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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-32 are pending.
Claims 16-24 have been deemed to contain allowable subject matter and are objected to.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “wherein the pattern portion is provided as one of a curved pattern, a wave pattern, a triangular wave pattern, a zigzag pattern, and a lens-shaped pattern” is indefinite because not all of the listed shapes are compatible with amended claim 1, which requires that each of the plurality of convex portions has a pointed tip in a cross-section view and adjacent convex portions are separated by a smoothly curved concave valley. For example, the patterns illustrated in figures 12A and 12B, described respectively as a curved pattern or a wave pattern (see paragraph [0171] of the present specification) and a zigzag pattern (see paragraph [0172] of the present specification) do not appear to meet the limitations of amended claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-11 of the remarks, filed 23 January 2026, with respect to the rejections of independent claims 1, 14, and 25 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made in view of Pan (US 2021/0343895) and in view of Kazmierski et al. (US 2016/0091786).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-24 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.
Claim 16 is objected to for at least the reason that the prior art fails to teach or suggest a display apparatus including a light extraction portion disposed on the substrate and in each of the plurality of subpixels and wherein the light extraction portion overlaps at least one of the plurality of high points and the plurality of low points, as generally set forth in claim 16, the invention including the totality of the limitations recited in claim 14, from which claim 16 depends.
Claims 17-24 are objected to for at least the reason that they depend from claim 16.
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 1-15 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pan (US 2021/0343895) (hereafter Pan).
Regarding claim 1, Pan discloses an optical member (see at least Fig. 4) comprising: a first layer including a pattern portion having a plurality of concave portions and a plurality of convex portions (see at least Fig. 4, where 212 is a first layer); and a second layer on the first layer, the second layer covering the pattern portion (see at least Fig. 4, where 211 is a second layer), wherein the first layer and the second layer have their respective refractive indexes different from each other (see at least Fig. 4 and paragraphs [0057]-[0058], where the lens array 211 and the planarization layer 212 must inherently have different refractive indices, otherwise the lenses would not refract light at their boundary and thus would not be lenses), and wherein, in operation, a first phase of light passing through the plurality of convex portions is different from a second phase of light passing through the plurality of concave portions (see at least Fig. 4, where similar construction to the claimed invention suggests that the device will inherently operate in the same way), wherein each of the plurality of convex portions has a pointed tip in cross-sectional view and adjacent convex portions are separated by a smoothly curved concave valley (see at least Fig. 4), and wherein the optical member is distinct from a light emitting element layer (see at least Fig. 5).
Figure 4 is reproduced below.
PNG
media_image1.png
218
792
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Pan discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Pan also discloses that the first layer includes a plurality of first points on an uppermost side of each of the plurality of convex portions, wherein the second layer includes a plurality of second points between the plurality of first points, and wherein the first phase of the light passing through the plurality of first points is different from the second phase of the light passing through the plurality of second points (see at least Fig. 4, where light passing through the first and second points will inherently have different phases).
Figure 4 has been reproduced and annotated below to show the first and second points.
PNG
media_image2.png
218
792
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3¸ Pan discloses all of the limitations of claim 2.
Pan also discloses that the plurality of first points is at a same height as the plurality of second points with respect to a rear surface of the first layer (see at least Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 4, Pan discloses all of the limitations of claim 2.
Pan also discloses that each of the plurality of second points is at the center between adjacent first points of the plurality of first points (see at least Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 5, Pan discloses all of the limitations of claim 2.
Pan also discloses that the light of the first phase, which passes through the first layer, and the light of the second phase, which passes through the second layer, have reduced intensity of light based on at least one of constructive interference or destructive interference (see at least Fig. 4, where the lens array will operate as a diffraction grating, as such the constructive or destructive interference is inherent and depends on the wavelength of light being transmitted through the optical member).
Regarding claim 6¸ Pan discloses all of the limitations of claim 5.
Pan also discloses that the intensity of light is further reduced as a difference in a refractive index between the first layer and the second layer is increased (see at least Fig. 4, where the interference pattern of the lens will be determined by the refractive index difference between the two layers as is known from standard optics principles and increasing the difference will shorten the focal length of the lenses, thus creating a greater blurring effect at a same distance beyond the focal length).
Regarding claim 7, Pan discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Pan also discloses that an upper surface of the second layer is planar (see at least Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 8, Pan discloses all of the limitations of claim 2.
Pan also discloses that a phase difference δ between the light of the first phase and the light of the second phase satisfies δ = (N-1) d sin θ + |Δ|, where ‘N’ is a sum of the number of the first points and the number of the second points, ‘d’ is a distance between the first point and the second point, ｜△｜is an absolute value of a phase difference between the light of the first phase and the light of the second phase in the first layer and the second layer, and θ is an emission angle of each of the light of the first phase and the light of the second phase with respect to a rear surface of the first layer (see at least Fig. 4, where the relationship is inherent for the lens array illustrated).
The examiner notes that the equation δ=(N-1) x d x sinθ +|Δ| is a derivative of the equation for a diffraction grating and would be inherent to the lens array of Pan.
Regarding claim 9, Pan discloses all of the limitations of claim 8.
Pan also discloses that the absolute value |Δ| of the phase difference between the light of the first phase and the light of the second phase in the first layer and the second layer satisfies |Δ| = |(n2 – n1) h / cos θ|, where ‘n2’ is a second refractive index of the first layer, ‘n1’ is a first refractive index of the second layer, ‘h’ is a depth of the concave portion, and θ is an emission angle of each of the light of the first phase and the light of the second phase with respect to the rear surface of the first layer (see at least Fig. 4, where the relationship is inherent for the lens array illustrated).
Regarding claim 10, Pan discloses all of the limitations of claim 8.
Pan also discloses that the absolute value |Δ| of the phase difference between the light of the first phase and the light of the second phase in the first layer and the second layer satisfies |Δ| = |Δr1 - Δr2|, where Δr1 is the first phase of light passing through the plurality of convex portions, and Δr2 is the second phase of light passing through the plurality of concave portions (see at least Fig. 4, where the relationship is inherent for the lens array illustrated).
Regarding claim 11, Pan discloses all of the limitations of claim 10.
Pan also discloses that the first phase Δr1 is provided to satisfy Δr1 = n2 t / cos θ, where ‘n2’ is a second refractive index of the first layer, ‘t’ is a height of the convex portion from a rear surface of the first layer, and θ is an emission angle of each of the light of the first phase and the light of the second phase with respect to the rear surface of the first layer (see at least Fig. 4, where the relationship is inherent for the lens array illustrated).
Regarding claim 12, Pan discloses all of the limitations of claim 10.
Pan also discloses that the second phase Δr2 is provided to satisfy Δr2 = n1 h / cos θ + n2 (t-h) / cos θ, where ‘n1’ is a first refractive index of the second layer, ‘h’ is a depth of the concave portion, ‘n2’ is a second refractive index of the first layer, ‘t’ is a height of the convex portion from the rear surface of the first layer, and θ is an emission angle of each of the light of the first phase and the light of the second phase with respect to the rear surface of the first layer (see at least Fig. 4, where the relationship is inherent for the lens array illustrated).
Regarding claim 13, Pan discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Pan also discloses that the pattern portion is provided as a lens-shaped pattern (see at least Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 14, Pan discloses a display apparatus comprising: a display panel displaying an image, the display panel including a light emitting element layer, and an optical panel coupled to the display panel (see at least Fig. 5 and paragraph [0059]), wherein the optical panel includes an optical member (see at least Fig. 4) including: a first layer including a top surface and a bottom surface opposite to the top surface, the top surface of the first layer having a pattern portion including a plurality of pointed tip structures in cross-section, adjacent pointed tip structures being connected by a smoothly curved portion forming a dome-shaped valley in cross-section, the pattern portion having a plurality of high points and a plurality of low points (see at least Fig. 4, where 212 is a first layer); and a second layer on the first layer, the second layer on the top surface of the pattern portion of the first layer (see at least Fig. 4, where 211 is a second layer), wherein the first layer and the second layer have their respective refractive indexes different from each other (see at least Fig. 4 and paragraphs [0057]-[0058], where the lens array 211 and the planarization layer 212 must inherently have different refractive indices, otherwise the lenses would not refract light at their boundary and thus would not be lenses), wherein the second layer includes a plurality of middle points in the middle of adjacent high points of the plurality of high points (see at least Fig. 4), wherein, in operation, a first phase of light passing through the high points is different from a second phase of light passing through the plurality of middle points (see at least Fig. 4, where similar construction to the claimed invention suggests that the device will inherently operate in the same way), and wherein the optical member is distinct from the light emitting element layer (see at least Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 15, Pan discloses all of the limitations of claim 14.
Pan also discloses that the optical panel is coupled to an upper side of the display panel (see at least Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 25, Pan discloses a display apparatus comprising: a display panel displaying an image, the display panel including a light emitting element layer, and an optical panel on and coupled to the display panel (see at least Fig. 5 and paragraph [0059]), wherein the optical panel includes an optical member (see at least Fig. 4) including: a first layer having a pattern portion, the pattern portion having a top surface, the pattern portion having a first high point and a second high point that are adjacent to each other, the first high point and the second high point being separated by a smoothly curved concave valley, the first high point and the second high point having a pointed tip in cross-sectional view (see at least Fig. 4, where 212 is a first layer); and a second layer on the first layer, the second layer disposed along the top surface of the pattern portion of the first layer (see at least Fig. 4, where 211 is a second layer), wherein the first layer and the second layer have their respective refractive indexes different from each other (see at least Fig. 4 and paragraphs [0057]-[0058], where the lens array 211 and the planarization layer 212 must inherently have different refractive indices, otherwise the lenses would not refract light at their boundary and thus would not be lenses), wherein the top surface of the pattern portion has a selected curvature between the first high point and the second high point (see at least Fig. 4), wherein a third point is located between the first high point and the second high point (see at least Fig. 4), wherein, in operation, external light is received through the optical panel and into the optical member (see at least Fig. 8), wherein a first phase of the external light passing through the first high point is different from a second phase of the external light passing through the third point (see at least Fig. 4, where similar construction to the claimed invention suggests that the device will inherently operate in the same way), and wherein the optical member is distinct from the light emitting element layer (see at least Fig. 5).
Claims 1-15 and 25-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kazmierski et al. (US 2016/0091786) (hereafter Kazmierski).
Regarding claim 1, Kazmierski discloses an optical member (see at least Fig. 4) comprising: a first layer including a pattern portion having a plurality of concave portions and a plurality of convex portions (see at least Fig. 4, where intermediate layer 230 is a first layer); and a second layer on the first layer, the second layer covering the pattern portion (see at least Fig. 4, where second lens array 245A is a second layer), wherein the first layer and the second layer have their respective refractive indexes different from each other (see at least Fig. 4 and paragraphs [0026], where the intermediate layer 230 and the second lens array 245A have different indices of refraction), and wherein, in operation, a first phase of light passing through the plurality of convex portions is different from a second phase of light passing through the plurality of concave portions (see at least Fig. 4, where similar construction to the claimed invention suggests that the device will inherently operate in the same way), wherein each of the plurality of convex portions has a pointed tip in cross-sectional view and adjacent convex portions are separated by a smoothly curved concave valley (see at least Fig. 4), and wherein the optical member is distinct from a light emitting element layer (see at least Fig. 4).
Figure 4 is reproduced below.
PNG
media_image3.png
402
568
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Kazmierski discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Kazmierski also discloses that the first layer includes a plurality of first points on an uppermost side of each of the plurality of convex portions, wherein the second layer includes a plurality of second points between the plurality of first points, and wherein the first phase of the light passing through the plurality of first points is different from the second phase of the light passing through the plurality of second points (see at least Fig. 4, where light passing through the first and second points will inherently have different phases).
Regarding claim 3¸ Kazmierski discloses all of the limitations of claim 2.
Kazmierski also discloses that the plurality of first points is at a same height as the plurality of second points with respect to a rear surface of the first layer (see at least Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 4, Kazmierski discloses all of the limitations of claim 2.
Kazmierski also discloses that each of the plurality of second points is at the center between adjacent first points of the plurality of first points (see at least Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 5, Kazmierski discloses all of the limitations of claim 2.
Kazmierski also discloses that the light of the first phase, which passes through the first layer, and the light of the second phase, which passes through the second layer, have reduced intensity of light based on at least one of constructive interference or destructive interference (see at least Fig. 4, where the lens array will operate as a diffraction grating, as such the constructive or destructive interference is inherent and depends on the wavelength of light being transmitted through the optical member).
Regarding claim 6¸ Kazmierski discloses all of the limitations of claim 5.
Kazmierski also discloses that the intensity of light is further reduced as a difference in a refractive index between the first layer and the second layer is increased (see at least Fig. 4, where the interference pattern of the lens will be determined by the refractive index difference between the two layers as is known from standard optics principles and increasing the difference will shorten the focal length of the lenses, thus creating a greater blurring effect at a same distance beyond the focal length).
Regarding claim 7, Kazmierski discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Kazmierski also discloses that an upper surface of the second layer is planar (see at least Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 8, Kazmierski discloses all of the limitations of claim 2.
Kazmierski also discloses that a phase difference δ between the light of the first phase and the light of the second phase satisfies δ = (N-1) d sin θ + |Δ|, where ‘N’ is a sum of the number of the first points and the number of the second points, ‘d’ is a distance between the first point and the second point, ｜△｜is an absolute value of a phase difference between the light of the first phase and the light of the second phase in the first layer and the second layer, and θ is an emission angle of each of the light of the first phase and the light of the second phase with respect to a rear surface of the first layer (see at least Fig. 4, where the relationship is inherent for the lens array illustrated).
The examiner notes that the equation δ=(N-1) x d x sinθ +|Δ| is a derivative of the equation for a diffraction grating and would be inherent to the lens array of Kazmierski.
Regarding claim 9, Kazmierski discloses all of the limitations of claim 8.
Kazmierski also discloses that the absolute value |Δ| of the phase difference between the light of the first phase and the light of the second phase in the first layer and the second layer satisfies |Δ| = |(n2 – n1) h / cos θ|, where ‘n2’ is a second refractive index of the first layer, ‘n1’ is a first refractive index of the second layer, ‘h’ is a depth of the concave portion, and θ is an emission angle of each of the light of the first phase and the light of the second phase with respect to the rear surface of the first layer (see at least Fig. 4, where the relationship is inherent for the lens array illustrated).
Regarding claim 10, Kazmierski discloses all of the limitations of claim 8.
Kazmierski also discloses that the absolute value |Δ| of the phase difference between the light of the first phase and the light of the second phase in the first layer and the second layer satisfies |Δ| = |Δr1 - Δr2|, where Δr1 is the first phase of light passing through the plurality of convex portions, and Δr2 is the second phase of light passing through the plurality of concave portions (see at least Fig. 4, where the relationship is inherent for the lens array illustrated).
Regarding claim 11, Kazmierski discloses all of the limitations of claim 10.
Kazmierski also discloses that the first phase Δr1 is provided to satisfy Δr1 = n2 t / cos θ, where ‘n2’ is a second refractive index of the first layer, ‘t’ is a height of the convex portion from a rear surface of the first layer, and θ is an emission angle of each of the light of the first phase and the light of the second phase with respect to the rear surface of the first layer (see at least Fig. 4, where the relationship is inherent for the lens array illustrated).
Regarding claim 12, Kazmierski discloses all of the limitations of claim 10.
Kazmierski also discloses that the second phase Δr2 is provided to satisfy Δr2 = n1 h / cos θ + n2 (t-h) / cos θ, where ‘n1’ is a first refractive index of the second layer, ‘h’ is a depth of the concave portion, ‘n2’ is a second refractive index of the first layer, ‘t’ is a height of the convex portion from the rear surface of the first layer, and θ is an emission angle of each of the light of the first phase and the light of the second phase with respect to the rear surface of the first layer (see at least Fig. 4, where the relationship is inherent for the lens array illustrated).
Regarding claim 13, Kazmierski discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Kazmierski also discloses that the pattern portion is provided as a lens-shaped pattern (see at least Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 14, Kazmierski discloses a display apparatus comprising: a display panel displaying an image, the display panel including a light emitting element layer, and an optical panel coupled to the display panel (see at least Figs. 1A, 1B, and 2), wherein the optical panel includes an optical member (see at least Fig. 4) including: a first layer including a top surface and a bottom surface opposite to the top surface, the top surface of the first layer having a pattern portion including a plurality of pointed tip structures in cross-section, adjacent pointed tip structures being connected by a smoothly curved portion forming a dome-shaped valley in cross-section, the pattern portion having a plurality of high points and a plurality of low points (see at least Fig. 4, where intermediate layer 230 is a first layer); and a second layer on the first layer, the second layer on the top surface of the pattern portion of the first layer (see at least Fig. 4, where second les array 245A is a second layer), wherein the first layer and the second layer have their respective refractive indexes different from each other (see at least Fig. 4 and paragraph [0026], where intermediate layer 230 and the second lens array 245A have different refractive indices), wherein the second layer includes a plurality of middle points in the middle of adjacent high points of the plurality of high points (see at least Fig. 4), wherein, in operation, a first phase of light passing through the high points is different from a second phase of light passing through the plurality of middle points (see at least Fig. 4, where similar construction to the claimed invention suggests that the device will inherently operate in the same way), and wherein the optical member is distinct from the light emitting element layer (see at least Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 15, Kazmierski discloses all of the limitations of claim 14.
Kazmierski also discloses that the optical panel is coupled to an upper side of the display panel (see at least Figs. 1A, 1B, and 2).
Regarding claim 25, Kazmierski discloses a display apparatus comprising: a display panel displaying an image, the display panel including a light emitting element layer, and an optical panel on and coupled to the display panel (see at least Figs. 1A, 1B, and 2), wherein the optical panel includes an optical member (see at least Fig. 4) including: a first layer having a pattern portion, the pattern portion having a top surface, the pattern portion having a first high point and a second high point that are adjacent to each other, the first high point and the second high point being separated by a smoothly curved concave valley, the first high point and the second high point having a pointed tip in cross-sectional view (see at least Fig. 4, where intermediate layer 230 is a first layer); and a second layer on the first layer, the second layer disposed along the top surface of the pattern portion of the first layer (see at least Fig. 4, where second lens array 245A is a second layer), wherein the first layer and the second layer have their respective refractive indexes different from each other (see at least Fig. 4 and paragraph [0026], where intermediate layer 230 and second lens array 245A have different refractive indices), wherein the top surface of the pattern portion has a selected curvature between the first high point and the second high point (see at least Fig. 4), wherein a third point is located between the first high point and the second high point (see at least Fig. 4), wherein, in operation, external light is received through the optical panel and into the optical member (see at least Fig. 4), wherein a first phase of the external light passing through the first high point is different from a second phase of the external light passing through the third point (see at least Fig. 4, where similar construction to the claimed invention suggests that the device will inherently operate in the same way), and wherein the optical member is distinct from the light emitting element layer (see at least Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 26, Kazmierski discloses all of the limitations of claim 25.
Kazmierski does not specifically disclose a phase delay layer adjacent to the optical member, wherein the phase delay layer, in operation, delays a phase of the external light by a selected amount (see at least Fig. 4, where quarter wave plate 420 is a phase delay layer).
Regarding claim 27, Kazmierski discloses all of the limitations of claim 26.
Kazmierski also discloses that the optical member is between the phase delay layer and the display panel (see at least Figs. 1A, 1B, 2, and 4).
Regarding claim 28, Kazmierski discloses all of the limitations of claim 27.
Kazmierski also discloses that the second layer of the optical member is in contact with the phase delay layer (see at least Fig. 4 and paragraph [0030], where polarization preserving diffuser 430 is optional and the various elements can be put together with no space between them).
Regarding claim 29, Kazmierski discloses all of the limitations of claim 27.
Kazmierski also discloses that the second layer of the optical member is spaced apart from the phase delay layer (see at least Fig. 4).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 26 and 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan (US 2021/0343895) (hereafter Pan) as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of Usukura (US 2010/0039583) (hereafter Usukura).
Regarding claims 26, 30, and 32, Pan discloses all of the limitations of claim 25.
Pan does not specifically disclose a phase delay layer adjacent to the optical member, wherein the phase delay layer, in operation, delays a phase of the external light by a selected amount, wherein the phase delay layer is between the optical member and the display panel, and wherein the first layer of the optical member is spaced apart from the phase delay layer.
However, Usukura teaches a display apparatus (see at least the abstract) comprising an optical member in the form of a microlens array and a phase delay layer adjacent to the optical member, wherein the phase delay layer, in operation, delays a phase of the external light by a selected amount, wherein the phase delay layer is between the optical member and a display panel, and wherein the optical member is spaced apart from the phase delay layer (see at least Figs. 1 and 6 and paragraph [0080], where microlens array 14 is the optical member and phase difference plate 48 is a phase delay layer).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Pan to include the teachings of Usukura so that the apparatus comprises a phase delay layer adjacent to the optical member, wherein the phase delay layer, in operation, delays a phase of the external light by a selected amount, wherein the phase delay layer is between the optical member and the display panel, and wherein the first layer of the optical member is spaced apart from the phase delay layer for the purpose of improving viewing angle and contrast of the display (see at least paragraph [0038] of Usukura).
Regarding claim 31, Pan as modified by Usukura discloses all of the limitations of claim 30.
Pan as modified by Usukura does not specifically disclose that the first layer of the optical member is in contact with the phase delay layer.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the display apparatus of Pan as modified by Usukura so that the protection layer 35, which is between the microlens array 14 and the phase difference layer 48 in the device taught by Usukura, is either moved to a different location within the optical stack or is adapted to fill the microlens array, thus becoming a layer equivalent to the first layer of the optical element disclosed by Pan, since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of elements without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to rearrange the layers of the apparatus such that the first layer of the optical member is in contact with the phase delay layer, for the purpose of making the device more compact. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ7 (CCPA 1975).
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 ADAM W BOOHER whose telephone number is (571)270-0573. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 8:00am - 4:00pm.
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/A.W.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights