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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/25/2023 considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 20-23 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/12/2026.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishito et al.(JP 7057487 B2, machine translation, 04-22 ) (Ishito, hereafter) in view of Choi et al. (US 20180267358 A1) (Choi, hereafter).
Regarding claim 1, Ishito disclose (figures 1- 21 and corresponding ext) (Figure 4)An optical member (Figure 4) comprising: a first layer(35a) including a pattern portion(352); and a second layer (35b)covering the pattern portion (352a), wherein at least one of the first layer (35a) or the second layer has a refractive index varied depending on different wavelength areas, the different wavelength areas include a visible ray area(102, 1021) and an infrared area(101a,101b) (π55-π59), having a wavelength longer(780-2000nm) than a wavelength of the visible ray area (400-750) (π27), Ishito fails to explicitly disclose wherein a difference in a refractive index between the first layer and the second layer is greater in the visible ray area than the infrared area.
PNG
media_image1.png
660
416
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Choi discloses (Figure 2B)having a pattern layer (23) having a refractive index different from that of the cover layer (25); the pattern layer having a greater refractive index than the second layer. The shorter wavelength being completed reflected at the upper surface (1); the longer wavelength passing through.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify to the optical member of Ishito as disclosed by Choi wherein a difference in a refractive index between the first layer and the second layer is greater in the visible ray area than the infrared area the motivation being to complete totally reflect visible light inward and pass through infrared ray for an improved image.
Regarding claim 2, Ishito discloses (Figure 4) wherein the pattern portion of the first layer includes a plurality of concave portions and a plurality of convex portions between the plurality of concave portions (π71).
Regarding claim 3, Ishito fails to explicitly disclose wherein the refractive index of the second layer is greater than the refractive index of the first layer, and a change in the refractive index of the second layer from the visible ray area to the infrared area is greater than a change in the refractive index of the first layer from the visible ray area to the infrared area.
Choi discloses (Figure 2B)having a pattern layer (23) having a refractive index different from that of the cover layer (25); the pattern layer having a greater refractive index than the second layer. The shorter wavelength being completed reflected at the upper surface (1); the longer wavelength passing through.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify to the optical member of Ishito as disclosed by Choi wherein the refractive index of the second layer is greater than the refractive index of the first layer, and a change in the refractive index of the second layer from the visible ray area to the infrared area is greater than a change in the refractive index of the first layer from the visible ray area to the infrared area the motivation being to complete totally reflect visible light inward and pass through infrared ray for an improved image.
Regarding claims 4-5, Ishito as modified by Choe fail to explicitly disclose wherein the difference in the refractive index between the first layer and the second layer in the visible ray area is greater than 0.03 and is equal to or less than 0.4 (Claim 4);wherein the difference in the refractive index between the first layer and the second layer in the infrared area is in a range of 0 to 0.03 (claim 5).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the optical member of Ishito as disclosed by Choi wherein the difference in the refractive index between the first layer and the second layer in the visible ray area is greater than 0.03 and is equal to or less than 0.4;wherein the difference in the refractive index between the first layer and the second layer in the infrared area is in a range of 0 to 0.03 to improve on the displayed image and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re A11er, 105 USPQ 233
Regarding claim 6, Ishito also discloses wherein the second layer includes an acrylate based compound containing at least one of epoxy acrylate or fluorine epoxy acrylate, or a compound containing silicon (Si), titanium (Ti), sulfur (S), aluminum (Al), zinc (Zn), tantalum (Ta), magnesium (Mg), yttrium (Y), and/or hafnium (Hf) (π34).
Regarding claim 7, Ishito also discloses wherein the first layer includes an acrylate-based compound containing at least one of silicon modified acrylate or urethane acrylate, or a compound containing zirconium (Zr), fluorine (F) and sodium (Na) (π34).
Regarding claim 8, Ishito discloses wherein the pattern portion of the first layer includes a plurality of scattering portions(π71-π72).
Regarding claim 16, Ishito as modified by Choi disclose claim 1(see rejection above). Ishito fails to explicitly disclose a display apparatus comprising: a display panel configured to display an image; and an optical panel coupled to an upper side or lower side of the display panel, wherein the optical panel includes the optical member of claim 1.
Choi discloses a display device (display apparatus ) (Figures 30-31) discloses a display panel (410) and an optical member (LE)on the upper side of display panel,
IT would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the optical member of Ishta by including it the optical member into the machine as directed by the claim the motivation being a complete device with wide color an uniform.
Claims 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishito et al.(JP 7057487 B2, machine translation, 04-22 ) (Ishito, hereafter) in view of Choi et al. (US 20180267358 A1) (Choi, hereafter) and in further view of Heo (US 20160315287 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Ishito as modified by Choi discloses the optical member set forth above (see rejection claim 8). Ishito as modified by Choi fail to disclose wherein the plurality of scattering portions have a refractive index greater than the refractive index of the second layer, and a change in the refractive index of the plurality of scattering portions from the visible ray area to the infrared area is greater than a change in the refractive index of the second layer from the visible ray area to the infrared area.
Heo discloses (Figure 2) an optical member includes a first layer 22, which includes a convex part including a plurality of protrusions, and a second layer 21, which is disposed on at least one side of the first layer 22 and including a plurality of scattering particles dispersed therein(π37). With regard to the refractive index of each member, when a refractive index of the base material is n1, a refractive index of the convex part is n2, a refractive index of the cover is n3, and a refractive index of the scattering particles is n4, n2 may be greater than n1 and n3 and a value of n1 may differ from a value of n4, and a difference between n1 and n4 may be 0.01 to 0.7 (π17-π19).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the optical member of Ishito as disclosed Heo wherein the plurality of scattering portions have a refractive index greater than the refractive index of the second layer, and a change in the refractive index of the plurality of scattering portions from the visible ray area to the infrared area is greater than a change in the refractive index of the second layer from the visible ray area to the infrared area the motivation being to achieve optical extraction efficiency.
Regarding claim 10,Ishito as modified by Choi fail to disclose wherein the plurality of scattering portions include a first material having at least one of silicon oxide (SiO2), titanium oxide (TiO2), silicon nitride (SixNy), silicon oxide nitride (SiON), aluminum oxide (AlOx), aluminum nitride (AlON), zinc oxide (ZnO), tantalum pentoxide (Ta2O5), magnesium fluoride (MgF2), yttrium oxide (Y2O3) or hafnium oxide (HfO2), and/or a polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), polycarbonate (PC), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyurethane (PU), polystyrene (PS) and nylon-based material to which the first material is added.
Heo discloses where the first material is at least one of at least one of silicon oxide (SiO2), titanium oxide (TiO2), silicon nitride (SixNy), silicon oxide nitride (SiON), aluminum oxide (AlOx), aluminum nitride (AlON), zinc oxide (ZnO), tantalum pentoxide (Ta2O5), magnesium fluoride (MgF2), yttrium oxide (Y2O3) or hafnium oxide (HfO2), (π55).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the optical member of Ishito as modifed by Heo, wherein the plurality of scattering portions include a first material having at least one of silicon oxide (SiO2), titanium oxide (TiO2), silicon nitride (SixNy), silicon oxide nitride (SiON), aluminum oxide (AlOx), aluminum nitride (AlON), zinc oxide (ZnO), tantalum pentoxide (Ta2O5), magnesium fluoride (MgF2), yttrium oxide (Y2O3) or hafnium oxide (HfO2), and/or a polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), polycarbonate (PC), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyurethane (PU), polystyrene (PS) and nylon-based material to which the first material is added, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 11, Ishito discloses wherein the second layer (35b) includes an acrylate-based compound that includes at least one of silicone-modified acrylate or urethane acrylate, or a compound containing zirconium (Zr), fluorine (F) and sodium (Na) (π34).
Regarding claim 12, Ishito as modified by Choi discloses the optical member set forth above (see rejection claim 8). Ishito as modified by Choi fail to disclose wherein the refractive index of the second layer is greater than the refractive index of the plurality of scattering portions, and a change in the refractive index of the second layer from the visible ray area to the infrared area is greater than a change in the refractive index of the plurality of scattering portions from the visible ray area to the infrared area.
Heo discloses (Figure 2) an optical member includes a first layer 22, which includes a convex part including a plurality of protrusions, and a second layer 21, which is disposed on at least one side of the first layer 22 and including a plurality of scattering particles dispersed therein(π37). With regard to the refractive index of each member, when a refractive index of the base material is n1, a refractive index of the convex part is n2, a refractive index of the cover is n3, and a refractive index of the scattering particles is n4, n2 may be greater than n1 and n3 and a value of n1 may differ from a value of n4, and a difference between n1 and n4 may be 0.01 to 0.7 (π17-π19).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the optical member of Ishito as disclosed Heo wherein the refractive index of the second layer is greater than the refractive index of the plurality of scattering portions, and a change in the refractive index of the second layer from the visible ray area to the infrared area is greater than a change in the refractive index of the plurality of scattering portions from the visible ray area to the infrared area the motivation being to improve upon optical extraction efficiency.
Regarding claim 13, Ishito further discloses wherein the second layer includes an acrylate based compound containing at least one of epoxy acrylate, fluorine epoxy acrylate, silicon modified acrylate or urethane acrylate, or a compound containing silicon (Si), titanium (Ti), sulfur (S), aluminum (Al), zinc (Zn), tantalum (Ta), magnesium (Mg), yttrium (Y), and/or hafnium (Hf) ((π34).
Regarding claim 14, Ishito as modified by choi and Heo fail to explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of scattering portions include a second material that includes at least one of polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), polycarbonate (PC), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), or sodium hexafluoroaluminate (Na.sub.3AlF.sub.6), and/or a polyurethane (PU), polystyrene (PS) and nylon-based material to which the second material is added.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the optical member of Ishito wherein the plurality of scattering portions include a second material that includes at least one of polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), polycarbonate (PC), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), or sodium hexafluoroaluminate (Na.sub.3AlF.sub.6), and/or a polyurethane (PU), polystyrene (PS) and nylon-based material to which the second material is added and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 15, Ishito as .modified by choi and Heo fail to explicitly disclose fail to explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of scattering portions have a haze that is in a range of 0% to 90%.
Heo discloses when refractive difference between incident light and the particles haze change is great because the scattering portions have a refractive index either higher or lower than the base but not the same(π55).
Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date further modify the optical member of Ishito as disclosed by Heo to derive wherein the plurality of scattering portions have a haze that is in a range of 0% to 90% to have a displayed image of sufficient brightness.
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishito et al.(JP 7057487 B2, machine translation, 04-22 ) (Ishito, hereafter) in view of Choi et al. (US 20180267358 A1) (Choi, hereafter) and in further view of Kim et al. (US 20190067381 A1) (Kim, hereafter).
Regarding claims 17-18 , Choi further discloses (Figures 30-31): a substrate (411) including a plurality of pixels having a plurality of subpixels(Pb Pr Pg); wherein the display panel further includes: a light emitting element layer (415b)on the light extraction portion; an opposing substrate (440, cover glass) on the light emitting element layer to face the substrate (411); and a color filter layer (Figure 15: 573)configured to color-convert light emitted from the light emitting element layer (415b); wherein the color filter layer is between the light emitting element layer(415b) and the optical member(LE).
Ishito as modified by Choi fails to explicitly discloses a light extraction portion disposed on the substrate and in each of the plurality of subpixels, and wherein in each of the plurality of sub-pixels, the light extraction portion overlaps at least one of a plurality of concave portions and a plurality of convex portions included in the pattern portion of the first lay er in the optical member; a light extraction portion disposed on the substrate and in each of the plurality of subpixels, and wherein in each of the plurality of sub-pixels, the light extraction portion overlaps at least one of a plurality of concave portions and a plurality of convex portions included in the pattern portion of the first lay er in the optical member.
Kim teaches (Figure 3, reproduced below) an electroluminescent display device 100 according to the first embodiment of the present disclosure can include a substrate (110), a thin film transistor (120), a color filter pattern (150), an overcoat layer (160), and a light emitting diode D electrically connected to the thin film transistor (12); protruding portion PP and depressed portion DP of a micro lens included in the overcoat layer ()160); these regions serves as light extraction regions for the device (π33-π60).
[AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image2.png
368
398
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the display apparatus of Ishita as disclosed by Choi and Kim wherein a light extraction portion disposed on the substrate and in each of the plurality of subpixels, and wherein in each of the plurality of sub-pixels, the light extraction portion overlaps at least one of a plurality of concave portions and a plurality of convex portions included in the pattern portion of the first lay er in the optical member; a light extraction portion disposed on the substrate and in each of the plurality of subpixels, and wherein in each of the plurality of sub-pixels, the light extraction portion overlaps at least one of a plurality of concave portions and a plurality of convex portions included in the pattern portion of the first lay er in the optical member the motivation being to provide a device that has improved light extraction efficiency thus an improved image.
Regarding claim 19, Ishito as modified by Choi disclose the optical member of claim 1(see rejection above). They further disclose the optical member to have a concavo-convex pattern. Ishito as modified by Choi fail to explicitly disclose wherein the light extraction portion includes a plurality of concave patterns and a plurality of convex patterns between the concave patterns, and wherein a pitch of the plurality of convex portions of the first layer in the optical member is greater than a pitch of the plurality of convex patterns of the light extraction portion, or one of the plurality of convex portions overlaps several of the plurality of convex patterns.
Kim discloses (Figure 3 above) wherein the light extraction portion includes a plurality of concave patterns (PP) and a plurality of convex patterns(DP) between the concave patterns(PP) (π56-π65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the display apparatus of Ishita as disclosed Choi above and Kim wherein the light extraction portion includes a plurality of concave patterns and a plurality of convex patterns between the concave patterns, and wherein a pitch of the plurality of convex portions of the first layer in the optical member is greater than a pitch of the plurality of convex patterns of the light extraction portion, or one of the plurality of convex portions overlaps several of the plurality of convex patterns the motivation being to fully enhance light extraction from the device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the 892 and below:
US-20240008348-A1- display device capable of reducing a reflection of an external light, improving a color gamut, and improving optical characteristics.
US 20180247980 A1-Light extraction Layer
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRACIE Y GREEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3104. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thursday, 10am-8pm.
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, James R Greece can be reached at (571)272-3711. 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.
TRACIE Y. GREEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2875
/TRACIE Y GREEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875