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 .
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, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 20220140283 A1, cited by Applicant), Kim hereinafter.
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a display panel, comprising: a driving substrate (SUB, ¶ [50], fig. 3); a light-emitting unit (EMA, ¶ [87], fig. 7), electrically connected to one side of the driving substrate (SUB); and a lens structure (HR, ¶ [107], fig. 9), disposed on one side of the light-emitting unit (EMA) away from the driving substrate (SUB), wherein the lens structure (HR) at least partially overlaps the light-emitting unit (EMA) in a direction perpendicular to a plane where the driving substrate (SUB) is located.
Regarding claim 17, Kim discloses an encapsulation structure (LR, ¶ [107], fig. 9), located on one side of the lens structure (HR) away from the light-emitting unit (EMA), and/or located between the lens structure (HR) and the light-emitting unit (EMA); and a refractive index of the lens structure (HR) is greater than a refractive index of the encapsulation structure (LR) (¶ [107], fig. 9).
Regarding claim 20, Kim discloses a display device, comprising: a display panel (10, ¶ [50], fig. 3), wherein the display panel (10, ¶ [50], fig. 3) comprises: a driving substrate (SUB, ¶ [50], fig. 3); a light-emitting unit (EMA), electrically connected to one side of the driving substrate (SUB); and a lens structure .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-16 and 18-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if at least one the limitations indicated below were included in the base claim.
Regarding claim 2, the references of Prior Art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations as set forth in claim 2, and specifically comprising the limitation directed to the first lens and the second lens are different in at least one of curvature, refractive index, and width in a preset direction parallel to the plane where the driving substrate is located.
Regarding claims 3-10, the claims are allowable for the reasons given in claim 2 because of their dependency status from claim 2.
Regarding claim 11, the references of Prior Art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations as set forth in claim 11, and specifically comprising the limitation directed to the lens structure comprises a third lens and a fourth lens, in the direction perpendicular to the plane where the driving substrate is located, the third lens overlaps the first area, and the fourth lens overlaps the second area; and a focus of the fourth lens leans toward the first area.
Regarding claim 12, the references of Prior Art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations as set forth in claim 12, and specifically comprising the limitation directed to the lens structure comprises a base material structure and filter particles, and the filter particles are dispersed in the base material structure.
Regarding claim 13, the claim is allowable for the reasons given in claim 12 because of their dependency status from claim 12.
Regarding claim 14, the references of Prior Art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations as set forth in claim 14, and specifically comprising the limitation directed to the lens structure comprises a first lens structure and a second lens structure; the first lens structure comprises color conversion particles, and a color of light converted by the color conversion particles is different from the preset color.
Regarding claim 15 the claims are allowable for the reasons given in claim 14 because of their dependency status from claim 14.
Regarding claim 16, the references of Prior Art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations as set forth in claim 16, and specifically comprising the limitation directed to the lens structure comprises a fifth lens and a sixth lens, in the direction perpendicular to the plane of the driving substrate is located, the fifth lens overlaps the first color light-emitting unit, and the sixth lens overlaps the second color light-emitting unit; and the fifth lens and the sixth lens are equal in curvature, refractive index, and projection in the plane parallel to the plane where the driving substrate is located.
Regarding claim 18, the references of Prior Art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations as set forth in claim 18, and specifically comprising the limitation directed to a refractive index of the light-emitting unit is greater than a refractive index of the lens structure.
Regarding claim 19, the references of Prior Art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations as set forth in claim 19, and specifically comprising the limitation directed to a refractive index of the light-emitting unit is greater than 2.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20250231437 A1 discloses a similar lens structure to that of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE M. DIAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9822. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00.
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, James R Greece can be reached at (571) 272-3711. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSE M DIAZ/ Examiner, Art Unit 2875
/JAMES R GREECE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights