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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/6/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the teachings of claim 14 “wherein the lens layer include a plurality of optical lenses which are arranged to extend along a first direction, are spaced apart from each other along a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, and are linearly formed. “ must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The recitation “the optical lens disposed inside the active layer among the plurality of optical lens has a length shorter than that of the optical lens disposed at the both ends of the active layer” is unclear because it fails to reasonably identify the positional relationship between the optical lens and the active layer. Further, it fails to clearly identify whether one lens or multiple lenses are required and which structures are being compared for length. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of claim 13.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et. al. (US-2022/0165922-A1, hereinafter Li), and further in view of Zhang et.al. (US-2017/0069611-A1, hereinafter Zhang)
Regarding Claim 1.
Li teaches in Fig.15 A display device comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
547
561
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a substrate with a plurality of subpixels (#20);
at least one thin film transistor and at least one light emitting diode (#20) formed in each of the plurality of subpixels on the substrate; and
a molding portion (#30+#70) formed on each of the light emitting diodes,
and
wherein the molding portion includes a scattering layer (#70) for scattering light and a lens layer (#10) formed on the scattering layer.([0045-0051])
Li does not explicitly disclose
wherein the at least one thin film transistor and the at least one light emitting diode are electrically connected to each other,
However, Zhang teaches in Fig.16
PNG
media_image2.png
440
737
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the at least one thin film transistor (#1608-4) and the at least one light emitting diode(#1602) are electrically connected to each other, (Zhang [0049] driver circuits may include a thin-film-transistor.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li’s semiconductor device with the teachings of Zhang, as identified above, to use thin film transistor as a switching element for the target display device application.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et. al. (US-2022/0165922-A1, hereinafter Li), in view of Zhang et.al. (US-2017/0069611-A1, hereinafter Zhang), and further in view of Bibl et. al. (US-2014/0367633-A1, hereinafter Bibl)
Regarding Claim 2.
Li modified by Zhang teaches The display device according to claim 1,
Li further teaches wherein the molding portion further includes first protective layers,
wherein the first protective layer (#30) is formed under the scattering layer (#70) and surrounds the light emitting diode (#20), and
Li does not explicitly disclose wherein the molding portion further includes second protective layers, wherein the second protective layer is formed on the scattering layer and covers the lens layer.
PNG
media_image3.png
291
551
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, Bibl teaches in Fig.11 and Fig.12C wherein the molding portion further includes second protective layers (#324), wherein the second protective layer is formed on the scattering layer and covers the lens layer (#310 wavelength conversion layer may include scattering particles). ([0117] #310 is formed as micro lens characteristics)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Li and Zhang with the teachings of Bibl, as identified above, as this is a common practice in the art to cover the micro lens layer with a protective layer which will not yield unpredictable results.
Regarding Claim 5.
Li modified by Zhang and Bibl teaches The display device according to claim 2,
Bibl further teaches in Fig.10F wherein the molding portion further includes a light guide layer (#330) formed on a same layer as the scattering layer surrounding the light guide layer, and
wherein the lens layer (#310) overlaps with the light guide layer (#330).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Li, Zhang and Bibl with the teachings of Bibl, as identified above, to achieve different divergence angle reduction results.
Regarding Claim 7.
Li modified by Zhang and Bibl teaches The display device according to claim 2,
PNG
media_image4.png
295
712
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Bibl further teaches in Fig.1D wherein the light emitting diode includes first and second electrodes (#404 and #403), a light emitting layer (#409) disposed on the first and second electrodes and an active layer (#416), ([0076]) and
wherein the first protective layer (#320) exposes a portion of the first and second electrodes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Li, Zhang and Bibl with the teachings of Bibl, as identified above, to provide better insulating for the electrode layers.
Regarding Claim 8.
Li modified by Zhang and Bibl teaches The display device according to claim 7,
Zhang further teaches in Fig.16 further comprising a common line (#1618) formed under the light emitting diode, and the thin film transistor (#1608-4) is formed under the light emitting diode (#1612-2),
wherein the first electrode (#1610-2) is connected to the thin film transistor through a first connection electrode (connection pad of #1610-2), and
wherein the second electrode (#1616) is connected to the common line (#1618) through a second connection electrode. ([0132-0134])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Li, Zhang and Bibl with the teachings of Zhang, as identified above, as this is a common practice in the art for the electrodes and ground connection which will not yield unpredictable results.
Regarding Claim 9.
Li modified by Zhang and Bibl teaches The display device according to claim 7,
Li further teaches in Fig.3 wherein the lens layer (#10) overlaps with the active layer (#20).
Regarding Claim 10.
Li modified by Zhang and Bibl teaches The display device according to claim 9,
Li further teaches in Fig.3 wherein the lens layer includes at least one optical lens, and the optical lens has a convex hemispherical shape. (Fig.3)
Regarding Claim 12.
Li modified by Zhang and Bibl teaches The display device according to claim 9,
Bibl further teaches in Fig. 6A wherein the lens layer includes a plurality of optical lenses formed in a tunnel shape, and wherein some of the plurality of optical lenses cover both ends of the active layer. (Fig.6A and Fig.9A)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Li, Zhang and Bibl with the teachings of Bibl, as identified above, as this is common practice in the art to form lens cover for the device which will not yield unpredictable results.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et. al. (US-2022/0165922-A1, hereinafter Li), in view of Zhang et.al. (US-2017/0069611-A1, hereinafter Zhang), and further in view of Bibl et. al. (US-2014/0367633-A1, hereinafter Bibl), and further in view of Denbaars et.al. (US-20070102721-A1, hereinafter Denbaars)
Regarding Claim 11.
Li modified by Zhang and Bibl teaches The display device according to claim 9,
Li modified by Zhang and Bibl does not explicitly disclose wherein the lens layer includes at least one optical lens that has a cross-section of a trapezoidal shape.
However, Denbaars teaches in Fig.1 wherein the lens layer (#13) includes at least one optical lens that has a cross-section of a trapezoidal shape. (Denbaars Fig.1 [0061-0062])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Li, Zhang and Bibl with the teachings of Denbaars, as identified above, to maximize light extraction by ensuring most light entering the lens lies within the critical angle for refraction out.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et. al. (US-2022/0165922-A1, hereinafter Li), in view of Zhang et.al. (US-2017/0069611-A1, hereinafter Zhang), and further in view of Bibl et. al. (US-2014/0367633-A1, hereinafter Bibl) , and further in view of CN152 (CN202434152U)
Regarding Claim 3.
Li modified by Zhang and Bibl teaches The display device according to claim 2,
Li modified by Zhang and Bibl does not explicitly disclose wherein the molding portion further includes a light guide layer disposed between the scattering layer and the lens layer.
However, CN152 teaches wherein the molding portion further includes a light guide layer (#2 waveguide layer) disposed between the scattering layer (#1) and the lens layer (#3 light collecting layer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Li, Zhang and Bibl with the teachings of CN152, as identified above, to further control light path and to improve light extraction/collection.
Regarding Claim 4.
Li modified by Zhang, Bibl and CN152 teaches The display device according to claim 3,
Li further teaches wherein the first protective layer (#30) and the scattering layer (#70) include a scattering material for scattering light and an insulating material. ([0051] The light-scattering particles may be silicon dioxide (SiO2) particles)
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et. al. (US-2022/0165922-A1, hereinafter Li), in view of Berkel et. al. (US-6064424-A, hereinafter Berkel)
Regarding Claim 14.
Li teaches in Fig.15 A display device comprising:
a substrate with a plurality of subpixels;
at least one light emitting diode (#20) formed in each of the plurality of subpixels; and
a molding portion (#30+#70) formed on each of the light emitting diodes,
wherein the molding portion includes a scattering layer (#70) for scattering light and a lens layer (#10) formed on the scattering layer,
Li does not explicitly disclose
wherein the lens layer include a plurality of optical lenses which are arranged to extend along a first direction, are spaced apart from each other along a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, and are linearly formed.
However, Berkel teaches in Fig.3 wherein the lens layer include a plurality of optical lenses which are arranged to extend along a first direction, are spaced apart from each other along a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, and are linearly formed. (Berkel Fig.3)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li with the teachings of Berkel, as identified above, to achieve flexible lens and subpixel configuration in different display applications.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et. al. (US-2022/0165922-A1, hereinafter Li), in view of Berkel et. al. (US-6064424-A, hereinafter Berkel), and further in view of CN152 (CN202434152U)
Regarding Claim 15.
Li modified by Berkel teaches The display device according to claim 14,
Li modified by Berkel does not explicitly disclose wherein the molding portion further includes a light guide layer, and the light guide layer is formed between the scattering layer and the lens layer.
However, CN152 teaches wherein the molding portion further includes a light guide layer (#2 waveguide layer), and the light guide layer is formed between the scattering layer (#1) and the lens layer (#3 light collecting layer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Li and Berkel with the teachings of CN152, as identified above, to further control light path and to improve light extraction/collection.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et. al. (US-2022/0165922-A1, hereinafter Li), in view of Berkel et. al. (US-6064424-A, hereinafter Berkel), and further in view of Bibl et. al. (US-2014/0367633-A1, hereinafter Bibl)
Regarding Claim 16.
Li modified by Berkel teaches The display device according to claim 14,
Li modified by Berkel does not explicitly disclose wherein the light emitting diode includes first and second electrodes spaced apart from each other in the first direction, and a light emitting layer formed on the first and second electrodes and configured to include an active layer, and the plurality of optical lenses are formed in a tunnel shape.
However, Bibl teaches in Fig.1D and Fig. 11A wherein the light emitting diode includes first and second electrodes (#404 and #403) spaced apart from each other in the first direction, and a light emitting layer formed on the first and second electrodes and configured to include an active layer (#416), and the plurality of optical lenses are formed in a tunnel shape (Fig. 11A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Li and Berkel with the teachings of Bibl, as identified above, as this is a common practice in the art to connect electrodes in the device and to provide lens cover which will not yield unpredictable results.
Regarding Claim 17.
Li modified by Berkel and Bibl teaches The display device according to claim 16,
Bibl teaches in Fig. 11A wherein among the plurality of optical lenses, two optical lenses disposed on the periphery may be formed to cover each of both ends of the active layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Li and Berkel with the teachings of Bibl, as identified above, as this is a common practice in the art to form lens cover which will not yield unpredictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 6 contains allowable subject matter, because the prior art, either singly or in combination, fails to anticipate or render obvious, the device, …wherein the scattering layer is formed inside the optical lens. These features in combination with the other elements of the claim are neither disclosed nor suggested by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOPHIA W KAO whose telephone number is (703)756-4797. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm Pacific Time.
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, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano can be reached at (571) 272-7925. 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.
/SOPHIA W KAO/Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/ELISEO RAMOS FELICIANO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights