DETAILED ACTION
This application, 18/450,689, attorney docket 67707-451, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This application is assigned AUO Corporation, and claims foreign priority to 112106321, filed 02/21/2023. Claims 1-20 are pending and are considered below. Note that examiner will use numbers in parentheses to indicate numbered elements in prior art figures, and brackets to point to paragraph numbers where quoted material or specific teachings can be found.
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.
Claim 3, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
As for claims 3, 14 and 15,
Claims 3, 14 and 15 recite, “the height of the micro lens is greater than or equal to about 5 μm.” It is not clear from what reference point the height is measured above.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 12 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a2 as being anticipated by Kim (U.S. 2023/0378404).
As for claim 1,
Kim teaches in figures 1E and 10A, a light-emitting unit (abstract), comprising:
a substrate (104);
a light-emitting element (102) disposed on the substrate;
and a micro lens (124) surrounding the light-emitting element, wherein the micro lens comprises a plurality of compound eye structures adjacent to each other (microlens array shown at least in figures 12A-12C),
wherein in a top view, each of the plurality of compound eye structures has a length and a width (the lenses are circular in cross section [0083], so both length and width are a diameter), the light-emitting element has a length and a width (the LEDs have a 1µ diameter, so also round as shown in figure 10A [0082]), and the length and the width of the light-emitting element in the top view and the length and the width of each of the plurality of compound eye structures in the top view substantially satisfy
1≦(L1/W1)/(L2/W2)≦1.5, (both LED and lens have equal length and width, so the ratio is 1/1.)
wherein W1 is the width of the light-emitting element in the top view, L1 is the length of the light-emitting element in the top view, W2 is the width of each of the plurality of compound eye structures in the top view, L2 is the length of each of the plurality of compound eye structures in the top view.
(Both the LED and lens a length equal to the width, so the ratio is (1/1)/(1/1).)
As for claim 2,
Kim teaches the light-emitting unit of claim 1, wherein the plurality of compound eye structures comprises a plurality of curved surfaces, each of the plurality of curved surfaces has a radius of curvature between about 0.1 μm and about 5 μm, and a height of the micro lens is greater than the radius of curvature. (the lenses are round around the Y axis 1012, so the radius of curvature is equal to the radius, 1.5 microns [0082])
As for claim 3,
Kim teaches the light-emitting unit of claim 2, wherein the height of the micro lens is greater than or equal to about 5 μm. (Kim teaches the sidewalls are 10-13 microns above the substrate, [0041] and the lens is above the sidewall).
As for claim 4,
Kim teaches the light-emitting unit of claim 2, wherein each of the plurality of the curved surfaces is a spherical curved surface protruding away from the light-emitting element. ([0081]).
As for claim 6,
Kim teaches the light-emitting unit of claim 1, and teaches a plurality of reflective walls (108, [0041]) disposed on a side wall of the light-emitting unit.
As for claim 7,
Kim teaches the light-emitting unit of claim 1, and teaches t in figure 12A that in the top view, an outline of each of the plurality of compound eye structures is substantially a rectangle.
As for claim 8,
Kim teaches the light-emitting unit of claim 1, wherein the light-emitting element is an omni-angle micro light-emitting diode, and a light-emitting angle of the light-emitting unit is between about 80 degrees and about 120 degrees. (light emission pattern shown in figure 13).
As for claim 12,
Kim teaches a light-emitting unit, comprising:
a substrate (104);
a light-emitting element (102) disposed on the substrate;
and a micro lens (124) surrounding the light-emitting element,
wherein the micro lens includes a plurality of compound eye structures adjacent to each other (microlens array shown at least in figures 12A-12C),
wherein in a top view, the light-emitting element has a shortest radial dimension (the LEDs have a 1µ diameter, so also round as shown in figure 10A [0082]), each of the plurality of compound eye structures has a shortest radial dimension, and the shortest radial dimension of the light-emitting element in the top view and the shortest radial dimension of each of the plurality of compound eye structures in the top view substantially satisfy
1≦(r1/r2)≦1.5,
wherein r1 is the shortest radial dimension of the light-emitting element in the top view, and r2 is the shortest radial dimension of each of the plurality of compound eye structures in the top view.
(Both the LED and lens a length equal to the width, so the ratio is (1/1)/(1/1).)
As for claim 14,
Kim teaches the light-emitting unit of claim 12, and Kim teaches that the plurality of compound eye structures comprises a plurality of curved surfaces, each of the plurality of curved surfaces has a radius of curvature between about 0.1 μm and about 5 μm, (the lenses are round around the Y axis 1012, so the radius of curvature is equal to the radius, 1.5 microns [0082]);
and a height of the micro lens is greater than the radius of curvature. (Kim teaches the sidewalls are 10-13 microns above the substrate, [0041] and the lens is above the sidewall).
As for claim 15,
Kim teaches the light-emitting unit of claim 14, wherein the height of the micro lens is greater than or equal to about 5 μm (Kim teaches the sidewalls are 10-13 microns above the substrate, [0041] and the lens is above the sidewall).
As for claim 16,
Kim teaches the light-emitting unit of claim 14, and each of the plurality of the curved surfaces is a spherical curved surface protruding away from the light-emitting element. ([0081], shown in figure 1E).
As for claim 17,
Kim teaches the light-emitting unit of claim 12, further comprising: a plurality of reflective walls (108, [0041]) disposed on a side wall of the light-emitting unit.
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Cui et al. (U.S. 2014/0361270).
As for claim 5,
Kim teaches the light-emitting unit of claim 1, but does not teach that the micro lens has a refractive index between about 1.7 and about 1.9.
However, Cui teaches using a high refractive index material (1.7)to form microlenses [0054].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of this application to s using a high refractive index material (1.7 or higher) to form microlenses because ca higher refractive index material improves light extraction. Cui [0054]. One skilled in the art would have combined these elements with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 9, 10, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Huang, (U.S. 2022/0006058).
As for claim 9,
Kim teaches the light-emitting unit of claim 1, but does not teach a reflective layer disposed between the substrate and the light-emitting element as well as between the substrate and the micro lens.
However, Huang teaches in figure 3, a reflective layer 25, between the substrate 10 and the LED, 22.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of this application add the reflective layer of Huang to Kim to increase light output through the microlenses. One skilled in the art would have combined these elements with a reasonable expectation of success.
As for claim 10,
Kim in view of Huang makes obvious the light-emitting unit of claim 9, and in the combination, Huang teaches that the light-emitting element has at least one surface in direct contact with the reflective layer
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of this application to build the LED directly on the reflective layer to minimize the thickness of the device. One skilled in the art would have combined these elements with a reasonable expectation of success.
As for claim 18,
Kim teaches the light-emitting unit of claim 12, but does not teach a reflective layer disposed between the substrate and the light-emitting element as well as between the substrate and the micro lens.
However, Huang teaches in figure 3, a reflective layer 25, between the substrate 10 and the LED, 22.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of this application add the reflective layer of Huang to Kim to increase light output through the microlenses. One skilled in the art would have combined these elements with a reasonable expectation of success.
As for claim 19,
Kim in view of Huang makes obvious the light-emitting unit of claim 18, w and in the combination, Huang teaches that the light-emitting element has at least one surface in direct contact with the reflective layer
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of this application to build the LED directly on the reflective layer to minimize the thickness of the device. One skilled in the art would have combined these elements with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Takayama et al. (U.S.2016/0178965).
As for claim 13,
Kim teaches the light-emitting unit of claim 12, but does not teach that in the top view, an outline of each of the plurality of compound eye structures is substantially a hexagon.
However, Takayama teaches a hexagonal microlens array [0076].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of this application to substitute ta hexagonal shape for the circular shape of Kim. It has been held by the courts that a change in shape is not novel unless the change resulted in a significant improvement. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. Here, Takayama teaches that the shapes are functional equivalents [0076] and would perform the same.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 and 20 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.
As for claims 11 and 20,
Kim in view of Huang makes obvious the light-emitting unit of claim 9, but the prior art does not teach or make obvious a micro lens that has at least one surface in direct contact with a reflective layer between the LED and the substrate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN A BODNAR whose telephone number is (571)272-4660. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th and every other Friday 7:30-5:30 Central 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, Yara Green can be reached at 571-270-3035. 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.
/JOHN A BODNAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893