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 .
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) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Youn et al. (US 2020/0035769) in view of Kamiyama et al. (WO 2011/027679, hereinafter all citations are made to the attached machine translation).
With regard to claim 1, Youn teaches, in Figure 2, a display device comprising: a substrate (2); a light emitting element (4-8) having a light emitting surface and attached to the substrate; and a sealing layer (10) that seals the light emitting element, and a low refractive index portion (9) having a refractive index lower than that of the sealing layer ([0093]) is formed at a periphery of an immediately above portion above the light emitting element in the sealing layer.
Youn does not explicitly teach that an uneven portion having a plurality of concave portions and a plurality of convex portions is provided on the light emitting surface of the light emitting element.
Kamiyama teaches, in Figure 7, an uneven portion (102a-102c) having a plurality of concave portions and a plurality of convex portions (see figure) is provided on the light emitting surface (top surface of 112) of the light emitting element (119) so that, “the light extraction efficiency … can be improved,” (page 2, paragraph 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan at the effective time of filing to combine the device of Youn with the uneven portions of Kamiyama to improve light extraction efficiency.
With regard to claim 2, Youn teaches, in Figure 2, that the low refractive index portion surrounds a periphery of the immediately above portion ([0056], [0073]).
With regard to claim 3, Youn teaches, in Figure 2, that the low refractive index portion is embedded in the sealing layer (see figure).
With regard to claim 4, Youn teaches, in Figure 2, that an upper surface of the sealing layer is a flat surface (see figure).
With regard to claim 5, Youn/Kamiyama teach(es) most aspects of the instant invention (see above with regard to claim 1). However, Youn/Kamiyama does not explicitly teach H≥(d+a)×tan(90°−min(θc,θd)) Mathematical Formula 1 is satisfied where H represents a thickness of the low refractive index portion, θc represents a critical angle (°) at a contact interface between the sealing layer and the outside, θd represents an elevation angle (°) formed by the light emitting surface of the light emitting element and an emission direction of light emitted from the light emitting surface of the light emitting element, d represents a longest length of the light emitting surface of the light emitting element, and a represents a gap length from a position on an outer peripheral edge of the light emitting surface corresponding to the longest length to the contact interface in a plan view of the light emitting element. Nonetheless, the skilled artisan would know too that the low refractive index portion geometry would impact the image distortion or light spread of the device (Youn, [0079]-[0099]).
The specific claimed geometry, absent any criticality, is only considered to be the “optimum” geometry disclosed by Youn/Kamiyama that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine using routine experimentation (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)) based, among other things, on the desired image distortion, light spread, manufacturing costs, etc. (see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and since neither non-obvious nor unexpected results, i.e. results which are different in kind and not in degree from the results of the prior art, will be obtained as long as the claimed Mathematical Formula 1 is used, as already suggested by Youn/Kamiyama.
Since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph) of the geometry stated and since these geometries are in common use in similar devices in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use these values in the device of Youn/Kamiyama.
Please note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed geometry or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With regard to claim 6, Youn teaches, in Figure 2, that a cross-sectional shape of an interface between the low refractive index portion and the immediately above portion is any of a forward tapered shape, a non-tapered shape, and a reverse tapered shape (see figure).
With regard to claim 7, Youn teaches, in Figure 2, that an interface between the low refractive index portion and the immediately above portion is a curved surface shape or a planar shape (see figure).
With regard to claim 8, Kamiyama teaches, in Figure 7, that the plurality of convex portions is formed from a plurality of convex units arranged two-dimensionally, and the convex units have a cone shape or a frustum shape (see figure).
With regard to claim 9, Kamiyama teaches, in Figure 7, that the uneven portion periodically forms a combination of the concave portion and the convex portion (see figure).
With regard to claim 10, Kamiyama teaches, in Figure 7, that the uneven portion forms a diffraction structure (page 7, paragraphs 6-7).
With regard to claim 11, Kamiyama teaches, in Figure 7, that the uneven portion is integrally formed on the light emitting surface of the light emitting element (see figure).
With regard to claim 12, Kamiyama teaches, in Figure 7, that an uneven film (110) having the uneven portion is provided on the light emitting surface of the light emitting element.
With regard to claim 13, Youn teaches, in Figure 2, an electronic device (1) comprising the display device according to claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14 and 15 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious claimed limitations of exposing the first layer from an opening by forming the opening in a predetermined portion of the low refractive index portion, the predetermined portion including at least a portion immediately above the light emitting element; and forming a second layer by applying the first material to cover the first layer exposed in the opening and the low refractive index portion, the second layer and the first layer serving as the sealing layer, as set forth in independent claim 14, or of the low refractive index film having an opening formed in a portion corresponding to a predetermined portion including at least a portion immediately above the light emitting element; and forming a second layer by applying the first material to cover the first layer exposed in the opening and the low refractive index film, the first layer and the second layer serving as the sealing layer, as set forth in independent claim 15, each when taken in concert with all the other limitations of the respective claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAJ R GUPTA whose telephone number is (571)270-5707. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30AM-4PM, 8PM-10PM.
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, Sue Purvis can be reached at 5712721236. 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.
/RAJ R GUPTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights