DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the application No. 18/436,050 filed on February 8, 2024.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I, Species II, and Modification I, corresponding to device claims 1 and 3-11, in the reply filed on May 22, 2026, is acknowledged. Claims 2, 9, and 12-19 are withdrawn from consideration. Claim 9 is drawn to the non-elected species modification II. The traversal is on the ground(s) that (1) Applicant argues the alternative sequence does not result in a different structure, (2) Applicant argues the product can only be made by the claimed process, and (3) Applicant appears to argue that because the claims are amended to recite “directly or indirectly” then somehow the requirement to elect a species modification is improper. Applicant’s first point is not found persuasive because, the restriction is based on the fact that the device, i.e. the same structure, can be made by a different process, for example by using an alternative sequence. Applicant’s first argument appears to be misplaced. The restriction stated: “…the device can be made by another and materially different method…”, so to Applicant’s first point, the Examiner agrees this will not result in a different product as this was the Examiner’s position. Next, Applicant argues the product can only be made by the process as claimed. This is not true. The device (i.e. the same structure) can still be made by the same alternative sequence, e.g. the dielectric layer can still be formed first and then the chips can be placed in the openings in the dielectric layer and then the encapsulating colloids can be formed, while the method requires the sequence of forming chips, then subsequently forming encapsulating colloids corresponding to the (already placed/existing) chips, then forming a dielectric layer disposed on outer peripheries of the (already formed/existing) plurality of encapsulating colloids. Lastly, with respect to the modifications, these relate to different device structures wherein either there is a Bragg reflector layer between the chips and substrate and also between the dielectric layer and the substrate, and also between the encapsulating colloids and the substrate, and between the reflecting layer and the substrate, etc., or all of the above features contact the substrate. Notably claim 1, as originally presented, was already broad enough to encompass both scenarios since “disposed on” can be either direct or indirect (further noting “directly disposed on” does not require directly contacting under BRI and may still have intervening layers), the claim was already generic to both species modifications, further noting claim 9 depending from generic claim 1, hence the requirement to elect one of the patentably distinct devices for examination. Simply because a claim may be generic to multiple species does not change the fact that there are still independent or distinct species present as shown in Figs. 2-4 vs. Figs. 5-6, furthermore this species is specifically claimed in claim 9. Applicant elects species modification I while clearly amending the claim to more deliberately encompass species modification II. Applicant must amend claim 1 to remove at least the non-elected “or indirectly” as this limitation is now specifically directed to the non-elected species modification II in light of Applicant’s remarks.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO-1449. The IDS has been considered.
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, 6, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bibl et al. (US 2014/0339495).
(Re Claim 1) Bibl teaches a display panel, comprising (see Fig. 4C and supporting text):
a driving substrate (201);
a plurality of chips (100) directly [[or indirectly]] disposed on the driving substrate;
a plurality of encapsulating colloids (316+320+322+110, layers incorporating small particles dispersed in a matrix, e.g. QDs, phosphors, light scattering particles, etc. see ¶¶30-41, 57, 63-70, 74), wherein the plurality of encapsulating colloids corresponds to the plurality of chips in a one-to-one correspondence, and each of the plurality of encapsulating colloids covers each of the plurality of chips (Fig. 4C, regarding a plurality of colloids and chips, this is drawn to a display having a plurality of the Fig. 4C section in a large array, see entire disclosure, e.g. ¶¶51,59); and
a dielectric layer (304) disposed on the driving substrate, wherein the dielectric layer is formed on outer peripheries of the plurality of encapsulating colloids (Fig. 4C); and wherein the encapsulating colloid comprises a substrate (316+320) and a curved lens (110, ¶¶31,60-61 re lens) connected to each other, the substrate covers the chip, and the curved lens is disposed on a side of the substrate away from the chip (Fig. 4C).
(Re Claim 6) wherein the display panel further comprises a light-shielding layer (202) disposed on a side of the dielectric layer away from the driving substrate, and the light-shielding layer is distributed between two adjacent encapsulating colloids of the plurality of encapsulating colloids.
(Re Claim 8) wherein a height of the substrate above the dielectric layer is a thickness of the light-shielding layer (Fig. 4C, due to the curvature of 320 and 202 on the left side of the figure, a height from the upper surface of 304 to a point on the curved upper surface of 320 can be selected to be the same as a thickness of 202 on the left side of the drawing, specifically where the curved upper surface of 202 meets 324, the claim language does not preclude this treatment).
(Re Claim 10) wherein the curved lens comprises a Fresnel lens or a spherical lens (see ¶31: the layer(s) may form a hemispherical lens).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bibl et al. as applied above, and further in view of Kwon et al. (US 2017/0062674), Inoue et al. (US 5,880,799), Liu et al. (US 2023/0317695), and Sim et al. (US 2020/0365776).
(Re Claim 3) wherein the dielectric layer is a colloidal layer, and a refractive index of the encapsulating colloid is greater than a refractive index of the dielectric layer.
Bibl is silent regarding the dielectric layer is a colloidal layer, and a refractive index of the encapsulating colloid is greater than a refractive index of the dielectric layer. Bibl teaches the dielectric layer 304 may be comprise black matrix in a polymer or inorganic layer (¶71), however does not provide further details. A PHOSITA desiring to make and use Bibl’s display device would be motivated to look to related art to teach how to make Bibl’s disclosed black matrix dielectric bank layer 304. Related art from Kwon teaches a black matrix comprises particles in a polymer or inorganic insulating layer (¶65), however is silent regarding the particle size. Related art from Inoue teaches the black matrix particles dispersed in a polymer/resin are in a range of <100 nm (see col 3 lines 49-65, example 1 in cols 9-10, and claim 7). In light of Kwon and Inoue, a PHOSITA would recognize Bibl’s bank layer comprising black matrix is conventionally made from small black matrix particles (<100nm) dispersed in a polymer, and is a colloid material. A PHOSITA forming Bibl’s bank layer comprising the black matrix would find it obvious to form the layer using conventional materials according to Kwon and Inoue and therefore would form a colloidal layer. Regarding the relative indices of refraction of the encapsulant material vs. the bank/dielectric layer, related art from Liu teaches this relationship (¶129 and claim 17). Related art from Sim also similarly teaches this relationship (¶¶9, 111). Choosing the encapsulation to have a higher index than the bank layer increases the reflectivity at the surface of the bank layer thereby reducing the amount of light coupled into the bank layer which improves the display picture, light emission, and contrast. In view of the prior art, a PHOSITA would find it obvious to use conventional small black matrix particles in the dielectric layer, thereby using a colloid material, and to further configure the layers such that the encapsulating layer has a higher index than the surrounding bank layer to improve the display picture, light emission, and contrast.
Claims 4-5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bibl et al. as applied above, and further in view of Kwon et al. (US 2017/0062674) and Inoue et al. (US 5,880,799).
(Re Claim 4) the dielectric layer has a plurality of openings (openings in 304 where each LED is disposed), each of the plurality of openings has the encapsulating colloid, the substrate is filled in the opening, and the curved lens is disposed on the side of the substrate away from the chip (Fig. 4C).
Bibl is silent regarding the dielectric layer is a colloidal layer. Bibl teaches the dielectric layer 304 may be comprise black matrix in a polymer or inorganic layer (¶71), however does not provide further details. A PHOSITA desiring to make and use Bibl’s display device would be motivated to look to related art to teach how to make Bibl’s disclosed black matrix dielectric bank layer 304. Related art from Kwon teaches a black matrix comprises particles in a polymer or inorganic insulating layer (¶65), however is silent regarding the particle size. Related art from Inoue teaches the black matrix particles dispersed in a polymer/resin are in a range of <100 nm (see col 3 lines 49-65, example 1 in cols 9-10, and claim 7). In light of Kwon and Inoue, a PHOSITA would recognize Bibl’s bank layer comprising black matrix is conventionally made from small (<100 nm) black matrix particles dispersed in a polymer, and is a colloid material. A PHOSITA forming Bibl’s bank layer comprising the black matrix would find it obvious to form the layer using conventional materials according to Kwon and Inoue and therefore would form a colloidal layer.
(Re Claim 5) wherein the display panel further comprises a reflective layer (¶72, 312) disposed on an inner wall of the opening.
(Re Claim 11) wherein a sectional shape of the opening in a thickness direction of the dielectric layer is inverted trapezoidal (Fig. 4C).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bibl et al. as applied above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2025/0212569) and Sizov et al. (US 2020/0343230).
(Re Claim 7) wherein the display panel further comprises a protective layer overlying the plurality of encapsulating colloids and the light-shielding layer, and a refractive index of the protective layer is smaller than a refractive index of the curved lens.
Bibl is silent regarding a protective layer overlying the plurality of encapsulating colloids and the light-shielding layer, and a refractive index of the protective layer is smaller than a refractive index of the curved lens. A PHOSITA would recognize the LED display structure of Fig. 4C is incomplete and additional layers (layers such as planarization, protection, polarizers, cover glass, touch electrodes, etc.) are conventionally formed above the structure shown. A PHOSITA would be motivated to look to related art to teach suitable additional layers for the display. Related art from Lee teaches forming a protective layer 151 over the lens LS on the LED (Fig. 2). Lee also teaches selecting the materials such that the index of the lens is greater than the index of the protective layer (abstract, ¶¶69, claim 1). Related art from Sizov also teaches forming a protective layer 506 over the lens 508 (Fig. 12A), wherein the index of the lens is greater than the index of the protective layer (¶91). Selecting the indices of the lens and protective layer according to Lee and Sizov improves light extraction efficiency from the display while providing a protective layer that also serves as a planarization layer. The protective layer protecting the underlying structures from damage during subsequent processing and the planarization aspect improves downstream processing. In view of Lee and Sizov, a PHOSITA would find it obvious to incorporate a protection layer and to select the layer to have a lower index of refraction to improve light extraction from the display.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional cited art teaches LEDs and displays having various colloid layers, encapsulating layers, black matrix, and lens structures.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIK T. K. PETERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3997. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 pm (CST).
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, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. 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.
/ERIK T. K. PETERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights