DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This Office Action is in response to Amendments/Remarks filed on June 05, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 8-12, 14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0098798 A1 to Park et al. (“Park”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0391513 A1 to Choi et al. (“Choi”). As to claim 1, Park in view of Choi discloses a display panel, comprising: a substrate (100) and a light-emitting device (210, 220, 230), the substrate (100) having a viewing angle adjustment structure (300) near a light exit side of the light-emitting device (210, 220, 230), the light-emitting device (210, 220, 230) comprising a first electrode (210), a second electrode (230) and a light-emitting functional layer (220) arranged between the first electrode (210) and the second electrode (230), the viewing angle adjustment structure (300) corresponding to the light-emitting functional layer (220) and comprising a first refractive index layer (312) and a second refractive index layer (322), wherein a first portion (overlapping 220) of the first refractive index layer (312) comprises a plurality of grooves, a second portion (overlapping 220) of the second refractive index layer (322) comprises a plurality of protrusions, and each protrusion is corresponding to each groove, wherein a refractive index of the second refractive index layer (322) is less than a refractive index of the first refractive index layer (312); orthographic projections of the first portion (overlapping 220) and the second portion (overlapping 220) on the substrate (100) are within an orthographic projection of the light-emitting functional layer (220) on the substrate (100) (See Fig. 5, ¶ 0063, ¶ 0066, ¶ 0069-¶ 0075, ¶ 0078, ¶ 0080-¶ 0082, ¶ 0089, ¶ 0090 and Choi ¶ 0042) (Notes: the limitation “viewing angle adjustment structure” is met by the recited grooves and protrusions and different refractive indices. Further, the limitation “portion” is defined as a part of any whole, either separated from or integrated with it by Dictionary.com such that the first and second portions are within an orthographic projection of the light-emitting functional layer). Although Park discloses the first refractive index layer (312) is a silicon nitride and the second refractive index layer (322) is an acrylate (See ¶ 0078, ¶ 0080) without disclosing the refractive indices, Choi clearly discloses a silicon nitride having an index of refraction of 2.0 and an acrylate based material having an index of refraction of 1.69 such that wherein the refractive index of the second refractive index layer is less than the refractive index of the first refractive index layer as the refractive indices of these materials are well-known in the art. As to claim 9, Park in view of Choi discloses a display panel, comprising: a substrate (100) and a light-emitting device (210, 220, 230), the substrate (100) having a viewing angle adjustment structure (300) near a light exit side of the light-emitting device (210, 220, 230), the viewing angle adjustment structure (300) comprising a first refractive index layer (312) and a second refractive index layer (322), a first portion (overlapping 220) of the first refractive index layer (312) comprising a plurality of grooves, a second portion (overlapping 220) of the second refractive index layer (322) comprising a plurality of protrusions, and each protrusion corresponding to each groove, wherein a refractive index of the second refractive index layer (322) is less than a refractive index of the first refractive index layer (312); orthographic projections of the first portion (overlapping 220) and the second portion (overlapping 220) on the substrate (100) are within an orthographic projection of the light-emitting functional layer (220) on the substrate (100) (See Fig. 5, ¶ 0063, ¶ 0066, ¶ 0069-¶ 0075, ¶ 0078, ¶ 0080-¶ 0082, ¶ 0089, ¶ 0090 and Choi ¶ 0042) (Notes: the limitation “viewing angle adjustment structure” is met by the recited grooves and protrusions and different refractive indices. Further, the limitation “portion” is defined as a part of any whole, either separated from or integrated with it by Dictionary.com such that the first and second portions are within an orthographic projection of the light-emitting functional layer). Although Park discloses the first refractive index layer (312) is a silicon nitride and the second refractive index layer (322) is an acrylate (See ¶ 0078, ¶ 0080) without disclosing the refractive indices, Choi clearly discloses a silicon nitride having an index of refraction of 2.0 and an acrylate based material having an index of refraction of 1.69 such that wherein the refractive index of the second refractive index layer is less than the refractive index of the first refractive index layer as the refractive indices of these materials are well-known in the art. As to claim 17, Park in view of Choi discloses a mobile terminal, comprising: a terminal body (¶ 0062) and a display panel (¶ 0062), which are integrated, wherein the display panel (¶ 0062) comprises: a substrate (100) and a light-emitting device (210, 220, 230), the substrate (100) has a viewing angle adjustment structure (300) near a light exit side of the light-emitting device (210, 220, 230), the viewing angle adjustment structure (300) comprises a first refractive index layer (312) and a second refractive index layer (322), a first portion (overlapping 220) of the first refractive index layer (312) comprises a plurality of grooves, a second portion (overlapping 220) of the second refractive index layer (322) comprises a plurality of protrusions, and each protrusion corresponds to each groove; and a refractive index of the second refractive index layer (322) is less than a refractive index of the first refractive index layer (312); orthographic projections of the first portion (overlapping 220) and the second portion (overlapping 220) on the substrate (100) are within an orthographic projection of the light-emitting functional layer (220) on the substrate (100) (See Fig. 5, ¶ 0063, ¶ 0066, ¶ 0069-¶ 0075, ¶ 0078, ¶ 0080-¶ 0082, ¶ 0089, ¶ 0090 and Choi ¶ 0042) (Notes: the limitation “viewing angle adjustment structure” is met by the recited grooves and protrusions and different refractive indices. Further, the limitation “portion” is defined as a part of any whole, either separated from or integrated with it by Dictionary.com such that the first and second portions are within an orthographic projection of the light-emitting functional layer). Although Park discloses the first refractive index layer (312) is a silicon nitride and the second refractive index layer (322) is an acrylate (See ¶ 0078, ¶ 0080) without disclosing the refractive indices, Choi clearly discloses a silicon nitride having an index of refraction of 2.0 and an acrylate based material having an index of refraction of 1.69 such that wherein the refractive index of the second refractive index layer is less than the refractive index of the first refractive index layer as the refractive indices of these materials are well-known in the art.
As to claims 2, 10, and 18, Park discloses (wherein the display panel further comprises) further comprising: a buffer layer (322) arranged on a first substrate (312), (wherein/and) the light-emitting device (210, 220, 230) being (is) arranged on the buffer layer (322), wherein (and) one of films namely the first substrate (312) and the buffer layer (322) is provided with the plurality of grooves, and the other of the films namely the first substrate (312) and the buffer layer (322) is provided with the plurality of protrusions (See Fig. 5) (Notes: the limitation “buffer, first substrate” does not specify any particular materials such that the buffer layer and the first substrate support and/or interpose between other layers meet the limitation). As to claims 3, 11, and 19, Park discloses (wherein the display panel further comprises) further comprising: a buffer layer (324) arranged on a first substrate (313) and an interlayer insulation layer (323) arranged on the buffer layer (324), wherein (and) the light-emitting device (210, 220, 230) is arranged on the interlayer insulation layer (323), wherein (and) one of films namely the buffer layer (324) and the interlayer insulation layer (323) is provided with the plurality of grooves, and the other of the films namely the buffer layer (324) and the interlayer insulation layer (323) is provided with the plurality of protrusions (See Fig. 5) (Notes: the limitation “buffer, first substrate, interlayer insulation layer” does not specify any particular materials such that the buffer layer, the first substrate, and the interlayer insulation layer support and/or interpose and/or cover between other layers meet the limitation).
As to claims 4, 12, and 20, Park discloses (wherein the display panel further comprises) further comprising: a buffer layer (324) arranged on a first substrate (313), an interlayer insulation layer (323) arranged on the buffer layer (324), a passivation layer (322) arranged on the interlayer insulation layer (323), and a planarization layer (321) arranged on the passivation layer (322), wherein (and) the light-emitting device (210, 220, 230) is arranged on the planarization layer (321), wherein (and) one of films namely the interlayer insulation layer (323) and the passivation layer (322) is provided with the plurality of grooves, and the other of the films namely the interlayer insulation layer (323) and the passivation layer (322) is provided with the plurality of protrusions (See Fig. 5) (Notes: the limitation “buffer, first substrate, interlayer insulation layer, passivation layer, planarization layer” does not specify any particular materials such that the buffer layer, the first substrate, interlayer insulation layer, passivation layer, planarization layer support and/or interpose and/or cover between other layers meet the limitation).
As to claims 6 and 14, Park further discloses wherein every two adjacent protrusions are at equal intervals and all the protrusions have the same length (See Fig. 5, ¶ 0081). As to claims 8 and 16, Park further discloses wherein the height of the protrusions is the same as the depth of the grooves (See Fig. 5).
Claim(s) 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0098798 A1 to Park et al. (“Park”) and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0391513 A1 to Choi et al. (“Choi”) as applied to claims 6 and 14 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0187699 A1 to Ju et al. (“Ju”). The teachings of Park and Choi have been discussed above. As to claims 7 and 15, although Park and Choi do not further disclose wherein the length of the protrusions is greater than or equal to 2 um and less than or equal to the size of each sub-pixel in the display panel, Ju does disclose wherein the length (P3) of the protrusions (127) is greater than or equal to 2 um (See Fig. 2, ¶ 0047, ¶ 0048). In view of the teaching of Ju, 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 teaching of Park to have wherein the length of the protrusions is greater than or equal to 2 um and less than or equal to the size of each sub-pixel in the display panel because such a dimension further provides light diffusion effect while still allows flexibility and miniaturization of the device (See Park and Ju ¶ 0048).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1, 9, and 17 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
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 DAVID CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7438. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12-6.
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, JOSHUA BENITEZ can be reached at (571) 270-1435. 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.
/DAVID CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815
Prosecution Insights