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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a) based upon an application filed in the COUNTRY OF CHINA on 12/07/2022.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of “Group I (claims 1-3,9-13 and 18-20)” in the reply filed on December 19, 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
The restriction requirement for Invention Group II is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 4-8 and 14-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
To further clarify the record on the restriction requirement for Group II (claims 4-8 and 14-17) wherein “claims in Group II that depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable Group I” (from Applicant’s response filed on December 19, 2025). This is not found persuasive because Groups I and II have a different ordered layout of layers including at least light-shielding layers 502 and 503.
Group I (claim 1) describes (layer 502) “a first light-shielding layer disposed on a surface of a side of the metal layer close to the backlight module”, and Group I (claim 2) also describes (layer 503) “a second light-shielding layer disposed on a surface of a side of the metal layer away from the backlight module”; furthermore, the ordered layout of layers 502 (bottom) and 503 (top) about metal layer 501 (center) is consistent with the display panel illustrated in Figs. 1-11.
Group II describes the ordered layout of light-shielding layers 502 (top) and 503 (bottom) about metal layers 501 (center) which is consistent with the array substrate illustrated in Fig. 12.
Claims in Group II do not require all the limitations of an allowable Group I, based on the distinct ordered layout of light-shielding layers 502 and 503 (disclosed within figures of Groups I and II).
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 1-3 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US 2023/0061880 A1; Watanabe et al.; 03/2023; (“880”).
Regarding Claim 1. 880 teaches in Figs. 1 and 4 about a display panel, comprising:
a backlight module (Fig. 1, item 3);
a color filter substrate (Fig. 4, “the display device 1 has structure of a color-filter-on-array (COA) mode, in which the color filters CFR, CFG and CFB are all arranged on the first substrate SUB1”, [0044], Ln. 6-8) disposed on a side of the backlight module (Fig. 1, item SUB1 is disposed on a side of backlight module item 3, along the Z-direction); and
an array substrate (Fig. 4, composed of items ML, AR, and CE) disposed on a side of the color filter substrate away from the backlight module (Fig. 4, array substrate disposed on a side of SUB1 away from item 3);
wherein the array substrate comprises:
a first substrate (Fig. 4, item CE);
a metal layer (Fig. 4, item ML) disposed on a side of the first substrate close to the backlight module (Fig. 4, item ML disposed on a side of layer item ML close to item 3); and
a first light-shielding layer (Fig. 4, item AR) disposed on a surface of a side of the metal layer away from the backlight module (Fig. 4, item AR disposed on a surface of layer item ML away from item 3).
880 does not teach about a display panel, comprising:
a first light-shielding layer disposed on a surface of a side of the metal layer close to the backlight module.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the anti-reflection first light-shielding layer and place it on the other side of layer item ML (to also reduce or shield the bottom part of the display device from unwanted light reflections), since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378. See MPEP 2144.04.
PNG
media_image1.png
679
814
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4, annotated by Examiner, from Watanabe et al., “880”.
Regarding Claim 2. 880 teaches in Fig. 4 about a display panel, wherein the array substrate further comprises:
a second light-shielding layer (Fig. 4, item AR) disposed on a surface of a side of the metal layer away from the backlight module (Fig. 4, item AR disposed on a surface of layer item ML away from item 3).
Regarding Claim 3. 880 teaches in Fig. 5 about a display panel, wherein a reflectance of the first light-shielding layer is not disclosed.
880 does not teach about a display panel, comprising: wherein both a reflectance of the first light-shielding layer and a reflectance of the second light-shielding layer are less than 10%.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to discover the optimum percentage range of reflectance for the light-shielding layers according to specific design requirements, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 12. See combination of rejections for Claims 1 and 3.
Regarding Claim 13. See combination of rejections for Claims 2 and 3.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-11 and 18-20 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, since the prior art does not teach or suggest the claimed limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORGE ANDRES LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-5763. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8:30am to 5:00pm).
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, Fernando Toledo can be reached on 571-272-1867. 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.
/FERNANDO L TOLEDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/JORGE ANDRES LOPEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2897