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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/23/2024 has considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-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.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 10 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhang (CN 115377175A) which is submitted by the Applicant filed on 04/23/2024.
Regarding claim 1, Zhang teaches a display panel in figs. 1-2, comprising:
a base substrate (refer to 100), comprising a plurality of light-emitting regions (refer to region of 300) and a non-light-emitting region (refer to the region next to light emitting region 300) located between adjacent ones of the plurality of light-emitting regions;
a pixel-defining layer (200), located on the base substrate (100) and having a main body part (200) and a plurality of openings 210) defined by the main body part, each of the plurality openings (210) being configured to define at least one of the plurality of light-emitting regions (300);
a first structural layer (500) at least located in one of the plurality of light-emitting regions;
a second structural layer (400) at least located in the non-light-emitting region, wherein the first structural layer (500) has a first refractive index, the second structural layer (400) has a second refractive index, and the first refractive index is greater than the second refractive index (see claim 1).
Regarding claim 2, Zhang teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention for the same reasons as set forth above. Besides, figs. 1-2 of Zhang teaches the second structural layer (500) is located on the main body part (200), and the first structural layer (400) is filled in a space defined by the second structural layer (500).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention for the same reasons as set forth above. Besides, figs. 1-2 of Zhang teaches an orthographic projection of the second structural layer (400) on the base substrate (100) falls within an orthographic projection of the main body part (200) on the base substrate (100).
Regarding claim 10, Zhang teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention for the same reasons as set forth above. Besides, figs. 1-2 of Zhang teaches an area of the first structural layer (500) is not less than an area of the plurality of light-emitting regions (300), and a side surface of the first structural layer (500) is in contact with a side surface of the second structural layer (400).
Regarding claim 21, Zhang teaches a display device (see figs. 1-14), comprising the display panel according to any one of claims 1-20 (see claims 1-3’s rejection above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 8-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang as applied to claim 1 or 10 above, and further in view of Hayashi (US 2007/0114519).
Regarding claim 8, Zhang teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention for the same reasons as set forth above except for an adhesive layer, wherein the adhesive layer covers the first structural layer and covers the second structural layer.
Hayashi teaches the same field of an endeavor wherein an adhesive layer (21), wherein the adhesive layer (21) covers the first structural layer (16) and covers the second structural layer (14) (see fig. 3; see par. 49).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art before the invention was made to include an adhesive layer, wherein the adhesive layer covers the first structural layer and covers the second structural layer as taught by Hayashi in the teaching Zhang in order to provide a protection for the lower layers and also an adhesion between the protective layer and the substrate (see par. 49).
Regarding claim 9, Zhang and Hayashi teach all the limitations of the claimed invention for the same reasons as set forth above. Besides, fig. 3 of Hayashi teaches the adhesive layer (21) is in contact with the first structural layer (16) (NOTE: the layer 21 is in contact with layer 16 via layers 17/18/191a-192c).
Regarding claim 11, Zhang teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention for the same reasons as set forth above except for a cover plate, wherein the cover plate is in contact with the first structural layer and in contact with the second structural layer.
Hayashi teaches the same field of an endeavor wherein a cover plate (22), wherein the cover plate is in contact with the first structural layer (16) and in contact with the second structural layer (14) (see fig. 3).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art before the invention was made to include a cover plate, wherein the cover plate is in contact with the first structural layer and in contact with the second structural layer as taught by Hayashi in the teaching of Zhang in order to have the function of a color filter, a function of blocking/absorbing ultraviolet rays, a function of preventing the reflection of external light, and a function of dissipating heat (see par. 49).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is 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, since the prior art of record and considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure does not teach or suggest “the first structural layer comprises a base layer and filling particles located in the base layer, a refractive index of the filling particles is greater than a refractive index of the base layer.” Claims 5-7 include all the limitations of claim 4.
Claim 12 is 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, since the prior art of record and considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure does not teach or suggest “the main body part has a groove, and the second structural layer is filled in the groove and protrudes from the main body part.” Claims 13-14 include all the limitations of claim 12.
Claim 15 is 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, since the prior art of record and considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure does not teach or suggest “the first structural layer is located in the plurality of light-emitting regions and located in the non-light-emitting region, the second structural layer is located in the plurality of light-emitting regions and located in the non-light-emitting region, and the first structural layer is closer to the base substrate than the second structural layer.” Claims 16-17 include all the limitations of claim 15.
Claim 18 is 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, since the prior art of record and considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure does not teach or suggest “a side surface of the main body part has a step shape, and the second structural layer covers the side surface and a top surface of the main body part.” Claim 19 includes all the limitations of claim 18.
Claim 20 is 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, since the prior art of record and considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure does not teach or suggest “an intermediate film layer located between the first structural layer and the second structural layer, wherein a refractive index of the intermediate film layer is greater than the second refractive index and greater than or equal to the first refractive index.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Niki Tram Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-5526. The examiner can normally be reached on 6:00am-4:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Steven Loke can be reached on (703)872-9306. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NIKI H NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818