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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “designed to” and “configured to” in independent claim 1, “designed to” in dependent claim 7, and “configured to” in dependent claim 22.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 7-13, 16, 17, and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Takagi (WO 2021/076882), of record by the Applicant .
Regarding independent claim 1, Takagi (‘882) teaches in figures 12 and 17, and the corresponding text, a display panel (1C) comprising: a substrate (100); a light-emitting functional layer (no single number but combined elements ELP, 111, 112, 120, 121, and 122) disposed on the substrate; a filtering layer (130) disposed on a side of the light-emitting functional layer away from the substrate and comprising a plurality of filtering units (130 R, G, B), wherein at least one of the plurality of light filtering units is designed to allow at least a portion of light from the light-emitting functional layer to diverge; and a plurality of light-converging elements (140) disposed on a side of the filtering layer away from the substrate and configured to allow light from the plurality of filtering units to converge.
Regarding dependent claim 2, Takagi (‘882) teaches an orthographic projections of the plurality of filtering units on the substrate overlap with orthographic projections of the plurality of light-converging elements on the substrate, respectively.
Regarding dependent claim 3, Takagi (‘882) teaches the plurality of filtering units comprises at least one first color filtering unit (R), at least one second color filtering unit (B), and at least one third color filtering unit (G), and wherein at least one of the first color filtering unit, the second color filtering unit, and the third color filtering unit is designed to allow at least a portion of the light from the light-emitting functional layer to diverge.
Regarding dependent claim 7, Takagi (‘882) teaches each of the plurality of filtering units comprises a first face facing (no number) the light- emitting functional layer and a second face (no number) facing away from the light-emitting functional layer, and wherein at least one of the first face and the second face of at least one filtering unit designed to allow at least a portion of the light from the light-emitting functional layer to diverge is a concave face (the first face appears flat, the second one is concave).
Regarding dependent claim 8, Takagi (‘882) teaches the first face and the second face of the at least one filtering unit designed to allow at least a portion of the light from the light-emitting functional layer to diverge are a planar face and a concave face, respectively, and wherein the first face and the second face of a remaining filtering unit other than the filtering unit designed to allow at least a portion of the light from the light-emitting functional layer to diverge are planar faces.
Regarding dependent claim 9, Takagi (‘882) teaches the concave face comprises a concave spherical face.
Regarding dependent claim 10, Takagi (‘882) teaches wherein adjacent filtering units of the plurality of filtering units have an overlay (160) therebetween.
Regarding dependent claim 11, Takagi (‘882) teaches the light-converging element comprises a light-converging lens (150) or a light-converging prism.
Regarding dependent claim 12, Takagi (‘882) teaches the light-converging lens is a plano-convex lens comprising a planar in-light surface facing the filtering layer and a curved out-light surface facing away from the filtering layer (no number for either).
Regarding dependent claim 13, Takagi (‘882) teaches a radius of curvature of the concave spherical face is greater than a radius of curvature of the curved out- light surface of the plano-convex lens.
Regarding dependent claim 16, Takagi (‘882) teaches adjacent light-converging elements of the plurality of light-converging elements have a gap (no number) therebetween.
Regarding dependent claim 17, Takagi (‘882) teaches a planarizing layer (123) disposed between the filtering layer and the plurality of light- converging elements.
Regarding dependent claim 19, Takagi (‘882) teaches a plurality of first electrodes (111) and a second electrode (121) insulated from each other and between the substrate and the filtering layer, wherein the second electrodes are disposed on a side of the plurality of first electrodes away from the substrate.
Regarding dependent claim 20, Takagi (‘882) teaches orthographic projections of the plurality of first electrodes on the substrate partially overlap with orthographic projections of the plurality of light-converging elements on the substrate, respectively, and wherein a distance between a center of each first electrode and a center of the light-converging element whose orthographic projection partially overlaps with the orthographic projection of the respective first electrode is greater than 0 in a direction parallel to the substrate.
Regarding dependent claim 21, Takagi (‘882) teaches a display panel.
Regarding dependent claim 22, Takagi (‘882) teaches providing a substrate (100); forming a light-emitting functional layer (no single number but combined elements ELP, 111, 112, 120, 121, and 122) on the substrate; forming a filtering layer (130) on the light-emitting functional layer, the filtering layer comprising a plurality of filtering units (130 R, B, G), wherein at least one of the plurality of filtering units is designed to allow at least a portion of light from the light-emitting functional layer to diverge; and forming a plurality of light-converging elements (140) on the filtering layer, the plurality of light-converging elements being configured to allow light from the plurality of filtering units to converge.
Regarding dependent claim 23, Takagi (‘882) teaches forming a plurality of light-converging elements (140) on the filtering layer comprises: forming a planarizing layer (123) on the filtering layer; and forming a plurality of light-converging elements (140) on the planarizing layer.
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 14-15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takagi (WO 2021/076882), of record by the Applicant.
Regarding claim 14, Takagi (‘882) teaches all of the claimed limitations except for the claimed radius of curvature.
However, further regarding claim 14, the radius of curvature of the lens is based upon the size, shape, and use of the light source and is thus an obvious choice in design for the purpose of improving and adjusting the emission direction of the emitted light.
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the lens structure of Takagi for the purpose of improving and adjusting the emission direction of the emitted light. The radius of curvature of the lens is based upon the size, shape, and use of the light source and is thus an obvious choice in design.
Regarding claim 15, Takagi (‘882) teaches all of the claimed limitations except for the claimed a refractive index difference between the media on two sides of the concave spherical face is greater than a refractive index difference between the media on two sides of the curved out-light surface of the plano-convex lens.
However, further regarding claim 15, the refractive index is based upon the size, shape, and use of the light source and is thus an obvious choice in design for the purpose of improving and adjusting the emission direction of the emitted light.
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the lens structure of Takagi for the purpose of improving and adjusting the emission direction of the emitted light. The refractive index of the lens is based upon the size, shape, and use of the light source and is thus an obvious choice in design.
Regarding claim 18, Takagi (‘882) teaches all of the claimed limitations except for a refractive index of the filtering layer is greater than a refractive index of the planarizing layer and a refractive index of the light-converging element.
However, further regarding claim 18, the refractive index is based upon the size, shape, and use of the light source and is thus an obvious choice in design for the purpose of improving and adjusting the emission direction of the emitted light.
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the lens structure of Takagi for the purpose of improving and adjusting the emission direction of the emitted light. The refractive index of the filter is based upon the size, shape, and use of the light source and is thus an obvious choice in design.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 10,962,832 and US 2020/0111844 disclose the state of the art for display panels with light emitting layers and focusing lenses.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH L WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-2465. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:30 AM- 5:00 PM.
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.
JOSEPH L. WILLIAMS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2875
/JOSEPH L WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875