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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 6th, 2026 has been received. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendments
Acknowledgment is made of the amendment filed 01/27/2025 (“A…”), in which: claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, and 15 – 21 are amended; claims 2, 5, 7, 10, 12, 14, and 22 are cancelled; new claim 27 is added; and the rejection of the claims are traversed. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 15 – 21, and 23 – 27 are currently pending an Office action on the merits as follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 15 – 21, and 23 – 27 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Claim Objections
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 26 now depends from cancelled claim 5. Examiner will treat claim 26 as if it depends from claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Rejections
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, 3, 6, 8 – 9, 16, 18 – 21, and 23 – 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Nishikawa et al. (US 20080024402 A1), further in view of Kimura et al. (US 20010035713 A1), You et al. (US 20220221748 A1), Do et al. (US 20030164496 A1), and Nishimura et al. (US 20140042426 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1, Nishikawa teaches a light emitting display device comprising:
a substrate (Fig. 1; transparent substrate 10) including a light emitting surface (Fig. 1 and [0089]);
a plurality of pixels (Fig. 1; plurality of pixels including organic EL element 100) on the substrate (Fig. 1), the plurality of pixels having a light emitting area (Fig. 1; area defined by second planarization insulating layer 140);
a light extraction portion (Fig. 1; planarization insulating layer 30) including a curved portion (Fig. 6(b); surface including concave portion 34 and convex portions 36) in the light emitting area (Fig. 1 and Fig. 6(b));
a light emitting device layer (Fig. 1; emitting element layer 120) over the light extraction portion (Fig. 1), the light emitting device layer configured to emit light (Fig. 1) to the light emitting surface in the light emitting area (Fig. 1); …
wherein the light extraction portion includes:
a plurality of concave portions (Nishikawa: Fig. 6(b); concave portion 34); and
a convex portion (Nishikawa: Fig. 6(b); convex portion 36) disposed around each of the plurality of concave portions (Nishikawa: Fig. 6(b)),
…
However, Nishikawa remains silent regarding the light emitting display device including:
… an adhesive member having a first side and a second side that is opposite the first side, the first side in contact with the light emitting surface of the substrate;
a light guide portion in contact with the second side of the adhesive member such that the adhesive member is between the light guide portion and the light emitting surface of the substrate, the light guide portion including a light refraction pattern portion comprising protruding portions and recessed portions alternating with each other; and
a filling layer filling space adjacent to the recessed portions between neighboring ones of the protruding portions, the filling layer configured to allow the light emitted from the light emitting device layer to be transmitted through the filling layer, light emitted from the light emitting device layer sequentially passing through the substrate and the filling layer and is emitted to an outside,
wherein the light refraction pattern portion includes a plurality of protrusion patterns and a plurality of recessed patterns, each of the plurality of recessed patterns between a pair of protrusion patterns from the plurality of protrusion patterns,
…
wherein the plurality of protrusion patterns overlaps each of the plurality of concave portions, and each of the plurality of recessed patterns overlaps the convex portion without overlapping the plurality of concave portions.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kimura teaches a bottom emission display device including a light guide portion (See Figs. 1A – 3D. Further, see Fig. 3A shows a structure wherein a transparent film is formed on a rear surface of a substrate 301 and etched to forming light scattering body 302. Examiner is interpreting Kimura’s structure shown in Fig. 3A to be a light guide portion) . . . the light guide portion including a light refraction pattern portion (Fig. 4A and [0043]) comprising protruding portions (Figs 3A – 4A; light scattering body 302) and recessed portions (Figs 3A – 4A; space between light scattering body 302) alternating with each other (Figs 3A – 4A). This includes the display device feature wherein the light refraction pattern portion includes a plurality of protrusion patterns and a plurality of recessed patterns, each of the plurality of recessed patterns between a pair of protrusion patterns from the plurality of protrusion patterns. Examiner asserts that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to combine Nishikawa’s display device structure with Kimura’s light guide portion because one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the benefit of a light guide member for a display device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Nishikawa’s display device to include Kimura’s light guide portion wherein the light refraction pattern portion includes a plurality of protrusion patterns and a plurality of recessed patterns, each of the plurality of recessed patterns between a pair of protrusion patterns from the plurality of protrusion patterns, because such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. More specifically, Nishikawa’s display device as modified by Kimura’s light guide portion can yield a predictable result of increasing the picture clarity for the display device since the Kimura’s light guide portion improves the extracting efficiency for a display device. Since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable before the effective filing date of the instant invention.
Further, in the same field of endeavor, You teaches a display device (Fig. 1) including a viewing angle modulator VAM/refractive index conversion layer VRL (Fig. 2 and [0136]); wherein the viewing angle modulator VAM includes a first refractive layer RL1 (Fig. 6A), which is taught to be made of a photocurable isotropic polymer ([0124]), i.e., an adhesive. Thus, You discloses in Figs. 2 and 6A teaches an adhesive member (Fig. 6A; first refractive layer RL1 and [0124]) having a first side and a second side that is opposite the first side (Fig. 6A and [0124]). Examiner asserts that an adhesive member would be an obvious structural member/layer to apply to Kimura’s light guide portion for combination to Nishikawa’s display device structure as a means of facilitating the combination. Thus, examiner asserts that it would be obvious to combine Kimura’s light guide portion with You’s adhesive member, such that Nishikawa, further in view of Kimura and You, disclose a display device including:
... an adhesive member (You: Fig. 6A; first refractive layer RL1 and [0124]) having a first side and a second side that is opposite the first side (You: Fig. 6A and [0124]), the first side in contact with the light emitting surface of the substrate (Nishikawa: Fig. 1 and [0089] teaches the light emitting surface of the substrate. Examiner asserts that it would be obvious to place the adhesive member here for a bottom emission display device such that the adhesive member can be between a display panel and an optical enhancement layer, e.g., a light guide portion);
a light guide portion (Kimura: Fig. 3A shows a structure wherein a transparent film is formed on a rear surface of a substrate 301 and etched to forming light scattering body 302. Examiner is interpreting Kimura’s structure shown in Fig. 3A to be a light guide portion) in contact with the second side of the adhesive member such that the adhesive member is between the light guide portion and the light emitting surface of the substrate (Yielded through the combination of Nishikawa, further in view of Kimura and You), the light guide portion including a light refraction pattern portion (Kimura: Fig. 4A and [0043]) comprising protruding portions (Kimura: Figs 3A – 4A; light scattering body 302) and recessed portions (Kimura: Figs 3A – 4A; space between light scattering body 302) alternating with each other (Kimura: Figs 3A – 4A) . . .
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the combination of Nishikawa and Kimura to include You’s adhesive member, because such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. More specifically, the display device yielded from the combination of Nishikawa and Kimura as modified by You’s adhesive member can yield a predictable result of coupling separate members together since You’s adhesive layer is designed to join separate structures using a first side and second side of You’s adhesive member. Since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable before the effective filing date of the instant invention.
Further, in the same field of endeavor, Do teaches a bottom emission display device including a light loss preventing layer 80; which examiner asserts to be analogous to a light guide portion, because Do’s light loss preventing layer 80 uses layers/areas of varying refractive indices to guide light ([0045] and [0051]). Thus, examiner understands Do’s Fig. 5A to disclose the structure for the light loss preventing layer 80, considered analogous to the instant light guide portion; wherein the light loss preventing layer 80 includes a filling, i.e., second area 82. Examiner asserts that a filling structure added to the light guide portion of Kimura, wherein the filling structure is disposed filling space adjacent to the recessed portions between neighboring ones of the protruding portions, the filling layer configured to allow the light emitted from the light emitting device layer to be transmitted through the filling layer (Do: Fig. 10), light emitted from the light emitting device layer sequentially passing through the substrate and the filling layer and is emitted to an outside (Do: Fig. 10), would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Further, in the same field of endeavor, You teaches a second refractive layer RL2, which Fig. 6A shows to be a layer that is filling space adjacent to the recessed portions between neighboring ones of the protruding portions. Thus, examiner asserts that the display device of Nishikawa, in view of Kimura and You, may be further modified in view of You and Do to yield the display device including a filling layer (You: Fig. 6A second refractive layer RL2) filling space adjacent to the recessed portions between neighboring ones of the protruding portions (You: Fig. 6A second refractive layer RL2 filling the space between protruding portions of the optical structure OP), the filling layer configured to allow the light emitted from the light emitting device layer to be transmitted through the filling layer (You: Fig. 7A), light emitted from the light emitting device layer sequentially passing through the substrate and the filling layer and is emitted to an outside (You: Fig. 7A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the display device of Nishikawa, further in view of Kimura and You, to include a filling layer, as disclosed by You and Do, because such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. More specifically, the display device of Nishikawa, further in view of Kimura and You, as modified by You’s second refractive layer RL2, further in view of Do, can yield a predictable result of directing light along a desirable/optimal optical path and protecting the protruding structures since the filling layer has a refractive index and formed of materials that can absorb force and/or seal away from permeating matter/energy. Since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable before the effective filing date of the instant invention.
Further, in the same field of endeavor, Nishimura (US 20140042426 A1) teaches the relationship between a light extraction portion (Fig. 14; diffraction grating 11) and a light refraction pattern portion (Fig. 14; microlens 12), including concave-convex portions and protrusion-recessed patterns, respectively, wherein the plurality of protrusion patterns overlaps each of the plurality of concave portions, and each of the plurality of recessed patterns overlaps the convex portion without overlapping the plurality of concave portions (Fig. 14). Nishimura teaches [0145] that with the pattern disclosed wherein the plurality of protrusion patterns overlaps each of the plurality of concave portions, and each of the plurality of recessed patterns overlaps the convex portion without overlapping the plurality of concave portions then, “it is possible to sufficiently reduce the angle-dependence of the emitted light and the change in chromaticity”; and thus it would be obvious to modify the light emitting display device of Nishikawa, further in view of Kimura, You, and Do, to include Nishimura’s relationship wherein the plurality of protrusion patterns overlaps each of the plurality of concave portions, and each of the plurality of recessed patterns overlaps the convex portion without overlapping the plurality of concave portions in the combination of Kimura’s light refraction pattern.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the light emitting display device of Nishikawa, further in view of Kimura, You, and Do, to include Nishikawa’s disclosed relationship between a light extraction portion (Fig. 14; diffraction grating 11) and a light refraction pattern portion (Fig. 14; microlens 12) wherein the plurality of protrusion patterns overlaps each of the plurality of concave portions, and each of the plurality of recessed patterns overlaps the convex portion without overlapping the plurality of concave portions, because such a modification is the result of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. More specifically, Nishikawa’s disclosed relationship between a light extraction portion (Fig. 14; diffraction grating 11) and a light refraction pattern portion (Fig. 14; microlens 12) permits the light extraction portion and the light refraction pattern portion to from an isotropic structural relationship wherein “it is possible to sufficiently reduce the angle-dependence of the emitted light and the change in chromaticity” (Nishikawa: [0145]). This known benefit in Nishikawa is applicable to the light emitting display device of Nishikawa, further in view of Kimura, You, and Do, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to display panel areas of light emitting display devices. Therefore, it would have been recognized that modifying the light emitting display device of Nishikawa, further in view of Kimura, You, and Do, to include Nishikawa’s disclosed relationship between a light extraction portion (Fig. 14; diffraction grating 11) and a light refraction pattern portion (Fig. 14; microlens 12) wherein the plurality of protrusion patterns overlaps each of the plurality of concave portions, and each of the plurality of recessed patterns overlaps the convex portion without overlapping the plurality of concave portions, would have yielded predictable results because (i) the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate Nishikawa’s isotropic structural relationship in light emitting display device and (ii) the benefits of such a combination would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding dependent claim 3, Nishikawa, in view of Kimura, You, Do, and Nishimura, teach the light emitting display device according to claim 1, wherein
each of the plurality of protrusion patterns has a triangular cross-sectional structure (Kimura: Figs 3A – 4G), and is disposed in parallel along at least one or more among a first direction of the substrate and a second direction that crosses the first direction (Kimura: Figs 3A – 4G and 9A-C. See [0095] for more on Fig. 9A-C).
Regarding independent claim 6, Nishikawa teaches a light emitting display device comprising:
a substrate (Fig. 1; transparent substrate 10) including a light emitting surface (Fig. 1 and [0089]);
a plurality of pixels (Fig. 1; plurality of pixels including organic EL element 100) on the substrate (Fig. 1), the plurality of pixels having a light emitting area (Fig. 1; area defined by second planarization insulating layer 140);
a planarization layer (Fig. 1; a planarization insulating layer 30) over the substrate (Fig. 6), the planarization layer including a light extraction portion (Fig. 6(b); surface including concave portion 34 and convex portions 36) at a portion of the planarization layer (Figs. 1 and 6(b)) in the light emitting area (Fig. 1), the light extraction portion comprising a plurality of concave portions (Fig. 6; plurality of concave portions 661) and a convex portion (Fig. 6(b); convex portions 36) between the plurality of concave portions (Fig. 6(b); concave portions 34);
a light emitting device layer (Fig. 1; emitting element layer 120) over the light extraction portion (Fig. 1), the light emitting device layer configured to emit light to the light emitting surface in the light emitting area (Fig. 1); …
However, Nishikawa remains silent regarding the light emitting display device including:
… an adhesive member having a first side and a second side that is opposite the first side, the first side in contact with the light emitting surface of the substrate;
a light guide portion in contact with the second side of the adhesive member such that the adhesive member is between the light guide portion and the light emitting surface of the substrate, the light guide portion including a light refraction pattern portion, comprising a plurality of protrusion patterns and a plurality of recessed patterns alternating with each other,
a filling layer filling space adjacent to the plurality of recessed patterns between neighboring ones of the plurality of protrusion patterns, the filling layer configured to allow the light emitted from the light emitting device layer to be transmitted through the filling layer, light emitted from the light emitting device layer sequentially passing through the substrate and the filling layer and is emitted to an outside, and
wherein the light refraction pattern portion includes a light refractive pattern that overlaps at least one or more among the plurality of concave portions and the convex portion,
wherein each of the plurality of recessed patterns is between a pair of protrusion patterns from the plurality of protrusion patterns,
wherein the plurality of protrusion patterns overlaps each of the plurality of concave portions, and
each of the plurality of recessed patterns overlaps the convex portion without overlapping the plurality of concave portions.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kimura (US 20010035713 A1) teaches a bottom emission display device including a light guide portion (Fig. 3A shows a structure wherein a transparent film is formed on a rear surface of a substrate 301 and etched to forming light scattering body 302. Examiner is interpreting Kimura’s structure shown in Fig. 3A to be a light guide portion) . . . the light guide portion including a light refraction pattern portion (Fig. 4A and [0043]) comprising protruding portions (Figs 3A – 4A; light scattering body 302) and recessed portions (Figs 3A – 4A; space between light scattering body 302) alternating with each other (Figs 3A – 4A). Kimura’s disclosed light guide portion structure includes the feature, wherein each of the plurality of recessed patterns is between a pair of protrusion patterns from the plurality of protrusion patterns (Kimura: Figs. 3A – 4A-G and 9A-C). Examiner asserts that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to combine Nishikawa’s display device structure with Kimura’s light guide portion because one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the benefit of a light guide member for a display device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Nishikawa’s display device to include Kimura’s light guide portion wherein each of the plurality of recessed patterns is between a pair of protrusion patterns from the plurality of protrusion patterns, because such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. More specifically, Nishikawa’s display device as modified by Kimura’s light guide portion can yield a predictable result of increasing the picture clarity for the display device since the Kimura’s light guide portion improves the extracting efficiency for a display device. Since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable before the effective filing date of the instant invention.
Further, in the same field of endeavor, You (US 20220221748 A1) teaches a display device (Fig. 1) including a viewing angle modulator VAM/refractive index conversion layer VRL (Fig. 2 and [0136]); wherein the viewing angle modulator VAM includes a first refractive layer RL1 (Fig. 6A), which is taught to be made of a photocurable isotropic polymer ([0124]), i.e., an adhesive. Thus, You discloses in Figs. 2 and 6A teaches an adhesive member (Fig. 6A; first refractive layer RL1 and [0124]) having a first side and a second side that is opposite the first side (Fig. 6A and [0124]). Examiner asserts that an adhesive member would be an obvious structural member/layer to apply to Kimura’s light guide portion for combination to Nishikawa’s display device structure as a means of facilitating the combination. Thus, examiner asserts that it would be obvious to combine Kimura’s light guide portion with You’s adhesive member, such that Nishikawa, further in view of Kimura and You, disclose a display device including:
... an adhesive member (You: Fig. 6A; first refractive layer RL1 and [0124]) having a first side and a second side that is opposite the first side (You: Fig. 6A and [0124]), the first side in contact with the light emitting surface of the substrate (Nishikawa: Fig. 1 and [0089] teaches the light emitting surface of the substrate. Examiner asserts that it would be obvious to place the adhesive member here for a bottom emission display device such that the adhesive member can be between a display panel and an optical enhancement layer, e.g., a light guide portion);
a light guide portion (Kimura: Fig. 3A shows a structure wherein a transparent film is formed on a rear surface of a substrate 301 and etched to forming light scattering body 302. Examiner is interpreting Kimura’s structure shown in Fig. 3A to be a light guide portion) in contact with the second side of the adhesive member such that the adhesive member is between the light guide portion and the light emitting surface of the substrate (Yielded through the combination of Nishikawa, further in view of Kimura and You), the light guide portion including a light refraction pattern portion (Kimura: Fig. 4A and [0043]) comprising protruding portions (Kimura: Figs 3A – 4A; light scattering body 302) and recessed portions (Kimura: Figs 3A – 4A; space between light scattering body 302) alternating with each other (Kimura: Figs 3A – 4A) . . .
Further, examiner asserts that combined display device of Nishikawa, further in view of Kimura and You, yield the display feature wherein the light refraction pattern portion includes a light refractive pattern that overlaps at least one or more among the plurality of concave portions and the convex portion through the combination above.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the combination of Nishikawa and Kimura to include You’s adhesive member, because such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. More specifically, the display device yielded from the combination of Nishikawa and Kimura as modified by You’s adhesive member can yield a predictable result of coupling separate members together wherein the light refraction pattern portion includes a light refractive pattern that overlaps at least one or more among the plurality of concave portions and the convex portion, since You’s adhesive layer is designed to join separate structures using a first side and second side of You’s adhesive member. Since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable before the effective filing date of the instant invention.
Further, in the same field of endeavor, Do (US 20030164496 A1) teaches a bottom emission display device including a light loss preventing layer 80; which examiner asserts to be analogous to a light guide portion, because Do’s light loss preventing layer 80 uses layers/areas of varying refractive indices to guide light ([0045] and [0051]). Thus, examiner understands Do’s Fig. 5A to disclose the structure for the light loss preventing layer 80, considered analogous to the instant light guide portion; wherein the light loss preventing layer 80 includes a filling, i.e., second area 82. Examiner asserts that a filling structure added to the light guide portion of Kimura, wherein the filling structure is disposed filling space adjacent to the recessed portions between neighboring ones of the protruding portions, the filling layer configured to allow the light emitted from the light emitting device layer to be transmitted through the filling layer (Do: Fig. 10), light emitted from the light emitting device layer sequentially passing through the substrate and the filling layer and is emitted to an outside (Do: Fig. 10), would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Further, in the same field of endeavor, You teaches a second refractive layer RL2, which Fig. 6A shows to be a layer that is filling space adjacent to the recessed portions between neighboring ones of the protruding portions. Thus, examiner asserts that the display device of Nishikawa, in view of Kimura and You, may be further modified in view of You and Do to yield the display device including a filling layer (You: Fig. 6A second refractive layer RL2) filling space adjacent to the recessed portions between neighboring ones of the protruding portions (You: Fig. 6A second refractive layer RL2 filling the space between protruding portions of the optical structure OP), the filling layer configured to allow the light emitted from the light emitting device layer to be transmitted through the filling layer (You: Fig. 7A), light emitted from the light emitting device layer sequentially passing through the substrate and the filling layer and is emitted to an outside (You: Fig. 7A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the display device of Nishikawa, further in view of Kimura and You, to include a filling layer, as disclosed by You and Do, because such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. More specifically, the display device of Nishikawa, further in view of Kimura and You, as modified by You’s second refractive layer RL2, further in view of Do, can yield a predictable result of directing light along a desirable/optimal optical path and protecting the protruding structures since the filling layer has a refractive index and formed of materials that can absorb force and/or seal away from permeating matter/energy. Since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable before the effective filing date of the instant invention.
Further, in the same field of endeavor, Nishimura (US 20140042426 A1) teaches the relationship between a light extraction portion (Fig. 14; diffraction grating 11) and a light refraction pattern portion (Fig. 14; microlens 12), including concave-convex portions and protrusion-recessed patterns, respectively, wherein the plurality of protrusion patterns overlaps each of the plurality of concave portions (Fig. 14), and each of the plurality of recessed patterns overlaps the convex portion without overlapping the plurality of concave portions (Fig. 14). Nishimura teaches in [0145] that the structure disclosed wherein the plurality of protrusion patterns overlaps each of the plurality of concave portions, and each of the plurality of recessed patterns overlaps the convex portion without overlapping the plurality of concave portions then, “it is possible to sufficiently reduce the angle-dependence of the emitted light and the change in chromaticity”; and thus it would be obvious to modify the light emitting display device of Nishikawa, further in view of Kimura, You, and Do, to include Nishimura’s relationship wherein the plurality of protrusion patterns overlaps each of the plurality of concave portions, and each of the plurality of recessed patterns overlaps the convex portion without overlapping the plurality of concave portions in the combination of Kimura’s light refraction pattern.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the light emitting display device of Nishikawa, further in view of Kimura, You, and Do, to include Nishikawa’s disclosed relationship between a light extraction portion (Fig. 14; diffraction grating 11) and a light refraction pattern portion (Fig. 14; microlens 12) wherein the plurality of protrusion patterns overlaps each of the plurality of concave portions, and each of the plurality of recessed patterns overlaps the convex portion without overlapping the plurality of concave portions, because such a modification is the result of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. More specifically, Nishikawa’s disclosed relationship between a light extraction portion (Fig. 14; diffraction grating 11) and a light refraction pattern portion (Fig. 14; microlens 12) permits the light extraction portion and the light refraction pattern portion to from an isotropic structural relationship wherein “it is possible to sufficiently reduce the angle-dependence of the emitted light and the change in chromaticity” (Nishikawa: [0145]). This known benefit in Nishikawa is applicable to the light emitting display device of Nishikawa, further in view of Kimura, You, and Do, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to display panel areas of light emitting display devices. Therefore, it would have been recognized that modifying the light emitting display device of Nishikawa, further in view of Kimura, You, and Do, to include Nishikawa’s disclosed relationship between a light extraction portion (Fig. 14; diffraction grating 11) and a light refraction pattern portion (Fig. 14; microlens 12) wherein the plurality of protrusion patterns overlaps each of the plurality of concave portions, and each of the plurality of recessed patterns overlaps the convex portion without overlapping the plurality of concave portions, would have yielded predictable results because (i) the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate Nishikawa’s isotropic structural relationship in light emitting display device and (ii) the benefits of such a combination would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding dependent claim 8, Nishikawa, in view of Kimura, You, Do, and Nishimura, teach the light emitting display device according to claim 6, wherein the convex portion includes:
a vertex portion (Kimura: Figs. 3A – 4A-G) between adjacent two concave portions from the plurality of concave portions (Kimura: Figs. 3A – 4A-G); and
a ridge portion (Kimura: Figs. 3A – 4A-G) between the adjacent two concave portions and connected between adjacent two vertex portions (Kimura: Figs. 3A – 4A-G),
wherein the ridge portion is parallel with a first direction of the substrate (Kimura: Figs. 3A – 4A-G), and
wherein each of the plurality of recessed patterns is in parallel with the first direction (Kimura: Figs. 3A – 4A-G).
Regarding dependent claim 9, Nishikawa, in view of Kimura, You, Do, and Nishimura, teach the light emitting display device according to claim 6, wherein:
a distance between the plurality of protrusion patterns is less than or equal to a distance between the plurality of concave portions (Nishikawa: Fig. 4A).
Regarding dependent claim 16, Nishikawa, in view of Kimura, You, Do, and Nishimura, teach the light emitting display device according to claim 6; however, Nishikawa remains silent wherein the light guide portion further comprises:
an overlay layer overlaid with the light refraction pattern portion,
wherein a refractive index of the overlay layer is less than a refractive index of the light refraction pattern portion.
However, in the same field of endeavor, You teaches
an overlay layer (You: Fig. 6A; second refractive layer RL2) overlaid with the light refraction pattern portion (You: Fig. 6A; second refractive layer RL2),
wherein a refractive index of the overlay layer is less than a refractive index of the light refraction pattern portion (You: [0134]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the display device of Nishikawa, further in view of Kimura and You, to include an overlay layer, as disclosed by You, because such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. More specifically, the display device of Nishikawa, further in view of Kimura, as modified by You’s second refractive layer RL2, can yield a predictable result of directing light along a desirable/optimal optical path and protecting the protruding structures since the filling layer has a refractive index and formed of materials that can absorb force and/or seal away from permeating matter/energy. Since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable before the effective filing date of the instant invention.
Regarding dependent claim 18, Nishikawa, in view of Kimura, You, Do, and Nishimura, teach the light emitting display device according to claim 6, wherein
the substrate is between the light guide portion and the light extraction portion (Yielded through the combination of Nishikawa, further in view of Kimura), or the light extraction portion is between the substrate and the light guide portion.
Regarding dependent claim 19, Nishikawa, in view of Kimura, You, Do, and Nishimura, teach the light emitting display device according to claim 6, further comprising:
a color filter layer (Nishikawa: Fig. 1; wavelength adjusting layer 26) between the light extraction portion and the substrate (Nishikawa: Fig. 1),
wherein the substrate is between the light guide portion and the light extraction portion (Nishikawa: Fig. 1).
Regarding dependent claim 20, Nishikawa, in view of Kimura, You, Do, and Nishimura, teach the light emitting display device according to claim 6, wherein
an arrangement region of the light extraction portion is wider than the light emitting area (Nishikawa: Figs. 1 and 3).
Regarding independent claim 21, Nishikawa teaches a display apparatus comprising:
a substrate (Fig. 1; transparent substrate 10) including a light emitting surface (Fig. 1 and [0089]);
a subpixel (Fig. 1; plurality of pixels including organic EL element 100) on the substrate (Fig. 1), the subpixel including a light emitting element (Fig. 1; plurality of pixels including organic EL element 100) having a light emitting area (Fig. 1; area defined by second planarization insulating layer 140) and configured to emit light to the light emitting surface (Fig. 1);
a planarization layer (Fig. 1; a planarization insulating layer 30) between the substrate and the light emitting element (Fig. 1), the planarization layer including a plurality of concave portions (Fig. 6(b); surface including concave portion 34) in the light emitting area (Fig. 1) and a plurality of convex portions (Fig. 6(b); surface including convex portions 36) in the light emitting area (Fig. 1); …
However, Nishikawa remains silent regarding the light emitting display device including:
… an adhesive member having a first side and a second side that is opposite the first side, the first side in contact with the light emitting surface of the substrate;
a light guide in contact with the second side of the adhesive member such that the adhesive member is between the light guide and the light emitting surface of the substrate, the light guide including a plurality of protrusions and a plurality of recesses in the light emitting area,
wherein the plurality of protrusions and the plurality of recesses of the light guide overlap the plurality of concave portions and the plurality of convex portions of the planarization layer in the light emitting area; and
a filling layer filling space adjacent to the plurality of recesses between neighboring ones of the plurality of protrusions, the filling layer configured to allow the light emitted from the light emitting element to be transmitted through the filling layer, light emitted from the light emitting element sequentially passing through the substrate and the filling layer and is emitted to an outside,
wherein a recess from the plurality of recesses overlaps a corresponding convex portion from the plurality of convex portions, and a protrusion from the plurality of protrusions overlaps a corresponding concave portion from the plurality of concave portions.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kimura (US 20010035713 A1) teaches a bottom emission display device including a light guide portion (Fig. 3A shows a structure wherein a transparent film is formed on a rear surface of a substrate 301 and etched to forming light scattering body 302. Examiner is interpreting Kimura’s structure shown in Fig. 3A to be a light guide portion) . . . the light guide portion including a light refraction pattern portion (Fig. 4A and [0043]) comprising protruding portions (Figs 3A – 4A; light scattering body 302) and recessed portions (Figs 3A – 4A; space between light scattering body 302) alternating with each other (Figs 3A – 4A). Examiner asserts that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to combine Nishikawa’s display device structure with Kimura’s light guide portion because one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the benefit of a light guide member for a display device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Nishikawa’s display device to include Kimura’s light guide portion, because such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. More specifically, Nishikawa’s display device as modified by Kimura’s light guide portion can yield a predictable result of increasing the picture clarity for the display device since the Kimura’s light guide portion improves the extracting efficiency for a display device. Since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable before the effective filing date of the instant invention.
Further, in the same field of endeavor, Nishimura (US 20140042426 A1) teaches the relationship between a light extraction portion (Fig. 14; diffraction grating 11) and a light refraction pattern portion (Fig. 14; microlens 12), including concave-convex portions and protrusion-recessed patterns, respectively, wherein a recess from the plurality of recesses overlaps a corresponding convex portion from the plurality of convex portions (Fig. 14), and a protrusion from the plurality of protrusions overlaps a corresponding concave portion from the plurality of concave portions (Fig. 14). Nishimura teaches [0145] that with the pattern disclosed wherein a recess from the plurality of recesses overlaps a corresponding convex portion from the plurality of convex portions, and a protrusion from the plurality of protrusions overlaps a corresponding concave portion from the plurality of concave portions then, “it is possible to sufficiently reduce the angle-dependence of the emitted light and the change in chromaticity”; and thus it would be obvious to modify the light emitting display device of Nishikawa, further in view of Kimura, You, and Do, to include Nishimura’s relationship wherein a recess from the plurality of recesses overlaps a corresponding convex portion from the plurality of convex portions, and a protrusion from the plurality of protrusions overlaps a corresponding concave portion from the plurality of concave portions in the combination of Kimura’s light refraction pattern.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the light emitting display device of Nishikawa, further in view of Kimura, You, and Do, to include Nishikawa’s disclosed relationship between a light extraction portion (Fig. 14; diffraction grating 11) and a light refraction pattern portion (Fig. 14; microlens 12) wherein a recess from the plurality of recesses overlaps a corresponding convex portion from the plurality of convex portions, and a protrusion from the plurality of protrusions overlaps a corresponding concave portion from the plurality of concave portions, because such a modification is the result of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. More specifically, Nishikawa’s disclosed relationship between a light extraction portion (Fig. 14; diffraction grating 11) and a light refraction pattern portion (Fig. 14; microlens 12) permits the light extraction portion and the light refraction pattern portion to from an isotropic structural relationship wherein “it is possible to sufficiently reduce the angle-dependence of the emitted light and the change in chromaticity” (Nishikawa: [0145]). This known benefit in Nishikawa is applicable to the light emitting display device of Nishikawa, further in view of Kimura, You, and Do, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to display panel areas of light emitting display devices. Therefore, it would have been recognized that modifying the light emitting display device of Nishikawa, further in view of Kimura, You, and Do, to include Nishikawa’s disclosed relationship between a light extraction portion (Fig. 14; diffraction grating 11) and a light refraction pattern portion (Fig. 14; microlens 12) wherein a recess from the plurality of recesses overlaps a corresponding convex portion from the plurality of convex portions, and a protrusion from the plurality of protrusions overlaps a corresponding concave portion from the plurality of concave portions, would have yielded predictable results because (i) the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate Nishikawa’s isotropic structural relationship in light emitting display device and (ii) the benefits of such a combination would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art.
Further, in the same field of endeavor, You (US 20220221748 A1) teaches a display device (Fig. 1) including a viewing angle modulator VAM/refractive index conversion layer VRL (Fig. 2 and [0136]); wherein the viewing angle modulator VAM includes a first refractive layer RL1 (Fig. 6A), which is taught to be made of a photocurable isotropic polymer ([0124]), i.e., an adhesive. Thus, You discloses in Figs. 2 and 6A teaches an adhesive member (Fig. 6A; first refractive layer RL1 and [0124]) having a first side and a second side that is opposite the first side (Fig. 6A and [0124]). Examiner asserts that an adhesive member would be an obvious structural member/layer to apply to Kimura’s light guide portion for combination to Nishikawa’s display device structure as a means of facilitating the combination. Thus, examiner asserts that it would be obvious to combine Kimura’s light guide portion with You’s adhesive member, such that Nishikawa, further in view of Kimura and You, disclose a display device including:
... an adhesive member (You: Fig. 6A; first refractive layer RL1 and [0124]) having a first side and a second side that is opposite the first side (You: Fig. 6A and [0124]), the first side in contact with the light emitting surface of the substrate (Nishikawa: Fig. 1 and [0089] teaches the light emitting surface of the substrate. Examiner asserts that it would be obvious to place the adhesive member here for a bottom emission display device such that the adhesive member can be between a display panel and an optical enhancement layer, e.g., a light guide portion);
a light guide portion (Kimura: Fig. 3A shows a structure wherein a transparent film is formed on a rear surface of a substrate 301 and etched to forming light scattering body 302. Examiner is interpreting Kimura’s structure shown in Fig. 3A to be a light guide portion) in contact with the second side of the adhesive member such that the adhesive member is between the light guide portion and the light emitting surface of the substrate (Yielded through the combination of Nishikawa, further in view of Kimura and You), the light guide portion including a light refraction pattern portion (Kimura: Fig. 4A and [0043]) comprising protruding portions (Kimura: Figs 3A – 4A; light scattering body 302) and recessed portions (Kimura: Figs 3A – 4A; space between light scattering body 302) alternating with each other (Kimura: Figs 3A – 4A) . . .
Further, examiner asserts that combined display device of Nishikawa, further in view of Kimura and You, yield the display feature wherein the plurality of protrusions and the plurality of recesses of the light guide overlap the plurality of concave portions and the plurality of convex portions of the planarization layer in the light emitting area through the combination above.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the combination of Nishikawa and Kimura to include You’s adhesive member, because such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. More specifically, the display device yielded from the combination of Nishikawa and Kimura as modified by You’s adhesive member can yield a predictable result of coupling separate members together wherein the plurality of protrusions and the plurality of recesses of the light guide overlap the plurality of concave portions and the plurality of convex portions of the planarization layer in the light emitting area, since You’s adhesive layer is designed to join separate structures using a first side and second side of You’s adhesive member. Since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable before the effective filing date of the instant invention.
Further, in the same field of endeavor, Do (US 20030164496 A1) teaches a bottom emission display device including a light loss preventing layer 80; which examiner asserts to be analogous to a light guide portion, because Do’s light loss preventing layer 80 uses layers/areas of varying refractive indices to guide light ([0045] and [0051]). Thus, examiner understands Do’s Fig. 5A to disclose the structure for the light loss preventing layer 80, considered analogous to the instant light guide portion; wherein the light loss preventing layer 80 includes a filling, i.e., second area 82. Examiner asserts that a filling structure added to the light guide portion of Kimura, wherein the filling structure is disposed filling space adjacent to the plurality of recesses between neighboring ones of the plurality of protrusions, the filling layer configured to allow the light emitted from the light emitting device layer to be transmitted through the filling layer (Do: Fig. 10), light emitted from the light emitting device layer sequentially passing through the substrate and the filling layer and is emitted to an outside (Do: Fig. 10), would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Further, in the same field of endeavor, You teaches a second refractive layer RL2, which Fig. 6A shows to be a layer that is filling space adjacent to the plurality of recesses between neighboring ones of the plurality of protrusions. Thus, examiner asserts that the display device of Nishikawa, in view of Kimura and You, may be further modified in view of You and Do to yield the display device including a filling layer (You: Fig. 6A second refractive layer RL2) filling space adjacent to the plurality of recesses between neighboring ones of the plurality of protrusions (You: Fig. 6A second refractive layer RL2 filling the space between protruding portions of the optical structure OP), the filling layer configured to allow the light emitted from the light emitting device layer to be transmitted through the filling layer (You: Fig. 7A), light emitted from the light emitting device layer sequentially passing through the substrate and the filling layer and is emitted to an outside (You: Fig. 7A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the display device of Nishikawa, further in view of Kimura and You, to include a filling layer, as disclosed by You and Do, because such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. More specifically, the display device of Nishikawa, further in view of Kimura and You, as modified by You’s second refractive layer RL2, further in view of Do, can yield a predictable result of directing light along a desirable/optimal optical path and protecting the protruding structures since the filling layer has a refractive index and formed of materials that can absorb force and/or seal away from permeating matter/energy. Since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable before the effective filing date of the instant invention.
Regarding dependent claim 23, Nishikawa, further in view of Kimura, You, Do, and Nishimura, teach the display apparatus according to claim 21, wherein
each of the plurality of protrusions has a triangular cross-sectional structure (Kimura: Figs 3A – 4G), and is disposed in parallel along at least one or more among a first direction of the substrate and a second direction that crosses the first direction (Kimura: Figs 3A – 4G and 9A-C. See [0095] for more on Fig. 9A-C).
Regarding dependent claim 24, Nishikawa, further in view of Kimura, You, Do, and Nishimura, teach the display apparatus according to claim 21, wherein
each of the plurality of protrusions and each of the plurality of recesses has a curved surface (Kimura: Figs 3A – 4G and 9A-C).
Regarding dependent claim 25, Nishikawa, further in view of Kimura, You, Do, and Nishimura, teach the display apparatus according to claim 21, wherein
the light guide is closer to the substrate than the planarization layer (Yielded through the combination of Nishikawa, in view of Kimura, You, and Do) or the planarization layer is closer to the substrate than the light guide.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Nishikawa et al. (US 20080024402 A1), further in view of Kimura et al. (US 20010035713 A1), You et al. (US 20220221748 A1), Do et al. (US 20030164496 A1), Nishimura et al. (US 20140042426 A1), and Shin et al. (US 20140346469 A1).
Regarding dependent claim 4, Nishikawa, further in view of Kimura, You, Do, and Nishimura, teach the light emitting display device according to claim 1, wherein the light guide portion includes:
a first light guide member having the light refraction pattern portion (Kimura: examiner is interpreting the transparent film taught to be etched in [0042], forming the light scattering body 302, to be a first light guide member); and ...
However, Nishikawa remains silent regarding:
...
a second light guide member having another light refraction pattern portion,
wherein each of the plurality of protrusion patterns of the light refraction pattern portion of the first light guide member intersects with each of a plurality of protrusion patterns included in the another light refraction pattern portion of the second light guide member.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Shin teaches a color shift reducing optical film 300 (Fig. 5A) wherein:
a first light guide member (Fig. 5A; first lens pattern layer 310) having the light refraction pattern portion (Fig. 5A; plurality of first grooves 310a); and
a second light guide member (Fig. 5A; second lens pattern layer 320) having another light refraction pattern portion (Fig. 5A; second grooves 320a),
wherein each of the plurality of protrusion patterns of the light refraction pattern portion of the first light guide member intersects with each of a plurality of protrusion patterns included in the another light refraction pattern portion of the second light guide member (Fig. 5A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the light guide portion of Nishikawa, further in view of Kimura, You, and Do, to include Shin’s color shift reducing optical film 300, because such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. More specifically, the light guide portion of Nishikawa, further in view of Kimura, You, and Do, as modified by Shin’s color shift reducing optical film 300 can yield a predictable result of improve the light extraction efficiency of the light emitting display device since optical film 300 is taught to reduce color shifts ([0070]). Since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable before the effective filing date of the instant invention.
Claims 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Nishikawa et al. (US 20080024402 A1), further in view of Kimura et al. (US 20010035713 A1), You et al. (US 20220221748 A1), Do et al. (US 20030164496 A1), and Asaki et al. (US 20100265223 A1).
Regarding dependent claim 11, Nishikawa, further in view of Kimura, You, Do, and Nishimura, teach the light emitting display device according to claim 6; however, Nishikawa remains silent wherein
each of the plurality of recessed patterns is in parallel with at least one or more among a second direction that intersects a first direction of the substrate, a first diagonal direction between the first direction and the second direction, and a second diagonal direction that is symmetrical to the first diagonal direction with respect to the second direction.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Do teaches a light loss preventing layer 80, considered analogous to the instant light guide portion; wherein Do discloses in Figs. 5A-B a relationship of the recessed patterns, i.e., first area 81, such that each of the plurality of recessed patterns is in parallel with at least one or more among a second direction that intersects a first direction of the substrate, a first diagonal direction between the first direction and the second direction, and a second diagonal direction that is symmetrical to the first diagonal direction with respect to the second direction.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the display device of Nishikawa, further in view of Kimura, You, Do, and Asaki, to include Do’s relationship of the recessed patterns, i.e., first area 81, such that each of the plurality of recessed patterns is in parallel with at least one or more among a second direction that intersects a first direction of the substrate, a first diagonal direction between the first direction and the second direction, and a second diagonal direction that is symmetrical to the first diagonal direction with respect to the second direction (Figs. 5A-B), because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Do’s recessed patterns is comparable to the recessed patterns of Nishikawa, further in view of Kimura, You, Do, and Asaki, because Do’s recessed patterns perform the same general and predicable function of the recessed patterns of Nishikawa, further in view of Kimura, You, Do, and Asaki. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Nishikawa, further in view of Kimura, You, Do, and Asaki, to include Do’s relationship of the recessed patterns, i.e., first area 81, such that each of the plurality of recessed patterns is in parallel with at least one or more among a second direction that intersects a first direction of the substrate, a first diagonal direction between the first direction and the second direction, and a second diagonal direction that is symmetrical to the first diagonal direction with respect to the second direction (Figs. 5A-B), with the predictable result of guiding light.
Regarding dependent claim 17, Nishikawa, further in view of Kimura, You, Do, and Nishimura, teach the light emitting display device according to claim 6; however, Nishikawa remains silent on the display device further comprising:
a polarization member coupled to the light guide portion.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Asaki (US 20100265223 A1) teaches in [0073], “Further, outside light that enters from the sealing panel 50 side can be also attenuated by the multiple interference, and the reflectance of the outside light in the organic light emitting devices 10R, 10G and 10B can be extremely lowered by combining a color filter 51 described later or a wave plate and a polarization plate (not shown)”; such that the examiner understands that Asaki’s color filter 51 (as shown in Fig. 17) may be replaced with a polarization member. Further, Asaki’s polarization member is coupled to a protective film 30 via the adhesive layer 40 (Fig. 17); Thus, examiner asserts that Asaki’s disclosed display device structure may be used to modify the display device of Nishikawa, in view of Kimura, You, and Do, wherein Asaki’s adhesive layer 40 (Fig. 17) is used such that Asaki teaches a polarization member coupled to the light guide portion (Asaki: [0073]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the display device of Nishikawa, Kimura, You, and Do, to include Asaki’s a polarization member, because such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. More specifically, the display device of Nishikawa, Kimura, You, Do, and Nishimura, as modified by Asaki’s a polarization member can yield a predictable result of polarizing light emitted from the device since a polarization member polarizes light. Since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable before the effective filing date of the instant invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Nishikawa et al. (US 20080024402 A1), further in view of Kimura et al. (US 20010035713 A1), You et al. (US 20220221748 A1), Do et al. (US 20030164496 A1), Nishimura et al. (US 20140042426 A1), Jang et al. (US 20170062770 A1), and Lee et al. (US 20190341428 A1).
Regarding dependent claim 13, Nishikawa, further in view of Kimura, You, Do, and Nishimura, teach the light emitting display device according to claim 6; however, Nishikawa remains silent wherein
the convex portion comprises a honeycomb shape in a plan view of the light emitting display device, and
wherein each of the plurality of recessed patterns comprises the honeycomb shape which is substantially the same as the honeycomb shape of the convex portion.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Jang teaches a light emitting display device wherein:
the convex portion (protrusions of the micro lens 180) comprises a honeycomb shape in a plan view of the light emitting display device, and …
Jang shows a plan view of the micro lens 180 in Fig. 3 of their disclosure. Jang discloses in [0080] of their disclosure that the micro lens may have various configurations and shapes such as a hexagon, i.e., a honeycomb shape. Further, Jang teaches,
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the shapes of the light extraction portion of Nishikawa, further in view of Kimura, You, and Do, to include Jang’s hexagon, i.e., a honeycomb shape, of their light extraction portion, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Jang’s light extraction portion is comparable to the light extraction portion of Nishikawa, further in view of Kimura, You, and Do, because they both function to direct collected light to the user of the light emitting display device. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the shapes of the light extraction portion of Nishikawa, further in view of Kimura, You, and Do, to include Jang’s hexagon, i.e., a honeycomb shape, of their light extraction portion with the predictable result of improving the light emitting efficiency of the light emitting display device.
Further, in the same field of endeavor, Lee teaches a light refractive pattern portion (Figs. 13 – 15; color patterns PT1_3, PT2_3, PT3_3, PT1_4, PT2_4 and PT3_4); wherein [0172] discloses the shapes of the color patterns of protrusions PT1_3, PT2_3, PT3_3, PT1_4, PT2_4 and PT3_4 may be polygons. Thus, further in view of Jang, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to mirror Jang’s hexagon shape, i.e., honeycomb shape, for Lee’s plurality of recesses of the color filters 161_R_3, 161_G_3, 161_B_3, 161_R_4, 161_G_4 and 161_B_4, for example to at least simplify the manufacturing process. In turn, the honeycomb shape for the plurality of recessed patterns from the combination of Lee and Jang may be used to modify that shape of the recessed patterns in the display device of Nishikawa, further in view of Kimura, You, and Do. Thus Nishikawa, further in view of Kimura, You, Do, Jang, and Lee, disclose the light emitting display device wherein each of the plurality of recessed pattern comprises the honeycomb shape which is substantially the same as the honeycomb shape of the convex portion.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the shapes of the light refractive pattern portion of Nishikawa, further in view of Kimura, You, and Do, to include Lee’s polygon shape, e.g., a honeycomb shape, for their light refractive pattern portion, further in view of Jang’s disclosure, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Lee’s light refractive pattern portion is comparable to the light refractive pattern portion of Nishikawa, further in view of Kimura, You, and Do, because they both function to direct collected light to the user of the light emitting display device. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the shape the light refractive pattern portion of Nishikawa, further in view of Kimura, You, and Do, to include Lee’s polygon shape, e.g., a honeycomb shape, of their light refractive pattern portion, further in view of Jang’s disclosure, with the predictable result of improving the light emitting efficiency of the light emitting display device.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Nishikawa et al. (US 20080024402 A1), further in view of Kimura et al. (US 20010035713 A1), You et al. (US 20220221748 A1), Do et al. (US 20030164496 A1), Nishimura et al. (US 20140042426 A1), Asaki et al. (US 20100265223 A1), and Onishi et al. (US 20010053074 A1).
Regarding dependent claim 15, Nishikawa, further in view of Kimura, You, Do, and Nishimura, teach the light emitting display device according to claim 6; however, Nishikawa remains silent on the display device further comprising:
a coupling member; and
a polarization member coupled to the light guide portion via the coupling member,
wherein a refractive index of the coupling member is less than a refractive index of the light refraction pattern portion.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Asaki (US 20100265223 A1) teaches in [0073], “Further, outside light that enters from the sealing panel 50 side can be also attenuated by the multiple interference, and the reflectance of the outside light in the organic light emitting devices 10R, 10G and 10B can be extremely lowered by combining a color filter 51 described later or a wave plate and a polarization plate (not shown)”; such that the examiner understands that Asaki’s color filter 51 (as shown in Fig. 17) may be replaced with a polarization member. Further, Asaki’s polarization member is coupled to a protective film 30 via the adhesive layer 40 (Fig. 17); Thus, examiner asserts that Asaki’s disclosed display device structure may be used to modify the display device of Nishikawa, in view of Kimura, You, and Do, wherein a coupling member (Asaki: Fig. 17; adhesive layer 40); and a polarization member (Asaki: [0073]) coupled to the light guide portion via the coupling member (yielded through the combination of Nishikawa, in view of Kimura, You, and Do, with Fig. 17 and [0073] of Asaki).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the display device of Nishikawa, Kimura, You, and Do, to include Asaki’s a polarization member, because such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. More specifically, the display device of Nishikawa, Kimura, You, and Do, as modified by Asaki’s a polarization member can yield a predictable result of polarizing light emitted from the device since a polarization member polarizes light. Since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable before the effective filing date of the instant invention.
Further, Asaki teaches ultraviolet curable resin for the adhesive layer 40 ([0096]). In the same field of endeavor, Examiner cites Onishi (US 20010053074 A1) who teaches in [0091] an ultraviolet curable resin of an acrylic system (1.55 in refractive index after having been hardened) to a substrate ([0091]). Examiner asserts that this is a typical value for a refractive index of a ultraviolet curable resin. Further, refractive indices decreasing along an optical path of light as the path moves further from the light-emitting layer of the LED structure is a common feature in similar display devices. Thus, examiner asserts that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to from the above display device of Nishikawa, in view of Kimura, You, Do, and Asaki, and further in view of Onishi, wherein a refractive index of the coupling member is less than a refractive index of the light refraction pattern portion.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the display device of Nishikawa, in view of Kimura, You, Do, and Asaki, to include a coupling member wherein a refractive index of the coupling member is less than a refractive index of the light refraction pattern portion, as disclosed by Asaki, further in view of Onishi, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, a coupling member wherein a refractive index of the coupling member is less than a refractive index of the light refraction pattern portion, as disclosed by Asaki, further in view of Onishi, is comparable to an adhesive layers because the coupling member of Asaki, further in view of Onishi, couples/bind members together. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Nishikawa, in view of Kimura, You, Do, and Asaki, to include a coupling member wherein a refractive index of the coupling member is less than a refractive index of the light refraction pattern portion, as disclosed by Asaki, further in view of Onishi, with the predictable result of coupling a polarizer to a display device/panel.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Nishikawa et al. (US 20080024402 A1), further in view of Kimura et al. (US 20010035713 A1), You et al. (US 20220221748 A1), Do et al. (US 20030164496 A1), Nishimura et al. (US 20140042426 A1), and Lee et al. (US 20190341428 A1).
Regarding dependent claim 26, Nishikawa, further in view of Kimura, You, Do, and Nishimura, teach the light emitting display device according to claim 5, further comprising:
a bank (Fig. 1; second planarization insulating layer 140) on the light extraction portion and defining the light emitting area (Fig. 1; area defined by second planarization insulating layer 140), …
However, Nishikawa remains silent regarding the light emitting display device wherein:
… the bank including a portion that is disposed in at least one of the plurality of concave patterns.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lee teaches a similar display device wherein protective layer 214 has an uneven upper surface (Fig. 10 and [0145]), which the examiner is interpreting to be a light extraction portion due to its concavo-convex surface ([0148]). Further, Lee teaches isolation layer 115, which the examiner is interpreting to be a layer of banks 115 (Fig. 10 and [0089]); wherein, Lee teaches the structure wherein their banks include a portion that is disposed in at least one of the plurality of recessed patterns (Fig. 10). Thus, examiner asserts that the structure disclosed by Lee may be used to modify the light emitting display device of Nishikawa, in view of Kimura, You, and Do, such that Kim’s banks may include a portion that is disposed in at least one of the plurality of recessed patterns.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the light emitting display device of Nishikawa, in view of Kimura, You, and Do to include Lee’s teaching of the bank including a portion that is disposed in at least one of the plurality of recessed patterns, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Lee’s banks are comparable to Nishikawa’s banks because they help block the reflectance of ambient light, reduce light on device circuity, and define a light emitting area. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the light emitting display device of Nishikawa, in view of Kimura, You, and Do to include Lee’s teaching of the bank including a portion that is disposed in at least one of the plurality of recessed patterns with the predictable result of blocking the reflectance of ambient light, reducing light on device circuity, and defining a light emitting area.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Nishikawa et al. (US 20080024402 A1), further in view of Kimura et al. (US 20010035713 A1), You et al. (US 20220221748 A1), Do et al. (US 20030164496 A1), Nishimura et al. (US 20140042426 A1), and Naraoka et al. (US 20120286258 A1).
Regarding dependent claim 27, Nishikawa, further in view of Kimura, You, Do, and Nishimura, teach the light emitting display device according to claim 1, wherein
the filling layer is in direct contact with the protruding portions and the recessed portions (Yielded through the combination of at least Nishikawa, You, and Do), and …
However, Nishikawa remains silent wherein:
… a refractive index of the filling layer is lower than a fixed refractive index of the light refraction pattern portion.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Naraoka (US 20120286258 A1) teaches light-extraction layer 3 (Fig. 4), considered to be analogous to a structure such as the instant light guide (Fig. 4; high refractive index layer 31) & the instant filling layer (Fig. 4; low refractive index layer 32) due to the function and position of Naraoka’s extraction layer 3. Examiner believes that this relevant to the present disclosure because it exemplifies the relationship that should be considered for a “fill” material on the light refraction portion, i.e., the material filling the spaces between protruding portions and the recessed portions having a lower refractive index than the structure including the protruding portions and the recessed portions. This consideration seems obvious to the examiner, especially in view of the art of record, that refractive indices of materials for which light pass through contribute significantly (and should be considered as such by one of ordinary skill in the art) to the path light takes out of the display device. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the light emitting display device of Nishikawa, further in view of Kimura, You, Do, and Nishimura, to include a refractive index of the filling layer is lower than a fixed refractive index of the light refraction pattern portion.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the light emitting display device of Nishikawa, further in view of Kimura, You, Do, and Nishimura, to include a refractive index of the filling layer is lower than a fixed refractive index of the light refraction pattern portion, as taught by Naraoka, because such a modification is taught, suggested, or motivated by the art. More specifically, the motivation to modify the light emitting display device of Nishikawa, further in view of Kimura, You, Do, and Nishimura, to include a refractive index of the filling layer is lower than a fixed refractive index of the light refraction pattern portion, as taught by Naraoka, is expressly provided by Naraoka, stating that, “the total reflection of the light at the interface between the high refractive index layer and the low refractive index layer is restrained” in at least [0049]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the light emitting display device of Nishikawa, further in view of Kimura, You, Do, and Nishimura, to include a refractive index of the filling layer is lower than a fixed refractive index of the light refraction pattern portion, as taught by Naraoka, with the motivation of restraining reflection. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of a refractive index of the filling layer is lower than a fixed refractive index of the light refraction pattern portion for a light guide portion.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20150060840 A1 considered for isotropic pattern (Fig. 2).
US 20210020865 A1 previously relied upon.
US 20030214691 A1 previously relied upon.
US 20200058717 A1 teaches a bottom emission display device (Fig. 2a) including a light guide layer 14 that is coupled below a device circuit layer.
US 20180040854 A1 previously relied upon.
US 20200028120 A1 teaches similar layers for a light-emitting device.
US 20070230211 A1 teaches similar layers for a light-emitting device.
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 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 MARIO A AUTORE whose telephone number is (571)270-0059. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am - 5 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, Chad Dicke can be reached on (571) 270-7996. 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.
MARIO A. AUTORE JR.
Examiner
Art Unit 2897
/MARIO ANDRES AUTORE JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2897 /CHAD M DICKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights