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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-11, 13, 16-17, 19-20, 22 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US. Pub: 2022/0399398 A1~herienafter “Kim”) in view of Kwon et al. (US. Pub: 2017/0062674 A1~hereinafter “Kwon”) of record.
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses (in at least figs. 8 and 13A) a light emitting diode display device comprising: a substrate (Sub); a driving transistor (see fig. 8) over the substrate; a reflective electrode (ALE1; [0203]) over the driving transistor and contacting the driving transistor (see at least fig. 8); a light emitting diode (LD; [0053]; [0203]) over the reflective electrode; a first planarization layer (INS1) over the reflective electrode, the first planarization layer (INS1) including a contact hole (best seen in at least fig. 13A); a connection electrode (PE1; [0099]-[0100]; best seen in at least fig. 13A) over the first planarization layer (INS1) and contacting the reflective electrode through the contact hole (See fig. 13A); wherein the reflective electrode (ALE1) and the connection electrode (ALE1) electrically connect the light emitting diode to the driving transistor.
Kim does not expressly disclose a lens over the light emitting diode, the lens having a convex curved surface; and a scattering pattern including an opening area exposing at least a portion of the convex curved surface of the lens.
Kwon discloses (in at least figs. 5, 7 and 11) a light emitting diode display device comprised of, in part, a lens (800; [0081]) the light emitting diode, the lens having a convex curved surface (see figs. 5-7); and a scattering pattern (600; [0075]) including an opening area exposing at least a portion of the convex curved surface of the lens (see figs. 5 and 7) for the benefit of expanding the viewing angle of the light emitting diode display.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the light emitting diode display device of Kim with the teachings of Kwon for the benefit of expanding the viewing angle of the device.
Regarding claim 2, Kwon discloses (in at least figs. 5 and 7) the scattering pattern (600) includes a plurality of scattering particles ([0075]).
Regarding claim 3, Kwon discloses (in at least figs. 5 and 7) the scattering pattern (600) is over the convex curved surface of the lens (see fig. 7).
Regarding claim 4, Kwon discloses (in at least figs. 5 and 7) the lens (800) further includes a flat surface facing the light emitting diode (300), the flat surface of the lens on a same plane as a lower surface of the scattering pattern (see fig. 7).
Regarding claim 5, Kwon discloses (in at least figs. 5 and 7) a thickness of the lens (800) is greater than a thickness of the scattering pattern (600).
Regarding claim 6, Kwon discloses (in at least figs. 5-7 and 11) the light emitting diode (300) is in a region that overlaps an area of the lens (800), and the region is smaller than the area of the lens (see fig. 6B).
Regarding claim 7, Kwon discloses (in at least figs. 5-7 and 11) the lens (800) corresponds to the light emitting diode (300) in a one-to-one correspondence (see figs. 5-7).
Regarding claim 8, Kwon discloses (in at least figs. 5 and 7) a plurality of lenses (800) are over one light emitting diode (300).
Regarding claim 9, Kwon discloses (in at least figs. 5-7 and 11) light having an angle less than or equal to a reference angle among light emitted from the light emitting diode (300) is incident to the lens (800), and light having an angle greater than the reference angle is incident on the scattering pattern (600; it is understood the device of Kwon is capable of doing that).
Regarding claim 10, Kwon discloses (in at least figs. 5-7) the lens (800) refracts light incident on the lens to a direction of front surface, the front surface indicates a position where a viewing angle is 0°.
Regarding claim 11, Kwon discloses (in at least figs. 5 and 7) the scattering pattern (600) is configured to refract and scatter light incident on the scattering pattern to a direction of front surface, the front surface indicates a position where a viewing angle is 0°.
Regarding claim 13, Kwon discloses (in at least fig. 11) a second planarization layer (900) between the light emitting diode (300) and the lens (800).
Regarding claim 16, Kwon discloses (in at least fig. 11) the second planarization layer (900) has the scattering pattern (600) in an area which is non-overlapping with the light emitting diode (300).
Regarding claim 17, Kwon discloses (in at least fig. 11) a third planarization layer (700) over the lens (800) and the scattering pattern (600).
Regarding claim 19, Kwon discloses (in at least fig. 11) the third planarization layer (700) is in contact with at least a portion of the convex curved surface of the lens (800).
Regarding claim 20, Kwon discloses (in at least fig. 11) light directly incident from the lens (800) to the third planarization layer (900) among light emitted from the light emitting diode (300) is partially reflected by the third planarization layer ([0078]).
Regarding claim 22, Kwon discloses (in at least fig. 11) the light emitting diode (300) is in a region in the opening area of the scattering pattern (600).
Regarding claim 23, Kwon discloses (in at least figs. 5-7 and 11) the opening area of the scattering pattern (600) has a circular shape.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-15, 17-20, and 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US. Pub: 2022/0399398 A1~herienafter “Kim”) in view of Sugitani et al. (US. Pub: 2020/0028120 A1~ hereinafter “Sugitani”) of record.
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses (in at least figs. 8 and 13A) a light emitting diode display device comprising: a substrate (Sub); a driving transistor (see fig. 8) over the substrate; a reflective electrode (ALE1; [0203]) over the driving transistor and contacting the driving transistor (see at least fig. 8); a light emitting diode (LD; [0053]; [0203]) over the reflective electrode; a first planarization layer (INS1) over the reflective electrode, the first planarization layer (INS1) including a contact hole (best seen in at least fig. 13A); a connection electrode (PE1; [0099]-[0100]; best seen in at least fig. 13A) over the first planarization layer (INS1) and contacting the reflective electrode through the contact hole (See fig. 13A); wherein the reflective electrode (ALE1) and the connection electrode (ALE1) electrically connect the light emitting diode to the driving transistor.
Kim does not expressly disclose a lens over the light emitting diode, the lens having a convex curved surface; and a scattering pattern including an opening area exposing at least a portion of the convex curved surface of the lens.
Sugitani discloses (in at least figs. 6 and 8) a lens (LNS; [0102]) over the light emitting diode, the lens (LNS) having a convex curved surface (see figs. 6 and 8); and a scattering pattern (DFP; [0101]) including an opening area (see fig. 6) exposing at least a portion of the curved surface of the lens (LNS) for the benefit of expanding the viewing angle of the light emitting diode display.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the light emitting diode display device of Kim with the teachings of Sugitani for the benefit of expanding the viewing angle of the device.
PNG
media_image1.png
384
636
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Sugitani discloses (in at least figs. 6 and 8) the scattering pattern (DFP) is over the convex curved surface of the lens (LNS).
Regarding claim 5, Sugitani discloses (in at least figs. 6 and 8; [0017]-[0018]) a thickness of the lens (LNS) is greater than a thickness of the scattering pattern (DFP).
Regarding claim 6, Sugitani discloses (in at least figs. 6 and 8) the light emitting diode (OLED) is in a region that overlaps an area of the lens (LNS), and the region is smaller than the area of the lens (LNS).
Regarding claim 7, Sugitani discloses (in at least figs. 6 and 8) the lens (LNS) corresponds to the light emitting diode (OLED) in a one-to-one correspondence.
Regarding claim 8, Sugitani discloses (in at least figs. 6 and 8) a plurality of lenses (LNS) are over one light emitting diode (OLED).
Regarding claim 9, Sugitani discloses (in at least figs. 6 and 8) light having an angle less than or equal to a reference angle among light emitted from the light emitting diode (OLED) is incident to the lens (LNS), and light having an angle greater than the reference angle is incident on the scattering pattern (see fig. 8).
Regarding claim 10, Sugitani discloses (in at least figs. 6 and 8) the lens (LNS) refracts light incident on the lens to a direction of front surface, the front surface indicates a position where a viewing angle is 0° (see fig. 8).
Regarding claim 11, Sugitani discloses (in at least figs. 6 and 8) the scattering pattern (DFP) is configured to refract and scatter light incident on the scattering pattern to a direction of front surface (see fig. 8), the front surface indicates a position where a viewing angle is 0° (see fig. 8).
Regarding claim 12, Kim as modified by Sugitani does not expressly disclose the reference angle is an angle between a range of 40° and about 50°.
However, Sugitani discloses (in at least fig. 8 below) a reference angle θ1 greater than 0 and less than 90°.
PNG
media_image2.png
582
730
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to determine the reference angle of Sugitani between a range of 40° and about 50°, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 13, Sugitani discloses (in at least figs. 6 and 8) a second planarization layer (PTL) between the light emitting diode (OLED) and the lens (LNS).
Regarding claim 14, Kim as modified by Sugitani does not expressly disclose a thickness of the second planarization layer is greater than a value obtained by subtracting a half of a width of the light emitting diode from a radius of the lens.
However, Sugitani discloses (in at least fig. 8) a second planarization layer (PTL) is formed on the light emitting diode (OLED), and a lens (LNS) is formed on top the second planarization layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to determine the thickness of the second planarization layer of Sugitani greater than a value obtained by subtracting a half of a width of the light emitting diode from a radius of the lens through routine experimentation. Also, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 15, Kim as modified by Sugitani does not expressly disclose while a center of the lens and a center of a light emitting layer of the light emitting diode are aligned on a same line, a thickness of the second planarization layer satisfies a following Equation:
tan
θ
.
s
u
b
.
i
=
T
p
r
-
d
/
2
wherein θ.sub.i denotes a first angle between a straight line perpendicular to the substrate and a straight line passing through one end of the lens from one end of the light emitting layer of the light emitting diode, Tp denotes the thickness of the second planarization layer, r denotes a radius of the lens, and d denotes a length of the light emitting diode.
However, discloses (in at least fig. 8) a center of the of the lens (LNS) and a center of a light emitting layer (OEL) of the light emitting diode (OLED) are aligned on a same line.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to form the second planarization layer thickness of Sugitani to satisfy the above equation through routine experimentation. Also, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 17, Sugitani discloses (in at least figs. 6 and 8) a third planarization layer (BFL) over the lens (LNS) and the scattering pattern (DFP).
Regarding claim 18, Sugitani discloses (in at least figs. 6 and 8) the lens (LNS) has a first refractive index ([0102]), and the third planarization layer (BFL) has a second refractive index, but fails to disclose the third planarization has refractive index less than the first refractive index.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to form the third planarization layer of Sugitani with a refractive index less than the first refractive index so that the second planarization layer may be easily bent or deformed than the lens.
Regarding claim 19, Sugitani discloses (in at least figs. 6 and 8) the third planarization layer (BFL) is in contact with at least a portion of the convex curved surface of the lens (LNS).
Regarding claim 20, Sugitani discloses (in at least figs. 6 and 8) light directly incident from the lens to the second planarization layer (CVL; [0109]) among light emitted from the light emitting diode (OLED) is partially reflected by the second planarization layer.
Regarding claim 21, Kim as modified by Sugitani discloses all the claimed limitations except for a thickness of the scattering pattern satisfies a following Equation:
sin
nlow
nhig
Sin
θ
out
-
atan
R
-
α
2
Rα
-
α
2
+
atan
R
-
α
2
Rα
-
α
2
=
asin
(
np
nhigh
sin
(
atan
2
Rα
-
a
2
-
d
2
R
-
α
+
TP
)
)
wherein n.sub.low represents a refractive index of the second planarization layer, θ.sub.out represents a second angle between light transmitted to the second planarization layer and a straight line perpendicular to a normal line of the light emitting diode at a point where the convex curved surface of the lens meets an upper surface of the scattering pattern, n.sub.high represents a refractive index of the lens, R represents a radius of curvature of the lens, a represent a difference between a height of the lens and the thickness of the scattering pattern, np represents a refractive index of a first planarization layer between the light emitting diode and the lens, Tp represents a thickness of the first planarization layer, and d represents a length of the light emitting diode.
However, Sugitani discloses (in at least fig. 6) a scattering layer (DFP).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use any suitable means to determine the scattering thickness of Sugitani, since such modification would be within the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art. Lastly, one of ordinary skill in the art would determine the thickness of the scattering layer of Sugitani through routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 22, Sugitani discloses (in at least figs. 6 and 8) the light emitting diode (OLED) is in a region in the opening area of the scattering pattern (DFP).
Regarding claim 23, Sugitani discloses (in at least figs. 6-8) the opening area of the scattering pattern (DFP) has a circular shape (see fig. 7).
Regarding claim 24, Sugitani discloses (in at least figs. 6 and 8) the lens (LNS) has a first refractive index ([0102]), the scattering pattern (DFP) includes an organic material having a second refractive index ([0107]-[0108]), and the second refractive index is less than the first refractive index ([0102]; [0107]-[0108]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-24 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 ELMITO BREVAL whose telephone number is (571)270-3099. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th~ 7:30-5:30.
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, James R. Greece can be reached at 571-272-3711. 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.
ELMITO BREVAL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2875
/ELMITO BREVAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights