvious the a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Breakspear et al., Dupre et al. and Kindler et al. in order to have a light-shielding portion at least disposed in the groove. Doing so would enable stray light to be absorbed by the light-shielding portion thereby minimizing light leakage between adjacent light-emitting devices and improving the contrast of the display panel.
Regarding Claim 8, Kindler et al. teaches the display panel of claim 7, wherein an absolute value of a difference between a distance from a top surface of the light-shielding portion 531 to the substrate 512 and a distance from a top surface of a light-emitting device 401, 501 of the light-emitting devices 401, 402, 403, 501 to the substrate 512 is around 0 µm (see Fig. 13D : 531, 512, 401, 402, 403, paragraph 0085).
Note that layer 401/402/403 together with layer 501 of Fig. 13D is interpreted as the light-emitting device. Further note that the light-shielding portion 531 is coplanar with the light emitting devices 401/402/403 and therefore the absolute value of a difference between the above distances will be around 0 µm.
While Kindler et al. fails to explicitly teach a range of no more than 5 µm, the disclosed value overlaps the claimed range. According to MPEP § 2144.05 (I), “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, it would have been obvious the a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the above range to be no more than 5 µm through routine optimization.
Regarding Claim 9, Kindler et al., in a different embodiment, teaches the display panel of claim 7, wherein a distance D1 from a top surface of the light-shielding 810 portion to the bottom wall of the groove is greater than or equal to a distance D2 from a top surface of a light-emitting device 402, 501 of the light-emitting devices to a top surface of the array layer 520 (see annotated Fig. 8: D1, D2, 801, 401, 501, 520,).
Note that distance D1 and D2 in annotated Fig. 8 of Kindler is equal.
PNG
media_image2.png
1023
1313
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious the a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the different embodiments of Kindler et al. in order to have a distance from a top surface of the light-shielding portion to the bottom wall of the groove be greater than or equal to a distance from a top surface of a light-emitting device of the light-emitting devices to a top surface of the array layer. Doing so would ensure minimal step difference between adjacent layers of the light-emitting device, thereby realizing planar surface.
Annotated Fig. 8 of Kindler et al. (US 20090116107 A1)
Regarding Claim 11, Breakspear et al., in a different embodiment, teaches the display panel of claim 1, wherein the array layer 920, 922, 930 comprises a wire region 930, at least part of the groove is disposed on a side of the wire region 930 facing away from the substrate 910 (see Fig. 9: 930, 910, paragraph 0114), but fails to teach a light-shielding portion is disposed in the groove.
However, Kindler et al. teaches the display panel, comprising the light-shielding portion 531, wherein the light-shielding portion 531 is disposed in the groove (see Fig. 13B: 531, paragraph 0085).
Therefore, it would have been obvious the a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the different embodiments of Breakspear et al. and the teachings Kindler et al. in order to come up with the claimed invention. Doing so would enable stray light to be absorbed by the light-shielding portion thereby preventing the light from entering the wire region.
Regarding Claim 13, Breakspear et al., in a different embodiment, teaches the display panel of claim 1, further comprising: light-concentrating portions 1290, wherein a light-concentrating portion of the light-concentrating portions 1290 is disposed in correspondence with a light-emitting device 1202 of the light-emitting devices and the light-concentrating portions 1290 are located on a side of the light-emitting devices facing away from the array layer 1272, 1274 (Fig. 12B-12E: 1290, 1202, 1272, 1274, paragraph 0135).
Therefore, it would have been obvious the a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the different embodiments of Breakspear et al. in order to have light-concentrating portions, wherein a light-concentrating portion of the light-concentrating portions is disposed in correspondence with a light-emitting device of the light-emitting devices and the light-concentrating portions are located on a side of the light-emitting devices facing away from the array layer. Doing so would improve the light extraction efficiency of the display panel.
Regarding Claim 17, Breakspear et al. teaches display device comprising a display panel, wherein the display panel comprises:
a substrate 1130 (Fig. 11C: 1130, paragraph 0130);
an array layer 1132, 1134 disposed on the substrate 1130 (Fig. 11C: 1132, 1134, 1130, paragraph 0130);
light-emitting devices 1108 arranged on a side of the array layer 1132, 1134 facing away from the substrate 1130 (Fig. 11E: 1108, 1132, 1134, 1130, paragraph 0130);
and a first film layer disposed on the side of the array layer facing away from the substrate, wherein the first film layer is provided with at least one groove,
and a groove of the at least one groove is located between adjacent light-emitting devices 1108 (Fig. 5, Fig. 13A: 401, 402, 403);
Note that the opening between adjacent light-emitting devices 1108 in Fig. 11E is interpreted as a groove.
wherein the display panel further comprising a reflective layer 1152 (Fig. 11F: 1152, paragraph 0133);
and the reflective layer 1152 comprises first portions and a second portion connected to each other, the first portions are attached to side walls of the groove, and the second portion is attached to a bottom wall of the groove (Fig. 11F: 1152, paragraph 0133);
and wherein the bottom wall of the groove faces the substrate 1130, and each of the side walls of the groove extends from the bottom wall towards the array layer 1132, 1134 and is inclined toward a middle of the groove (see Fig.11E: 1130).
Dupre et al. teaches a display device, comprising the following limitation not disclosed in Breakspear et al.:
a first film layer 4 disposed on the side of the layer 12 facing away from the substrate 11, wherein the first film layer 4 is provided with at least one groove 2 (see Fig. 5D: 2, 11,, 12, Fig. 5E: 2, 4, 11, 12, paragraph 0104, 0118).
Therefore, it would have been obvious the a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Breakspear et al. and Dupre et al. in order to have a first film layer disposed on the side of the array layer facing away from the substrate, wherein the first film layer is provided with at least one groove. Doing so would encapsulate and isolate the light-emitting devices from each other.
Kindler et al. teaches a display device, comprising the following limitations:
and the reflective layer 532 comprises first portions and a second portion connected to each other, the first portions are attached to side walls of the groove, and the second portion is attached to a bottom wall of the groove (see Fig. 5, annotated Fig. 13B: 532, paragraph 0064);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Breakspear et al. and Kindler et al. in order to have the reflective layer comprise first portions and a second portion connected to each other, and the second portion attached to a bottom wall of the groove, and each of the side walls of the groove be inclined toward a middle of the groove. Doing so would ensure more light is reflected off and exits the light-emitting devices.
The combination of Breakspear et al., Dupre et al. and Kindler et al. fails to teach each of the side walls of the groove is inclined toward a middle of the groove. However, Kindler et al. teaches each of the side walls of the groove is inclined away from a middle of the groove. According to MPEP § 2144.04 (B), the shape of the groove is a matter of design choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape of the groove is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Since the Applicant has not shown persuasive evidence that the particular shape of the groove is significant (see Examiner note below), a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the shape of the groove of Kindler et al. such that each of the side walls of the groove is inclined toward a middle of the groove.
Examiner note: According to paragraph 0065 of the originally filed disclosure, the a side wall of the groove being inclined toward the middle of the groove reads on an optional embodiment and thus does not impart any technical significance.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breakspear et al. (US 20230352466 A1), in view of Dupre et al. (US 20240153986 A1), and Kindler et al. (US 20090116107 A1), as applied to Claim 7 above, further in view of Tsumura et al. (US 20060243947 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Breakspear et al., Dupre et al. and Kindler et al. fails to teach the display panel of claim 7, wherein the light-shielding portion is made of a low-temperature material having a curing temperature less than 150 0C.
However, Tsumura et al. teaches a display panel, wherein the light-shielding portion is made of a low-temperature material having a curing temperature of 115 0C (paragraph 0115).
While Tsumura et al. fails to explicitly teach the curing temperature is less than 150 0C, the disclosed value lies within the claimed range. According to MPEP § 2144.05 (I), “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, it would have been obvious the a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Breakspear et al., Dupre et al., Kindler et al. and Tsumura et al. in order have the light-shielding portion be made of a low-temperature material having a curing temperature less than 150 0C. Doing so would ensure the display panel can be manufactured at low-temperatures.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breakspear et al. (US 20230352466 A1), in view of Dupre et al. (US 20240153986 A1), and Kindler et al. (US 20090116107 A1), as applied to Claim 7 above, further in view of Huang et al. (US 20240102853 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Breakspear et al., Dupre et al. and Kindler et al. fails to teach the display panel of claim 1, further comprising: a second film layer, wherein the second film layer is disposed on the array layer and encapsulates the array layer, and the at least one groove is disposed on a side of the second film layer facing away from the array layer.
However, Huang et al. teaches a display panel comprising: a second film layer 124e, wherein the second film layer 124e is disposed on the array layer 120 and encapsulates the array layer 120, and the groove 162 is disposed on a side 120a of the second film layer 124e facing away from the array layer 120 (see Fig. 1: 124e, 120, 120a, paragraph 0025).
Note that the top most insulating layer 124e of the array layer 120 in Fig. 1 is interpreted as the second film layer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious the a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Breakspear et al., Dupre et al., Kindler et al. and Huang et al. in order have a second film layer, wherein the second film layer is disposed on the array layer and encapsulates the array layer, and the at least one groove is disposed on a side of the second film layer facing away from the array layer. Doing so would encapsulate the array layer.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breakspear et al. (US 20230352466 A1), in view of Dupre et al. (US 20240153986 A1) and Kindler et al. (US 20090116107 A1), as applied to Claim 13 above, further in view of Ruh (US 5592578).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Breakspear et al., Dupre et al. and Kindler et al. fails to teach the display panel of claim 13, wherein a refractive index of the light-concentrating portions is between 1.5 and 2.3.
However, Ruh teaches a display panel, wherein a refractive index of the light-concentrating portions 10 is greater than 1 (column 2, lines 25-27). Furthermore, Ruh teaches the refractive index can be optimized to achieve a desired luminous efficiency along the viewing angle (column 3, lines 1-5).
Note that according to column 2, lines 25-27, the refractive index of the light-concentrating portions 10 is greater than that of air, which is n=1.
While Ruh fails to explicitly teach the refractive index of the light-concentrating portions is between 1.5 and 2.3, the disclosed range overlaps with the claimed range. According to MPEP § 2144.05 (I), “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, it would have been obvious the a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Breakspear et al., Dupre et al., Kindler et al. and Ruh in order to have a refractive index of the light-concentrating portions to be between 1.5 and 2.3 through routine optimization.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breakspear et al. (US 20230352466 A1), in view of Dupre et al. (US 20240153986 A1) and Kindler et al. (US 20090116107 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, further in view of Song (US 20190189968 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Breakspear et al., Dupre et al. and Kindler et al. fails to teach the display panel of claim 1, wherein a refractive index of the first film layer is between 1.5 and 2.6.
However, Song teaches a display panel, wherein a refractive index of the first film layer 300 is between 1.5 and 2.0 (see Fig. 2: 300, paragraph 0013).
While Ruh fails to explicitly teach the refractive index of the light-concentrating portions is between 1.5 and 2.6, the disclosed range lies within the claimed range. According to MPEP § 2144.05 (I), “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, it would have been obvious the a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Breakspear et al., Dupre et al., Kindler et al. and Song in order to have a refractive index of the first film layer to be between 1.5 and 2.6 through routine optimization. Doing so would improve the light extraction efficiency of the display panel by properly controlling a refractive index difference between light-emitting unit and the first film layer to properly establish a resonance condition, as recognized by Song (Paragraph 0008).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breakspear et al. (US 20230352466 A1), in view of Dupre et al. (US 20240153986 A1), and Kindler et al. (US 20090116107 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, further in view of Huang et al. (US 20240102853 A1).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Breakspear et al., Dupre et al. and Kindler et al. fails to teach the display panel of claim 1, wherein the first film layer comprises a backup portion, the backup portion is disposed on the side of the array layer facing away from the substrate, the backup portion covers a redundant electrode on the array layer, and at least part of the groove is disposed between the backup portion and a light-emitting device of the light-emitting devices.
Huang et al. teaches a display panel, wherein the first film layer 180 comprises a backup portion, the backup portion is disposed on the side 120a of the array layer 120 facing away from the substrate 110, the backup portion covers a redundant electrode 170e1, 170e2 on the array layer 120, and at least part of the groove 162 is disposed between the backup portion and a light-emitting device 170 of the light-emitting devices 170 (see Fig. 1: backup portion, 170e1, 170e2).
Note that the portion of the first film layer 180 covering the leftmost light-emitting device 170 in Fig. 1 and Fig. 7 is interpreted as the backup portion and the electrodes 170e1 and 170e2 are interpreted as the redundant electrode.
Therefore, it would have been obvious the a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Breakspear et al., Dupre et al., Kindler et al. and Huang et al. in order have the first film layer comprise a backup portion, the backup portion is disposed on the side of the array layer facing away from the substrate, the backup portion covers a redundant electrode on the array layer, and at least part of the groove is disposed between the backup portion and a light-emitting device of the light-emitting devices. Doing so would encapsulate the electrodes in the array layer.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breakspear et al. (US 20230352466 A1), in view of Dupre et al. (US 20240153986 A1), and Kindler et al. (US 20090116107 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, further in view of Basin et al. (US 20200295241 A1) and Kim (US 20180351117 A1).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Breakspear et al., Dupre et al. and Kindler et al. teaches a preparation method of the display panel according to claim 1, comprising:
providing a driving substrate 1104 (as taught by Breakspear et al., Fig. 11C: 1104, paragraph 0130),
wherein the driving substrate 1104 comprises a substrate 1130, the array layer 1132, 1134, and the light-emitting devices 1108 (as taught by Breakspear et al., Fig. 11C: 1130, 1132, 1134, Fig. 11E: 1108, paragraph 0130, 0132),
wherein the substrate 1130, the array layer 1132, 1134, and a layer 1106 where the light-emitting devices 1108 are located are laminated in sequence (as taught by Breakspear et al., see Fig. 11D: 1106, Fig. 11E: 1108, paragraph 0131, 0132);
encapsulating and photoetching the light-emitting devices 1108 to form a first film layer 4 wrapping the light-emitting devices1108/M (as taught by Breakspear et al . in Fig. 11E: 1108, paragraph 0132 and Dupre et al. , Fig. 5D-5E: 2, 4, paragraph 0104, 0118);
wherein the at least one groove 2 is formed in the first film layer 4, and the groove 2 of the at least one groove 2 is located between adjacent light-emitting devices M (as taught by Dupre et al., Fig. 5E: M, 4, paragraph 0118);
forming a reflective layer 1310 on a top surface of the first film layer 4 wherein the reflective layer 1310 is attached to the top surface of the first film layer 4, and removing the reflective layer 1310 on the top surface of the layer 401, 402, 403 so that the reflective layer 1310 is located in the groove and is attached to side walls of the first film layer 4 (as taught by Kindler et al., see Fig. 13A: 1310, 401, 402, 403, paragraph 0085 and Dupre et al., Fig. 5E: 2, 4, paragraph 0104, 0118).
Note that part of the reflective layer 1310 of Kindler et al. on the top surface of the light-emitting devices is later removed (see Fig. 13C, paragraph 0085).
The combination of Breakspear et al., Dupre et al. and Kindler et al. fails to teach/explicitly teach encapsulating the array layer to form a second film layer wrapping the array layer, removing the reflective layer on the top surface of the first film layer is done by etching.
However, Kim teaches a preparation method of a display panel, comprising: encapsulating the array layer 103, 105 to form a second film layer 107 wrapping the array layer 103, 105 (see Fig2: 103, 105, 107, paragraph 0038).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Breakspear et al., Dupre et al., Kindler et al. and Kim in order to encapsulate the array layer to form a second film layer wrapping the array layer. Doing so would protect the thin film transistors in the array layer, as recognized by Kim (paragraph 0038).
Further, Basin et al. teaches a preparation method of a display panel, comprising etching the reflective layer 42 on the top surface of the light-emitting devices 38 (Fig. 5 and Fig. 6: 36, paragraph 0041, 0042).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Breakspear et al., Dupre et al., Kindler et al. and Basin et al. in order to etch the reflective layer on the top surface of the first film layer. Doing so cause would enable precise removal of the reflective layer at the microscale with less mechanical stress.
Claims 19 and 20 are is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breakspear et al. (US 20230352466 A1), in view of Dupre et al. (US 20240153986 A1), and Kindler et al. (US 20090116107 A1), further in view of Basin et al. (US 20200295241 A1) and Kim (US 20180351117 A1), as applied to Claim 18 above, further in view of Oliver (US 20200108528 A1).
Regarding Claim 19, Breakspear et al. fails to teach the preparation method of a display panel of claim 18, further comprising: filling the at least one groove with a light-shielding portion and performing a vacuum compression molding to enable the reflective layer to be around the light-shielding portion.
However, Kindler et al. teaches a preparation method of a display panel comprising: filling the at least one groove with a light-shielding portion 531 (Fig. 13B: 531, paragraph 0085), except performing a vacuum compression molding to enable the reflective layer to be around the light-shielding portion. Further, Oliver teaches a preparation method of a display panel comprising: performing a vacuum compression molding to enable the reflective layer 802 to be around the portion 805/605 (see Fig. 1: 802, Step 620 in Fig. 6: 605, paragraph 0056, 0059).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Breakspear et al., Dupre et al., Kindler et al. and Oliver in order to have a step of filling the at least one groove with a light-shielding portion and performing a vacuum compression molding to enable the reflective layer to be around the light-shielding portion. Doing so would enable stray light to be absorbed by the light-shielding portion thereby minimizing light leakage between adjacent light-emitting devices and improving the contrast of the display panel, as well as ensure the reflective layer fits well around the light-shielding portion.
Regarding Claim 20, Kindler et al. teaches the preparation method of a display panel of claim 19, further comprising: removing the light-shielding portion 531 on the light-emitting devices 401, 402, 403 (Fig. 13B and 13C: 531, paragraph 0085).
Kindler et. al. fails to explicitly teach the removal is done by dry etching. However, Breakspear et al. teaches removing portions of the light-emitting devices by dry etching (see Fig. 12A-12A, paragraph 0135).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to remove the light-shielding portion on the light-emitting devices also by dry etching. Doing so would enable precise removal of the light-shielding portion at the microscale level with less mechanical stress.
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 HAMNA F IQBAL whose telephone number is (571)272-1587. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8.30 am - 5.30 pm EST.
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, Kretelia Graham can be reached at 571-272-5055. 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.
/HAMNA FATHIMA IQBAL/Examiner, Art Unit 2817 5/11/2026
/NICHOLAS J TOBERGTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights