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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of species I (fig 4-10) in the reply filed on 04/23/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that figures 11-17 has the limitations as same as the figures 4-11. Therefore figures 4-10 and figures 11-17 can be considered sharing the same features and thus figures 4-17 should be examined together. This is found persuasive hence Requirement for restriction filed on 02/26/2026 has been withdrawn. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Status of the Application
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (US20230333380A1)in view of Ichinose et al (US20130002690A1).
Re claim 1 Chen teaches a display device, comprising:
a first substrate (710, fig 7A) [0090];
a light emitting unit (720, fig 7A) [0090] arranged on the first substrate (710, fig 7A) [0090] to provide a light (emit red, green and blue light) [0090]; and
a first micro lens unit (740, fig7A) [0090] arranged on the light emitting unit (720, fig 7A) [0090] to adjust (micro-lens may also collimate the light) [0091] a traveling direction of the light [0090],
wherein the first micro lens unit (740) has an arc surface (top of 740), the first micro lens unit has a height (top to bottom height of 740), the arc surface has a curvature radius (fig 7A), there is a distance from a light emitting surface (top of 720, fig 7A) of the light emitting unit (720) to a position of half the height of the first micro lens unit (half height of 740), and
where D represents the distance (top of 720 to middle of 740), H represents the height (top to bottom 740, and R1 represents the curvature radius (curvature radius of 740, fig 7A)
Chen does not explicitly teach the distance and the curvature radius satisfy: 0.5H ≤ D ≤ 3R1.
Ichinose teaches in fig 4A-4B “each of the lenses 9 has a height 19 um [0047] and a curvature radius 20 um [0047] and distance D ( height of micro-lens/2 + t2+t1=21 um) [0047, 0048] satisfy 0.5(19) ≤ 21≤ 3(20) = 0.5H ≤ D ≤ 3R1. [0047-0048].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Ichinose into the structure of Chen to include the distance and the curvature radius satisfy: 0.5H ≤ D ≤ 3R1 as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Chen based on the teaching of Ichinose in the above manner for the purpose to achieve achieving high legibility display for observation from the front of the display device [0011].
Re claim 2 Chen in view of Ichinose teach the display device as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the first micro lens unit (740, fig 7A) [ Chen, 0090] has a width (left to right) and a height (top to bottom), and the height is smaller than half of the width (0.8<1.2) .
Re claim 3 Chen in view of Ichinose teach the display device as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the first micro lens unit (740, fig 7A) [Chen, 0090] is disposed on the first substrate (710, fig 7A), and the arc surface (top of 740) is an outwardly convex arc surface facing away from the light emitting unit (720, fig 7A) [Chen , 0090].
Re claim 5 Chen in view of Ichinose teach the display device as claimed in claim 1, further comprising an intermediary layer (750, fig 7A) [Chen, 0093] disposed between the first micro lens unit (740, fig 7A) and the light emitting unit (720, fig 7A), wherein a refractive index of the intermediary layer (refractive index of 750, fig 7A) is smaller than that of the first micro lens unit (refractive index of 740, fig 7A) [Chen, 0093].
Re claim 6 Chen in view Ichinose teach the display device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the light ( has a color of red or green (emit red, green and blue light) [Chen, 0090].
Re claim 13 Chen in view Ichinose teach the display device as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a color filter unit (730, fig 7A)[Chen, 0090], wherein the color filter unit (730, fig 7A) is arranged between the first micro lens unit (740, fig 7A) and the light emitting unit (720, fig 7A), and the arc surface of the first micro lens unit (top of 740) is an outwardly convex arc surface facing away from the color filter unit (730, see fig 7A) [Chen, 0090].
Re claim 15 Chen in view Ichinose teach the display device as claimed in claim 13, wherein the first micro lens unit (740, fig 7A) [Chen, 0090,0070] is directly disposed on the color filter unit (730, fig 7A) [Chen, 0090].
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen modified by Ichinose as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Oh et al (US20190221779A1).
Re claim 4 Chenin view of Ichinose teaches the display device as claimed in claim 1,
further comprising a second substrate (760, fig 7A) [Chen, 0090] disposed opposite to the first substrate (710, fig 7A) [Chen, 0090],
Chen does not teach the first micro lens unit is disposed on the second substrate, and the arc surface is an outwardly convex arc surface facing the light emitting unit.
Oh teaches the first micro lens unit (520/510, fig 7 ) [0097] is disposed on the second substrate (301, fig. 7) [0057] and the arc surface (see fig 7) is an outwardly convex arc surface facing the light emitting unit (210, fig 7) [0070].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Oh into the structure of Chen and Ichinose to include the first micro lens unit is disposed on the second substrate, and the arc surface is an outwardly convex arc surface facing the light emitting unit as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Chen and Ichinose based on the teaching of Oh in the above manner for the purpose of improving the front visibility and luminous efficiency of the display device [0133].
Claims 7-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen modified by Ichinose as applied to claims 1, 5 and further in view of Yokoyama et al (US20200358035A1).
Re claim 7 Chen in view of Ichinose teaches the display device as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a second substrate (760, fig 1) [Chen, 0090] and a color filter unit (730, fig 7A) [Chen, 0090],
Chen does not tach the color filter unit is disposed between the first micro lens unit and the second substrate.
Yokoyama does not teach the color filter unit (5, fig 15) [0046] is disposed between the first micro lens unit (610, fig 15) [0046] and the second substrate (4, fig 15)[0046].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Yokoyama into the structure of Chen to include as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Chen and Ichinose based on the teaching of Yokoyama in the above manner for the purpose of to improve a visual field angle characteristic or to increase a radiation angle [0004].
Re claim 8 Chen in view of Yokoyama teach the display device as claimed in claim 7, wherein the arc surface (610, fig 15) [Yokoyama, 0046] is an outwardly convex arc surface (see fig 15) facing the color filter unit (5, fig 15) [Yokoyama , 0046].
Re claim 9 Chen in view of Yokoyama teach the display device as claimed in claim 7, wherein the arc surface (arc surface of 610, fig 15) [Yokoyama, 0046] is an outwardly arc surface facing the light emitting unit (20, fig 15) [Yokoyama, 0041].
Re claim 11 Chen in view of Ichinose teach the display device as claimed in claim 5,
further comprising a second substrate (760, fig 7A) [Chen 0090] and a color filter unit (730, fig 7A) [Chen, 0090],
Chen and Ichinose do not teach the color filter unit is arranged between the first micro lens unit and the second substrate, and the arc surface of the first micro lens unit is an outwardly convex arc surface facing the color filter unit.
Yokoyama taches the color filter unit (5, fig 15) [0046] is arranged between the first micro lens unit (610, fig 15) [0046] and the second substrate(4, fig 15) [0046], and the arc surface of the first micro lens unit (610, fig 15) [0046] is an outwardly convex arc surface facing the color filter unit (5, fig 15) [0046].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Yokoyama into the structure of Chen and Ichinose to include the color filter unit is arranged between the first micro lens unit and the second substrate, and the arc surface of the first micro lens unit is an outwardly convex arc surface facing the color filter unit as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Chen and Ichinose based on the teaching of Yokoyama in the above manner for the purpose of to improve a visual field angle characteristic or to increase a radiation angle [0004].
Claim10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen modified by Ichinose and Yokoyama as applied to claim 7 further in view of Shim et al (US20160087018A1) and Ueda et al (US20210399264A1).
Re claim 10 Chenin view of Ichinose and Yokoyama the display device as claimed in claim 7,
Chen, Ichinose and Yokoyama do not teach further comprising a second micro lens unit,
wherein the arc surface of the first micro lens unit is an outwardly convex arc surface, the second micro lens unit has another arc surface which is an outwardly convex arc surface facing the light emitting unit, and a width of the first micro lens unit is greater than that of the second micro lens unit.
Shim teaches further comprising a second micro lens unit (304, fig 7) [0064],
wherein the arc surface of the first micro lens unit is an outwardly convex arc surface (convex facing of 304), the second micro lens (304, fig 7)[0064] unit has another arc surface which is an outwardly convex arc surface facing the light emitting unit (130, fig 7), and a width of the first micro lens unit (302, fig 7) [0065] is greater than that of the second micro lens unit (304, fig 7) [0064].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Shim into the structure of Chen, Ichinose and Yokoyama to include Shim teaches further comprising a second micro lens unit.
wherein the arc surface of the first micro lens unit is an outwardly convex arc surface, the second micro lens unit has another arc surface which is an outwardly convex arc surface facing the light emitting unit, and a width of the first micro lens unit is greater than that of the second micro lens unit as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Chen, Ichinose and Yokoyama based on the teaching of Shim in the above manner for the purpose of improving efficiency of the device.
Chen, Ichinose, Yokoyama and Shim do not teach the second micro lens disposed between the first micro lens and the color filter unit, wherein the arc surface facing the color filter unit.
Ueda teaches the second micro lens (383, fig 39) [0181] disposed between the first micro lens (381, fig 39)[0181] and the color filter unit (50, fig 39) [0187], wherein the arc surface facing the color filter unit (50, fig 39) [0187].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Ueda into the structure of Chen, Ichinose, Yokoyama and Shim to include as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Chen, Ichinose, Yokoyama and Shim based on the teaching of Ueda in the above manner for the purpose of improving the light extraction efficiency and the chromaticity viewing angle [0200].
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen as modified by Ichinose and Yokoyama as applied to claims 1, 5, 11, and further in view of Motoyama et al (US20230097317A1) and Shim et al (US20160087018A1).
Re claim 12 Chen in view of Ichinose and Yokoyama teach the display device as claimed in claim 11,
Chen, Ichinose and Yokoyama do not teach a second micro lens unit disposed between the first micro lens unit and the color filter unit,
wherein the arc surface of the first micro lens unit is an outwardly convex arc surface facing the color filter unit, the second micro lens unit has another arc surface which is an outwardly convex arc surface facing the light emitting unit and a width of the first micro lens unit is larger than that of the second micro lens unit.
Motoyama teaches teach a second micro lens unit (52, fig 20) [0272] disposed between the first micro lens unit (51, fig 20) [0257] and the color filter unit (52, fig 20) [0257].
wherein the arc surface of the first micro lens unit (51, fig 20) is an outwardly convex arc surface (top of 51) facing the color filter unit (CF, fig 20), the second micro lens unit (52, fig 20) has another arc surface (bottom of 52, fig 20) which is an outwardly convex arc surface facing the light emitting unit (30, fig 20) [0132].
It would have been motivated to modify Chen, Ichinose and Yokoyama based on the teaching of Motoyama in the above manner for the purpose of improving the light extraction efficiency [0108].
Chen, Ichinose, Yokoyama and Motoyama do not teach a width of the first micro lens unit is larger than that of the second micro lens unit.
Shim teaches in fig 5 a width of the first micro lens unit (302, fig 5) [0064] is larger than that of the second micro lens unit (304, fig 5) [0064].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Shim into the structure of Chen, Ichinose, Yokoyama and Motoyama to include a width of the first micro lens unit is larger than that of the second micro lens unit as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Chen, Ichinose, Yokoyama and Motoyama based on the teaching of Shim in the above manner for the purpose of improving viewing angle and light efficiency, and decreased color distortion [0013].
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen modified by Ichinose as applied to claims 1, 13 and further in view of Matsusaki et al (US20190363107A1).
Re claim 14 Chen in view of Ichinose teaches the display device as claimed in claim 13,
Chen, Ichinose do not teach a base material disposed between the first micro lens unit and the color filter unit, wherein a thickness of the base material is smaller than 100 μm.
Matsusaki teaches a base material (119, fig 2) [0082] disposed between the first micro lens unit (121, fig 2) [0083] and the color filter unit (117, fig 2) [0083], wherein a thickness of the base material is smaller than 100 μm. (10 μm) [0095].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Matsusaki into the structure of Chen , Ichinose to include a base material disposed between the first micro lens unit and the color filter unit, wherein a thickness of the base material is smaller than 100 μm as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Chen, Ichinose based on the teaching Matsusaki in the above manner for the purpose of improving the light extraction efficiency.90084].
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen modified by Ichinose as applied to claims 1, 13 and further in view of Chen II et al (US 20220299787A1).
Re claim 16 Chen in view of Ichinose teach the display device as claimed in claim 13,
Chen and Ichinose do not teach a collimation structure disposed between the color filter unit and the first micro lens unit.
Chen II teaches a collimation structure (50, fig 3) [0026] disposed between the color filter unit (20, fig 3) [0043] and the first micro lens unit (10, fig 3) [0026].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Chen II into the structure of Chen and Ichinose to include a collimation structure disposed between the color filter unit and the first micro lens unit as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Chen and Ichinose based on the teaching of Chen II for the purpose of improving an accuracy of recognition.[0024]
Re claim 17 Chen in view of Ichinose and Chen II teach the display device as claimed in claim 16, wherein the collimation structure (50, fig 3) [0026] includes a plurality of black matrix layers (72/74, 82/84, 102/104, fig 3) [Chen II 0028], each having an opening (opening between 72 and 74, 82 and 84 and 102 and 104 , fig 3) [Chen II 0028] corresponding to the light emitting unit (60, fig 3) [0041].
Re claim 18 Chen in view of Ichinose and Chen II teach the display device as claimed in claim 17, wherein one of the black matrix layers (102/104, fig 3) [Chen II 0028] is closer to the light emitting unit (60, fig 3) [Chen II 0041] than another one of the black matrix layers (72/74, 82/84, fig 3) [Chen II, 0028], and a width of the opening of the one of the black matrix layers (102/104, fig 3) [Chen II] is smaller than that of the opening of the another one of the black matrix layers (72/74, fig 3) [Chen II, 0028].
Re claim 19 Chen in view of Ichinose and Chen II teach, the display device as claimed in claim 16, wherein the light emitting unit (720 , fig 7A) further comprises a light source (include a 2D array of white-light emitting micro-OLEDs) [Chen, 0090] and a light conversion (color filter layer 730 may include array of color filters that include red/green/ blue and convert emitted from OLED into red/blue/green, fig 7A) component disposed on the light source (2Darray of white light OLEDs, fig 7A) [Chen, 0090].
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (US20230333380A1) in view of Song et al (US 20210367184 A1).
Re claim 20 Chen teaches a display device, comprising:
a first substrate (710, fig 7A) [0090];
a light emitting unit (720, fig 7A) [0090] arranged on the first substrate (710, see fig 7A) to provide a light [0090].
a color filter unit (730, fig 7A) [0090] arranged on the light emitting unit (720, fig 7A) [0090]; and
an intermediary layer (epoxy, fig 7A) [0095] arranged between the color filter unit (730, fig 7A) and the light emitting unit (720, fig 7A) and surrounding the light emitting unit (see fig 7A),
Chen does not teach a pixel define layer between the light emitting unit and another adjacent light emitting unit, and a material of the pixel define layer is a highly reflective material.
Song teaches a pixel define layer (200, fig 1A) [0045] between the light emitting unit (left 300, fig 1A) [0048] and another adjacent light emitting unit (right 300, fig 1A) [0048], and a material (conductive materials silver, molybdenum) [0058] of the pixel define layer (200 , fig 1A) is a highly reflective material (material of 220 same as a material of the reflective electrode) [0058].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Song into the structure of Chen to include a pixel define layer between the light emitting unit and another adjacent light emitting unit, and a material of the pixel define layer is a highly reflective material as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Chen based on the teaching of Oh in the above manner for the purpose of improving the picture quality uniformity [0050].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRATIKSHA J LOHAKARE whose telephone number is (571)270-1920. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7.30 am-4.30 pm.
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, EVA MONTALVO can be reached at 571-270-3829. 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.
/PRATIKSHA JAYANT LOHAKARE/Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/DUY T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818 6/11/26
Prosecution Insights