DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 23 March 2026 has been entered.
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
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant' s Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS). The IDS(es) has/have been considered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of the Species I embodiment in the reply filed on 24 February 2025 is acknowledged.
Accordingly, claims 3, 4, 10, 14, 15, and 19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species.
Examination of claims 1, 2, 5-9, 11-13, 16-18, and 20 is as follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 26 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states: “The cited art does not teach or make obvious every feature of amended independent claims 1 and 11. Specifically, the cited art does not teach that ‘the first distance is from 30 μm to 60 μm.’” Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment (filed 26 February 2026) at 9. The Examiner respectfully notes that Yueh in view of Yen, and Kim in view of Yueh and Yen disclose each of the limitations in currently amended claims 1 and 11, respectively, detailed in the rejection of claims 1 and 11, below.
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments regarding claims 1 and 11 are unpersuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejections of the claims under § 112(a) are withdrawn, responsive to Applicant’s amendment of the claims.
The rejections of the claims under § 112(b) are withdrawn, responsive to Applicant’s amendment of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0261106 (effectively filed Feb. 18, 2021) (hereinafter “Yueh”) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0096070 (filed Sept. 8, 2010) (hereinafter “Yen”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Yueh discloses: A display apparatus (FIG. 1A, display device 400, [0023]) comprising:
a first sub-pixel having a parallelogram shape (FIGS. 5A/5B, any one of the first, second, or third light emitting units LU1-LU3 having a parallelogram shape, [0024]) including a first side extending in a first direction and a first width in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (FIGS. 5A/5B, depicting wherein any one of the first, second, or third light emitting units LU1-LU3 has a first side extending in a first direction and a first width in a second direction, the second direction perpendicular to the first direction);
a second sub-pixel having a parallelogram shape (FIGS. 5A/5B, any one of the first, second, or third light emitting units LU1-LU3 having a parallelogram shape, [0024]) including a second side extending in the first direction and a second width in the second direction (FIGS. 5A/5B, depicting wherein any one of the first, second, or third light emitting units LU1-LU3 has a second side extending in a first direction and a second width in a second direction, the second direction perpendicular to the first direction);
a third sub-pixel having a parallelogram shape (FIGS. 5A/5B, any one of the first, second, or third light emitting units LU1-LU3 having a parallelogram shape, [0024]) including a third side extending in the first direction and a third width in the second direction (FIGS. 5A/5B, depicting wherein any one of the first, second, or third light emitting units LU1-LU3 has a third side extending in a first direction and a third width in a second direction, the second direction perpendicular to the first direction); and
a plurality of light-blocking lines (FIGS. 5A/5B, collimating units CU2, which may be formed from light absorbing material, [0032]) extending in the first direction and spaced apart from each other with a first distance in the second direction (FIGS. 5A/5B, depicting wherein the collimating units CU2 extend in the first direction and are spaced apart from each other with a first distance in the second direction).
Yueh does not specifically disclose wherein the first distance is from 30 μm to 60 μm, and wherein each of the first width, the second width, and the third width is within 1.5% of an integer multiple of the first distance.
In the same field of endeavor, Yen discloses a display apparatus (FIGS. 10, stereoscopic image display 500, [0072]) including a plurality of light-blocking lines (FIG. 10, optical grating 520 with slits S (and corresponding light blocking lines therebetween, [0071]) wherein the widths of the light emitting units are an integer multiple of the distance between the light-blocking lines (FIG. 10, [0042]: “More specifically, the width P of pixel and the width W of slit satisfy the formula (1): W=(m/n)*P”; Yen further discloses wherein m and n are natural numbers, such that the width P of the pixels may be an integer multiple of the width W of the slit (i.e., the distance between light blocking lines) when the relationship is rewritten as (n/m)*W=P, [0041]-[0043]). Regarding the relationship between the width W of the slit and the width P of the pixel, in [0073], Yen states: “even though a relative displacement is formed between the slits and exposed pixels while a viewer changing his viewing position along the first direction, the total aperture ratio of pixels exposed by the slits of the optical grating remain fixed, and thus the viewer would not sense morie [sic].” Yen further states in [0042]-[0043]: “More specifically, the width P of pixel and the width W of slit satisfy the formula (1): W=(m/n)*P. In formula (1), m>n or m<n. The designer could design the arrangement of the slits S in the optical grating 220 including the numbers of slits S in one constitutional group G and the positions of slits S in one constitutional group G according to the relationship between pixel width P and slit width W represented by formula (1),” in order to produce an effect such that, as noted in [0040], “the viewer may not sense the variation of brightness even when the viewer changes his viewing position.” Thus, noted in Yen, the width P of the pixels is a result-effective variable for optimizing the width W of the slit (i.e., the distance between light blocking lines)).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosed display device 400 of Yueh by substituting the optical grating 520 and pixel 212 configuration/relationship such that the widths of the first to light emitting units LU1-LU3 may be integer multiples of the distance between collimating units CU2 as disclosed in Yen in order to produce an effect such that a viewer changing his viewing position may not sense the moire phenomenon. See Yen [0073].
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary, through routine optimization, the width P of the pixels, identified by Yen as a result-effective variable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at a width W between collimating units CU2 ranging from 30 μm to 60 μm, such that the widths of the first to third light emitting units LU1-LU3 may be integer multiples of the distance width W between collimating units CU2 in order to achieve the intended effect of preventing a user from sensing a variation of brightness as disclosed in Yen in [0040]. See MPEP § 2144.05 (“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”) (quoting In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (C.C.P.A. 1955)).
Regarding claim 2, Yueh does not specifically disclose wherein each of the first width, the second width, and the third width is within 1.5% of three times of the first distance.
In [0042]-[0043], however, Yen states: “More specifically, the width P of pixel and the width W of slit satisfy the formula (1): W=(m/n)*P. In formula (1), m>n or m<n. The designer could design the arrangement of the slits S in the optical grating 220 including the numbers of slits S in one constitutional group G and the positions of slits S in one constitutional group G according to the relationship between pixel width P and slit width W represented by formula (1),” in order to produce an effect such that, as noted in [0040], “the viewer may not sense the variation of brightness even when the viewer changes his viewing position.” Thus, noted in Yen, the width P of the pixels is a result-effective variable for optimizing the width W of the slit (i.e., the distance between light blocking lines).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary, through routine optimization, the width P of the pixels, identified by Yen as a result-effective variable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at a pixel width P of about two times the slit width W, such that first to light emitting units LU1-LU3 may be integer multiples of three times the distance between collimating units CU2 in order to achieve the intended effect of preventing a user from sensing a variation of brightness as disclosed in Yen in [0040]. See MPEP § 2144.05 (“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”) (quoting In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (C.C.P.A. 1955)).
Regarding claim 5, while Yueh discloses wherein the first light emitting unit LU1, the second light emitting unit LU2 and the third light emitting unit LU3 may further have different sizes according to the light emitting efficiency thereof, Yueh does not specifically disclose wherein an area of the second sub-pixel is about 2.8 times of an area of the first sub- pixel, and an area of the third sub-pixel is about 5.4 times of the area of the first sub-pixel.
In [0042]-[0043], however, Yen states: “More specifically, the width P of pixel and the width W of slit satisfy the formula (1): W=(m/n)*P. In formula (1), m>n or m<n. The designer could design the arrangement of the slits S in the optical grating 220 including the numbers of slits S in one constitutional group G and the positions of slits S in one constitutional group G according to the relationship between pixel width P and slit width W represented by formula (1),” in order to produce an effect such that, as noted in [0040], “the viewer may not sense the variation of brightness even when the viewer changes his viewing position.” Thus, noted in Yen, the width P of the pixels, thereby determining the area of the pixels, is a result-effective variable for optimizing the width W of the slit (i.e., the distance between light blocking lines).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary, through routine optimization, the width P of the pixels, identified by Yen as a result-effective variable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at a pixel width P such that an area of the second light emitting unit LU is about 2.8 times of an area of the first light emitting unit LU, and an area of the light emitting unit LU is about 5.4 times of the area of the first light emitting unit LU and corresponding slit width W/distance between collimating units CU2 in order to achieve the intended effect of preventing a user from sensing a variation of brightness as disclosed in Yen in [0040]. See MPEP § 2144.05 (“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”) (quoting In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (C.C.P.A. 1955)).
Regarding claim 6, Yueh in view of Yen further discloses wherein the second sub-pixel (FIGS.5A/5B, any one of the first, second, or third light emitting units LU1-LU3) has a rectangular shape (FIGS.5A/5B, depicting wherein the second light emitting unit LU2 has a rectangular shape).
Yueh in view of Yen does not specifically disclose wherein the first sub-pixel and the third sub-pixels each have a rectangular shape.
Regarding the shapes of the first and third sub-pixels, however, it is well-established that “when there is motivation to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” MPEP § 2143(I)(E) (quoting KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, (2007)).
Currently, there is a recognized need in the art to create display devices that maximize performance and minimize cost, often accomplished by using fewer and/or smaller amounts of materials in each layer comprising the device such that the layers are small enough to increase efficiency shorten the production process, but large enough to meet desired performance specifications. In the present case, there are a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions for meeting the abovementioned need in the context of material usage, including forming the first and third light emitting units LU1 and LU3 the same shape as the second light emitting unit LU2, or forming the first and third light emitting units LU1 and LU3 in shapes different from the second light emitting unit LU2, each having a reasonable expectation of success regardless of which known potential solution is pursued.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to try forming the first and third light emitting units LU1 and LU3 the same rectangular shape as the second light emitting unit LU2.
Regarding claim 9, Yueh further discloses wherein the first sub-pixel (FIGS.5A/5B, any one of the first, second, or third light emitting units LU1-LU3) includes a plurality of first sub-pixels spaced apart from each other (FIG. 1A, depicting a plurality of first, second, and third light emitting units LU1-LU3 spaced apart from each other).
Yueh does not specifically disclose wherein a second distance at which the plurality of first sub-pixels are disposed in the second direction is not an integer multiple of the first distance.
In the same field of endeavor, Yen discloses a display apparatus (FIGS. 10, stereoscopic image display 500, [0072]) including a plurality of light-blocking lines (FIG. 10, optical grating 520 with slits S (and corresponding light blocking lines therebetween, [0071]) wherein the widths of the light emitting units are an integer multiple of the distance between the light-blocking lines (FIG. 10, [0042]: “More specifically, the width P of pixel and the width W of slit satisfy the formula (1): W=(m/n)*P”; Yen further discloses wherein m and n are natural numbers, such that the width P of the pixels may be an integer multiple of the width W of the slit (i.e., the distance between light blocking lines) when the relationship is rewritten as (n/m)*W=P, [0041]-[0043]). Regarding the relationship between the width W of the slit and the width P of the pixel, in [0073], Yen states: “even though a relative displacement is formed between the slits and exposed pixels while a viewer changing his viewing position along the first direction, the total aperture ratio of pixels exposed by the slits of the optical grating remain fixed, and thus the viewer would not sense morie [sic].”
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosed display device 400 of Yueh by substituting the optical grating 520 and pixel 212 configuration/relationship such that the widths between the plurality of first light emitting units LU1 may not be integer multiples of the distance between collimating units CU2 as disclosed in Yen in order to produce an effect such that a viewer may not sense the variation of brightness even when the viewer changes his viewing position. See Yen [0040].
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yueh in view of Yen, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0079567 (published Mar. 17, 2016) (hereinafter “Cho”).
Regarding claim 7, Yueh in view of Yen further discloses wherein the display apparatus (FIGS. 5A/5B, display device 400) further comprises:
a substrate (FIGS. 5A/5B, substrate 102) including a display area (FIGS. FIGS. 5A/5B, depicting a display area of the substrate 102 being top portion of the substrate 102) and a non-display area (FIGS. 5A/5B, depicting a non-display area of the substrate 102 being the bottom portion of the substrate 102);
a display layer (FIGS. 5A/5B, depicting wherein each of the light emitting units LU1-LU3 are disposed in the same layer, forming a display layer, [0023]) disposed in the display area (FIGS. 5A/5B, the display layer comprising each of the light emitting units LU1-LU3 is disposed in the display area, wherein the display area of the substrate 102 is the top portion of the substrate 102) and including a first organic light-emitting diode (FIGS. 5A/5B, depicting any one of the first, second, or third light emitting units LU1-LU3, [0021]: “The electronic device may, for example, include liquid crystal, light-emitting diodes (LEDs), quantum dots (QDs), fluorescence or phosphors. The light-emitting diodes may, for example, include organic light-emitting diodes (OLEDs) . . . .”), a second organic light-emitting diode (FIGS. 5A/5B, any one of the first, second, or third light emitting units LU1-LU3, [0021]: “The electronic device may, for example, include liquid crystal, light-emitting diodes (LEDs), quantum dots (QDs), fluorescence or phosphors. The light-emitting diodes may, for example, include organic light-emitting diodes (OLEDs) . . . .”), and a third organic light-emitting diode (FIGS. 5A/5B, any one of the first, second, or third light emitting units LU1-LU3, [0021]: “The electronic device may, for example, include liquid crystal, light-emitting diodes (LEDs), quantum dots (QDs), fluorescence or phosphors. The light-emitting diodes may, for example, include organic light-emitting diodes (OLEDs) . . . .”),
the first organic light-emitting diode (FIGS. 5A/5B, depicting any one of the first, second, or third light emitting units LU1-LU3, [0021]: “The electronic device may, for example, include liquid crystal, light-emitting diodes (LEDs), quantum dots (QDs), fluorescence or phosphors. The light-emitting diodes may, for example, include organic light-emitting diodes (OLEDs) . . . .”) including a first emission area corresponding to the first sub-pixel (FIGS. 5A/5B, depicting wherein any one of the first, second, or third light emitting units LU1-LU3 emits light in an area corresponding to the light emitting unit LU),
the second organic light-emitting diode (FIGS. 5A/5B, depicting any one of the first, second, or third light emitting units LU1-LU3, [0021]: “The electronic device may, for example, include liquid crystal, light-emitting diodes (LEDs), quantum dots (QDs), fluorescence or phosphors. The light-emitting diodes may, for example, include organic light-emitting diodes (OLEDs) . . . .”) including a second emission area corresponding to the second sub-pixel (FIGS. 5A/5B, depicting wherein any one of the first, second, or third light emitting units LU1-LU3 emits light in an area corresponding to the light emitting unit LU),
the third organic light-emitting diode (FIGS. 5A/5B, depicting any one of the first, second, or third light emitting units LU1-LU3, [0021]: “The electronic device may, for example, include liquid crystal, light-emitting diodes (LEDs), quantum dots (QDs), fluorescence or phosphors. The light-emitting diodes may, for example, include organic light-emitting diodes (OLEDs) . . . .”) including a third emission area corresponding to the third sub-pixel (FIGS. 5A/5B, depicting wherein any one of the first, second, or third light emitting units LU1-LU3 emits light in an area corresponding to the light emitting unit LU);
an encapsulation member (FIGS. 5A/5B, protective layer 116, [0024]) covering the display layer (FIGS. 5A/5B, depicting wherein the protective layer 116 covers the display layer comprising each of the light emitting units LU1-LU3); and
a light path-controlling layer (FIGS. 5A/5B, depicting wherein the filling layer 150 and the collimator 340 are formed in the same layer, forming a light path-controlling layer, [0032]) and including the plurality of light-blocking lines (FIGS. 5A/5B, depicting wherein the light path-controlling layer comprising the filling layer 150 and the collimator 340 comprises the collimator 340/collimating unit CU2).
Yueh in view of Yen does not specifically disclose wherein the display apparatus comprises an anti-reflection layer on the encapsulation member, or wherein the light path-controlling layer is on the anti-reflection layer.
In the same field of endeavor, Cho discloses a display apparatus (FIG. 1, display apparatus 1, [0028]) including an anti-reflection layer (FIG. 1, external light reflection layer 140, [0030]) disposed on an encapsulating layer (FIG. 1, phase control layer 130, [0049]). Regarding the external light reflection layer 140, in [0045]-[0046], Cho states: “A portion of a light incident from outside may be reflected by the external light reflection layer 140, another portion of the light may be absorbed thereby, and the other portion of the light may be transmitted therethrough. The external light reflection layer 140 is formed of a material, wherein the product of a refraction index and an extinction coefficient is equal to or higher than 1, where the material may exhibit relatively low reflectance and relatively high light extinction coefficient compared to other metals. Therefore, a portion of a light incident from outside may be primarily absorbed by the external light reflection layer 140, and thus reflection of external light may be prevented or reduced.”
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosed display device 100 of Yueh by adding the external light reflection layer 140 of Cho such that the external light reflection layer is on the protective layer 116 and the light path-controlling layer comprising the filling layer 150 and the collimator 340 is on the external light reflection layer 140 in order to prevent or reduce the reflection of external light in the display device. See Cho [0045]-[0046].
Regarding claim 8, Yueh further discloses wherein the encapsulation member (FIGS. 5A/5B, protective layer 116) includes an encapsulation layer (FIGS. 5A/5B, depicting wherein the protective layer 116 is formed as a layer) including at least one inorganic encapsulation layer and at least one organic encapsulation layer that are alternately stacked ([0024]: “In addition, the protective layer 116 may also be a multilayer structure with a combination of inorganic material(s) and organic material(s), but not limited herein.”).
Claims 11-13, 16, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0271095 (filed July 5, 2019) (hereinafter “Kim”) in view of Yueh and Yen.
Regarding independent claim 11, Kim discloses: A vehicle (FIG. 26, [0269]: “Referring to FIG. 26, an optical path control member according to an embodiment may be applied to a vehicle.”) comprising:
side window glasses spaced apart from each other in a first direction (FIG. 26, depicting left and right side window glasses W spaced apart from each other in a first direction, [0273]: “Furthermore, the optical path control member according to the embodiment may be applied to a windshield (FG) of the vehicle or right and left window glasses (W).”); and
a display apparatus (FIG. 26, display device 3100, [0271]) disposed between the side window glasses (FIG. 26, depicting wherein the display device 3100 is disposed between the left and right side window glasses W, [0270]-[0273]).
Kim does not specifically disclose wherein the display apparatus comprises: a first sub-pixel having a parallelogram shape having a first width in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction; a second sub-pixel having a parallelogram shape having a second width in the second direction; a third sub-pixel having a parallelogram shape having a third width in the second direction; and a plurality of light-blocking lines extending in the first direction and spaced apart from each other with a first distance in the second direction, and wherein each of the first width, the second width, and the third width is an integer multiple of the first distance, and wherein at least one of the first width, the second width, and the third width is about an integer multiple of two or more of the first distance, such that at least one of the first to third sub-pixels having its width be about the integer multiple of two or more of the first distance, is overlapped by at least two light-blocking lines.
In the same field of endeavor, Yueh discloses: A display apparatus (FIGS. 5A/5B, display device 400, [0023]) comprising:
a first sub-pixel having a parallelogram shape (FIGS. 5A/5B, any one of the first, second, or third light emitting units LU1-LU3 having a parallelogram shape, [0024]) having a first width in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (FIGS. 5A/5B, depicting wherein any one of the first, second, or third light emitting units LU1-LU3 has a first side extending in a first direction and a first width in a second direction, the second direction perpendicular to the first direction);
a second sub-pixel having a parallelogram shape (FIGS. 5A/5B, any one of the first, second, or third light emitting units LU1-LU3 having a parallelogram shape, [0024]) having a second width in the second direction (FIGS. 5A/5B, depicting wherein any one of the first, second, or third light emitting units LU1-LU3 has a second side extending in a first direction and a second width in a second direction, the second direction perpendicular to the first direction);
a third sub-pixel having a parallelogram shape (FIGS. 5A/5B, any one of the first, second, or third light emitting units LU1-LU3 having a parallelogram shape, [0024]) having a third width in the second direction (FIGS. 5A/5B, depicting wherein any one of the first, second, or third light emitting units LU1-LU3 has a third side extending in a first direction and a third width in a second direction, the second direction perpendicular to the first direction); and
a plurality of light-blocking lines (FIGS. 5A/5B, collimating units CU2, which may be formed from light absorbing material, [0032]) extending in the first direction (FIGS. 5A/5B, depicting wherein the collimating units CU2 extend in the first direction) and spaced apart from each other with a first distance in the second direction (FIGS. 5A/5B, depicting wherein the collimating units CU2 are spaced apart from each other with a first distance in the second direction),
wherein at least one of the first to third sub-pixels is overlapped by at least two light-blocking lines (FIGS. 5A/5B, depicting wherein, e.g., first light emitting unit LU1 is overlapped by at least two collimating units CU2).
Regarding the display apparatus, in [0028], Yueh states: “When the display device 100 having the structure described above is applied to, for example, a vehicle display, the interference phenomenon of the light emitted by the display device 100 to the driver may be reduced (e.g., the light emitted by the display device 100 may be reflected by a windshield or a rear mirror to affect the driver's vision and cause driving safety problems), and the convenience or safety of the display device 100 may be improved.”
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosed vehicle of Kim by substituting the display device 400 disclosed in Yueh in order to improve the convenience and safety of the display device by preventing the reflection of light from the display device 400 in the windshield or rear mirror. See Yueh [0028].
Neither Kim nor Yueh specifically disclose wherein the first distance is from 30 μm to 60 μm, and wherein each of the first width, the second width, and the third width is within 1.5% of an integer multiple of the first distance.
In the same field of endeavor, Yen discloses a display apparatus (FIGS. 10, stereoscopic image display 500, [0072]) including a plurality of light-blocking lines (FIG. 10, optical grating 520 with slits S (and corresponding light blocking lines therebetween, [0071]) wherein the widths of the light emitting units are an integer multiple of the distance between the light-blocking lines (FIG. 10, [0042]: “More specifically, the width P of pixel and the width W of slit satisfy the formula (1): W=(m/n)*P”; Yen further discloses wherein m and n are natural numbers, such that the width P of the pixels may be an integer multiple of the width W of the slit (i.e., the distance between light blocking lines) when the relationship is rewritten as (n/m)*W=P, [0041]-[0043]). Regarding the relationship between the width W of the slit and the width P of the pixel, in [0073], Yen states: “even though a relative displacement is formed between the slits and exposed pixels while a viewer changing his viewing position along the first direction, the total aperture ratio of pixels exposed by the slits of the optical grating remain fixed, and thus the viewer would not sense morie [sic].” Yen further states in [0042]-[0043]: “More specifically, the width P of pixel and the width W of slit satisfy the formula (1): W=(m/n)*P. In formula (1), m>n or m<n. The designer could design the arrangement of the slits S in the optical grating 220 including the numbers of slits S in one constitutional group G and the positions of slits S in one constitutional group G according to the relationship between pixel width P and slit width W represented by formula (1),” in order to produce an effect such that, as noted in [0040], “the viewer may not sense the variation of brightness even when the viewer changes his viewing position.” Thus, noted in Yen, the width P of the pixels is a result-effective variable for optimizing the width W of the slit (i.e., the distance between light blocking lines).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosed display device 400 of Yueh by substituting the optical grating 520 and pixel 212 configuration/relationship such that the widths of the first to light emitting units LU1-LU3 may be integer multiples of the distance between collimating units CU2 as disclosed in Yen in order to produce an effect such that a viewer changing his viewing position may not sense the moire phenomenon. See Yen [0073].
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary, through routine optimization, the width P of the pixels, identified by Yen as a result-effective variable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at a width W between collimating units CU2 ranging from 30 μm to 60 μm, such that the widths of the first to third light emitting units LU1-LU3 may be integer multiples of the distance width W between collimating units CU2 in order to achieve the intended effect of preventing a user from sensing a variation of brightness as disclosed in Yen in [0040]. See MPEP § 2144.05 (“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”) (quoting In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (C.C.P.A. 1955)).
Regarding claim 12, Kim in view of Yueh and Yen further discloses wherein the first sub-pixel (Yueh FIGS. 5A/5B, e.g., first light emitting unit LU1) has a first side extending in the first direction (Yueh FIGS. 5A/5B, depicting wherein the first light emitting unit LU1 has a first side extending in a first direction and a first width in a second direction, the second direction perpendicular to the first direction), the second sub-pixel (Yueh FIGS. 5A/5B, e.g., second light emitting unit LU2) has a second side extending in the first direction (Yueh FIGS. 5A/5B, depicting wherein the second light emitting unit LU2 has a second side extending in a first direction and a second width in a second direction, the second direction perpendicular to the first direction), and the third sub-pixel (Yueh FIGS. 5A/5B, e.g., third light emitting unit LU3) has a third side extending in the first direction (Yueh FIGS. 5A/5B, depicting wherein the third light emitting unit LU3 has a third side extending in a first direction and a third width in a second direction, the second direction perpendicular to the first direction).
Regarding claim 13, while Kim in view of Yueh and Yen discloses wherein the first light emitting unit LU1, the second light emitting unit LU2 and the third light emitting unit LU3 may further have different sizes according to the light emitting efficiency thereof, Kim in view of Yueh and Yen does not specifically disclose wherein each of the first width, the second width, and the third width is within 1.5% of three times the first distance.
In [0042]-[0043], however, Yen states: “More specifically, the width P of pixel and the width W of slit satisfy the formula (1): W=(m/n)*P. In formula (1), m>n or m<n. The designer could design the arrangement of the slits S in the optical grating 220 including the numbers of slits S in one constitutional group G and the positions of slits S in one constitutional group G according to the relationship between pixel width P and slit width W represented by formula (1),” in order to produce an effect such that, as noted in [0040], “the viewer may not sense the variation of brightness even when the viewer changes his viewing position.” Thus, noted in Yen, the width P of the pixels is a result-effective variable for optimizing the width W of the slit (i.e., the distance between light blocking lines).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary, through routine optimization, the width P of the pixels, identified by Yen as a result-effective variable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at a pixel width P of about two times the slit width W, such that first to light emitting units LU1-LU3 may be integer multiples of three times the distance between collimating units CU2 in order to achieve the intended effect of preventing a user from sensing a variation of brightness as disclosed in Yen in [0040]. See MPEP § 2144.05 (“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”) (quoting In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (C.C.P.A. 1955)).
Regarding claim 16, while Yueh discloses wherein the first light emitting unit LU1, the second light emitting unit LU2 and the third light emitting unit LU3 may further have different sizes according to the light emitting efficiency thereof, Yueh does not specifically disclose wherein an area of the second sub-pixel is about 2.8 times of an area of the first sub- pixel, and an area of the third sub-pixel is about 5.4 times of the area of the first sub-pixel.
In [0042]-[0043], however, Yen states: “More specifically, the width P of pixel and the width W of slit satisfy the formula (1): W=(m/n)*P. In formula (1), m>n or m<n. The designer could design the arrangement of the slits S in the optical grating 220 including the numbers of slits S in one constitutional group G and the positions of slits S in one constitutional group G according to the relationship between pixel width P and slit width W represented by formula (1),” in order to produce an effect such that, as noted in [0040], “the viewer may not sense the variation of brightness even when the viewer changes his viewing position.” Thus, noted in Yen, the width P of the pixels, thereby determining the area of the pixels, is a result-effective variable for optimizing the width W of the slit (i.e., the distance between light blocking lines).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary, through routine optimization, the width P of the pixels, identified by Yen as a result-effective variable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at a pixel width P such that an area of the second light emitting unit LU is about 2.8 times of an area of the first light emitting unit LU, and an area of the light emitting unit LU is about 5.4 times of the area of the first light emitting unit LU and corresponding slit width W/distance between collimating units CU2 in order to achieve the intended effect of preventing a user from sensing a variation of brightness as disclosed in Yen in [0040]. See MPEP § 2144.05 (“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”) (quoting In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (C.C.P.A. 1955)).
Regarding claim 17, Kim in view of Yueh and Yen further discloses wherein the second sub-pixel (FIGS.5A/5B, any one of the first, second, or third light emitting units LU1-LU3) has a rectangular shape (FIGS.5A/5B, depicting wherein the second light emitting unit LU2 has a rectangular shape).
Yueh in view of Yen does not specifically disclose wherein the first sub-pixel and the third sub-pixels each have a rectangular shape.
Regarding the shapes of the first and third sub-pixels, however, it is well-established that “when there is motivation to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” MPEP § 2143(I)(E) (quoting KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, (2007)).
Currently, there is a recognized need in the art to create display devices that maximize performance and minimize cost, often accomplished by using fewer and/or smaller amounts of materials in each layer comprising the device such that the layers are small enough to increase efficiency shorten the production process, but large enough to meet desired performance specifications. In the present case, there are a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions for meeting the abovementioned need in the context of material usage, including forming the first and third light emitting units LU1 and LU3 the same shape as the second light emitting unit LU2, or forming the first and third light emitting units LU1 and LU3 in shapes different from the second light emitting unit LU2, each having a reasonable expectation of success regardless of which known potential solution is pursued.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to try forming the first and third light emitting units LU1 and LU3 the same rectangular shape as the second light emitting unit LU2.
Regarding claim 20, Kim in view of Yueh and Yen further discloses wherein the first sub-pixel (FIGS.5A/5B, any one of the first, second, or third light emitting units LU1-LU3) includes a plurality of first sub-pixels spaced apart from each other (FIG. 1A, depicting a plurality of first, second, and third light emitting units LU1-LU3 spaced apart from each other).
Kim in view of Yueh and Yen does not specifically disclose wherein a second distance at which the plurality of first sub-pixels are disposed in the second direction is not an integer multiple of the first distance.
In the same field of endeavor, Yen discloses a display apparatus (FIGS. 10, stereoscopic image display 500, [0072]) including a plurality of light-blocking lines (FIG. 10, optical grating 520 with slits S (and corresponding light blocking lines therebetween, [0071]) wherein the widths of the light emitting units are an integer multiple of the distance between the light-blocking lines (FIG. 10, [0042]: “More specifically, the width P of pixel and the width W of slit satisfy the formula (1): W=(m/n)*P”; Yen further discloses wherein m and n are natural numbers, such that the width P of the pixels may be an integer multiple of the width W of the slit (i.e., the distance between light blocking lines) when the relationship is rewritten as (n/m)*W=P, [0041]-[0043]). Regarding the relationship between the width W of the slit and the width P of the pixel, in [0073], Yen states: “even though a relative displacement is formed between the slits and exposed pixels while a viewer changing his viewing position along the first direction, the total aperture ratio of pixels exposed by the slits of the optical grating remain fixed, and thus the viewer would not sense morie [sic].”
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosed display device 400 of Yueh by substituting the optical grating 520 and pixel 212 configuration/relationship such that the widths between the plurality of first light emitting units LU1 may not be integer multiples of the distance between collimating units CU2 as disclosed in Yen in order to produce an effect such that a viewer may not sense the variation of brightness even when the viewer changes his viewing position. See Yen [0040].
Claims 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Yueh and Yen, and further in view of Cho.
Regarding claim 18, Kim in view of Yueh and Yen further discloses wherein the display apparatus (FIGS. 5A/5B, display device 400) further comprises:
a substrate (FIGS. 5A/5B, substrate 102) including a display area (FIGS. FIGS. 5A/5B, depicting a display area of the substrate 102 being top portion of the substrate 102) and a non-display area (FIGS. 5A/5B, depicting a non-display area of the substrate 102 being the bottom portion of the substrate 102);
a display layer (FIGS. 5A/5B, depicting wherein each of the light emitting units LU1-LU3 are disposed in the same layer, forming a display layer, [0023]) disposed in the display area (FIGS. 5A/5B, the display layer comprising each of the light emitting units LU1-LU3 is disposed in the display area, wherein the display area of the substrate 102 is the top portion of the substrate 102) and including a first organic light-emitting diode (FIGS. 5A/5B, depicting any one of the first, second, or third light emitting units LU1-LU3, [0021]: “The electronic device may, for example, include liquid crystal, light-emitting diodes (LEDs), quantum dots (QDs), fluorescence or phosphors. The light-emitting diodes may, for example, include organic light-emitting diodes (OLEDs) . . . .”), a second organic light-emitting diode (FIGS. 5A/5B, any one of the first, second, or third light emitting units LU1-LU3, [0021]: “The electronic device may, for example, include liquid crystal, light-emitting diodes (LEDs), quantum dots (QDs), fluorescence or phosphors. The light-emitting diodes may, for example, include organic light-emitting diodes (OLEDs) . . . .”), and a third organic light-emitting diode (FIGS. 5A/5B, any one of the first, second, or third light emitting units LU1-LU3, [0021]: “The electronic device may, for example, include liquid crystal, light-emitting diodes (LEDs), quantum dots (QDs), fluorescence or phosphors. The light-emitting diodes may, for example, include organic light-emitting diodes (OLEDs) . . . .”),
the first organic light-emitting diode (FIGS. 5A/5B, depicting any one of the first, second, or third light emitting units LU1-LU3, [0021]: “The electronic device may, for example, include liquid crystal, light-emitting diodes (LEDs), quantum dots (QDs), fluorescence or phosphors. The light-emitting diodes may, for example, include organic light-emitting diodes (OLEDs) . . . .”) including a first emission area corresponding to the first sub-pixel (FIGS. 5A/5B, depicting wherein any one of the first, second, or third light emitting units LU1-LU3 emits light in an area corresponding to the light emitting unit LU),
the second organic light-emitting diode (FIGS. 5A/5B, depicting any one of the first, second, or third light emitting units LU1-LU3, [0021]: “The electronic device may, for example, include liquid crystal, light-emitting diodes (LEDs), quantum dots (QDs), fluorescence or phosphors. The light-emitting diodes may, for example, include organic light-emitting diodes (OLEDs) . . . .”) including a second emission area corresponding to the second sub-pixel (FIGS. 5A/5B, depicting wherein any one of the first, second, or third light emitting units LU1-LU3 emits light in an area corresponding to the light emitting unit LU),
the third organic light-emitting diode (FIGS. 5A/5B, depicting any one of the first, second, or third light emitting units LU1-LU3, [0021]: “The electronic device may, for example, include liquid crystal, light-emitting diodes (LEDs), quantum dots (QDs), fluorescence or phosphors. The light-emitting diodes may, for example, include organic light-emitting diodes (OLEDs) . . . .”) including a third emission area corresponding to the third sub-pixel (FIGS. 5A/5B, depicting wherein any one of the first, second, or third light emitting units LU1-LU3 emits light in an area corresponding to the light emitting unit LU);
an encapsulation member (FIGS. 5A/5B, protective layer 116, [0024]) covering the display layer (FIGS. 5A/5B, depicting wherein the protective layer 116 covers the display layer comprising each of the light emitting units LU1-LU3); and
a light path-controlling layer (FIGS. 5A/5B, depicting wherein the filling layer 150 and the collimator 340 are formed in the same layer, forming a light path-controlling layer, [0032]) and including the plurality of light-blocking lines (FIGS. 5A/5B, depicting wherein the light path-controlling layer comprising the filling layer 150 and the collimator 340 comprises the collimator 340/collimating unit CU2).
Kim in view of Yueh and Yen does not specifically disclose wherein the display apparatus comprises an anti-reflection layer on the encapsulation member, or wherein the light path-controlling layer is on the anti-reflection layer.
In the same field of endeavor, Cho discloses a display apparatus (FIG. 1, display apparatus 1, [0028]) including an anti-reflection layer (FIG. 1, external light reflection layer 140, [0030]) disposed on an encapsulating layer (FIG. 1, phase control layer 130, [0049]). Regarding the external light reflection layer 140, in [0045]-[0046], Cho states: “A portion of a light incident from outside may be reflected by the external light reflection layer 140, another portion of the light may be absorbed thereby, and the other portion of the light may be transmitted therethrough. The external light reflection layer 140 is formed of a material, wherein the product of a refraction index and an extinction coefficient is equal to or higher than 1, where the material may exhibit relatively low reflectance and relatively high light extinction coefficient compared to other metals. Therefore, a portion of a light incident from outside may be primarily absorbed by the external light reflection layer 140, and thus reflection of external light may be prevented or reduced.”
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosed display device 100 of Yueh by adding the external light reflection layer 140 of Cho such that the external light reflection layer is on the protective layer 116 and the light path-controlling layer comprising the filling layer 150 and the collimator 340 is on the external light reflection layer 140 in order to prevent or reduce the reflection of external light in the display device. See Cho [0045]-[0046].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent Publication No. 20190218655 (filed July 28, 2017) (disclosing a display device having a range of pixel widths).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM D WEILAND whose telephone number is (703)756-4760. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Steven Gauthier can be reached at (571)270-0373. 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.
/ADAM D WEILAND/Examiner, Art Unit 2813
/STEVEN B GAUTHIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights