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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18/273,042 filed on July 19, 2023 is presented for examination by the examiner.
The amended claims submitted February 26, 2026 in response to the office action mailed December 1, 2025 are under consideration. Claims 1, 3-15 and 17-20 are pending and amended at least by the amendments to claims 1 and 14. Claims 2 and 16 are cancelled.
It is worth noting that claims 1 and 14 have not merely incorporated the subject matter of cancelled claims 2 and 16, but rather changed the term “distance” to “gap”. Previously, overlapping orthographic projections of the second and first microlenses were considered to have a distance less than zero, in keeping with the description in paragraph [0062] “A distance between the orthographic projection of the second microlens 901 on the base 1 and the orthographic projection of the first microlens 701 on the base 1 is greater than or equal to zero, that is, the orthographic projection of the second microlens 901 on the base 1 does not coincide with the orthographic projection of the first microlens 701 on the base 1.” However, a “gap” that includes a gap equal to zero does not preclude an overlap.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawing objections of the previous office action have been overcome by the submission of replacement drawings on February 26, 2026.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 9, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ueno JP 2012119377A (hereafter Ueno, where reference will be made to the attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Ueno teaches “A microlens substrate (solid state imaging device 1 of Figs. 1-6 which includes substrate 10 and microlens arrays MLA1 and MLA2), comprising:
a base (semiconductor substrate 10);
a first lens pattern (microlens array MLA1) disposed on a side of the base (the top side in Fig. 1) and comprising a plurality of first microlenses (plurality of microlenses MLb and MLr) distributed at intervals (best seen in Fig. 5(b));
a second lens pattern (microlens array MLA2) disposed on a side of the first lens pattern (the top side of MLA1 in Fig. 1) and comprising a plurality of second microlenses (plurality of microlenses MLg) distributed at intervals (best seen in Fig. 5(g), wherein an orthographic projection of at least one of the plurality of second microlenses on the base is located between two orthographic projections of two adjacent first microlenses on the base (see Fig. 1, microlenses MLg are between adjacent microlenses MLb or MLr in the orthographic projection of Fig. 1, see also Fig. 5);
wherein a gap between an orthographic projection of a second microlens on the base and an orthographic projection of a first microlens on the base is greater than or equal to zero and less than or equal to 1/4 of a gap between two adjacent first microlenses (See Fig. 1. The orthographic projection of a second microlens and the orthographic projection of a first microlens overlap one another. Thus, the gap between an orthographic projection of a second microlens on the base and an orthographic projection of a first microlens on the base is equal to zero.).”
Regarding claim 9, Ueno teaches “The microlens substrate according to claim 1, wherein for each of the plurality of first microlenses and each of the plurality of second microlenses, at least one of an orthographic projection of the first microlens on the base or an orthographic projection of the second microlens on the base are circular or strip-shaped (see circular shapes of MLb, MLr and MLg in Fig. 5 and paragraph [0047]: “microlenses MLg, MLb, and MLr are described here as having a spherical surface”).”
Regarding claim 12, Ueno teaches “The microlens substrate according to claim 1, wherein for each of the plurality of first microlenses and each of the plurality of second microlenses, a shape of an orthographic projection of the first microlens on the base is the same as that of the second microlens on the base (see Fig. 5 MLb, MLr and MLg are all circular-shaped), an area of the orthographic projection of the first microlens on the base is the same as that of the second microlens on the base (Figs. 5(b) and 5(g) depict the areas of MLb, MLr and MLg as being the same. One of ordinary skill in the art would at once envisage the areas of MLb, MLr and MLg as actually being the same because they correspond to the checkerboard pattern of the photoelectric conversion units 11g, 11b and 11r see paragraph [0013], and there are only 3 possibilities, that MLg are larger than MLb, MLb are larger than MLg or they are the same size. Since this is a genus with only three species, an ordinary skilled artisan would at once envisage all three species including that depicted in Fig. 5 of them having the same area which meets the claim.1), and a distance between two adjacent first microlenses in a direction parallel to the base is the same as that between two adjacent second microlenses in the direction parallel to the base (Figs. 5(b) and 5(g) depict the distances between adjacent lenses MLb and between adjacent lenses MLg in a direction parallel to the base as being the same. One of ordinary skill in the art would at once envisage the distances between adjacent microlenses MLb and adjacent microlenses MLg as actually being the same because they correspond to the checkerboard pattern of the photoelectric conversion units 11g, 11b and 11r see paragraph [0013], and there are only 3 possibilities, that the separations between MLb are larger than the separations between MLg, the separations between MLb are smaller than the separations between MLg, or they are the same size. Since this is a genus with only three species, an ordinary skilled artisan would at once envisage all three species including that depicted in Fig. 5 of them having the same separations which meets the claim, See MPEP § 2131.02(III).).
Regarding claim 14, Ueno teaches “A method of manufacturing (see steps below) a microlens substrate (solid state imaging device 1 of Figs. 1-6 which includes substrate 10 and microlens arrays MLA1 and MLA2), comprising:
providing a base (semiconductor substrate 10, provided in Fig. 5(a));
forming a first lens pattern (microlens array MLA1 formed in Fig. 5(b)) on a side of the base (the top side in Fig. 1), wherein the first lens pattern comprises a plurality of first microlenses (plurality of microlenses MLb and MLr) distributed at intervals (best seen in Fig. 5(b));
forming a second lens pattern (microlens array MLA2 formed in Fig. 5(g)) on a side of the first lens pattern (the top side of MLA1 in Fig. 1), wherein the second lens pattern comprises a plurality of second microlenses (plurality of microlenses MLg) distributed at intervals (best seen in Fig. 5(g), and an orthographic projection of at least one of the plurality of second microlenses on the base is located between two orthographic projections of two adjacent first microlenses on the base (see Fig. 1, microlenses MLg are between adjacent microlenses MLb or MLr in the orthographic projection of Fig. 1, see also Fig. 5);
wherein a gap between an orthographic projection of a second microlens on the base and an orthographic projection of a first microlens on the base is greater than or equal to zero and less than or equal to 1/4 of a gap between two adjacent first microlenses (See Fig. 1. The orthographic projection of a second microlens and the orthographic projection of a first microlens overlap one another. Thus, the gap between an orthographic projection of a second microlens on the base and an orthographic projection of a first microlens on the base is equal to zero.).”
Claims 1, 9, 11 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Aoyama et al. US 5,694,246 A (hereafter Aoyama).
Regarding claim 1 Aoyama teaches “a microlens substrate (completed device of Fig. 1i with substrate 10 and microlenses 11 and 12), comprising:
a base (Fig. 1a substrate 10);
a first lens pattern (microlenses 11) disposed on a side of the base (steps of Fig. 1b-1d), and comprising a plurality of first microlenses distributed at intervals (see Fig. 1d);
a second lens pattern (microlenses 12) disposed on a side of the first lens pattern (the top side of 11) and comprising a plurality of second microlenses distributed at intervals (see Figs. 1h to 1i)),
wherein an orthographic projection of at least one of the plurality of second microlenses on the base is located between two orthographic projections of two adjacent first microlenses on the base (see e.g. Figs. 1i and 2e);
wherein a gap between an orthographic projection of a second microlens on the base and an orthographic projection of a first microlens on the base is greater than or equal to zero and less than or equal to 1/4 of a gap between two adjacent first microlenses (See Fig. 2e, the orthographic projections of the microlenses 11 and 12 overlap one another. Thus, the gap between an orthographic projection of a second microlens on the base and an orthographic projection of a first microlens on the base is equal to zero.).”
Regarding claim 9, Aoyama teaches “The microlens substrate according to claim 1, wherein for each of the plurality of first microlenses and each of the plurality of second microlenses, at least one of an orthographic projection of the first microlens on the base or an orthographic projection of the second microlens on the base are circular (Fig. 2e or 4 11 and 12 are circular) or strip-shaped (Fig. 5 11 and 12 are strip-shaped).”
Regarding claim 11, Aoyama teaches “The microlens substrate according to claim 1, wherein materials for the plurality of first microlenses and/or the plurality of second microlenses comprise photoresist (photoresist 11B and photoresist 12B).”
Regarding claim 13, Aoyama teaches “A display device (display apparatus of Fig. 22), comprising: a display module (liquid crystal panel 43);
a microlens substrate according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above and lens array 30) disposed on a light exiting side of the display module (see Fig. 22. 30 is disposed on one side of 43, which is either the light exiting side or the light entering side of the display panel. This is a genus with only two species. Thus, an ordinary skilled artisan would at once envisage that 30 is on the light exiting side of 43.2 Moreover, this is the side that one would have expected the microlenses to be disposed on in order to act on the light emitted from the display.).”
Regarding claim 14, Aoyama teaches “A method of manufacturing (Figs. 1a-1i) a microlens substrate (completed device of Fig. 1i with substrate 10 and microlenses 11 and 12), comprising:
providing a base (Fig. 1a substrate 10);
forming a first lens pattern (microlenses 11) on a side of the base (steps of Fig. 1b-1d), wherein the first lens pattern comprises a plurality of first microlenses distributed at intervals (see Fig. 1d);
forming a second lens pattern (microlenses 12) on a side of the first lens pattern (the top side of 11), wherein the second lens pattern comprises a plurality of second microlenses distributed at intervals (see Figs. 1h to 1i)), and
an orthographic projection of at least one of the plurality of second microlenses on the base is located between two orthographic projections of two adjacent first microlenses on the base (see e.g. Figs. 1i and 2e);
wherein a gap between an orthographic projection of a second microlens on the base and an orthographic projection of a first microlens on the base is greater than or equal to zero and less than or equal to 1/4 of a gap between two adjacent first microlenses (See Fig. 2e, the orthographic projections of the microlenses 11 and 12 overlap one another. Thus, the gap between an orthographic projection of a second microlens on the base and an orthographic projection of a first microlens on the base is equal to zero.).”
Claims 1, 3, 9-10, 13-14 and 17are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jang et al. US 2021/0072600 A1 (hereafter Jang).
Regarding claim 1, Jang teaches “A microlens substrate (Figs. 2-6 optical film 10 with elements thereof below), comprising:
a base (flat portion of first refractive layer 110 from which the lenses protrude);
a first lens pattern (first lens pattern PT1) disposed on a side of the base (the light exit side of 20 and 110 in Figs. 2,3 and 5) and comprising a plurality of first microlenses (the lenses of PT1 with shapes of Fig. 4 that are microlenses at least based on their widths w11 of about 5 μm to about 15 μm or 7 μm for example, see paragraph [0113]) distributed at intervals (see Fig. 3 there is an interval between each microlens of PT1 with two gaps of width s1 and one lens of PT2 therebetween);
a second lens pattern (second lens pattern PT2) disposed on a side of the first lens pattern (PT2 is disposed on either side of PT1) and comprising a plurality of second microlenses (the lenses of PT1 with shapes of Fig. 4 that are microlenses at least based on their widths w11 of about 5 μm to about 15 μm or 9 μm for example, see paragraph [0120]) distributed at intervals (see Fig. 3 there is an interval between each microlens of PT2 with two gaps of width s1 and one lens of PT1 therebetween);
wherein an orthographic projection of at least one of the plurality of second microlenses on the base is located between two orthographic projections of two adjacent first microlenses on the base (see Figs. 2 and 3, the microlenses of PT2 are disposed between the microlenses of PT1);
wherein a gap between an orthographic projection of a second microlens on the base and an orthographic projection of a first microlens on the base (Fig. 4 s1, paragraph [0123]: “the distance s1 may be in the range of about 4 μm to about 10 μm. According to an exemplary embodiment, the distance s1 between the first and second lens patterns PT1 and PT2 may be about 4 μm.”) is greater than or equal to zero (paragraph [0123]: “The first and second lens patterns PT1 and PT2 may be continuously arranged without a gap or alternately arranged with a predetermined distance s1 therebetween.”) and less than or equal to 1/4 of a gap between two adjacent first microlenses (zero or the distance between two adjacent first microlenses is the sum of s1+w21+s1. The exemplary value for s1 is 4 μm, see paragraph [0123] and the exemplary value for w21 is 9 μm see paragraph [0120]. Thus the distance between two adjacent first microlenses is for example, 17 μm. Thus s1/(2s1+w21)=4/17 which is less than 1/4).”
Regarding claim 3, Jang teaches “The microlens substrate according to claim 1, further comprising:
a first planarization layer (second refractive layer 120 which is a planarization layer because the light-exit surface thereof is flat) covering light exiting surfaces of the plurality of first microlenses (see Fig. 5), wherein the light exiting surfaces of the plurality of first microlenses are respectively outward convex surfaces (see Fig. 5), and a refractive index of the first planarization layer is less than that of each of the plurality of first microlenses (paragraph [0101]: “the refractive index of the first refractive layer 110 may be more than that of the second refractive layer 120 by at least about 0.1.” Given that the microlenses are formed of the first refractive index layer then the refractive index of the first planarization layer is less than that of each of the plurality of first microlenses).”
Regarding claim 9, Jang teaches “The microlens substrate according to claim 1, wherein for each of the plurality of first microlenses and each of the plurality of second microlenses, at least one of an orthographic projection of the first microlens on the base or an orthographic projection of the second microlens on the base are circular or strip-shaped (see strip shape in Fig. 2).”
Regarding claim 10, Jang teaches “The microlens substrate according to claim 9, wherein,
when the orthographic projection of the first microlens on the base and the orthographic projection of the second microlens on the base are circular, a diameter of the orthographic projection of the first microlens on the base and a diameter of the orthographic projection of the second microlens on the base are 10µm to 300µm (this is optional);
when the orthographic projection of the first microlenses on the base and the orthographic projection of the second microlens on the base are strip-shaped, a width of the orthographic projection of the first microlens on the base and a width of the orthographic projection of the second microlens on the base are 10µm to 300µm (paragraph [0113]: “the width w11 in the first direction DR1 of the first lens pattern PT1 (i.e. the length of the lower side c11 of the first lens pattern PT1) may be about 5 μm to about 15 μm.” and paragraph [0120]: “The width w21 in the first direction DR1 of the second lens pattern PT2 (i.e. the length of the lower side c21 of the second lens pattern PT2) may be about 5 μm to about 15 μm.” In view of the fact that the disclosed range is only 10µm wide, and that half of the disclosed range is within the claimed range, Jang is considered to teach the claimed range with sufficient specificity to anticipate the claim.).”
Regarding claim 13, Jang teaches “A display device (Fig. 1A), comprising:
a display module (display panel 20);
a microlens substrate according to claim 1 disposed on a light exiting side of the display module (see Fig. 1A, 10 is on the light exit side/display direction of 20).”
Regarding claim 14, Jang teaches “A method of manufacturing (see steps below) a microlens substrate (Figs. 2-6 optical film 10 with elements thereof below), comprising:
providing a base (flat portion of first refractive layer 110 from which the lenses protrude);
forming a first lens pattern (first lens pattern PT1) on a side of the base (the light exit side of 20 and 110 in Figs. 2,3 and 5), wherein the first lens pattern comprises a plurality of first microlenses (the lenses of PT1 with shapes of Fig. 4 that are microlenses at least based on their widths w11 of about 5 μm to about 15 μm or 7 μm for example, see paragraph [0113]) distributed at intervals (see Fig. 3 there is an interval between each microlens of PT1 with two gaps of width s1 and one lens of PT2 therebetween);
forming a second lens pattern (second lens pattern PT2) on a side of the first lens pattern (PT2 is disposed on either side of PT1), wherein the second lens pattern comprises a plurality of second microlenses (the lenses of PT1 with shapes of Fig. 4 that are microlenses at least based on their widths w11 of about 5 μm to about 15 μm or 9 μm for example, see paragraph [0120]) distributed at intervals (see Fig. 3 there is an interval between each microlens of PT2 with two gaps of width s1 and one lens of PT1 therebetween), and an orthographic projection of at least one of the plurality of second microlenses on the base is located between two orthographic projections of two adjacent first microlenses on the base (see Figs. 2 and 3, the microlenses of PT2 are disposed between the microlenses of PT1);
wherein a gap between an orthographic projection of a second microlens on the base and an orthographic projection of a first microlens on the base (Fig. 4 s1, paragraph [0123]: “the distance s1 may be in the range of about 4 μm to about 10 μm. According to an exemplary embodiment, the distance s1 between the first and second lens patterns PT1 and PT2 may be about 4 μm.”) is greater than or equal to zero (paragraph [0123]: “The first and second lens patterns PT1 and PT2 may be continuously arranged without a gap or alternately arranged with a predetermined distance s1 therebetween.”) and less than or equal to 1/4 of a gap between two adjacent first microlenses (zero or the distance between two adjacent first microlenses is the sum of s1+w21+s1. The exemplary value for s1 is 4 μm, see paragraph [0123] and the exemplary value for w21 is 9 μm see paragraph [0120]. Thus the distance between two adjacent first microlenses is for example, 17 μm. Thus s1/(2s1+w21)=4/17 which is less than 1/4).”
Regarding claim 17, Jang teaches “The method of manufacturing a microlens substrate according to claim 14, further comprising:
forming a first planarization layer (second refractive layer 120 which is a planarization layer because the light-exit surface thereof is flat) covering light exiting surfaces of the plurality of first microlenses (see Fig. 5), wherein the light exiting surfaces of the plurality of first microlenses are respectively outward convex surfaces (see Fig. 5), and a refractive index of the first planarization layer is less than that of each of the plurality of first microlenses (paragraph [0101]: “the refractive index of the first refractive layer 110 may be more than that of the second refractive layer 120 by at least about 0.1.” Given that the microlenses are formed of the first refractive index layer then the refractive index of the first planarization layer is less than that of each of the plurality of first microlenses).”
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, 3-4, 9, 13-14 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. US 2021/0384272 A1 (hereafter Zhang) in view of Jang et al. US 2021/0072600 A1 (hereafter Jang).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang teaches “A microlens substrate (Figs. 11, 17 or 22 with microlenses 51 and 53 and base substrate 01), comprising:
a base (base substrate 01, present in all embodiments even if not shown in Fig. 22);
a first lens pattern (Figs. 11 and 17 second microlenses 53, in Fig. 22 53 is not marked but protrudes from layer 62 and is discussed in paragraph [0101]) disposed on a side of the base (the top side of the base in Figs. 11, 17 and 22) and comprising a plurality of first microlenses (second microlenses 53) distributed at intervals (see the intervals at which microlenses 53 are positioned in Figs. 11, 17 and 22);
a second lens pattern (microlenses 51 in Figs. 11, 17 and 22) disposed on a side of the first lens pattern (in Fig. 11 both microlenses 51 and 53 extend from a shared bottom side which is the top of layer 05 and in Figs. 17 and 22 51 are disposed above/on the top side of lenses 53) and comprising a plurality of second microlenses (microlenses 51) distributed at intervals (see the intervals at which microlenses 51 are positioned in Figs. 11, 17 and 22), wherein an orthographic projection of at least one of the plurality of second microlenses on the base is located between two orthographic projections of two adjacent first microlenses on the base (in Figs. 11 and 22 microlenses 51 are located between adjacent microlenses 53. In Fig. 17 51 are disposed between adjacent sets of microlenses 53, including two adjacent microlenses 53 that are separated by the space in which 51 are formed);
wherein a gap between an orthographic projection of a second microlens on the base and an orthographic projection of a first microlens on the base is greater than or equal to zero (see Figs. 11, 17 and 22, the gap between the orthographic projection of a second microlens on the base and an orthographic projection of a first microlens on the base is clearly greater than zero).”
However, Zhang does not explicitly teach “and less than or equal to 1/4 of a distance between two adjacent first microlenses” because this distance is not explicitly discussed in the specification.
However, that this distance is non-zero would be recognized by an ordinary skilled artisan upon reading Zhang. Furthermore, measuring the distance between an orthographic projection of a second microlens on the base and an orthographic projection of a first microlens on the base relative to the distance between two adjacent first microlenses on the annotated versions of Figs. 11 and 22 yields values of 9% or 11% of the distance (i.e. about 1/10) both of which are well within the claimed range being less than half of the upper limit.
PNG
media_image1.png
402
976
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
532
564
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Jang teaches “A microlens substrate (Figs. 2-6 optical film 10 with elements thereof below), comprising:
a base (flat portion of first refractive layer 110 from which the lenses protrude);
a first lens pattern (first lens pattern PT1) disposed on a side of the base (the light exit side of 20 and 110 in Figs. 2,3 and 5) and comprising a plurality of first microlenses (the lenses of PT1 with shapes of Fig. 4 that are microlenses at least based on their widths w11 of about 5 μm to about 15 μm or 7 μm for example, see paragraph [0113]) distributed at intervals (see Fig. 3 there is an interval between each microlens of PT1 with two gaps of width s1 and one lens of PT2 therebetween);
a second lens pattern (second lens pattern PT2) disposed on a side of the first lens pattern (PT2 is disposed on either side of PT1) and comprising a plurality of second microlenses (the lenses of PT1 with shapes of Fig. 4 that are microlenses at least based on their widths w11 of about 5 μm to about 15 μm or 9 μm for example, see paragraph [0120]) distributed at intervals (see Fig. 3 there is an interval between each microlens of PT2 with two gaps of width s1 and one lens of PT1 therebetween);
wherein an orthographic projection of at least one of the plurality of second microlenses on the base is located between two orthographic projections of two adjacent first microlenses on the base (see Figs. 2 and 3, the microlenses of PT2 are disposed between the microlenses of PT1);
wherein a gap between an orthographic projection of a second microlens on the base and an orthographic projection of a first microlens on the base (Fig. 4 s1, paragraph [0123]: “the distance s1 may be in the range of about 4 μm to about 10 μm. According to an exemplary embodiment, the distance s1 between the first and second lens patterns PT1 and PT2 may be about 4 μm.”) is greater than or equal to zero (paragraph [0123]: “The first and second lens patterns PT1 and PT2 may be continuously arranged without a gap or alternately arranged with a predetermined distance s1 therebetween.”) and less than or equal to 1/4 of a gap between two adjacent first microlenses (zero or the distance between two adjacent first microlenses is the sum of s1+w21+s1. The exemplary value for s1 is 4 μm, see paragraph [0123] and the exemplary value for w21 is 9 μm see paragraph [0120]. Thus the distance between two adjacent first microlenses is for example, 17 μm. Thus s1/(2s1+w21)=4/17 which is less than 1/4).”
It is a well-established proposition that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), see MPEP 2114.04(IV).
The instant claims and the prior art, Zhang, differ by the recitation of a relative dimension, the distance between the second microlens and the first microlens relative to the distance between the first microlenses. The prior art and the instant claim do not perform differently from one another.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the relative dimension of the distance between the second microlens and the first microlens relative to the distance between the first microlenses to be between 0 and 1/4 such as 4/17 as taught by the exemplary values in Jang, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), see MPEP 2114.04(IV).
Regarding claim 3, the Zhang – Jang combination teaches “The microlens substrate according to claim 1,” and Zhang further teaches “further comprising:
a first planarization layer (Figs. 11 and 17 refractive index matching layer 06, Fig. 22 microlens layer 05, each of which are planarization layers in that the region over the microlenses is flattened) covering light exiting surfaces of the plurality of first microlenses (in Figs. 11 and 17 layer 06 covers the light emitting surfaces of 53, in Fig. 22 layer 05 covers the light emitting surfaces of the microlens that should have been labeled 53), wherein the light exiting surfaces of the plurality of first microlenses are respectively outward convex surfaces (In Figs. 11 and 22 microlenses 53 are convex, further Zhang discloses in paragraph [0067]: “when the refractive index of the refractive index matching layer 06 is smaller than the refractive index of the second microlens 53, the second curved surface of the second microlens 53 that is in contact with the refractive index matching layer 06 is a curved surface protruding toward the refractive index matching layer 06, that is, the second microlens 53 is a convex lens.” see also paragraph [0099]. Thus although Fig. 17 depicts the other option of paragraph [0067] the teaching of paragraph [0067] on the shapes that the microlenses should take depending on the refractive indices of the layers would appear to apply to all embodiments including Fig. 17), and a refractive index of the first planarization layer is less than that of each of the plurality of first microlenses (Fig. 11 paragraph [0067]: “when the refractive index of the refractive index matching layer 06 is smaller than the refractive index of the second microlens 53” Fig. 22 “The microlens still protrudes into one of the refractive index matching layer 06 and the microlens layer 05 that has a smaller refractive index.” thus when 53 is convex outward, the planarization layer 05 has a smaller refractive index than layer 62).”
Regarding claim 4, the Zhang – Jang combination teaches “The microlens substrate according to claim 3,” and Zhang further teaches (Fig. 22) “wherein the second lens pattern is disposed on a side of the first planarization layer away from the plurality of first microlenses (Fig. 22 microlenses 51 are disposed on the top side of layer 05, away from the microlenses 53), and light exiting surfaces of the plurality of second microlenses (light exits the microlenses 51 into the planarization portion of 62 in Fig. 22) face away from the plurality of first microlenses (the exit surface of 51 face away from 53).”
Regarding claim 9, the Zhang – Jang combination teaches “The microlens substrate according to claim 1,” and Zhang further teaches “wherein for each of the plurality of first microlenses and each of the plurality of second microlenses, at least one of an orthographic projection of the first microlens on the base or an orthographic projection of the second microlens on the base are circular or strip-shaped (see Figs. 3, 9 and 12 the shape of 51 and 53 on the base are circular/ring shaped).”
Regarding claim 13, the Zhang – Jang combination teaches “a microlens substrate according to claim 1” and Zhang further teaches “A display device (light emitting display panel of Fig. 11, light-emitting unit of an organic light-emitting display panel of Fig. 17 or the display into which Fig. 22 is incorporated) comprising:
a display module (any of a paragraph [0043] “an organic light-emitting layer”, a pixel definition layer 04, a thin film transistor layer 02, light emitting unit 03 etc.);
a microlens substrate according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above) disposed on a light exiting side of the display module (the light from the light emitting unit 03 exits upwards in Figs. 11, 17 and 22, see e.g. paragraph [0048]: “The light emitted by the light-emitting unit 03 and reaching a position above the peripheral pixel definition layer 04”).”
Regarding claim 14, Zhang teaches “A method of manufacturing (see steps below) a microlens substrate (Figs. 11, 17 or 22 with microlenses 51 and 53 and base substrate 01), comprising:
providing a base (base substrate 01, present in all embodiments even if not shown in Fig. 22);
forming a first lens pattern (Figs. 11 and 17 second microlenses 53, in Fig. 22 53 is not marked but protrudes from layer 62 and is discussed in paragraph [0101]) on a side of the base (the top side of the base in Figs. 11, 17 and 22), wherein the first lens pattern comprises a plurality of first microlenses (second microlenses 53) distributed at intervals (see the intervals at which microlenses 53 are positioned in Figs. 11, 17 and 22);
forming a second lens pattern (microlenses 51 in Figs. 11, 17 and 22) on a side of the first lens pattern (in Fig. 11 both microlenses 51 and 53 extend from a shared bottom side which is the top of layer 05 and in Figs. 17 and 22 51 are disposed above/on the top side of lenses 53), wherein the second lens pattern comprises a plurality of second microlenses (microlenses 51) distributed at intervals (see the intervals at which microlenses 51 are positioned in Figs. 11, 17 and 22), and an orthographic projection of at least one of the plurality of second microlenses on the base is located between two orthographic projections of two adjacent first microlenses on the base (in Figs. 11 and 22 microlenses 51 are located between adjacent microlenses 53. In Fig. 17 51 are disposed between adjacent sets of microlenses 53, including two adjacent microlenses 53 that are separated by the space in which 51 are formed);
wherein a gap between an orthographic projection of a second microlens on the base and an orthographic projection of a first microlens on the base is greater than or equal to zero (see Figs. 11, 17 and 22, the gap between the orthographic projection of a second microlens on the base and an orthographic projection of a first microlens on the base is clearly greater than zero).”
However, Zhang does not explicitly teach “and less than or equal to 1/4 of a distance between two adjacent first microlenses” because this distance is not explicitly discussed in the specification.
However, that this distance is non-zero would be recognized by an ordinary skilled artisan upon reading Zhang. Furthermore, measuring the distance between an orthographic projection of a second microlens on the base and an orthographic projection of a first microlens on the base relative to the distance between two adjacent first microlenses on the annotated versions of Figs. 11 and 22 yields values of 9% or 11% of the distance (i.e. about 1/10) both of which are well within the claimed range being less than half of the upper limit.
Jang teaches “A method of manufacturing (see steps below) a microlens substrate (Figs. 2-6 optical film 10 with elements thereof below), comprising:
providing a base (flat portion of first refractive layer 110 from which the lenses protrude);
forming a first lens pattern (first lens pattern PT1) on a side of the base (the light exit side of 20 and 110 in Figs. 2,3 and 5), wherein the first lens pattern comprises a plurality of first microlenses (the lenses of PT1 with shapes of Fig. 4 that are microlenses at least based on their widths w11 of about 5 μm to about 15 μm or 7 μm for example, see paragraph [0113]) distributed at intervals (see Fig. 3 there is an interval between each microlens of PT1 with two gaps of width s1 and one lens of PT2 therebetween);
forming a second lens pattern (second lens pattern PT2) on a side of the first lens pattern (PT2 is disposed on either side of PT1), wherein the second lens pattern comprises a plurality of second microlenses (the lenses of PT1 with shapes of Fig. 4 that are microlenses at least based on their widths w11 of about 5 μm to about 15 μm or 9 μm for example, see paragraph [0120]) distributed at intervals (see Fig. 3 there is an interval between each microlens of PT2 with two gaps of width s1 and one lens of PT1 therebetween), and an orthographic projection of at least one of the plurality of second microlenses on the base is located between two orthographic projections of two adjacent first microlenses on the base (see Figs. 2 and 3, the microlenses of PT2 are disposed between the microlenses of PT1);
wherein a gap between an orthographic projection of a second microlens on the base and an orthographic projection of a first microlens on the base (Fig. 4 s1, paragraph [0123]: “the distance s1 may be in the range of about 4 μm to about 10 μm. According to an exemplary embodiment, the distance s1 between the first and second lens patterns PT1 and PT2 may be about 4 μm.”) is greater than or equal to zero (paragraph [0123]: “The first and second lens patterns PT1 and PT2 may be continuously arranged without a gap or alternately arranged with a predetermined distance s1 therebetween.”) and less than or equal to 1/4 of a gap between two adjacent first microlenses (zero or the distance between two adjacent first microlenses is the sum of s1+w21+s1. The exemplary value for s1 is 4 μm, see paragraph [0123] and the exemplary value for w21 is 9 μm see paragraph [0120]. Thus the distance between two adjacent first microlenses is for example, 17 μm. Thus s1/(2s1+w21)=4/17 which is less than 1/4).”
It is a well-established proposition that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), see MPEP 2114.04(IV).
The instant claims and the prior art, Zhang, differ by the recitation of a relative dimension, the distance between the second microlens and the first microlens relative to the distance between the first microlenses. The prior art and the instant claim do not perform differently from one another.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the relative dimension of the distance between the second microlens and the first microlens relative to the distance between the first microlenses to be between 0 and 1/4 such as 4/17 as taught by the exemplary values in Jang, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), see MPEP 2114.04(IV).
Regarding claim 17, the Zhang – Jang combination teaches “The method of manufacturing a microlens substrate according to claim 14,” and Zhang further teaches “further comprising:
forming a first planarization layer (Figs. 11 and 17 refractive index matching layer 06, Fig. 22 microlens layer 05, each of which are planarization layers in that the region over the microlenses is flattened) covering light exiting surfaces of the plurality of first microlenses (in Figs. 11 and 17 layer 06 covers the light emitting surfaces of 53, in Fig. 22 layer 05 covers the light emitting surfaces of the microlens that should have been labeled 53), wherein the light exiting surfaces of the plurality of first microlenses are respectively outward convex surfaces (In Figs. 11 and 22 microlenses 53 are convex, further Zhang discloses in paragraph [0067]: “when the refractive index of the refractive index matching layer 06 is smaller than the refractive index of the second microlens 53, the second curved surface of the second microlens 53 that is in contact with the refractive index matching layer 06 is a curved surface protruding toward the refractive index matching layer 06, that is, the second microlens 53 is a convex lens.” see also paragraph [0099]. Thus although Fig. 17 depicts the other option of paragraph [0067] the teaching of paragraph [0067] on the shapes that the microlenses should take depending on the refractive indices of the layers would appear to apply to all embodiments including Fig. 17), and a refractive index of the first planarization layer is less than that of each of the plurality of first microlenses (Fig. 11 paragraph [0067]: “when the refractive index of the refractive index matching layer 06 is smaller than the refractive index of the second microlens 53” Fig. 22 “The microlens still protrudes into one of the refractive index matching layer 06 and the microlens layer 05 that has a smaller refractive index.” thus when 53 is convex outward, the planarization layer 05 has a smaller refractive index than layer 62).”
Regarding claim 18, the Zhang – Jang combination teaches “The method of manufacturing a microlens substrate according to claim 17,” and Zhang further teaches (Fig. 22) “wherein the second lens pattern is disposed on a side of the first planarization layer away from the plurality of first microlenses (Fig. 22 microlenses 51 are disposed on the top side of layer 05, away from the microlenses 53), and light exiting surfaces of the plurality of second microlenses (light exits the microlenses 51 into the planarization portion of 62 in Fig. 22) face away from the plurality of first microlenses (the exit surface of 51 face away from 53).”
Claims 5-8 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. US 2021/0384272 A1 (hereafter Zhang) in view of Jang et al. US 2021/0072600 A1 (hereafter Jang) as applied to claim 4 above and further in view of Xia CN 111276515 A (cited in an IDS, where reference will be made to US 2023/0180585 A1 as the English language equivalent, also in an IDS).
Regarding claim 5, the Zhang - Jang combination teaches “The microlens substrate according to claim 4,” and Zhang further teaches “further comprising: a second planarization layer (Fig. 22, the flat portion of layer 61 on top of the microlenses 51 is a second planarization layer) covering the light exiting surfaces of the plurality of second microlenses (layer 61 covers the light exiting surfaces of microlenses 51), however, Zhang fails to teach “wherein the light exiting surfaces of the plurality of second microlenses are respectively outward convex surfaces, and a refractive index of the second planarization layer is less than that of each of the plurality of second microlenses.”
However, Zhang does disclose (paragraph [0099]) “In an embodiment of the present disclosure, as shown in FIG. 22, the refractive index matching layer 06 includes a first refractive index matching layer 61 and a second refractive index matching layer 62, and the microlens layer 05 is located between the first refractive index matching layer 61 and the second refractive index matching layer 62. The microlens still protrudes into one of the refractive index matching layer 06 and the microlens layer 05 that has a smaller refractive index.” Thus the embodiment depicted in Fig. 22 has layer 05 with a lower refractive index than layer 61 and the microlenses protruding convexly into layer 05. However, if the refractive index of layer 61 were less than layer 05, paragraph [0099] would teach that the microlenses should protrude convexly into layer 61. Thus the configuration of claim 5 is strongly suggested by Zhang, but not explicitly disclosed.
Xia teaches (claim 1) “A microlens substrate (display panel 100 with microlenses 1061 and 1064 and substrate 101), comprising:
a base (substrate 101);
a first lens pattern (first micro lens 1061) disposed on a side of the base (the top side in Fig. 1) and comprising a plurality of first microlenses distributed at intervals (see intervals at which 1061 are positioned in Fig. 1);
a second lens pattern (second micro lens 1064) disposed on a side of the first lens pattern (the top side of 1061 in Fig. 1) and comprising a plurality of second microlenses distributed at intervals (see intervals at which 1064 are positioned in Fig. 1),”
(claim 3) “further comprising: a first planarization layer (first planarization layer 1062) covering light exiting surfaces of the plurality of first microlenses (see Fig. 1), wherein the light exiting surfaces of the plurality of first microlenses are respectively outward convex surfaces (the top surfaces of 1061 are the light exiting surfaces and are outwardly convex in Fig. 1)”
(claim 4) wherein the second lens pattern is disposed on a side of the first planarization layer away from the plurality of first microlenses (1064 are disposed on a top side of 1062 away from 1061 in Fig. 1 and paragraph [0046])
(claim 5) further comprising: a second planarization layer (second planarization layer 1065) covering the light exiting surfaces of the plurality of second microlenses (1065 covers the light exiting surfaces of 1064 in Fig. 1), wherein the light exiting surfaces of the plurality of second microlenses are respectively outward convex surfaces (1064 are outwardly convex in Fig. 1), and a refractive index of the second planarization layer (paragraph [0012]: “the refractive index of the second planarization layer range from 1.4 to 1.5”) is less than that of each of the plurality of second microlenses (paragraphs [0010]-[0012]: “a refractive index of the second micro lens is greater than a refractive index of the second planarization layer;… the refractive index of the second micro lens ranges from 1.5 to 2.0”).”
Xia further teaches (paragraphs [0026]-[0027]): “Beneficial Effect… A refractive index of the second micro lens is greater than a refractive index of the second planarization layer, and an emission angle of the light emitted by the second micro lens becomes larger, thereby expanding an OLED display viewing angle. Therefore, the double-layer micro lens can improve a light extraction rate of the OLED display panel and improve a display viewing angle.”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adopt a configuration with a second planarization layer with a lower refractive index than the second microlenses, and where the second microlenses have outward convex surfaces as taught by Xia in the device of Zhang because paragraph [0099] and Fig. 22 of Zhang strongly suggests such a configuration for the microlenses in a display device and Xia teaches that having a second planarization layer with a refractive index smaller than the second micro lenses improves light extraction and display viewing angle (Xia paragraph [0027]).
Regarding claim 6, the Zhang – Jang – Xia combination teaches “The microlens substrate according to claim 5,” however, Zhang fails to explicitly teach “wherein the refractive index of each of the plurality of first microlenses is 1.5 to 1.8; and/or the refractive index of each of the plurality of second microlenses is 1.5 to 1.8; and/or the refractive index of the first planarization layer is 1.3 to 1.6; and/or the refractive index of the second planarization layer is 1.3 to 1.6.”
Xia teaches “wherein the refractive index of each of the plurality of first microlenses is 1.5 to 1.8 (this is optional); and/or the refractive index of each of the plurality of second microlenses is 1.5 to 1.8 (paragraph [0012]: “the refractive index of the second micro lens ranges from 1.5 to 2.0”); and/or the refractive index of the first planarization layer is 1.3 to 1.6 (paragraph [0012]: “the refractive index of the first planarization layer… range from 1.4 to 1.5”); and/or the refractive index of the second planarization layer is 1.3 to 1.6 (paragraph [0012]: “the refractive index of the second planarization layer range from 1.4 to 1.5”).”
Xia further teaches (paragraphs [0026]-[0027]): “Beneficial Effect… A refractive index of the second micro lens is greater than a refractive index of the second planarization layer, and an emission angle of the light emitted by the second micro lens becomes larger, thereby expanding an OLED display viewing angle. Therefore, the double-layer micro lens can improve a light extraction rate of the OLED display panel and improve a display viewing angle.”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the refractive index of the second planarization layer to be between 1.4 and 1.5 such that it is less than the refractive index of the second micro lenses as taught by Xia in the device of the Zhang – Xia combination because Xia teaches that having a second planarization layer with a refractive index smaller than the second micro lenses improves light extraction and display viewing angle (Xia paragraph [0027]).
Regarding claim 7, the Zhang – Jang – Xia combination teaches “The microlens substrate according to claim 5,” however, Zhang fails to teach “further comprising: a light-transmitting inorganic layer disposed on the side of the first planarization layer away from the plurality of first microlenses, wherein the plurality of second microlenses are disposed on a surface of the light-transmitting inorganic layer away from the first planarization layer.”
Xia teaches “further comprising: a light-transmitting inorganic layer (second encapsulation layer 1063, which is inorganic see paragraph [0046] and is light-transmitting, see light passing therethru in Fig. 1) disposed on the side of the first planarization layer away from the plurality of first microlenses (see Fig. 1 1063 is disposed on the top side of first planarization layer 1062 away from 1061), wherein the plurality of second microlenses are disposed on a surface of the light-transmitting inorganic layer (see Fig. 1 lenses 1064 are disposed on the top surface of 1063) away from the first planarization layer (see Fig. 1 the top surface of 1063 on which 1064 are disposed is away from the first planarization layer 1062).”
Xia Figs. 9-10 and paragraph [0061] teach that the second encapsulation layer provides a surface on which the second micro lenses can be formed.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an inorganic light-transmitting encapsulation layer between the first planarization layer and the second micro lenses as taught by Xia in the device of the Zhang – Xia combination for the purpose of providing a surface on which the second micro lenses can be formed as taught by Xia (Figs. 9-10 and paragraph [0061]).
Regarding claim 8, the Zhang – Jang – Xia combination teaches “The microlens substrate according to claim 7,” however, Zhang fails to explicitly teach “wherein a thickness of the first planarization layer is 5µm to 30µm; and/or a thickness of each of the plurality of first microlenses is 5µm to 30µm; and/or a thickness of the second planarization layer is 5µm to 30µm; and/or a thickness of each of the plurality of second microlenses is 5µm to 30µm; and/or a thickness of the light-transmitting inorganic layer is 250nm to 350nm.”
Jang teaches “wherein a thickness of the first planarization layer is 5µm to 30µm (claim 15: “the second refractive layer has a thickness of about 7 μm to about 16 μm.”); and/or a thickness of each of the plurality of first microlenses is 5µm to 30µm (paragraph [0112]: “The height h1 of the first lens pattern PT1 may be about 7 μm to about 16 μm”); and/or a thickness of the second planarization layer is 5µm to 30µm (this is optional); and/or a thickness of each of the plurality of second microlenses is 5µm to 30µm (paragraph [0119]: “The height of the second lens pattern PT2 may be about 7 μm to about 16 μm.”); and/or a thickness of the light-transmitting inorganic layer is 250nm to 350nm (this is optional).”
It is a well-established proposition that a change of size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP §2144.04(IV)(A).
Zhang discloses the claimed invention except for the heights of the microlenses and planarization layers.
It would have been an obvious matter of choice to choose the heights of the microlenses and planarization layers to be between 7 μm to about 16 μm as taught by Jang, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the component. A change of size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP §2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding claim 19, the Zhang – Jang combination teaches “The method of manufacturing a microlens substrate according to claim 18,” and Zhang further teaches “further comprising: forming a second planarization layer (Fig. 22, the flat portion of layer 61 on top of the microlenses 51 is a second planarization layer) covering the light exiting surfaces of the plurality of second microlenses (layer 61 covers the light exiting surfaces of microlenses 51), however, Zhang fails to teach “wherein the light exiting surfaces of the plurality of second microlenses are respectively outward convex surfaces, and a refractive index of the second planarization layer is less than that of each of the plurality of second microlenses.”
However, Zhang does disclose (paragraph [0099]) “In an embodiment of the present disclosure, as shown in FIG. 22, the refractive index matching layer 06 includes a first refractive index matching layer 61 and a second refractive index matching layer 62, and the microlens layer 05 is located between the first refractive index matching layer 61 and the second refractive index matching layer 62. The microlens still protrudes into one of the refractive index matching layer 06 and the microlens layer 05 that has a smaller refractive index.” Thus the embodiment depicted in Fig. 22 has layer 05 with a lower refractive index than layer 61 and the microlenses protruding convexly into layer 05. However, if the refractive index of layer 61 were less than layer 05, paragraph [0099] would teach that the microlenses should protrude convexly into layer 61. Thus the configuration of claim 5 is strongly suggested by Zhang, but not explicitly disclosed.
Xia teaches (claim 14) “A method of manufacturing a microlens substrate (display panel 100 with microlenses 1061 and 1064 and substrate 101), comprising:
providing a base (substrate 101);
forming a first lens pattern (first micro lens 1061) on a side of the base (the top side in Fig. 1) wherein the first lens pattern comprises a plurality of first microlenses distributed at intervals (see intervals at which 1061 are positioned in Fig. 1);
forming a second lens pattern (second micro lens 1064) on a side of the first lens pattern (the top side of 1061 in Fig. 1) wherein the second lens pattern comprises a plurality of second microlenses distributed at intervals (see intervals at which 1064 are positioned in Fig. 1),”
(claim 17) “further comprising: forming a first planarization layer (first planarization layer 1062) covering light exiting surfaces of the plurality of first microlenses (see Fig. 1), wherein the light exiting surfaces of the plurality of first microlenses are respectively outward convex surfaces (the top surfaces of 1061 are the light exiting surfaces and are outwardly convex in Fig. 1)”
(claim 18) wherein the second lens pattern is disposed on a side of the first planarization layer away from the plurality of first microlenses (1064 are disposed on a top side of 1062 away from 1061 in Fig. 1 and paragraph [0046])
(claim 19) further comprising: forming a second planarization layer (second planarization layer 1065) covering the light exiting surfaces of the plurality of second microlenses (1065 covers the light exiting surfaces of 1064 in Fig. 1), wherein the light exiting surfaces of the plurality of second microlenses are respectively outward convex surfaces (1064 are outwardly convex in Fig. 1), and a refractive index of the second planarization layer (paragraph [0012]: “the refractive index of the second planarization layer range from 1.4 to 1.5”) is less than that of each of the plurality of second microlenses (paragraphs [0010]-[0012]: “a refractive index of the second micro lens is greater than a refractive index of the second planarization layer;… the refractive index of the second micro lens ranges from 1.5 to 2.0”).”
Xia further teaches (paragraphs [0026]-[0027]): “Beneficial Effect… A refractive index of the second micro lens is greater than a refractive index of the second planarization layer, and an emission angle of the light emitted by the second micro lens becomes larger, thereby expanding an OLED display viewing angle. Therefore, the double-layer micro lens can improve a light extraction rate of the OLED display panel and improve a display viewing angle.”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adopt a configuration with a second planarization layer with a lower refractive index than the second microlenses, and where the second microlenses have outward convex surfaces as taught by Xia in the device of Zhang because paragraph [0099] and Fig. 22 of Zhang strongly suggests such a configuration for the microlenses in a display device and Xia teaches that having a second planarization layer with a refractive index smaller than the second micro lenses improves light extraction and display viewing angle (Xia paragraph [0027]).
Regarding claim 20, the Zhang – Jang – Xia combination teaches “The method of manufacturing a microlens substrate according to claim 19,” however, Zhang fails to teach “further comprising: forming a light-transmitting inorganic layer disposed on the side of the first planarization layer away from the plurality of first microlenses, wherein the plurality of second microlenses are disposed on a surface of the light-transmitting inorganic layer away from the first planarization layer.”
Xia teaches “further comprising: forming a light-transmitting inorganic layer (second encapsulation layer 1063, which is inorganic see paragraph [0046] and is light-transmitting, see light passing therethru in Fig. 1) disposed on the side of the first planarization layer away from the plurality of first microlenses (see Fig. 1 1063 is disposed on the top side of first planarization layer 1062 away from 1061), wherein the plurality of second microlenses are disposed on a surface of the light-transmitting inorganic layer (see Fig. 1 lenses 1064 are disposed on the top surface of 1063) away from the first planarization layer (see Fig. 1 the top surface of 1063 on which 1064 are disposed is away from the first planarization layer 1062).”
Xia Figs. 9-10 and paragraph [0061] teach that the second encapsulation layer provides a surface on which the second micro lenses can be formed.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an inorganic light-transmitting encapsulation layer between the first planarization layer and the second micro lenses as taught by Xia in the device of the Zhang – Xia combination for the purpose of providing a surface on which the second micro lenses can be formed as taught by Xia (Figs. 9-10 and paragraph [0061]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. US 2021/0384272 A1 (hereafter Zhang) in view of Jang et al. US 2021/0072600 A1 (hereafter Jang) and Xia CN 111276515 A (cited in an IDS, where reference will be made to US 2023/0180585 A1 as the English language equivalent, also in an IDS) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Lee et al. CN 114497421 (cited in an IDS, hereafter Lee, where reference will be made to the attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 8, the Zhang – Jang – Xia combination teaches “The microlens substrate according to claim 7,” however, Zhang fails to explicitly teach “wherein a thickness of the first planarization layer is 5µm to 30µm; and/or a thickness of each of the plurality of first microlenses is 5µm to 30µm; and/or a thickness of the second planarization layer is 5µm to 30µm; and/or a thickness of each of the plurality of second microlenses is 5µm to 30µm; and/or a thickness of the light-transmitting inorganic layer is 250nm to 350nm.”
Lee teaches (claim 1) “A microlens substrate (display panel 100 with substrate 10 and lenses 40), comprising: a base (substrate 10);
a first lens pattern (plurality of condensing lenses 40) disposed on a side of the base (the top side in Fig. 1) and comprising a plurality of first microlenses distributed at intervals (see intervals at which lenses 40 are positioned in Fig. 1)”
(claim 3) further comprising: a first planarization layer (planarization layer 50) covering light exiting surfaces of the plurality of first microlenses (50 covers the light exit surfaces of 40 in Fig. 1), wherein the light exiting surfaces of the plurality of first microlenses are respectively outward convex surfaces (see convex shapes of the top of the lenses 40 in Fig. 1), and a refractive index of the first planarization layer is less than that of each of the plurality of first microlenses (paragraph [0048]: “The refractive index of the planarization layer 50 is less than the refractive index of the condenser lenses 40.”).”
(claim 8) wherein a thickness of the first planarization layer is 5µm to 30µm (this is optional); and/or a thickness of each of the plurality of first microlenses is 5µm to 30µm (paragraph [n0073]: “the height h of each condensing lens 40 is 8-12 μm”); and/or a thickness of the second planarization layer is 5µm to 30µm (this is optional); and/or a thickness of each of the plurality of second microlenses is 5µm to 30µm paragraph [n0073]: “the height h of each condensing lens 40 is 8-12 μm”); and/or a thickness of the light-transmitting inorganic layer is 250nm to 350nm (this is optional).”
Lee further teaches (paragraph [n0073]): “As shown in Figure 6, the height h of each condensing lens 40 is 8-12 μm and the length L is 25-30 μm. This ensures both the light-gathering effect and the light-transmitting effect of the condenser lens, preventing excessive fogging and poor light transmission due to an oversized condenser lens, which would ultimately affect the display panel's performance.”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the height of the microlenses in Zhang to be 8-12 μm as taught by Lee for the purposes of ensuring the light-gathering effect and the light-transmitting effect of the condenser lens, preventing excessive fogging and poor light transmission due to an oversized condenser lens as taught by Lee (paragraph [n0073]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoyama et al. US 5,694,246 A (hereafter Aoyama) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Lee et al. CN 114497421 (cited in an IDS, hereafter Lee, where reference will be made to the attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 10, Aoyama teaches “The microlens substrate according to claim 9,” however, Aoyama fails to teach “wherein, when the orthographic projection of the first microlens on the base and the orthographic projection of the second microlens on the base are circular, a diameter of the orthographic projection of the first microlens on the base and a diameter of the orthographic projection of the second microlens on the base are 10µm to 300µm;
when the orthographic projection of the first microlenses on the base and the orthographic projection of the second microlens on the base are strip-shaped, a width of the orthographic projection of the first microlens on the base and a width of the orthographic projection of the second microlens on the base are 10µm to 300µm.
However, Aoyama does teach that the microlens array can be used in a display (see Fig. 22 and description thereof).
Lee teaches (claim 1) “A microlens substrate (display panel 100 with substrate 10 and lenses 40), comprising: a base (substrate 10);
a first lens pattern (plurality of condensing lenses 40) disposed on a side of the base (the top side in Fig. 1) and comprising a plurality of first microlenses distributed at intervals (see intervals at which lenses 40 are positioned in Fig. 1)”
(claim 9) “at least one of an orthographic projection of the first microlens on the base or an orthographic projection of the second microlens on the base are circular or strip-shaped (the microlenses are circular shaped see Fig. 4).”
(claim 10) “wherein, when the orthographic projection of the first microlens on the base and the orthographic projection of the second microlens on the base are circular, a diameter of the orthographic projection of the first microlens on the base and a diameter of the orthographic projection of the second microlens on the base are 10µm to 300µm (paragraph [n0073]: “As shown in Figure 6, the height h of each condensing lens 40 is 8-12 μm and the length L is 25-30 μm.”);
when the orthographic projection of the first microlenses on the base and the orthographic projection of the second microlens on the base are strip-shaped, a width of the orthographic projection of the first microlens on the base and a width of the orthographic projection of the second microlens on the base are 10µm to 300µm (this is optional).”
Lee further teaches (paragraph [n0073]): “As shown in Figure 6, the height h of each condensing lens 40 is 8-12 μm and the length L is 25-30 μm. This ensures both the light-gathering effect and the light-transmitting effect of the condenser lens, preventing excessive fogging and poor light transmission due to an oversized condenser lens, which would ultimately affect the display panel's performance.”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the diameter of the microlenses of Aoyama to be 25-30 μm as taught by Lee when the microlenses of Aoyama are used in a display such as Fig. 22 of Aoyama, because Lee teaches that such a size ensures both the light-gathering effect and the light-transmitting effect of the condenser lens, preventing excessive fogging and poor light transmission due to an oversized condenser lens, which would ultimately affect the display panel's performance (Lee paragraph [n0073]).
Claims 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueno JP 2012119377A (hereafter Ueno, where reference will be made to the attached machine translation) as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Aoyama et al. US 5,694,246 A (hereafter Aoyama).
Regarding claim 11, Ueno teaches “The microlens substrate according to claim 1,” however, Ueno fails to explicitly teach “wherein materials for the plurality of first microlenses and/or the plurality of second microlenses comprise photoresist.”
However, Ueno does teach (paragraph [0031] and [0037]): “The microlens array MLA1 can be manufactured by applying a known method (such as a method of melting and solidifying a microlens material that has been left in a predetermined pattern by photolithography,… The microlens array MLA2 can be manufactured by applying a known method, similar to the microlens array MLA1.”
Aoyama teaches (claim 1) “a microlens substrate (completed device of Fig. 1i with substrate 10 and microlenses 11 and 12), comprising:
a base (Fig. 1a substrate 10);
a first lens pattern (microlenses 11) disposed on a side of the base (steps of Fig. 1b-1d), and comprising a plurality of first microlenses distributed at intervals (see Fig. 1d);
a second lens pattern (microlenses 12) disposed on a side of the first lens pattern (the top side of 11) and comprising a plurality of second microlenses distributed at intervals (see Figs. 1h to 1i)),
wherein an orthographic projection of at least one of the plurality of second microlenses on the base is located between two orthographic projections of two adjacent first microlenses on the base (see e.g. Figs. 1i and 2e).”
(claim 11) “wherein materials for the plurality of first microlenses and/or the plurality of second microlenses comprise photoresist (photoresist 11B and photoresist 12B).”
Aoyama further teaches that a microlens can be formed by etching a photoresist through a mask and then heating the photoresist to melt it so that it forms spherical microlenses (col. 3 lines 4-34).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the material of the microlenses to be a photoresist as taught by Aoyama in the device of Ueno for the purpose of enabling the manufacturing of the microlenses using the known method of photoetching and melting disclosed by Aoyama (col. 3 lines 4-34) and because Ueno teaches that the microlenses can be manufactured by such a known method (paragraphs [0031] and [0037]).
Regarding claim 15, Ueno teaches “The method of manufacturing a microlens substrate according to claim 14, wherein forming the first lens pattern comprises:
forming the first lens pattern (paragraph [0031]: “The microlens array MLA1 can be manufactured by applying a known method (such as a method of melting and solidifying a microlens material that has been left in a predetermined pattern”)
forming the second lens pattern comprises:
forming the second lens pattern (paragraph [0037]: “The microlens array MLA2 can be manufactured by applying a known method, similar to the microlens array MLA1.” see paragraph [0031]).”
However, Ueno fails to teach “forming the first lens pattern through a first photoetching process;… forming the second lens pattern through a second photoetching process; wherein a mask plate used in the first photoetching process and a mask plate used in the second photoetching process are the same mask plate.”
Aoyama teaches (claim 14) A method of manufacturing (Figs. 1a-1i) a microlens substrate (completed device of Fig. 1i with substrate 10 and microlenses 11 and 12), comprising:
providing a base (Fig. 1a substrate 10);
forming a first lens pattern (microlenses 11) on a side of the base (steps of Fig. 1b-1d), wherein the first lens pattern comprises a plurality of first microlenses distributed at intervals (see Fig. 1d);
forming a second lens pattern (microlenses 12) on a side of the first lens pattern (the top side of 11), wherein the second lens pattern comprises a plurality of second microlenses distributed at intervals (see Figs. 1h to 1i)), and
an orthographic projection of at least one of the plurality of second microlenses on the base is located between two orthographic projections of two adjacent first microlenses on the base (see e.g. Figs. 1i and 2e).”
(claim 15) wherein forming the first lens pattern comprises: forming the first lens pattern through a first photoetching process (col. 3 lines 15-32: “a mask 14 is placed on or above the positive photoresist layer 11B and the photoresist layer 11B is exposed by light through openings formed on the mask 14 (see FIG. 1b). The mask 14 has portions for shielding the light, the portions having a shape corresponding to the lens-base elements to be formed… The substrate 10 and the lens-base elements 11A are heated or baked to above the melting temperature of the photoresist material, e.g., to 140.degree. C. or 150.degree. C. The material of the lens-base elements melts to form the first spherical microlenses 11 (see FIGS. 1d and 2b).”); forming the second lens pattern comprises: forming the second lens pattern through a second photoetching process (col. 4 lines 5-23: “The positive photoresist layer 12B is subject to exposure through mask 15 having square light-shielding portions (see FIG. 1g)… the elements 12A (and the lenses 11 and the substrate 10) are heated or backed. The lens-base elements 12A melt to form second microlenses 12 (see FIGS. 1i and 2e),
wherein a mask plate used in the first photoetching process (mask 14) and a mask plate used in the second photoetching process (mask 15).”
Ueno teaches the method of claim 15 except for explicitly teaching photoetching processes through mask plates for the formation of the first and second lens patterns. However, Ueno does teach (paragraph [0031]): “The microlens array MLA1 can be manufactured by applying a known method (such as a method of melting and solidifying a microlens material that has been left in a predetermined pattern by photolithography.”
Thus 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 explicitly disclosed method of photoetching a photoresist through a mask to form the regions that will form the microlenses as taught by Aoyama in the method of Ueno, because Ueno teaches that a known patterning method can be used to form the microlens array (Ueno) and Aoyama teaches such a method.
Note that the limitations “wherein a mask plate used in the first photoetching process and a mask plate used in the second photoetching process are the same mask plate” are considered to be met by the combination of references because Ueno teaches microlens arrays MLA1 and MLA2 with microlenses that are the same sizes and arranged in the same checkerboard pattern (see Fig. 5) that are each formed on top of a planar surface, and Aoyama teaches a mask with circular shaped apertures for forming spherical lenses on a planar surface. Thus 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 same mask with circular apertures to form both patterns of microlenses of Ueno because Ueno teaches that MLA1 and MLA2 have the same pattern and are each formed on a planar surface and Aoyama teaches that cylindrical lens-base elements of photoresist material on a planar surface is the proper method to obtain spherical lenses on a planar surface (Aoyama col. 3 lines 21-35).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 26, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the first paragraph of page 8 of 11 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant notes that support for the amendments can be found in at least claims 2, 16 and paragraph [0054]. The examiner agrees that no new matter has been introduced by the amendments to the claims.
In the second paragraph of page 8 of 11 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant notes that the objection to the drawings of the previous office action have been overcome by the submission of replacement drawings that label Figs. 1 and 2 as prior art. The examiner agrees, this objection has been withdrawn.
In the remainder of page 8 of 11 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant summarizes the rejections of the previous office action. No argument is made on this page.
In lines 1-7 of page 9 of 11 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant notes that the amendments to claims 1 and 14 contain substantially similar subject matter to previous claims 2 and 16. As noted above, the amendments change the term “distance” to “gap”. This is a minor, but not insignificant alteration. Previously, overlapping orthographic projections of the second and first microlenses were considered to have a distance less than zero, in keeping with the description in paragraph [0062] “A distance between the orthographic projection of the second microlens 901 on the base 1 and the orthographic projection of the first microlens 701 on the base 1 is greater than or equal to zero, that is, the orthographic projection of the second microlens 901 on the base 1 does not coincide with the orthographic projection of the first microlens 701 on the base 1.” However, a “gap” that includes a gap equal to zero does not preclude an overlap. Thus, although previous claims 2 and 16 were not rejected over Ueno or Aoyama before, both of these references are still applicable to amended claims 1 and 14 in view of this subtlety.
In line 8-18 of page 9 of 11 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant notes that Zhang teaches multiple first microlenses 51 and second microlenses 53, but argues that Zhang is silent regarding the distance between 51 and 53. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Even if Zhang does not state the numerical value of the gap, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably deduce that it is greater than or equal to zero, which is an aspect of the claimed range.
In lines 19-26 of page 9 of 11 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues that the measured distances of Fig. 11 cannot be relied upon because there is no indication that the drawings are drawn to scale. This argument is not persuasive for at least the following reasons. Firstly, both Fig. 11 and Fig. 22 were considered, not just Fig. 11. Secondly, the rejection claims 2 and 16 is under §103, not §102. Thus the measurements of the drawings were not taken as anticipatory fact, but rather are part of the evidence for the conclusion of obviousness see MPEP §2125(I) “The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979).” Lastly, in light of the amendments to the claims that now recite the dimensions of the gap, not the distance, an additional reference, Jang et al. US 2021/0072600 A1 is introduced that explicitly teaches this feature.
From line 27 of page 9 of 11 line 4 of page 11 of 11 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues that the term “gap” requires an empty space therebetween and that Zhang Fig. 11 fails to meet this requirement. This argument is not persuasive for at least the following reasons. Firstly, 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., a gap without structures therein) 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). Secondly, the examiner strenuously disagrees that the term “gap” would preclude the presence of structures within the gap. Thirdly, the rejections over Zhang did not solely rely upon the embodiment of Fig. 11. Rather, the independent claims were rejected over Figs. 11, 17 or 22, and claims such as 4-8 and 18 were over Fig. 22 alone. In Zhang Fig. 22, reproduced below, there is no concave or convex structures in the claimed gap between the first microlenses extending from the same surface as the first microlenses. Compare Zhang Fig. 22 to Fig. 3 of the instant application.
PNG
media_image3.png
210
490
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
300
538
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Lastly, the examiner would argue that none of the gaps between the first microlenses are truly “empty”. Rather the planarization layer is directly between the first microlenses, and the orthographic projections of the second microlenses are also between the first microlenses. Thus the distinction that the applicant is trying to argue is without discernable meets and bounds.
In lines 5-11 of page 11 of 11 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant concludes that all of the pending claims are allowable for at least the reasons argued above. These reasons have been addressed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Brunwinkel DE 10225674 A1 “Collimation Lens System For Homogenization Of Laser Beam Has Two Arrays Of Two-dimensional Lenses Separated Along Optical Axis And With The Second Array Divided Into Two Sub-arrays” pertinent to at least claims 1 and 14 with a gap of zero.
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 CARA E RAKOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-4206. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-4PM ET 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, Thomas Pham can be reached at 571-272-3689. 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.
/CARA E RAKOWSKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
1 See MPEP § 2131.02(III). A reference disclosure can anticipate a claim when the reference describes the limitations but "'d[oes] not expressly spell out' the limitations as arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination." Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381, 114 USPQ2d 1250, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 681(CCPA 1962)).
2 See MPEP § 2131.02(III). A reference disclosure can anticipate a claim when the reference describes the limitations but "'d[oes] not expressly spell out' the limitations as arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination." Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381, 114 USPQ2d 1250, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 681(CCPA 1962)).