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 .
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant’s amendment filed 09/14/2023. Claims 1-20 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/05/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-12 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda et al. (US 20210399264 A1, of record ids) (Ueda, hereafter) view of SUN ET AL. (CN 114203929 A,, MACHINE TRANSLATION 2022) (Sun, hereafter).
Regarding claims 1 and 18, UEDA discloses (Figure 1-26 and corresponding text) a display panel/device (Figure 28:3) comprising: a display substrate (10), comprising a plurality of light-emitting devices (25) distributed in an array(two-dimensional) (π90); a plurality of filter structures(50), disposed on a light-emitting side of the display substrate (10), one of the light-emitting devices (25)corresponds to one of the filter structures at least a part of the filter structures(50) comprise a filter layer(50R,50B, 50G), a lens layer (383/381) and a filling layer (BW), the lens layer(383/381) is disposed on the side of the filter layer away from the display substrate, the lens layer (383/381)is provided with a first light transmission hole exposing at least part of the filter layer, a side wall of the first light transmission hole is expended along a direction away from the display substrate(10); the filling layer (BW) is filled in the first light transmission hole(boundary between filters) and laminated on a surface(π82) of the filter layer (50R,50B, 50G), away from the display substrate (10), and a cover plate, disposed (90) on a side of the filter structures away from the display substrate (10).Ueda fails to explicitly disclose a refractive index of the filling layer is greater than the refractive index of the lens layer where the light transmission hole filled by the filling layer is located;
Sun discloses (see description, paragraphs 0005-0088, and figures 1-7): in a display panel 100, a first refractive index layer 70 (equivalent to the lens layers) comprises a plurality of openings 71 (equivalent to the first light-transmissive holes) corresponding to a plurality of light-emitting pixels 42, a second refractive index layer 80 (equivalent to the filling layers) is provided on the side of the first refractive index layer 70 away from a substrate 10 and fills the plurality of openings 71, the refractive index of the second refractive index layer 80 is greater than the refractive index of the first refractive index layer 70, and therefore, incident large-angle light is totally reflected.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the display panel of Ueda as modified by Sun to derive wherein a refractive index of the filling layer is greater than the refractive index of the lens layer where the light transmission hole filled by the filling layer is located the motivation being to create more light to be extracted to the outside thus improving efficiency.
Regarding claims 2 and 19, Ueda disclose wherein materials of the lens layer and the filter layer of a same filter structure are different (π94).
Regarding claims 3 and 20, Ueda as modified by Sun fails to disclose wherein respective lens layers are connected into an integral structure. Ueda however discloses in (Figure 13) how the lens are an integral structure (π131-π135).It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display panel display device of Ueda as disclosed by Ueda wherein respective lens layers are connected into an integral structure the motivation is to provide a compact device with improved luminosity.
Regarding claim 4, Ueda fails to disclose wherein the lens layer and the filter layer of a same filter structure are integrally structured. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the display panel of Ueda wherein (describe modification), since it has been held that forming in one piece wherein the lens layer and the filter layer of a same filter structure are integrally structured, since it has been held that an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
Regarding claims 5-10, the limitations as set forth etc do not appear to contain any additional features which define more than slight constructional changes which come within the scope of the customary (design) practice followed by persons skilled in the art, especially as the advantages thus achieved can be readily contemplated in advance. Alternatively, these limitations are not deemed patentable since the applicant’s disclosure fails to show such limitations to solve any problems or to yield any unobvious advantage that is not within the scope of the teachings applied. Therefore, such limitations would be a matter of design alternative.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the display panel of Ueda as modified by Sun, to derive the limitations as set forth above the motivation being to provide a compact device with improved luminance efficiency and since matters of design alternative require only routine skill.
Regarding claim 11, Ueda disclose (figure 28:60) wherein the display panel further comprises: a planarizing layer (60), covering respective filter structures(383/381), and the refractive index of the planarizing layer is not less than the refractive index of the filling layer(the planarization layer is the filling layer) .
Regarding claim 12, Ueda discloses wherein the planarizing layer(60) is integrally structured with at least one filling layer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 15-17 are objected to due to their dependency upon claim 14.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in then 892 and below:
US 20220085335 A1- a lens member is disposed on a light emitting side of each of the l Light emitting elements in order to improve light extraction efficiency and increase front
brightness
US 20210327865 A1-A display device with high resolution
US 20210181880 A1-The touch display panel refers to a panel that combines a touch
structure and a display panel, so that the display panel combined with the touch
structure has both display and touch sensing functions.
US 20210089165 A1-A touch panel and a display device
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRACIE Y GREEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3104. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thursday, 10am-8pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James R Greece can be reached at (571)272-3711. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TRACIE Y GREEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875