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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-5, 7, 13, 15-17, and 18 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection necessitated by amendment.
Drawings
The prior drawing objections are withdrawn in view of amendments to claim 17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The prior §112(b) rejection of claim 1 is withdrawn in view of claim amendments.
Claims 1 and 18 are 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.
Claim 1 recites the newly amended limitation, “a height difference G1 between a maximum height and a minimum height of the at least one protrusion is greater than 0 µm and 40 µm or less,” in lines 9-10 of the claim. The meets and bounds of the scope of the limitation are unclear because it is unclear whether this limitation has a meaning of, “a height difference…is greater than 0 µm and is also 40 µm or less than 40 µm,” a meaning of, “a height difference…is greater than 0 µm and 40 µm, or is less than these values,” or a meaning of, “a height difference…is greater than 0 µm and is greater than a value of: 40 µm or less”. The phrase is being interpreted within this office action to have the following meaning: a height difference G1 between a maximum height and a minimum height of the at least one protrusion is greater than 0 µm and less than or equal to 40 µm.
Claim 18 recites the newly amended limitation, “a difference between a maximum height and a minimum height of the at least one protrusion is greater than 0 µm and 40 µm or less,” in lines 9-10 of the claim. The meets and bounds of the scope of the limitation are unclear because it is unclear whether this limitation has a meaning of, “a difference…is greater than 0 µm and is also 40 µm or less than 40 µm,” a meaning of, “a difference…is greater than 0 µm and 40 µm, or is less than these values,” or a meaning of, “a difference…is greater than 0 µm and is greater than a value of: 40 µm or less”. The phrase is being interpreted within this office action to have the following meaning: a height difference G1 between a maximum height and a minimum height of the at least one protrusion is greater than 0 µm and less than or equal to 40 µm.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(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, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (CN 104124324 A; hereinafter referred to as "Chen”) .
Re claim 1: Chen teaches a light emitting apparatus comprising: a light emitting device (FIG. 3: el. 8; para. 20); a first light control layer (FIG. 3: el. 11) configured to allow light transmission therethrough and covering at least part of the light emitting device (FIG. 3: el. 11, 8; para. abstract, 20, 52); and a second light control layer (FIG. 3: el. (2, 3); para. 20) disposed on the first light control layer and configured to allow light transmittance therethrough (FIG. 3: el. (2, 3); para. 7, 8, 20), wherein the first light control layer has at least one protrusion formed in a region on an upper surface thereof (annotated FIG. 3: el. 11, 1st layer protrusion) and a height difference G1 between a maximum height and a minimum height of the at least one protrusion is greater than 0 µm and less than or equal to 40 µm (annotated FIG. 3: el. 11, 1st layer protrusion; para. 26, 13, 20|Chen specifically teaches a height difference between a maximum and minimum height of the protrusion is greater than 0 µm and less than or equal to 180 µm, and as per MPEP 2144.05(i), "in the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”).
PNG
media_image1.png
531
1012
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re claim 3: Chen teaches the light emitting apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the second light control layer has at least one protrusion formed in a region on an upper surface thereof (annotated FIG. 3: el. 2nd layer protrusion| annotated FIG. 3 is provided in Re claim 1 section).
Re claim 4: Chen teaches the light emitting apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the second light control layer comprises a light diffusive material for spreading of light (FIG. 3: el. 2; para. 13: last sentence, para. 20| second light control layer comprises the diffuse material of high temperature glass particles 2 which have a light-scattering effect).
Re claim 5: Chen teaches the light emitting apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the second light control layer has a thickness of 100 µm to 300 µm (FIG. 3: el. (2, 3); para. 26| Chen specifically discloses a thickness of 30 µm to 200 µm, and as per MPEP 2144.05(i), "in the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”).
Re claim 7: Chen teaches the light emitting apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first light control layer covers an upper surface of the light emitting device (FIG. 3: el. 11, 8; para. 20).
Claims 1 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jeon et al. (US PGPub 20100052520 A1; hereinafter referred to as "Jeon”) .
Re claim 1: Jeon teaches a light emitting apparatus comprising: a light emitting device (FIG. 5: el. 70; para. 36); a first light control layer (FIG. 5: el. 260; para. 76) configured to allow light transmission therethrough and covering at least part of the light emitting device (FIG. 5: el. 260, 70; para. 76-77); and a second light control layer (FIG. 5: el. 211; para. 70) disposed on the first light control layer and configured to allow light transmittance therethrough (FIG. 5: el. 211, 260; para. 70, 75-77), wherein the first light control layer has at least one protrusion formed in a region on an upper surface thereof (annotated FIG. 5: el. protrusion; para. 71-72|protrusion labelled in annotated FIG. 5, provided below) and a height difference G1 between a maximum height and a minimum height of the at least one protrusion is greater than 0 µm and less than or equal to 40 µm (annotated FIG. 5: el. protrusion, 215; para. 72| Jeon specifically teaches a height difference between a maximum height and a minimum height of the protrusion is greater than 0.1 µm and less than or equal to 0.18 µm (1/4 of wavelength of the visible spectrum), and as per MPEP 2144.05(i), "in the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”).
PNG
media_image2.png
557
705
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re claim 18: A display apparatus (FIG. 5; para. abstract, 76-77) comprising: a substrate (FIG. 5: el. 111; para. 36); a light emitting device (FIG. 5: el. 70; para. 36) disposed on one surface of the substrate (FIG. 5: el. 70, 111); a first light control layer (FIG. 5: el. 260; para. 76) covering at least part of the light emitting device (FIG. 5: el. 260, 70; para. 76-77); and a second light control layer (FIG. 5: el. 211; para. 70) disposed on the first light control layer and configured to allow light transmittance therethrough (FIG. 5: el. 211, 260; para. 70, 75-77), wherein the first light control layer has at least one protrusion formed in a region on an upper surface thereof (annotated FIG. 5: el. protrusion; para. 71-72| protrusion labelled in annotated FIG. 5, provided in Re claim 1 section), and a difference between a maximum height and a minimum height of the at least one protrusion is greater than 0 µm and less than or equal to 40 µm (annotated FIG. 5: el. protrusion, 215; para. 72| Jeon specifically teaches a height difference between a maximum height and a minimum height of the protrusion is greater than 0.1 µm and less than or equal to 0.18 µm (1/4 of wavelength of the visible spectrum), and as per MPEP 2144.05(i), "in the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”).
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 13 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US PGPub 20210265328 A1; hereinafter referred to as "Lee”).
Re claim 13: Jeon fails to teach the light emitting apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising: a third light control layer disposed on the second light control layer.
In a similar field of endeavor, Lee teaches a light emitting apparatus (FIG. 27: para. 149), wherein a light control layer film (FIG. 27: el. 320; para. 145: sent. 1-2) is laminated to an outer surface of a light emitting display apparatus (FIG. 27; para. 145) and is on a second light control layer (FIG. 27: el. 340; para. 149) and a first light control layer (FIG. 27: el. 140; para. 145-146). Lee teaches a light emitting apparatus, further comprising: a third light control layer disposed on a second light control layer (FIG. 27: el. 320, 340; para. 145, 149). Lee also teaches a benefit of the third light control layer film is an increase in glare reduction (para. 142: sent. 2-3; para. 145: sent. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Jeon and Lee, to enable using the third light control layer of Lee in the light emitting apparatus of Jeon, for the benefit of increased glare reduction from the outer surface of the light emitting apparatus.
Re claim 15: The combination of Jeon and Lee teaches the light emitting apparatus according to claim 13, wherein the third light control layer is a film attached to an upper surface of the second light control layer and has a thickness of 1 µm or less (Lee - para. 145: sent. 2| Lee specifically discloses that the third light control layer has a thickness of 0.1 µm, and as per MPEP 2131.03, Lee anticipates this limitation of the claim by disclosing a point within the claimed range).
Re claim 16: Jeon fails to teach the light emitting apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising: an anti-glare layer disposed on the second light control layer.
In a similar field of endeavor, Lee teaches a light emitting apparatus (FIG. 27: para. 149), wherein an anti-glare light control layer film (FIG. 27: el. 320; para. 145: sent. 1-2) is laminated to an outer surface of a light emitting display apparatus (FIG. 27; para. 145) and is on a second light control layer (FIG. 27: el. 340; para. 149) and a first light control layer (FIG. 27: el. 140; para. 145-146). Lee teaches a light emitting apparatus, further comprising: an anti-glare layer disposed on a second light control layer (FIG. 27: el. 320, 340; para. 145, 149). Lee also teaches a benefit of the anti-glare layer film is an increase in glare reduction (para. 142: sent. 2-3; para. 145: sent. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Jeon and Lee, to enable using the third light control layer of Lee in the light emitting apparatus of Jeon, for the benefit of increased glare reduction from the outer surface of the light emitting apparatus.
Re claim 17: The combination of Jeon and Lee teaches the light emitting apparatus according to claim 16, wherein the anti-glare layer is an anti-glare film (Lee – FIG. 27: el. 320; para. 145) that is bonded to an upper surface of the second light control layer (Lee – FIG. 27: el. 340, 320; para. 145).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVIN GOODLING whose telephone number is (571)272-2552. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Julio Maldonado can be reached at (571) 272-1864. 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.
/D.G./Examiner, Art Unit 2898 /JULIO J MALDONADO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights