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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8, 14-15 and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Matsusaki et al. (2023/0221469).
Re claim 1, Matsusaki et al. disclose (Fig. 1) a substrate (41); a light emitting unit (10), disposed on the substrate (41); an optical element layer (72), disposed on the light emitting unit, the optical element layer having a first curved surface, wherein the first curved surface has a central portion and a peripheral portion, and the central portion is closer to the substrate (41) than the peripheral portion; and a photosensitive layer (35~ is an acrylic based adhesive which are known to be photosensitive and UV curable materials [0190] & [0192]), being in contact with the optical element layer (72).
Re claim 2, Matsusaki et al. disclose wherein the optical element layer comprises a lens (72) ([0177]).
Re claim 4, Matsusaki et al. disclose wherein the light emitting unit is an organic light emitting diode (OLED) ([0114]).
Re claim 5, Matsusaki et al. disclose further comprising: a cover plate (36), disposed on the optical element layer (72), wherein the optical element layer (72) is in direct contact with the cover plate (36) (Fig. 1).
Re claim 6, Matsusaki et al. disclose wherein the photosensitive layer (35) has a second curved surface, and the second curved surface of the photosensitive layer is in contact with the first curved surface of the optical element layer (72) (Fig. 1).
Re claim 7, Matsusaki et al. disclose (Fig. 4) providing a substrate (41); forming a light emitting unit (10), disposed on the substrate (41); providing an optical element layer (421), disposed on the light emitting unit, the optical element layer having a first curved surface, wherein the first curved surface has a central portion and a peripheral portion, and the central portion is closer to the substrate (41) than the peripheral portion; and providing a cover plate (36) to cover the optical element (Fig. 1).
Re claim 8, Matsusaki et al. disclose further comprising: forming a photosensitive layer (35) having a second curve surface (35~ is an acrylic based adhesive which are known to be photosensitive and UV curable materials [0190] & [0192]), wherein the optical element layer (72) is formed on the second curved surface of the photosensitive layer (35).
Re claim 14, Matsusaki et al. disclose wherein the forming of the optical element layer is free of performing a reflow operation.
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.
Claim(s) 3, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsusaki et al. as applied to claims 1, 2, 4-8 and 14 above, and further in view of the following comments.
Re claim 3, Matsusaki et al. does not disclose wherein the display device is free of a filter layer.
It is well known in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have a display device free of a filter layer to increase light emission, improve energy efficiency and allow for thinner, more flexible or transparent panels. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the known free filter device to boost brightness and reduce power consumption by limiting the light trapped in the panel.
Re claim 15, One of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited temperature through routine experimentation to achieve a desired optical element layer characteristics.
In addition, the selection of temperature, it's obvious because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996)(claimed ranges or a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill or art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1995) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed temperature or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen temperature or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen temperature is critical. In re Woodruf, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Re claim 20, One of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited diameter through routine experimentation to achieve a desired device dimension, device associated characteristics and device density on the finished wafer.
In addition, the selection of diameter, it's obvious because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996)(claimed ranges or a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill or art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1995) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed diameter or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen diameter or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen diameter is critical. In re Woodruf, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-13 and 16-19 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.
Pending the correction of issues outlined in the rejection above, the following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not disclose or fairly suggest the following in combination the remaining limitations called for in each claim:
wherein the forming of the photosensitive layer comprises: patterning the photosensitive layer by using a gray tone mask to form the second curved surface of the photosensitive layer, as recited in claim 9;
wherein the forming of the photosensitive layer comprises: forming the optical element layer with the first curved surface on the second curved surface of the photosensitive layer; and curing the optical element layer, as recited in claim 10;
wherein the curing of the optical element layer comprises: performing a heating operation to cure the optical element layer, wherein a temperature of the heating operation is less than 100 ºC, as recited in claim 11;
wherein the forming of the optical element layer comprises: forming the photosensitive layer on the light emitting unit; performing an exposure operation to form the second curved surface of the photosensitive layer; and forming the optical element layer on the second curved surface of the photosensitive layer, as recited in claim 12;
wherein the forming of the optical element layer comprises: forming the photosensitive layer on the cover plate; performing an exposure operation to form the second curved surface of the photosensitive layer; forming the optical element layer on the second curved surface of the photosensitive layer; and attaching the optical element layer to the light emitting unit, as recited in claim 13;
wherein the forming of the optical element layer is free of patterning the optical element layer, as recited in claim 16;
wherein the forming of the optical element layer is free of exposing the optical element layer, as recited in claim 17;
wherein the forming of the optical element layer is free of etching the optical element layer, as recited in claim 18;
wherein the gray tone mask has a first slit and a second slit, the first slit has a first aperture and the second slit has a second aperture different from the first aperture, wherein the method comprises: determining a first curvature of the central portion and a second curvature of the peripheral portion of the first curved surface according to an emission angle of the light emitting unit; and adjusting the first curvature and the second curvature of the first curved surface by the first slit and the second slit, as recited in claim
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE MANDALA whose telephone number is (571)272-1858. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 PM.
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, Sue Purvis can be reached at 571-272-1236. 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.
/MICHELLE MANDALA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893 August 24, 2026
Prosecution Insights