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. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/15/23 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. Claims 1 , 2, 4, 12 and 16-1 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakamura et al., JP 2010-146953 . Regarding claim 1, Nakamura teaches a light emitting element (Figures 1, 3 and 9) comprising: a light emitting unit (see Figure 3, light emitting unit 2) ; and an optical path control unit (5) provided above the light emitting unit (see Figures 1 and 9) , wherein a light reflection film (4) including an opening (41) is disposed between the light emitting unit and the optical path control unit (see Figures 1 and 9) . Regarding claim 2, Nakamura teaches the invention as explained above regarding claim 1 and further teaches light emitted by the light emitting unit is emitted outside via at least the opening provided in the light reflection film and the optical path control unit (see Figure 5 showing light emission path through opening 41 in light reflecting film 4) . Regarding claim 4, Nakamura teaches the invention as explained above regarding claim 1 and further teaches a planar shape of the opening and a planar shape of the optical path control unit have a similar relationship or an approximate relationship (see Figure 2 showing overhead view of opening and optical path control unit) . Regarding claim 12, Nakamura teaches the invention as explained above regarding claim 1 and further teaches the light reflection film has an edge portion (edges 51a and 51b, see Figures 2 and 4) . Regarding claim 16, Nakamura teaches the invention as explained above regarding claim 1 and further teaches the light emitting unit has a stacked structure of a first electrode (26, see Figure 3) , an organic layer (24) , and a second electrode (22) , and the light reflection film is formed above the second electrode (see Figures 1 and 9, light reflection film formed above light emitting unit) . Regarding claim 17, Nakamura teaches the invention as explained above regarding claim 16, and further teaches the organic layer includes a light emitting layer including an organic electroluminescent layer (Abstract and Figure 3, EL layer 24). Regarding claim 18, Nakamura teaches the invention as explained above regarding claim 1, and further teaches the light emitting unit includes a light emitting diode (see Figure 3, electrodes 26 and 22, EL layer 24). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura. Regarding claim 3, Nakamura teaches the invention as explained above regarding claim 1. Further, it is the position of the examiner that because the structure of the claimed invention is anticipated by Nakamura, it is therefore true that the claimed mathematical relationship is either anticipated or would have been a matter of routine experimentation and optimization based on solving the common problem in Nakamura of ensuring all light exits through the optical path control unit. Claims 5, 6, 8 , 10, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura in view of Ichinose et al., CN 102856349. Regarding claim 5, Nakamura teaches the invention as explained above regarding claim 1, but is silent as to a protective layer and a planarization layer. However, in the same field of endeavor of display devices, Ichinose teaches a protective layer (6, Figure 2 B) and a planarization layer (8, Figure 2B) are formed between the light emitting unit (not labeled, but corresponding to first electrodes 2) and the optical path control unit (9) from the light emitting unit side. It would have been well known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that a protection layer would have provided protection against physical damage and moisture damage to delicate light emitting units. Further, it would have been well known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that a planarization layer would have created a flat surface for the optical path control units, thereby ensuring light would enter the units at predictable and consistent angles. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a protection layer and a planarization layer to the Nakamura device in order to increase the useful life of the display by protecting the light emitting elements from damage, and increase the display quality by ensuring predictable and consistent light emission into the optical path control unit. Further, as explained above regarding claim 1, Nakamura teaches the light reflecti on film between the light emitting units and the optical path control unit. Ichinose further teaches a light absorption film disposed between the protective layer and the planarization layer (film 7 located between protection layer 6 and planarization layer 8) . Further, it would have been well known to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that substituting a reflective layer with openings for the absorption layer with openings in the Ichinose device would ultimately allow more of the light to exit the device, thereby increasing brightness and efficiency. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to substitute the reflective layer of Nakamura for the absorption layer of Ichinose in order to increase display brightness and efficiency. Regarding claim 6, Nakamura and Ichinose teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 5, and Nakamura teaches the light emitting by the light emitting unit is emitted outside via at least the opening provided in the light reflection film and the optical path control unit (see Figure 5 showing light emission path). Nakamura is silent as to the protection layer and planarization layer. However, in the same field of endeavor of display devices, Ichinose teaches the light emitted by the light emitting unit is emitted outside via at least the protective layer and the planarization layer and the optical path control unit (see Figure 2B showing light emission path). It would have been well known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that a protection layer would have provided protection against physical damage and moisture damage to delicate light emitting units. Further, it would have been well known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that a planarization layer would have created a flat surface for the optical path control units, thereby ensuring light would enter the units at predictable and consistent angles. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a protection layer and a planarization layer to the Nakamura device in order to increase the useful life of the display by protecting the light emitting elements from damage, and increase the display quality by ensuring predictable and consistent light emission into the optical path control unit. Regarding claim 8, Nakamura and Ichinose teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 5, and Ichinose further teaches the light emitting unit has a convex shape in a direction away from the planarization layer (Figure 2B, electrodes 2 and 5 and organic layer 4 are convex in a direction away from the planarization layer 8). Further, it would have been well known to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that spacer layers (3) provided to separate light emitting units would create an inversely convex shape of each light emitting unit in a direction away from a planarization layer above the light emitting units and spacers. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that the light emitting units would have a convex shape in a direction away from the planarization layer in order to account for spacers, which prevent cross talk and unwanted light mixing between the light emitting units. Regarding claim 10, Nakamura and Ichinose teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 5 and Nakamura further teaches a first light scattering layer is formed beneath the light emitting unit (scattering layer 61, see Figure 9). Regarding claim 19, Nakamura teaches a display apparatus (Abstract) comprising a light emitting unit (corresponding to emission layer 2, see Figure 5); and an optical path control unit (5) provided above the light emitting unit, wherein a light reflection film (4) including an opening (41) is disposed between the light emitting unit and the optical path control unit (see Figure 5). Nakamura is silent as to a plurality of light emitting units. However, in the same field of endeavor of display devices, Ichinose teaches a display comprising a plurality of light emitting units ( see Figure 2B, light emitting units each corresponding to first electrodes 2). Further, it would have been well known for those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that providing individual light emitting units would allow for greater control over the display, allowing each unit to be individually addressable. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the Nakamura device with individually addressable light emitting units in order to increase control over the display. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichinose in view of Nakamura. Regarding claim 20, Ichinose teaches a display apparatus (Abstract and Figure 2B) comprising: a first substrate (1) and a second substrate (10) ; and a plurality of light emitting element units ([0028]) each including a first light emitting element, a second light emitting element, and a third light emitting element (see Figure 2B for example, each light emitting element corresponding to first electrode 2) provided on the first substrate, wherein each of the light emitting elements includes a light emitting unit provided above the first substrate (see Figure 2B) and an optical path control unit (9) provided above the light emitting uni t. Ichinose is silent as to a light reflection film including an opening, although Ichinose does teach a light absorption film comprising an opening (7). In the same field of endeavor of display devices, Nakamura teaches a light reflection film (4, Figure 5) including an opening (41) is disposed between the light emitting unit and the optical path control unit (optical path control unit 5 and light emitting unit including electroluminescent layer 2) . Further, it would have been well known to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that substituting a reflective layer with openings for the absorption layer with openings in the Ichinose device would ultimately allow more of the light to exit the device, thereby increasing brightness and efficiency. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to substitute the reflective layer of Nakamura for the absorption layer of Ichinose in order to increase display brightness and efficiency. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 7, 9, 11, and 13- 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art fails to teach or suggest the light reflection film has a convex shape in a direction away from the light emitting unit. The prior art further fails to teach or suggest a transparent film formed between a portion of the protective layer at the bottom of the opening in the reflective film and the planarization layer. The prior art further fails to teach or suggest a second light scattering layer formed in a portion of the protective layer at a bottom of the opening in the reflective layer. The prior art further fails to teach or suggest a groove formed in a region of the protective layer outside the edge portion of the light reflection film and the planarization layer is extended in the groove. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Woo et al., US 2018/0331326 teaches a display device comprising an absorbing layer having an opening and formed on a protective layer and further teaches the light emitting unit is convex in a direction away from the protective layer. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MARY-ELLEN BOWMAN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5383 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Thursday; 7:00 am-5:00 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT James Greece can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT MARY ELLEN BOWMAN Examiner Art Unit 2875 /MARY ELLEN BOWMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875