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
The amendment filed by the Applicant on 3/12/26 is acknowledged.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
For claim 8, the limitation of “wherein for any two adjacent pixel islands arranged in the first direction and denoted as a first pixel island and a second pixel island, any two of the sub-pixel islands in the first pixel island and the second pixel island are not at a same height, and a sub-pixel island in the first pixel island is offset from a sub-pixel island of a same color in the second pixel island by at least a height of a single sub-pixel in a height direction“ is not disclosed in the specification. Appropriate correction is needed.
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 Proir 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 1-4,6-7,10 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng (CN 107507522 A) in view of Hong (WO 2021082765 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Deng teaches a display panel (Fig.1-19), comprising a pixel array layer (pixel units 110)
PNG
media_image1.png
538
551
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the pixel array layer comprises a plurality of pixel islands (110 adjacent to each other) arranged in an array , each of the pixel islands is divided, along a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, into sub-pixel islands (sub-pixels 111 next to one another forming islands with space in between them) each comprising sub-pixels of a same luminous color ; and each of the sub-pixel islands is further divided into a plurality of sub-pixel groups along the first direction; for two pixel islands adjacent along the first direction, an opaque region (light shielding layer 150 , also see light shielding layers 130 as shown below)
PNG
media_image2.png
519
304
media_image2.png
Greyscale
is provided in a sub-pixel group in one of the two pixel islands, wherein, among the plurality of the sub-pixel groups of said one pixel island, the sub-pixel group is one that is proximate to another one of the two pixel islands and a width of the opaque region in the first direction is greater than a width of a gap between any two adjacent sub-pixels in a same pixel island; and in a same sub-pixel island, gaps between light beams emitted by sub-pixels in a sub-pixel group are correspondingly complemented by light beams emitted by sub-pixels in other sub-pixel groups of said sub-pixel island (the same limitations result in the same function as claimed).
Deng does not teach a lens array layer arranged in a stacked manner; wherein the lens array layer comprises micro-lenses arranged along a first direction.
Hong teaches a microlens (Hong: Two microlens units, the orthographic projection of each microlens unit on the display panel coincides with the area where the corresponding one of the pixel islands is located, or is located in the area where the corresponding one of the pixel islands is located; each The pixel island includes a plurality of sub-pixels arranged in an array, the sub-pixels in the same pixel island display the same color, and the plurality of pixel islands include a first pixel island that displays a first color, and a first pixel island that displays a second color) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use a microlens as disclosed in Hong, in the device of Deng, in order to control the beam direction (That is, each of the pixel islands corresponds to one of the micro lens units to control the beam direction).
Regarding claim 2, Deng in view of Hong teaches a display panel, wherein a quantity of and a sum of widths of the gaps in one of the sub-pixel groups are same as a quantity of and a sum of widths of the sub-pixels in the other two sub-pixel groups respectively (see Figures in Deng).
Regarding claim 3, Deng in view of Hong teaches a display panel, wherein each of the sub-pixel islands comprises three sub-pixel groups arranged in the first direction: a first sub-pixel group, a second sub-pixel group and a third sub-pixel group, wherein the second sub-pixel group is located between the first sub-pixel group and the third sub-pixel group, and the third sub-pixel group comprises or does not comprise the sub-pixels (from Figures of Deng, where in the first direction, the same color rows correspond to array of sub-pixels).
Regarding claim 4, Deng in view of Hong teaches a display panel, wherein the opaque region is formed in a remote end of the third sub-pixel group relative to the second sub-pixel group (see Figure above in Deng, wherein remote is considered as towards the peripheral).
Regarding claim 6, Deng in view of Hong teaches display panel, wherein each of the pixel islands comprises a first sub-pixel island for emitting red light, a second sub-pixel island for emitting green light and a third sub-pixel island for emitting blue light, wherein the first sub-pixel island, the second sub-pixel island and the third sub-pixel island are arranged along the second direction (from the drawings of Deng).
Regarding claim 7, Deng in view of Hong teaches display panel, wherein for any two adjacent pixel islands arranged in the first direction, the first sub-pixel islands of the two adjacent pixel islands are at a same height, the second sub-pixel islands of the two adjacent pixel islands are at a same height, and the third sub-pixel islands of the two adjacent pixel islands are at a same height (from the drawings of Deng).
Regarding claim 10, Deng in view of Hong teaches display panel, wherein in a same pixel island, a width of a gap between two adjacent sub-pixels is ( -_equal or -_) not equal to a width of a sub-pixel (see Drawings of Deng).
Regarding claim 13, Deng in view of Hong teaches the invention set forth in claim 1 above, but does not teach: the display panel further comprises a pad layer, and the pad layer is between the pixel array layer and the lens array layer. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use an additional pad layer between the microlens and the pixel layer in order to provide extra protection.
Regarding claim 14, Deng in view of Hong teaches the invention set forth in claim 1 above, but does not teach: sub-pixels in the pixel islands for emitting lights of different color are made up of different organic light-emitting materials. However, it is well known to use different materials that emit light in different colors/wavelengths, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use another material for each of the colored pixels, in order to derive the desired color wavelength.
Regarding claim 15, Deng in view of Hong teaches a display apparatus, wherein the display apparatus comprises the display panel (Abstract of Deng).
Regarding claim 16, Deng in view of Hong teaches the display panel, wherein for each of the sub-pixel groups, an orthographic projection of the sub-pixel group on the lens array layer falls within a corresponding micro lens (see Fig.4 of Hong).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng in view of Hong and further in view f of Gotsch (US 20210033859 A1)
Regarding claim 5, Deng in view of Hong teaches the invention set forth in claim 1 above, but is silent regarding the width of the opaque region as being greater or equal to 38 microns.
It is well known in the art to use pixel sizes in the 8–50-micron ranges. Gotsch teaches this feature in Table 1.
And also that Deng in view of Hong teach the opaque sizes larger than a pixel (in Deng), therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use the opaque size as greater or equal to 38 micron, in Deng in view of Hong in order to improve display area edge visual effect.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura in view of Kim (US 20200168668 A1)
Regarding claim 8, Nakamura teaches the invention set forth in claim 6 above, but is silent regarding: wherein for any two adjacent pixel islands arranged in the first direction and denoted as a first pixel island and a second pixel island, any two of the sub-pixel islands in the first pixel island and the second pixel island are not at a same height, and a sub-pixel island in the first pixel island is offset from a sub-pixel island a same color in the second pixel island by at least a height of a single sub-pixel in a height direction.
Kim teaches for any two adjacent pixel islands arranged in the first direction and denoted as a first pixel island and a second pixel island, any two of the sub-pixel islands in the first pixel island and the second pixel island are not at a same height, and a sub-pixel island in the first pixel island is offset from a sub-pixel island a same color in the second pixel island by at least a height of a single sub-pixel in a height direction. ([0077]) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use the dimension, as disclosed in Kim, in the device of Deng in view of Hong in order to accommodate color filters of different heights corresponding to a specific-colored sub-pixel.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng in view of Hong in view of Kim and further in view of Zhou (WO 2019084932 A1, cited previously)
Regarding claim 9, Deng in view of Hong teaches the invention set forth in claim 8 above, but is silent regarding the first pixel islands and the second pixel islands are arranged in columns that alternate with each other; each of the first pixel islands comprises the first sub-pixel island, the second sub-pixel island and the third sub-pixel island arranged in sequence along a column direction, and each of the second pixel islands comprises the third sub-pixel island, the first sub-pixel island and the second sub-pixel island arranged in sequence along the column direction; and the second pixel islands at even columns are lower than the corresponding first pixel islands at odd columns in the column direction by a half-length of a single sub-pixel (also see 112 rejection above).
Zhou teaches sub-pixels corresponding to the various colors, in the column direction,
PNG
media_image3.png
352
477
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and that each of the sub-pixels have a varying height and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use the configuration, as disclosed in Zhou, in the device of Deng in view of Hong in order to improve the display effect (Abstract).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng in view of Hong and further in view of Hideo (US 20180211998 A1, cited previously)
Regarding claim 11, Deng in view of Hong teaches the invention set forth in claim 10 above, but is silent regarding the width of the gap between two adjacent sub-pixels > 4 micrometers.
Hideo teaches the width of the gap between two adjacent sub-pixels > 4 micrometers ([0031]) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use the dimension, as disclosed in Hideo, in the device of Deng in view of Hong in order to prevent cross-talk (that is a well-known design criterion in the art).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng in view of Hong and further in view of Cho (US 20150144918 A1, cited previously)
Regarding claim 12, Deng in view of Hong teaches the invention set forth in claim 1 above, but is silent regarding a material of the micro- lens comprises a low refractive index resin and a high refractive index resin, wherein the high refractive index resin is closer to the pixel array layer than the low refractive index resin.
Cho teaches a material of the micro- lens comprises a low refractive index resin and a high refractive index resin, wherein the high refractive index resin is closer to the pixel array layer than the low refractive index resin ([0013]) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use the material as disclosed in Cho, in the device of Deng in view of Hong in order to reduce defects.
Response to Arguments
The arguments filed by the Applicant on 3/12/26 is acknowledged, however they are moot in light of new grounds of rejection for the amended claims.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fatima Farokhrooz whose telephone number is (571)-272-6043. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday, 9 am - 5 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s Supervisor, James Greece can be reached on (571) 272-3711.
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.
/Fatima N Farokhrooz/
Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights