Notice of 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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2017/0358604 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1: Lee teaches (e.g., Fig. 2 includes most element designation of Fig. 1) a display panel, comprising:
a display substrate ([0044]: upper region of 100b including CF and WT),
wherein the display substrate includes a TFT substrate ([0022]: TFT; Fig. 2 includes most element designation of Fig. 1),
a plurality of light-emitting devices ([0044]: 120), and
a light-absorbing layer ([0044] and [0049]: 160; “the insulation layer 160 has opacity, the insulation layer 160 may also make light with different colors emitted by adjacent light emitting elements 120 not interfere with each other”; see [0049]: thus layer 160 functions as a light-absorbing layer);
the plurality of light-emitting devices (120) and the light-absorbing layer (160) are provided on a side of the TFT substrate (110);
the light-absorbing layer (160) is provided in a spacing area in each of the plurality of light-emitting devices (120); and
the light-absorbing layer (160) is provided around each of the plurality of light-emitting devices (120); and
a color filter substrate ([0033]: layer including the CF),
wherein the color filter substrate (CF) is disposed opposite to the display substrate (110);
the color filter substrate includes a first substrate ([0031]: 142), a plurality of color filters (CF), and a black matrix ([0031]: BK);
the plurality of color filters (CF) and the black matrix (BK) are provided on a side of the first substrate (140);
wherein the black matrix (BK) is provided with a plurality of hollow areas (opening in the BK),
each of the plurality of color filters (CF) is disposed in a corresponding one of the plurality of hollow areas (opening in the BK), and
the color filter (BK) is disposed relative with a corresponding one of the plurality of light-emitting devices (120);
wherein the color filter substrate includes a plurality of color conversion layers ([0031]: WT) and
a plurality of reflective blocking walls ([0045]: 130b is a silver material is reflective),
each of the plurality of color conversion layers (WT) is provided on a side of the color filter (CF) away from the first substrate,
the plurality of reflective blocking walls (130b) are provided on a side of the black matrix (BK) away from the first substrate;
wherein a side of the display substrate provided with the plurality of light-emitting devices (120) and the light-absorbing layer (160) faces a side of the color filter substrate (142/CF) provided with the plurality of color conversion layers (WT) and the plurality of reflective blocking walls (130b).
Alternatively, should the interpretation of the limitation: “the black matrix is provided with a plurality of hollow areas” interpreted as a block of black matrix with separated hollow portion therein, this limitation is taught as shown below.
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.
Claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2017/0358604 A1) in view of An (US 2019/0165316 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1: Lee teaches (e.g., Fig. 2 includes most element designation of Fig. 1) a display panel, comprising:
a display substrate ([0031] and [0044]: region of 100b/110),
wherein the display substrate includes a TFT substrate ([0022]: TFT; Fig. 2 includes most element designation of Fig. 1),
a plurality of light-emitting devices ([0044]: 120), and
a light-absorbing layer ([0044] and [0049]: 160; “the insulation layer 160 has opacity, the insulation layer 160 may also make light with different colors emitted by adjacent light emitting elements 120 not interfere with each other”; see [0049]: thus layer 160 functions as a light-absorbing layer);
the plurality of light-emitting devices (120) and the light-absorbing layer (160) are provided on a side of the TFT substrate (110);
the light-absorbing layer (160) is provided in a spacing area in each of the plurality of light-emitting devices (120); and
the light-absorbing layer (160) is provided around each of the plurality of light-emitting devices (120); and
a color filter substrate ([0023] and [0033]: 140 layer including the CF),
wherein the color filter substrate (CF) is disposed opposite to the display substrate (110);
the color filter substrate includes a first substrate ([0031]: 142), a plurality of color filters (CF), and a black matrix ([0031]: BK);
the plurality of color filters (CF) and the black matrix (BK) are provided on a side of the first substrate (140);
wherein the black matrix (BK) is provided with a plurality of hollow areas (opening in the BK),
each of the plurality of color filters (CF) is disposed in a corresponding one of the plurality of hollow areas (opening in the BK), and
the color filter (BK) is disposed relative with a corresponding one of the plurality of light-emitting devices (120);
wherein the color filter substrate includes a plurality of color conversion layers ([0031]: WT), and
a plurality of reflective blocking walls ([0045]: 130b is a silver material an silver is reflective),
each of the plurality of color conversion layers (WT) is provided on a side of the color filter (CF) away from the first substrate,
the plurality of reflective blocking walls (130b) are provided on a side of the black matrix (BK) away from the first substrate;
wherein a side of the display substrate provided with the plurality of light-emitting devices (120) and the light-absorbing layer (160) faces a side of the color filter substrate (142/CF) provided with the plurality of color conversion layers (WT) and the plurality of reflective blocking walls (130b).
Lee does not expressly teach that the black matrix is provided with a plurality of hollow areas.
An teaches (e.g., Figs. 5, 8-9) a display panel comprising a black matrix ([0054]-[0055]: BM);
An further teaches that the black matrix ([0054]-[0055]: BM) is provided with a plurality of hollow areas (Figs. 8-9: [0054]-[0055] and [0066]: BM includes hollow areas; not a completely solid structure).
Note that An also teaches a color filter substrate (Fig. 5; [0066]: CSUB)
the color filter substrate (CSUB) includes a first substrate ([0066]: SUB2), a plurality of color filters ([0066]: CF), and a black matrix ([0066]: BM).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include in the display panel of Lee, the black matrix being provided with a plurality of hollow areas, as taught by An, for the benefits of separating the different pixels and avoiding the mixing of adjacent pixel colors; thus improving image clarity and quality.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2017/0358604 A1) in view of An (US 2019/0165316 A1) as applied above and further in view of Cok (US 2008/0129189 A1).
Regarding claim 2: Lee and An teach the claim limitation of the display panel of claim 1, on which this claim depends.
Lee as modified by An does not expressly teach that a material of the light-absorbing layer comprises a black metal oxide.
Cok teaches (e.g., Figs. 1-6) a display panel comprising a light-absorbing layer ([0042]);
Cok further teaches that the light-absorbing layer comprises a black metal oxide ([0042]: a suitable light absorbing material includes metal oxides as a black pigment material).
It is noted that black metal oxide are art recognized for their suitability as a light-absorbing material.
Applicant is reminded that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol.
"Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.); MPEP 2144.07.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include in the display panel of Lee as modified by An, the light-absorbing layer comprising a black metal oxide, as taught by Cok, for the benefits of reducing colors bleeding in other parts of the display and improving image quality by avoiding light reflecting in the wrong area and possible causing the display drivers to switch on and function based on any reflective light.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2017/0358604 A1) in view of An (US 2019/0165316 A1) as applied above and further in view of Toyoguchi et al. (US 2009/0322207 A1).
Regarding claim 3: Lee, An and Cok teach the claim limitation of the display panel of claim 2, on which this claim depends, on which this claim depends.
Although, Lee as modified by Anand Cok does not expressly teach that the black metal oxide comprises a molybdenum oxide,
Toyoguchi teaches (e.g., Figs. 1A-1B) a display panel comprising a black metal oxide ([0033]);
Toyoguchi further teaches that that the black metal oxide comprises a molybdenum oxide ([0033]).
It is noted that black metal oxide are art recognized for their suitability as a light-absorbing material.
Applicant is reminded that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol.
"Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.); MPEP 2144.07.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include in the display panel of Lee as modified by An and Cok, the black metal oxide comprising a molybdenum oxide, as this is a known material suitable for light absorption, and allowing control of light reflections in the device and thus improving image quality.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2017/0358604 A1) in view of An (US 2019/0165316 A1) as applied above and further in view of Shim et al. (US 2022/0140014 A1).
Regarding claim 4: Lee and An teach the claim limitation of the display panel of claim 1, on which this claim depends.
Lee as modified by An does not expressly teach that the light-absorbing layer comprises:
a first metal layer,
a light-transmitting medium layer, and
a second metal layer stacked in sequence,
wherein the first metal layer is provided adjacent to the TFT substrate;
the first metal layer comprises one or more of copper, silver and aluminum;
the second metal layer comprises one or more of molybdenum and titanium; and the light-transmitting medium layer comprises one or more of metal oxide, silicon oxide and silicon nitride.
Shim teaches (e.g., Fig. 9) a display panel comprising a light-absorbing layer ([0163]-[0166]: 400);
Shim further teaches that the light-absorbing layer comprises
a first metal layer ([0163]-[0166]: 413),
a light-transmitting medium layer ([0163]-[0166]: 430), and
a second metal layer ([0163]-[0166]: 411) stacked in sequence,
wherein the first metal layer (413) is provided adjacent to a TFT substrate ([0166]: 100);
the first metal layer comprises one or more of copper, silver and aluminum ([0158]: silver; [0163]: “FIG. 9 may be interpreted such that the shield layer 400 of FIG. 8 further includes the light-absorbing layer 420 located between the first metal layer 411 and the inorganic material layer 430”);
the second metal layer comprises one or more of molybdenum and titanium ([0151]: titanium; [0163]: “FIG. 9 may be interpreted such that the shield layer 400 of FIG. 8 further includes the light-absorbing layer 420 located between the first metal layer 411 and the inorganic material layer 430”); and
the light-transmitting medium layer comprises one or more of metal oxide, silicon oxide and silicon nitride ([0160] and [0163]: 430 comprises silicon nitride; [0163]: “FIG. 9 may be interpreted such that the shield layer 400 of FIG. 8 further includes the light-absorbing layer 420 located between the first metal layer 411 and the inorganic material layer 430”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include in the display panel of Lee as modified by An, the light-absorbing layer comprising a first metal layer, a light-transmitting medium layer, and a second metal layer stacked in sequence, wherein the first metal layer is provided adjacent to the TFT substrate; the first metal layer comprises one or more of copper, silver and aluminum; the second metal layer comprises one or more of molybdenum and titanium; and the light-transmitting medium layer comprises one or more of metal oxide, silicon oxide and silicon nitride, as taught by Shim, for the benefits of modulating and controlling the light flux quality throughout the display device.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2017/0358604 A1) in view of An (US 2019/0165316 A1) as applied above and further in view of Ho et al. (US 2017/0292912 A1).
Regarding claim 5: Lee and An teach the claim limitation of the display panel of claim 1, on which this claim depends.
Lee as modified by An does not expressly teach that a material of the light-absorbing layer comprises an organic black material.
Ho teaches a display device comprising a light absorbing layer ([0039]);
Ho further teaches that a material of the light-absorbing layer comprises an organic black material ([0039]).
Organic black material is an art recognized material suitable for its use a light-absorbing layer.
Applicant is reminded that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol.
"Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.); MPEP 2144.07.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include in the display panel of Lee as modified by An and Cok, the material of the light-absorbing layer comprising an organic black material, as taught by Ho, since this material is known for its suitability as a light absorption material, and thus, allowing control of light reflections in the device; thereby, improving image quality.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2017/0358604 A1) in view of An (US 2019/0165316 A1) as applied above and further in view of Imada (US 2021/0320087 A1).
Regarding claim 6: Lee and An teach the claim limitation of the display panel of claim 1, on which this claim depends.
Lee as modified by An does not expressly teach that a material of the plurality of reflective blocking walls comprises an organic material and an inorganic material;
the organic material comprises one or more of BT resin, silica gel, methyl methacrylate, and polyimide; and the inorganic material comprises one or more of titanium dioxide and tantalum pentoxide.
Imada teaches (e.g., Figs. 1-3) a display panel comprising
a material of a plurality of reflective blocking walls ([0038]-[0039], [0097] and [0119]-[0120]: 11/15) comprises an organic material and an inorganic material ([0120]);
the organic material comprises one or more of BT resin, silica gel, methyl methacrylate, and polyimide ([0119]-[0120]: BT resin); and
the inorganic material comprises one or more of titanium dioxide and tantalum pentoxide ([0120]: titanium dioxide).
BT resin as an organic material and titanium dioxide an inorganic material are art recognized materials suitable for forming reflective blocking walls.
Applicant is reminded that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol.
"Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.); MPEP 2144.07.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include in the display panel of Lee as modified by An, the material of the plurality of reflective blocking walls comprising an organic material and an inorganic material; the organic material comprises one or more of BT resin, silica gel, methyl methacrylate, and polyimide; and the inorganic material comprises one or more of titanium dioxide and tantalum pentoxide, taught by Imada, as these are known as materials suitable for their reflective properties; one of ordinary skill in the art would recognized to employ these materials for the benefits or modulating the light inside the device for improved image clarity.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2017/0358604 A1) in view of An (US 2019/0165316 A1) as applied above and further in view of Lim et al. (US 2021/0288117 A1).
Regarding claim 7: Lee and An teach the claim limitation of the display panel of claim 1, on which this claim depends.
Lee as modified by An does not expressly teach that the height of each of the plurality of reflective blocking walls is greater than a height of the color conversion layer.
Lim teaches (e.g., Fig. 1) a display panel comprising reflective blocking walls ([0060]: 403) and color conversion layer ([0061]: 425).
Lim further teaches that the reflective blocking walls ([0060]: 403) is greater than a height of the color conversion layer ([0061]: 425).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include in the display panel of Lee as modified by An, the reflective blocking walls and color conversion layer, wherein the height of each of the plurality of reflective blocking walls is greater than a height of the color conversion layer, as taught by Lim, for the benefit of more completely contain the light exiting through the color conversion layer, and thus improving the amount of light flux, which improves the optical efficiency of the display.
Regarding claim 8: Lee, An and Lim teach the claim limitation of the display panel of claim 7, on which this claim depends.
Lee as modified by An and Lim teaches that a height difference between the reflective blocking wall (Lim: 403) and the color conversion layer (Lim: 425) is greater than 1/10 of a height of a light-emitting device (Lim: [0050]: OLED: 311/303/305).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2017/0358604 A1) in view of An (US 2019/0165316 A1) as applied above and further in view of Liu et al. (US 2021/0273202 A1) and Kuniyasu et al. (US 2018/0326693 A1).
Regarding claim 9: Lee and An teach the claim limitation of the display panel of claim 1, on which this claim depends.
Lee as modified by An does not expressly teach that a material of the plurality of reflective blocking walls comprises a hydrophilic material, and
the plurality of color conversion layers is made of a hydrophobic material.
Liu teaches (e.g., Fig. 1) a display panel comprising reflective blocking walls ([0030]-[0033]: 12/13);
Liu further teaches that a material of the plurality of reflective blocking walls comprises a hydrophilic material ([0030]-[0033]: 12/13).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include in the display panel of Lee as modified by An, the material of the plurality of reflective blocking walls comprising a hydrophilic material, as taught by Liu, for the benefits of drawing humidity away from light emitting devices and thus improving device liability.
Kuniyasu teaches a display panel comprising a color conversion layer ([0205]-[0206]: 12);
Kuniyasu further teaches that the plurality of color conversion layers is made of a hydrophobic material ([0205]-[0206]: 12).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include in the display panel of Lee as modified by An and Liu, the color conversion layer being made of a hydrophobic material, as taught by Kuniyasu, for the benefits of keeping humidity away from the color conversion layers, so avoid unwanted humidity and thus improving its liability.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2017/0358604 A1) in view of An (US 2019/0165316 A1) as applied above and further in view of Joo et al. (US 2021/0408162 A1).
Regarding claim 10: Lee and An teach the claim limitation of the display panel of claim 1, on which this claim depends,
wherein the side of the display substrate provided with the plurality of light-emitting devices (Lee: 120) and the light-absorbing layer (Lee: 160) faces is adhered to the side of the color filter substrate (Lee: CF/142/WT) provided with the plurality of color conversion layers (Lee: WT) and the plurality of reflective blocking walls (Lee: 130b).
Joo teaches (e.g., Fig. 11; using Figs. 1-3 for elements designation; see [0091]: FIG. 11 is a cross-sectional view taken along the line I-I′ of FIG. 1) a display panel comprising a display substrate ([0092]-[0093] and [0097]-[0099]: first substrate 100/ first electrodes 110 /129 / second electrode 130; plurality of light emitting layers 121, 122, and 123) and color filter substrate ([0092]-[0097]: plurality of color filters RCF, BCF, and GCF; a plurality of color conversion patterns RQD and GQD; 190);
Joo further teaches that the side of the display substrate ([0092]-[0093] and [0097]-[0099]) is adhered to the color filter substrate ([0092]-[0093] and [0097]-[0099]) through an adhesive layer ([0101]-[0102]: 150).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include in the display panel of Lee as modified by An, the display substrate being adhered to the color filter substrate through an adhesive layer, as taught by Joo, for the benefits on enhancing the adhesion and cohesion of the display substrate and the color filter substrate, and thus, improve device liability by avoiding delamination of the different layers of the device.
Claims 11 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2017/0358604 A1) in view of An (US 2019/0165316 A1) and Lim et al. (US 2021/0288117 A1).
Regarding independent claim 11: Lee teaches (e.g., Fig. 2 includes most element designation of Fig. 1) a manufacturing method of a display panel, comprising:
providing a TFT substrate ([0022]: TFT; Fig. 2 includes most element designation of Fig. 1),
wherein a plurality of light-emitting devices ([0044]: 120) is transferred on the TFT substrate;
forming a light-absorbing layer ([0044] and [0049]: 160; “the insulation layer 160 has opacity, the insulation layer 160 may also make light with different colors emitted by adjacent light emitting elements 120 not interfere with each other”; see [0049]: thus layer 160 functions as a light-absorbing layer) on the TFT substrate,
wherein the light-absorbing layer (160) is provided in a spacing area in each of the plurality of light-emitting devices (120) and around each of the plurality of light-emitting devices to define a display substrate (Fig. 1; [0021]-[0023] and [0044]: region of 130b/110);
providing a first base ([0023] and [0031]: 140),
wherein the first base comprises a first substrate ([0031]: 142),
a plurality of color filters ([0033]: layer including the CF), and
a black matrix ([0031]: BK);
wherein the plurality of color filters (CF) and the black matrix (BK) are provided on a side of the first substrate (142),
the black matrix (BK) is provided with a plurality of hollow areas (space between black matrix BK),
each of the plurality of color filters (CF) is disposed in a corresponding one of the plurality of hollow areas (space between the black matrix BK), and the color filter (CF) is disposed relative with a corresponding one of the plurality of light-emitting devices (120);
forming a plurality of color conversion layers ([0031]: WT) on a side of each of the plurality of color filters (CF) away from the first substrate, and
forming a plurality of reflective blocking walls ([0045]: 130b is a silver material an silver is reflective) on a side of the black matrix (BK) away from the first substrate, to define a color filter substrate ([0023] and [0033]: 140 layer including the CF); and
providing an adhesive layer ([0036]: 150),
wherein the adhesive layer (150) is provided between a side of the display substrate (130b/110) provided with the plurality of light-emitting devices (120) and the light-absorbing layer (160) and a side of the color filter substrate (140) provided with the plurality of color conversion layers (WT) to connect the display substrate (130b/110) and the color filter substrate (140) to form the display panel (Fig. 2; [0043]-[0048]).
Alternatively, Lee does not expressly teach that the black matrix is provided with a plurality of hollow areas; the color filter substrate is provided with the reflective blocking wall.
An teaches (e.g., Figs. 5, 8-9) a display panel comprising a black matrix ([0054]-[0055]: BM);
An further teaches that the black matrix ([0054]-[0055]: BM) is provided with a plurality of hollow areas (Figs. 8-9: [0054]-[0055] and [0066]: BM includes hollow areas; not a completely solid structure).
Note that An also teaches a color filter substrate (Fig. 5; [0066]: CSUB)
the color filter substrate (CSUB) includes a first substrate ([0066]: SUB2), a plurality of color filters ([0066]: CF), and a black matrix ([0066]: BM).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include in the display panel of Lee, the black matrix being provided with a plurality of hollow areas, as taught by An, for the benefits of separating the different pixels and avoiding the mixing of adjacent pixel colors; thus improving image clarity and quality.
Lim teaches (e.g., Fig. 1) a display panel comprising reflective blocking walls ([0060]: 403) and a color filter substrate ([0057]: 400) including a color conversion layer ([0061]: 425).
Lim further teaches that the color filter substrate ([0057]: 400) is provided with the reflective blocking wall ([0060]: 403).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include in the display panel of Lee as modified by An, the display panel, wherein the color filter substrate is provided with the reflective blocking wall, as taught by Lim, for the benefit of more completely contain the light exiting through the color conversion layer, and thus improving the amount of light flux, which further improves the optical efficiency of the display device.
Regarding claim 19: Lee, An and Lim teach the claim limitation of the manufacturing method of claim 11, on which this claim depends,
wherein a height of the reflective blocking wall is greater than a height of each of the plurality of color conversion layers.
Lee as modified by An does not expressly teach that the height of each of the plurality of reflective blocking walls is greater than a height of the color conversion layer.
Lim teaches (e.g., Fig. 1) a display panel comprising reflective blocking walls ([0060]: 403) and color conversion layer ([0061]: 425).
Lim further teaches that the reflective blocking walls ([0060]: 403) is greater than a height of the color conversion layer ([0061]: 425).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include in the display panel of Lee as modified by An, the reflective blocking walls and color conversion layer, wherein the height of each of the plurality of reflective blocking walls is greater than a height of the color conversion layer, as taught by Lim, for the benefit of more completely contain the light exiting through the color conversion layer, and thus improving the amount of light flux, which improves the optical efficiency of the display.
Regarding claim 20: Lee, An and Lim teach the claim limitation of the manufacturing method of claim 19, on which this claim depends,
wherein the height difference between the reflective blocking wall and the color conversion layer is greater than 1/10 of the height of the plurality of light-emitting device.
Lee as modified by An and Lim teaches that a height difference between the reflective blocking wall (Lim: 403) and the color conversion layer (Lim: 425) is greater than 1/10 of a height of a light-emitting device (Lim: [0050]: OLED: 311/303/305).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2017/0358604 A1) in view of An (US 2019/0165316 A1) and Lim et al. (US 2021/0288117 A1) as applied above and further in view of Liu et al. (US 2021/0273202 A1) and Kuniyasu et al. (US 2018/0326693 A1).
Regarding claim 12: Lee and An teach the claim limitation of the manufacturing method of claim 11, on which this claim depends,
Lee as modified by An does not expressly teach that
a material of the reflective blocking wall comprises a hydrophilic material, and
a material of the plurality of color conversion layers comprises a hydrophobic material.
Liu teaches (e.g., Fig. 1) a display panel comprising reflective blocking walls ([0030]-[0033]: 12/13);
Liu further teaches that a material of the plurality of reflective blocking walls comprises a hydrophilic material ([0030]-[0033]: 12/13).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include in the display panel of Lee as modified by An, the material of the plurality of reflective blocking walls comprising a hydrophilic material, as taught by Liu, for the benefits of drawing humidity away from light emitting devices and thus improving device liability.
Kuniyasu teaches a display panel comprising a color conversion layer ([0205]-[0206]: 12);
Kuniyasu further teaches that the plurality of color conversion layers is made of a hydrophobic material ([0205]-[0206]: 12).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include in the display panel of Lee as modified by An and Liu, the color conversion layer being made of a hydrophobic material, as taught by Kuniyasu, for the benefits of keeping humidity away from the color conversion layers, so avoid unwanted humidity and thus improving its liability.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2017/0358604 A1) in view of An (US 2019/0165316 A1) and Lim et al. (US 2021/0288117 A1), Liu et al. (US 2021/0273202 A1) and Kuniyasu et al. (US 2018/0326693 A1) as applied above and further in view of Murata et al. (US 2013/0026341 A1).
Regarding claim 13: Lee, An, Lim, Liu and Kuniyasu teach the claim limitation of the manufacturing method of claim 12, on which this claim depends,
Lee as modified by An, Lim, Liu and Kuniyasu does not expressly teach that the forming the plurality of color conversion layers on the side of each of the plurality of color filters away from the first substrate comprises:
forming the plurality of color conversion layers using a doctor-coating process; and
wherein the forming the reflective blocking wall on the side of the black matrix away from the first substrate comprises:
forming the reflective blocking wall using a spraying process.
Murata teaches a method comprising forming a display panel comprising
forming layers using a doctor-coating process ([0069]); and using a spraying process ([0069]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include the method of Lee, An, Liu and Kuniyasu, the method of forming layers using a doctor-coating process and using a spraying process, as taught by Murata because these method are suitable coating processes known to yield predictably good results in coating process.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious because all the claimed elements (color conversion layers; reflective blocking wall; black matrix; first substrate) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398 (2007). "If a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond that person's skill." Id.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2017/0358604 A1) in view of An (US 2019/0165316 A1) and Lim et al. (US 2021/0288117 A1) as applied above and further in view of Cok (US 2008/0129189 A1).
Regarding claim 14: Lee, An and Lim teach the claim limitation of the manufacturing method of claim 11, on which this claim depends,
Lee as modified by An and Lim does not expressly teach that
wherein a material of the light-absorbing layer comprises a black metal oxide.
Cok teaches (e.g., Figs. 1-6) a display panel comprising a light-absorbing layer ([0042]);
Cok further teaches that the light-absorbing layer comprises a black metal oxide ([0042]: a suitable light absorbing material includes metal oxides as a black pigment material).
It is noted that black metal oxide are art recognized for their suitability as a light-absorbing material.
Applicant is reminded that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol.
"Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.); MPEP 2144.07.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include in the display panel of Lee as modified by An, the light-absorbing layer comprising a black metal oxide, as taught by Cok, for the benefits of reducing colors bleeding in other parts of the display and improving image quality by avoiding light reflecting in the wrong area and possible causing the display drivers to switch on and function based on any reflective light.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2017/0358604 A1) in view of An (US 2019/0165316 A1) and Lim et al. (US 2021/0288117 A1) as applied above and further in view of Toyoguchi et al. (US 2009/0322207 A1).
Regarding claim 15: Lee, An, Lim and Cok teach the claim limitation of the manufacturing method of claim 14, on which this claim depends.
Lee as modified by An, Lim and Cok does not expressly teach that the black metal oxide comprises a molybdenum oxide.
Toyoguchi teaches (e.g., Figs. 1A-1B) a display panel comprising a black metal oxide ([0033]);
Toyoguchi further teaches that that the black metal oxide comprises a molybdenum oxide ([0033]).
It is noted that black metal oxide are art recognized for their suitability as a light-absorbing material.
Applicant is reminded that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol.
"Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.); MPEP 2144.07.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include in the display panel of Lee as modified by An and Cok, the black metal oxide comprising a molybdenum oxide, as this is a known material suitable for light absorption, and allowing control of light reflections in the device and thus improving image quality.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2017/0358604 A1) in view of An (US 2019/0165316 A1) and Lim et al. (US 2021/0288117 A1) as applied above and further in view of Shim et al. (US 2022/0140014 A1).
Regarding claim 16: Lee, An and Lim teach the claim limitation of the manufacturing method of claim 11, on which this claim depends,
wherein the light-absorbing layer comprises
a first metal layer,
a light-transmitting medium layer, and
a second metal layer stacked in sequence;
the first metal layer is provided adjacent to the TFT substrate,
the first metal layer comprises one or more of copper, silver and aluminum; the second metal layer comprises one or more of molybdenum and titanium; and
the light-transmitting medium layer comprises one or more of metal oxide, silicon oxide, and silicon nitride.
Shim teaches (e.g., Fig. 9) a display panel comprising a light-absorbing layer ([0163]-[0166]: 400);
Shim further teaches that the light-absorbing layer comprises
a first metal layer ([0163]-[0166]: 413),
a light-transmitting medium layer ([0163]-[0166]: 430), and
a second metal layer ([0163]-[0166]: 411) stacked in sequence,
wherein the first metal layer (413) is provided adjacent to a TFT substrate ([0166]: 100);
the first metal layer comprises one or more of copper, silver and aluminum ([0158]: silver; [0163]: “FIG. 9 may be interpreted such that the shield layer 400 of FIG. 8 further includes the light-absorbing layer 420 located between the first metal layer 411 and the inorganic material layer 430”);
the second metal layer comprises one or more of molybdenum and titanium ([0151]: titanium; [0163]: “FIG. 9 may be interpreted such that the shield layer 400 of FIG. 8 further includes the light-absorbing layer 420 located between the first metal layer 411 and the inorganic material layer 430”); and
the light-transmitting medium layer comprises one or more of metal oxide, silicon oxide and silicon nitride ([0160] and [0163]: 430 comprises silicon nitride; [0163]: “FIG. 9 may be interpreted such that the shield layer 400 of FIG. 8 further includes the light-absorbing layer 420 located between the first metal layer 411 and the inorganic material layer 430”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include in the display panel of Lee as modified by An, the light-absorbing layer comprising a first metal layer, a light-transmitting medium layer, and a second metal layer stacked in sequence, wherein the first metal layer is provided adjacent to the TFT substrate; the first metal layer comprises one or more of copper, silver and aluminum; the second metal layer comprises one or more of molybdenum and titanium; and the light-transmitting medium layer comprises one or more of metal oxide, silicon oxide and silicon nitride, as taught by Shim, for the benefits of modulating and controlling the light flux quality throughout the display device.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2017/0358604 A1) in view of An (US 2019/0165316 A1) and Lim et al. (US 2021/0288117 A1) as applied above and further in view of Ho et al. (US 2017/0292912 A1).
Regarding claim 17: Lee and An teach the claim limitation of the manufacturing method of claim 11, on which this claim depends,
wherein a material of the light-absorbing layer comprises an organic black material.
Ho teaches a display device comprising a light absorbing layer ([0039]);
Ho further teaches that a material of the light-absorbing layer comprises an organic black material ([0039]).
Organic black material is an art recognized material suitable for its use a light-absorbing layer.
Applicant is reminded that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol.
"Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.); MPEP 2144.07.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include in the display panel of Lee as modified by An and Cok, the material of the light-absorbing layer comprising an organic black material, as taught by Ho, since this material is known for its suitability as a light absorption material, and thus, allowing control of light reflections in the device; thereby, improving image quality.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2017/0358604 A1) in view of An (US 2019/0165316 A1) and Lim et al. (US 2021/0288117 A1) as applied above and further in view of Imada (US 2021/0320087 A1).
Regarding claim 18: Lee, An and Lim teach the claim limitation of the manufacturing method of claim 11, on which this claim depends,
wherein a material of the reflective blocking wall comprises
an organic material and an inorganic material, wherein the organic material comprises one or more of BT resin, silica gel, methyl methacrylate, polyimide, wherein the inorganic materials comprise one or more of titanium dioxide and tantalum pentoxide.
Lee as modified by An does not expressly teach that a material of the plurality of reflective blocking walls comprises an organic material and an inorganic material;
the organic material comprises one or more of BT resin, silica gel, methyl methacrylate, and polyimide; and the inorganic material comprises one or more of titanium dioxide and tantalum pentoxide.
Imada teaches (e.g., Figs. 1-3) a display panel comprising
a material of a plurality of reflective blocking walls ([0038]-[0039], [0097] and [0119]-[0120]: 11/15) comprises an organic material and an inorganic material ([0120]);
the organic material comprises one or more of BT resin, silica gel, methyl methacrylate, and polyimide ([0119]-[0120]: BT resin); and
the inorganic material comprises one or more of titanium dioxide and tantalum pentoxide ([0120]: titanium dioxide).
BT resin as an organic material and titanium dioxide an inorganic material are art recognized materials suitable for forming reflective blocking walls.
Applicant is reminded that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol.
"Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.); MPEP 2144.07.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include in the display panel of Lee as modified by An, the material of the plurality of reflective blocking walls comprising an organic material and an inorganic material; the organic material comprises one or more of BT resin, silica gel, methyl methacrylate, and polyimide; and the inorganic material comprises one or more of titanium dioxide and tantalum pentoxide, taught by Imada, as these are known as materials suitable for their reflective properties; one of ordinary skill in the art would recognized to employ these materials for the benefits or modulating the light inside the device for improved image clarity.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HERVE-LOUIS Y ASSOUMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2606. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 08:30 AM-5:30 PM.
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, DAVIENNE MONBLEAU can be reached at 571-272-1945. 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.
/HERVE-LOUIS Y ASSOUMAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2812