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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al (US PG Pub. No. 2020/0381474).
Regarding Claim 1, Choi discloses, at least in figure 5A, a display device (title) comprising: a display panel (DP) ¶ [0105]); and a module cover (BZA, ¶ [0060]) to which the display panel (DP) is coupled, wherein the display panel (DP) comprises: a flat substrate(BS2,¶ [0132]); a plurality of electrode pads (PE1-3), ¶ [0142]) formed on the substrate (BS2)(BS2); a plurality of light emitting elements (LD1,¶ [0148]) mounted on each of the plurality of electrode pads (PE1-3) (PE1-3); an optical layer (BR1, ¶ [0120]) covering the plurality of light emitting elements (LD1), and formed on the substrate (BS2); and a plurality of fillers formed of a spherical particle (SC1, ¶ [0120]), and distributed inside the optical layer(WCL1),
Choi fails to disclose: wherein 75 to 80 percent of the plurality of fillers have a diameter of 2 to 16 micrometers, and a weight ratio of the plurality of fillers compared to the optical layer (WCL1) is 15 to 23 percent.
However, applicant has not shown in the specification how the claimed parameters produce any novel or unexpected result or solve any known problem
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the claimed relationships in the device of Choi, as a matter of obvious design choice.
Furthermore, since the weight ratio of fillers affects the amount of light that is scattered, then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the claimed parameters in the device of Choi, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 2, Choi discloses: wherein the optical layer (WCL1) has transparency (last line, ¶ [0121], BR1 is transparent),
Choi fails to disclose: and the plurality of fillers have a weight ratio of 20 percent compared to the optical layer (WCL1). However, applicant has not shown in the specification how the claimed parameters produce any novel or unexpected result or solve any known problem
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the claimed relationships in the device of Choi, as a matter of obvious design choice.
Furthermore, since the weight ratio of fillers affects the amount of light that is scattered, then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the claimed parameters in the device of Choi, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 4, Choi discloses: further comprises an optical film (PL1, ¶ [0109]) located on the optical layer (WCL1),
Choi fails to disclose: and having an optical transmittance of 35 to 45 percent.
However, applicant has not shown in the specification how the claimed parameters produce any novel or unexpected result or solves any known problem.
No criticality has been established or experimental data provided that would establish its criticality.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the claimed relationships in the device of Choi, as a matter of obvious design choice.
Furthermore, since the optical transmittance determines the amount of light that is emitted from the device, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the claimed parameters in the device of Choi, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 8, Choi discloses: wherein at least part of the plurality of fillers (SC1) forms a part of an upper surface of the optical layer (WCL1) (see fig. 5A).
Regarding Claim 9, Choi fails to disclose: wherein a thickness of the optical layer (WCL1) is 140 to 160 micrometers, wherein a distance between an upper surface of the light emitting element and the upper surface of the optical layer (WCL1) is 40 to 60 micrometers.
However, as is obvious, the thickness of the material affects how much emitted light gets through and so does the distance from the light emitter itself. Both of these are result effective variables and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provides the claimed parameters in the device of Choi since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Furthermore applicant has not established a criticality for these values in the specification and has not provided experimental data to confirm their criticality.
Therefore, applicant has not shown in the specification how the claimed parameters produce any novel or unexpected result or solves any known problem and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the claimed relationships in the device of Choi, as a matter of obvious design choice.
Regarding Claim 10, Choi discloses in figure 5A: wherein at least part of the plurality of fillers (SC1) forming a part of the upper surface of the optical layer (WCL1) have a cut-out section of a spherical shape. (they are round).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (474) in view of Jung et al (US PG Pub. No. 2018/0264867).
Regarding Claim 3, Choi fails to disclose: wherein the optical layer (WCL1) further comprises a black material which is particles of 10 nanometers or less, and has a weight ratio of 10 percent or less compared to the optical layer (WCL1), so that the optical layer (WCL1) has translucency.
Jung teaches using carbon black particles of less than 10 nm in size for dynamic light scattering (¶ [0086]) in a weight % of less than 10% (¶ [0087]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try a weight % and size of black material in the device of Choi, for scattering, as taught by Jung since it simply involves combining Prior Art elements by known methods to produce predictable results (MPEP 2143lA).
Claim(s) 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (474) in view of Tangring et al (US PG Pub. No. 2021/0063652).
Regarding Claims 5-7, Choi discloses: wherein the optical layer (WCL1) is a first optical layer (WCL1) having a first refractive index,
Choi fails to disclose: and further comprising a second optical layer (WCL1) located on the first optical layer (WCL1) and having a second refractive index less than the first refractive index.
However, providing a second optical layer on the first would simply involve a duplication of parts, already taught by Choi, and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a second optical layer in the device of Choi, since it has been held that mere duplication (both are optical layers) of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Also, Tangring teaches an optoelectronic component (title) with a first matrix (210) with a refraction index of 1.53 (¶ [0054], claims 6-7) and a second matrix (220) with a refractive index of 1.41 (¶ [0086], claims 6-7) Figure 2 shows that (220) is on (210) as in Choi and ¶ [0076] explains the necessity for (220) to have a lower refractive index.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide a material for the second optical layer with a refractive index less than the first optical layer to prevent reflections of emitted light at the interface between the two materials.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONTACT INFORMATION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DONALD L RALEIGH whose telephone number is (571)270-3407. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7AM -3 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James R. Greece can be reached at 571-272-3711. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DONALD L RALEIGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875