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 Amendment
The amendment filed on 25 November 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 10, filed 25 November 2025, with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 5 September 2025 has been withdrawn.
Specifically, the claim was amended to address the indefiniteness issue.
Applicant's arguments filed 25 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Wang does not teach or suggest that the first light emitting element is surrounded by the plurality of the second light emitting elements. The examiner disagrees. Wang teaches an embodiment in which the first light emitting element is surrounded by second light emitting elements horizontally (Fig. 6) and another embodiment in which the first light emitting element is surrounded by second light emitting elements vertically (Fig. 7). Wang teaches that there is a benefit to surrounding the first light emitting element in a direction L of improving efficiency and color uniformity (paragraph 66) and that direction L can be vertical or horizontal (paragraph 8). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to combine vertical and horizontal embodiments and thereby obtain the claimed invention in order to improve efficiency and color uniformity in both the rows and columns of the display (Wang paragraphs 8, 66).
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-16, 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 111682122 A).
Note: US 20220367838 A1 is being used as an English translation of Wang. Citations refer to the translation.
With respect to claim 1: Wang teaches “a light emitting apparatus (throughout reference) comprising: a substrate (1) including a principal surface (surface on which 2 is disposed); a first light emitting element (first 21) disposed on the principal surface (see Figs. 4, 6, 7, 13); a plurality of second light emitting element (second 21’s) disposed on the principal surface (see Figs. 4, 6, 7, 13); a first lens (first 31) that receives light emitted from the first light emitting element (paragraphs 64-65); and a plurality of second lenses (second 31) that receive light emitted from the plurality of second light emitting elements each corresponding to a second lens of the plurality of second lenses (paragraphs 64-65), wherein the first light emitting element and the plurality of second light emitting element each include a lower electrode (210), an upper electrode (212), and an organic compound layer (211) disposed between the lower electrode and the upper electrode (see Figs. 4, 6, 7, 13), wherein, in a direction (L) parallel to the principal surface (see Figs. 4, 13), a distance between a middle point of an emission area of each of the second light emitting element and an apex of a corresponding second lens of the plurality of second lenses is larger than a distance between a middle point of an emission area of the first light emitting element and an apex of the first lens (see Fig. 3, paragraph 65), wherein the emission area of each of the second light emitting elements is larger than the emission area of the first light emitting element (see Fig. 4, paragraph 64)”.
Wang does not teach a single embodiment in which the first light emitting element is surrounded on all sides by the plurality of second light emitting elements. However, Wang teaches embodiments in which the second light emitting elements extend from the first in a horizontal direction (Figs. 6, 8) and embodiments in which the second light emitting elements extend from the first in a vertical direction (Figs. 7, 9), and in both cases obtain the benefits of improved efficiency and brightness uniformity, and reduced crosstalk (paragraph 66). It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the light emitting apparatus of Wang by applying the arrangement of light emitting elements in both the vertical and horizontal directions in order to obtain the benefits of improved efficiency and brightness uniformity for both columns and rows of the pixels of the array (Wang paragraph 66).
With respect to claim 2: Wang teaches “the light emitting apparatus according to Claim 1 (see above), further comprising: a plurality of third light emitting element (third 21); and a plurality of third lenses (third 31) that receives light emitted from the plurality of third light emitting elements (paragraphs 64-65), wherein, in the direction parallel to the principal surface (L), a distance between a middle point of an emission area of each of the plurality of third light emitting elements and an apex of the corresponding third lens of the plurality of third lenses is larger than the distance between the middle point of the emission area of each of the second light emitting elements and the apex of the corresponding second lens of the plurality of second lenses (see Fig. 3), and wherein the emission area of the third light emitting element is larger than the emission area of the second light emitting element (see Fig. 4, paragraph 64)”.
With respect to claim 3: Wang teaches “the light emitting apparatus according to Claim 1 (see above), wherein the first light emitting element includes: a lower electrode (210), a light emitting layer (211), an upper electrode (212) in this order (see Fig. 4); and a first insulating layer (6 on one side of 210) and a second insulating layer (6 on the other side of 210) that individually cover both ends of the lower electrode (see Figs. 4, 13), wherein the middle point of the emission area of the first light emitting element is a middle point of a line segment connecting an end of the first insulating layer and an end of the second insulating layer (see Figs. 4, 13)”.
With respect to claim 4: Wang teaches “the light emitting apparatus according to Claim 1 (see above), wherein the first lens and the plurality of second lenss are disposed on a light extracting side of the light emitting apparatus farther from the first light emitting element and the plurality of second light emitting elements (see Figs. 4, 13)”.
With respect to claim 6: Wang teaches “the light emitting apparatus according to Claim 1 (see above), wherein the emission areas of the first light emitting element and the plurality of second light emitting element are polygonal (see Figs. 6-9), and wherein at least one side of the polygonal emission area of each of the the second light emitting element is disposed inside of the polygonal emission area of the first light emitting element (see Figs. 6-9)”.
With respect to claim 7: Wang teaches “the light emitting apparatus according to Claim 6 (see above) wherein, the at least one side of the emission area of each of the second light emitting elements disposed inner than the polygonal emission area of the first light emitting element includes two sides of the polygon, and wherein, the two sides are farthest from each other among the sides of the polygon (see Figs. 6-9)”.
With respect to claim 8: Wang teaches “the light emitting apparatus according to Claim 6 (see above), wherein the first light emitting element is in the first emission area of the light emitting apparatus (see Figs. 6-9), and the plurality of second light emitting element is in the second emission area surrounding the first emission area (see Figs. 6-9), wherein, in the polygonal emission area of the second light emitting element, the at least one side disposed inner than the emission area of the first light emitting element is one side of the polygon, and wherein the one side is closest to the first emission area among the sides of the polygon (see Figs. 6-9)”.
With respect to claim 9: Wang teaches “the light emitting apparatus according to Claim 1 (see above), wherein the emission area of the light emitting apparatus includes a first emission area and a second emission area surrounding the first emission area (see Figs. 6-9), and wherein the first light emitting element is disposed in the first emission area (see Figs. 6-9), and the plurality of second light emitting element is disposed in the second emission area (see Figs. 6-9), the light emitting apparatus further comprising: a second color filter (5 associated with the second pixel 21) that receives light emitted from the plurality of second light emitting element (see Fig. 4); a fourth light emitting element (fourth 21) disposed next to the second light emitting element (see Fig. 4); and a fourth color filter (5 associated with the fourth pixel 21) that receives light from the fourth light emitting element (see Fig. 4) and that transmits light of a wavelength different from a wavelength of the second color filter (paragraph 82), wherein the second color filter and the fourth color filter are disposed on a line segment connecting an end of the second optical member adjacent to the first light emitting element and an end of the emission area of the fourth light emitting element adjacent to the first light emitting element (see Fig. 4)”.
With respect to claim 10: Wang teaches “the light emitting apparatus according to Claim 1 (see above)”.
Wang does not specifically teach “wherein a width X of the second emission area is expressed as X = r - h × tan[sin-1{sin(θ2 + α)/n} -α], where h is a height of each of the plurality of the second lenses, r is a radius of each of the plurality of the second lenses, n is a refractive index of each of the plurality of second lenses, θ1 is an angle of light emitted from the second emission area bent by each second lens of the plurality of second lenses, α is an angle of each of the second lenses of the plurality of second lenses at a point at which the light emitted from the second emission area is bent by a corresponding second lens of the plurality of second lenses, and θ2 is an angle of the bent light”.
However, Wang recognizes X as a results effective variable for the purpose of improving the uniformity of the display luminance, and suggests a simulation method for determining the optimal width of the emission area (paragraph 68) and obtains results therefrom which overlap with the results of using the claimed equation; Wang gets aperture ratios ranging from 44% to 60% at shift lengths of 0 to 0.8 microns (Wang paragraph 69) while applicant gets aperture ratios of 33% to 50% at shift lengths of 0 to 1.5 microns (specification paragraph 66).
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the widths of the light emitting areas of Wang using Wang’s simulation method and thereby obtain values overlapping and thus rendering prima facie obvious with values obtained from the claimed equation in order to improve the uniformity of the display luminance (Wang paragraph 68).
With respect to claim 12: Wang teaches “a light emitting apparatus (throughout reference) comprising: a substrate (1) including a principal surface (surface on which 2 is disposed); a first emission area (area of first pixels 21) including a first light emitting element (21) disposed on the principal surface (Figs. 4, 13); and a second emission area (area of second pixels 21) including a second light emitting element (21) disposed on the principal surface (see Fig. 4) and surrounding the first emission area (see Figs. 6-9), wherein the first light emitting element and the second light emitting element each include a lower electrode (210), an upper electrode (212), and an organic compound layer (211) disposed between the lower electrode and the upper electrode (see Fig. 4), wherein an emission area of the second light emitting element is larger than an emission area of the first light emitting element (see Fig. 4, paragraph 65), and wherein the lower electrode of the second light emitting element is larger than the lower electrode of the first light emitting element (see Fig. 4)”.
Wang does not teach a single embodiment in which the first light emitting element is surrounded on all sides by the plurality of second light emitting elements. However, Wang teaches embodiments in which the second light emitting elements extend from the first in a horizontal direction (Figs. 6, 8) and embodiments in which the second light emitting elements extend from the first in a vertical direction (Figs. 7, 9), and in both cases obtain the benefits of improved efficiency and brightness uniformity, and reduced crosstalk (paragraph 66). It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the light emitting apparatus of Wang by applying the arrangement of light emitting elements in both the vertical and horizontal directions in order to obtain the benefits of improved efficiency and brightness uniformity for both columns and rows of the pixels of the array (Wang paragraph 66).
With respect to claim 13: Wang teaches “the light emitting apparatus according to Claim 12 (see above), wherein the first light emitting element and each of the second light emitting element emit light of the same color (see Fig. 4; the different light emitting elements in this embodiment share the same light emitting layer 211 and thus necessarily have the same emission color)”.
With respect to claim 14: Wang teaches “the light emitting apparatus according to Claim 12 (see above), wherein the first light emitting element and the plurality of second light emitting element include a first electrode (210), a second electrode (212), an organic compound layer (211) disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode (see Figs. 4, 13), a first insulating layer (6) in contact with one end of the first electrode (see Figs. 4, 13), and a second insulating layer (6) in contact with another end of the first electrode (see Figs. 4, 13), and wherein, in a cross section perpendicular to the principal surface of the substrate (shown in Figs. 4, 13), a distance between the first insulating layer and the second insulating layer is the emission area (see Figs. 4, 13)”.
With respect to claim 15: Wang teaches “the light emitting apparatus according to Claim 12 (see above), further comprising: a first lens (31) that receives light emitted from the first light emitting element (see Figs. 4, 13); and a plurality of second lenses (31) that receives light emitted from the plurality of second light emitting elements each corresponding to a second lens of the plurality of second lenses (see Figs. 4, 13), wherein, in a direction parallel to the principal surface, a distance between a middle point of an emission area of each of the second light emitting elements and an apex of a corresponding second lens of the plurality of second lenses is larger than a distance between a middle point of an emission area of the first light emitting element and an apex of the first lens (see Fig. 3)”.
With respect to claim 16: Wang teaches “the light emitting apparatus according to Claim 12 (see above), further comprising wherein the first lens and the plurality of second lenses are disposed on a light extracting side of the light emitting apparatus farther from the first light emitting element and the plurality of second light emitting element (see Figs. 4, 13)”.
With respect to claim 21: Wang teaches “an illuminating apparatus (Fig. 1) comprising: a light source (OLED screen) including the light emitting apparatus according to Claim 1 (see above); and a light diffusion unit or an optical film that transmits light emitted from the light source (unlabeled light guide (Fig. 1); see paragraphs 60, 101).
With respect to claim 22: Wang teaches “a movable object (Fig. 1) comprising: a lighting fixture (OLED screen) including the light emitting apparatus according to Claim 1 (see Fig. 1); and a body including the lighting fixture (paragraph 100)”.
Claims 11, 17, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 2021/0193745 A1).
With respect to claim 11: Wang teaches “the light emitting apparatus according to Claim 1 (see above)”,
Wang does not specifically teach “wherein the emission area of the first light emitting element is circular in plan view of the substrate”.
However, Zhang teaches “wherein the emission area (1) of the first light emitting element (10) is circular in plan view of the substrate (see Fig. 2)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the light emitting apparatus of Wang by making the emission area circular instead of rectangular as taught by Zhang in order to eliminate the saw-tooth appearance that appears at the rim of a circular display implemented with rectangular light emitter areas (Zhang paragraph 29).
With respect to claim 17: Wang teaches “The light emitting apparatus according to Claim 1 (see above)”.
Wang does not specifically teach “wherein the light emitting apparatus is of an active matrix type in which light emission of the first light emitting element and the second light emitting element are controlled independently”.
However, Zhang teaches “wherein the light emitting apparatus is of an active matrix type in which light emission of the first light emitting element and the second light emitting element are controlled independently (paragraph 3)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the light emitting apparatus of Wang by using an active matrix control scheme as taught by Zhang due to the art recognized suitability of active matrix for the purpose of providing a display (Zhang paragraph 29).
With respect to claim 18: Wang teaches “The light emitting apparatus according to Claim 1 (see above)”.
Wang does not specifically teach “a control unit that controls display of the light emitting apparatus”.
However, Zhang teaches “a control unit (12) that controls display of the light emitting apparatus (paragraph 53)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the light emitting apparatus of Wang by using a control unit as taught by Zhang in order to drive the pixels of the light emitting apparatus (Zhang paragraph 53).
Claims 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bardagjy et al. (US 2020/0259982 A1).
With respect to claim 19: Wang teaches “a display unit (Fig. 1) that displays an image (see Fig. 1) taken by the image sensor (paragraph 60), wherein the display unit includes the light emitting apparatus according to Claim 1 (see above)”.
Wang does not specifically teach “an image pickup apparatus comprising: an optical unit including a plurality of lenses; an image sensor that receives light passing through the optical unit”.
However, Bardagjy teaches “an image pickup apparatus (100) comprising: an optical unit (110) including a plurality of lenses (135, 140); an image sensor (120) that receives light (160) passing through the optical unit (see Fig. 1)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the light emitting apparatus of Wang by using it with the image pickup apparatus of Bardagjy in order to obtain images of the surrounding area to incorporate into the images displayed in the display unit (Bardagjy paragraph 15).
With respect to claim 20: Wang teaches “an electronic apparatus (Fig. 1) comprising: a display unit including the light emitting apparatus according to Claim 1 (see above)”.
Wang does not specifically teach “a casing in which the display unit is disposed; and a communication unit disposed in the casing, the communication unit communicating with outside”.
However, Bardagjy teaches “a casing (205) in which the display unit (310) is disposed (see Fig. 3); and a communication unit (360) disposed in the casing (see Fig. 3), the communication unit communicating with outside (see Fig. 5)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the light emitting apparatus of Wang by putting it in a casing with a communication unit as taught by Bardagjy in order to allow the user to provide content to the display (Bardagjy paragraph 67).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee (US 20190252470 A1), which teaches a display device.
Suzuki et al. (US 20220115629 A1), which teaches a display device.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL J. LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-5721. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 EST M-F.
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.
/NATHANIEL J LEE/ Examiner, Art Unit 2875
/ABDULMAJEED AZIZ/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875