DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 1A, 2A, 3A, 4B, 5A, and 6A in the reply filed on 10/13/2025 is acknowledged. Applicant has identified claim 10 as being directed to a non-elected species. Accordingly, claim 10 is withdrawn.
Further, as Applicant elected Species 1A in which the first and second reflectors are made of the same material, the first and second reflectors must, accordingly, have the same index of refraction. Similarly, as Applicant elected Species 2A in which the first and second light guide elements are made of the same material, the first and second light guide elements must, accordingly, have the same index of refraction. As such, claim 19 which requires a refractive index difference between the first sub-light guide element and its adjacent reflector is s1, and a refractive index difference between the second sub-light guide element and its adjacent reflector is s2, wherein s1<s2 and the first direction is perpendicular to the substrate is directed to non-elected species and is, accordingly, also withdrawn. Claim 20 is withdrawn as it depends from withdrawn claim 19.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the light-emitting device” in lines 6-7 should be “the light-emitting devices”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 12-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie et al. (US 2018/0165498 A1) in view of Liu et al. (US 2018/0211085 A1) and Bajec Strle et al. (US 2022/0404539 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Xie discloses a display device (1 in Fig. 1), comprising:
a substrate (10 in Fig. 2);
light-emitting devices (“plurality of organic light-emitting structures 12” in Fig. 2, ¶ 0034) on a side of the substrate (top side);
light transmission structures (15 in Fig. 2 and unlabeled material between 15 in Fig. 2 (as noted in Applicant’s claim 6, the light transmission structures include both the transmission structures between light emitting devices but also the structure covering the light emitting devices)); and
a plurality of photosensitive units (21 in Fig. 2; “fingerprint identification units 21 may be configured to identify fingerprints, according to the light reflected to the fingerprint identification unit 21 by the touch object 4”, ¶ 0034);
wherein each of the light transmission structures includes a first light guide element (15 in Fig. 2; Fig. 2 shows the light being guided through the component); and
an orthographical projection of the first light guide element to the substrate is located between two corresponding adjacent light-emitting devices (see Fig. 2).
Xie differs from the claimed invention by the substitution of a first light guide element with two lateral sides with a first light guide element with frustoconical shape (i.e., fewer than two lateral sides). However, cubed shaped light guide elements and the corresponding function of transmitting reflected light from a finger was known in the art (“spacers 501 can be erect cones, as shown in FIG. 4. Alternatively, the spacers 501 can be inverted cones, or even trapezoids, cuboids, or cubes”, ¶ 0033 and Fig. 4 of Liu). As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to have substituted the known shape of a cube (which has lateral sides) as taught by Liu for the frustoconical shape of the light guide element of Xie and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. (see MPEP § 2143(I)(B)).
Xie in view of Liu does not disclose reflectors arranged along a direction parallel to a plane of the substrate wherein the reflectors are located at two sides of the first light guide element and the first light guide and the reflectors have different indices of refraction.
Bajec Stryle, in the field of light guide elements, discloses that the sidewalls of a light guide element along the direction of propagation of light within the light guide element may be covered with reflectors having a low index of refraction (“optical insulating layers 110” on “light guide 100” in Fig. 2 placed along the direction of propagation of light beams L and having “a lower refractive index”, ¶ 0038). There was a benefit to forming reflectors as such in that they “have a lower refractive index than the [light guide element] and thus ensure that light coupled into the [light guide element] is subjected to total internal reflection at the [sides of the light guide element] and thus propagates through it” (¶ 0038 of Bajec Stryle). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to place reflectors at two sides of the first light guide element in each of the light transmission structures of Xie in view of Liu such that the reflectors are arranged along a direction parallel to a plane of the substrate (as the sides of the cube extend in directions parallel to surface of the substrate) for this benefit. As Bajec Stryle discloses that the refractive index of the reflectors is less than that of the light guide element, the first light guide element in the device of the combination will have a refractive index n1 and the reflectors will have a refractive index n0 which is less (i.e., n1 ≠ n0).
Regarding claim 2, Xie in view of Liu and Bajec Stryle discloses the display device of claim 1, as discussed above. Bajec Stryle further discloses wherein the refractive index of the reflectors is less than that of the light guide element (¶ 0038). As such, n1>n0.
Regarding claim 3, Xie in view of Liu and Bajec Stryle discloses the display device of claim 1, as discussed above. Further, in the device of the combination, the reflectors include a first reflector and a second reflector respectively located at two sides of the first light guide element (as the light guide element is a cube and the reflectors surround the cube. As Bajec Stryle does not disclose varying the index of refraction between reflectors, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to form the first and second reflectors to have equal indices of refraction for the obvious benefit of being able to use the same material, which minimizes the number of different materials needed.
Regarding claim 4, Xie in view of Liu and Bajec Stryle discloses the display device of claim 3, as discussed above. Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to form the first and second reflectors to be the same material, for the obvious benefit of minimizing the number of different materials needed.
Regarding claim 5, Xie in view of Liu and Bajec Stryle discloses the display device of claim 3, as discussed above. Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to form the first and second reflectors to have the same thickness for the obvious benefit of reducing manufacturing complexity.
Regarding claim 6, Xie in view of Liu and Bajec Stryle discloses the display device of claim 1, as discussed above. Xie further discloses wherein the light transmission structures further include a plurality of second light guide elements (unlabeled material over the light-emitting devices in Fig. 2);
along a first direction perpendicular to the substrate, the plurality of second light guide elements covers the light-emitting devices (see Fig. 2).
As the second light guide elements transmit light, they have a refractive index. In the device of the combination, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to form the refractive index of the second light guide elements to be higher than that of the reflectors in order to reduce the likelihood that light cross-talks from a pixel region into the first light guide element.
Regarding claim 7, Xie in view of Liu and Bajec Stryle discloses the display device of claim 6, as discussed above. Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to form the first and second light guide elements to be the same material (i.e., same index of refraction), for the obvious benefit of minimizing the number of different materials needed.
Regarding claim 8, Xie in view of Liu and Bajec Stryle discloses the display device of claim 6, as discussed above. Xie further discloses wherein along the first direction, one same second light guide element of the plurality of second light guide elements covers one corresponding light-emitting device (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, Xie in view of Liu and Bajec Stryle discloses the display device of claim 8, as discussed above. Further, as claim 9 does not require the first, second, and third colors to be different, any three of the light-emitting devices of Xie may be considered to include first-color, second-color, and third-color light-emitting devices and the corresponding second light guide elements, accordingly, have the same refractive index.
Regarding claim 12, Xie in view of Liu and Bajec Stryle discloses the display device of claim 8, as discussed above. Further, Xie discloses along an arrangement direction of the light-emitting devices, an interval between any two adjacent reflectors has same width (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 13, Xie in view of Liu and Bajec Stryle discloses the display device of claim 8, as discussed above. Further, as the reflectors and light-emitting devices each have a square profile, a contour shape of an orthographic projection of one light-emitting device on the substrate is same as a contour shape of an orthographic projection of one of the reflectors corresponding to the light-emitting device on the substrate.
Regarding claim 14, Xie in view of Liu and Bajec Stryle discloses the display device of claim 8, as discussed above. Further, as the components are uniformly spaced, an outer edge of a contour of an orthographic projection of one light-emitting device on the substrate is a first edge; an inner edge of a contour of an orthographic projection of one of the reflectors corresponding to the light-emitting device on the substrate is a second edge; a distance between the first edge and the second edge corresponding to each light- emitting device is same.
Regarding claim 15, Xie in view of Liu and Bajec Stryle discloses the display device of claim 8, as discussed above. Further, Liu discloses multiple possibilities for the shape of the light guide element (and, correspondingly, the reflectors, ¶ 0033). Choosing a pattern of different shapes such that orthographic projections of the reflectors corresponding to the light-emitting devices of a same color on the substrate have different shapes; the shapes of the reflectors corresponding to the light-emitting devices of the same color include a first shape and a second shape; and along the arrangement direction of the light-emitting devices, the first shape and the second shape are alternately arranged therefore amounts to an obvious change in shape (MPEP 2144(IV)(B)).
Regarding claim 16, Xie in view of Liu and Bajec Stryle discloses the display device of claim 6, as discussed above. Further, doubling the light-emitting devices between any two first light-guide elements amounts to an obvious duplication of parts (MPEP 2144(VI)(B)) which has an obvious benefit of providing a back-up light emitting device in each pixel should one fail. In the resulting configuration, one of the plurality of second light guide elements covers at least two corresponding adjacent light-emitting devices; and one of the reflectors is arranged around a corresponding one of the plurality of second light guide elements.
Regarding claim 17, Xie in view of Liu and Bajec Stryle discloses the display device of claim 16, as discussed above. Further, in the configuration discussed in claim 16, each of at least a portion of the plurality of second light guide elements covers a same number of light-emitting devices (i.e., two, as discussed in the rejection of claim 16).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie et al. (US 2018/0165498 A1) in view of Liu et al. (US 2018/0211085 A1) and Bajec Strle et al. (US 2022/0404539 A1) as applied to claim 8, above, and further in view of Kambe (US 2015/0108598 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Xie in view of Liu and Bajec Stryle discloses the display device of claim 8, as discussed above. Xie does not disclose that the light-emitting devices comprise different colors or that the refractive indices of the surrounding elements differ accordingly.
Kambe, in the same field of endeavor, discloses that light-emitting devices may be formed to have different colors and the refractive indices of the surrounding components vary accordingly (¶ 0101). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to vary the color of the light-emitting devices and the refractive indices of the surrounding components in order to provide a wider color gamut.
With regards to n23-n03>n22-n02>n21-n01, as Kambe discloses varying the refractive indices and one having ordinary skill in the art can vary the refractive indices by the methods disclosed in Kambe, this particular inequality amounts to finding the optimum range through routine experimentation and is, accordingly, obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144(II)(A)).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie et al. (US 2018/0165498 A1) in view of Liu et al. (US 2018/0211085 A1) and Bajec Strle et al. (US 2022/0404539 A1) as applied to claim 16, above, and further in view of Tan (US 2020/0135098 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Xie in view of Liu and Bajec Stryle discloses the display device of claim 16, as discussed above. Xie does not disclose that the light-emitting devices comprise different colors.
Tan, in the same field of endeavor, discloses that pixels may be formed of three colors (¶ 0056). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to vary the color of the light-emitting devices in order to provide a wider color gamut. In the resulting configuration, each of the plurality of pixel units includes at least three light-emitting devices with different light-emitting colors, and one of the plurality of second light guide elements covers one of the plurality of pixel units.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER A CULBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-4893. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Joshua Benitez can be reached at (571) 270-1435. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER A CULBERT/ Examiner, Art Unit 2815
Prosecution Insights