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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang (US 20220158136 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yang teaches a display device (Fig 1; display device, [0004]) comprising:
a display element layer (12) comprising a light emitting element (EML: 121/123/124) and a pixel defining layer (122) including a pixel opening (OP: opening between adjacent 122); and
an optical layer (OL: 14/15) comprising a light blocking pattern (LBP: BP1/BP2; layers 151/152 can be divided into subparts: BP1 is the portion of layer 151 shaped like a rectangle centered above the pixel opening; BP2 is the portion of layer 152 shaped like a trapezoid centered above the PDL 122 - please see annotated figure below),
the light blocking pattern (LBP) comprises a first light blocking part (BP1) and a second light blocking part (BP2) disposed on (shown on) the first light blocking part (BP1), and disposed on (shown on) the display element layer (12), wherein
the first light blocking part (BP1) comprises a first bottom surface (BP1B: bottom horizontal surface of BP1) spaced apart (shown spaced apart) from the second light blocking part (BP2) and a first side surface (BP1R: right vertical side of BP1) substantially perpendicular (shown perpendicular) to the first bottom surface (BP1B),
the second light blocking part (BP2) comprises a second bottom surface (BP2B: bottom horizontal surface of BP2) adjacent (shown adjacent) to the first light blocking part (BP1) and a second side surface (BP2R: right diagonal side of BP2) inclined (shown inclined) with respect to the second bottom surface (BP2B), and
an angle (θ: internal angle between BP2B and BP2R) between the second bottom surface (BP2B) and the second side surface (BP2R) is greater (shown greater) than about 90° and less (shown less) than or equal to about 160°.
PNG
media_image1.png
406
378
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Yang teaches the device of claim 1 and goes on to teach the light emitting element (EML, Fig 1) comprises:
a first electrode (121) of which at least a portion is partially exposed (shown partially exposed) in the pixel opening (OP);
a second electrode (124) facing (shown facing) the first electrode (121); and
an emission layer (123) disposed between (shown between) the first electrode (121) and the second electrode (124),
the light blocking pattern (LBP) comprises a first light blocking pattern (LBP1: LBP portion above pixel opening OP; please see annotated figure below) overlapping (shown overlapping) the emission layer (123) and a second light blocking pattern (LBP2) overlapping (shown overlapping) the pixel defining layer (122), and
each of the first light blocking pattern (LBP1) and the second light blocking pattern (LBP2) comprises the first light blocking part (BP1) and the second light blocking part (BP2).
PNG
media_image2.png
406
378
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Yang teaches the device of claim 10 and goes on to teach wherein the first light blocking pattern (LBP1, Fig 1) has a substantially circular (substantially circular; when viewed from above, subpart LBP1 would be round) or substantially square shape in a plan view.
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.
Claims 2-4 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US 20220158136 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 10-11 above, and further in view of Prushinskiy (US 20120241772 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Yang teaches the device of claim 1, the first light blocking part (BP1, Fig 1), and the second light blocking part (BP2).
Yang fails to explicitly teach a refractive index of the first light blocking part is greater than a refractive index of the second light blocking part.
However, in paragraph [0073], Yang discloses, "The first barrier layer 151 can interfere with and cancel out the external ambient light with the wavelength λ1 by setting its thickness d1 and refractive index n1 reasonably, and the second barrier layer 152 can interfere with and cancel out the external ambient light with the wavelength λ2 by setting its thickness d2 and refractive index n2 reasonably."
Prushinskiy teaches, "The nearer to the second substrate 20 the transparent interface layer is disposed, the greater the refractive index of the transparent interference layer is." in paragraph [0083].
Yang's disclosure of adjusting the refractive index of the light blocking parts combined with Prushinskiy's teaching of having the highest indexed material at the bottom of the stack meets the limitations of claim 2.
Yang and Prushinskiy are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are from the same field of endeavor of semiconductor display devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the device of Yang with the features of Prushinskiy to create a device wherein a refractive index of the first light blocking part is greater than a refractive index of the second light blocking part capable of minimizing a decrease in contrast due to the reflection of external light (Prushinskiy, [0003]).
Regarding claim 3-4, Yang teaches the device of claim 1, the first light blocking part (BP1, Fig 1), and the second light blocking part (BP2).
Yang fails to explicitly teach a refractive index of the first light blocking part is about 1.8 or more and about 2.5 or less, and/or a refractive index of the second light blocking part is about 1.5 or more and less than about 1.8.
However, in paragraph [0073], Yang discloses, "The first barrier layer 151 can interfere with and cancel out the external ambient light with the wavelength λ1 by setting its thickness d1 and refractive index n1 reasonably, and the second barrier layer 152 can interfere with and cancel out the external ambient light with the wavelength λ2 by setting its thickness d2 and refractive index n2 reasonably."
Prushinskiy teaches, "The nearer to the second substrate 20 the transparent interface layer is disposed, the greater the refractive index of the transparent interference layer is." in paragraph [0083].
Yang's disclosure of adjusting the refractive index of the light blocking parts in view of Prushinskiy's teaching of having the highest indexed material at the bottom of the stack would have made it obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the first and second light blocking parts to meet the limitations of claims 3 and 4.
Yang and Prushinskiy are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are from the same field of endeavor of semiconductor display devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the device of Yang with the features of Prushinskiy to create a device wherein a refractive index of the first light blocking part is about 1.8 or more and about 2.5 or less, and/or a refractive index of the second light blocking part is about 1.5 or more and less than about 1.8 capable of minimizing a decrease in contrast due to the reflection of external light (Prushinskiy, [0003]).
Regarding claim 8, Yang teaches the device of claim 1, the first light blocking part (BP1, Fig 1), and the second light blocking part (BP2).
Yang fails to explicitly teach a sum of a first thickness of the first light blocking part and a second thickness of the second light blocking part is about 0.5 um or more and about 2.0 um or less.
However, in paragraph [0073], Yang discloses, "The first barrier layer 151 can interfere with and cancel out the external ambient light with the wavelength λ1 by setting its thickness d1 and refractive index n1 reasonably, and the second barrier layer 152 can interfere with and cancel out the external ambient light with the wavelength λ2 by setting its thickness d2 and refractive index n2 reasonably."
Prushinskiy teaches formula's for determining reasonable thickness based on index of refraction in order to cancel out external ambient light in paragraphs [0070-0073]; which results in, "After the reflected external ambient light is incident on the color separation suppression layer 15 again, the first barrier layer 151 interferes with and cancels out the reflected external ambient light with the wavelength λ1, and the second barrier layer 152 interferes with and cancels out the reflected external ambient light with the wavelength λ2, thus further reducing the exiting of the reflected external ambient light from the light-exiting surface of the display panel, which can alleviate the color separation phenomenon of the display panel."
Yang's disclosure of adjusting the refractive index of the light blocking parts combined with Prushinskiy's teaching of adjusting the thickness of the layers to cancel out desired wavelengths would cause one of ordinary skill in the art to find it obvious to adjust the thickness of the light blocking parts to meet the limitations of claim 8.
Yang and Prushinskiy are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are from the same field of endeavor of semiconductor display devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the device of Yang with the features of Prushinskiy to create a device wherein a sum of a first thickness of the first light blocking part and a second thickness of the second light blocking part is about 0.5 um or more and about 2.0 um or less capable of minimizing a decrease in contrast due to the reflection of external light (Prushinskiy, [0003]).
Regarding claim 9, Yang teaches the device of claim 1, the first light blocking part (BP1, Fig 1), and the second light blocking part (BP2).
Yang fails to explicitly teach a ratio of a first thickness of the first light blocking part to a second thickness of the second light blocking part is in a range of about 1:0.5 to about 1:2.0.
However, in paragraph [0073], Yang discloses, "The first barrier layer 151 can interfere with and cancel out the external ambient light with the wavelength λ1 by setting its thickness d1 and refractive index n1 reasonably, and the second barrier layer 152 can interfere with and cancel out the external ambient light with the wavelength λ2 by setting its thickness d2 and refractive index n2 reasonably."
Prushinskiy teaches formula's for determining reasonable thickness based on index of refraction in order to cancel out external ambient light in paragraphs [0070-0073]; which results in, "After the reflected external ambient light is incident on the color separation suppression layer 15 again, the first barrier layer 151 interferes with and cancels out the reflected external ambient light with the wavelength λ1, and the second barrier layer 152 interferes with and cancels out the reflected external ambient light with the wavelength λ2, thus further reducing the exiting of the reflected external ambient light from the light-exiting surface of the display panel, which can alleviate the color separation phenomenon of the display panel."
Yang's disclosure of adjusting the refractive index of the light blocking parts combined with Prushinskiy's teaching of adjusting the thickness of the layers to cancel out desired wavelengths would cause one of ordinary skill in the art to find it obvious to adjust the thickness of the light blocking parts to meet the limitations of claim 9.
Yang and Prushinskiy are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are from the same field of endeavor of semiconductor display devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the device of Yang with the features of Prushinskiy to create a device wherein a ratio of a first thickness of the first light blocking part to a second thickness of the second light blocking part is in a range of about 1:0.5 to about 1:2.0 capable of minimizing a decrease in contrast due to the reflection of external light (Prushinskiy, [0003]).
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US 20220158136 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 10-11 above, and further in view of Shin (US 20230217701 A1).
Regarding claim 5-7, Yang teaches the device of claim 1, the first light blocking part (BP1, Fig 1), and the second light blocking part (BP2).
Yang fails to explicitly teach an optical density (OD) of the first light blocking part is greater than an optical density of the second light blocking part; and/or an optical density of the first light blocking part is about 1.5 or more and about 2.0 or less; and/or an optical density of the second light blocking part is about 1.0 or more and less than about 1.5.
However, Shin teaches optical density of light blocking parts in Table 1 on page 7. Shin goes on to teach a black matrix with an optical density of 2 as an example and a black matrix with an adhesive layer with pigment added that with lower optical density. This adhesive layer OCA is shown in Figure 10 above the black matrix. As such, the arrangement is a first light blocking part with a higher optical density of 2 below a second light blocking part with a lower optical density of 1.5.
Therefore, the combination of Yang and Shin meets the limitations of claims 5-7.
Yang and Shin are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are from the same field of endeavor of semiconductor display devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the device of Yang with the features of Shin to create a device wherein an optical density (OD) of the first light blocking part is greater than an optical density of the second light blocking part; and/or an optical density of the first light blocking part is about 1.5 or more and about 2.0 or less; and/or an optical density of the second light blocking part is about 1.0 or more and less than about 1.5 without using an polarization plate or additional optical layers and that prevents a rainbow mura phenomenon from occurring due to light reflected from a display device (Shin, [0006]).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US 20220158136 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 10-11 above, and further in view of Yamazaki (US 20030151056 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Yang teaches the device of claim 1 and goes on to teach the light blocking pattern (LBP, Fig 1) includes a pattern opening (PO: opening between LBP1 and LBP2; please see annotated figure above), and
the optical layer (OL) further comprises a filter part (141) … and filled into (shown filled into) the pattern opening (PO) of the light blocking pattern (LBP).
Yang fails to explicitly teach the optical layer further comprises a filter part comprising at least one of a pigment and a dye.
However, Yamazaki teaches the optical layer further comprises a filter part comprising at least one of a pigment and a dye (pigment or die, [0023]).
Yang and Yamazaki are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are from the same field of endeavor of semiconductor display devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the device of Yang with the features of Yamazaki to create a device wherein the optical layer further comprises a filter part comprising at least one of a pigment and a dye to provide a light emitting device capable of realizing a high definition and reducing the fabricating cost (Yamazaki, [0012]).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Yang and Yamazaki discloses the device of claim 12. Yang goes on to teach the display device (Fig 1) comprises an emission area (EA: area directly above 123) and a non-emission area (NEA: area directly above 122) adjacent (shown adjacent) to the emission area (EA), and
the filter part (141) in the emission area (EA) covers (shown covering) the light blocking pattern (LBP).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US 20220158136 A1), in view of Yamazaki (US 20030151056 A1), and further in view of Hong (US 20220336781 A1).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Yang and Yamazaki discloses the device of claim 13. Yang teaches the filter part (141, Fig 1) in the emission area (EA), and the light blocking pattern (LBP).
The combination fails to explicitly teach the filter part in the emission area comprises a first portion overlapping the light blocking pattern and a second portion that does not overlap the light blocking pattern, and a first height of the first portion is higher than a second height of the second portion in a thickness direction.
However, Hong teaches the filter part in the emission area comprises a first portion (P1: portion of color filter CFB near LBM1-2, Fig 9B; please see annotated figure below) overlapping (shown overlapping) the light blocking pattern and a second portion (P2) that does not overlap (shown not overlapping) the light blocking pattern, and
a first height (H1: maximum height of P1 or thickness of CF-B) of the first portion (P1) is higher (shown higher) than a second height (H2: height of P2 or to approximately 40% of the total thickness of CF-B) of the second portion (P2) in a thickness direction.
PNG
media_image3.png
844
706
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claims 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US 20220158136 A1), in view of Shin (US 20230217701 A1), and further in view of Prushinskiy (US 20120241772 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Yang teaches a display device (Fig 1; display device, [0004]) comprising:
an emission area (EA: area directly above 123) and a non-emission area (NEA: area directly above 122) adjacent (shown adjacent) to the emission area (EA);
a display element layer (12) comprising a light emitting element (EML: 121/123/124) and a pixel defining layer (122) including a pixel opening (OP: opening between adjacent 122); and
an optical layer (OL: 14/15) comprising a first light blocking pattern (LBP1: LBP portion above pixel opening OP; please see annotated figure above) in (shown in) the emission area (EA) and a second light blocking pattern (LBP2) in (shown in) the non-emission area (NEA), wherein
each of the first light blocking pattern (LBP1) and the second light blocking pattern (LBP2) comprises a first light blocking part ( BP1; layers 151/152 can be divided into subparts: BP1 is the portion of layer 151 shaped like a rectangle centered above the pixel opening; BP2 is the portion of layer 152 shaped like a trapezoid centered above the PDL 122 - please see annotated figure above) and a second light blocking part (BP2) disposed on (shown on) the first light blocking part (BP1).
Yang fails to explicitly teach an optical density (OD) of the first light blocking part is greater than an optical density of the second light blocking part.
However, Shin teaches optical density of light blocking parts in Table 1 on page 7. Shin goes on to teach a black matrix with an optical density of 2 as an example and a black matrix with an adhesive layer with pigment added that with lower optical density. This adhesive layer OCA is shown in Figure 10 above the black matrix. As such, the arrangement is a first light blocking part with a higher optical density of 2 below a second light blocking part with a lower optical density of 1.5.
Therefore, the combination of Yang and Shin discloses an optical density (OD) of the first light blocking part is greater than an optical density of the second light blocking part.
Yang fails to explicitly teach a refractive index of the first light blocking part is greater than a refractive index of the second light blocking part.
However, in paragraph [0073], Yang discloses, "The first barrier layer 151 can interfere with and cancel out the external ambient light with the wavelength λ1 by setting its thickness d1 and refractive index n1 reasonably, and the second barrier layer 152 can interfere with and cancel out the external ambient light with the wavelength λ2 by setting its thickness d2 and refractive index n2 reasonably."
Prushinskiy teaches, "The nearer to the second substrate 20 the transparent interface layer is disposed, the greater the refractive index of the transparent interference layer is." in paragraph [0083].
Yang's disclosure of adjusting the refractive index of the light blocking parts combined with Prushinskiy's teaching of having the highest indexed material at the bottom of the stack discloses a refractive index of the first light blocking part is greater than a refractive index of the second light blocking part.
Yang, Shin, and Prushinskiy are considered analogous to the claimed invention because all are from the same field of endeavor of semiconductor display devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the device of Yang with the features of Shin and Prushinskiy to create a device wherein an optical density (OD) of the first light blocking part is greater than an optical density of the second light blocking part and a refractive index of the first light blocking part is greater than a refractive index of the second light blocking part without using an polarization plate or additional optical layers and that prevents a rainbow mura phenomenon from occurring due to light reflected from a display device (Shin, [0006]) and capable of minimizing a decrease in contrast due to the reflection of external light (Prushinskiy, [0003]).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Yang, Shin, and Prushinskiy discloses the device of claim 15. Yang goes on to teach the first light blocking part (BP1) comprises a first bottom surface (BP1B: bottom horizontal surface of BP1) spaced apart (shown spaced apart) from the second light blocking part (BP2) and a first side surface (BP1R: right vertical side of BP1) substantially perpendicular (shown perpendicular) to the first bottom surface (BP1B),
the second light blocking part (BP2) comprises a second bottom surface (BP2B: bottom horizontal surface of BP2) adjacent (shown adjacent) to the first light blocking part (BP1) and a second side surface (BP2R: right diagonal side of BP2) inclined (shown inclined) with respect to the second bottom surface (BP2B), and
an angle (θ: internal angle between BP2B and BP2R) between the second bottom surface (BP2B) and the second side surface (BP2R) is greater (shown greater) than about 90° and less (shown less) than or equal to about 160°.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Yang, Shin, and Prushinskiy discloses the device of claim 15. Yang teaches the first light blocking part (BP1, Fig 1) and the second light blocking part (BP2).
Yang fails to explicitly teach the optical density of the first light blocking part is about 1.5 or more and about 2.0 or less; and the optical density of the second light blocking part is about 1.0 or more and less than about 1.5.
However, Shin teaches optical density of light blocking parts in Table 1 on page 7. Shin goes on to teach a black matrix with an optical density of 2 as an example and a black matrix with an adhesive layer with pigment added that with lower optical density. This adhesive layer OCA is shown in Figure 10 above the black matrix. As such, the arrangement is a first light blocking part with a higher optical density of 2 below a second light blocking part with a lower optical density of 1.5.
Therefore, the combination of Yang and Shin meets the limitations of claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Yang, Shin, and Prushinskiy discloses the device of claim 15. Yang teaches the first light blocking part (BP1, Fig 1) and the second light blocking part (BP2).
Yang fails to explicitly teach the refractive index of the first light blocking part is about 1.8 or more and about 2.5 or less, and the refractive index of the second light blocking part is about 1.5 or more and less than about 1.8.
However, in paragraph [0073], Yang discloses, "The first barrier layer 151 can interfere with and cancel out the external ambient light with the wavelength λ1 by setting its thickness d1 and refractive index n1 reasonably, and the second barrier layer 152 can interfere with and cancel out the external ambient light with the wavelength λ2 by setting its thickness d2 and refractive index n2 reasonably."
Prushinskiy teaches, "The nearer to the second substrate 20 the transparent interface layer is disposed, the greater the refractive index of the transparent interference layer is." in paragraph [0083].
Yang's disclosure of adjusting the refractive index of the light blocking parts in view of Prushinskiy's teaching of having the highest indexed material at the bottom of the stack would have made it obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the first and second light blocking parts to meet the limitations of claim 18.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Yang, Shin, and Prushinskiy discloses the device of claim 15. Yang teaches the first light blocking part (BP1, Fig 1) and the second light blocking part (BP2).
Yang fails to explicitly teach a sum of a first thickness of the first light blocking part and a second thickness of the second light blocking part is about 0.5 um or more and about 2.0 um or less, and a ratio of the first thickness of the first light blocking part to the second thickness of the second light blocking part is in a range of about 1:0.5 to about 1:2.0.
However, in paragraph [0073], Yang discloses, "The first barrier layer 151 can interfere with and cancel out the external ambient light with the wavelength λ1 by setting its thickness d1 and refractive index n1 reasonably, and the second barrier layer 152 can interfere with and cancel out the external ambient light with the wavelength λ2 by setting its thickness d2 and refractive index n2 reasonably."
Prushinskiy teaches formula's for determining reasonable thickness based on index of refraction in order to cancel out external ambient light in paragraphs [0070-0073]; which results in, "After the reflected external ambient light is incident on the color separation suppression layer 15 again, the first barrier layer 151 interferes with and cancels out the reflected external ambient light with the wavelength λ1, and the second barrier layer 152 interferes with and cancels out the reflected external ambient light with the wavelength λ2, thus further reducing the exiting of the reflected external ambient light from the light-exiting surface of the display panel, which can alleviate the color separation phenomenon of the display panel."
Yang's disclosure of adjusting the refractive index of the light blocking parts combined with Prushinskiy's teaching of adjusting the thickness of the layers to cancel out desired wavelengths would cause one of ordinary skill in the art to find it obvious to adjust the thickness of the light blocking parts to meet the limitations of claim 19.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US 20220158136 A1), in view of Shin (US 20230217701 A1), in view of Prushinskiy (US 20120241772 A1), and further in view of Yamazaki (US 20030151056 A1).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Yang, Shin, and Prushinskiy discloses the device of claim 15. Yang goes on to teach the optical layer (OL, Fig 1) further comprises a filter part (141) … and covering (shown covering) the first light blocking pattern (LBP1).
Yang fails to explicitly teach the optical layer further comprises a filter part comprising at least one of a pigment and a dye.
However, Yamazaki teaches the optical layer further comprises a filter part comprising at least one of a pigment and a dye (pigment or die, [0023]).
Yang, Shin, Prushinskiy, and Yamazaki are considered analogous to the claimed invention because all are from the same field of endeavor of semiconductor display devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the device of Yang, Shin, and Prushinskiy with the features of Yamazaki to create a device wherein the optical layer further comprises a filter part comprising at least one of a pigment and a dye to provide a light emitting device capable of realizing a high definition and reducing the fabricating cost (Yamazaki, [0012]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jung (US 20240234654 A1) - Refractive lens comprised of multiple optical layers above LED
Hong (US 20220059804 A1) - Different index layers on EA, forming privacy window with BM in NEA
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeremy D Watts whose telephone number is (703)756-1055. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 8:00am-4:30pm, F 8:00-3pm EST.
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, Chad Dicke can be reached at (571) 270-7996. 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.
/JEREMY DANIEL WATTS/Examiner, Art Unit 2897 /CHAD M DICKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights