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 foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on 04/27/2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the PCT/CN2022/089506 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the orthographic projection of the pixel opening on the substrate, the orthographic projection of the light-transmitting structure on the substrate, and the orthographic projection of the light-reflecting structure on the substrate, should be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s) 10-12. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 11 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 recites “wherein at least part of an orthographic projection of the light-reflecting structure on the substrate” in Lines L5-6, but should read – wherein at least a part of an orthographic projection of the light-reflecting structure on the substrate --.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 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 " the second surface is disposed on a side of the first surface away from the light-emitting unit" in Lines L7-8, renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how a second surface can be on a side of the first surface, when a side surface is between the first surface and the second surface, and the second surface and the first surface are opposite to each other.
In the purpose of compact prosecution, “the second surface is disposed on a side of the first surface away from the light-emitting unit” has been interpretated as the second surface is disposed on a side of the light-reflecting structure away from the light-emitting unit.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation "and/or" in Line 2, renders the claim indefinite because one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “and/or” is defined as "a function word to indicate that two words or expressions are to be taken together or individually” (see Merriam-webster.com).
Claim 5 results in having three options:
Option 1: wherein the refractive index of the light-reflecting structure is in a range of 1.4 to 1.55.
Option 2: wherein the refractive index of the light-transmitting structure is in a range of 1.6 to 1.75.
Option 3: wherein the refractive index of the light-reflecting structure is in a range of 1.4 to 1.55; and the refractive index of the light-transmitting structure is in a range of 1.6 to 1.75.
Thus, the limitation “and/or" is unclear because defining which combination of the stated limitations is necessary or not, is not clearly defined. Thus, determining whether one is infringing the limitation is subjective, rather than objective, and thus the claim is unclear.
Under the principles of compact prosecution, the claim “and/or” limitation is being interpretated as – wherein the refractive index of the light-reflecting structure is in a range of 1.4 to 1.55—given in Option 1.
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.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation "and/or" in Line 2, renders the claim indefinite because one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “and/or” is defined as "a function word to indicate that two words or expressions are to be taken together or individually” (see Merriam-webster.com).
Claim 8 results in having three options:
Option 1: wherein the refractive index of the first light-reflecting layer is in a range of 1.5 to 1.55 and the refractive index of the second light-reflecting layer is in a range of 1.4 to 1.45.
Option 2: wherein the refractive index of the light-transmitting structure is in a range of 1.6 to 1.75.
Option 3: wherein the refractive index of the first light-reflecting layer is in a range of 1.5 to 1.55 and the refractive index of the second light-reflecting layer is in a range of 1.4 to 1.45; and the refractive index of the light-transmitting structure is in a range of 1.6 to 1.75.
Thus, the limitation “and/or" is unclear because defining which combination of the stated limitations is necessary or not, is not clearly defined. Thus, determining whether one is infringing the limitation is subjective, rather than objective, and thus the claim is unclear.
Under the principles of compact prosecution, the claim “and/or” limitation is being interpretated as – wherein the refractive index of the first light-reflecting layer is in a range of 1.5 to 1.55 and the refractive index of the second light-reflecting layer is in a range of 1.4 to 1.45—given in Option 1.
Regarding claim 14, the limitation "wherein on a side the light-transmitting structure is provided with a concave portion" in Lines L1-2, renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear on a side of which element of the display panel, the light-transmitting structure is provided with a concave portion.
In the purpose of compact prosecution, “wherein on a side the light-transmitting structure is provided with a concave portion” has been interpretated as wherein a side of the light-transmitting structure is provided with a concave portion.
Regarding claim 18, the limitation "and/or" in Line 2, renders the claim indefinite because one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “and/or” is defined as "a function word to indicate that two words or expressions are to be taken together or individually” (see Merriam-webster.com).
Claim 18 results in having three options:
Option 1: wherein the refractive index of the first light-reflecting layer is in a range of 1.5 to 1.55 and the refractive index of the second light-reflecting layer is in a range of 1.4 to 1.45.
Option 2: wherein the refractive index of the light-transmitting structure is in a range of 1.6 to 1.75.
Option 3: wherein the refractive index of the first light-reflecting layer is in a range of 1.5 to 1.55 and the refractive index of the second light-reflecting layer is in a range of 1.4 to 1.45; and the refractive index of the light-transmitting structure is in a range of 1.6 to 1.75.
Thus, the limitation “and/or" is unclear because defining which combination of the stated limitations is necessary or not, is not clearly defined. Thus, determining whether one is infringing the limitation is subjective, rather than objective, and thus the claim is unclear.
Under the principles of compact prosecution, the claim “and/or” limitation is being interpretated as – wherein the refractive index of the first light-reflecting layer is in a range of 1.5 to 1.55 and the refractive index of the second light-reflecting layer is in a range of 1.4 to 1.45—given in Option 1.
Regarding claim 19, the limitation "and/or" in Line 2, renders the claim indefinite because one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “and/or” is defined as "a function word to indicate that two words or expressions are to be taken together or individually” (see Merriam-webster.com).
Claim 19 results in having three options:
Option 1: wherein the refractive index of the light-reflecting structure is in a range of 1.4 to 1.55.
Option 2: wherein the refractive index of the light-transmitting structure is in a range of 1.6 to 1.75.
Option 3: wherein the refractive index of the light-reflecting structure is in a range of 1.4 to 1.55; and the refractive index of the light-transmitting structure is in a range of 1.6 to 1.75.
Thus, the limitation “and/or" is unclear because defining which combination of the stated limitations is necessary or not, is not clearly defined. Thus, determining whether one is infringing the limitation is subjective, rather than objective, and thus the claim is unclear.
Under the principles of compact prosecution, the claim “and/or” limitation is being interpretated as – wherein the refractive index of the light-reflecting structure is in a range of 1.4 to 1.55—given in Option 1.
Regarding claim 20, the limitation "and/or" in Line 2, renders the claim indefinite because one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “and/or” is defined as "a function word to indicate that two words or expressions are to be taken together or individually” (see Merriam-webster.com).
Claim 20 results in having three options:
Option 1: wherein the refractive index of the light-reflecting structure is in a range of 1.4 to 1.55.
Option 2: wherein the refractive index of the light-transmitting structure is in a range of 1.6 to 1.75.
Option 3: wherein the refractive index of the light-reflecting structure is in a range of 1.4 to 1.55; and the refractive index of the light-transmitting structure is in a range of 1.6 to 1.75.
Thus, the limitation “and/or" is unclear because defining which combination of the stated limitations is necessary or not, is not clearly defined. Thus, determining whether one is infringing the limitation is subjective, rather than objective, and thus the claim is unclear.
Under the principles of compact prosecution, the claim “and/or” limitation is being interpretated as – wherein the refractive index of the light-reflecting structure is in a range of 1.4 to 1.55—given in Option 1.
The balance of claims are rejected for being dependent upon an already rejected claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1, 10-11, and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US20220006052A1 from IDS-Huang52), in view of Kim et al (US20140166996A1 from IDS-Kim96), and further in view of Kim et al. (US 20230122736 A1-Kim36).
Regarding claim 1, Huang52 discloses a display panel (Title), comprising:
a substrate (Substrate 110-Fig 1);
a light-emitting unit, disposed on the substrate (Light-emitting unit 122 on substrate 110-Fig 1);
a light-reflecting structure, disposed on a light-emitting side of the light-emitting unit (light-reflecting structure 211, disposed on a light-emitting side of the light-emitting unit 122-Fig 1),
wherein the light-reflecting structure comprises
a first surface (First/Bottom surface-Examiner's annotated Fig 1) and
a second surface that are opposite to each other (Second/Top surface- opposite to Top surface-Examiner's annotated Fig 1) , and
a light-reflecting side surface connected between the first surface and the second surface (Side/inclined surface-Examiner's annotated Fig 1);
the first surface faces the light-emitting unit (First/bottom surface facing light-emitting unit 122-Examiner's annotated Fig 1),
the second surface is disposed on a side of the first surface away from the light-emitting unit (Examiner's annotated Fig 1);
the light-reflecting side surface comprises an inclined area (the light-reflecting side surface comprising an inclined area-Examiner's annotated Fig 1), and
a light-transmitting structure, provided on the light-emitting side of the light-emitting unit and
covering at least the inclined area (light-transmitting structure 212, provided on the light-emitting side of the light-emitting unit 122 and covering at least the inclined area-Examiner's annotated Fig 1).
Huang52 does not disclose a display panel comprising:
the inclined area has a step structure; and
wherein the light-reflecting structure has a refractive index smaller than a refractive index of the light-transmitting structure.
Kim96 teaches a display panel comprising:
the inclined area has a step structure (an embossed-shaped conductive reflective layer has been interpretated as being a step structure-[0008] L 7-8, layer 221 of 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 modify the display panel of Huang52, as taught by Kim96 for the purpose of improving the efficiency of ultraviolet (UV) utilization by attaching a display panel module to a front plate when using a pad electrode which includes an embossing-shaped conductive reflective layer (Kim96:[0007]).
Kim36 teaches a display panel comprising:
wherein the light-reflecting structure has a refractive index smaller than a refractive index of the light-transmitting structure (the light-reflecting structure RFL1 having a refractive index smaller than a refractive index of the light-transmitting structure RFL2-[0152] L1-3, Fig 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 Huang52 in view of Kim96, as taught by Kim36 for the purpose of improving the contrast and light efficiency without a polarization layer (Kim36:[0135]).
PNG
media_image1.png
889
1560
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Huang52, Kim96, and Kim36 combination teaches all the elements of claim 1, as noted above.
Huang52 further disclose a display panel wherein the display panel further comprises:
a pixel defining layer (121-Fig1), disposed on the substrate (pixel defining layer 121 disposed on substrate 110-Fig 1) and
provided with a pixel opening (121 provided with openings-Examiner's annotated Fig 1),
the light-emitting unit being disposed in the pixel opening (Light-emitting Unit 122 disposed in the pixel opening-Examiner's annotated Fig 1);
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 on the substrate 110 located within the orthographic projection of the Light transmitting structure 212 on substrate 110-Examiner's annotated Fig 1), 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 211 on the substrate 110 located within the orthographic projection of Pixel defining layer 121 on substrate 110-Examiner's annotated Fig 1).
Regarding claim 11, Huang52, Kim96, and Kim36 combination teaches all the elements of claim 1, as noted above.
Huang52 further disclose a display panel wherein the display panel further comprises:
a pixel defining layer (121-Fig1), disposed on the substrate (pixel defining layer 121 disposed on substrate 110-Fig 1) and
provided with a pixel opening (121 provided with openings-Examiner's annotated Fig 1),
the light-emitting unit being disposed in the pixel opening (Light-emitting Unit 122 disposed in the pixel opening-Examiner's annotated Fig 1);
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 211 on the substrate 110 located within the orthographic projection of Pixel opening on substrate 110-Examiner's annotated Fig 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
889
1560
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Huang52, Kim96, and Kim36 combination teaches all the elements of claim 1, as noted above.
Kim36 further teaches a display panel
wherein on a side the light-transmitting structure is provided with a concave portion (the light-transmitting structureRFL2 over RFL1 provided a concave portion-Examiner’s annotated Fig 5A), and
the side of the light-transmitting structure provided with the concave portion faces the light-emitting unit or is away from the light- emitting unit (Concave portions of light-transmitting structure RFL2 over light-emitting structure RFL1, facing Light-emitting unit LED-Examiner's annotated Fig 5A), and
the light-reflecting structure is provided in the concave portion (Concave portions of light-transmitting structure RFL2 over light-emitting structure RFL1, facing Light-emitting unit LED-Examiner's annotated Fig 5A).
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 Huang52 in view of Kim96, as taught by Kim36 for the purpose of improving the contrast and light efficiency without a polarization layer (Kim36:[0135]).
PNG
media_image2.png
677
906
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Huang52, Kim96, and Kim36 combination teaches all the elements of claim 14, as noted above.
Kim36 further teaches a display panel comprising:
an encapsulation layer (TFE-Fig 5A),
disposed on a side of the light-emitting unit (Encapsulation layer TFE disposed on a side of the light-emitting unit LED, wherein the light-transmitting structure RFL1 being on the opposite side of the encapsulation layer TFE so being disposed away from the light-emitting unit LED-Examiner's annotated Fig 5A),
wherein the light- transmitting structure is disposed on a side of the encapsulation layer away from the light- emitting unit (Encapsulation layer TFE disposed on a side of the light-emitting unit LED, wherein the light-transmitting structure RFL1 being on the opposite side of the encapsulation layer TFE so being disposed away from the light-emitting unit LED-Examiner's annotated Fig 5A) or
the light-transmitting structure is disposed between the encapsulation layer and the light-emitting unit.
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 Huang52 in view of Kim96, as taught by Kim36 for the purpose of improving the contrast and light efficiency without a polarization layer (Kim36:[0135]).
Regarding claim 16, Huang52, Kim96, and Kim36 combination teaches all the elements of claim 1, as noted above.
Kim36 further teaches a display apparatus (display apparatus 1000 including the display panel 100-Fig 1, [0045]), comprising the display panel of claim 1.
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 Huang52 in view of Kim96, as taught by Kim36 for the purpose of improving the contrast and light efficiency without a polarization layer (Kim36:[0135]).
Claim(s) 2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US20220006052A1 from IDS-Huang52), in view of Kim et al (US20140166996A1 from IDS-Kim96), in view of Kim et al. (US 20230122736 A1-Kim36), and further in view of Sun et al. (US 20200185652 A1-Sun52).
Regarding claim 2, Huang52, Kim96, and Kim36 combination teaches all the elements of claim 1, as noted above.
Kim96 further teaches a display panel comprising:
wherein the inclined area comprises a plurality of inclined regions (Layer 221 having two inclined surfaces-Fig 5), and
the plurality of inclined regions are distributed in a thickness direction of the substrate (Layer 221 having two inclined surfaces distributed in a thickness direction of the substrate 11/vertical direction-Fig 5);
the plurality of inclined regions comprise
at least a first inclined region and a second inclined region (Layer 221 having two inclined surfaces 297/295-Fig 5);
wherein the second inclined region is retracted relative to the first inclined region in a direction parallel to the substrate so that the inclined area forms the step structure (second inclined region 297 retracted relative to the first inclined region 295 in the horizontal direction/direction parallel to the substrate, the inclined area 221 forming the step structure 297/295-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 modify the display panel of Huang52 in view of Kim36, as taught by Kim96 for the purpose of improving the efficiency of ultraviolet (UV) utilization by attaching a display panel module to a front plate when using a pad electrode which includes an embossing-shaped conductive reflective layer (Kim96:[0007]).
Huang52, Kim96, and Kim36 combination does not teach a display panel comprising:
the second inclined region is located on a side of the first inclined region away from the light-emitting unit, and
an angle between the second inclined region and the substrate is smaller than an angle between the first inclined region and the substrate.
Sun52 teaches a display panel comprising:
the second inclined region is located on a side of the first inclined region away from the light-emitting unit (second inclined region/top region of 41 of layer 40 located on a side of the first inclined region/bottom region of 41 of layer 40, away from the light-emitting unit 22-Fig1, Fig 16a/b), and
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 /top region of 41 and the substrate 10/horizontal direction, is smaller than an angle
θ
1
between the first inclined region/bottom region of 41 and the substrate 10/horizontal direction-Fig 1, Fig 16a, [0067] L10-12).
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 Huang52 in view of Kim96, and further in view of Kim36, as taught by Sun52 for the purpose of solving the problem of characteristic deviation of viewing angle and improving display quality by using a light modulation layer to adjust the direction of the emergent light beam to redistribute the front viewing-angle emergent light beam and the large viewing-angle emergent light beam (Sun52:[0044]).
Regarding claim 4, Huang52, Kim96, and Kim36 combination teaches all the elements of claim 2, as noted above.
Sun52 further teaches a display panel wherein the light-reflecting structure comprises
a first light-reflecting layer (Bottom layer of 41-Examiner's annotated Fig 16a) and
a second light-reflecting layer (Top layer of 41-Examiner's annotated Fig 16a),
the first light-reflecting layer comprises the first inclined region (the first inclined region/bottom region of 41 of layer 40-Fig 1, Examiner's annotated Fig 16a),
the second light-reflecting layer comprises the second inclined region (second inclined region/top region of 41 of layer 40 located on a side of the first inclined region/bottom region of 41 of layer 40, away from the light-emitting unit 22-Fig1, Examiner's annotated Fig 16a), and
the first light-reflecting layer is of a same material as the second light-reflecting layer (Both layers are part of 41 so having the same material-Examiner's annotated Fig 16a).
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 Huang52 in view of Kim96, and further in view of Kim36, as taught by Sun52 for the purpose of solving the problem of characteristic deviation of viewing angle and improving display quality by using a light modulation layer to adjust the direction of the emergent light beam to redistribute the front viewing-angle emergent light beam and the large viewing-angle emergent light beam (Sun52:[0044]).
PNG
media_image3.png
477
814
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US20220006052A1 from IDS-Huang52), in view of Kim et al (US20140166996A1 from IDS-Kim96), in view of Kim et al. (US 20230122736 A1-Kim36), in view of Sun et al. (US 20200185652 A1-Sun52), and further in view of Han et al. (US 20240292665 A1-Han65).
Regarding claim 3, Huang52, Kim96, Kim36 , and Sun52 combination teaches all the elements of claim 2, as noted above.
Huang52, Kim96, Kim36 , and Sun52 combination does not teach a display panel
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°, and
the angle between the first inclined region and the substrate is greater than or equal to 45° and less than 90°.
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 Huang52 in view of Kim96, in view of Kim 36, and further in view of Sun52, as taught by Han65 for the purpose of improving the front light emitting efficiency of the display panel (Han65:[0057]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US20220006052A1 from IDS-Huang52), in view of Kim et al (US20140166996A1 from IDS-Kim96), in view of Kim et al. (US 20230122736 A1-Kim36), and further in view of Kim et al. (US 20220140283 A1-Kim83).
Regarding claim 5, Huang52, Kim96, and Kim36 combination teaches all the elements of claim 1, as noted above.
Huang52, Kim96, and Kim36 combination does not teach a display panel comprising:
wherein the refractive index of the light-reflecting structure is in a range of 1.4 to 1.55; and/or
the refractive index of the light-transmitting structure is in a range of 1.6 to 1.75.
Kim83 teaches a display panel comprising:
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 LR is in a range of a.46 to 1.48 so in a range of 1.4 to 1.55-[0107]); and/or
the refractive index of the light-transmitting structure is in a range of 1.6 to 1.75.
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 Huang52 in view of Kim96, and further in view of Kim36, as taught by Kim83 for the purpose of reducing process cost by having the low-refractive film LR over the high-refractive pattern HR (Kim83:[0116]).
Claim(s) 6 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US20220006052A1 from IDS-Huang52), in view of Kim et al (US20140166996A1 from IDS-Kim96), in view of Kim et al. (US 20230122736 A1-Kim36), in view of Sun et al. (US 20200185652 A1-Sun52), and further in view of Shu et al. (JP 2013025899 A from IDS with machine translation-Shu99).
Regarding claim 6, Huang52, Kim96, and Kim36 combination teaches all the elements of claim 1, as noted above.
Kim96 further teaches a display panel
wherein the inclined area comprises a plurality of inclined regions (Layer 221 having two inclined surfaces-Fig 5), and
the plurality of inclined regions are distributed in a thickness direction of the substrate (Layer 221 having two inclined surfaces distributed in a thickness direction of the substrate 11/vertical direction-Fig 5);
the plurality of inclined regions comprise at least a first inclined region and a second inclined region (Layer 221 having two inclined surfaces 297/295-Fig 5),
wherein the second inclined region is retracted relative to the first inclined region in a direction parallel to the substrate so that the inclined area forms the step structure (second inclined region 297 retracted relative to the first inclined region 295 in the horizontal direction/direction parallel to the substrate, the inclined area 221 forming the step structure 297/295-Fig 5).
Huang52, Kim96, and Kim36 combination does not teach a display panel comprising:
the second inclined region is located on a side of the first inclined region away from the light-emitting unit, and
an angle between the second inclined region and the substrate is equal to an angle between the first inclined region and the substrate;
the light-reflecting structure comprises
a first light-reflecting layer and
a second light- reflecting layer,
the first light-reflecting layer comprises the first inclined region and
the second light-reflecting layer comprises the second inclined region,
a refractive index of the first light-reflecting layer is greater than a refractive index of the second light-reflecting layer.
Sun52 teaches a display panel comprising:
the second inclined region is located on a side of the first inclined region away from the light-emitting unit (second inclined region/top region of 41 of layer 40 located on a side of the first inclined region/bottom region of 41 of layer 40, away from the light-emitting unit 22-Fig1, Fig 16a/b), and
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 /top region of 41 and the substrate 10/horizontal direction, is smaller than an angle
θ
1
between the first inclined region/bottom region of 41 and the substrate 10/horizontal direction-Fig 1, Fig 16a, [0067] L10-12);
the light-reflecting structure comprises
a first light-reflecting layer (Bottom layer of 41-Examiner's annotated Fig 16a) and
a second light-reflecting layer (Top layer of 41-Examiner's annotated Fig 16a),
the first light-reflecting layer comprises the first inclined region (the first inclined region/bottom region of 41 of layer 40-Fig 1, Examiner's annotated Fig 16a),
the second light-reflecting layer comprises the second inclined region (second inclined region/top region of 41 of layer 40 located on a side of the first inclined region/bottom region of 41 of layer 40, away from the light-emitting unit 22-Fig1, Examiner's annotated Fig 16a).
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 Huang52 in view of Kim96, and further in view of Kim36, as taught by Sun52 for the purpose of solving the problem of characteristic deviation of viewing angle and improving display quality by using a light modulation layer to adjust the direction of the emergent light beam to redistribute the front viewing-angle emergent light beam and the large viewing-angle emergent light beam (Sun52:[0044]).
Sun52 does not teach a display panel comprising:
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:
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 Huang52 in view of Kim96, in view of Kim36, and further in view of Sun52, 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).
PNG
media_image3.png
477
814
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, Huang52, Kim96, Kim36, and Sun52 combination teaches all the elements of claim 4, as noted above.
Huang52, Kim96, Kim36, and Sun52 combination does not teach a display panel wherein
the refractive index of the light-reflecting layer is in a range of 1.4 to 1.55; and/or
the refractive index of the light-transmitting structure is in a range of 1.6 to 1.75.
Shu99 teaches a display panel wherein
the refractive index of the light-reflecting layer is in a range of 1.4 to 1.55 (refractive index of the light-reflecting layer 126 being in a range of 1.42 to 1.46, so being in the range of 1.4 to 1.55-[Description] §3 L 5-7); and/or
the refractive index of the light-transmitting structure is in a range of 1.6 to 1.75.
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 Huang52 in view of Kim96, in view of Kim36, and further in view of Sun52, 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).
Claim(s) 7 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US20220006052A1 from IDS-Huang52), in view of Kim et al (US20140166996A1 from IDS-Kim96), in view of Kim et al. (US 20230122736 A1-Kim36), in view of Sun et al. (US 20200185652 A1-Sun52), 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, Huang52, Kim96, Kim36, Sun52, and Shu99 combination teaches all the elements of claim 6, as noted above.
Huang52, Kim96, Kim36 , Sun52, and Shu99 combination does not teach a display panel
wherein the angle between the second inclined region and the substrate is greater than or equal to 45° and less than 90°.
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 Huang52 in view of Kim96, in view of Kim 36, in view of Sun52, and further 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 19, Huang52, Kim96, Kim36 , Sun52, and Han65 combination teaches all the elements of claim 3, as noted above.
Huang52, Kim96, Kim36 , Sun52, and Han65 combination does not teach a display panel wherein
the refractive index of the light- reflecting structure is in a range of 1.4 to 1.55; and/or
the refractive index of the light-transmitting structure is in a range of 1.6 to 1.75.
Shu99 teaches a display panel wherein
the refractive index of the light-reflecting layer is in a range of 1.4 to 1.55 (refractive index of the second light-reflecting layer 126 being in a range of 1.42 to 1.46, so being in the range of 1.4 to 1.55-[Description] §3 L 5-7); and/or
the refractive index of the light-transmitting structure is in a range of 1.6 to 1.75.
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 Huang52 in view of Kim96, in view of Kim36, in view of Sun52, and further in view of Han65, 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).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US20220006052A1 from IDS-Huang52), in view of Kim et al (US20140166996A1 from IDS-Kim96), in view of Kim et al. (US 20230122736 A1-Kim36), in view of Sun et al. (US 20200185652 A1-Sun52), 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 8, Huang52, Kim96, Kim36, Sun52, and Shu99 combination teaches all the elements of claim 6, as noted above.
Shu99 further teaches a display panel wherein
the refractive index of the second light-reflecting layer is in a range of 1.4 to 1.45 (refractive index of the second light-reflecting layer 126 being in a range of 1.42 to 1.46, 1.43 will be in the range of 1.4 to 1.45-[Description] §3 L 5-7); and/or
the refractive index of the light-transmitting structure is in a range of 1.6 to 1.75.
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 Huang52 in view of Kim96, in view of Kim36, and further in view of Sun52, 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).
Huang52, Kim96, and Kim36, Sun52, and Shu99 combination does not teach a display panel
wherein the refractive index of the first light-reflecting layer is in a range of 1.5 to 1.55.
Kim83 further teaches 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 first light-reflecting layer HR being in a range of 1.53 to 1.8 so in a range of 1.5 to 1.55-[0107] L5-12).
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 Huang52 in view of Kim96, in view of Kim36, in view of Sun52, and further in view of Shu99, as taught by Kim83 for the purpose of reducing process cost by having the low-refractive film LR over the high-refractive pattern HR (Kim83:[0116]).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US20220006052A1 from IDS-Huang52), in view of Kim et al (US20140166996A1 from IDS-Kim96), in view of Kim et al. (US 20230122736 A1-Kim36), in view of Sun et al. (US 20200185652 A1-Sun52), in view of Shu et al. (JP 2013025899 A from IDS with machine translation-Shu99), in view of Han et al. (US 20240292665 A1-Han65), and further in view of Kim et al. (US 20220140283 A1-Kim83).
Regarding claim 18, Huang52, Kim96, Kim36, Sun52, Shu99, and Han65 combination teaches all the elements of claim 7, as noted above.
Shu99 further teaches a display panel wherein
the refractive index of the second light-reflecting layer is in a range of 1.4 to 1.45 (refractive index of the second light-reflecting layer 126 being in a range of 1.42 to 1.46, 1.43 will be in the range of 1.4 to 1.45-[Description] §3 L 5-7); and/or
the refractive index of the light-transmitting structure is in a range of 1.6 to 1.75.
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 Huang52 in view of Kim96, in view of Kim36, and further in view of Sun52, 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).
Huang52, Kim96, Kim36, Sun52, Shu99, and Han65 combination does not teach a display panel
wherein the refractive index of the first light-reflecting layer is in a range of 1.5 to 1.55.
Kim83 teaches 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 first light-reflecting layer HR being in a range of 1.53 to 1.8 so in a range of 1.5 to 1.55-[0107] L5-12).
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 Huang52 in view of Kim96, in view of Kim36, in view of Sun52, in view of Shu99, and further in view of Han65, as taught by Kim83 for the purpose of reducing process cost by having the low-refractive film LR over the high-refractive pattern HR (Kim83:[0116]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 12-13, 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 Huang et al. (US20220006052A1 from IDS-Huang52), in view of Kim et al (US20140166996A1 from IDS-Kim96), in view of Kim et al. (US 20230122736 A1-Kim36), and further in view of Sun et al. (US 20200185652 A1-Sun52), 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 12, Huang et al. (US20220006052A1 from IDS-Huang52), in view of Kim et al (US20140166996A1 from IDS-Kim96), and further in view of Kim et al. (US 20230122736 A1-Kim36), teaches all the elements of claim 1, as noted above.
Huang52 further disclose a display panel wherein the display panel further comprises:
a pixel defining layer (121-Fig1), disposed on the substrate (pixel defining layer 121 disposed on substrate 110-Fig 1) and
provided with a pixel opening (121 provided with openings-Examiner's annotated Fig 1),
the light-emitting unit being disposed in the pixel opening (Light-emitting Unit 122 disposed in the pixel opening-Examiner's annotated Fig 1);
wherein in a direction parallel to the substrate (horizontal direction), the light-reflecting structure (light-reflecting structure 211-Fig 1) comprises
a first portion (211 a-Fig 1) and a second portion (211 b-Fig 1),
an orthographic projection of the first portion on the substrate surrounds an orthographic projection of the second portion on the substrate (Orthographic projection of the first portion 211a on the substrate 110 surrounding orthographic projection of the first portion 211b on substrate 110-Examiner's annotated Fig 1).
PNG
media_image4.png
889
1560
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Huang52, Kim96, and Kim36 combination does not teach a display panel wherein
the orthographic projection of the first portion on the substrate surrounds
an orthographic projection of the pixel opening on the substrate, 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.
References such as Huang et al. (US20220006052A1 from IDS-Huang52), in view of Kim et al (US20140166996A1 from IDS-Kim96), and further in view of Kim et al. (US 20230122736 A1-Kim36), , teaches a display panel, but does not teach or suggest a display panel, namely “wherein the orthographic projection of the first portion on the substrate surrounds an orthographic projection of the pixel opening on the substrate, 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”, 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 Huang et al. (US20220006052A1 from IDS-Huang52), in view of Kim et al (US20140166996A1 from IDS-Kim96), in view of Kim et al. (US 20230122736 A1-Kim36), in view of Sun et al. (US 20200185652 A1-Sun52), and further 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).
The balance of the claims are allowable for at least the above-stated reasons.
Conclusion
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 03/18/2026
/CHRISTINE S. KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights