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 .
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.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo et. al., U.S. Pat. Pub. 2004/0075383, hereafter Endo, in view of Matsui et. al., U.S. Pat. Pub. 2012/0038866, hereafter Matsui.
Regarding claim 1, Endo discloses (Fig. 14) a method for manufacturing a display panel with no color unevenness using an inkjet, the method comprising:
forming a black matrix [352] on a substrate [S];
ejecting (par. [0212], [0210]) an RGB ink to eject the same amount (par. [212, Fig. 14 ©) of the RGB ink [354] to the subpixels from a plurality of inkjet print head nozzles (par. [0149]);
and drying the RGB ink sprayed on the subpixels with a dryer or curing with an ultraviolet curing device (par. [0213], the heat treatment is performed by a dryer)
Endo fails to explicitly disclose:
forming the black matrix to form a plurality of black matrices on the substrate so that areas of the subpixels are randomly different.
However, Matsui discloses (par. [0036], [0044], Fig. 3)
forming the black matrix to form a plurality of black matrices on the substrate so that areas of the subpixels are randomly different.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Endo with the teachings of formation of random area black matrices of Matsui, because Matsui teaches (par. [0014]) that it is possible to realize a liquid crystal display device that prevents, even if formed colored patterns are varied in joining portions during exposure, the variation of colored patterns from becoming conspicuous.
Regarding claim 2, Endo in view of Matsui discloses everything as applied above. Matsui further discloses (Fig. 3) wherein in forming the black matrix [3], the subpixels are formed using photoresist (par. [0048]), wherein the plurality of black matrices are formed on the substrate so that the areas of the subpixels are randomly different (Fig. 3, par. [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the instant application to form the black matrix using photoresist, because Matsui teaches (par. [0009] that this prevents misalignment.
wherein in forming the black matrix, the subpixels are formed using any one of photoresist, screen printing, sandblasting, or lift-off processes, and wherein the plurality of black matrices are formed on the substrate so that the areas of the subpixels are randomly different.
Regarding claim 3, Endo in view of Matsui discloses everything as applied above. Matsui further discloses (par. [0044]) wherein the black matrix comprises subpixels with different random areas.
Regarding claim 4, Endo in view of Matsui discloses everything as applied above. Claim 4 is obvious over the combination of references, because Endo further discloses (Fig. 14) wherein the black matrix [352] comprises reference subpixels, while Matsui further discloses (par. [0044]) wherein one or more types of subpixels having different sizes from the reference subpixels are randomly arranged.
Regarding claim 5, Endo in view of Matsui discloses everything as applied above. Endo further
discloses (par. [0065]), wherein the RGB ink comprises an RGB ink for a color filter.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo et. al., U.S. Pat. Pub. 2004/0075383, hereafter Endo, in view of Matsui et. al., U.S. Pat. Pub. 2012/0038866, hereafter Matsui, and further in view of Shin, “Study on the Right Size of Inkjet Droplets for the Fabrication of Large Area Display Panels, KSME Fall Meeting 2019 powerpoint presentation (of record), hereafter Shin.
Regarding claim 6, Endo in view of Matsui discloses everything as applied above. Endo in view of Matsui fails to explicitly disclose wherein the RGB ink comprises an RGB ink for an organic light-emitting diode (OLED) display panel.
However, Shin discloses (pp.10-12) wherein the RGB ink comprises an RGB ink for an organic light-emitting diode (OLED) display panel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the instant application to manufacture a QD-OLED by the inkjet printing method taught by Shin, because Shin teaches (p.7) that this method achieves cost reduction without degrading picture quality.
Regarding claim 7, Endo in view of Liao discloses everything as applied above. Endo in view of Liao fails to explicitly disclose wherein the RGB ink comprises an RGB ink for a quantum dot (QD)-based display panel.
However, Shin discloses (pp.10-12) wherein the RGB ink comprises an RGB ink for a quantum dot (QD)-based display panel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the instant application to manufacture a QD-OLED by the inkjet printing method taught by Shin, because Shin teaches (p.7) that this method achieves cost reduction without degrading picture quality.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo et. al., U.S. Pat. Pub. 2004/0075383, hereafter Endo, in view of Matsui et. al., U.S. Pat. Pub. 2012/0038866, hereafter Matsui, and further in view of Woo et. al., U.S. Pat. Pub. 2019/0123292, hereafter Woo.
Regarding claim 8, Endo in view of Matsui discloses everything as applied above. Endo in view of Matsui fails to explicitly disclose wherein the RGB ink comprises a nanorod ink for a light emitting diode (LED) display panel.
However, Woo discloses (Fig. 5, par. [0077],[0091], [0092], [0101]) wherein the RGB ink comprises a nanorod ink for a light emitting diode (LED) display panel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the instant application to manufacture a nanorod based LED display by the inkjet printing method taught by Woo, because Woo teaches (par. [0100]) that the velocity and efficiency of electron injection into the EML layer is enhanced by the nanorods, and the luminescence properties of the light emitting diode may be improved.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Liao et. al., “Development of a 120 Hz 110” ultra-high-definition a-Si liquid crystal display panel”, Journal of Information Display, Vol. 15, pp.77-80, hereafter Liao.
Liao teaches (p. 80, Section 5, lines 5-8 a random pattern design for the black matrix, although Liao does not teach randomly different subpixel areas.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTOR V BARZYKIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0508. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm.
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, BRITT HANLEY can be reached at (571)270-3042. 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.
/VICTOR V BARZYKIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/Britt Hanley/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights