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 .
Response to Arguments
With regards to the response filed on 07/30/2026, claims 1 and 11 have been amended and overcome the previous prior art rejection. Upon further search and consideration a new rejection has been formulated below with a secondary source used which now applies fully to claims 1 and 11 [Kim et al US 20210005845]. With regard to the applicants arguments regarding claim 18 on pages 17 and 18 with reference to the thickness of layers HRF2 and LRF2 [first refractive layer and first adjacent refractive layer], figures 11 and 13 depict the height of element HRF2 to be consistent but the heights of the color filter layers [CFR, CFG, and CFB] are not the same, where the height of CFB > CFG > CFR, through said images the disclosure teaches differing heights. The arguments on pages 17-19 state this is not the case yet figures 11 and 13 show differing heights, thus Kim et al does in fact disclose differing heights of element HRF2, thus the argument is found unpersuasive. Additionally, Kim et al does teach the amendments made to claim 18 (as substantiated below) and will not be addressed in the response to arguments.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 11-15, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al (US 20210005845).
Kim et al teaches
[claim 1] A display device comprising: a base layer; and sub-pixels disposed on the base layer, the sub-pixels including: first sub-pixels including: a first sub-pixel including :a first color filter and a first refractive layer disposed on the first color filter; and a first adjacent sub-pixel including: a first adjacent color filter disposed in a same layer as the first color filter (figure 13, paragraph 0213, where the first sub-pixels comprise element PXA-G [three total] where the first sub-pixel is element PXA-G between PXA-R and PXA-B, where the first refractive layer disposed on the first color filter is element HRF2 [high refractive layer] and the first adjacent sub-pixel is right of PXA-B in figure 13, where the first subpixel comprises a first color filter [element CFG in PXA-G] and the first adjacent sub-pixel comprises a first color filter, element CFG, where the first and first adjacent sub-pixel color filters are in the same layer);
and second sub-pixels including: a second sub-pixel disposed between the first sub-pixel and the first adjacent sub-pixel (figure 13, paragraph 0213, where element PXA-B is the second sub-pixel disposed between the first sub-pixel and first adjacent sub-pixel);
wherein a refractive index difference between the first color filter and the first refractive layer is different from a refractive index difference between the first adjacent color filter and one of an overcoat layer and a first adjacent refractive layer disposed directly on the first adjacent color filter (figure 13, paragraphs 0154 and 0245, where element HRF2 is the first refractive layer and has a different refractive index than the first color filter, and element LRF2 is the first adjacent refractive layer situated on the first adjacent color filter [CFG] and has a different refractive index than both element CFG [first and first adjacent color filter] as well as the first refractive layer [element HRF2]. Considering the first and first adjacent color filter [element CFG] have the same refractive index, the difference between the color filters and the refractive layers must be different. In addition, element IOL2 is the overcoat layer and is made of a differing material than the color filter and refractive layers, thus substantiating the differences),
the first refractive layer has a first refractive index of 1.5 or more and greater than a refractive index of the first color filter (figure 13, paragraph 0245, where the first refractive layer has a refractive index of greater than 1.5 and is greater than the refractive index of the color filter),
in a state in which the overcoat layer is disposed directly on the first adjacent color filter, the refractive index of the first refractive layer is greater than a refractive index of the overcoat layer (figure 13, paragraph 0154, where element IOL2 is the overcoat layer and is disposed directly on the first adjacent color filter [element CFG], and the refractive index of the first refractive layer [element HRF2] is greater than 1.5 and is greater than the overcoat layer [element IOL2 can be made of silicon oxide which has a refractive index lower than 1.5]),
in a state in which the first adjacent refractive layer is disposed directly on the first adjacent color filter, the first adjacent refractive layer has a first adjacent layer refractive index different from the first refractive index of the first refractive layer (figure 13, paragraph 0254, where element LRF2 is the first adjacent refractive layer disposed directly on the first adjacent color filter [element CFG] and has a refractive index lower than 1.5 which is different than the first refractive layer [element HRF2] which is above 1.5),
and the first adjacent color filter is configured to transmit light of a same color as the first color filter (figure 14, paragraph 0213, where the first adjacent color filter and the first color filter [both element CFG in different locations] transmit green light which is the same color in each instance).
[claim 11] A display device comprising: a base layer; and sub-pixels disposed on the base layer, the sub-pixels including: first sub-pixels including: a first sub-pixel including :a first color filter; and a first refractive layer disposed on the first color filter; and a first adjacent sub-pixel including a first adjacent color filter disposed in a same layer as the first color filter and a first adjacent refractive layer disposed on the first adjacent color filter (figure 13, paragraph 0213, where the first sub-pixels comprise element PXA-G [three total] where the first sub-pixel is element PXA-G between PXA-R and PXA-B, where the first refractive layer disposed on the first color filter is element HRF2 [high refractive layer] and the first adjacent sub-pixel is right of PXA-B in figure 13, where the first subpixel comprises a first color filter [element CFG in PXA-G] and the first adjacent sub-pixel comprises a first color filter, element CFG, where the first and first adjacent sub-pixel color filters are in the same layer, and element LRF2 is the first adjacent refractive layer disposed directly on the first adjacent color filter [element CFG]);
and second sub-pixels including: a second sub-pixel disposed between the first sub-pixel and the first adjacent sub-pixel (figure 13, paragraph 0213, where element PXA-B is the second sub-pixel disposed between the first sub-pixel and first adjacent sub-pixel),
wherein a phase of light transmitted through the first refractive layer and a phase of light transmitted through the first adjacent refractive layer are different from each other (figure 13, paragraph 0228, where the phase of a light transmitted through each of the refractive layers is heavily dependent upon the phase entering the refractive layers, additionally per MPEP 2144.01, when taking into consideration structural components of an LED any inferences one skilled in the art is reasonably drawn from them, in the present case the light is neither determined to be in similar phase entering the refractive layers or different, in one case different phase light entering different refractive layers would transmit different phase light. It is recommended language such as “a layer configured to not change the phase of light” or something of the such describing the nature of the physical layer as claimed rather than physical features of an outside item transmitting through said physical structure be claimed – in short the light is being claimed in the present case and properties of the refractive layer should be claimed).
and the first adjacent color filter is configured to transmit light of a same color as the first color filter (figure 13, paragraph 0213, where elements CFG [first and first adjacent color filter] transmit the same color light).
[claim 12] The display device of claim 11, further comprising light-blocking members disposed between the first adjacent color filter and the first color filter, wherein the first refractive layer contacts the first color filter, and is not in contact with the light-blocking members, and wherein the first adjacent refractive layer contacts the first adjacent color filter, and is not in contact with the light-blocking members (figure 3, paragraphs 0068-0069, where element CCP3 and CCP1 refer to the refractive layers on the first sub-pixel and the first adjacent sub-pixel, and element R-CFP and B-CFP refer to the first color filter and the first adjacent color filter, where element BM is the blocking layer and situated between the refractive layers, where the refractive layers do not touch the blocking material [BM] but do touch the color filters).
[claim 13] The display device of claim 12, further comprising an overcoat layer entirely covering the first adjacent color filter and the first color filter (figure 3, paragraph 0050, where element BFL is the overcoat layer and it completely covers the first adjacent color filter and the first color filter [elements B-CFP and R-CFP respectively]),
wherein the first refractive layer has a first refractive index greater than a refractive index of the first color filter and the overcoat layer, wherein the first adjacent refractive layer has a first adjacent layer refractive index greater than a refractive index of the first adjacent color filter and the overcoat layer, and wherein each of the first refractive index and the first adjacent layer refractive index is 1.5 or more (figure 3, paragraph 0019 and 0006-0009, where the first refractive layer and the first adjacent refractive layer have a range of possibilities from 1.5-2.0 for their refractive index. Additionally, the overcoat layer has a range of possibilities from 1.5-2.0 for its refractive index. There exists a scenario with those ranges such that the first refractive layer has a larger refractive index than the first adjacent refractive layer and the overcoat layer [element BFL] all of which are 1.5 or greater).
[claim 14] The display device of claim 13, wherein the first refractive index and the first adjacent layer refractive index are different from each other (paragraph 0228, where the first refractive index and first adjacent layer refractive index are different by about 0.2-0.3).
[claim 15] The display device of claim 13, wherein the first refractive layer has a first thickness, and wherein the first adjacent refractive layer has a first adjacent layer thickness different from the first thickness (figure 13, paragraph 0228, where element HRF2 [first refractive layer] has a different thickness than the first adjacent refractive layer [element LRF2]).
[claim 18] A display device comprising: a display unit including a light-emitting element; and an outer part on the display unit (paragraphs 0207-0209, figure 11, where element OLED is the light emitting portion and the outer part of the display unit is everything above the OLED portion),
the outer part including: color filters disposed above the light-emitting element, the color filters including a first color filter and a first adjacent color filter; light-blocking members disposed between the color filters (paragraphs 0207-0209, figure 11, where element BM are light blocking layers between the color filters, where the first adjacent color filter is element CFR, and the first color filter is element CFG between CRF and CFB);
and a refractive layer disposed over the color filters and the light-blocking members and covering an entirety of a top surface of each of the color filters and the light-blocking members (paragraph 0209, figure 11, where element HRF2 is the refractive layer covering an entirety of the top surface of the color filters [CFL] and blocking members [BM]),
and wherein the refractive layer has a refractive index of 1.5 or more as a refractive index greater than a refractive index of the color filters (paragraph 0245, figure 11, element HRF2 is the refractive layer and can be anywhere from 1.5-1.9 and is greater than the color filters [which often have a refractive index of 1.45-1.55 as standard in the industry]),
the first adjacent color filter is configured to transmit light of a red color as the first color filter, the color filters include the first color filter through which light of the red color is transmitted, a second color filter through which light of a green color is transmitted, and a third color filter through which light of a blue color is transmitted (figure 13, paragraph 0210, where element CFR is the first adjacent color filter as the first color filter and transmits red light, element CFG is the second color filter and transmits green light, and element CFB is the third color filter and transmits blue light),
wherein the refractive layer has a first thickness defined in an area overlapping with the first color filter, a second thickness defined in an area overlapping with the second color filter, and a third thickness defined in an area overlapping with the third color filter (paragraph 0210, figure 11, where the thickness of the refractive layer [element HRF2] has a first thickness over element CFB, second thickness over element CFG and third thickness over element CFB).
the first thickness is greater than the second thickness, and the second thickness is greater than the third thickness (figure 13, where element HRF2 situated over element CFG [first thickness] is greater than the thickness over element CFG and CFB [second and third thickness] as noted by the layers element CFB>CFG>CFR making subsequent thicknesses in the reverse order of size).
[claim 20] The display device of claim 19, wherein the refractive layer includes an area light-exposed according to different times (element PXA-R, PXA-G and PXA-B in layer HRF2 is each specific a light-exposed area according to different times [i.e. when Red, Green or Blue is needed]),
wherein the area light-exposed according to the different times includes an area overlapping with the first color filter, an area overlapping with the second color filter, and an area overlapping with the third color filter, and wherein, as the area light-exposed according to the different times is exposed according to different times, the first thickness, the second thickness, and the third thickness are different from one another (paragraph 0209-0210, figure 11, where element HRF2 has differing thickness over CFB, CFG and CFR and each corresponds to a specific light-exposed time when each color is needed [i.e. Red, Green and Blue]).
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.
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) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 20210005845) in view of Lee et al (US 20220221637) and in further view of Park et al (US 20210273022).
Kim et al teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim, claim 1, but does not specifically disclose,
[claim 2] The display device of claim 1, wherein the second sub-pixels include the second sub-pixel disposed in each of a first area, a second area, and a third area, which are sequentially disposed adjacent to each other, wherein the second sub-pixel disposed in the second area includes a second color filter and a second refractive layer disposed on the second color filter, and wherein the second sub-pixel disposed in the first area and the second sub- pixel disposed in the third area do not include the second refractive layer.
[claim 3] The display device of claim 2, wherein the first refractive layer does not overlap with the first adjacent color filter in a plan view, and wherein the first refractive layer contacts a top surface of the first color filter.
However, Lee et al does teach
[claim 2] The display device of claim 1, wherein the second sub-pixels include the second sub-pixel disposed in each of a first area, a second area, and a third area, which are sequentially disposed adjacent to each other (figure 2, paragraph 0052, where the first row of sub-pixels [element 30] has four sub-pixels within each larger sub-pixel element 33, these elements 33 are the second sub-pixels and are all adjacent to one another across the first row of pixels [element 30], where the first area is the first column, the second area is the second column, and the third area is the third column),
wherein the second sub-pixel disposed in the second area includes a second color filter and a second refractive layer disposed on the second color filter (figure 8, paragraph 0068, where element 512 is the second color-filter and element 490 is the second refractive layer disposed on the color filter),
[claim 3] The display device of claim 2, wherein the first refractive layer does not overlap with the first adjacent color filter in a plan view, and wherein the first refractive layer contacts a top surface of the first color filter (figure 8, paragraph 0097, where the first refractive layer [element 531] does not overlap the first adjacent color filter in a plan view [element 513], where the first refractive layer [element 531] contacts a top layer of the first color filter [element 511] – keep in mind figure 8 is to be rotated 180 degrees, in which case element 531 is on top of and contacting a top layer of element 511).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the teachings of Kim et al to incorporate the teachings of Park et al by adding a second refractive layer to maximize efficiency by directing light in specific directions through refraction.
However, Kim et al as modified does not specifically disclose
[claim 2] and wherein the second sub-pixel disposed in the first area and the second sub-pixel disposed in the third area do not include the second refractive layer.
However, Park et al does teach
[claim 2] and wherein the second sub-pixel disposed in the first area and the second sub-pixel disposed in the third area do not include the second refractive layer (figure 2, paragraph 0098, where element 260 is made of four refractive layers, where section L2B does not contain element 260 [which contains the second refractive layer], and element L2B is read onto the second-sub pixel of Lee et al, where the first and third area [columns one and three of figure 8 of Lee et al) does not have the second refractive layer [element 260]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the teachings of Kim et al as modified to incorporate the teachings of Park et al where a second refractive layer is not needed in specific portions to maximize the efficiency and directionally of the light depending on the color of the emitting layer and the specific use case of the display device (as certain refractive layers are necessary to direct certain colors of lights and not needed for other colors).
Regarding claims 4-5,
Kim et al further discloses
[claim 4] wherein the first refractive layer has a first refractive index greater than a refractive index of the overcoat layer and a refractive index of the first color filter, and wherein the first refractive index is 1.5 or more (paragraph 0184, figure 7, where the first refractive layer [read into by Lee et al] is the HRF1 which can have a refractive index of up to 1.9, the overcoat layer is layer IL1, where the refractive index of IL1 could be that of silicon dioxide [per paragraph 0162] which ranges from 1.44-1.55, the color filter is an optical color filter is known to have a refractive index of 1.5-1.6, thus the first refractive layer has a refractive index greater than the overcoat layer and the color filter).
[claim 5] The display device of claim 4, wherein the first refractive layer includes an inorganic material or an organic material, which has a refractive index of 1.5 or more, wherein the inorganic material includes at least one of copper (Cu), iodine (I), thallium (Tl), silver (Ag), cadmium (Cd), mercury (Hg), tin (Sn), lead (Pb), zinc (Zn), and iron (Fe), or a metal oxide such as titanium oxide (TiOx), tantalum oxide (TaOx), hafnium oxide (HfOx), and zirconium oxide (ZrOx), and wherein the organic material includes at least one of PEDOT, TPD, m-MTDATA, o-MTDAB, m-MTDAB, p-MTDAB, BPPM, TPBI, and TAZ (paragraphs 0178 and 0184, where element HRF1 is the first refractive layer and has a refractive index greater than 1.5, can be made of an organic material, an acryl resin which is known to incorporate PEDOT).
However, Kim et al as modified does not specifically disclose
[claim 4] The display device of claim 3, further comprising an overcoat layer entirely covering each of the first color filter and the first adjacent color filter, wherein the overcoat layer is not in contact with the top surface of the first color filter but in contact with a top surface of the first adjacent color filter.
However, Lee et al does teach
[claim 4] The display device of claim 3, further comprising an overcoat layer entirely covering each of the first color filter and the first adjacent color filter, wherein the overcoat layer is not in contact with the top surface of the first color filter but in contact with a top surface of the first adjacent color filter (figure 8, paragraph 0122, element 495 is the overcoat layer and it is over the first color filter [element 511] and the first adjacent color filter [element 513] it is not in contact with the first color filter [element 531] is situated between] but it is in contact with the first adjacent color filter [element 513]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the teachings of Kim et al as modified with the teachings of Lee et al to incorporate an overcoat layer to direct light perpendicular to a horizontal surface of the device to maximize the directionality of the light for a display device, opposed to having light scatter and minimalizing the directionality and thus quality of the device.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 20210005845), Lee et al (US 20220221637), Park et al (US 20210273022) and in further view of Bang et al et al (US 20180190740).
Kim et al as modified teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim, claim 4, but does not specifically disclose
[claim 6] The display device of claim 4, wherein external light applied to the display device has a first phase when the external light is transmitted through the first refractive layer, wherein the external light applied to the display device has a second phase when the external light is not transmitted through the first refractive layer, and wherein the first phase and the second phase are different from each other.
However, Bang et al does teach
[claim 6] The display device of claim 4, wherein external light applied to the display device has a first phase when the external light is transmitted through the first refractive layer, wherein the external light applied to the display device has a second phase when the external light is not transmitted through the first refractive layer, and wherein the first phase and the second phase are different from each other (figure 4, paragraph 0082, where element 280 is place of the first refractive layer, and element 292 is in place of the color filter, where light that transmits through the color filter and element 280 reflects off of a separate layer, element 273, which has a different refractive index than element 280, and any contact of surfaces reflects light with a phase change, thus the light that transmits through the color filter and element 280 and reflects back through element 280 again has a differing phase than the light that does not go through element 280 [no reflection, no phase change], thus the first and second phases are different).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the teachings of Kim et al as modified to incorporate the teachings of Bang et al in order to align the phases of light reflected off a pixel and through a refractive layer to allow for a coherent image instead of a non-coherent image through phase deconstruction.
Claim(s) 7-10 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 20210005845) in view of Lee et al (US 20220221637) and in further view of Choi et al (US 20190094541).
Kim et al teaches all of the limitations of the parent claims, claims 1 and 11, but does not specifically disclose
[claim 7] The display device of claim 1, wherein the sub-pixels further include third sub-pixels, wherein the second sub-pixels further include a second adjacent sub-pixel adjacent to the second sub-pixel with the first sub-pixel interposed therebetween, wherein the second sub-pixel includes a second color filter disposed in the same layer as the first color filter and a second refractive layer disposed on the second color filter, wherein the second adjacent sub-pixel includes a second adjacent color filter disposed in a same layer as the second color filter, and wherein the third sub-pixel includes a third color filter disposed in the same layer as the first color filter and a third refractive layer disposed on the third color filter.
[claim 16] The display device of claim 11, wherein the sub-pixels further include third sub-pixels, wherein the second sub-pixel includes a second color filter disposed in the same layer as the first color filter and a second refractive layer which is disposed on the second color filter and contacts the second color filter, and wherein at least one of the third sub-pixels includes a third color filter disposed in the same layer as the first color filter and a third refractive layer which is disposed on the third color filter and contacts the third color filter.
However, Lee et al teaches
[claim 7] wherein the second sub-pixel includes a second color filter disposed in the same layer as the first color filter and a second refractive layer disposed on the second color filter (figure 8, paragraph 0068, where element 512 is the second color filter disposed in the same layer as the first color filter [element 511], where element 532 is the second refractive layer disposed on the color filter)
[claim 16] wherein the second sub-pixel includes a second color filter disposed in the same layer as the first color filter and a second refractive layer disposed on the second color filter and contact the second color filter (figure 8, paragraph 0068, where element 512 is the second color filter disposed in the same layer as the first color filter [element 511], where element 532 is the second refractive layer disposed on the color filter).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the teachings of Kim et al with the teachings of Lee et al to incorporate more refractive layers and color filters in the display to allow for greater resolution in the display per display pixel to enhance the quality of the device.
However, Kim et al as modified does not specifically disclose
[claim 7] The display device of claim 1, wherein the sub-pixels further include third sub-pixels, wherein the second sub-pixels further include a second adjacent sub-pixel adjacent to the second sub-pixel with the first sub-pixel interposed therebetween, , wherein the second adjacent sub-pixel includes a second adjacent color filter disposed in a same layer as the second color filter, and wherein the third sub-pixel includes a third color filter disposed in the same layer as the first color filter and a third refractive layer disposed on the third color filter.
[claim 16] The display device of claim 11, wherein the sub-pixels further include third sub-pixels, and wherein at least one of the third sub-pixel includes a third color filter disposed in the same layer as the first color filter and a third refractive layer which is disposed on the third color filter and contacts the third color filter.
However, Choi et al does teach
[claim 7] The display device of claim 1, wherein the sub-pixels further include third sub-pixels (figure 18, paragraphs 0178-0179, where element DA1 replaces a single sub-pixel of Lee et al, where element PX3, PX1 and PX2 refer to the first sub-pixel, first adjacent sub-pixel, and second sub-pixel, respectively, where the third sub-pixels, where the pixels below PX-PX4 comprise the third sub-pixel),
wherein the second sub-pixels further include a second adjacent sub-pixel adjacent to the second sub-pixel with the first sub-pixel interposed therebetween (figure 18, paragraph 0179, where element PX4 is the second adjacent sub-pixel adjacent to the second sub-pixel [element PX2] with the first sub-pixel [element PX3] interposed between),
wherein the second adjacent sub-pixel includes a second adjacent color filter disposed in a same layer as the second color filter (reading Lee et al onto Choi et al, the second color filter of Lee et al [element 512 of figure 8] would extend onto the second adjacent color filter of Choi et al, also in the same layer as the second color filter),
and wherein the third sub-pixel includes a third color filter disposed in the same layer as the first color filter and a third refractive layer disposed on the third color filter (figures 18-19B, where the sub-pixels in figure 18 not labeled [PX1-4] comprise the third sub-pixel and each sub-pixel, as seen in figures 19A-B, have element 210 between the light emitting portion [element 140] and the top layer [element 230], where element 210 as shown in figure 20 is made up of three refractive layers, all disposed on the same layer [element 210] and situated on a color filter [paragraph 0065], where the color filter would be situated between the light emitting portion [element 140] and the top layer).
[claim 16] The display device of claim 11, wherein the sub-pixels further include third sub-pixels (figure 18, paragraphs 0178-0179, where element DA1 replaces a single sub-pixel of Lee et al, where element PX3, PX1 and PX2 refer to the first sub-pixel, first adjacent sub-pixel, and second sub-pixel, respectively, where the third sub-pixels, where the pixels below PX-PX4 comprise the third sub-pixel),
wherein the sub-pixels further include third sub-pixels, and wherein at least one of the third sub-pixel includes a third color filter disposed in the same layer as the first color filter and a third refractive layer which is disposed on the third color filter and contacts the third color filter. (figures 18-19B, where the sub-pixels in figure 18 not labeled [PX1-4] comprise the third sub-pixel and each sub-pixel, as seen in figures 19A-B, have element 210 between the light emitting portion [element 140] and the top layer [element 230], where element 210 as shown in figure 20 is made up of three refractive layers, all disposed on the same layer [element 210] and situated on a color filter [paragraph 0065], where the color filter would be situated between the light emitting portion [element 140] and the top layer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the teachings of Lee et al with the teachings of Choi et al to incorporate more pixels in the display to allow for greater resolution in the display per display pixel to enhance the quality of the device.
Regarding claims 8 and 17,
Kim et al as modified does not specifically teach
[claim 8] The display device of claim 7, wherein the first refractive layer has a first thickness, the second refractive layer has a second thickness, and the third refractive layer has a third thickness, and wherein the first thickness, the second thickness, and the third thickness are different from one another.
[claim 17] The display device of claim 16, wherein the first refractive layer has a first thickness, the second refractive layer has a second thickness, and the third refractive layer has a third thickness, and wherein the first thickness, the second thickness, and the third thickness are different from one another.
According to MPEP 2144.04 IV. CHANGES IN SIZE, SHAPE, OR SEQUENCE OF ADDING INGREDIENTS
A. Changes in Size/Proportion
In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.).
In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the teachings of Lee et al to change the thickness of the refractive layer depending on the specific use case of LED’s that shine light through the refractive layers. Each refractive layer’s thickness helps determine the directionality of the light, to maximize the directionality various thicknesses may be needed such that the light is all directed in the same direction and thus maximizing efficiency of the device.
Regarding claims 9-10,
Kim et al as modified does not specifically teach
[claim 9] The display device of claim 7, wherein the first refractive layer, the second refractive layer, and the third refractive layer have a first refractive index, a second refractive index, and third refractive index, which are different refractive indices of 1.5 or more, as refractive indices greater than refractive indices of the first color filter, the second color filter, and the third color filter.
[claim 10] The display device of claim 7, wherein the first refractive layer, the second refractive layer, and the third refractive layer have a first refractive index, a second refractive index, and third refractive index, which are a same refractive index of about 1.5 or more, as refractive indices greater than refractive indices of the first color filter, the second color filter, and the third color filter.
However, according to MPEP 2144.05 II. ROUTINE OPTIMIZATION
A. Optimization Within Prior Art Conditions or Through Routine Experimentation
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[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) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) (Claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions.). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 809, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1848 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989)(Claimed ratios were obvious as being reached by routine procedures and producing predictable results); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 1149, 14 USPQ2d 1056, 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(Claimed amount of wash solution was found to be unpatentable as a matter of routine optimization in the pertinent art, further supported by the prior art disclosure of the need to avoid undue amounts of wash solution); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1997)(Claims were unpatentable because appellants failed to submit evidence of criticality to demonstrate that that the wear resistance of the protective layer in the claimed thickness range of 50-100 Angstroms was "unexpectedly good"); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007) (identifying "the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art.").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the three refractive layers in their height, and refractive indices to optimize the device to perform the most efficiently since the height and refractive indices all impact the directionality of the light.
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 ANDREW ZABEL whose telephone number is (703)756-4788. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5PM ET.
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, Jeff W Natalini can be reached at 572-272-2266. 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.
/ANDREW JOHN ZABEL/Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/JEFF W NATALINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights