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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s remarks/amendments of claims 1-20 in the reply filed on June 05th, 2026, are acknowledged. Claims 1, 13-14, 17 and 18 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Action on merits of claims 1-20 as follows.
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.
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.
Claims 1-11, 13, 15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (CN110189628, hereinafter as Li ‘628) in view of Ishii (US 2015/0090991, hereinafter as Ishi ‘991)
Regarding Claim 1, Li ‘628 teaches a display panel, comprising:
a driver backplane (Fig. 8, (1); [0048]), a pixel definition layer (2; [0048]), and a plurality of light-emitting devices (3 and 4; [0048]); wherein the pixel definition layer is disposed on a side of the driver backplane (1), and a plurality of openings (grooves; [0050]) are formed in the pixel definition layer; each of the light-emitting devices comprises a normal element (4; [0070]) and at least one privacy element (3; [0074]) (see Fig. 8), wherein the privacy element (3) and the normal element (4) are respectively disposed in different openings of the plurality of openings (see Fig. 8); and a slope angle (α) of a portion of the pixel definition layer, wherein at least a partial edge of the opening where the privacy element is disposed is disposed on the portion, is greater than a slope angle (ω) of a portion of the pixel definition layer, wherein an edge of the opening where the normal element is disposed is disposed on the portion (see Fig. 8; [0077]).
Li ‘628 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the display panel further comprises a first light-shielding structure and a second light-shielding structure, the first light-shielding structure is disposed on a side of the pixel definition layer away from the driver backplane, and the second light-shielding structure is disposed on a side of the first light-shielding structure away from the driver backplane, wherein an orthographic projection of the second light-shielding structure on the driver backplane is closer to an orthographic projection of the opening where the privacy element is disposed on the driver backplane than an orthographic projection of the first light-shielding structure on the driver backplane is”.
Ishi ‘991 teaches a first light-shielding structure (Fig. 8, (110); [0075] and [0091]-[0092) and a second light-shielding structure (130; [0090]), the first light-shielding structure is disposed on a side of the pixel definition layer (120; [0050]) away from the driver backplane (102; [0046]), and the second light-shielding structure (130) is disposed on a side of the first light-shielding structure (110) away from the driver backplane, wherein an orthographic projection of the second light-shielding structure (130) on the driver backplane is closer to an orthographic projection of the opening where the privacy element is disposed on the driver backplane than an orthographic projection of the first light-shielding structure (110) on the driver backplane is (see Fig. 8).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Li ‘628 by having the display panel further comprises a first light-shielding structure and a second light-shielding structure, the first light-shielding structure is disposed on a side of the pixel definition layer away from the driver backplane, and the second light-shielding structure is disposed on a side of the first light-shielding structure away from the driver backplane, wherein an orthographic projection of the second light-shielding structure on the driver backplane is closer to an orthographic projection of the opening where the privacy element is disposed on the driver backplane than an orthographic projection of the first light-shielding structure on the driver backplane is for the purpose of increasing a shielding function of light emitted in a diagonal direction which leaks from a pixel to an adjacent pixel. (see para. [0013]) as suggested by Ishi ‘991.
Regarding Claim 18, Li ‘628 teaches a display device (see para. [0085]), comprising: a display panel; wherein the display panel, comprising:
a driver backplane (Fig. 8, (1); [0048]), a pixel definition layer (2; [0048]), and a plurality of light-emitting devices (3 and 4; [0048]); wherein the pixel definition layer is disposed on a side of the driver backplane (1), and a plurality of openings (grooves; [0050]) are formed in the pixel definition layer; each of the light-emitting devices comprises a normal element (4; [0070]) and at least one privacy element (3; [0074]) (see Fig. 8), wherein the privacy element (3) and the normal element (4) are respectively disposed in different openings of the plurality of openings (see Fig. 8); and a slope angle (α) of a portion of the pixel definition layer, wherein at least a partial edge of the opening where the privacy element is disposed is disposed on the portion, is greater than a slope angle (ω) of a portion of the pixel definition layer, wherein an edge of the opening where the normal element is disposed is disposed on the portion (see Fig. 8; [0077]).
Li ‘628 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the display panel further comprises a first light-shielding structure and a second light-shielding structure, the first light-shielding structure is disposed on a side of the pixel definition layer away from the driver backplane, and the second light-shielding structure is disposed on a side of the first light-shielding structure away from the driver backplane, wherein an orthographic projection of the second light-shielding structure on the driver backplane is closer to an orthographic projection of the opening where the privacy element is disposed on the driver backplane than an orthographic projection of the first light-shielding structure on the driver backplane is”.
Ishi ‘991 teaches a first light-shielding structure (Fig. 8, (110); [0075] and [0091]-[0092) and a second light-shielding structure (130; [0090]), the first light-shielding structure is disposed on a side of the pixel definition layer (120; [0050]) away from the driver backplane (102; [0046]), and the second light-shielding structure (130) is disposed on a side of the first light-shielding structure (110) away from the driver backplane, wherein an orthographic projection of the second light-shielding structure (130) on the driver backplane is closer to an orthographic projection of the opening where the privacy element is disposed on the driver backplane than an orthographic projection of the first light-shielding structure (110) on the driver backplane is (see Fig. 8).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Li ‘628 by having the display panel further comprises a first light-shielding structure and a second light-shielding structure, the first light-shielding structure is disposed on a side of the pixel definition layer away from the driver backplane, and the second light-shielding structure is disposed on a side of the first light-shielding structure away from the driver backplane, wherein an orthographic projection of the second light-shielding structure on the driver backplane is closer to an orthographic projection of the opening where the privacy element is disposed on the driver backplane than an orthographic projection of the first light-shielding structure on the driver backplane is for the purpose of increasing a shielding function of light emitted in a diagonal direction which leaks from a pixel to an adjacent pixel (see para. [0013]) as suggested by Ishi ‘991.
PNG
media_image1.png
276
582
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
204
576
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figs. 2 and 8 (Li ‘628)
Regarding Claims 2 and 19, Li ‘628 and Ishi ‘991 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the slope angle of the portion of the pixel definition layer, wherein the edge of the opening where the privacy element is disposed is disposed on the portion, ranges from 600 to 900; and the slope angle of the portion of the pixel definition layer, wherein the edge of the opening where the normal element is disposed is disposed on the portion, ranges from 200 to 300”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select the slope angle of the portion of the pixel definition layer, wherein the edge of the opening where the privacy element is disposed is disposed on the portion, ranges from 600 to 900; and the slope angle of the portion of the pixel definition layer, wherein the edge of the opening where the normal element is disposed is disposed on the portion, ranges from 200 to 300 on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select the slope angle of the portion of the pixel definition layer, wherein the edge of the opening where the privacy element is disposed is disposed on the portion, ranges from 600 to 900; and the slope angle of the portion of the pixel definition layer, wherein the edge of the opening where the normal element is disposed is disposed on the portion, ranges from 200 to 300 in order to improve the performance of the display device.
Regarding Claims 3 and 20, Li ‘628 and Ishi ‘991 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the pixel definition layer is made of a black light-absorbing material”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a black light-absorbing material for the pixel definition layer on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See para. [0072] of Lee et al. (US 2020/0133414) as evidence. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select a black light-absorbing material for the pixel definition layer in order to improve the performance of the display device.
Regarding Claim 4, Li ‘628 and Ishi ‘991 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “a surface on a side, away from the driver backplane, of the pixel definition layer disposed between the normal element and the privacy element that are adjacent to each other is a curved surface; points, farthest from the driver backplane, on the curved surfaces are connected to form a line, wherein a distance between an orthographic projection of the line on the driver backplane and an orthographic projection on the driver backplane of a first edge of the opening where the privacy element is disposed is less than a distance between the orthographic projection of the line on the driver backplane and an orthographic projection on the driver backplane of a second edge of the opening where the normal element is disposed; and the orthographic projections of the first edge and the second edge on the driver backplane are disposed between orthographic projections of the normal element and the privacy element on the driver backplane, and the orthographic projections of the first edge and the second edge on the driver backplane are adjacent to each other”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a surface on a side, away from the driver backplane, of the pixel definition layer disposed between the normal element and the privacy element that are adjacent to each other is a curved surface; points, farthest from the driver backplane, on the curved surfaces are connected to form a line, wherein a distance between an orthographic projection of the line on the driver backplane and an orthographic projection on the driver backplane of a first edge of the opening where the privacy element is disposed is less than a distance between the orthographic projection of the line on the driver backplane and an orthographic projection on the driver backplane of a second edge of the opening where the normal element is disposed; and the orthographic projections of the first edge and the second edge on the driver backplane are disposed between orthographic projections of the normal element and the privacy element on the driver backplane, and the orthographic projections of the first edge and the second edge on the driver backplane are adjacent to each other on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
PNG
media_image3.png
18
19
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
18
19
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5, Li ‘628 and Ishi ‘991 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “equations for calculating a distance A between the point, furthest from the driver backplane, on the curved surface and the driver backplane are as follows: tan0=A/D; tanG 1=A/(D-B); tan02=A/[C-(D-B)]; and A=tan0*D=tan01*(D-B)=tan02*[C-(D-B)]; wherein B represents an opening width, along an arrangement direction of the privacy element and the normal element, of the opening where the privacy element is disposed; C represents a maximum width, along the arrangement direction of the privacy element and the normal element, of the pixel definition layer disposed between the privacy element and the normal element that are adjacent to each other; D represents a sum, along the arrangement direction of the privacy element and the normal element, of B and a distance between an orthographic projection on the driver backplane of the point, farthest from the driver backplane, on the curved surface and the orthographic projection of the first edge on the driver backplane; and 0=90°-a/2, wherein a represents a viewing angle of the privacy element, 01 represents the slope angle of the portion of the pixel definition layer, wherein the edge of the opening where the privacy element is disposed is disposed on the portion, and 02 represents the slope angle of the portion of the pixel definition layer, wherein the edge of the opening where the normal element is disposed is disposed on the portion”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select equations for calculating a distance A between the point, furthest from the driver backplane, on the curved surface and the driver backplane are as follows: tan0=A/D; tanG 1=A/(D-B); tan02=A/[C-(D-B)]; and A=tan0*D=tan01*(D-B)=tan02*[C-(D-B)]; wherein B represents an opening width, along an arrangement direction of the privacy element and the normal element, of the opening where the privacy element is disposed; C represents a maximum width, along the arrangement direction of the privacy element and the normal element, of the pixel definition layer disposed between the privacy element and the normal element that are adjacent to each other; D represents a sum, along the arrangement direction of the privacy element and the normal element, of B and a distance between an orthographic projection on the driver backplane of the point, farthest from the driver backplane, on the curved surface and the orthographic projection of the first edge on the driver backplane; and 0=90°-a/2, wherein a represents a viewing angle of the privacy element, 01 represents the slope angle of the portion of the pixel definition layer, wherein the edge of the opening where the privacy element is disposed is disposed on the portion, and 02 represents the slope angle of the portion of the pixel definition layer, wherein the edge of the opening where the normal element is disposed is disposed on the portion on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding Claim 6, Li ‘628 and Ishi ‘991 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “a surface on a side, away from the driver backplane, of the pixel definition layer disposed between adjacent two of the privacy elements is a curved surface, wherein the adjacent two privacy elements are respectively a first privacy element and a second privacy element; points, farthest from the driver backplane, on the curved surfaces are connected to form a line, wherein a distance between an orthographic projection of the line on the driver backplane and an orthographic projection on the driver backplane of a first edge of an opening where the first privacy element is disposed is equal to a distance between the orthographic projection of the line on the driver backplane and an orthographic projection on the driver backplane of a second edge of an opening where the second privacy element is disposed; and the orthographic projections of the first edge and the second edge on the driver backplane are disposed between orthographic projections of the first privacy element and the second privacy element on the driver backplane, and the orthographic projections of the first edge and the second edge on the driver backplane are adjacent to each other”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a surface on a side, away from the driver backplane, of the pixel definition layer disposed between adjacent two of the privacy elements is a curved surface, wherein the adjacent two privacy elements are respectively a first privacy element and a second privacy element; points, farthest from the driver backplane, on the curved surfaces are connected to form a line, wherein a distance between an orthographic projection of the line on the driver backplane and an orthographic projection on the driver backplane of a first edge of an opening where the first privacy element is disposed is equal to a distance between the orthographic projection of the line on the driver backplane and an orthographic projection on the driver backplane of a second edge of an opening where the second privacy element is disposed; and the orthographic projections of the first edge and the second edge on the driver backplane are disposed between orthographic projections of the first privacy element and the second privacy element on the driver backplane, and the orthographic projections of the first edge and the second edge on the driver backplane are adjacent to each other on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
PNG
media_image3.png
18
19
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 7, Li ‘628 and Ishi ‘991 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “equations for calculating a distance Al between the point, farthest from the driver backplane, on the curved surface and the driver backplane are as follows: tan03=Al/D1;tan04=A1/(D 1-B 1); tang5=Al/[Cl-(D1-B1)]; and Al=tan03*D1=tan04*(D1-B1)=tan05*[Cl-(D1-B1)]; wherein B 1 represents an opening width, along an arrangement direction of the first privacy element and the second privacy element, of the opening where the first privacy element is disposed;C1 represents a maximum width, along the arrangement direction of the first privacy element and the second privacy element, of the pixel definition layer disposed between the first privacy element and the second privacy element; D1 represents a sum, along the arrangement direction of the first privacy element and the second privacy element, of B1 and a distance between an orthographic projection on the driver backplane of the point, farthest from the driver backplane, on the curved surface and the orthographic projection of the first edge on the driver backplane; and 03=90°-a/2, wherein a represents a viewing angle of the first privacy element, 04 represents a slope angle of a portion of the pixel definition layer, wherein an edge of the opening where the first privacy element is disposed is disposed on the portion, and 05 represents a slope angle of a portion of the pixel definition layer, wherein an edge of the opening where the second privacy element is disposed is disposed on the portion”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select
equations for calculating a distance Al between the point, farthest from the driver backplane, on the curved surface and the driver backplane are as follows: tan03=Al/D1;tan04=A1/(D 1-B 1); tang5=Al/[Cl-(D1-B1)]; and Al=tan03*D1=tan04*(D1-B1)=tan05*[Cl-(D1-B1)]; wherein B 1 represents an opening width, along an arrangement direction of the first privacy element and the second privacy element, of the opening where the first privacy element is disposed;C1 represents a maximum width, along the arrangement direction of the first privacy element and the second privacy element, of the pixel definition layer disposed between the first privacy element and the second privacy element; D1 represents a sum, along the arrangement direction of the first privacy element and the second privacy element, of B1 and a distance between an orthographic projection on the driver backplane of the point, farthest from the driver backplane, on the curved surface and the orthographic projection of the first edge on the driver backplane; and 03=90°-a/2, wherein a represents a viewing angle of the first privacy element, 04 represents a slope angle of a portion of the pixel definition layer, wherein an edge of the opening where the first privacy element is disposed is disposed on the portion, and 05 represents a slope angle of a portion of the pixel definition layer, wherein an edge of the opening where the second privacy element is disposed is disposed on the portion on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding Claim 8, Li ‘628 and Ishi ‘991 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “a surface on a side, away from the driver backplane, of the pixel definition layer disposed between adjacent two of the normal elements is a curved surface, wherein the adjacent two normal elements are respectively a first normal element and a second normal element; points, farthest from the driver backplane, on the curved surfaces are connected to form a line, wherein a distance between an orthographic projection of the line on the driver backplane and an orthographic projection on the driver backplane of a first edge of an opening where the first normal element is disposed is equal to a distance between the orthographic projection of the line on the driver backplane and an orthographic projection on the driver backplane of a second edge of an opening where the second normal element is disposed; and the orthographic projections of the first edge and the second edge on the driver backplane are disposed between orthographic projections of the first normal element and the second normal element on the driver backplane, and the orthographic projections of the first edge and the second edge on the driver backplane are adjacent to each other”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a surface on a side, away from the driver backplane, of the pixel definition layer disposed between adjacent two of the normal elements is a curved surface, wherein the adjacent two normal elements are respectively a first normal element and a second normal element; points, farthest from the driver backplane, on the curved surfaces are connected to form a line, wherein a distance between an orthographic projection of the line on the driver backplane and an orthographic projection on the driver backplane of a first edge of an opening where the first normal element is disposed is equal to a distance between the orthographic projection of the line on the driver backplane and an orthographic projection on the driver backplane of a second edge of an opening where the second normal element is disposed; and the orthographic projections of the first edge and the second edge on the driver backplane are disposed between orthographic projections of the first normal element and the second normal element on the driver backplane, and the orthographic projections of the first edge and the second edge on the driver backplane are adjacent to each other on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding Claim 9, Li ‘628 and Ishi ‘991 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “equations for calculating a distance A2 between the point, farthest from the driver backplane, on the curved surface and the driver backplane are as follows: tanO6=A2/D2; tanO7=A2/(D2-B2); tanO8=A2/[C2-(D2-B2)]; and A2=tanO6*D2=tan7*(D2-B2)=tan8*[C2-(D2-B2)]; wherein B2 represents an opening width, along an arrangement direction of the first normal element and the second normal element, of the opening where the first normal element is disposed;C2 represents a maximum width, along the arrangement direction of the first normal element and the second normal element, of the pixel definition layer disposed between the first normal element and the second normal element; D2 represents a sum, along the arrangement direction of the first normal element and the second normal element, of B2 and a distance between an orthographic projection on the driver backplane of the point, farthest from the driver backplane, on the curved surface and the orthographic projection of the first edge on the driver backplane; and 28 06=90°-al/2, wherein al represents a viewing angle of the first normal element, 07 represents a slope angle of a portion of the pixel definition layer, wherein an edge of the opening where the first normal element is disposed is disposed on the portion, and 08 represents a slope angle of a portion of the pixel definition layer, wherein an edge of the opening where the second normal element is disposed is disposed on the portion”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select
equations for calculating a distance A2 between the point, farthest from the driver backplane, on the curved surface and the driver backplane are as follows: tanO6=A2/D2; tanO7=A2/(D2-B2); tanO8=A2/[C2-(D2-B2)]; and A2=tanO6*D2=tan7*(D2-B2)=tan8*[C2-(D2-B2)]; wherein B2 represents an opening width, along an arrangement direction of the first normal element and the second normal element, of the opening where the first normal element is disposed;C2 represents a maximum width, along the arrangement direction of the first normal element and the second normal element, of the pixel definition layer disposed between the first normal element and the second normal element; D2 represents a sum, along the arrangement direction of the first normal element and the second normal element, of B2 and a distance between an orthographic projection on the driver backplane of the point, farthest from the driver backplane, on the curved surface and the orthographic projection of the first edge on the driver backplane; and 28 06=90°-al/2, wherein al represents a viewing angle of the first normal element, 07 represents a slope angle of a portion of the pixel definition layer, wherein an edge of the opening where the first normal element is disposed is disposed on the portion, and 08 represents a slope angle of a portion of the pixel definition layer, wherein an edge of the opening where the second normal element is disposed is disposed on the portion on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding Claim 10, Li ‘628 and Ishi ‘991 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “α ranges from 400 to 500”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select α ranges from 400 to 500 on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select α ranges from 400 to 500 in order to improve the performance of the display device.
Regarding Claim 11, Li ‘628 and Ishi ‘991 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “α1 ranges from 1200 to 1600”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select α1 ranges from 1200 to 1600 on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select α1 ranges from 1200 to 1600 in order to improve the performance of the display device.
Regarding Claim 13, Li ‘628 and Ishi ‘991 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the orthographic projection of the first light-shielding structure on the driver backplane at least covers the orthographic projection on the driver backplane of the line formed by connecting the points, farthest from the driver backplane, on the curved surfaces”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select the orthographic projection of the first light-shielding structure on the driver backplane at least covers the orthographic projection on the driver backplane of the line formed by connecting the points, farthest from the driver backplane on the curved surfaces on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select the orthographic projection of the first light-shielding structure on the driver backplane at least covers the orthographic projection on the driver backplane of the line formed by connecting the points, farthest from the driver backplane in order to improve the performance of the display device.
Regarding Claim 15, Li ‘628 and Ishi ‘991 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “equations for calculating a width W, along an arrangement direction of the privacy element and the normal element, of the first light- shielding structure and a height H, along a direction away from the driver backplane, of the first light-shielding structure are as follows: tan O=(A+H)/D; tanO2=(A+H)/(C-W-x); and tanG1=A/x; wherein A represents a distance between the point, farthest from the driver backplane, on the curved surface and the driver backplane; D represents a sum, along the arrangement direction of the privacy element and the normal element, of B and a distance between an orthographic projection on the driver backplane of the point, farthest from the driver backplane, on the curved surface and the orthographic projection of the first edge on the driver backplane; B represents an opening width, along the arrangement direction of the privacy element and the normal element, of the opening where the privacy element is disposed; C represents a maximum width, along the arrangement direction of the privacy element and the normal element, of the pixel definition layer disposed between the privacy element and the normal element that are adjacent to each other; x represents a shortest distance between the orthographic projection of the first light- shielding structure on the driver backplane and the orthographic projection of the first edge on the driver backplane; and 0=90°-a/2, wherein a represents a viewing angle of the privacy element, 01 represents a slope angle of a portion of the pixel definition layer, wherein an edge of the opening where the privacy element is disposed is disposed on the portion, and 02 represents a slope angle of a portion of the pixel definition layer, wherein an edge of the opening where the normal element is disposed is disposed on the portion”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select
equations for calculating a width W, along an arrangement direction of the privacy element and the normal element, of the first light- shielding structure and a height H, along a direction away from the driver backplane, of the first light-shielding structure are as follows: tan O=(A+H)/D; tanO2=(A+H)/(C-W-x); and tanG1=A/x; wherein A represents a distance between the point, farthest from the driver backplane, on the curved surface and the driver backplane; D represents a sum, along the arrangement direction of the privacy element and the normal element, of B and a distance between an orthographic projection on the driver backplane of the point, farthest from the driver backplane, on the curved surface and the orthographic projection of the first edge on the driver backplane; B represents an opening width, along the arrangement direction of the privacy element and the normal element, of the opening where the privacy element is disposed; C represents a maximum width, along the arrangement direction of the privacy element and the normal element, of the pixel definition layer disposed between the privacy element and the normal element that are adjacent to each other; x represents a shortest distance between the orthographic projection of the first light-shielding structure on the driver backplane and the orthographic projection of the first edge on the driver backplane; and 0=90°-a/2, wherein a represents a viewing angle of the privacy element, 01 represents a slope angle of a portion of the pixel definition layer, wherein an edge of the opening where the privacy element is disposed is disposed on the portion, and 02 represents a slope angle of a portion of the pixel definition layer, wherein an edge of the opening where the normal element is disposed is disposed on the portion on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claims 12, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li ‘628 and Ishi ‘991 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee (US 2020/0133414, hereinafter as Lee ‘414).
Regarding Claim 12, Li ‘628 and Ishi ‘991 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the plurality of light-emitting devices comprise a plurality of red light-emitting devices, a plurality of green light-emitting devices, and a plurality of blue light-emitting devices”.
Lee ‘414 teaches the plurality of light-emitting devices comprise a plurality of red light-emitting devices, a plurality of green light-emitting devices, and a plurality of blue light-emitting devices (see Fig. 3; para. [0053]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Li ‘628 and Ishi ‘991 by having a plurality of red light-emitting devices, a plurality of green light-emitting devices, and a plurality of blue light-emitting devices for the purpose of emitting white light (see para. [0074]) as suggested by Lee ‘414.
Li ‘628, Ishi ‘991 and Lee ‘414 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the red light-emitting devices comprise a red privacy element and a red normal element; the green light-emitting devices comprise a green privacy element and a green normal element; the blue light-emitting devices comprise a blue privacy element and a blue normal element; portions of the pixel definition layer have a same slope angle, wherein edges of openings, where the red privacy element, the green privacy element and the blue privacy element are respectively disposed, are respectively disposed on the portions; and portions of the pixel definition layer have a same slope angle, wherein edges of openings, where the red normal element, the green normal element and the blue normal element are respectively disposed, are respectively disposed on the portions”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to have the red light-emitting devices comprise a red privacy element and a red normal element; the green light-emitting devices comprise a green privacy element and a green normal element; the blue light-emitting devices comprise a blue privacy element and a blue normal element; portions of the pixel definition layer have a same slope angle, wherein edges of openings, where the red privacy element, the green privacy element and the blue privacy element are respectively disposed, are respectively disposed on the portions; and portions of the pixel definition layer have a same slope angle, wherein edges of openings, where the red normal element, the green normal element and the blue normal element are respectively disposed, are respectively disposed on the portions on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have the red light-emitting devices comprise a red privacy element and a red normal element; the green light-emitting devices comprise a green privacy element and a green normal element; the blue light-emitting devices comprise a blue privacy element and a blue normal element; portions of the pixel definition layer have a same slope angle, wherein edges of openings, where the red privacy element, the green privacy element and the blue privacy element are respectively disposed, are respectively disposed on the portions; and portions of the pixel definition layer have a same slope angle, wherein edges of openings, where the red normal element, the green normal element and the blue normal element are respectively disposed, are respectively disposed on the portions in order to improve the performance of the display devices.
Regarding Claim 14, Lee ‘414 teaches a package layer (Fig. 5, (CW); [0085]); wherein the package layer is disposed on a side, away from the driver backplane (1), of the first light-shielding structure and is configured to package the light-emitting device; the package layer comprises more than three sub-layers, wherein the more than three sub-layers are successively stacked along a direction away from the driver backplane (see Fig. 9); the second light-shielding structure (BM) is disposed between at least some of the adjacent sub-layers.
Li ‘628, Ishi ‘991 and Lee ‘414 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the orthographic projection of the second light-shielding structure on the driver backplane is disposed at an edge of the orthographic projection on the driver backplane of the opening where the privacy element is disposed, and is at least partially overlapped with the orthographic projection of the first light-shielding structure on the driver backplane”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to have the orthographic projection of the second light-shielding structure on the driver backplane is disposed at an edge of the orthographic projection on the driver backplane of the opening where the privacy element is disposed, and is at least partially overlapped with the orthographic projection of the first light-shielding structure on the driver backplane on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have the orthographic projection of the second light-shielding structure on the driver backplane is disposed at an edge of the orthographic projection on the driver backplane of the opening where the privacy element is disposed, and is at least partially overlapped with the orthographic projection of the first light-shielding structure on the driver backplane in order to improve the performance of the display device.
Regarding Claim 16, Li ‘628 teaches the first light-shielding structure (022; [0063]).
Lee ‘414 teaches and the second light-shielding structure (BM).
Li ‘628, Ishi ‘991 and Lee ‘414 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the first light-shielding structure and the second light-shielding structure are made of a black organic material”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select the first light-shielding structure and the second light-shielding structure are made of a black organic material on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select the first light-shielding structure and the second light-shielding structure are made of a black organic material in order to improve the performance of the display device.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li ‘628 and Ishi ‘991 in view of Shimatsu (US 2022/0085335, hereinafter as Shim ‘335).
Regarding Claim 17, Li ‘628 teaches method for preparing a display panel, comprising:
preparing a driver backplane (Fig. 8, (1); [0048]), preparing a plurality of light-emitting devices on a side of the driver backplane; preparing a pixel definition layer (2; [0048]), and a plurality of openings (grooves; [0050]); preparing normal elements (4; [0070]) and privacy elements (3; [0074]) (see Fig. 8), wherein a slope angle (α) of a portion of the pixel definition layer, wherein at least a partial edge of an opening where the privacy element is disposed is disposed on the portion, is greater than a slope angle (ω) of a portion of the pixel definition layer, wherein an edge of an opening where the normal element is disposed is disposed on the portion (see Fig. 8; [0077]).
Li ‘628 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the display panel further comprises a first light-shielding structure and a second light-shielding structure, the first light-shielding structure is disposed on a side of the pixel definition layer away from the driver backplane, and the second light-shielding structure is disposed on a side of the first light-shielding structure away from the driver backplane, wherein an orthographic projection of the second light-shielding structure on the driver backplane is closer to an orthographic projection of the opening where the privacy element is disposed on the driver backplane than an orthographic projection of the first light-shielding structure on the driver backplane is”.
Ishi ‘991 teaches a first light-shielding structure (Fig. 8, (110); [0075] and [0091]-[0092) and a second light-shielding structure (130; [0090]), the first light-shielding structure is disposed on a side of the pixel definition layer (120; [0050]) away from the driver backplane (102; [0046]), and the second light-shielding structure (130) is disposed on a side of the first light-shielding structure (110) away from the driver backplane, wherein an orthographic projection of the second light-shielding structure (130) on the driver backplane is closer to an orthographic projection of the opening where the privacy element is disposed on the driver backplane than an orthographic projection of the first light-shielding structure (110) on the driver backplane is (see Fig. 8).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Li ‘628 by having the display panel further comprises a first light-shielding structure and a second light-shielding structure, the first light-shielding structure is disposed on a side of the pixel definition layer away from the driver backplane, and the second light-shielding structure is disposed on a side of the first light-shielding structure away from the driver backplane, wherein an orthographic projection of the second light-shielding structure on the driver backplane is closer to an orthographic projection of the opening where the privacy element is disposed on the driver backplane than an orthographic projection of the first light-shielding structure on the driver backplane is for the purpose of increasing a shielding function of light emitted in a diagonal direction which leaks from a pixel to an adjacent pixel (see para. [0013]) as suggested by Ishi ‘991.
Li ‘628 and Ishi ‘991 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “preparing anodes of normal elements and anodes of privacy elements by a one-time patterning process”.
Shim ‘335 teaches preparing anodes (31; [0296]) of light emitting elements by a one-time patterning process (the first electrode (31) formed in step 120).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Li ‘628 and Ishi ‘991 by preparing anodes by a one-time patterning process for the purpose of reducing manufacturing cost of the display device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20, filed on June 05th, 2026, have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
Interviews After Final
Applicants note that an interview after a final rejection is permitted in order to place the application in condition for allowance or to resolve issues prior to appeal. However, prior to the interview, the intended purpose and content of the interview should be presented briefly, preferably in writing. Upon review of the agenda, the Examiner may grant the interview if the examiner is convinced that disposal or clarification for appeal may be accomplished with only nominal further consideration. Interviews merely to restate arguments of record or to discuss new limitations will be denied. See MPEP § 714.13
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Dzung Tran whose telephone number is (571) 270-3911. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8 AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Supervisor Sue Purvis can be reached on 571-272-1236. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DZUNG TRAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights