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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I and Species I with traverse in the reply filed on 11/27/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the claims make a contribution over Fan so that they include a special technical feature. This is not found persuasive because The prior art still teaches the prior art for example Arakawa et. Al. (US 20240260421 A1) teaches the features common to the Inventions and Species see the rejections below.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 15 and 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Invention or Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 11/27/2025.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: DISPLAY PANELS, DISPLAY DEVICES AND METHODS OF MANUFACTURING DISPLAY PANEL HAVING A LIGHT COLLIMATOR.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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 1-2, 5-6, 11, 13 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arakawa et. Al. (US 20240260421 A1 hereinafter Arakawa).
Regarding claims 1 and 18, Arakawa teaches in 14 and 16B with associated text a display device, comprising the display panel, wherein the display panel comprises: a substrate 41; a light emitter (part of 33 connected to 31) on a side of the substrate (Fig. 14, [0207]); a first electrode (portion of 32 light emitter) on a side of the light emitter away from the substrate (Fig. 14, [0208]); and a light collimator (71-73) on a side of the first electrode away from the substrate (Fig. 16B, [0245]); wherein the light collimator comprises at least one microstructure (individual 71-73 structure is micron size [0167]); and wherein in a direction away from the substrate, a cross-sectional area of each of the at least one microstructure decreases (Fig. 16B); wherein each of the at least one microstructure has a condenser lens 72.
Arakawa does not specify each of the at least one microstructure has a plurality of nanostructures however Arakawa teaches in Fig. 16B each of the at least one microstructure has a plurality of structures 73 having a width that is about a 5th of a 10th of the total width of the microstructure (10 structures 73 are shown to fit across the microstructure Fig. 16B) and the microstructure has a diameter of less than 1 μm ([0167]) so that the diameter of 73 would be about 100 nm to 200 nm for example so that Arakawa envisions structures 73 being a nanostructures.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to follow the guidance regarding the size provided by Arakawa to make the structures 73 nanostructures because according to Arakawa 1 μm is a suitable size for the microstructure 72 [0167] and the first optical path control unit 71 and the third optical path control unit 73 have a one-to-many relationship, that is, a plurality of third optical path control units 73 are provided for one first optical path control unit 71 [0257] so that making the structures 73 nanostructures would be suitable in the device.
PNG
media_image1.png
401
500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Arakawa teaches a filler 28 is provided between adjacent light emitters (Fig. 14).
Regarding claim 5, Arakawa teaches a projection of the light collimator onto the substrate covers a projection of the light emitter onto the substrate (Fig. 16B).
Regarding claim 6, Arakawa teaches a plurality of adjacent first electrodes are connected with each other (Fig. 14).
Regarding claim 11, Arakawa teaches the condenser lens is a spherical cap [0204], and a projection of the condenser lens onto the substrate covers a projection of the light emitter onto the substrate (Fig. 16B).
Regarding claim 13, Arakawa teaches a material of the substrate comprises a silicon material [0216].
Regarding claim 16, Arakawa teaches the substrate comprises a driving circuit layer configured to drive the light emitter [0216].
Regarding claim 17, Arakawa teaches the display panel comprises a bonding metal pad 31 disposed between the substrate and the light emitter, and the driving circuit layer is configured to drive the light emitter through the bonding metal pad [0216].
Claims 1-6, 8, 10, 12 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et. Al. (US 20180090058 A1 hereinafter Chen) and further in view of Kawanishi et. Al. (US 20210288105 A1 hereinafter Kawanishi).
Regarding claims 1 and 18, Chen teaches in Fig. 16 with associated text a display device, comprising the display panel, wherein the display panel comprises: a substrate 310; a light emitter 320 on a side of the substrate (Fig. 16, [0040]); a first electrode (portion of 1320 on light emitter) on a side of the light emitter away from the substrate (Fig. 13A and 16, [0054]); and a light collimator 1670 on a side of the first electrode away from the substrate (Fig. 16, [0057]); wherein the light collimator comprises at least one microstructure (Fig. 16, [0057]); and wherein in a direction away from the substrate, a cross-sectional area of each of the at least one microstructure decreases (Fig. 16); wherein each of the at least one microstructure has a condenser lens [0057].
Chen does not specify each of the at least one microstructure has a plurality of nanostructures.
Kawanishi teaches in Fig. 4 with associated an LED (14 and 30P) similar to that of Chen having at least one microstructure 70a that has a plurality of nanostructures 71A (having size of 500 nm [0050]) at an upper surface (Fig. 4, [0064]) so that by including the plurality of nanostructures of Kawanishi on the LEDs of Chen the microstructure of Chen would have a plurality of nanostructures.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the nanostructures of Kawanishi into the microstructure of Chen because according to Kawanishi by using such structures it is possible to greatly improve a light output and increase light emission in the forward direction [0062] so that further control of the light emission of Chen could be provided.
Regarding claim 2, Chen teaches a filler 1630 is provided between adjacent light emitters (Fig. 16, ).
Regarding claim 3, Chen teaches a distance from a surface of the filler away
from the substrate to the substrate is greater than or equal to a distance from a surface of the light collimator away from the substrate to the substrate (Fig. 16).
Regarding claim 4, Chen teaches the filler comprises a reflective material(Fig. 16, [0057]).
Regarding claim 5, Chen teaches a projection of the light collimator onto the substrate covers a projection of the light emitter onto the substrate (Fig. 16).
Regarding claim 6, Chen teaches a plurality of adjacent first electrodes are connected with each other (Fig. 13A, 16, [0054]).
Regarding claim 8, Chen in view of Kawanishi teaches each of the plurality of nanostructures comprises a bottom in contact with the first electrode (30P of Kawanishi), and bottoms of adjacent nanostructures are connected with one another (Fig. 4 ok Kawanishi).
Regarding claim 10, Chen in view of Kawanishi teaches the display panel according to claim 1,wherein a filler 1630 is provided between adjacent light emitters.
Chen does not specify a thickness of each of the plurality of nanostructures ranges from 200 nm to 250 nm; and wherein a surface of the filler away from the substrate is at least 250 nm farther away than a surface of the first electrode away from the substrate However Kawanishi teaches changing dimensions of each of the plurality of nanostructures [0087]; and wherein a surface of the filler away from the substrate is at least 250 nm farther away than a surface of the first electrode away from the substrate (500 nm Kawanishi [0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make a thickness of each of the plurality of nanostructures ranges from 200 nm to 250 nm; and wherein a surface of the filler away from the substrate is at least 250 nm farther away than a surface of the first electrode away from the substrate because according to Kawanishi the size and shape of the optical element 71h constituting the light-distribution control unit 70h may be changed [0087] and a surface of the filler away from the substrate being at least 250 nm farther away than a surface of the first electrode away from the substrate is suitable [0050]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make a thickness of each of the plurality of nanostructures ranges from 200 nm to 250 nm; and wherein a surface of the filler away from the substrate is at least 250 nm farther away than a surface of the first electrode away from the substrate with routine experiment and optimization. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Regarding claim 12, Chen in view of Kawanishi teaches the display panel according to claim 1,wherein a filler 1630 is provided between adjacent light emitters.
Chen does not specify a thickness of the condenser lens ranges from 2 pm to 3 pm; and a surface of the filler away from the substrate is at least 3 m farther away than a surface of the first electrode away from the substrate however Chen does teach the LED structures are of micron order of less than 20 microns [0035] and shows the condenser lens as having similar dimensions (Fig. 16) and teaches increasing the height of a flier 330 [0045] and shows them being substantially farther away than a surface of the first electrode away from the substrate (Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make a thickness of the condenser lens range from 2 pm to 3 pm; and a surface of the filler away from the substrate is at least 3 pm farther away than a surface of the first electrode away from the substrate because according to Chen the LEDs 120 are micro-LEDs with a size preferably not larger than 20 microns [0035] and he cup height should be greater than the micro-LED height and greater than twice the micro-LED diameter to achieve effective suppression of the divergence angle [0045]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make a thickness of the condenser lens range from 2 pm to 3 pm; and a surface of the filler away from the substrate is at least 3 pm farther away than a surface of the first electrode away from the substrate with routine experiment and optimization. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Regarding claim 16, Chen teaches the substrate comprises a driving circuit layer 315 configured to drive the light emitter (Fig. 16, [0040]).
Regarding claim 17, Chen teaches the display panel comprises a bonding metal pad 317 disposed between the substrate and the light emitter, and the driving circuit layer is configured to drive the light emitter through the bonding metal pad [0040].
Claims 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Kawanishi as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Song et. Al. (US 20060125388 A1 hereinafter Song).
Regarding claims 9, Chen in view of Kawanishi teaches the display panel according to claim 1.
Chen does not specify a material of the first electrode is the same as a material of the nanostructure, and the first electrode is integrally connected with the nanostructure.
Song teaches in Fig. 8 with associated a first electrode 334 similar to that of Chen in view of Kawanishi wherein a material of the first electrode is the same as a material of a nanostructure (diffraction grating structures in 334 Fig. 8, [0119]), and the first electrode is integrally connected with the nanostructure (Fig. 8, [0119]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the nanostructures of Song in place of or in addition to those of Chen in view of Kawanishi because according to Song by using such structures the number of interfaces through which light emitted from the luminescence layer included in the first intermediate layer 333 needs to pass is reduced as the light is emitted to the outside via the second electrode 334, consequently, the total light reflected by the interfaces is reduced, thus improving the external light coupling efficiency. Also, by having the above-described structure, the EL display device can be manufactured with a further simplified process [0119].
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Kawanishi as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Yeh et. Al. (US 20110297975 A1 hereinafter Yeh).
Regarding claims 14, Chen in view of Kawanishi teaches the display panel according to claim 1.
Chen does not specify the light emitter comprises a first semiconductor layer, a light emitting layer and a second semiconductor layer that are stacked in sequence; wherein the light emitting layer comprises a quantum well layer, and the first semiconductor layer is a second electrode.
Yeh teaches in Figs. 1 with associated a light emitter similar to that of
Chen in view of Kawanishi comprises a first semiconductor layer 242, a light emitting layer 244 and a second semiconductor layer 246 that are stacked in sequence (Fig. 1, [0050]); wherein the light emitting layer comprises a quantum well layer, and the first semiconductor layer is a second electrode (Fig. 1, [0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the micro-LED of Yeh for that of Chen in view of Kawanishi because according to Yeh a micro-light-emitting diode (LED) array is accomplished by adjusting the thickness and the structure of the epitaxial structure of the LED, so as to optimize the light extraction or the light collimation to comply with the requirement [0049] furthermore using such quantum well micro-LEDs was very well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON J GRAY whose telephone number is (571)270-7629. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-4pm.
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, Toledo Fernando can be reached on 5712721867. 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.
/AARON J GRAY/Examiner, Art Unit 2897