DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the election filed 4 June 2026. Claims 1-15 are currently pending; claims 1-3, 11, and 14 have been withdrawn by Applicant.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II, Species I, claims 4-10, 12-13, and 15, in the reply filed on 4 June 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no undue burden on Examiner to consider all claims in the single application. This is not found persuasive because the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification, and the inventions require a different field of search at least including searching different classes/subclasses and employing different keyword search strategies, thus presenting undue burden if restriction were not required.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Specification
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: “is existed” should be replaced with --exists-- for . Appropriate correction is required.
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)(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 4, 8, 9, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2020/0318815 A1 to Chen et al. (hereinafter “Chen”).
Regarding independent claim 4, Chen (Fig. 5) discloses a display device, comprising:
an array substrate 200 (¶ 0031);
a plurality of light emitting elements 310 (¶ 0031), disposed on the array substrate and electrically connected (through pads 220, ¶ 0033) to the array substrate 200, wherein each of the light emitting elements 310 has a first surface (top) and a second surface (bottom of layer 312) opposite to the first surface, the second surfaces face the array substrate (Fig. 5); and
a plurality of light shielding units (portions of 320 between 310; ¶ 0031 - disclosing materials that shield light, in common with those disclosed in the instant specification), disposed on the array substrate 200 and arranged alternately with the light emitting elements 310 (Fig. 2), wherein the light shielding units expose the first surfaces (top of 310), each of the light shielding units has a top (top of 320) and a bottom (bottom of 320) opposite to the top, the bottoms face the array substrate 200, and a cavity (between the bottom of 320 and top of 200) is existed between the bottoms and the array substrate (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 8, Chen (Fig. 5) discloses the display device of claim 4, wherein each of the light emitting elements 310 further has a side surface (side of 312) connecting the first surface (top of 310) and the second surface (bottom of layer 312), wherein the light shielding units 320 are in contact with the side surfaces and extend to a portion of the second surfaces (Fig. 5 - 320 extends on side surface of 312 and over bottom surface of 312).
Regarding claim 9, Chen (Fig. 5) discloses the display device of claim 4, wherein the bottom (bottom of 320) comprises a curved surface (Fig. 5).
Regarding independent claim 12, Chen (Fig. 5) discloses a display device, comprising:
an array substrate 200 (¶ 0031);
a plurality of light emitting elements 310 (¶ 0031), disposed on the array substrate and electrically connected (through pads 220, ¶ 0033) to the array substrate 200, wherein each of the light emitting elements 310 has a first surface (top) and a second surface (bottom of layer 312) opposite to the first surface, the second surfaces face the array substrate (Fig. 2); and
a plurality of light shielding units (portions of 320 between 310; ¶ 0031 - disclosing materials that shield light, in common with those disclosed in the instant specification), disposed on the array substrate 200 and arranged alternately with the light emitting elements 310 (Fig. 2), wherein the light shielding units expose the first surfaces (top of 310), each of the light shielding units has a top (top of 320) and a bottom (bottom of 320) opposite to the top, the bottoms face the array substrate 200, and the bottom comprises a curved surface (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 15, Chen (Fig. 5) discloses the display device of claim 12, wherein each of the light emitting elements 310 further has a side surface (side of 312) connecting the first surface (top of 310) and the second surface (bottom of layer 312), wherein the light shielding units 320 are in contact with the side surfaces and extend to a portion of the second surfaces (Fig. 5 - 320 extends on side surface of 312 and over bottom surface of 312).
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.
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.
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 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of US 2014/0346477 A1 to Chao et al. (hereinafter “Chao”).
Regarding claim 5, Chen (Fig. 2) discloses the display device of claim 4, further comprising one or multiple spacers disposed on the array substrate, wherein a thickness of each of the one or multiple spacers is greater than a thickness of each of the light shielding units, and each of the one or multiple spacers has a bottom surface and a top surface opposite to the bottom surface, wherein the top surface is larger than the bottom surface.
In the same field of endeavor, Chao (Fig. 4) discloses a display device including one or multiple spacers 24 (¶ 0036) disposed on the array substrate (in contact with dotted line substrate below in Fig. 4), and each of the one or multiple spacers 24 has a bottom surface (bottom) and a top surface (top, surface closest to 22) opposite to the bottom surface, wherein the top surface is larger than the bottom surface (Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include spacers as taught by Chao in the device of Chen, wherein a thickness of each of the one or multiple spacers is greater than a thickness of each of the light shielding units, for the purpose of providing support when substrates are brought together during the manufacturing process (see, Chen, Figs. 3A-3C, ¶¶ 0039-40) and ensuring a predetermined distance therebetween (Chao, ¶ 0036).
Regarding claim 6, Chen (Fig. 2) discloses the display device of claim 4, however fails to expressly disclose: further comprising one or multiple spacers disposed on the array substrate, wherein each of the one or multiple spacers has a bottom surface and a top surface opposite to the bottom surface, and the bottom surface is larger than the top surface.
In the same field of endeavor, Chao (Fig. 4) discloses a display device including one or multiple spacers 24 (¶ 0036) disposed on the array substrate (in contact with dotted line substrate below in Fig. 4), and each of the one or multiple spacers 24 has a bottom surface (bottom) and a top surface (top, surface closest to 22) opposite to the bottom surface (Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include spacers as taught by Chao in the device of Chen for the purpose of providing support when substrates are brought together during the manufacturing process (see, Chen, Figs. 3A-3C, ¶¶ 0039-40) and ensuring a predetermined distance therebetween (Chao, ¶ 0036). Chao fails to expressly disclose: the top surface is larger than the bottom surface, however, where the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement, the particular arrangement is deemed to have been a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). Here, the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to the claimed shape requiring the top surface is larger than the bottom surface (and claim 5 recites a different, reversed shape) thus for this reason and in view of the disclosure of Chao, the recited particular shape is deemed to have been a design consideration within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 7, Chen and Chao disclose the display device of claim 6, Chao (Figs. 1, 4) furth*er discloses having a display area AR (¶ 0020; Fig. 1)and a peripheral area NR (¶ 0020; Fig. 1) around the display area (Fig. 1), wherein the spacers 24 comprise one or multiple first spacers (Fig. 4 - 24/23, right side) disposed in the peripheral area and one or multiple second spacers 24 (disposed directly on 21W) disposed in the display area, and a thickness of each of the one or multiple first spacers 24/23 (thickness as measured from top to bottom, consistent with the instant specification) is greater than a thickness of each of the one or multiple second spacers 24 (Fig. 4).
Claims 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen as applied to claims 9 and 12 above, and further in view of US 2020/0185453 A1 to Cho et al. (hereinafter “Cho”).
Regarding claims 10 and 13, Chen discloses the display device of claims 9 and 12, however fails to expressly disclose: wherein the curved surface is a convex surface, and the convex surface protrudes from the light emitting elements. In the same field of endeavor, Cho (Fig. 5) discloses a display device including a light shielding unit 100’ (¶ 0124) with a convex surface 100’e (¶ 0126) which protrudes from light emitting elements 51/52 (¶ 0125; Fig. 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the light shielding unit shape as taught by Cho in the device of Chen for the purpose of absorbing external light and improving a contrast ratio of the display device (Cho, ¶ 0130).
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 2023/0268472 A1 to Yu disclosing a display device including spacers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Candice Y. Chan whose telephone number is (571)272-9013. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5 pm ET.
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, Steven B. Gauthier can be reached at 571-270-0373. 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.
CANDICE Y. CHAN
Examiner
Art Unit 2813
24 June 2026
/STEVEN B GAUTHIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights