DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the application filed 4 January 2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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 § 102
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 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, 16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2022/0209197 A1 to Luo et al. (hereinafter “Luo”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Luo (Figs. 11, 12) discloses an electronic device, comprising:
a light-emitting module (¶ 0052), comprising:
a substrate 10 (¶ 0052) having a first region (inner region of display region 11) and a second region (edge region of display region 11), the second region being closer to an edge of the substrate than the first region;
a plurality of light-emitting units 101 (¶ 0052) disposed on the substrate, wherein the light-emitting units comprise a first light-emitting unit 101 (Fig. 12 - left unit) disposed in the first region and a second light-emitting unit 101 (Fig. 12 - right unit) disposed in the second region (Fig. 12 is a sectional view of Fig. 11 along line a-b); and
a light-adjusting layer (including 103, ¶ 0053) comprising a first light-adjusting element 103 (¶ 0053) disposed on the first light-emitting unit 101 (Fig. 12 - left unit) and a second light-adjusting element 103 disposed on the second light-emitting unit 101 (Fig. 12 - right unit), wherein the first light-adjusting element 103 and the second light-adjusting element 103 have different dimensions (Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 3, Luo (Figs. 11, 12) discloses the electronic device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the dimension is width, length, thickness, diameter, area, concentration, or a combination thereof (Fig. 12 - width, thickness, diameter, area, combination).
Regarding claim 16, Luo (Fig. 12) discloses the electronic device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first light-adjusting element 103 (Fig. 12 - disposed on left unit 101) on has a greater width than the first light-emitting unit 101, and the second light-adjusting element 103 (Fig. 12 - disposed on right unit 101)has a greater width than the second light-emitting unit 101.
Regarding claim 18, Luo (Fig. 12) discloses the electronic device as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a display panel (Fig. 12 - comprises substrate 10), wherein the light-adjusting layer (including 103) is disposed between the light-emitting units 101 and the display panel (Fig. 12 - top surface).
Regarding claim 19, Luo (Fig. 12) discloses the electronic device as claimed in claim 18, wherein the display panel has a display region 11 (¶ 0054) and a non-display region (border region of 10), and the first region and the second region of the light-emitting module correspond to the display region of the display panel (Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 20, Luo (Fig. 12) discloses the electronic device as claimed in claim 19, further comprising a third light-adjusting element 103 disposed in the non-display region (the non-display region may be defined to include a third light-adjusting element to meet this recitation).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 2 and 4-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo.
Regarding claim 2, Luo discloses the electronic device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first light-adjusting element 103 (Fig. 12 - disposed on left unit 101) has a first dimension, the second light-adjusting element 103 (Fig. 12 - disposed on right unit 101) has a second dimension.
Luo fails to expressly disclose: the second dimension is smaller than the first dimension. Luo does disclose altering dimensions of the light-adjusting element for the purpose of adjusting display luminance and improving uniformity (¶ 0012), thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a second dimension smaller than the first dimension for the purpose of improving luminance uniformity in a display device of a different shape. Additionally, it would have been within the skill of an ordinary artisan to pursue known options (smaller than, same, larger than) within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
Regarding claim 4, Luo discloses the electronic device as claimed in claim 1, however fails to expressly disclose wherein the second light-adjusting element has a smaller width than the first light-adjusting element.
Luo does disclose altering dimensions of the light-adjusting element for the purpose of adjusting display luminance and improving uniformity (¶ 0012), thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide second light-adjusting element having a smaller width than the first light-adjusting element for the purpose of improving luminance uniformity in a display device of a different shape. Additionally, it would have been within the skill of an ordinary artisan to pursue known options (smaller than, same, larger than) within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
Regarding claim 5, Luo discloses the electronic device as claimed in claim 1, however fails to expressly disclose: wherein the second light-adjusting element has less thickness than the first light-adjusting element.
Luo does disclose altering dimensions of the light-adjusting element for the purpose of adjusting display luminance and improving uniformity (¶ 0012), thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide second light-adjusting element having less thickness than the first light-adjusting element for the purpose of improving luminance uniformity in a display device of a different shape. Additionally, it would have been within the skill of an ordinary artisan to pursue known options (smaller than, same, larger than) within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
Regarding claim 6, Luo (Figs. 11, 12) discloses the electronic device as claimed in claim 5, wherein the first light-adjusting element 103 has a concentration equal to that of the second light-adjusting element 103 (Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 7, Luo discloses the electronic device as claimed in claim 5, however fails to expressly disclose: wherein the second light-adjusting element has a smaller concentration than that of the first light-adjusting element.
Luo does disclose altering configurations of the light-adjusting element for the purpose of adjusting display luminance and improving uniformity (¶ 0012), thus 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 second light-adjusting element with a smaller concentration than that of the first light-adjusting element for the purpose of improving luminance uniformity in a display device of a different shape. Additionally, it would have been within the skill of an ordinary artisan to pursue known options (providing a concentration (i.e., pitch) smaller than, same, or larger than that of the first light-adjusting element) within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
Regarding claim 8, Luo discloses the electronic device as claimed in claim 1, however fails to expressly disclose: wherein the second light-adjusting element has a smaller concentration than that of the first light-adjusting element.
Luo does disclose altering configurations of the light-adjusting element for the purpose of adjusting display luminance and improving uniformity (¶ 0012), thus 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 second light-adjusting element with a smaller concentration than that of the first light-adjusting element for the purpose of improving luminance uniformity in a display device of a different shape. Additionally, it would have been within the skill of an ordinary artisan to pursue known options (providing a concentration (i.e., pitch) smaller than, same, or larger than that of the first light-adjusting element) within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
Regarding claim 9, Luo (Fig. 16) discloses the electronic device as claimed in claim 8, wherein the first light-adjusting element 103 (Fig. 16 - disposed on left 101) has a thickness equal to that of the second light-adjusting element 103 (Fig. 16 - disposed on right 101) (¶ 0069).
Regarding claim 10, Luo (Fig. 15) discloses the electronic device as claimed in claim 8, wherein the first light-adjusting element 103 (Fig. 16 - disposed on left 101) has an area equal to that of the second light-adjusting element 103 (Fig. 16 - disposed on right 101) (¶ 0069).
Regarding claim 11, Luo discloses the electronic device as claimed in claim 1, however fails to expressly disclose: wherein the second light-adjusting element has a smaller area than the first light-adjusting element.
Luo does disclose altering configurations of the light-adjusting element for the purpose of adjusting display luminance and improving uniformity (¶ 0012), thus 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 second light-adjusting element with a smaller area than that of the first light-adjusting element for the purpose of improving luminance uniformity in a display device of a different shape. Additionally, it would have been within the skill of an ordinary artisan to pursue known options (providing an area smaller than, same, or larger than that of the first light-adjusting element) within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
Regarding claim 12, Luo (Fig. 16) discloses the electronic device as claimed in claim 11, wherein the first light-adjusting element 103 (Fig. 16 - disposed on left 101) has a thickness equal to that of the second light-adjusting element 103 (Fig. 16 - disposed on right 101) (¶ 0069).
Regarding claim 13, Luo (Figs. 11, 12) discloses the electronic device as claimed in claim 11 wherein the first light-adjusting element 103 has a concentration equal to that of the second light-adjusting element 103 (Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 14, Luo discloses the electronic device as claimed in claim 11, however fails to expressly disclose: wherein the second light-adjusting element has a smaller concentration than that of the first light-adjusting element.
Luo does disclose altering configurations of the light-adjusting element for the purpose of adjusting display luminance and improving uniformity (¶ 0012), thus 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 second light-adjusting element with a smaller concentration than that of the first light-adjusting element for the purpose of improving luminance uniformity in a display device of a different shape. Additionally, it would have been within the skill of an ordinary artisan to pursue known options (providing a concentration (i.e., pitch) smaller than, same, or larger than that of the first light-adjusting element) within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
Claims 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2020/0091463 A1 to Guo (hereinafter “Guo”).
Regarding claim 15, Luo discloses the electronic device as claimed in claim 1, however fails to expressly disclose: wherein the light-adjusting layer is ink. In the same field of endeavor, Guo discloses providing an ink light-adjusting layer (i.e., a lens) made of ink (¶ 0049). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a light-adjusting layer made of ink in the device of Luo for the purpose of utilizing an art-recognized technique known to be suitable for forming light-adjusting layers in electronic devices (Guo, ¶ 0049).
Regarding claim 17, Luo discloses the electronic device as claimed in claim 1, however fails to expressly disclose: further comprising an encapsulation layer, wherein at least part of the encapsulation layer is disposed between the light-emitting units and the light-adjusting layer. In the same field of endeavor, Guo (Fig. 1) discloses an electronic device including an encapsulation layer 16 (¶ 0037), wherein at least part of the encapsulation layer 16 is disposed between light-emitting units 12 (¶ 0037) and light-adjusting layer 15 (¶ 0037). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an encapsulation layer as taught by Guo in the device of Luo for the purpose of providing environmental protection (Guo, ¶ 0050).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Candice Y. Chan whose telephone number is (571)272-9013. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5 pm ET.
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, Steven B. Gauthier can be reached at 571-270-0373. 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.
CANDICE Y. CHAN
Examiner
Art Unit 2813
4 April 2026
/STEVEN B GAUTHIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights