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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Baek et al. (US 2020/0295308).
Regarding independent claim 1, Baek et al. (‘308) teaches in figures 4, 9, 10, and the corresponding text, a display panel (DD1) comprising: a substrate (SUB); a light-emitting layer (EML) disposed on one side of the substrate, the light-emitting layer comprising a plurality of light-emitting sub-pixels; an optical functional layer (MLA) disposed on a side of the light-emitting layer away from the substrate, the optical functional layer comprising a plurality of microlens structures (LS) that are arranged in one-to-one correspondence with the light-emitting sub-pixels; wherein the plurality of microlens structures comprise a plurality of repeating units arranged periodically; each of the repeating units comprises a first microlens structure (figure 10, upper left) and a second microlens structure (figure 10, lower right); the plurality of light-emitting sub-pixels comprise a first light- emitting sub-pixel corresponding to the first microlens structure and a second light-emitting sub-pixel corresponding to the second microlens structure; there is a first interval in a first direction is between a center point (C2) of the first microlens structure and a center point (C2) of the first light-emitting sub-pixel, there is a second interval in a second direction between the center point of the second microlens structure and a center point (C3) of the second light-emitting sub-pixel, and the first direction is different from the second direction.
Regarding dependent claim 2, Baek et al. (‘308) teaches the first direction is opposite to the second direction; the first interval and the second interval are the same.
Regarding dependent claim 3, Baek et al. (‘308) teaches each of the repeating units further comprises a third microlens structure; the plurality of light- emitting sub-pixels further comprise a third light-emitting sub-pixel corresponding to the third microlens structure; there is a third interval in a third direction between a center point of the third microlens structure and a center point of the third light-emitting sub-pixel, and the first direction, the second direction, and the third direction are different.
Regarding dependent claim 5, Baek et al. (‘308) teaches each of the repeating units further comprises a fourth microlens structure; the plurality of light- emitting sub-pixels further comprise a fourth light-emitting sub-pixel corresponding to the fourth microlens structure; there is a fourth interval in a fourth direction between a center point of the fourth microlens structure and a center point of the fourth light-emitting sub-pixel, and the first direction, the second direction, the third direction, and the fourth direction are different.
Regarding dependent claim 6, Baek et al. (‘308) teaches the first direction, the second direction, the third direction, and the fourth direction are arranged at intervals of 90 degrees in sequence; the first interval, the second interval, the third interval, and the fourth interval are the same.
Regarding dependent claim 14, Baek et al. (‘308) teaches a display device.
Regarding dependent claim 15, Baek et al. (‘308) teaches the first direction is opposite to the second direction; the first interval and the second interval are the same.
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 4, 7-8, 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek et al. (US 2020/0295308), of record.
Regarding dependent claim 4, Baek et al. (‘308) teaches all of the claimed limitations except for the first direction, the second direction, and the third direction are arranged at intervals of 120 degrees in sequence; the first interval, the second interval, and the third interval are the same.
Further regarding claim 4, the angle interval appears to be an obvious choice in design based upon the size and intended use of the display for the purpose of improving the quality of the virtual image.
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the pixel structure of Baek for the purpose of improving the quality of the virtual image. The angle interval appears to be an obvious choice in design based upon the size and intended use of the display.
Regarding dependent claim 7, Baek et al. (‘308) teaches all of the claimed limitations except for each of the microlens structures has a same shape as a corresponding one of the light-emitting sub- pixels, and the microlens structure has a same size as the corresponding one of the light- emitting sub-pixels.
Further regarding claim 7, the shape and size appears to be an obvious choice in design based upon the size and intended use of the display for the purpose of improving the quality of the virtual image.
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the pixel structure of Baek for the purpose of improving the quality of the virtual image. The shape and size appears to be an obvious choice in design based upon the size and intended use of the display.
Regarding dependent claim 8, Baek et al. (‘308) teaches all of the claimed limitations except for the first interval and the second interval are less than or equal to 5 microns.
Further regarding claim 8, the spacing interval appears to be an obvious choice in design based upon the size and intended use of the display for the purpose of improving the quality of the virtual image.
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the pixel structure of Baek for the purpose of improving the quality of the virtual image. The spacing interval appears to be an obvious choice in design based upon the size and intended use of the display.
Regarding dependent claims 12 and 20, Baek et al. (‘308) teaches all of the claimed limitations except for the microlens structures each have a same shape as a corresponding one of the light-emitting sub-pixels, and a size of the microlens structure is greater than a size of the corresponding one of the light-emitting sub-pixels.
Further regarding claims 12 and 20, the shape and size of the microlenses appears to be an obvious choice in design based upon the size and intended use of the display for the purpose of improving the quality of the virtual image.
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the pixel structure of Baek for the purpose of improving the quality of the virtual image. The shape and size of the microlenses appears to be an obvious choice in design based upon the size and intended use of the display.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-11, 13, 16, and 19 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH L WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-2465. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:30 AM- 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JAMES R. GREECE can be reached at (571) 272-3711. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
JOSEPH L. WILLIAMS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2875
/JOSEPH L WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights