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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 26 June 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-15 and 18-33 are pending.
Claims 14-15 and 18-24 are allowed.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 30 July 2026 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
In view of the amendments to the claims, the previous rejection of claim 13 under 35 USC112(b) is hereby withdrawn.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-15 and 18-24 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 14 is allowable over the cited art of record 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 14, the invention including the totality of the limitations recited in claim 14.
Claim 14 has been amended to include the limitations of previous claim 16, which were previously deemed to contain allowable subject matter.
Claims 15 and 18-24 are allowable over the cited art of record for at least the reason that they depend from claim 14.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26 June 2026 regarding the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 12-13, the applicant argues that Pan and/or Kazmierski do not specifically teach or suggest that the optical member performs the claimed diffractive artifact-suppression operation.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The optical elements of Pan and/or Kazmierski meet the claimed structure of claim 1. Diffractive properties of such an optical element are dependent on the relationship between the dimensions of the optical element, particularly its period, and the wavelength of the light. Thus, the optical element of Pan would exhibit the claimed diffractive artifact-suppression for a particular wavelength of light commensurate with the dimensions of the optical element.
It is emphasized that "[w]hile features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP § 2113; In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original, MPEP §2114). Specifically, the claim does not provide any structural features, such as dimensions of the optical element, which would distinguish the claim from the prior art in terms of structure rather than merely function.
The applicant failed to argue the previous rejection of independent claim 25 in the remarks filed 26 June 2026. However, the examiner accedes that the amendment to claim 25 overcomes the previous rejections. Therefore, the rejections of claim 25 under 35 USC 102 have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made in view of US 2021/0343895 to Pan, of record, and US 2021/0193763 to Sun and in view of US 2016/0091786 to Kazmierski et al., of record, and US 2021/0193763 to Sun.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 11, filed 26 June 2026, with respect to the rejections of claim 14 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 14-15 under 35 USC 102 have been withdrawn.
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 1-13 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pan (US 2021/0343895) of record (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, light having a first phase passes through the plurality of convex portions and light having a second phase passes through the plurality of concave portions, and the first phase is different from the second phase (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), wherein the optical member is configured to convert external light incident on and reflected from the optical member into diffractive light, and to suppress patterns of reflected external light through destructive interference between the light of the first phase and the light of the second phase (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 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 33, Pan discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Pan also discloses that the patterns of reflected external light include a radial rainbow pattern and a radial circular ring pattern (see at least Fig. 4, where similar construction to the claimed invention suggests that the device will inherently operate in the same way).
Claims 1-13 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kazmierski et al. (US 2016/0091786) of record (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, light having a first phase passes through the plurality of convex portions and light having a second phase passes through the plurality of concave portions, and the first phase is different from the second phase (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), wherein the optical member is configured to convert external light incident on and reflected from the optical member into diffractive light, and to suppress patterns of reflected external light through destructive interference between the light of the first phase and the light of the second phase (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 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 33, Kazmierski discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Kazmierski also discloses that the patterns of reflected external light include a radial rainbow pattern and a radial circular ring pattern (see at least Fig. 4, where similar construction to the claimed invention suggests that the device will inherently operate in the same way).
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.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan (US 2021/0343895) of record (hereafter Pan), in view of Sun et al. (US 2021/0193763) (hereafter Sun).
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).
Pan does not specifically disclose that the display panel includes: an opposing substrate on the light emitting element layer to face the substrate, and a color filter layer for color-converting light emitted from the light-emitting element layer, and that the color filter layer is between the light emitting element layer and the optical member.
However, Sun teaches a display panel comprising a light emitting element, a substrate, a color filter, and a lens array (see at least Fig. 9, where 160 is the color filter and 180 is the lens array, both of which are positioned atop a substrate and a light emitting element).
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 display apparatus of Pan to include the teachings of Sun so that the display panel includes: an opposing substrate on the light emitting element layer to face the substrate, and a color filter layer for color-converting light emitted from the light-emitting element layer, and that the color filter layer is between the light emitting element layer and the optical member for the purpose of achieving further color control of the display apparatus.
Claims 26 and 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan (US 2021/0343895) of record (hereafter Pan), in view of Sun et al. (US 2021/0193763) (hereafter Sun) as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of Usukura (US 2010/0039583) of record (hereafter Usukura).
Regarding claims 26, 30, and 32, Pan as modified by Sun discloses all of the limitations of claim 25.
Pan as modified by Sun 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 as modified by Sun 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 Sun and Usukura discloses all of the limitations of claim 30.
Pan as modified by Sun and 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 Sun and 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).
Claims 25-29 are rejected 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazmierski et al. (US 2016/0091786) of record(hereafter Kazmierski), in view of Sun et al. (US 2021/0193763) (hereafter Sun).
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).
Kazmierski does not specifically disclose that the display panel includes: an opposing substrate on the light emitting element layer to face the substrate, and a color filter layer for color-converting light emitted from the light-emitting element layer, and that the color filter layer is between the light emitting element layer and the optical member.
However, Sun teaches a display panel comprising a light emitting element, a substrate, a color filter, and a lens array (see at least Fig. 9, where 160 is the color filter and 180 is the lens array, both of which are positioned atop a substrate and a light emitting element).
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 display apparatus of Kazmierski to include the teachings of Sun so that the display panel includes: an opposing substrate on the light emitting element layer to face the substrate, and a color filter layer for color-converting light emitted from the light-emitting element layer, and that the color filter layer is between the light emitting element layer and the optical member for the purpose of achieving further color control of the display apparatus.
Regarding claim 26, Kazmierski as modified by Sun 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 as modified by Sun 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 as modified by Sun 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 as modified by Sun 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).
Conclusion
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
/Derek S. Chapel/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights