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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 07/01/2026 has been accepted and entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in this application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection but for claim 7 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 04/01/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation " covering at least the inclined area the first inclined region, the second inclined region and the step structure" in Lines L18-19, renders the claim indefinite because there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In the purpose of compact prosecution, “covering at least the inclined area the first inclined region, the second inclined region and the step structure” has been interpretated as covering at least .
Regarding claim 7, the limitation " wherein the angle between the second inclined region and the substrate " in Lines L1--2, renders the claim indefinite because there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, in previous claims1 and 6.
In the purpose of compact prosecution, “wherein the angle between the second inclined region and the substrate” has been interpretated as wherein an angle between the second inclined region and the substrate.
The balance of claims are rejected for being dependent upon an already rejected claim.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 10-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US20220013607A1-Lee07).
Regarding claim 1, Lee07 discloses a display panel (Title), comprising:
a substrate (100-Fig 7);
a light-emitting unit, disposed on the substrate (Light-emitting Unit OLED disposed on the substrate 100-Examiner's annotated Fig 7);
a light-reflecting structure (420-Fig 7),
at least comprising a first light-reflecting layer (First/Bottom light-reflecting layer 420-Examiner's annotated Fig 7) and
a second light-reflecting layer (second/Top light-reflecting layer 420-Examiner's annotated Fig 7),
wherein the first light-reflecting layer is disposed on a light-emitting side of the light-emitting unit (First/Bottom light-reflecting layer 420 disposed on a light-emitting side of the light-emitting unit OLED1-Examiner's annotated Fig 10) and
comprises a first inclined region which is inclined with respect to the substrate (First/Bottom light-reflecting layer 420 disposed on a light-emitting side of the light-emitting unit OLED1 with first inclined region versus substrate 100-Examiner's annotated Fig 10),
the second light-reflecting layer is disposed on a side of the first light-reflecting layer away from the light-emitting unit (Second/Top light-reflecting layer 420 disposed on a side of First/Bottom light-reflecting layer 420 away from the light-emitting unit OLED1 with second inclined region versus substrate 100-Examinr's annotated Fig 10) and
comprises a second inclined region which is inclined with respect to the substrate (Second/Top light-reflecting layer 420 disposed on a side of First/Bottom light-reflecting layer 420 away from the light-emitting unit OLED1 with second incline versus substrate 100-Examiner's annotated Fig 10), and
the second inclined region is retracted relative to the first inclined region in a direction parallel to the substrate (second inclined region retracted relative to first inclined region in a parallel direction to the substrate 100, forming a step structure as indicated in the dashed frame- Examiner's annotated Fig 10)
so that the first inclined region and the second inclined region form a step structure (second inclined region retracted relative to first inclined region in a parallel direction to the substrate 100, forming a step structure as indicated in the dashed frame-Examiner's annotated Fig 10); and
a light-transmitting structure, provided on the light-emitting side of the light-emitting unit (Light transmitting structure 430 provided on the light-emitting side/ above volume of the light -emitting unit OLED-Examiner's annotated Fig 7) and
covering at least the inclined area the first inclined region, the second inclined region and the step structure (Light transmitting structure 430 provided on the light-emitting side/ above volume of the light -emitting unit OLED, covering the inclined area, the first inclined region, the second inclined region, and the step structure 420-Examiner's annotated Fig 7),
wherein the light-reflecting structure has a refractive index smaller than a refractive index of the light-transmitting structure (refractive index of light-transmitting structure 430 being greater than refractive index of light-reflecting structure 420-[0127] L1-3).
PNG
media_image1.png
828
1020
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
660
1119
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Lee07 discloses all the elements of claim 1, as noted above.
Lee07 further discloses a display panel
wherein the refractive index of the light-reflecting structure is in a range of 1.4 to 1.55 (refractive index of the light-reflecting structure 420 being in a range of 1.3 to 1.6 so in a range of 1.4 to 1.55-[0127] L1-2; and
the refractive index of the light-transmitting structure is in a range of 1.6 to 1.75 (refractive index of the light-transmitting structure 430 being in a range of 1.65 to 1.85 so in a range of 1.6 to 1.75-[0129] L1-2).
Regarding claim 10, Lee07 teaches all the elements of claim 1, as noted above.
Lee07 further disclose a display panel wherein the display panel further comprises:
a pixel defining layer (209/211-Fig7), disposed on the substrate (pixel defining layer 209/211 disposed on substrate 100-Fig 7) and
provided with a pixel opening (209/211 provided with openings CTL-OP-Examiner's annotated Fig 7),
the light-emitting unit being disposed in the pixel opening (Light-emitting Unit OLED disposed in the pixel opening CTL-OP-Examiner's annotated Fig 7);
wherein an orthographic projection of the pixel opening on the substrate is located within an orthographic projection of the light-transmitting structure on the substrate (Orthographic projection of Pixel opening CTL-OP on the substrate 100 located within the orthographic projection of the Light transmitting structure 430 on substrate 100 indicated by a dashed line frame-Examiner's annotated Fig 7), and
an orthographic projection of the light-reflecting structure on the substrate is located within an orthographic projection of the pixel-defining layer on the substrate (Orthographic projection of Light reflective structure 420 on the substrate 100 located within the orthographic projection of Pixel defining layer 209/211 on substrate 100 indicated by a dashed line frame-Examiner's annotated Fig 7).
Regarding claim 11, Lee07 teaches all the elements of claim 1, as noted above.
Lee07 further discloses a display panel
a pixel defining layer (209-Fig7), disposed on the substrate (pixel defining layer 209/211 disposed on substrate 100-Fig 7) and
provided with a pixel opening (209/211 provided with openings CTL-OP-Examiner's annotated Fig 7),
the light-emitting unit being disposed in the pixel opening (Light-emitting Unit OLED disposed in the pixel opening CTL-OP as indicated by a dashed line frame-Examiner's annotated Fig 7);
wherein at least part of an orthographic projection of the light-reflecting structure on the substrate is located within an orthographic projection of the pixel opening on the substrate (at least a part of the orthographic projection of Light reflective structure 420 on the substrate 100 located within the orthographic projection of Pixel opening CTL-OP on substrate 100 as indicated by the dashed line frames-Examiner's annotated Fig 7).
Regarding claim 12, Lee07 teaches all the elements of claim 1, as noted above.
Lee07 further discloses a display panel
a pixel defining layer (209-Fig7), disposed on the substrate (pixel defining layer 209/211 disposed on substrate 100-Fig 7) and
provided with a pixel opening (209/211 provided with openings CTL-OP-Examiner's annotated Fig 7),
the light-emitting unit being disposed in the pixel opening (Light-emitting Unit OLED disposed in the pixel opening CTL-OP-Examiner's annotated Fig 7),
wherein in a direction parallel to the substrate, the light-reflecting structure comprises
a first portion and a second portion (Light reflective structure 420 comprising First/Right region and Second/Left region-Examiner's annotated Fig 7 BIS),
an orthographic projection of the first portion on the substrate does not overlap with an orthographic projection of the second portion on the substrate (Light reflective structure 420 comprising First/Right region and Second/Left region whose orthographic projections on the substrate 100 don't overlap,-Examiner's annotated Fig 7 BIS),
the orthographic projection of the first portion on the substrate does not overlap with an orthographic projection of the pixel opening on the substrate (First/Right region orthographic projection on substrate 100 does not overlap with orthographic projection of pixel opening CTL-OP as indicated with dashed line frames-Examiner's annotated Fig 7 BIS), and
at least a part of the orthographic projection of the second portion on the substrate is located within the orthographic projection of the pixel opening on the substrate (Second/Left region orthographic projection on the substrate 100 overlaps the pixel opening CTL-OP orthographic projection on substrate 100 as indicated with dashed line frames-Examiner's annotated Fig 7 BIS).
PNG
media_image3.png
921
1149
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Lee07 teaches all the elements of claim 12, as noted above.
Lee07 further discloses a display panel
wherein the second portion is in a strip structure and extends in a direction parallel to the substrate (Examiner's annotated Fig 7 Bis).
Regarding claim 14, Lee07 teaches all the elements of claim 1, as noted above.
Lee07 further discloses a display panel
wherein a side of the light- transmitting structure is provided with a concave portion, and
the side of the light-transmitting structure provided with the concave portion faces the light-emitting unit (Light transmitting structure 430 provided with a concave portion facing the light-emitting unit OLED-Examiner's annotated Fig 10BIS) or is away from the light-emitting unit, and
the light-reflecting structure is provided in the concave portion (Light transmitting structure 430 provided with a concave portion facing the light-emitting unit OLED, and the light-reflecting structure being in the concave proton as indicated by the dashed line frame-Examiner's annotated Fig 10 BIS).
PNG
media_image4.png
762
1216
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Lee07 teaches all the elements of claim 14, as noted above.
Lee07 further discloses a display panel
wherein the display panel further comprises:
an encapsulation layer, disposed on a side of the light-emitting unit (Encapsulation layer 300 disposed on a side/top side of the light-emitting units OLED1/2/3-Examiner's annotated Fig 10BIS),
wherein the light- transmitting structure is disposed on a side of the encapsulation layer away from the light- emitting unit (Light transmitting structure 430 disposed on a side/top side of the encapsulation layer 300 away from the light emitting unit OLED 1-Examiner's annotated Fig 10BIS)
or the light-transmitting structure is disposed between the encapsulation layer and the light-emitting unit.
Regarding claim 16, Lee07 teaches all the elements of claim 1, as noted above.
Lee07 further discloses a display apparatus, comprising the display panel of claim 1 (Fig 1, [0037], [0070]).
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.
Claim(s) 2, 4, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US20220013607A1-Lee07), in view of Kim et al. (US20150162391A1 from IDS-Kim91).
Regarding claim 2, Lee07 discloses all the elements of claim 1, as noted above.
Lee07 does not disclose a display panel
wherein an angle between the second inclined region and the substrate is smaller than an angle between the first inclined region and the substrate.
Kim91 teaches a display panel
wherein an angle between the second inclined region and the substrate is smaller than an angle between the first inclined region and the substrate (angle
θ
2
'
between the second inclined region 41’’ and the substrate 21 is smaller than an angle
θ
1
'
between the first inclined region 219’’and the substrate 21-Fig 3A, Fig 3B, [0118] L1-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display panel of Lee07, as taught by Kim91 for the purpose of reducing deterioration of display characteristics caused by external shocks (Kim91:[0009]).
Regarding claim 4, Lee07 discloses all the elements of claim 2, as noted above.
Lee07 further discloses a display panel
wherein the first light-reflecting layer is of a same material as the second light- reflecting layer (first/bottom light-reflecting layer 420 and second/top light- reflecting layer 420 are two parts of the same element 420 so being of a same material-Examiner’s annotated Fig 7).
PNG
media_image5.png
828
1020
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, Lee07 and Kim91 combination discloses all the elements of claim 4, as noted above.
Lee07 further discloses a display panel
wherein the refractive index of the light-reflecting structure is in a range of 1.4 to 1.55 (refractive index of the light-reflecting structure 420 being in a range of 1.3 to 1.6 so in a range of 1.4 to 1.55-[0127] L1-2); and
the refractive index of the light-transmitting structure is in a range of 1.6 to 1.75 (refractive index of the light-transmitting structure 430 being in a range of 1.65 to 1.85 so in a range of 1.6 to 1.75-[0129] L1-2).
Claim(s) 3 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US20220013607A1-Lee07), in view of Kim et al. (US20150162391A1 from IDS-Kim91), and further in view of Han et al. (US 20240292665 A1-Han65).
Regarding claim 3, Lee07 and Kim91 combination discloses all the elements of claim 2, as noted above.
Lee07 does not explicitly disclose a display panel
wherein the angle between the second inclined region and the substrate is greater than or equal to 30o and less than or equal to 60 o, and the angle between the first inclined region and the substrate is greater than or equal to 45 o and less than 90 o
Lee07 teaches a display panel
Wherein an angle θ between a virtual inclined surface connecting the lower end and the upper end of the side surface 420S and the upper surface of the touch insulating layer 410 may be 20° to 60°. The range of the angle including the angle between the second inclined region and the substrate and the angle between the first inclined region and the substrate (Fig 7, [0130] L1-9).
Han65 teaches a display panel comprising:
wherein the angle between the second inclined region and the substrate is greater than or equal to 30° and less than or equal to 60° (angle
θ
1
between the second inclined region 1422 and the substrate 11 and an angle
θ
2
between the first inclined region 1421 and the substrate 11, as
θ
1
can be 60 degrees so being greater than or equal to 30° and less than or equal to 60°, and
θ
2
can be 80 degrees so being greater than or equal to 45° and less than 90°-Fig 5A, [0130], [0131]), and
the angle between the first inclined region and the substrate is greater than or equal to 45° and less than 90° (angle
θ
1
between the second inclined region 1422 and the substrate 11 and an angle
θ
2
between the first inclined region 1421 and the substrate 11, as
θ
1
can be 60 degrees so being greater than or equal to 30° and less than or equal to 60°, and
θ
2
can be 80 degrees so being greater than or equal to 45° and less than 90°-Fig 5A, [0130], [0131]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display panel of Lee07 in view of Kim91, as taught by Han65 for the purpose of improving the front light emitting efficiency of the display panel (Han65:[0057]).
Regarding claim 19, Lee07, Kim91, and Han65 combination discloses all the elements of claim 3, as noted above.
Lee07 further discloses a display panel
wherein the refractive index of the light-reflecting structure is in a range of 1.4 to 1.55 (refractive index of the light-reflecting structure 420 being in a range of 1.3 to 1.6 so in a range of 1.4 to 1.55-[0127] L1-2); and
the refractive index of the light-transmitting structure is in a range of 1.6 to 1.75 (refractive index of the light-transmitting structure 430 being in a range of 1.65 to 1.85 so in a range of 1.6 to 1.75-[0129] L1-2).
Claim(s) 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US20220013607A1-Lee07), in view of Shu et al. (JP 2013025899 A from IDS with machine translation-Shu99).
Regarding claim 6, Lee07 discloses all the elements of claim 1, as noted above.
Lee07 further discloses a display panel
wherein an angle between the second inclined region and the substrate is equal to an angle between the first inclined region and the substrate (Fig 7).
Lee07 does not disclose a display panel
wherein a refractive index of the first light- reflecting layer is greater than a refractive index of the second light-reflecting layer.
Shu99 teaches a display panel comprising:
Wherein a refractive index of the first light-reflecting layer (refractive index of the first light-reflecting layer 124 being in a range of 1.6 to 2.0-[Description] §3 L 5-7) is greater than a refractive index of the second light-reflecting layer (refractive index of the second light-reflecting layer 126 being in a range of 1.42 to 1.46 which is smaller than 1.6 so a refractive index of the first light-reflecting layer is greater than a refractive index of the second light-reflecting layer-[Description] §3 L 5-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display panel of Lee07, as taught by Shu99 for the purpose of improving display quality by adjusting the refractive index and thickness of the reflectance adjusting structure (Shu99:[Description] §5 L1-11).
Regarding claim 8, Lee07 and Shu99 combination discloses all the elements of claim 6, as noted above.
Lee07 further discloses a display panel
wherein the refractive index of the first light-reflecting layer is in a range of 1.5 to 1.55 (refractive index of the light-reflecting structure 420 being in a range of 1.3 to 1.6 so in a range of 1.5 to 1.55-[0127] L1-2) and
the refractive index of the second light-reflecting layer is in a range of 1.4 to 1.45 (refractive index of the light-reflecting structure 420 being in a range of 1.3 to 1.6 so in a range of 1.4 to 1.45-[0127] L1-2); and
the refractive index of the light-transmitting structure is in a range of 1.6 to 1.75 (refractive index of the light-transmitting structure 430 being in a range of 1.65 to 1.85 so in a range of 1.6 to 1.75-[0129] L1-2).
Claim(s) 7 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US20220013607A1-Lee07), in view of Shu et al. (JP 2013025899 A from IDS with machine translation-Shu99), and further in view of Han et al. (US 20240292665 A1-Han65).
Regarding claim 7, Lee07 and Shu99 combination discloses all the elements of claim 6, as noted above.
Lee07 and Shu99 combination does not disclose a display panel
wherein the angle between the second inclined region and the substrate is greater than or equal to 45o and less than 90o.
Han65 teaches a display panel comprising:
wherein the angle between the second inclined region and the substrate is greater than or equal to 45° and less than 90° (angle
θ
1
between the second inclined region 1422 and the substrate 11 and an angle
θ
2
between the first inclined region 1421 and the substrate 11, as
θ
1
can be 60 degrees so being greater than or equal to 45° and less than 90°-Fig 5A, [0130], [0131]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display panel of Lee07 in view of Shu99, as taught by Han65 for the purpose of improving the front light emitting efficiency of the display panel (Han65:[0057]).
Regarding claim 18, Lee07 and Shu99 combination discloses all the elements of claim 7, as noted above.
Lee07 further discloses a display panel
wherein the refractive index of the first light-reflecting layer is in a range of 1.5 to 1.55 (refractive index of the light-reflecting structure 420 being in a range of 1.3 to 1.6 so in a range of 1.5 to 1.55-[0127] L1-2) and
the refractive index of the second light-reflecting layer is in a range of 1.4 to 1.45 (refractive index of the light-reflecting structure 420 being in a range of 1.3 to 1.6 so in a range of 1.4 to 1.45-[0127] L1-2); and
the refractive index of the light-transmitting structure is in a range of 1.6 to 1.75 (refractive index of the light-transmitting structure 430 being in a range of 1.65 to 1.85 so in a range of 1.6 to 1.75-[0129] L1-2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 17 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 9, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest a display panel, namely “wherein in the direction parallel to the substrate, a distance from the second inclined region to the first inclined region is in a range of 0.5 µm to 6µm”.
References such as over Lee et al. (US20220013607A1-Lee07), in view of Kim et al. (US20150162391A1 from IDS-Kim91), teaches a display panel, but does not teach or suggest a display panel, namely “wherein in the direction parallel to the substrate, a distance from the second inclined region to the first inclined region is in a range of 0.5 µm to 6µm”, in combination with other claimed elements.
Regarding claim 17, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest a display panel, namely “wherein in the direction parallel to the substrate, a distance from the second inclined region to the first inclined region is in a range of 0.5 µm to 6µm”.
References such as Lee et al. (US20220013607A1-Lee07), in view of Shu et al. (JP 2013025899 A from IDS with machine translation-Shu99), teaches a display panel, but does not teach or suggest a display panel, namely “wherein in the direction parallel to the substrate, a distance from the second inclined region to the first inclined region is in a range of 0.5 µm to 6µm”, in combination with other claimed elements.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments see pages 9-13 of Remarks, filed on 07/01/2026 with respect to the priority claim under 35 U.S.C. 119 have been considered and are persuasive. There is no priority claim under 35 U.S.C. 119.
Applicant’s arguments see pages 9-13 of Remarks, filed on 07/01/2026 with respect to the drawing have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the drawing objection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments see pages 9-13 of Remarks, filed on 07/01/2026 with respect to prior art Sun et al. (US 20200185652 A1-Sun52) and Kim et al (US20140166996A1 from IDS-Kim96) have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant’s first argument focuses on showing how Sun52 fails to teach a light-reflecting structure as first structural layer is not a light-reflecting structure as shown by Fig.7 and Fig.8. of Sun52. Fig. 7 shows that depending on the angle of the incident light on the surface of element 41, the light is reflected. Therefore, Sun52 can be used to teach a light-reflecting structure 41.
Applicant’s second argument focuses on showing how Kim96 fails to teach an extending feature of light reflecting structure, because one of the layers is retracted instead of having the second layer extended. The structure still has two layers forming a step and one layer being in a position retracted compared to the second layer. Therefore, the step structure of Kim96 reads on the claim limitation of claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments see pages 9-13 of Remarks, filed on 07/01/2026 with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 10-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US20220013607A1-Lee07), as noted above.
Therefore, claim(s) 1, 5, 10-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US20220013607A1-Lee07).
Claim(s) 2, 4, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US20220013607A1-Lee07), in view of Kim et al. (US20150162391A1 from IDS-Kim91), as noted above.
Therefore, claim(s) 2, 4, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US20220013607A1-Lee07), in view of Kim et al. (US20150162391A1 from IDS-Kim91).
Claim(s) 3 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US20220013607A1-Lee07), in view of Kim et al. (US20150162391A1 from IDS-Kim91), and further in view of Han et al. (US 20240292665 A1-Han65), as noted above.
Therefore, claim(s) 3 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US20220013607A1-Lee07), in view of Kim et al. (US20150162391A1 from IDS-Kim91), and further in view of Han et al. (US 20240292665 A1-Han65).
Claim(s) 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US20220013607A1-Lee07), in view of Shu et al. (JP 2013025899 A from IDS with machine translation-Shu99), as noted above.
Therefore, claim(s) 6 and 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US20220013607A1-Lee07), in view of Shu et al. (JP 2013025899 A from IDS with machine translation-Shu99).
Claim(s) 7 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US20220013607A1-Lee07), in view of Shu et al. (JP 2013025899 A from IDS with machine translation-Shu99), and further in view of Han et al. (US 20240292665 A1-Han65), as noted above.
Therefore, claim(s) 7 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US20220013607A1-Lee07), in view of Shu et al. (JP 2013025899 A from IDS with machine translation-Shu99), and further in view of Han et al. (US 20240292665 A1-Han65).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Leng et al. (US20220165993A1-Leng93) teaches a display panel comprising a light-reflecting structure (140/150-Fig 2), at least comprising two layers (140/150-Fig 2).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHALIE R FAYETTE whose telephone number is (571)272-1220. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am-6pm 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, Christine Kim can be reached at (571) 272-8458. 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.
NATHALIE R. FAYETTE
Examiner
Art Unit 2812
/NATHALIE R FAYETTE/Examiner, Art Unit 2812 09/03/2026
/CHRISTINE S. KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights