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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/7/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, Page 14, that one first light extraction pattern corresponds to one light-emitting component
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., one first light extraction pattern corresponds to only one light-emitting component) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim 1, lines 6-8, as amended now recites that “an orthographic projection of each of the plurality of first light extraction patterns on the light-emitting baseplate covers at least part of an area of one of the plurality of light-emitting components.”
The claim language as currently presented does not exclude the interpretation used by the Examiner that each first light extraction pattern is a pattern the covers three adjacent pixels. As seen in Ueda et al. and/or Uchida in the rejections of claim 1, below, disclose that the first light extraction pattern that covers three adjacent pixels covers at least part of an area of one of the plurality of light-emitting components.
While the Examiner agrees that Ueda and/or Uchida by themselves only draw one first light extraction element per subpixel (herein, the term first light extraction element is being used in this paragraph for explanation to refer to an individual lens 31A or 14 of Ueda and/or Uchida, respectively, whereas the interpretation of the claims is that the first light extraction pattern is a combination of three adjacent first light extraction elements.), the claims as currently presented do not sufficiently limit the scope of the claims from the interpretation that the first light extraction pattern spans multiple subpixels by the first light extraction pattern having multiple first light extraction elements.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The combination of the limitations amended to be added to claim 1 and the limitations of claim 12 now require sizes of at least two of the light regulating parts of a same light extraction pattern in a same direction are different from each other (claim 1, paragraph 6) and a size of projection shapes of the light regulating parts of the first light extraction pattern on the light-emitting baseplate in a direction is less than or equal to one third of a size of a projection shape of the light-emitting component on the light-emitting baseplate in the same direction (claim 12).
However as detailed in the rejection of claim 12, below Sun (CN 110729413 A) teaches using multiple differently sized light regulating parts per light-emitting component, resulting in the size of at least the smallest light regulating part being less than one third the size of a light-emitting component in the same direction
Drawings
The drawings were received on 11/7/2025. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification
The amendments filed 11/7/2025 are sufficient to overcome the objections to the specification stated in the previous office action. Therefore, said objections are withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, lines 21-22, amend to “same first light extraction pattern.”
Appropriate correction is required.
The amendments filed 11/7/2025 are sufficient to overcome the objections to the claims stated in the previous office action. Therefore, said objections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The amendments filed 11/7/2025 are sufficient to overcome the 112 rejections stated in the previous office action. Therefore, said 112 rejections are withdrawn.
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) 1-7, 13 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda et al. (US PGPub 2021/0399264 A1) in view of Yokoyama et al. (US PGPub 2020/0358036 A1).
As to claim 1, Ueda et al. discloses (Figs. 1 and 2) a display panel, comprising: a light-emitting baseplate 10-15, 20-25 comprising a plurality of light-emitting components 25 arranged in array (Fig. 1): a first light extraction layer 30A, wherein the first light extraction layer 30a is located at a light-emitting side of the light-emitting baseplate 10-15, 20-25 and comprises a plurality of first light extraction patterns 31A (for example each light extraction pattern being a combination of three lenses, one for each of a red green and blue pixel), and an orthographic projection of each of the plurality of first light extraction patterns 31A on the light-emitting baseplate 10-15, 20-25 covers at least part of an area of one of the plurality of light-emitting components 25 (for example, a first light extraction pattern that comprises three lenses, ones for each of a red, green and blue pixel would cover at least part of a red light-emitting component); a color filter layer 50, wherein the color filter layer 50 is located at a side of the first light extraction layer 30A away from the light-emitting baseplate 10-15, 20-25 and comprises a plurality of filter patterns 50RBG, and an orthographic projection of each of the plurality of filter patterns 50RBG on the light-emitting baseplate covers an orthographic projection of one of the plurality of light-emitting components 25 on the light-emitting baseplate 10-15, 20-25 (Paragraph 92): and a second light extraction layer 30B, wherein the second light extraction layer 30B is located at a side of the color filter layer 50 away from the light-emitting baseplate 10-15, 20-25 and comprises a plurality of second light extraction patterns 31B, and an orthographic projection of each of the plurality of second light extraction patterns 31B on the light-emitting baseplate 10-15, 20-25 ise within the orthographic projection of one of the plurality of filter patterns 50RBG on the light-emitting baseplate 10-15, 20-25; wherein each of the plurality of first light extraction patterns 31A comprises at least three light regulating parts 31A (for example, three, one for each color pixel); each of the plurality of second light extraction patterns 31B comprises at least one convex lens 31B (Fig. 2, Paragraph 91); and a quantity of the at least one light regulating part (each lens of 31A, three in the case of one for each color pixel) of each of the plurality of first light extraction patterns 31A is greater than or equal to a quantity of the at least one convex lens 31B of each of the plurality of second light extraction patterns (each second light extraction pattern can have one light regulating part if it is interpreted to be the size of a single pixel or three if it is interpreted to be the size of three pixels).
PNG
media_image1.png
408
676
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
344
488
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ueda et al. discloses that each of the plurality of first light extraction patterns 31A comprises at least three light regulating parts 31A (Fig. 2, each light extraction pattern corresponds to a light-emitting unit that has a red, blue and green pixel corresponding to the areas of 50R, 50B, 50G), but is silent as to the sizes of at least two of the light regulating parts of a same light extraction pattern in a same direction being different from each other.
Yokoyama et al. discloses wherein the pixel and light extraction structure is provided as substantial equal for all pixels (Figs. 4-6) or as different shape and size structure (Figs. 21 and 22), thus recognizing equivalent structures in the art.
PNG
media_image3.png
292
410
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
310
346
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
262
316
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
198
258
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
202
226
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Yokoyama et al.
Furthermore, it is well-known in the art that changing the size of the different color pixels allows for changing the balance between the colors.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the pixel and light extraction patterns of Ueda et al. as different shape and size from each other instead of as the same shape and size, since the selection of from among known suitable alternatives is generally within the abilities of one having ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, changing the shape and size of the pixels allows for optimizing the balance between the colors, as is well-known in the art. It is noted that Yokoyama et al. does not have two light-extraction patterns. However, since the modification is to change the shape and size of the pixel and the light-extraction patterns are part of the pixel, it would be obvious to modify the size and shape of the light-extraction patterns in order to maintain their light extraction function. This modification would result in the sizes of at least two of the light regulating parts of a same light extraction pattern in a same direction being different from each other.
As to claim 2, Ueda et al. in view of Yokoyama et al. teaches that among the plurality of first light extraction patterns, structures of at least part of the first light extraction patterns are different from the rest of the first light extraction patterns. See Rejection of claim 1, wherein the size of at least one of the light regulating parts is different.
As to claim 3, Ueda et al. in view of Yokoyama et al. teaches that the light-emitting baseplate comprises a plurality of light-emitting units (Ueda et al. #25) arranged in array and each of the plurality of light- emitting units comprises the plurality of light-emitting components (each unit comprises at least one red, green and blue pixel corresponding to the 50R, 50G, 50B filters of Ueda et al., respectively): and structures of the first light extraction patterns located at a light-emitting side of a same light-emitting unit are different (Yokoyama et al. Fig. 21, Paragraph 123). As seen in the rejection of parent claim 1 and Yokoyama et al. Paragraph 123, the different color pixels are modified to have different structures. Therefore within one light emitting unit that has one each of Red, Green and Blue pixel, each pixel will have different structures of light extraction patterns (different shape dimensions, for example).
As to claim 4, Ueda et al. in view of Yokoyama et al. teaches that the plurality of light-emitting units comprise first light-emitting components, second light-emitting components and third light- emitting components (each unit comprises at least one red, green and blue pixel corresponding to the 50R, 50G, 50B filters of Ueda et al., respectively): and structures of the first light extraction patterns located at light-emitting sides of the first light- emitting components are the same, structures of the first light extraction patterns located at light- emitting sides of the second light-emitting components are the same, and structures of the first light extraction patterns located at light-emitting sides of the third light-emitting components are the same. Since the first light extraction shapes and sizes are based on the size of the color pixel and the pixels and the pixels are repeated in array (Ueda Fig. 2, Yokoyama et al. Fig. 1), the shapes and sizes will be substantially the same for the same color pixels of different light-emitting units.
As to claim 5, Ueda et al. in view of Yokoyama et al. teaches that shapes of section graphs of the first light extraction patterns located at the light-emitting side of the same light-emitting unit are different in a direction perpendicular to the light-emitting baseplate: and/or shapes of orthographic projection graphs on the light-emitting baseplate of the first light extraction patterns located at the light-emitting side of the same light-emitting unit are different (Yokoyama et al. Fig. 21, Paragraph 123). As seen in the rejection of parent claim 1 and Yokoyama et al. Paragraph 123, the different color pixels are modified to have different orthographic projection shapes. Therefore within one light emitting unit that has one each of Red, Green and Blue pixel, each pixel will have different orthographic projection shapes of the light extraction patterns.
As to claim 6, Ueda et al. in view of Yokoyama et al. teaches that sizes of section graphs of the first light extraction patterns located at the light-emitting side of the same light-emitting unit are different in a direction perpendicular to the light-emitting baseplate: and/or sizes of orthographic projection graphs on the light-emitting baseplate of the first light extraction patterns located at the light-emitting side of the same light-emitting unit are different (Yokoyama et al. Fig. 21, Paragraph 123). As seen in the rejection of parent claim 1 and Yokoyama et al. Paragraph 123, the different color pixels are modified to have different orthographic projection sizes. Therefore within one light emitting unit that has one each of Red, Green and Blue pixel, each pixel will have different orthographic projection sizes of the light extraction patterns.
As to claim 7, Ueda et al. discloses (Fig. 2) that the orthographic projections of the plurality of first light extraction patterns 31A on the light-emitting baseplate 10-15, 20-25 cover the plurality of light-emitting components 25, and further cover at least part area between two adjacent light-emitting components 25.
As to claim 13, Ueda et al. discloses that each of the plurality of first light extraction patterns 31A comprises a first surface (curved surface) the first surface is disposed away from the light- emitting baseplate 10-15, 20-25: and the first surface comprises a surface formed by a combination of a plurality of curve surfaces (Fig. 2, 31A for example half on left side and half on right side combine to form the whole curved surface, or alternatively all three light regulating parts are different curved surfaces) or a surface formed by a combination of a plurality of planes.
As to claim 20, Ueda et al. discloses (Paragraphs 90, 91) a display device. comprising the display panel according to claim 1 (See Rejection of claim 1).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda et al. in view of Yokoyama et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sun (CN 110729413 A, citations herein refer to the attached machine translation).
As to claim 12, Ueda et al. in view of Yokoyama et al. is silent as to a size of the light regulating parts being less than or equal to one third of the light-emitting component.
Sun discloses wherein the light regulating part is provided as a single lens (Fig. 3) or as a plurality of lenses of varying size, for example at least 5 lenses (Fig. 13), thus recognizing equivalent structures in the art.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the light regulating part as at least 5 lenses with different sizes instead of as one lens, since the selection of from among known suitable alternatives is generally within the abilities of one having ordinary skill in the art. Since there are at least 5 lenses coinciding with the light-emitting component, for the first light extraction pattern located at a light-emitting side of the light-emitting component, a size of projection shapes of the light regulating parts of the first light extraction pattern on the light-emitting baseplate in a direction is less than or equal to one third of a size of a projection shape of the light-emitting component on the light-emitting baseplate the same direction.
It is noted by the Examiner that a light regulating part was previously the single lens that corresponded to a single pixel, however in the modified device, each lens is its own light regulating part and there are multiple light regulating parts per pixel.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda et al. in view of Yokoyama et al. as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Kang et al. (US PGPub 2011/0073897 A1).
As to claim 14, Ueda et al. is silent as to the at least one light regulating part comprising a combination of one or more of a semi-ellipsoid, a hemisphere, and a triangular pyramid
Kang et al. discloses wherein the light regulating part is provided as a single lens (Fig. 8, Paragraph 46) or as a plurality of lenses, for example at least 4 lenses (Fig. 9, Paragraph 47), thus recognizing equivalent structures in the art. Furthermore, the plurality of lenses are a combination of repeating hemispherical patterns (Paragraph 47).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the light regulating part as lenses instead of as one lens, since the selection of from among known suitable alternatives is generally within the abilities of one having ordinary skill in the art. Since the lenses of Kang et al. are a combination of hemispherical patterns, it would be obvious to make the lenses in the combined hemispherical shape since the selection from among known suitable shapes for their known purposes is generally within the abilities of one having ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda et al. in view of Yokoyama et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kasano et al. (US PGPub 2012/0175648 A1).
As to claim 15, Ueda et al. discloses (Fig. 2) the display panel further comprises a first fill layer 40, the first fill layer 40 is located between the first light extraction layer 30A and the color filter layer 50, a refractive index of a material of the first light extraction layer is greater than a refractive index of a material of the first fill layer (Paragraph 94, first light extraction layer index 1.8; fill layer index 1.4 to 1.5).
Ueda et al. in view of Yokoyama et al. is silent as to an absolute value of a difference between the two refractive indexes is greater than or equal to 0.5.
Kasano et al. teaches (Fig. 6) a light extraction lens with refractive index between 1.6 to 2.1 (Paragraphs 55, 61, 63 and 115) and a fill layer with index between 1.1 and 1.5 (Paragraphs 55, 63, 64 and 120) in order to suppress the amount of light that is entirely reflected (Paragraph 65).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include light extraction layer and fill layer material in the ranges disclosed by Kasano et al. in order to suppress the amount of light that is entirely reflected. A lens with refractive index of 2.1 would have an absolute value difference of at least 0.6 with any of the values for the fill layer and therefore the limitation of greater than or equal to 0.5 is satisfied.
As to claim 16, Ueda et al. discloses (Fig. 2) a refractive index of a material of the first light extraction layer 30A is greater than a refractive index of a material of the second light extraction layer 30B (Paragraph 66 and 94).
Furthermore, Ueda et al. discloses that the refractive index of the material of the second light extraction layer 30B is lower than the refractive index of a material of the color filter 60 (Paragraph 93), with the color filter 50 and fill layer 40 being made of an acrylic resin material with index of about 1.4 to 1.5 and the refractive index of the material of the first light extraction layer being 1.8 (Paragraph 94), but Ueda et al. in view of Yokoyama et al. does not explicitly state that an absolute value of a difference between the two refractive indexes of the first and second light extraction layers is greater than or equal to 0.5.
Kasano et al. teaches (Fig. 6) a light extraction lens with refractive index between 1.6 to 2.1 (Paragraphs 55, 61, 63 and 115) and a fill layer 40 with index between 1.1 and 1.5 (Paragraphs 55, 63, 64 and 120) in order to suppress the amount of light that is entirely reflected (Paragraph 65).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the light extraction layer and fill layer material in the ranges disclosed by Kasano et al. in order to suppress the amount of light that is entirely reflected, as taught by Kasano et al. For example, the light extraction lens being index of refraction 2.1, the color filter being 1.5. Furthermore, since the color filter is the same acrylic resin member as the fill layer in Ueda et al., and the index of refraction of 1.5 is also taught by Ueda et al., it would be obvious to make the color filter the same refractive index as the fill layer, e.g. 1.5 in order to make the two layers from the same material in order to keep the number of materials needed lower. Since the color filter and fill layer and fill layer have the same or substantially similar refractive indices (1.5, for example) as taught by Ueda et al. and the second light extraction material has index less than the color filter (e.g. color filter is less than 1.5), as taught by Ueda et al., a lens of the first light extraction layer with refractive index of 2.1 would have an absolute value difference of at least 0.6 with any of the values for the fill layer and color filter (1.5, for example) and therefore also the second light extraction layer, which has an index of refraction less than the color filter (less than 1.5, for example) and therefore the limitation of greater than or equal to 0.5 is satisfied (e.g. 2.1 for the first light extraction layer vs a refractive index of less than 1.5 for the second light extraction layer will be greater than 0.5, for example).
Claim(s) 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda et al. in view of Yokoyama et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sui et al. (CN 111108602A, citations herein refer to the previously attached machine translation) and Kim et al. (US PGPub 2020/0006437 A1).
As to claim 17, Ueda et al. discloses the refractive index of the first light extraction layer to be 1.8 (Paragraph 94), but Ueda et al. in view of Yokoyama et al. is silent as to Applicant’s encapsulation layer and isolation layer.
Sui et al. teaches (Fig. 3A) that the light-emitting baseplate comprises an encapsulation layer TFE (Encapsulation Layer Paragraph 201) covering the plurality of light-emitting components LE (light-emitting elements Paragraph 80), an isolation layer SPL (Spacer Planarization Layer Paragraph 201) located at a side of the encapsulation layer TFE away from the plurality of light-emitting components LE.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an encapsulation layer and an isolation layer in order to provide encapsulation and spacing/planarization, as taught by Sui et al.
Ueda et al. in view of Sui et al. is silent as to the refractive indices of the encapsulation layer and isolation layer.
Kim et al. teaches (Fig. 3) the refractive index of buffer layer BFL to be 1.5 to 2.0 (Paragraph 89) and within 0.5 (Paragraph 89) of the encapsulation layer IL (within 0.5 of the refractive index of IL), wherein the encapsulation layer has refractive index of 1.5 to 2.5 (Paragraph 66) in order to reduce total reflection (Paragraph 96).
Since it is well-known in the prior art that total reflection is based on the indices of refraction of adjacent layers, and the analogous adjacent layer of Kim et al., to the buffer layer above the encapsulation layer is the is the isolation layer (Sui et al. SPL) of Ueda et al. in view of Sui it et al., it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the refractive indices of the encapsulation layer and the adjacent layer (Spacing and planarizing layer of Sui et al.) to be within 0.5. Furthermore, as the encapsulation layer of Kim et al. has a disclosed range that exceeds the disclosed range of the adjacent layer, it would be obvious to make the encapsulation layer to be greater than the adjacent layer, for example 2.5 for the encapsulation layer and 2.0 for the isolation layer, since it is taught as suitable by Kim et al. and the selection from among known suitable alternatives for their known purposes is generally within the abilities of one having ordinary skill in the art. Since the light extraction layer of Ueda et al. is taught to be 1.8, the encapsulation layer refractive (2.5, for example) index will be greater than the first light extraction layer refractive index (1.8, for example).
As to claim 18, Ueda et al. is silent as to Applicant’s encapsulation layer and isolation layer.
Sui et al. teaches (Fig. 3A) that the light-emitting baseplate comprises an encapsulation layer TFE (Encapsulation Layer Paragraph 201) covering the plurality of light-emitting components LE (light-emitting elements Paragraph 80), an isolation layer SPL (Spacer Planarization Layer Paragraph 201) located at a side of the encapsulation layer TFE away from the plurality of light-emitting components LE.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an encapsulation layer and an isolation layer in order to provide encapsulation and spacing/planarization, as taught by Sui et al.
Ueda et al. discloses that the first light extraction layer is made of silicon nitride (Ueda et al. Paragraph 94), but Ueda et al. in view of Sui et al. is silent as to the relationship of the refractive indices and the transmittances of the encapsulation layer and the first light extraction layer.
Kim et al. teaches the encapsulation layer being silicon nitride (Paragraph 66).
Since the materials of the encapsulation layer and the light extraction layers are known to be made from the same material, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make both layers from the same material, for example epoxy resin in order to reduce the number of materials needed to produce the device. Since the materials of the layers is the same, their refractive indices and light transmittances will be the same.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda et al. in view of Yokoyama et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hinata et al. (US PGPub 2022/0131112 A1) and Lee et al. (US PGPub 2022/0077431 A1).
As to claim 19, Ueda et al. in view of Yokoyama et al. is silent as to Applicant’s second fill layer.
Hinata et al. discloses (Fig. 7) a second fill layer 16, the second fill layer 16 is located between the second light extraction layer 17 and the color filter layer 15 in order to planarize the unevenness of the color filter (Paragraph 79).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a second fill layer in between the second light extraction layer and the color filter layer of Ueda et al. in order to planarize unevenness in the color filter layer, as taught by Hinata et al.
Ueda et al. discloses a protective layer 60 (Paragraph 95, sealing resin layer), wherein the protective layer covers the second light extraction layer 30B, but Ueda et al. in view of Yokoyama et al. and Hinata et al. is silent as to the refractive index of a material of the second light extraction layer being greater than a refractive index of a material of the protective layer.
Lee et al. teaches (Fig. 2) protective layer 220 (Paragraph 58, prevent or reduce damage due to external impact and moisture) having a refractive index that is smaller than the refractive index of the material of the second light extraction layer 210 in order to effectively condense the light (Paragraph 58).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the second light extraction layer have greater refractive index than the protective layer in order to effectively condense the light, as taught by Lee et al.
Claim(s) 1, 7-9 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida (US PGPub 2025/0057016 A1, citations herein use “A / B” format to refer to the US PGPub and attached machine translation of foreign priority JP 2021-205519, respectively, to show that the cited matter has an effective filing date of 12/17/2021).
As to claim 1, Uchida discloses (Figs. 2 and 3) a display panel, comprising: a light-emitting baseplate 11-13, 20-23 comprising a plurality of light-emitting components 20 arranged in array (Fig. 2); a first light extraction layer 14 (Paragraph 89-105 / Paragraphs 41-57), wherein the first light extraction layer is located at a light-emitting side of the light-emitting baseplate11-13, 20-23 and comprises a plurality of first light extraction patterns 14 (each first light extraction pattern covering three adjacent pixels, one each of red, green and blue), and an orthographic projection of each of the plurality of first light extraction patterns 14 on the light-emitting baseplate 11-13, 20-23 covers at least part of an area of one of the plurality of light-emitting components 20 (as seen in Fig. 3, the light extracting feature spans three pixels and therefore covers at least a part of an area of one of the light-emitting components): a color filter layer 16, wherein the color filter layer is located at a side of the first light extraction layer 14 away from the light-emitting baseplate 11-13, 20-23 and comprises a plurality of filter patterns16FG,16FB,16FR, and an orthographic projection of each of the plurality of filter patterns 16FG, 16FB, 16FR on the light-emitting baseplate covers an orthographic projection of one of the plurality of light-emitting components 20 on the light-emitting baseplate 11-13, 20-23, and a second light extraction layer 17, wherein the second light extraction layer 17 is located at a side of the color filter layer 16 away from the light-emitting baseplate 11-13, 20-23 and comprises a plurality of second light extraction patterns 17a, and an orthographic projection of each of the plurality of second light extraction patterns 17a on the light-emitting baseplate 11-13, 20-23 is within the orthographic projection of one of the plurality of filter patterns 16FG, 16FB, 16FR on the light-emitting baseplate 11-13, 20-23, wherein each of the plurality of first light extraction patterns 14 comprises at least three light regulating parts (one for each of the three pixels);each of the plurality of second light extraction patterns 17a comprises at least one convex lens 17a; and a quantity of the at least one light regulating part 14 of each of the plurality of first light extraction patterns 14 is greater than or equal to a quantity of the at least one convex lens 17a of each of the plurality of second light extraction patterns.
PNG
media_image8.png
642
564
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
860
672
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Uchida
Uchida discloses that each of the plurality of first light extraction patterns 14 comprises at least three light regulating parts 14 (Fig. 3, each first light extraction pattern corresponds to a light-emitting unit that has a red, blue and green pixel corresponding to the areas of 20), but is silent as to the sizes of at least two of the light regulating parts of a same light extraction pattern in a same direction being different from each other.
Yokoyama et al. discloses wherein the pixel and light extraction structure is provided as substantial equal for all pixels (Figs. 4-6) or as different shape and size structure (Figs. 21 and 22), thus recognizing equivalent structures in the art.
PNG
media_image3.png
292
410
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
310
346
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
262
316
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
198
258
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
202
226
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Yokoyama et al.
Furthermore, it is well-known in the art that changing the size of the different color pixels allows for changing the balance between the colors.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the pixel and light extraction patterns of Uchida as different shape and size from each other instead of as the same shape and size, since the selection of from among known suitable alternatives is generally within the abilities of one having ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, changing the shape and size of the pixels allows for optimizing the balance between the colors, as is well-known in the art. It is noted that Yokoyama et al. does not have two light-extraction patterns. However, since the modification is to change the shape and size of the pixel and the light-extraction patterns are part of the pixel, it would be obvious to modify the size and shape of the light-extraction patterns in order to maintain their light extraction function. This modification would result in the sizes of at least two of the light regulating parts of a same light extraction pattern in a same direction being different from each other.
As to claim 7, Uchida discloses (Fig. 3) that the orthographic projections of the plurality of first light extraction patterns 14 on the light-emitting baseplate 11-13, 20-23 cover the plurality of light-emitting components 20 and further cover at least part area between two adjacent light-emitting components 20.
As to claim 8, Uchida discloses (Fig. 3) that in a same direction, a spacing between every two adjacent first light extraction 14 patterns is less than a spacing between every two adjacent second light extraction patterns 17.
As to claim 9, Uchida discloses that luminescent colors of the plurality of light-emitting components 20 are the same (Paragraph 76-80, white / Paragraph 28), and the spacing between every two adjacent first light extraction patterns 14 is zero.
As to claim 20, Uchida discloses a display device (Paragraph 59 / Paragraph 11) comprising the display panel according to claim 1 (See Rejection of claim 1.)
Citation of Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Maeda et al. (US PGPub 2016/0104760 A1) discloses (Fig. 3) a lens 309 and color filter 313.
Itonaga et al. (US PGPub 2022/0407037 A1) discloses (Fig. 1) multiple lens units 60 per pixel.
Conclusion
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 STEVEN Y HORIKOSHI whose telephone number is (571)270-7811. The examiner can normally be reached Monday and Tuesday 2-10PM EDT.
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, ABDULMAJEED AZIZ can be reached at 571-270-5046. 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.
/S.Y.H/ Examiner, Art Unit 2875
/ABDULMAJEED AZIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875