2DETAILED 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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed on May 18, 2026, with respect to specifications, claims 3-5 and 13-15 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to specifications and to claims 35- and 13-15 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed for the 35 USC § 112 (b) rejection of claims 5 and 15 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Please see the rejection below for more details. Also, new 35 USC § 112 (b) rejection is found on claims 1 and 11 and on claims 8 and 18 due to the added limitation to parent claims 1 and 11, respectively.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to claims 1 and 11 have been fully considered and are persuasive in part. The applicant argues that Zhong does not teach “a color film layer” and instead teaches a “quantum dot layer.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. Zhong teaches the quantum dot layer emitting specific colors (R, G, B; see ¶ [0063] of English translation ) and, hence, reads into the claim language of “a color film layer.” The applicant argues that Zhong does not teach the added limitation of the hollow part of the conductive layer being configured to reduce optical reflection. The examiner agrees and withdraws the 35 USC § 102 rejection of claims 1 and 11. However, upon further search and considerations, the examiner finds that Kim teaches this limitation. Please see the 35 USC § 103 rejection of claims 1 and 11 below.
In summary, this application is not placed in a condition for an allowance.
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 hollow area exposing the color film layer, as required by claims 1 and 11 and as described in par. 0039, 0042 of the specification, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
As shown in Fig. 1, an insulation layer (60) is in between the hollow area (30a) and the color film layer (20). This effectively makes the insulating layer covering the color film layer despite of the presence of the hollow area. Hence, the hollow area does not expose the color film layer.
Similarly, the areas S1 and S2 and their requisite orthographic projections, as required in claim 5, are not shown or labelled in the figures.
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 11 and by extension, dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 recite “the hollow area” (line 5) not having any antecedence basis in the claims.
Claims 5 and 15 require a first area, S1, being “an overlap area of the transparent conductive layer on an orthographic projection of the first substrate and the pixel electrode layer on an orthographic projection of the first substrate.” It is not clear if S1 is the overlap area between the transparent conductive layer and an orthographic projection of the first substrate or if it is an overlap area between the transparent conductive layer and an orthographic projection of the pixel electrode or if it is an overlap area between the transparent conductive layer and the orthographic projection of the first substrate to the said transparent conductive layer. The phrase “on an orthographic projection of the first substrate is S1” is also confusing since it is not clear if the prepositional phrase applies to the pixel electrode layer or to the “an overlap area.”
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.
Claims 1-2, 6-7, 9, 11-12, 16-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhong (CN 113391485 B; see FOR received on 03 March 2024; see NPL mailed on 22 April 2026 for English translation) in view of Kim (US 2019/0181361 A1) and Yokoyama (US 2014/0022480 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Zhong teaches a display panel (Figs. 2 & 3 or alternatively, Fig. 5 or alternatively, Figs. 6-7), comprising:
a first substrate (10);
a color film layer (11; ¶ [0063]: each quantum dot emits specific colors; hence 11 is a color film layer), arranged on the first substrate;
a transparent conductive layer (12; see Par [0082] of English translation), arranged on the color film layer;
a protective layer (103, see method Figs. 4d or 8f; 103 is covering other elements underneath, hence it is a protective layer), arranged on the transparent conductive layer and covers the hollow area; and
a pixel electrode layer (15, see Figs. 3, 5, or 7), arranged on the protective layer.
However, Zhong does not teach: wherein the transparent conductive layer is provided with a hollow area exposing the color film layer, and the hollow area is configured to allow light to directly pass through the hollow area without passing through the transparent conductive layer, so as to reduce optical reflection.
Kim, in the same field of invention, teaches a display panel wherein the transparent conductive layer (CL1) is provided with a hollow area (OP2; see Figs. 12B, 12C) exposing the color film layer, and the hollow area is configured to allow light (¶ [0146]: external input light) to directly pass through the hollow area without passing through the transparent conductive layer, so as to reduce optical reflection (¶ [0146]).
A person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of the claimed invention, will find it obvious to combine the teachings of Kim into the device of Zhong to add at least one hollow area in the transparent conductive layer to allow light to pass through the hollow area without passing through the transparent conductive layer in order to reduce optical reflection. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Zhong in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of improving the image rendered by the display device (Kim ¶ [0006], [0148] ).
Zhong further teaches the protective layer to be an insulating film (¶ [0081] of English translation ). However Zhong in view of Kim does not teach: wherein the protective layer is configured to provide optical refractive index matching to reduce optical reflection.
Yokoyama, in the same field of invention, teaches a display device wherein the protective layer (119; Fig. 1B, ¶ [0073]: 119 is an insulating film ) is configured to provide optical refractive index (¶ [0074] ) matching to reduce optical reflection (¶ [0074]: difference of the refractive index between protective layer 119 and transparent conductive layer 121 is less than or equal to 10% ).
A person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of the claimed invention, will find it obvious to combine the teachings of Yokoyama into the device of Zhong in view of Kim to configure the optical reflective index of the protective layer to match such that the optical reflection is reduced. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Zhong in view of Kim in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of suppressing the total reflection of the light between the protective layer and the transparent conductive film, so that light loss can be reduced (Yokoyama ¶ [0074] ).
Regarding claim 2, the display panel as claimed in claim 1, wherein the pixel electrode layer comprises a plurality of spaced pixel electrodes (Zhong Figs. 1-3 and 7 show multiple 15s that are spaced between each other), and the hollow area is opposite to at least one of the pixel electrodes (Figs. 3, 4d and 7, 8f shows the pixel electrodes 15 are found on the top surface of the protective layer 103 while the hollow area of the transparent conductive layer 12 is found on the bottom surface of the protective layer, which is opposite to the top surface; alternatively, Fig. 5 shows 15 found on the bottom surface of 103 and 12 found on the top surface of 103).
Regarding claim 6, the display panel as claimed in claim 1, wherein a refractive index (Yokoyama ¶ [0074]) of the protective layer (119; ¶ [0073]: 119 is an insulating film) is D1, a refractive index (¶ [0074]) of the transparent conductive layer (121) is D2, and |D1-D2| < 0.37 (¶ [0074]: difference of the refractive index between 119 and 121 is less than or equal to 10%).
Regarding claim 7, Zhong in view of Kim and Yokoyama teaches the display panel as claimed in claim 6, and further teaches a material (Zhong Par. [0082] of the English translation: ITO, IZO) of the transparent conductive layer is indium tin oxide or indium zinc oxide or tin zinc oxide.
Zhong further teaches the protective layer (103) to be an insulating layer (see Par [0081] of English translation). However, Zhong did not explicitly teach the protective layer to be made of silicon oxide or silicon nitride.
Zhong also teaches another insulating layer (101) that is made of silicon oxide or silicon nitride (see Par [0090] of English translation).
A person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of the claimed invention, will find it obvious to substitute the unstated transparent insulating material of the protective layer with the silicon oxide or silicon nitride material of the another insulating layer of Zhong for the purpose of substituting equivalent materials known in the art for the same purpose of providing electrical insulation that are transparent. See also MPEP § 2143 (I)(B).
Regarding claim 9, the display panel as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a data line (33; see Zhong Figs. 3 or 5; also, par. [0092]: data line 2 is electrically connected to source 33 ), wherein the data line is arranged between the first substrate (10) and the color film layer (11), and the transparent conductive layer is arranged opposite to the data line (11 is located towards the top of the figures while data line 33 is located towards to bottom of the figures).
Regarding claim 11, Zhong teaches display panel (Figs. 2 & 3 or alternatively, Fig. 5 or alternatively, Figs. 6-7), comprising:
a first substrate (10), comprising a thin film transistor (3) thereon;
a color film layer (11; ¶ [0063]: each quantum dot emits specific colors; hence 11 is a color film layer), arranged on the first substrate;
a transparent conductive layer (12; see Par [0082] of English translation), arranged on the color film layer;
a protective layer (103, see method Figs. 4d or 8f), arranged on the transparent conductive layer and covers the hollow area; and
a pixel electrode layer (15, see Figs. 3, 5, or 7), arranged on the protective layer.
However, Zhong does not teach: wherein the transparent conductive layer is provided with a hollow area exposing the color film layer, and the hollow area is configured to allow light to directly pass through the hollow area without passing through the transparent conductive layer, so as to reduce optical reflection.
Kim, in the same field of invention, teaches a display panel wherein the transparent conductive layer is provided with a hollow area (OP2; see Figs. 12B, 12C) exposing the color film layer, and the hollow area is configured to allow light (¶ [0146]: external input light) to directly pass through the hollow area without passing through the transparent conductive layer, so as to reduce optical reflection (¶ [0146]).
A person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of the claimed invention, will find it obvious to combine the teachings of Kim into the device of Zhong to add at least one hollow area in the transparent conductive layer to allow light to pass through the hollow area without passing through the transparent conductive layer in order to reduce optical reflection. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Zhong in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of improving the image rendered by the display device (Kim ¶ [0006], [0148] ).
Zhong further teaches the protective layer to be an insulating film (¶ [0081] of English translation). However Zhong in view of Kim does not teach: wherein the protective layer is configured to provide optical refractive index matching to reduce optical reflection.
Yokoyama, in the same field of invention, teaches a display device wherein the protective layer (119; Fig. 1B, ¶ [0073]: 119 is an insulating film ) is configured to provide optical refractive index (¶ [0074] ) matching to reduce optical reflection (¶ [0074]: difference of the refractive index between protective layer 119 and transparent conductive layer 121 is less than or equal to 10% ).
A person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of the claimed invention, will find it obvious to combine the teachings of Yokoyama into the device of Zhong in view of Kim to configure the optical reflective index of the protective layer to match such that the optical reflection is reduced. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Zhong in view of Kim in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of suppressing the total reflection of the light between the protective layer and the transparent conductive film, so that light loss can be reduced (Yokoyama ¶ [0074] ).
Regarding claim 12, the display panel as claimed in claim 11, wherein the pixel electrode layer comprises a plurality of spaced pixel electrodes (Zhong Figs. 1-3 have multiple 15s that are spaced between each other), and the hollow area is opposite to at least one of the pixel electrodes (Figs. 3 and 7 shows the pixel electrodes 15 are found on the top surface of the protective layer 103 while the hollow area of the transparent conductive layer 12 is found on the bottom surface of the protective layer, which is opposite to the top surface; alternatively, Fig. 5 shows 15 found on the bottom surface of 103 and 12 found on the top surface of 103).
Regarding claim 16, the display panel as claimed in claim 11, wherein a refractive index (Yokoyama ¶ [0074]) of the protective layer (119; ¶ [0073]: 119 is an insulating film) is D1, a refractive index (¶ [0074]) of the transparent conductive layer (121) is D2, and |D1-D2| < 0.37 (¶ [0074]: difference of the refractive index between 119 and 121 is less than or equal to 10%).
Regarding claim 17, Zhong in view of Yokoyama teaches the display panel as claimed in claim 16, and further teaches a material (Zhong Par. [0082] of the English translation: ITO, ITZO) of the transparent conductive layer is indium tin oxide or indium zinc oxide or tin zinc oxide.
Zhong further teaches the protective layer (103) to be an insulating layer (see Par [0081] of English translation). However, Zhong did not explicitly teach the protective layer to be made of silicon oxide or silicon nitride.
Zhong also teaches another insulating layer (101) that is made of silicon oxide or silicon nitride (see Par [0090] of English translation).
A person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of the claimed invention, will find it obvious to substitute the unstated transparent insulating material of the protective layer with the silicon oxide or silicon nitride material of the another insulating layer of Zhong for the purpose of substituting equivalent materials known in the art for the same purpose of providing electrical insulation that are transparent. See also MPEP § 2143 (I)(B).
Regarding claim 19, the display panel as claimed in claim 11, further comprising a data line (33; see Zhong Figs. 3 or 5; also, par. [0092]: data line 2 is electrically connected to source 33 ), wherein the data line is arranged between the first substrate (10) and the color film layer (11), and the transparent conductive layer (11 is located towards the top of the figures while data line 33 is located towards to bottom of the figures) is arranged opposite to the data line.
Note: The examiner has noted that corresponding dependent claim limitations between claim sets 1-10 and 11-20 are exactly the same. For example, claims 3 and 13 are exactly the same except for their dependencies on claim 2 and 12, respectively. For the purpose of brevity, the examiner will reference the rejection of a claim in the second claim set to that of the corresponding claim in the first claim set.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhong (CN 113391485 B) as applied to claims 2 and/or 12 above, and further in view of Shen (US 2019/0043895 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Zhong teaches the display panel as claimed in claim 2, but does not teach: wherein the transparent conductive layer comprises: at least two first main electrodes, disposed with at least two first main electrodes spaced in a first direction; a first edge electrode, extending in a second direction and connected to a first end of the first main electrode; a second edge electrode, extending in the second direction and connected to a second end of the first main electrode; and a first branch electrode, connected to one of the first main electrodes and extends in a direction different from the first direction and the second direction; wherein the hollow area is formed between an adjacent first main electrode, the first edge electrode, the second edge electrode, and the first branch electrode.
Shen, in the same field of invention, teaches a display panel (Figs. 1-3), wherein the transparent conductive layer (140; ¶ [0027]: made of ITO or IZO, which is known in the art as transparent materials; also see ¶ [0028] ) comprises:
at least two first main electrodes (two left-most 142 in Fig. 2; see also ¶ [0026]), disposed with at least two first main electrodes spaced in a first direction (each 142 is arranged and spaced along the Y-axis);
a first edge electrode (top-most 144), extending in a second direction (X-axis) and connected to a first end (Figs. 2 & 3: where the top-most 144 meet with any of the two left-most 142) of the first main electrode;
a second edge electrode (second 144 from the top), extending in the second direction (X-axis) and connected to a second end (Figs. 2 & 3: where the second 144 from the top meet with any of the two left-most 142) of the first main electrode; and
a first branch electrode (146, see Fig. 3), connected to one of the first main electrodes (¶ [0026]) and extends in a direction (slanted directions; see ¶ [0026]) different from the first direction and the second direction;
wherein the hollow area (H1, see Examiner Fig. 1 below) is formed between an adjacent first main electrode, the first edge electrode, the second edge electrode, and the first branch electrode.
A person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of the claimed invention, will find it obvious to combine the teachings of Shen into the device of Zhong to modify the transparent conductive layer to include at least two main electrodes spaced in a first direction, a first and a second edge electrode that are both extending in a second direction, and a first branch electrode extending in a direction different from the first and the second direction. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Zhong in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of using the modified transparent conductive layer as a light-shielding mesh (Shen ¶ [0027]) to prevent light leakage (¶ [0027], [0028]), thereby improving the image rendered by the display device.
Regarding claim 13, Zhong teaches the display panel as claimed in claim 12 and further teaches the limitations of claim 13. See claim 3 rejection above.
PNG
media_image1.png
693
567
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
771
584
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner Fig. 1. Taken from Shen Figs. 2 & 3 showing hollow area H1.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhong (CN 113391485 B) in view of Shen (US 2019/0043895 A1) as applied to claims 3 and/or 13 above, and further in view of Lee (US 2019/0041704 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Zhong et al. teach display panel as claimed in claim 3, wherein the pixel electrode (132, Shen Figs. 1 & 3 and ¶ [0034]) further comprises:
a border electrode (B, see Examiner Fig. 2), enclosed in an enclosed area (boxed area in Examiner Fig. 2);
a second main electrode (S), connected to the border electrode and located within the enclosed area; and
a third main electrode (T) connected to the border electrode.
PNG
media_image3.png
771
584
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner Fig. 2. Taken from Shen Fig 3 showing pixel electrode artifacts.
However, Zhong et al does not teach: wherein the third main electrode intersects with the second main electrode and wherein the second main electrode and the third main electrode divide the enclosed area into a plurality of sub regions; and a plurality of second branch electrodes, distributed in the sub regions, wherein each of the sub regions is connected to the second main electrode; wherein the second branch electrode is misaligned with the first branch electrode within the sub regions.
Lee, in the same field of invention, teaches a pixel electrode (15, see ¶ [0025]: “the second transparent conductive layer 15, which functions as the pixel electrode”), wherein the third main electrode (T, see Examiner Fig. 3) intersects with the second main electrode (S), and wherein the second main electrode (S) and the third main electrode (T) divide the enclosed area into a plurality of sub regions (R1-R4); and
a plurality of second branch electrodes (B; ¶ [0030]: “the TITO film (i.e. the second transparent conductive layer 15) is a patterned ITO film with several slits”), distributed in the sub regions, wherein each of the sub regions is connected to the second main electrode;
wherein the second branch electrode is misaligned with the first branch electrode within the sub regions (Zhong in view of Shen and Lee teaches this since Shen Fig. 3 shows the first branch electrodes 146 are above the pixel electrodes 132, hence are not aligned with the pixel electrodes; furthermore, the first branch electrodes and are slanted in a different direction than the second branch electrodes in Lee) .
PNG
media_image4.png
602
384
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Examiner Fig. 3. Taken from Lee Fig 3 showing pixel electrode artifacts.
A person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of the claimed invention, will find it obvious to combine the teachings of Lee into the device of Zhong et al to have the second main electrode and the third main electrode intersect in a way wherein both electrodes divide the enclosed area into a plurality of sub region and add a plurality of second branch electrodes in each of the sub regions, such that the second branch electrodes are not aligned with the first branch electrodes. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Zhong in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of enabling a three-electrode design (Lee ¶ [0035]) using a TFT transistor controlling the transparent conductive layer (13 / TITO) and the pixel electrode layer (15 / MITO) (see ¶ [0027], ¶ [0030]), forming the transparent conductive layer and pixel electrode layer together to cover an area equal to the area of the pixel region (PX) for the further purpose of improving the image quality (¶ [0033], ¶ [0027]; Table 1: slit width) and transmittance of the display device (¶ [0035]).
Regarding claim 14, Zhong et al teaches the display panel as claimed in claim 13 and further teaches the limitations of claim 14 .See claim 4 rejection above.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhong (CN 113391485 B) as applied to claims 1 and/or 11 above, and further in view of Lee (US 2019/0041704 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Zhong teaches the display panel as claimed in claim 1, but does not teach: wherein an overlap area of the transparent conductive layer on an orthographic projection of the first substrate and the pixel electrode layer on an orthographic projection of the first substrate is S1, and an area of the pixel electrode layer on the orthographic projection of the first substrate is S2, S1/S2=1/2.
Lee, in the same field of invention, teaches a display panel wherein an overlap area (the area of the overlap of the vertical projections of 13 and 15 on substrate 11, see Figs. 1; also shown as 3E in Figs. 5B-5C and ¶ [0038]) of the transparent conductive layer (13 / MITO layer, see also ¶ [0038]) on an orthographic projection (vertical projection of 13 on 11, see Fig. 1) of the first substrate (11) and the pixel electrode layer (15 / TITO layer; ¶ [0038]: “the second transparent conductive layer 15 functioning as the pixel electrode PE”) on an orthographic projection (vertical projection of 15 on 11, see Fig. 1) of the first substrate is S1, and an area of the pixel electrode layer on the orthographic projection of the first substrate is S2 (the area of the vertical projection of 15 on 11), and wherein S1 and S2 a can be optimized in a range (¶ [0038]: “For example, the coverage area of the full MTIO film is smaller than the coverage area of the patterned TITO film).”; also Figs. 6-8 and ¶ [0039]-[0041] show various overlapping schemes). Hence, Zhong in view of Lee teaches: S1/S2=1/2.
A person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of the claimed invention, will find it obvious to combine the teachings of Lee into the device of Zhong to set the ratio of the overlap area of the orthographic projection of the transparent conductive layer and the pixel electrode layer on the first substrate to the area of the orthographic projection of the pixel electrode layer on the first substrate to be exactly ½. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Zhong in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of optimizing the ranges of the ratio of the abovementioned areas for the purpose of compensating the color shifting of the display panel when viewed from the side (Lee ¶ [0038]: “In the second embodiment, the bright region and the dark region in each pixel region of the LCS mode LCD panel are created by partially overlapping the upper and lower electrodes”).
Regarding claim 15, Zhong teaches the display panel as claimed in claim 11 and further teaches the limitations of claim 15. See claim 5 rejection above.
Claims 8, 10, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhong (CN 113391485 B) in view of Yokoyama (US 2014/0022480 A1) as applied to claims 6 and/or 16 above, and further in view of Peng (US 2022/0003903 A1) and Xu (CN 101308223 B; see NPL for English translation mailed on 22 April 2026).
Regarding claim 8, Zhong et al teaches the display panel as claimed in claim 6. However, Zhong et al does not teach the display panel further comprising an insulation layer arranged between the color film layer and the transparent conductive layer.
Peng, in the same field of invention, teaches a display panel (see Title) comprising an insulation layer (13, see Fig. 2 and ¶ [0051]) arranged between the color film layer (12) and the transparent conductive layer (14).
A person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of the claimed invention, will find it obvious to combine the teachings of Peng into the device of Zhong et al to insert an insulating layer in between the color film layer and the transparent conductive layer. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Zhong et al in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of using the insulating layer as a protective layer for preventing water and oxygen corrosion (Peng ¶ [0051]).
However Zhong et al does not teach the display device wherein a refractive index of the color film layer is D3, and a refractive index of the insulation layer is D4, D3<D4<D2.
Xu, in the same field of invention, teaches a display device with a color film layer (114) wherein the refractive index of the protective layer (116b) and the refractive index of the transparent conductive layer (116a) are optimized (¶ [0064]) to suit to the material compositions and the thicknesses of the protective layer and the transparent conductive layer (¶ [0063]-[0065]). Hence, Zhong et al in view of Xu teaches the display device wherein a refractive index of the color film layer is D3, and a refractive index of the insulation layer is D4, D3<D4<D2.
A person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of the claimed invention, will find it obvious to combine the teachings of Xu into the device of Zhong et al to set the refractive index of the transparent conductive layer, D2, the refractive index of the color film layer, D3, and the refractive index of the insulating layer, D4, to be D3<D4<D2. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Zhong et al in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of optimizing the ranges of the refractive indices of the abovementioned layers in order to allow different wavelengths of light (L) to pass through the display device properly to allow minimal distortion of the display image (Xu ¶ [0067]-¶ [0068]), with the ordinary artisan noting that it is known in the art that the refractive index of each layer is based on the material composition and thickness (Xu ¶ [0063]) and further notes that Zhong et al teaches a display device that emits light from the transistor layer outwards through the color film layer, the insulating layer, and the transparent conductive layer (Zhong [0003]-[0004]). Hence, the ordinary artisan would also find it obvious to optimize the refractive index of the color film layer in conjunction with the materials and thicknesses of the insulation layer and transparent conductive layer (See MPEP § 2144.02: reliance on scientific theory) .
Regarding claim 10, the display panel as claimed in claim 8, further comprising a second substrate (20, see Zhong Fig. 2) and a black matrix (21), wherein the second substrate is arranged opposite to the first substrate (20 is on the top side of the figure; 10 is on the bottom side of the figure) and is located on a side (top side of 15) of the pixel electrode layer away from the first substrate, and the black matrix is oriented towards a side (bottom side of 20) of the second substrate towards the first substrate; the black matrix is set opposite to the data line (data line 33 is located towards the bottom of the figures; see Figs. 3 or 5; also, par. [0092]: data line 2 is electrically connected to source 33).
Regarding claim 18, Zhong et al teaches the display panel as claimed in claim 16 and further teaches the limitations of claim 18. See claim 8 rejection above.
Regarding claim 20, Zhong et al teaches the display panel as claimed in claim 18 and further teaches the limitations of claim 20. See claim 10 rejection above.
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 DOUGLAS YAP whose telephone number is (703)756-1946. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Zandra Smith can be reached at (571) 272-2429. 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.
/DOUGLAS YAP/Assistant Examiner, Art Unit 2899
/ZANDRA V SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights