DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Title
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The following title is suggested: DISPLAY PANEL HAVING TWO STACKED BARRIER WALLS AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF AND SPLICING DISPLAY SCREEN.
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim (US 2020/0091376 A1) in view of Gong et al. (US 2022/0068978 A1) and Seong et al. (US 2023/0209962 A1).
As to claim 1, Lim teaches a display panel (Lim, FIG. 1, [0067], “light emitting module 1000”), comprising:
a substrate (Lim, FIGS. 1-2, [0067], “substrate 220”);
light-emitting components (Lim, FIGS. 1-2, [0067], “light emitting devices 111, 113, 115”), disposed on the substrate (Lim, FIGS. 1-2, [0067], “substrate 220”);
a frame (Lim, FIGS. 1-2, [0080], “black matrix 235”), disposed on the substrate (Lim, FIGS. 1-2, [0067], “substrate 220”) and located at a periphery around the light-emitting components (Lim, see FIGS. 1-2, [0080], “at a boundary region between the pixel regions 102”); and
an encapsulant (Lim, FIGS, 1-2, [0077], “light transmitting layer 230”), disposed to cover outer surfaces of the light-emitting components (Lim, see FIGS. 1-2, [0077], “may transmit the light emitted from the light emitting devices 111, 113, 115”)
Lim does not teach “wherein the frame comprises a first barrier wall and a second barrier wall sequentially stacked in a direction from the substrate to the light-emitting components”.
However, Gong teaches the concept that the frame (Gong, FIGS. 6-8, [0073], “blocking wall 60”) comprises a first barrier wall (Gong, FIGS. 6-8, [0073], “first blocking wall portion 61”) and a second barrier wall (Gong, FIGS. 6-8, [0073], “second blocking wall portion 62”) sequentially stacked in a direction from the substrate to the light-emitting components (Gong, see FIGS. 6-8, [0073], “which are stacked” on “base 10”).
At the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the “black matrix 235” taught by Lim to be further configured to have two stacked “blocking wall portions 61 62”, as taught by Gong, in order to provide that “under the blocking effect of the blocking wall 60, metal ions cannot enter the display region DA from the spacing region between two adjacent first binding electrodes 30, thereby preventing a short circuit between two adjacent first binding electrodes 30, and ensuring the yield of the display substrate” (Gong, [0057]).
Lim in view of Gong does not teach “a transmittance of the second barrier wall is greater than a transmittance of the first barrier wall”.
However, Seong teaches the concept that a transmittance of the second barrier wall is greater than a transmittance of the first barrier wall (Seong, FIG. 3A, [0137], “the light transmittance of the first partition wall layer 211 may be greater than the light transmittance of the second partition wall layer 213”).
At the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the transmittance of the “blocking wall portion 62” to be greater than that of the “blocking wall portion 61”, as taught by Seong, in order to provide “a display apparatus in which color emitted from each pixel is clearly realized and the light extraction efficiency is improved” (Seong, [0005]).
As to claim 2, Gong teaches the display panel according to claim 1, wherein a height of the first barrier wall (Gong, FIGS. 6-8, [0073], “first blocking wall portion 61”) is greater than a height of each of the light-emitting components (Gong, see FIGS. 6-8, [0068], “the second via holes V1/V2 correspond to the light emitting devices one to one and correspond to the coupling electrodes 24a/24b one to one”). Examiner renders the same motivation as in claim 1.
As to claim 3, Gong teaches the display panel according to claim 1, wherein a height of the first barrier wall (Gong, FIGS. 6-8, [0073], “first blocking wall portion 61”) is greater than a height of the second barrier wall (Gong, see FIGS. 6-8, [0073], “second blocking wall portion 62”). Examiner renders the same motivation as in claim 1.
As to claim 5, Lim teaches the display panel according to claim 1, wherein the frame (Lim, FIGS. 1-2, [0080], “black matrix 235”) comprises an upper surface and a lower surface opposite to the upper surface (Lim, see FIG. 2), and the frame (Lim, FIGS. 1-2, [0080], “black matrix 235”) further comprises an inner surface and an outer surface opposite to the inner surface (Lim, see FIG. 2); and
the frame (Lim, FIGS. 1-2, [0080], “black matrix 235”) is connected to the substrate (Lim, FIGS. 1-2, [0067], “substrate 220”) through the lower surface (Lim, see FIG. 2), the inner surface of the frame (Lim, FIGS. 1-2, [0080], “black matrix 235”) is disposed towards the light-emitting components (Lim, see FIGS. 1-2, [0077], “light emitting devices 111, 113, 115”), and the outer surface of the frame (Lim, FIGS. 1-2, [0080], “black matrix 235”) is flush with a side surface of the substrate (Lim, see FIG. 2, [0067], “substrate 220”).
As to claim 6, Lim teaches the display panel according to claim 1, wherein the encapsulant (Lim, FIGS, 1-2, [0077], “light transmitting layer 230”) comprises at least one selected from a group consisting of epoxy resin, silicone rubber resin, epoxy modified silicone rubber resin, silicone rubber modified epoxy resin (Lim, FIGS. 1-2, [0078], “a resin material, for example, silicone or epoxy”), polyurethane, and polyvinyl acetate.
As to claim 8, Lim in view of Gong teaches a manufacturing method (Lim, e.g., see FIG. 36, [0185], “the plurality of third light emitting devices 115 are brought into close contact with the substrate 220 through a third opening 284 of the guide sheet 281”) of the display panel (Lim, FIG. 1, [0067], “light emitting module 1000”) of claim 1, wherein the manufacturing method comprises:
providing a light-emitting substrate (Lim, FIGS. 1-2, [0067], “substrate 220” comprising “light emitting devices 111, 113, 115”) and the frame (Lim, FIGS. 1-2, [0080], “black matrix 235”), wherein the light-emitting substrate (Lim, FIGS. 1-2, [0067], “substrate 220” comprising “light emitting devices 111, 113, 115”) comprises the substrate (Lim, FIGS. 1-2, [0067], “substrate 220”) and the light-emitting components (Lim, FIGS. 1-2, [0067], “light emitting devices 111, 113, 115”) disposed on the substrate (Lim, see FIGS. 1-2, [0067], “substrate 220”);
attaching the frame to the light-emitting substrate to position the frame at the periphery around the light-emitting components (Lim, e.g., see FIG. 37, [0186], “black matrix 235 is disposed in the boundary region of the pixel region to block optical interference between the pixels”) and place the first barrier wall (Gong, FIGS. 6-8, [0073], “first blocking wall portion 61”) between the second barrier wall (Gong, see FIGS. 6-8, [0073], “second blocking wall portion 62”) and the substrate (Lim, see FIGS. 1-2, [0067], “substrate 220”); and
applying the encapsulant to the outer surfaces of the light-emitting components to obtain the display panel (Lim, FIG. 37, [0080], “light transmitting layer 230 may be disposed”). Examiner renders the same motivation as in claim 1.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim (US 2020/0091376 A1) in view of Gong et al. (US 2022/0068978 A1), Seong et al. (US 2023/0209962 A1) and Kuo et al. (US 2017/0133357 A1).
As to claim 7, Lim in view of Gong and Seoung does not teach the display panel according to claim 1, further comprising a base material, wherein the base material is disposed at a side of the frame and a side of the encapsulant facing away from the substrate; and the frame and the encapsulant are connected to the base material.
However, Kuo teaches the concept of a base material (Kuo, FIG. 1A, [0034], “opposite substrate 120”), wherein the base material (Kuo, FIG. 1A, [0034], “opposite substrate 120”) is disposed at a side of the frame (Kuo, see FIG. 1A, [0034], “bank structures 140a1”) and a side of the encapsulant (Kuo, see FIG. 1A, [0034], “accommodating regions C”) facing away from the substrate (Kuo, see FIG. 1A, [0034], “array substrate 110”); and
the frame (Kuo, see FIG. 1A, [0034], “bank structures 140a1”) and the encapsulant (Kuo, see FIG. 1A, [0034], “accommodating regions C”) are connected to the base material (Kuo, FIG. 1A, [0034], “opposite substrate 120”).
At the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the “black matrix 235” and the “light transmitting layer 230” taught by Lim to further comprise the “opposite substrate 120”, as taught by FIG. 1A of Kuo, in order to provide “a thin film encapsulation or a protective layer with protective and supporting effects” (Kuo, [0035]).
Claims 9, 13-15, 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim (US 2020/0091376 A1) in view of Gong et al. (US 2022/0068978 A1), Seong et al. (US 2023/0209962 A1) and Liu et al. (WO 2022/233046 A1, hereinafter English translation by Clarivate Analytics).
As to claim 9, Lim in view of Gong and Seong does not teach the manufacturing method of the display panel of claim 8, wherein after the frame is attached to the light-emitting substrate, edges of the first barrier wall, the second barrier wall, and the substrate are cut so that the outer surface of the frame is flush with a side surface of the substrate.
However, Liu teaches the concept that, after the frame is attached to the light-emitting substrate, edges of the first barrier wall, the second barrier wall, and the substrate are cut so that the outer surface of the frame is flush with a side surface of the substrate (Liu, FIGS. 7-3 and 7-4, “S705: Cut the first peripheral blocking wall 13, the first light conversion layer, the fifth adhesive layer 23 and a part of the first display substrate 21 along the edge of the first circuit area”).
At the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the “first and second blocking wall portions 61 62” taught by Lim in view of Gong to be cut, as taught by Liu, in order to provide that “it can not only ensure that the narrowest possible frame is obtained, but also ensure that the circuit will not be damaged” (Liu).
As to claim 13, Liu teaches a splicing display screen, comprising at least two display panels spliced together, wherein each of the at least two display panels is the display panel of claim 1 (Liu, FIGS. 7-8, “An exemplary splicing structure of two display panels included in a spliced display screen is shown in FIGS. 7-8 , and the frame width B at the splicing position is also greatly reduced. Referring to Figures 7-9, the spliced display screen obtained after splicing can basically achieve a borderless display effect in terms of display effect, and its sealing performance and overall strength are better”). Examiner renders the same motivation as in claim 1.
As to claims 14-15, they recite substantially the same limitations as in claims 2-3, respectively, and Gong teaches them. Examiner renders the same motivation as in claim 2. Please see claims 2-3 for detailed analysis.
As to claims 17-18, they recite substantially the same limitations as in claims 5-6, respectively, and Lim teaches them. Please see claims 5-6 for detailed analysis.
As to claim 20, it recites substantially the same limitations as in claim 9, and Liu teaches them. Examiner renders the same motivation as in claim 9. Please see claim 9 for detailed analysis.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim (US 2020/0091376 A1) in view of Gong et al. (US 2022/0068978 A1), Seong et al. (US 2023/0209962 A1), Liu et al. (WO 2022/233046 A1, hereinafter English translation by Clarivate Analytics) and Kuo et al. (US 2017/0133357 A1).
As to claim 19, it recites substantially the same limitations as in claim 7, and Kuo teaches them. Examiner renders the same motivation as in claim 7. Please see claim 7 for detailed analysis.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 10-12 and 16 would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 4, the closest known prior art, i.e., Lim (US 2020/0091376 A1), Gong et al. (US 2022/0068978 A1), Seong et al. (US 2023/0209962 A1), Liu et al. (WO 2022/233046 A1), Cho et al. (US 2020/0185453 A1), Chang (US 2018/0233536 A1), Zhao (US 2024/0063351 A1) and Peng et al. (US 2022/0085306 A1), alone or in reasonable combination, fails to teach limitations in consideration of the claims as a whole, specifically with respect to the limitation “wherein the transmittance of the second barrier wall is less than or equal to a transmittance of the encapsulant”.
As to claim 10, the closest known prior art indicated above, alone or in reasonable combination, fails to teach limitations in consideration of the claims as a whole, specifically with respect to the limitations “providing a light-emitting substrate and an encapsulating film material, wherein the light-emitting substrate comprises the substrate and the light-emitting components disposed on the substrate; the encapsulating film material comprises a base material, the frame disposed on the base material, and the encapsulant disposed on the base material; the encapsulant is disposed at an inside of the frame and connected to an inner surface of the frame; and attaching the encapsulating film material to the light-emitting substrate to position the frame at the periphery around the light-emitting components and place the first barrier wall between the second barrier wall and the substrate; and encapsulating the light-emitting components to obtain the display panel by allowing the encapsulant to deform upon contact with the light-emitting components”.
As to claims 11-12, they depend from claim 10, and are allowable at least for the same reason above.
As to claim 16, it recites substantially the same limitations as in claim 4, and are allowable for the same reason above. Please see claim 4 for detailed analysis.
Conclusion
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: Cho et al. (US 2020/0185453 A1) teaches the concept of “a substrate, a plurality of micro LEDs … a reflective layer surrounding a lateral surface of each of the plurality of micro-LEDs, and a light blocking layer disposed on the reflective layer” (Abs.); Chang (US 2018/0233536 A1) teaches the concept of “micro LED display assemblies, methods of fabricating such display assemblies” (Abs.); Zhao (US 2024/0063351 A1) teaches the concept of “a display panel, a method of manufacturing the same, and a spliced display screen” (Abs.); and Peng et al. (US 2022/0085306 A1) teaches the concept that “the blocking component extends along the cutting direction and is disposed corresponding to the cutting edge” (Abs.).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD J HONG whose telephone number is (571) 270-7765. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chanh Nguyen can be reached on (571) 272-7772. 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.
Feb. 26, 2026
/RICHARD J HONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2623
***