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 .
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.
The following title is suggested: Organic Light Emitting Display Apparatus with a Light Guide Member Including a Plurality of Lenses with an Atypical Arrangement Structure.
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.
Claims 1-5, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wako et al (US 2010/0142185) in view of Yuki et al (US 2014/0146561), and in further view of Yagi et al (US 2023/0273362).
Regarding Claim 1, Wako et al discloses an organic (organic [0044] Fig 1) light emitting display apparatus (display device 1 [0039] Fig 1), comprising:
a display panel (display panel 10 and illuminating device 20 [0044] Fig 1) including a light extracting portion (extracting light [0006]) having a curved portion (shown in Fig 2B), and
a light emitting device layer (organic EL element 25 [0044] Fig 2B) on or coupled to the light extracting portion (shown in Fig 2B).
Wako et al does not disclose
a light guide member on or below a light extraction surface of the display panel, wherein the light guide member includes: a plurality of lens patterns having an atypical arrangement structure; and
a refractive layer on or below the plurality of lens patterns.
Yuki et al, in the related art of semiconductor devices that include display devices, discloses
a light guide member (light guide plate 22 [0092] Fig 1) on or below a light extraction surface (prisms 23e [0127]) of the display panel (display panel 10 [0088] Fig 1) and a low refractive layer (24 [0116] Fig 1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wako et al to include a light guide member below the display panel and a low refractive layer as taught by et al in order to illuminate the display panel [0002]. Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a light guide plate would be advantageous for mixing light from internal light sources at a high degree [0002], which would optimize the light emitting function capability of the light emitting device (see MPEP 2143.I(D)).
The combination of Wako et al and Yuki et al does not disclose
wherein the light guide member includes: a plurality of lens patterns having an atypical arrangement structure; and
a refractive layer on or below the plurality of lens patterns.
Yagi et al, in the related art of semiconductor devices that include display devices, discloses
wherein the light guide member (light guide plate 14 and light guide lens 21 [0050] Fig 3) includes: a plurality of lens patterns (first circular arc shaped face 21A and first light guide light emission surface 14B [0050] Fig 3) having an atypical arrangement structure (shown in Fig 3).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Wako et al and Yuki et al to include a plurality of lens patterns having an atypical arrangement structure as taught by Yagi et al in order to improve viewing angle characteristics and brightness [0049]. Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that having a plurality of lens patterns having an atypical arrangement structure would help optimize the refraction and interference of light and improve the optical function of the device (see MPEP 2143.I(D)).
The combination of Wako et al, Yuki et al, and Yagi et al now discloses
a refractive layer (24 Fig 1 Yuki et al) on or below the plurality of lens patterns (21A and 14B and 21 Fig 3 Yagi et al).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Wako et al, Yuki et al, and Yagi et al discloses the limitation of claim 1 as explained above. The combination of Wako et al, Yuki et al, and Yagi et al further discloses
wherein: each of the plurality of lens patterns (21A and 14B and 21 in guide plate 14 Fig 3 Yagi et al) has a first refractive index (guide plate 14 has a sufficiently higher refractive index than that of the air and that is substantially transparent [0039] Yagi et al); and
the refractive layer (24 Fig 1 Yuki et al) has a second refractive index different from the first refractive index (the light guide and a low refractive layer having a smaller refractive index than the light guide [0020] Yuki et al).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Wako et al, Yuki et al, and Yagi et al discloses the limitation of claim 1 as explained above. The combination of Wako et al, Yuki et al, and Yagi et al further discloses
wherein at least some of the plurality of lens patterns (21A and 14B and 21 in guide plate 14 Fig 3 Yagi et al) are disposed to have different diameters or different pitches (shown in Fig 3 Yagi et al).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Wako et al, Yuki et al, and Yagi et al discloses the limitation of claim 1 as explained above. The combination of Wako et al, Yuki et al, and Yagi et al further discloses
wherein: each of the plurality of lens patterns (21A and 14B and 21 in guide plate 14 Fig 3 Yagi et al) includes a bottom surface (shown in Fig 3 Yagi et al) and a convex surface (shown in Fig 3 Yagi et al);
the bottom surfaces of at least some the plurality of lens patterns (21A and 14B and 21 in guide plate 14 Fig 3 Yagi et al) are configured to have different diameters (shown in Fig 3 Yagi et al);
the plurality of lens patterns (21A and 14B and 21 in guide plate 14 Fig 3 Yagi et al) comprise a lens pattern (21A and 14B and 21 in guide plate 14 Fig 3 Yagi et al) and another adjacent (shown in Fig 3 Yagi et al) lens pattern (21A and 14B and 21 in guide plate 14 Fig 3 Yagi et al); and
the bottom surface of the lens pattern (21A and 14B and 21 in guide plate 14 Fig 3 Yagi et al) is disposed to be connected (shown in Fig 3 Yagi et al) to the bottom surface of the another adjacent lens pattern (21A and 14B and 21 in guide plate 14 Fig 3 Yagi et al).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Wako et al, Yuki et al, and Yagi et al discloses the limitation of claim 1 as explained above. The combination of Wako et al, Yuki et al, and Yagi et al further discloses
wherein the light guide member (light guide plate 14 and light guide lens 21 [0050] Fig 3 Yagi et al) includes: a plurality of concave portions (shown in Fig 3 Yagi et al) between the plurality of lens patterns (21A and 14B and 21 in guide plate 14 Fig 3 Yagi et al);
a first surface (shown in annotated Fig 3 Yagi et al) configured by a bottom surface (shown in annotated Fig 3 Yagi et al) of each of the plurality of lens patterns (21A and 14B and 21 in guide plate 14 Fig 3 Yagi et al); and
a second surface (shown in annotated Fig 3 Yagi et al) configured by the refractive layer (24 Yuki et al), and
wherein at least some of the plurality of concave portions (shown in Fig 3 Yagi et al) have different heights (shown in Fig 3 Yagi et al) from the first surface (shown in annotated Fig 3 Yagi et al) of the light guide member (light guide plate 14 and light guide lens 21 [0050] Fig 3 Yagi et al).
PNG
media_image1.png
910
1459
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 22, Wako et al discloses a light emitting display apparatus (display device 1 [0039] Fig 1), comprising:
a light extracting portion (extracting light [0006], portion shown in Fig 2B);
a light emitting device layer (organic EL element 25 [0044] Fig 2A) coupled to or overlapping the light extracting portion (shown in Fig 2B).
Wako et al does not disclose
a light guide member overlapping the light emitting device layer and the light extracting portion, wherein: the light guide member is configured to diffract or scatter light from the light emitting device layer or the light extracting portion; and
the light guide member includes: a plurality of light refraction patterns having an irregular arrangement structure; and
a refractive layer on or below the plurality of light refraction patterns.
Yuki et al, in the related art of semiconductor devices that include display devices, discloses
a light guide member (light guide plate 22 [0092] Fig 12) overlapping the light emitting device layer (layer of LED 21 [0091] Fig 4) and light extraction portion (prisms 23e [0127] Fig 12), wherein: the light guide member (22 Fig 12) is configured to diffract or scatter light from the light emitting device layer (21 Fig 4) or the light extracting portion (prisms 23e Fig 12) and a low refractive layer (24 [0116] Fig 1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wako et al to include a light guide member below the display panel and a low refractive layer as taught by et al in order to illuminate the display panel [0002]. Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a light guide plate would be advantageous for mixing light from internal light sources at a high degree [0002], which would optimize the light emitting function capability of the light emitting device (see MPEP 2143.I(D)).
The combination of Wako et al and Yuki et al does not disclose
the light guide member includes: a plurality of light refraction patterns having an irregular arrangement structure; and
a refractive layer on or below the plurality of light refraction patterns.
Yagi et al, in the related art of semiconductor devices that include display devices, discloses
wherein the light guide member (light guide plate 14 and light guide lens 21 [0050] Fig 3) includes: a plurality of light refraction patterns (first circular arc shaped face 21A and first light guide light emission surface 14B [0050] Fig 3) having an atypical arrangement structure (shown in Fig 3).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Wako et al and Yuki et al to include a plurality of light refractive patterns having an atypical arrangement structure as taught by Yagi et al in order to improve viewing angle characteristics and brightness [0049]. Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that having a plurality of lens patterns having an atypical arrangement structure would help optimize the refraction and interference of light and improve the optical function of the device (see MPEP 2143.I(D)).
The combination of Wako et al, Yuki et al, and Yagi et al now discloses
a refractive layer (24 Fig 1 Yuki et al) on or below the plurality of light refractive patterns (21A and 14B and 21 Fig 3 Yagi et al).
Regarding Claim 23, the combination of Wako et al, Yuki et al, and Yagi et al discloses the limitations of claim 22 as explained above. The combination of Wako et al, Yuki et al, and Yagi et al further discloses
wherein: the light extracting portion (shown in Fig 2B Wako et al) includes one or more curved portions (shown in Fig 2B Wako et al);
an electrode (transparent electrode 24 [0044] Fig 2B Wako et al) of the light emitting device layer (organic EL element 25 [0044] Fig 2B Wako et al) has a surface morphology conforming to a surface morphology of the light extracting portion (shown in annotated Fig 2B Wako et al);
the light guide member (light guide plate 14 and light guide lens 21 [0050] Fig 3 Yagi et al) overlap the light emitting device layer (25 Wako et al) and the light extracting portion (shown in Fig 2B Wako et al) with respect to a first direction (horizontal x direction);
each of the plurality of light refraction patterns (21A and 14B and 21 Fig 3 Yagi et al) includes a convex surface (shown in Fig 3 Yagi et al);
the plurality of light refraction patterns (21A and 14B and 21 Fig 3 Yagi et al) includes at least two adjacent (shown in Fig 3 Yagi et al) light refraction patterns (21A and 14B and 21 Fig 3 Yagi et al); and
at least portions of the convex surfaces (shown in Fig 3 Yagi et al) of the at least two adjacent light refraction patterns (21A and 14B and 21 Fig 3 Yagi et al) are combined (14B and 21 are combined in the vertical direction, and 21A and 21 are combined in the vertical direction, shown in Fig 3 Yagi et al) along a second direction (vertical y direction).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wako et al (US 2010/0142185) in view of Yuki et al (US 2014/0146561), and Yagi et al (US 2023/0273362), and in further view of Wu et al (US 2022/0252899).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Wako et al, Yuki et al, and Yagi et al discloses the limitations of claim 1 as explained above. The combination of Wako et al, Yuki et al, and Yagi et al does not directly disclose
wherein each of the plurality of lens patterns has a diameter of 1 µm to 60µm and a height-to-diameter ratio of 20% to 50%.
Wu et al, in the related art of semiconductor devices that include LED devices, discloses
wherein each of the plurality of lens patterns has a diameter of 1 µm to 60 µm (a LED device [0082] that comprises a microlens array 20 including a microlens 201 that has a diameter of 1 µm to 1000 µm [0088] Fig 2) and a height-to-diameter ratio of 20% to 50% (the height of a micro lens shown in Fig 2 appears to be less than 50% of the diameter, although Fig 2 is not drawn to scale).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Wako et al, Yuki et al, and Yagi et al to include wherein each of the plurality of lens patterns has a diameter of 1 µm to 60 µm and a height-to-diameter ratio of 20% to 50% as taught by Wu et al in order to adjust a direction of light emitted [0005] and because it has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP 2144.05).
Claims 10-11, 13-15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wako et al (US 2010/0142185) in view of Yuki et al (US 2014/0146561), and Yagi et al (US 2023/0273362), and in further view of Hu et al (US 2005/0231447).
Regarding Claim 10, Wako et al discloses an organic (organic [0044] Fig 1) light emitting display apparatus (display device 1 [0039] Fig 1), comprising:
a substrate (substrate 22 [0044]);
a subpixel (pixel alignment [0042], light emitting element 23 shown in cross section A-A [0044], shown in annotated Fig 2A) having an emission area (shown in annotated Fig 2A);
a light extracting portion (extracting light [0006]) including a plurality of concave portions (shown in Fig 2B) at the emission area (shown in annotated Fig 2A); and
a light emitting device layer (organic EL element 25 [0044] Fig 2A) on the light extracting portion (shown in Fig 2B) and configured to emit light to a light extraction surface (surface of substrate 22 [0044] Fig 2A).
PNG
media_image2.png
543
948
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Wako et al does not disclose
a plurality of subpixels;
a light guide member on or below the light extraction surface,
wherein the light guide member includes: a plurality of light refraction patterns having an atypical arrangement structure; and
a refractive layer on or below the plurality of light refraction patterns.
Yuki et al, in the related art of semiconductor devices that include display devices, discloses
a light guide member (light guide plate 22 [0092] Fig 1) on or below a light extraction surface (prisms 23e [0127]) of the display panel (display panel 10 [0088] Fig 1) and a low refractive layer (24 [0116] Fig 1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wako et al to include a light guide member below the display panel and a low refractive layer as taught by et al in order to illuminate the display panel [0002]. Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a light guide plate would be advantageous for mixing light from internal light sources at a high degree [0002], which would optimize the light emitting function capability of the light emitting device (see MPEP 2143.I(D)).
The combination of Wako et al and Yuki et al does not disclose
a plurality of subpixels;
a plurality of light refraction patterns having an atypical arrangement structure; and
a refractive layer on or below the plurality of light refraction patterns.
Yagi et al, in the related art of semiconductor devices that include display devices, discloses
wherein the light guide member (light guide plate 14 and light guide lens 21 [0050] Fig 3) includes: a plurality of light refraction patterns (first circular arc shaped face 21A and first light guide light emission surface 14B [0050] Fig 3) having an atypical arrangement structure (shown in Fig 3).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Wako et al and Yuki et al to include a plurality of light refraction patterns having an atypical arrangement structure as taught by Yagi et al in order to improve viewing angle characteristics and brightness [0049]. Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that having a plurality of lens patterns having an atypical arrangement structure would help optimize the refraction and interference of light and improve the optical function of the device (see MPEP 2143.I(D)).
The combination of Wako et al, Yuki et al, and Yagi et al now discloses
a refractive layer (24 Fig 1 Yuki et al) on or below the plurality of light refraction patterns (21A and 14B and 21 Fig 3 Yagi et al).
The combination of Wako et al, Yuki et al, and Yagi et al does not directly disclose
a plurality of subpixels.
Hu et al, in the related art of semiconductor devices that include display devices, discloses
a plurality of subpixels (250R, 250G, 250B [0020] Fig 2B).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Wako et al, Yuki et al, and Yagi et al to include a plurality of subpixels as taught by Hu et al in order to have different color-based systems respectively [0020]. Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that having subpixels with different functions, such as different color, would be advantageous in optimizing the optical functioning capability of the device (see MPEP 2143.I(D)).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Wako et al, Yuki et al, Yagi et al, and Hu et al discloses the limitations of claim 10 as explained above. The combination of Wako et al, Yuki et al, Yagi et al, and Hu et al further discloses
wherein: each of the plurality of lens patterns (21A and 14B and 21 in guide plate 14 Fig 3 Yagi et al) has a first refractive index (guide plate 14 has a sufficiently higher refractive index than that of the air and that is substantially transparent [0039] Yagi et al); and
the refractive layer (24 Fig 1 Yuki et al) has a second refractive index different from the first refractive index (the light guide and a low refractive layer having a smaller refractive index than the light guide [0020] Yuki et al).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Wako et al, Yuki et al, Yagi et al, and Hu et al discloses the limitations of claim 10 as explained above. The combination of Wako et al, Yuki et al, Yagi et al, and Hu et al further discloses
wherein at least some of the plurality of lens patterns (21A and 14B and 21 in guide plate 14 Fig 3 Yagi et al) are disposed to have different diameters or different pitches (shown in Fig 3 Yagi et al).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Wako et al, Yuki et al, Yagi et al, and Hu et al discloses the limitations of claim 13 as explained above. The combination of Wako et al, Yuki et al, Yagi et al, and Hu et al further discloses
wherein: each of the plurality of lens patterns (21A and 14B and 21 in guide plate 14 Fig 3 Yagi et al) includes a bottom surface (shown in Fig 3 Yagi et al) and a convex surface (shown in Fig 3 Yagi et al);
the bottom surfaces of at least some the plurality of lens patterns (21A and 14B and 21 in guide plate 14 Fig 3 Yagi et al) are configured to have different diameters (shown in Fig 3 Yagi et al);
the plurality of lens patterns (21A and 14B and 21 in guide plate 14 Fig 3 Yagi et al) comprise a lens pattern (21A and 14B and 21 in guide plate 14 Fig 3 Yagi et al) and another adjacent (shown in Fig 3 Yagi et al) lens pattern (21A and 14B and 21 in guide plate 14 Fig 3 Yagi et al); and
the bottom surface of the lens pattern (21A and 14B and 21 in guide plate 14 Fig 3 Yagi et al) is disposed to be connected (shown in Fig 3 Yagi et al) to the bottom surface of the another adjacent lens pattern (21A and 14B and 21 in guide plate 14 Fig 3 Yagi et al).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Wako et al, Yuki et al, Yagi et al, and Hu et al discloses the limitations of claim 10 as explained above. The combination of Wako et al, Yuki et al, Yagi et al, and Hu et al further discloses
wherein the light guide member (light guide plate 14 and light guide lens 21 [0050] Fig 3 Yagi et al) includes: a plurality of concave portions (shown in Fig 3 Yagi et al) between the plurality of lens patterns (21A and 14B and 21 in guide plate 14 Fig 3 Yagi et al);
a first surface (shown in annotated Fig 3 Yagi et al) configured by a bottom surface (shown in annotated Fig 3 Yagi et al) of each of the plurality of lens patterns (21A and 14B and 21 in guide plate 14 Fig 3 Yagi et al); and
a second surface (shown in annotated Fig 3 Yagi et al) configured by the refractive layer (24 Yuki et al), wherein at least some of the plurality of concave portions (shown in Fig 3 Yagi et al) have different heights (shown in Fig 3 Yagi et al) from the first surface (shown in annotated Fig 3 Yagi et al) of the light guide member (light guide plate 14 and light guide lens 21 [0050] Fig 3 Yagi et al).
PNG
media_image1.png
910
1459
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Wako et al, Yuki et al, Yagi et al, and Hu et al discloses the limitations of claim 11 as explained above. The combination of Wako et al, Yuki et al, Yagi et al, and Hu et al further discloses
wherein the difference in refractive index between the first refractive index (guide plate 14 has a sufficiently higher refractive index than that of the air and that is substantially transparent [0039] Yagi et al, which indicates an index of refraction of about n= 1.3 to 1.5, since air is about n=1.000277, ice is about n= 1.31, and transparent glass is about n = 1.5) and the second refractive index (the light guide and a low refractive layer having a smaller refractive index than the light guide [0020] Yuki et al) is about 0.2.
The combination of Wako et al, Yuki et al, Yagi et al, and Hu et al does not directly disclose
wherein the difference in refractive index between the first refractive index and the second refractive index is 0.05 to 0.40.
However, a person of ordinary skill in the art would know that the difference in the refractive index is a result effective variable in that it will impact direction/angle of the light as in Snells Law n1sinѲ1 = n2sinѲ2 indicates that a smaller difference in refractive index would indicate a smaller difference between the angles Ѳ1 and Ѳ2 and would optimize the optical effects such as clarity and brightness.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Wako et al, Yuki et al, Yagi et al, and Hu et al to include wherein the difference in refractive index between the first refractive index and the second refractive index is 0.05 to 0.40 as taught by Yagi et al in order to improve the clarity and brightness of an image and because it has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP 2144.05). Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that having improved clarity and brightness of an image would be advantageous in improving the optical functioning of the device (see MPEP 2143.I(D)).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wako et al (US 2010/0142185) in view of Yuki et al (US 2014/0146561), and Yagi et al (US 2023/0273362), and Hu et al (US 2005/0231447) and in further view of Wu et al (US 2022/0252899).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Wako et al, Yuki et al, Yagi et al, and Hu et al discloses the limitations of claim 10 as explained above. The combination of Wako et al, Yuki et al, Yagi et al, and Hu et al does not directly disclose
wherein each of the plurality of lens patterns has a diameter of 1 µm to 60µm and a height-to-diameter ratio of 20% to 50%.
Wu et al, in the related art of semiconductor devices that include LED devices, discloses
wherein each of the plurality of lens patterns has a diameter of 1 µm to 60 µm (a LED device [0082] that comprises a microlens array 20 including a microlens 201 that has a diameter of 1 µm to 1000 µm [0088] Fig 2) and a height-to-diameter ratio of 20% to 50% (the height of a micro lens shown in Fig 2 appears to be less than 50% of the diameter, although Fig 2 is not drawn to scale).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Wako et al, Yuki et al, Yagi et al, and Hu et al to include wherein each of the plurality of lens patterns has a diameter of 1 µm to 60 µm and a height-to-diameter ratio of 20% to 50% as taught by Wu et al in order to adjust a direction of light emitted [0005] and because it has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP 2144.05).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wako et al (US 2010/0142185) in view of Yuki et al (US 2014/0146561), Yagi et al (US 2023/0273362), and Hu et al (US 2005/0231447), and in further view of Meng et al (US 2021/0173137).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Wako et al, Yuki et al, Yagi et al, and Hu et al discloses the limitations of claim 10 as explained above. The combination of Wako et al, Yuki et al, Yagi et al, and Hu et al does not directly disclose
wherein the substrate is disposed between the light guide member and the light extracting portion, or the light extracting portion is disposed between the substrate and the light guide member.
Meng et al, in the related art of semiconductor devices that include display devices, discloses
wherein the light extracting portion (light extraction gratings 202 [0037]) is disposed between the substrate (substrate 402 [0037] Fig 2A) and the light guide member (light guide plate 201 [0037]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Wako et al, Yuki et al, Yagi et al, and Hu et al to include wherein the light extracting portion is disposed between the substrate and the light guide member as taught by Meng et al in order to avoid damage to the guide plate during manufacturing and display contrast is increased [0039]. Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that having the guide plate on the lower portion of the device would allow for avoiding damage and improving the reliability and durability of the device (see MPEP 2143.I(D)).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wako et al (US 2010/0142185) in view of Yuki et al (US 2014/0146561), Yagi et al (US 2023/0273362), and Hu et al (US 2005/0231447), and in further view of Hong et al (US 2010/0142189).
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of Wako et al, Yuki et al, Yagi et al, and Hu et al discloses the limitations of claim 10 as explained above. The combination of Wako et al, Yuki et al, Yagi et al, and Hu et al does not disclose
further comprising one or more of a color filter layer and a polarizing member,
wherein the color filter layer is disposed between the light extracting portion and the substrate or is disposed between the light extracting portion and the light guide member, and
wherein the polarizing member is coupled to the light guide member.
Hong et al, in the related art of semiconductor devices that include light emitting devices, discloses
further comprising one or more of a color filter layer (color filter 39 [0085] Fig 6) and a polarizing member (polarizer 34, 40 [0085]),
wherein the color filter layer (39) is disposed between the light extracting portion (top surface of optical waveguide 32 [0085] and light diffusion sheet 33 [0085]) and the substrate (glass substrate 35, 38 [0118]) and
wherein the polarizing member (34, 40) is coupled to the light guide member (optical waveguide 32 [0085]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Wako et al, Yuki et al, Yagi et al, and Hu et al to include a color filter layer (39 Fig 6), a polarizer (34, 40 Fig 6), and transparent substrate (35, 38 Fig 6) as taught by Hong et al in order to accomplish broad color reproducibility as an entire image by adjustment without impairing brightness and without impairing the productivity in its mounting [0024]. Further, a person of ordinary skill would have recognized that having better image adjustment without impairing brightness would be advantageous in improving the optical function of the device (see MPEP 2143.I(D)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8 and 16-18 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 7: The prior art does not anticipate or render obvious, alone or in combination, that “the plurality of lens patterns are configured to have the same atypical arrangement structure at each of the plurality of blocks,” in the combination required by the claim.
Specifically, although the reference Yagi et al discloses where the light guide member discloses a block, should another reference be found that discloses a plurality of blocks, it would not be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to alter the combination of Wako et al, Yuki et al, and Yagi et al to include “the plurality of lens patterns are configured to have the same atypical arrangement structure at each of the plurality of blocks.”
Claim 8 would be allowable based on its dependency on Claim 7.
Claim 16: The prior art does not anticipate or render obvious, alone or in combination, that “the plurality of light refraction patterns are configured to have the same atypical arrangement structure at each of the plurality of blocks,” in the combination required by the claim.
Specifically, although the reference Yagi et al discloses where the light guide member discloses a block, should another reference be found that discloses a plurality of blocks, it would not be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to alter the combination of Wako et al, Yuki et al, Yagi et al, and Hu et al to include “the plurality of lens patterns are configured to have the same atypical arrangement structure at each of the plurality of blocks.”
Claims 17 and 18 would be allowable based on their dependency on Claim 16.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Related Cited Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Qi et al (US 2014/0118661) which discloses display module structures that include polarizers and color filters and a light guide plate [0045], and Oh et al (US 2016/0291235) which discloses a light emitting device package with a light guide plate [0004].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID PAUL SEDOROOK whose telephone number is (571)272-4158. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am -5pm.
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, William B Partridge can be reached on (571) 270-1402. 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.
/D.P.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2812
/William B Partridge/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812