DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group IIA, embodiment in Fig. 10A, claims 3, 13, 17 in the reply filed on 7/8/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 4-5, 14, 18-19 have been withdrawn from consideration.
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.
Claims 1, 7-9, 12, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by An et al. (US 2020/0350516 A1).
Regarding claim 1, An teaches a display panel (10 in Fig. 2 of An), comprising:
a pixel layer (PXL in Fig. 2 of An) disposed on a substrate (100), the pixel layer including a first display element (PX1 in Fig. 5), a second display element (PX2 in Fig. 5), and a third display element (PX3 in Fig. 5), which emit light of different colors (as described in [0097] of An);
an encapsulation member (300 in Fig. 8) for sealing the pixel layer;
a first refractive layer (410 in Fig. 8) disposed on the encapsulation member and including a first opening (OP2 of the second display element PX2, as shown in Fig. 5 of An) overlapping the second display element; and
a second refractive layer (430 in Fig. 8) disposed on the first refractive layer to overlap the first refractive layer, and having a refractive index different from a refractive index of the first refractive layer (as stated in [0010] of An),
wherein a distance between an upper surface of the substrate and a lower surface (distance from the top surface of substrate 100 to the interface of 430 and the layer 330 in the opening OP2 of the second display element PX2, as shown in Fig. 8 of An) of the second refractive layer, in an area (opening OP2 of the second display element PX2) overlapping the second display element, is smaller than a distance between the upper surface of the substrate and the lower surface of the second refractive layer (distance from the top surface of substrate 100 to the interface of 430 and the pattern 450 in the opening OP2 of the third display element PX3, as shown in Fig. 8 of An), in an area overlapping the third display element.
Regarding claim 7, An teaches all limitations of the display panel of claim 1, and also teaches wherein the first refractive layer includes a second opening (OP2 over the third display element PX3) in the area overlapping the third display element, and a refractive pattern (450 over PX3, as shown in Fig. 7) is further included in the second opening.
Regarding claim 8, An teaches all limitations of the display panel of claim 7, and also teaches wherein the refractive pattern (450) and the first refractive layer include a same material (as stated in [0127] of An).
Regarding claim 9, An teaches all limitations of the display panel of claim 7, and also teaches wherein a distance between an upper surface of the refractive pattern and an upper surface of the encapsulation member is equal to a distance between an upper surface of the first refractive layer and the upper surface of the encapsulation member (as shown in Fig. 8 of An, the thickness of the refractive pattern 450 is the same as the first refractive layer 410).
Regarding claim 12, An teaches all limitations of the display panel of claim 1, and also teaches wherein the second refractive layer is disposed to fill the first opening of the first refractive layer (as shown in Fig. 5 and 8 of An).
Regarding claim 15, An teaches all limitations of the display panel of claim 1, and further comprising: an input sensing layer (layer comprising of plurality of sensing electrodes TSE in Fig. 14 of An) between the encapsulation member and the first refractive layer, the input sensing layer including a sensing electrode (TSE).
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.
Claims 2, 6, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An in view of Xia et al. (US 2021/0202916 A1).
Regarding claim 2, An teaches all limitations of the display panel of claim 1, but does not teach further comprising: a first lower refractive pattern disposed between the encapsulation member and the first refractive layer in an area overlapping the first display element, wherein the first lower refractive pattern has a refractive index different from the refractive index of the first refractive layer.
Xia teaches a display device (Figs. 1-4 of Xia) including: light emitting units (20 in Fig. 2), encapsulation layer (60), first light extraction pattern (41 in Fig. 2), a first refractive layer (42); a second refractive layer (31), wherein the refractive index of the light extract pattern is different than that of the first refractive layer (as described in [0005] of Xia).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the light extraction pattern as disclosed by Xia in order to increase the light extraction from the light emitting unit of the display.
As incorporated, the light extraction pattern 41 of Xia would be identified as the first lower refractive pattern of the claim.
Regarding claim 6, An in view of Xia teaches all limitations of the display panel of claim 2, and further comprising a second lower refractive pattern disposed between the first refractive layer and the encapsulation member, in the area overlapping the third display element (as combined in claim 2 above, all pixels have the same light extraction pattern 41 of Xia).
Regarding claim 10, An teaches all limitations of the display panel of claim 7, but does not teach that the display panel further comprising: a first lower refractive pattern disposed between the encapsulation member and the first refractive layer, in an area corresponding to the first display element, wherein the first lower refractive pattern has a refractive index different from the refractive index of the first refractive layer.
Xia teaches a display device (Figs. 1-4 of Xia) including: light emitting units (20 in Fig. 2), encapsulation layer (60), first light extraction pattern (41 in Fig. 2), a first refractive layer (42); a second refractive layer (31), wherein the refractive index of the light extract pattern is different than that of the first refractive layer (as described in [0005] of Xia).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the light extraction pattern as disclosed by Xia in order to increase the light extraction from the light emitting unit of the display.
As incorporated, the light extraction pattern 41 of Xia would be identified as the first lower refractive pattern of the claim.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An.
Regarding claim 11, An teaches all limitations of the display panel of claim 1, but does not teach wherein the first refractive layer further includes a third opening in an area corresponding to the first display element.
In a different embodiment, An discloses the light extraction pattern 450 is a ring shape (see Fig. 16 of An).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the light extraction pattern as a ring shape, as disclosed in Fig. 16 of An, in order to have increased the light extraction ([0152] of An).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An in view of Xia.
Regarding claim 16, An teaches a display panel (10 in Fig. 2 of An), comprising:
a pixel layer (PXL in Fig. 2 of An) disposed on a substrate (100) and including a display element emitting light (any of pixels PX1-PX3 in Fig. 5);
an encapsulation member (300) for sealing the pixel layer;
a first refractive layer (410 in Fig. 8) disposed on the encapsulation member and disposed in an area (area of the pixel) overlapping the display element; and
a second refractive layer (430 in Fig. 8) disposed on the encapsulation member to overlap the first refractive layer, the second refractive layer having a refractive index different from the refractive index of the first refractive layer (as disclosed in [0010] of An).
But An does not teach that the display panel comprising: a lower refractive pattern disposed between the encapsulation member and the first refractive layer, in the area overlapping the display element, the lower refractive pattern having a refractive index different from a refractive index of the first refractive layer.
Xia teaches a display device (Figs. 1-4 of Xia) including: light emitting units (20 in Fig. 2), encapsulation layer (60), first light extraction pattern (41 in Fig. 2), a first refractive layer (42); a second refractive layer (31), wherein the refractive index of the light extract pattern is different than that of the first refractive layer (as described in [0005] of Xia).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the light extraction pattern as disclosed by Xia in order to increase the light extraction from the light emitting unit of the display.
As incorporated, the light extraction pattern 41 of Xia would be identified as the first lower refractive pattern of the claim.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An et al. (US 2020/0350516 A1) in view of Kim et al. (2018/0121002 A1).
Regarding claim 20, An teaches an electronic device (display apparatus 1 in Fig. 1 of An), comprising:
a display panel (10 in Fig. 2 of An), wherein the display panel includes:
a pixel layer (PXL in Fig. 2 of An) disposed on a substrate (100), the pixel layer including a first display element (PX1 in Fig. 5), a second display element (PX2), and a third display element (PX3), which emit light of different colors (as described in [0097] of An);
an encapsulation member (300 in Fig. 8) for sealing the pixel layer;
a first refractive layer (410 in Fig. 8) disposed on the encapsulation member and including a first opening (OP2 of the second display element PX2, as shown in Fig. 5 of An) overlapping the second display element; and
a second refractive layer (430 in Fig. 8) disposed on the first refractive layer to overlap the first refractive layer, and having a refractive index different from a refractive index of the first refractive layer (as stated in [0010] of An),
wherein a distance between an upper surface of the substrate and a lower surface of the second refractive layer (distance from the top surface of substrate 100 to the interface of 430 and the layer 330 in the opening OP2 of the second display element PX2, as shown in Fig. 8 of An), in an area overlapping the second display element is smaller than a distance between the upper surface of the substrate and the lower surface of the second refractive layer (distance from the top surface of substrate 100 to the interface of 430 and the pattern 450 in the opening OP2 of the third display element PX3, as shown in Fig. 8 of An), in an area overlapping the third display element.
But An does not teach that a cover window disposed on the display panel; and a housing accommodating the display panel and the cover window.
Kim teaches an apparatus display (Fig. 1-2 of Kim) that includes a cover window covering a front surface of the display, the cover window is supported by the housing (see [0024] of Kim).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed a cover window supported by the housing of the display panel, as disclosed by Kim, in order to provide protection for the display device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 13 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3, the prior art of record does not disclose or fairly suggest a display panel satisfying the limitations “wherein the refractive index of the first lower refractive pattern is lower than the refractive index of the first refractive layer, and the refractive index of the second refractive layer is lower than the refractive index of the first refractive layer” along with other limitations of claim 2.
Regarding claim 13, the prior art of record does not disclose or fairly suggest a display panel satisfying “wherein the refractive index of the second refractive layer is lower than the refractive index of the first refractive layer” along with other limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, the prior art of record does not disclose or fairly suggest a display panel satisfying “wherein the refractive index of the lower refractive pattern is lower than the refractive index of the first refractive layer, and the refractive index of the second refractive layer is lower than the refractive index of the first refractive layer” along with other limitations of claim 16.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUAN A HOANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0406. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-9am, 10am-6pm EST.
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, Jessica Manno can be reached at (571) 272-2339. 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.
/Tuan A Hoang/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights