DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 3/14/24 and 5/5/25 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fujikawa (US 2016/0252218).
As to claims 1, Fujikawa teaches a light-emitting substrate (see annotated fig. 4 below), comprising:
a substrate (10, [0037]);
a reflective layer (8) located on a side (top) of the substrate (10), the reflective layer (8) having a plurality of annular patterns arranged at intervals ([0068]);
a reflective sheet (20) located on a side (top) of the reflective layer (8) away from the substrate (10), wherein the reflective sheet has a plurality of first openings (21, [0031]), an annular pattern (8) is exposed by a corresponding first opening (21), and in a direction perpendicular to a plane where the substrate (10) is located, an outer sidewall (OW) of the annular pattern (8) surrounds the corresponding first opening (21), and an inner sidewall (IW) of the annular pattern (8) is located in the corresponding first opening (21); and
a plurality of light-emitting devices (5), a light-emitting device (5) is located in an inner sidewall (IW) of one of the annular patterns (8, [0049]).
PNG
media_image1.png
384
1027
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 18, Fujikawa further teaches (see annotated figure above) an encapsulation layer (6) located on a side of the plurality of light-emitting devices (5) away from the substrate (10), the encapsulation layer (8) including a plurality of encapsulation patterns (8, as seen in fig. 1), wherein an orthographic projection (OPLED) of the light-emitting device (8) on the substrate (10) is located in a range of an orthographic projection (OPencap) of an encapsulation pattern (6) on the substrate (10), and the orthographic projection (OPencap) of the encapsulation pattern (6) on the substrate (10) is overlapping with an orthographic projection (OPann) of the annular pattern (8) on the substrate (see annotated figure above).
As to claim 19, Fujikawa further teaches the orthographic projection (OPencap) of the encapsulation pattern (6) on the substrate (10) is non-overlapping with the orthographic projection of the reflective sheet (20) on the substrate (there is a distance between the edge of 6 and the edge of 20, thus their orthographic projections do not overlap).
Claim(s) 1, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Murakoshi (US 2011/0096265).
As to claim 1, Murakoshi teaches a light-emitting substrate (figs. 4 and 5, see also annotated fig. 4 below), the manufacturing method comprising:
a substrate (62, [0045]);
a reflective layer (10) located on a side (top) of the substrate (62), the reflective layer having a plurality of annular patterns (10) arranged at intervals (fig. 5, [0059]);
a reflective sheet (7) located on a side (top) of the reflective layer (10) away from the substrate (62), wherein the reflective sheet has a plurality of first openings (7a, fig. 4), an annular pattern is exposed by a first opening ([0052]), and in a direction perpendicular to the substrate, an outer sidewall (OW) of the annular pattern (10) surrounds the corresponding first opening (7a), and an inner sidewall (IW) of the annular pattern (10) is located in the corresponding first opening (7a); and
a plurality of light-emitting devices (61), a light-emitting device (61) is located in an inner sidewall (IW) of one of the annular patterns (10, fig. 5, [0045]).
PNG
media_image2.png
406
823
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 27, Murakoshi further teaches optical film sheets (9) located on a light-exit side of the light-emitting substrate (fig. 4, [0061]).
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujikawa.
As to claims 2 and 15, Fujikawa is silent on the minimum distances claimed. However, determining the optimal and minimum distance would have been obvious so as to fabricate a smaller device while maintaining functionality. Furthermore, Applicant has not shown that these distances are novel and would NOT have been found through routine experimentation. Therefore they are not patentable over the prior art, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re AIler, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujikawa in view of Hirasawa (US 2020/0357775).
As to claim 4, Fujikawa teaches a circular annular pattern (fig. 3), which does not have sub-portions. However, Hirasawa teaches an annular pattern (resin 53, figs. 3 and 6) includes a first sub-portion (top), a second sub- portion (left), a third sub-portion (right) and a fourth sub-portion (bottom), wherein the first sub-portion (top) and the third sub-portion (bottom) extend along a first direction (horizontal x-direction), the second sub-portion (left) and the fourth sub-portion (right) extend along a second direction (vertical y-direction), and the first direction intersects the second direction, wherein the first sub-portion, the second sub- portion, the third sub-portion and the fourth sub-portion are sequentially connected end to end, or are sequentially cross-connected (fig. 2, [0048]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to change the shape of the annular pattern so as to fit around the LED in a more compact manner, since it has been held that changing the configuration of an object, absent evidence that the particular configuration is significant, is not patentable over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujikawa in view of Lee (US 2018/0175264).
As to claim 10, Fujikawa does not teach an angle between at least part of the inner sidewall of the annular pattern and the plane where the substrate is located is an acute angle; and/or an angle between at least part of the outer sidewall of the annular pattern and the plane where the substrate is located is an acute angle; and/or at least part of the inner sidewall of the annular pattern is a cambered surface; and/or at least part of the outer sidewall of the annular pattern is a cambered surface.
However, Lee teaches a reflective structure with an annular pattern (109) having an acute angle (theta) between the inner wall of the reflective structure and the plane of the substrate.(fig. 1A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to adjust the angle as taught by Lee so as to maximize light extraction efficiency (Lee, [0043]).
Claim(s) 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakoshi.
As to claim 28, Murakoshi doesn’t explicitly teach a color filter substrate located on a light-exit side of the backlight module; and an array substrate located between the backlight module and the color filter substrate. However, these are very common and necessary components of a display device. The color filter allows the desired color light to exit the display device and the array substrate is necessary to power the LEDs. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have these components so as to use industrially accepted components to fabricate a display device, since the Applicant has not shown that these components and their locations are novel and lead to an unexpected result.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-26 are allowed and claims 7, 8, and 12-14 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 taken either singularly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the limitations of the claims listed above in such a manner that a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 would be proper.
The prior art fails to teach a combination of all of the features in the claims. In particular, the prior art fails to teach
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.”
Conclusion
Any response to this Office Action should be faxed to (571) 273-8300 or mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Hand-Delivered responses should be brought to:
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22313
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREN M KUSUMAKAR whose telephone number is (571)270-3520. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday from 7:30a – 4:30p EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fernando Toledo can be reached on 571-272-1867. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KAREN KUSUMAKAR/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897
2/7/26