DETAILED ACTION
This Action is responsive to the Restriction/Election Response filed on 03/11/2026.
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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, drawn to a display panel, and Species 6, reading on FIG. 8, in the reply filed on 03/11/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 17 and 20-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected non-elected Group II and non-elected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Applicant argues:
The traversal is on the ground(s) that amended claim 1 now reciting at least the following distinguishing technical features: a light-blocking layer; wherein the light-blocking layer is located between the plurality of connection leads and the substrate, and is at least located between first portions of the plurality of connection leads and the first surface of the substrate; and the light-blocking layer includes a first light-blocking layer disposed on the first surface of the substrate, and the first light-blocking layer is located between the first portions of the plurality of connection leads and the first surface of the substrate.
Applicants deem that Zhao fails to disclose or suggest distinguishing technical features of amended claim 1 for at least the following reasons.
As to the above distinguishing technical features, in the present application, it is clear that, amended claim 1 discloses that the display panel 10 further comprises a light-blocking layer 2, the light-blocking layer 2 is located between the plurality of connection leads 3 and the substrate 1, and is at least located between first portions 31 of the plurality of connection leads 3 and the first surface la of the substrate 1, the light-blocking layer 2 includes a first light-blocking layer 21 disposed on the first surface la of the substrate 1, and the first light- blocking layer 21 is located between the first portions 31 of the plurality of connection leads 3 and the first surface la of the substrate 1.
Based on this, in the display panel 10 of amended claim 1, the light-blocking layer 2 is disposed between the plurality of connection leads 3 and the substrate 1, and the light- blocking layer 2 includes a portion (i.e., the first light-blocking layer 21) disposed on the first surface la of the substrate 1 and located between the first portions 31 of the plurality of connection leads 3 and the first surface la of the substrate 1.
In contrast, according to paragraphs [0063], [0065], [0067]-[0068], [0073]-[0075] and [0086]-[0089], and FIG. 3 of Zhao, a hybrid panel 100 includes a display panel 10 and a light-emitting diode (LED) substrate 20.
It can be seen that Zhao does not disclose or address the light-blocking layer 2, the first light-blocking layer 21, or their specific arrangements of amended claim 1. Zhao does not disclose or suggest the above distinguishing technical features of amended claim 1, nor achieve the beneficial effect achieved by amended claim 1. For at least the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully submitted that amended claim 1 is patentable over Zhao.
Based on this, Group I, with claims 1-14, 15, 17-19 and 22 readable thereon, has at least the following special technical features A): a light-blocking layer; wherein the light-blocking layer is located between the plurality of connection leads and the substrate, and is at least located between first portions of the plurality of connection leads and the first surface of the substrate; and the light-blocking layer includes a first light-blocking layer disposed on the first surface of the substrate, and the first light-blocking layer is located between the first portions of the plurality of connection leads and the first surface of the substrate; and Group II, with claims 20-21 readable thereon, has at least the following special technical features. B): each substrate partition includes at least one first light-blocking layer; the at least one first light-blocking layer is located between first portions of the plurality of connection leads and the substrate.
As provided above, the foregoing special technical features A) and B) are the same or corresponding special technical features. Therefore, the above Groups I and II relate to a single general inventive concept, and have unity of invention.
Examiner responds:
This is not found persuasive because the lack of unity of invention may be directly evident after taking prior art into consideration, as where a document discovered during the search shows the claimed inventions without common inventive concepts rather than showing the claimed inventions’ lack of patentability. The Examiner, at paragraph 11 in the Unity of Invention Requirement mailed on 01/12/2026, provided a prior art document, i.e., Zhao reference, and provided the special technical features for Group I (display device) and Group II (manufacturing method of a display device). The special technical features based on the claimed inventions without common inventive concepts are from the claim set filed on 07/18/2023 by Applicant rather than on the amended claims filed on 03/11/2026 by Applicant. The supposed errors in the identification of the special technical features by the Examiner for Group I and Group II were not distinctly and specifically pointed out by the Applicant.
Applicant argues:
The traversal is on the ground(s) that Species 1 reading on FIG. 1, Species 2 reading on FIG. 4, Species 3 reading on FIG. 5, Species 4 reading on FIGS. 6 and 21, Species 5 reading on FIG. 7 and Species 6 reading on FIG. 8 also have at least the foregoing special technical features A) or B). That is, the above Species 1 - 6 have the same or corresponding special technical features. Therefore, the above Species 1 - 6 relate to a single general inventive concept, and have unity of invention.
Examiner responds:
This is not found persuasive because the Examiner, at paragraph 15 in the Unity of Invention Requirement mailed on 01/12/2026, provided the special technical features of Species 1 – Species 6. The supposed errors in the identification of the special technical features by the Examiner for Species 1 – Species 6 were not distinctly and specifically pointed out by the Applicant.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-2, 9, 18-19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu (WO 2021 088271 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Liu (see, e.g., FIG. 28) discloses a display panel, comprising:
a substrate 01; wherein the substrate 01 includes a first surface e.g., bottom surface of 01 and a second surface e.g., top surface of 01 opposite to each other, and a plurality of side surfaces e.g., right side surface of 01, left side surface of 01 connecting the first surface e.g., bottom surface of 01 and the second surface e.g., top surface of 01; at least one of the plurality of side surfaces e.g., right side surface of 01, left side surface of 01 is a selected side surface e.g., right side surface of 01 (pg 5, para 3, para 10);
a light-emitting device layer 04 disposed on the second surface e.g., top surface of 01 of the substrate 01 (pg 5, para 3; pg 7, para 6);
a plurality of connection leads 03; wherein each of the plurality of connection leads 03 includes a first portion 033 located on the first surface e.g., bottom surface of 01, a second portion 032 located on the selected side surface e.g., right side surface of 01 and a third portion 031 located on the second surface e.g., top surface of 01 (pg 5, para 6); and
a light-blocking layer 11; wherein the light-blocking layer 11 is located between the plurality of connection leads 03 and the substrate 01, and is at least located between first portions 033 of the plurality of connection leads 03 and the first surface e.g., bottom surface of 01 of the substrate 01; and the light-blocking layer 11 includes a first light-blocking layer 112 disposed on the first surface e.g., bottom surface of 01 of the substrate 01, and the first light-blocking layer 112 is located between the first portions 033 of the plurality of connection leads 03 and the first surface e.g., bottom surface of 01 of the substrate 01 (pg 10, para 7).
Regarding claim 2, Liu (see, e.g., FIG. 28) teaches the display panel according to claim 1, wherein the first surface e.g., bottom surface of 01 of the substrate 01 has a wiring region e.g., region of 01 covered by 033 and a non-wiring region e.g., region of 01 not covered by 033, and the wiring region e.g., region of 01 covered by 033 is closer to the selected side surface e.g., right side surface of 01 than the non-wiring region e.g., region of 01 not covered by 033; the first portions 033 of the plurality of connection leads 03 are located in the wiring region e.g., region of 01 covered by 033; the first surface e.g., bottom surface of 01 includes a plurality of sides e.g., right side surface of 01, left side surface of 01; wherein the first light-blocking layer 112 is located in the wiring region e.g., region of 01 covered by 033 of the first surface e.g., bottom surface of 01, and a border e.g., left border of 112 of the orthographic projection of the first light-blocking layer 112 on the first surface e.g., bottom surface of 01 and a corresponding side e.g., left side of 01 of the first surface e.g., bottom surface of 01 have a set distance therebetween.
Regarding claim 9, Liu (see, e.g., FIG. 28) teaches the display panel according to claim 2, wherein the light-blocking layer 11 further includes a second light-blocking layer 111 disposed on the second surface e.g., top surface of 01 of the substrate 01 (pg 10, para 7); and the second surface e.g., top surface of 01 of the substrate 01 has a display region e.g., region of 01 covered by 04 and a peripheral region e.g., region of 01 not covered by 04 disposed on a side of the display region e.g., region of 01 covered by 04; an orthographic projection of the second light-blocking layer 111 on the second surface e.g., top surface of 01 covers at least a portion, overlapped with the display region e.g., region of 01 covered by 04, of a region of the second surface e.g., top surface of 01 corresponding to the wiring region e.g., region of 01 covered by 033; and a border e.g., left border of 111 of the orthographic projection of the second light-blocking layer 111 on the second surface e.g., top surface of 01 and a corresponding side e.g., left side of 01 of the second surface e.g., top surface of 01 have a set distance therebetween.
Regarding claim 18, Liu (see, e.g., FIG. 28) teaches the display device e.g., array substrate, comprising the display panel e.g., array substrate according to claim 1 (pg 1, para 2, para 9, para 10; pg 4, para 4).
Regarding claim 19, Liu (see, e.g., FIG. 28) teaches the splicing display device, comprising a plurality of display devices e.g., array substrate according to claim 18 (pg 4, para 4; pg 7, para 6; pg 11, para 3, para 7).
Regarding claim 22, Liu (see, e.g., FIG. 28) teaches the display panel according to claim 1, wherein the first surface e.g., bottom surface of 01 of the substrate 01 has a wiring region e.g., region of 01 covered by 033 and a non-wiring region e.g., region of 01 not covered by 033, and the wiring region e.g., region of 01 covered by 033 is closer to the selected side surface e.g., right side surface of 01 than the non-wiring region e.g., region of 01 not covered by 033; the first portions 033 of the plurality of connection leads 03 are located in the wiring region e.g., region of 01 covered by 033; the first surface e.g., bottom surface of 01 includes a plurality of sides e.g., right side surface of 01, left side surface of 01; wherein the first light-blocking layer 112 is located in the wiring region e.g., region of 01 covered by 033 and the non-wiring region e.g., region of 01 not covered by 033 of the first surface e.g., bottom surface of 01, and a border e.g., left border of 112 of an orthographic projection of the first light-blocking layer 112 on the first surface e.g., bottom surface of 01 and a corresponding side e.g., left side of 01 of the first surface e.g., bottom surface of 01 have a set distance therebetween.
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.
Claims 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (WO 2021 088271 A1), in view of Ito (US 2024/0038954).
Regarding claim 6, although Lui shows substantial features of the claim invention, Liu fails to expressly teach the display panel according to claim 2, wherein a border of the first light-blocking layer away from the selected side surface is farther from the selected side surface than borders of the plurality of connection leads away from the selected side surface. Liu does, however, teach that a border e.g., left border of 112 of the first light-blocking layer 112 away from the selected side surface e.g., right side surface of 01 is substantially equidistant from the selected side surface e.g., right side surface of 01 than borders e.g., left sides of 03 of the plurality of connection leads 03 away from the selected side surface e.g., right side surface of 01. On the other hand, Ito (see, e.g., FIG. 8) teaches that a border e.g., right border of 80 of the first light-blocking layer 80 away from the selected side surface e.g., left side surface of 2 is farther from the selected side surface e.g., left side surface of 2 than borders e.g., right lower border of 10 of the plurality of connection leads 10 away from the selected side surface e.g., left side surface of 2 (Para 0033, Para 0036, Para 0105). However, differences in distances will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such distance difference is critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph) of the a border of the first light-blocking layer away from the selected side surface being farther from the selected side surface than borders of the plurality of connection leads away from the selected side surface, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use of modify the distance of the border of the first light blocking layer away from the selected side surface or the borders of the plurality of connection leads away from the selected side surface in the device of Liu through routine experimentation.
CRITICALITY
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed distance or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 10, although Lui shows substantial features of the claim invention, Liu fails to expressly teach the display panel according to claim 9, wherein a distance between a border, proximate to the selected side surface, of the orthographic projection of the first light-blocking layer on the first surface and the selected side surface is less than a distance between a border of the display region proximate to the selected side surface and the selected side surface. Liu does, however, teach that a distance between a border e.g., right border of 112, proximate to the selected side surface e.g., right side of 01, of the orthographic projection of the first light-blocking layer 112 on the first surface e.g., bottom surface of 01 and the selected side surface e.g., right side of 01 is substantially equidistant between a border e.g., right border of 04 of the display region 04 proximate to the selected side surface e.g., right side of 01 and the selected side surface e.g., right side of 01. On the other hand, Ito (see, e.g., FIG. 8) teaches a distance between a border e.g., left border of 80, proximate to the selected side surface e.g., left side of 2, of the orthographic projection of the first light-blocking layer 80 on the first surface e.g., bottom surface of 2 and the selected side surface e.g., left side of 2 is less than a distance between a border e.g., left border of 6 of the display region 6 proximate to the selected side surface e.g., left side of 2 and the selected side surface e.g., left side of 2 (Para 0033, Para 0036, Para 0092, Para 0105). However, differences in distances will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such distance difference is critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph) of the a distance between a border, proximate to the selected side surface, of the orthographic projection of the first light-blocking layer on the first surface and the selected side surface being less than a distance between a border of the display region proximate to the selected side surface and the selected side surface, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use of modify the distance of the border of the first light blocking layer proximate the selected side surface or of the border of the display region proximate from the selected side surface in the device of Liu through routine experimentation.
CRITICALITY
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed distances or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (WO 2021 088271 A1), in view of Yi (US 2023/0352639).
Regarding claim 13, although the display panel as disclosed by Liu shows substantial features of the claimed invention, Liu fails to expressly teach the display panel according to claim 1, wherein a dimension of the light-blocking layer in a direction perpendicular to the substrate is greater than or equal to 0.3 pm; and/or the light-blocking layer is made of an insulating light-shielding material.
Yi (see, e.g., FIG. 13) teaches the light-blocking layer RFL is made of an insulating light-shielding material for the purpose of utilizing a reflective material that may not affect or influence the alignment of the light emitting element (Para 0189).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the material of the light blocking layer of Liu to be made of an insulating light-shielding material as described by Yi for the purpose of utilizing a reflective material that may not affect or influence the alignment of the light emitting element (Para 0189).
Regarding claim 15, although the display panel as disclosed by Liu shows substantial features of the claimed invention, Liu fails to expressly teach the display panel according to claim 1, wherein a reflectivity of the light-blocking layer to laser is greater than a reflectivity of the plurality of connection leads to the laser; and/or wherein the light-blocking layer is made of any one of silicon nitride, monocrystalline silicon, silicon oxide, fluoride and ink.
Yi (see, e.g., FIG. 13) teaches the light-blocking layer RFL is made of any one of silicon nitride, monocrystalline silicon, silicon oxide, fluoride and ink for the purpose of utilizing a reflective material that may not affect or influence the alignment of the light emitting element (Para 0189).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the material of the light blocking layer of Liu to be made of any one of silicon nitride, monocrystalline silicon, silicon oxide, fluoride and ink as described by Yi for the purpose of utilizing a reflective material that may not affect or influence the alignment of the light emitting element (Para 0189).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 7-8, and 11-12 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTONIO CRITE whose telephone number is (571) 270-5267. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:00 am - 6:30 pm.
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.
/ANTONIO B CRITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817