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 .
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 1-3, 6-7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al (US 12183768).
US ‘768 discloses and illustrates (see at least Figures 3-12) a display panel, having a liquid crystal display region (see at least col. 1, description of related art per flat panel display devices such as LCD) and a side display region comprising: a lower substrate (e.g., 100); a planarization layer disposed on the lower substrate, extending from the liquid crystal display region to the side display region, and defining a plurality of notches in the side display region; and a plurality of light emitting diodes (e.g., ED) , respectively disposed in the notches in the side display region.
The limitation not explicitly disclosed by US ‘768 is “wherein a reflectance of an inner surface of each of the notches is greater than 50%’.
US ‘768 discloses material having high reflectivity emitted from ED toward display device (see least col. 19, lines 64-68). US ‘768’s inventive concept is achieving advantages such as desired productivity of the large/titled display images, e.g., efficiency, brightness, clarity (optimized/desired r output in the display technology). Routine optimization refers to the process of identifying optimal or workable ranges of a variable through routine experimentation when the general conditions are known and already disclosed in the prior art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the time the invention was made to employ ‘a reflectance of an inner surface of each of the notches is greater than 50%’ to achieve advantages such as desired productivity of the large/titled display images, e.g., efficiency, brightness, clarity (optimized/desired output in the display technology)
Per claim 2, US ‘768’s inventive concept is achieving advantages such as desired productivity of the large/titled display images, e.g., efficiency, brightness, clarity (optimized/desired r output in the display technology). Routine optimization refers to the process of identifying optimal or workable ranges of a variable through routine experimentation when the general conditions are known and already disclosed in the prior art. A selection of optimized parameters such as a desired inclination angle between an inner surface and lower substrate would have within a purview of one of ordinary skill in the art so as achieving advantages such as desired productivity of the large/titled display images, e.g., efficiency, brightness, clarity (optimized/desired output in the display technology). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the time the invention was made to employ ‘the inner surface is inclined relative to the lower substrate, an inclination angle exists between the inner surface and the lower substrate, and the inclination angle is 15 degrees to 35 degrees’ to achieve advantages such as desired productivity of the large/titled display images, e.g., efficiency, brightness, clarity (optimized/desired output in the display technology)
Per claim 3, US ‘768 discloses and illustrates (see at least Figures 3, 5, 8-12) the display panel wherein heights of light emitting layers of the light emitting diodes relative to the lower substrate are less than a height of a top surface of the planarization layer.
Per claim 6, US ‘768 discloses material having high reflectivity emitted from ED toward display device (see least col. 19, lines 64-68). US ‘768’s inventive concept is achieving advantages such as desired productivity of the large/titled display images, e.g., efficiency, brightness, clarity (optimized/desired output in the display technology). Routine optimization refers to the process of identifying optimal or workable ranges of a variable through routine experimentation when the general conditions are known and already disclosed in the prior art. A selection of optimized parameters such as a desired a distance between top surfaces of the light emitting diodes and the top surface of the planarization layer in a normal direction of the lower substrate would have within a purview of one of ordinary skill in the art so as achieving advantages such as desired productivity of the large/titled display images, e.g., efficiency, brightness, clarity (optimized/desired r output in the display technology). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the time the invention was made to employ ‘a distance between top surfaces of the light emitting diodes and the top surface of the planarization layer in a normal direction of the lower substrate is greater than 1 micrometer’ to achieve advantages such as desired productivity of the large/titled display images, e.g., efficiency, brightness, clarity (optimized/desired output in the display technology)
Per claim 7, US ‘768 discloses and illustrates (see at least Figures 3, 5, 8-12) the display panel, further comprising a metal layer disposed on the planarization layer and defining the inner surfaces of the notches.
Per claim 14, US ‘768 discloses and illustrates (see at least Figures 3, 5, 8-12) a display device, comprising a plurality of the display panels. the display panels being disposed in an array, wherein at least two of the side display regions are adjacent to each other.
Claims 1-3, 6-7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN 216624276, IDS)..
CN ‘276 discloses and illustrates (see at least Figures 4-6) a display panel, having a display region and a side display region comprising: a lower substrate (e.g., 11); a planarization layer disposed on the lower substrate, extending from the liquid crystal display region to the side display region, and defining a plurality of notches in the side display region; and a plurality of light emitting diodes (e.g., 12), respectively disposed in the notches in the side display region, a reflectance structure (e.g., 13) of an inner surface of each of the notches.
The limitation not explicitly disclosed by CN ‘276 are the display incorporating ‘ liquid crystal display’ (LCD) and “wherein a reflectance of an inner surface of each of the notches is greater than 50%’.
The use of LCD in display technology is common and known for achieving advantages such as high brightness, durability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the time the invention was made to employ LCD as common and known in the art for achieving advantages such as high brightness, durability.
CN ‘276 discloses the reflective structure (13) for enhancing the light-emitting intensity of the light emitting diodes’ sets (12) for achieving advantages such as effectively solving cross-talk between adjacent light emitting sets, thereby resulting in desired productivity of the display images, e.g., efficiency, brightness, clarity (optimized/desired output in the display technology). Routine optimization refers to the process of identifying optimal or workable ranges of a variable through routine experimentation when the general conditions are known and already disclosed in the prior art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the time the invention was made to employ ‘a reflectance of an inner surface of each of the notches is greater than 50%’ to achieve advantages such as effectively solving cross-talk between adjacent light emitting sets, thereby resulting in desired productivity of the display images, e.g., efficiency, brightness, clarity (optimized/desired output in the display technology.
Per claim 2, CN ‘276 discloses (see at least descriptions for Figure 1) the inclination range (e.g., 30 degrees) being in the range of Applicant’s range of 15-35 degrees. CN ‘276’s inventive concept is achieving display advantages such as desired productivity, e.g., efficiency, brightness, clarity (optimized/desired r output in the display technology). Routine optimization refers to the process of identifying optimal or workable ranges of a variable through routine experimentation when the general conditions are known and already disclosed in the prior art. A selection of optimized parameters such as a desired inclination angle between an inner surface and lower substrate would have within a purview of one of ordinary skill in the art so as achieving advantages such as desired productivity of the display images, e.g., efficiency, brightness, clarity (optimized/desired output in the display technology). CN ‘276 discloses (see at least descriptions for Figure 1) the inclination range (e.g., 30 degrees) being in the range of Applicant’s range of 15-35 degrees. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the time the invention was made to employ ‘the inner surface is inclined relative to the lower substrate, an inclination angle exists between the inner surface and the lower substrate, and the inclination angle is 15 degrees to 35 degrees’ to achieve advantages such as desired productivity of display images, e.g., efficiency, brightness, clarity (optimized/desired output in the display technology)
Per claim 3, CN ‘276 discloses and illustrates (see at least Figures 4-6) the display panel wherein heights of light emitting layers of the light emitting diodes relative to the lower substrate are less than a height of a top surface of the planarization layer.
Per claim 6, CN ‘276’s inventive concept is achieving display advantages such as desired productivity, e.g., efficiency, brightness, clarity (optimized/desired r output in the display technology). Routine optimization refers to the process of identifying optimal or workable ranges of a variable through routine experimentation when the general conditions are known and already disclosed in the prior art. A selection of optimized parameters such as a desired a distance between top surfaces of the light emitting diodes and the top surface of the planarization layer in a normal direction of the lower substrate would have within a purview of one of ordinary skill in the art so as achieving advantages such as desired productivity of the display images, e.g., efficiency, brightness, clarity (optimized/desired r output in the display technology). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the time the invention was made to employ ‘a distance between top surfaces of the light emitting diodes and the top surface of the planarization layer in a normal direction of the lower substrate is greater than 1 micrometer’ to achieve advantages such as desired productivity of the display images, e.g., efficiency, brightness, clarity (optimized/desired output in the display technology)
Per claim 7, CN ‘276 discloses and illustrates (see at least Figures 4-6) the display panel, further comprising a metal layer (13, e.g., aluminum, iron) disposed on the planarization layer and defining the inner surfaces of the notches.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 and 8-13 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:
US ‘768 and/or CN ‘276 discloses and illustrates a display panel comprising a combination of various elements and functions as recited as recited in the independent claim 1 , however, the prior art neither anticipates nor renders obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art , further comprising a filler medium layer disposed in the notches and encapsulating the light emitting diodes, wherein a haze of the filler medium layer is less than 10%. [claims 4-5]. US ‘768 and/or CN’276 discloses and illustrates a display panel comprising a combination of various elements and functions as recited as recited in the independent claim 1, however, the prior art neither anticipates nor renders obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the display panel further comprising a diffusive-reflective layer disposed on the planarization layer, wherein a minimum distance (d) between the diffusive-reflective layer and a top side of the planarization layer, and a distance (L) between the top side of the planarization layer and the light emitting layers of the light emitting diodes in the normal direction of the lower substrate satisfy a condition 1.2L>d>0.8L [claims 8-13].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOAN TON whose telephone number is (571)272-2303. 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. 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.
/TOAN TON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2882
Prosecution Insights