DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
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.
2. Claims 1-2, 8-9, 16-17, 23-24 and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yokoyama et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0358035 A1 (the ‘035 reference).
The reference discloses in Fig. 3, other figures and related text a display device as claimed.
Referring to claim 1, the ‘035 reference discloses a display device (100, para [35] (paragraph(s) [0035])) comprising:
a substrate (“silicon substrate” of substrate 10, para [48]);
a transistor (“transistor”) disposed on the substrate (para [48]);
a pixel electrode (23, para [41]) connected to the transistor;
a light emitting layer (24) disposed on the pixel electrode;
a common electrode (25, para [41]) disposed on the light emitting layer;
a first color filter (51(51B), para [47]) disposed on the common electrode (25);
a lens (610 (61), para [46]) disposed on the color filer (51); and
a filling layer (light-transmitting layer 62, para [46]) disposed on the lens,
wherein the first color filter (51) and the lens (610 (61)) are in direct contact with each other.
Referring to claim 23 and using the same reference characters, interpretations, and citations as detailed above for claim 1 where applicable, the reference discloses a display device (100) comprising:
a substrate;
a transistor disposed on the substrate;
a pixel electrode (23) connected to the transistor;
a light emitting layer (24) disposed on the pixel electrode;
a common electrode (25) disposed on the light emitting layer;
a color filter (51(51B)) disposed on the common electrode;
a lens (610 (61)) disposed on the color filer; and
a filling layer (62) disposed on the lens,
wherein the filling layer (62) has a refractive index of 1.5 to 1.8 (para [79]), overlapping and meeting the claim range of “1.41 to 1.51”.
Referring to claim 29 and using the same reference characters, interpretations, and citations as detailed above for claim 1 where applicable, the reference discloses an optical device (900, Fig. 27, para [129]) comprising:
a display device (100); and
an optical path conversion member (90, para [129]) disposed on the display device,
wherein the display device (100) includes:
a substrate;
a transistor disposed on the substrate; a
pixel electrode (23) connected to the transistor;
a light emitting layer (24) disposed on the pixel electrode;
a common electrode (25) disposed on the light emitting layer;
a color filter (51(51B)) disposed on the common electrode;
a lens (610 (61)) disposed on the color filer; and
a filling layer (62) disposed on the lens, and
wherein the color filter (51) and the lens (610 (61)) are in direct contact with each other.
Referring to claim 28, Fig. 3 depicts that the color filter (51) and the lens (610 (61)) are in direct contact with each other.
Referring to claims 2 and 24, the reference further discloses that a difference between a refractive index of the lens (610 (61)) and a refractive index of the filling layer (62) is about 0.2 (RI (refractive index) of the lens ranges from 1.3 to 1.6 (para [76]) and RI of the filling layer 62 ranges from 1.5 to 1.8 (para [79])), meeting the claim range “0.1 to 0.2”.
Referring to claim 8, the reference further discloses that the filling layer (62) has a refractive index of 1.5 to 1.8 (para [79]), overlapping and meeting the claim range of “1.41 to 1.51”.
Referring to claim 9, the reference further discloses that the filling layer (62) includes an epoxy (para [78]).
Referring to claim 16, the reference further discloses an encapsulating layer (protective layer 4, para [46]) disposed between the common electrode (25) and the first color filter (51).
Referring to claim 17, the reference further discloses that the encapsulation layer (4) includes at least one inorganic film (41, para [63-64]) and at least one organic film (epoxy resin 42, para [63, 65]) disposed on different layers.
3. Claims 1-3, 8-9, 16-17, 23-25 and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yokoyama et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0358036 A1 (the ‘036 reference).
The reference discloses in Fig. 3, other figures and related text a display device as claimed.
Referring to claim 1, the ‘036 reference discloses a display device (100, para [35]) comprising:
a substrate (“silicon substrate” of substrate 10, para [48]);
a transistor (“transistor”) disposed on the substrate (para [48]);
a pixel electrode (23, para [41]) connected to the transistor;
a light emitting layer (24) disposed on the pixel electrode;
a common electrode (25, para [41]) disposed on the light emitting layer;
a first color filter (51(51B), para [47]) disposed on the common electrode (25);
a lens (610 (61), para [46]) disposed on the color filer (51); and
a filling layer (light-transmitting layer 62, para [46]) disposed on the lens,
wherein the first color filter (51) and the lens (610 (61)) are in direct contact with each other.
Referring to claim 23 and using the same reference characters, interpretations, and citations as detailed above for claim 1 where applicable, the reference discloses a display device (100) comprising:
a substrate;
a transistor disposed on the substrate;
a pixel electrode (23) connected to the transistor;
a light emitting layer (24) disposed on the pixel electrode;
a common electrode (25) disposed on the light emitting layer;
a color filter (51(51B)) disposed on the common electrode;
a lens (610 (61)) disposed on the color filer; and
a filling layer (62) disposed on the lens,
wherein the filling layer (62) has a refractive index of 1.0 to 1.6 (para [79]), encompassing and meeting the claim range of “1.41 to 1.51”.
Referring to claim 29 and using the same reference characters, interpretations, and citations as detailed above for claim 1 where applicable, the reference discloses an optical device (900, Fig. 27, para [132]) comprising:
a display device (100); and
an optical path conversion member (90, para [132]) disposed on the display device,
wherein the display device (100) includes:
a substrate;
a transistor disposed on the substrate; a
pixel electrode (23) connected to the transistor;
a light emitting layer (24) disposed on the pixel electrode;
a common electrode (25) disposed on the light emitting layer;
a color filter (51(51B)) disposed on the common electrode;
a lens (610 (61)) disposed on the color filer; and
a filling layer (62) disposed on the lens, and
wherein the color filter (51) and the lens (610 (61)) are in direct contact with each other.
Referring to claim 28, Fig. 3 depicts that the color filter (51) and the lens (610 (61)) are in direct contact with each other.
Referring to claims 2 and 24, the reference further discloses that a difference between a refractive index of the lens (610 (61)) and a refractive index of the filling layer (62) is about 0.2 to 0.5 (RI (refractive index) of the lens ranges from 1.5 to 1.8 (para [76]) and RI of the filling layer 62 ranges from 1.0 to 1.6 (para [79])), overlapping and meeting the claim range “0.1 to 0.2”.
Referring to claims 3 and 25, the reference further discloses that a refractive index of the lens (610 (61) is greater than the refractive index of the filling layer (62) (para [76]).
Referring to claim 8, the reference further discloses that the filling layer (62) has a refractive index of 1.0 to 1.6 (para [79]), encompassing and meeting the claim range of “1.41 to 1.51”.
Referring to claim 9, the reference further discloses that the filling layer (62) includes an epoxy (para [78]).
Referring to claim 16, the reference further discloses an encapsulating layer (protective layer 4, para [46]) disposed between the common electrode (25) and the first color filter (51).
Referring to claim 17, the reference further discloses that the encapsulation layer (4) includes at least one inorganic film (41, para [63-64]) and at least one organic film (epoxy resin 42, para [63, 65]) disposed on different layers.
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 of this title, 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.
4. Claims 4, 7 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Yokoyama et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0358036 A1 (the ‘036 reference).
Referring to claims 4 and 26, although the reference does not specifically disclose a dimension as claimed, the claimed dimension (the lens has a refractive index of 1.61) will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art (the reference discloses that the lens has a refractive index range of 1.5 to 1.8) unless there is evidence indicating such dimensions are 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"; MPEP 2144.05.
Referring to claim 7, in a manner similar to that detailed above for claims 4 and 26, although the reference does not specifically disclose a dimension as claimed, the claimed dimension (a distance between adjacent lenses is greater than or equal to 0.3 μm) will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art (the reference discloses in Figs. 17-18 (para [120]) that adjacent lenses a separated by a distance) unless there is evidence indicating such dimensions are critical.
5. Claims 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Yokoyama et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0358036 A1 (the ‘036 reference) in view of Kashiwagi et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 20230046640.
Referring to claim 6, the reference discloses the lens 610 as detailed above for claim 1, but does not disclose that the lens has a thickness smaller than 1.5 μm.
Kashiwagi, in disclosing a display device comprising a lens (110, Fig. 1), discloses that the lens has a thickness (height) smaller than 1.5 μm (1.0 μm or greater and 30 μm or less, para [103]), thereby teaching that smaller than 1.5 μm is a suitable thickness for the lens.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the reference’s lens having a thickness smaller than 1.5 μm. One would have been motivated to make such a modification in view of the teachings in Kashiwagi to form a working lens.
Furthermore, referring to claim 10, the filling layer 62 of the ‘036 reference in view of Kashiwagi would have a thickness comparable to the thickness of the lens 611, i.e. in the range of 1.0 μm to 30 μm, encompassing the claim thickness of 3 μm, and in a manner similar to that detailed above for claims 4 and 26, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (in this case ‘036 reference in view of Kashiwagi), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
6. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Yokoyama et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0358035 A1 (the ‘035 reference) in view of Akagawa et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 20170236876 or Hwang et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 20200117046.
Referring to claim 20, the reference discloses the first color filter (51B) as detailed above for claim 1, and further discloses a second color filter (51G, para [47]) disposed adjacent to the first color filter (51B), but does not disclose that the second color filter overlaps the first color filter in a plan view.
Akagawa, in disclosing a display device comprising a first color filter (36B, Fig. 4) and a second color filter (36G) disposed adjacent to the first color filter, teaches that the second color filter overlaps the first color filter in a plan view to enhance adhesion of the second color filter (para [24]); or, Hwang, in disclosing a display device comprising a first color filter (111_2, Fig. 13) and a second color filter (112_2) disposed adjacent to the first color filter, teaches that the second color filter overlaps the first color filter in a plan view to reduce height differences (para [148]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the reference’s second color filter overlapping the first color filter in a plan view. One would have been motivated to make such a modification in view of the teachings in Akagawa to enhance adhesion of the second color filter or in view of the teachings in Hwang to reduce height differences.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 5 ,11-15, 18-19, 21-22 and 27 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The cited art, whether taken singularly or in combination, especially when all limitations are considered within the claimed specific combination, fails to teach or render obvious a display device with all exclusive limitations as recited in claims 5, 11, 18, 21, 22 and 27, which may be characterized (claims 5 and 27) in that the lens has a taper angle of 60 degrees to 70 degrees, (claim 11) in that a second buffer layer is disposed between the lens and the filling layer, (claim 18) the encapsulation layer further includes a first buffer layer disposed between the inorganic film and the organic film of the encapsulation layer, (claim 21) a thickness of an overlapping portion of the first color filter and the second color filter is equal to a thickness of the lens, and (claim 22) in that a width of an overlapping portion of the first color filter and the second color filter is less than or equal to 0.2 μm.
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TU TU V HO whose telephone number is (571)272-1778. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Thursday 6:30 - 15:00, Monday through Thursday.
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 on 571-272-2266. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
06-27-2026
/TU-TU V HO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights