DETAILED ACTION
An amendment, amending claims 1, 3 and 5, was entered on 11/25/25.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the amendments to claim 1, incorporating the limitations of claims 2 and 4, overcome the rejection of these claims because Tano fails to teach or suggest specific exposure durations for the different regions. This is not persuasive. Tano explains that the height difference between the first and second regions is governed by the dose (i.e. irradiance) and duration of the exposure (¶¶ 0146; 0189). Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). Thus, even though Tano does not teach specific exposure durations, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the teachings of Tano to determine the optimal exposure durations based on the desired height difference.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mino et al. (US 2008/0186585) in light of Tano et al. (US 2010/0181571).
Claims 1, 5 and 7: Mino teaches a process of forming a display apparatus and lens array for said apparatus (Abst.), comprising the steps of: forming a hybrid film on a base substrate which includes first sub-films arranged in an array and second sub-films surrounding the first sub-films (Fig. 2, e.g.), the contact angle of the first sub-film being less than the contact angle of the second (¶¶ 0042, 0065, 0110); coating the hybrid film with a photo-curable resin to form lens-shaped liquid droplets arranged in the array of first sub-films (¶¶ 0093, 0118, 0213); and photo-curing the resin to form lenses (¶¶ 0093, 0118, 0213).
Mino fails to teach irradiating the first and second films to achieve the array. However, Tano teaches a process of forming a display device with an array of openings, wherein the openings have a lower contact angle than the surrounding area in order to aid in deposition in the openings of the array (Abst.; ¶¶ 0128-0155) and explains that the array is formed by depositing a first layer of an insulative polymer, such as polyimide, (¶¶ 0151-0155); forming a second wettability-variable layer on the first (¶¶ 0152; 0048, 0128; 0140); and exposing the first and second regions to irradiation wherein the first regions are exposed for longer in order to form wells in the hybrid film which have a lower contact angle than the surrounding second regions (¶¶ 0048, 0128, 0140, 0172). Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is prima facie obvious. MPEP § 2143. Thus, because Tano teaches that this irradiation process is a suitable means for forming regions of lower contact angle in a hybrid film having an array, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have utilized this process in the process of Mino in order to have formed the array with the predictable expectation of success.
Tano fails to teach the claimed irradiance and duration. However, Tano explains that the height difference between the first and second regions is governed by the dose (i.e. irradiance) and duration of the exposure (¶¶ 0146; 0189). Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have arrived at the claimed dose and duration with the predictable expectation of success depending on the desired height difference.
Claim 6: Mino teaches that the contact angle of the regions can be adjusted by the groups in the layer (¶¶ 0065-0066). Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected the claimed first and second contact angles depending on the desired contact angles.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mino and Tano in light of Long (CN109037289, with US2021/0336212 serving as the English translation).
Claim 3: Tano teaches that the first and second films can be the same material or different (¶ 0152) and that both can be polyimides (¶¶ 0155, 0158), but fails to teach a different material for the second film. Long teaches a substantially similar process and explains that acrylic acid can be used in place of polyimide (¶ 0080). The simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is prima facie obvious. MPEP § 2143. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected acrylic acid as the material for the second film in Tano with the predictable expectation of success.
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mino and Tano in light of Ohta (US 2012/0217521).
Claims 8-11: Mino teaches that the lens array is intended for a display device (¶ 0238, e.g.), but fails to discuss how the display is formed. Ohta teaches a process of forming a display device which includes a lens array (Abst.) wherein the device is formed by forming an array of sub-pixels corresponding to three different colors (11R, 11G, 11B in Fig. 2; ¶ 0119) with a non-display region surrounding the array of sub-pixels (Fig. 2; ¶ 0119), the projection of the sub-pixels aligning with the lenses and the projection of the non-display region aligning with the area surrounding the lenses (i.e. the second region) (Fig. 2; ¶ 0019); forming an encapsulation layer (30) on the sub-pixel layer (Fig. 2); forming a color filter (21) between the encapsulation layer and the lens layer (Fig. 2) wherein the color filter comprises filter which aligns with the sub-pixels and lenses and a black matrix that aligns with the regions between the lenses and the non-display regions (Fig. 2); and forming a bonding layer (i.e. claimed protective layer) on the lenses (27 in Fig. 2). Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is prima facie obvious. MPEP § 2143. Thus, because Mino is silent as to how the display is formed and because Ohta teaches a suitable means for forming the display, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have formed the display as disclosed in Ohta in the process of Mino with the predictable expectation of success.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert A Vetere whose telephone number is (571)270-1864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at (571) 270-1034. 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.
/ROBERT A VETERE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712