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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the present application. Claims 1-6, 9 and 15 are original; claims 7-8 and 10-14 are currently amended; and claims 16-20 are newly added. The amendment dated March 27, 2024 has been entered into the record.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1-2, 8-9, 11, 14-15, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20210327941, hereinafter “Lee”) in view of Ma et al. (US 2015/0001470, hereinafter “Ma”).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a microlens array substrate (Fig. 1; Paras. [0008], [0025]-[0027]) comprising:
a base (100; Para. [0025]);
a microlens film layer (a film layer comprising 134a; Para [0027]) disposed on a side of the base and comprising at least one microlens array (an array of 134a), wherein the microlens array comprises a plurality of microlenses (134a) and a spacer portion (a portion formed between 134a) between adjacent microlenses;
a light shielding layer (a layer comprising 210; Para. [0025]) disposed on a side of the microlens film layer away from the base and comprising at least one light shielding pattern (210), wherein an orthographic projection of the at least one light shielding pattern on the base is overlapped with an orthographic projection of the spacer portion on the base (see Fig. 1).
Lee does not disclose a barrier layer disposed on a side of the microlens film layer away from the base, wherein an orthographic projection of at least part of the barrier layer on the base is overlapped with an orthographic projection of the microlenses on the base.
However, Ma teaches providing a barrier layer (420 in Fig. 4) on a side of a microlens film layer (MLA 410) away from a base (400), wherein an orthographic projection of at least part of the barrier layer on the base is overlapped with an orthographic projection of the microlenses film layer on the base (Fig. 4) (the examiner considers Para. [0048] of Ma generally teaches providing protection on the lens surface and to other parts of a device into which an optical component is integrated).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the microlens array substrate as disclosed by Lee with the teachings of Ma, to have a barrier layer disposed on a side of the microlens film layer away from the base, wherein an orthographic projection of at least part of the barrier layer on the base is overlapped with an orthographic projection of the microlenses on the base, for the purpose of protecting lens layers (Ma: Para. [0048]).
Regarding claim 2, Lee as modified by Ma discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and Lee further discloses wherein the orthographic projection of the light shielding pattern on the base is completely overlapped with the orthographic projection of the spacer portion on the base (Fig. 1; Para. [0028]).
Regarding claim 8, Lee as modified by Ma discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and Lee further discloses a planarization layer (200) disposed on a side of the barrier layer and the light shielding layer away from the base (Fig. 1) (see Ma: Para. [0048] above regarding the barrier layer), wherein a refractive index of the planarization layer is lower than a refractive index of the microlenses (see Paras. [0026] teaching polyethylene terephthalate (PET) for the microlenses and [0033] teaching quartz for the planarization layer). (the examiner consider the refractive index of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) is about 1.5693 at a wavelength of 587.6 nm and the refractive index of quartz is about 1.4585 at a wavelength of 587.6 nm).
Regarding claim 9, Lee as modified by Ma discloses the limitations of claim 8 above, and Lee further discloses wherein the difference between the refractive index of the microlenses and the refractive index of the planarization layer is not less than 0.1 (see Paras. [0026] teaching polyethylene terephthalate (PET) for the microlenses and [0033] teaching quartz for the planarization layer). (the examiner consider the refractive index of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) is about 1.5693 at a wavelength of 587.6 nm and the refractive index of quartz is about 1.4585 at a wavelength of 587.6 nm).
Regarding claim 11, Lee as modified by Ma discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Lee does not disclose the barrier layer is made of an inorganic light-transmitting material.
However, Ma teaches providing a barrier layer made of an inorganic light-transmitting material (see Para. [0039] teaching the barrier layer being inorganic and see Claim 1 and Para. [0015] teaching an optical component comprising the barrier film being transparent).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the microlens array substrate as disclosed by Lee with the teachings of Ma, wherein the barrier layer is made of an inorganic light-transmitting material, for the purpose of protecting lens layers (Ma: Para. [0048]).
Regarding claim 14, Lee as modified by Ma discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Lee does not necessarily disclose a display device, comprising the microlens array substrate according to claim 1.
However, Ma teaches a display device may be incorporated with an microlens array substrate (Para. [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the microlens array substrate as disclosed by Lee with the teachings of Ma, to have a display device, comprising the microlens array substrate according to claim 1, for the purpose of obtaining a display optically coupled to the microlens array substrate (Ma: Para. [0015])
Regarding claim 15, Lee discloses a preparation method for a microlens array substrate (Fig. 1; Paras. [0008], [0025]-[0027]) comprising:
forming a microlens film layer (134 a; Para [0027]) on a base (100; Para. [0025]), wherein the microlens film layer comprises a plurality of microlenses (134 a) and a spacer portion (a portion formed between 134 a) positioned between adjacent microlenses; and
forming a light shielding film (a layer comprising 210; Para. [0025]) on a side of the barrier layer away from the base, and performing a patterning process on the light shielding film, so that the light shielding film forms at least one light shielding pattern (Paras. [0044], [0051]), wherein an orthographic projection of the at least one light shielding pattern on the base is overlapped with an orthographic projection of the spacer portion on the base (see Fig. 1).
Lee does not disclose forming a barrier layer on a side of the microlens film layer away from the base, wherein an orthographic projection of at least part of the barrier layer on the base is overlapped with an orthographic projection of the microlenses on the base.
However, Ma teaches forming a barrier layer (420 in Fig. 4) on a side of a microlens film layer (MLA 410) away from a base (400), wherein an orthographic projection of at least part of the barrier layer on the base is overlapped with an orthographic projection of the microlenses on the base (Fig. 4) (the examiner considers Para. [0048] of Ma generally teaches providing protection to other parts of a device into which an optical component is integrated).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the microlens array substrate as disclosed by Lee with the teachings of Ma, for forming a barrier layer on a side of the microlens film layer away from the base, wherein an orthographic projection of at least part of the barrier layer on the base is overlapped with an orthographic projection of the microlenses on the base, for the purpose of protecting lens layers (Ma: Para. [0048]).
Regarding claim 17, Lee as modified by Ma discloses the limitations of claim 2 above, and Lee further discloses a planarization layer (200) disposed on a side of the barrier layer and the light shielding layer away from the base (Fig. 1) (see Ma: Para. [0048] above regarding the barrier layer), wherein a refractive index of the planarization layer is lower than a refractive index of the microlenses (see Paras. [0026] teaching polyethylene terephthalate (PET) for the microlenses and [0033] teaching quartz for the planarization layer). (the examiner consider the refractive index of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) is about 1.5693 at a wavelength of 587.6 nm and the refractive index of quartz is about 1.4585 at a wavelength of 587.6 nm).
Regarding claim 19, Lee as modified by Ma discloses the limitations of claim 2 above.
Lee does not disclose the barrier layer is made of an inorganic light-transmitting material.
However, Ma teaches providing a barrier layer made of an inorganic light-transmitting material (see Para. [0039] teaching the barrier layer being inorganic and see Claim 1 and Para. [0015] teaching an optical component comprising the barrier film being transparent).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the microlens array substrate as disclosed by Lee with the teachings of Ma, wherein the barrier layer is made of an inorganic light-transmitting material, for the purpose of protecting lens layers (Ma: Para. [0048]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN 111353480 A, the English translation document attached; hereinafter “Liu”) in view of Ma.
Regarding claim 3, Liu discloses a microlens array substrate (Fig. 2; Pag 5 lines 17-19) comprising:
a base (110; Page 6 lines 5-7) ;
a microlens film layer (a film layer comprising 150) disposed on a side of the base and comprising at least one microlens array (an array of 150), wherein the microlens array comprises a plurality of microlenses (150) and a spacer portion (a portion formed between 150 a) between adjacent microlenses;
a light shielding layer (a light shielding layer 170 comprising 171 and 173; Page 7 lines 5-6, Page 9 lines 37-38) disposed on a side of the microlens film layer away from the base and comprising at least one light shielding pattern (173), wherein an orthographic projection of the at least one light shielding pattern on the base is overlapped with an orthographic projection of the spacer portion on the base (see the pattern comprising 171 and 173 in Fig. 2),
wherein the orthographic projection of the spacer portion on the base is positioned in the orthographic projection of the light shielding pattern on the base (Fig. 2), and an area of the orthographic projection of the spacer portion on the base is smaller than an area of the orthographic projection of the light shielding pattern on the base (see the pattern comprising 171 and 173 in Fig. 2).
Lee does not disclose a barrier layer disposed on a side of the microlens film layer away from the base, wherein an orthographic projection of at least part of the barrier layer on the base is overlapped with an orthographic projection of the microlenses on the base.
However, Ma teaches providing a barrier layer (420 in Fig. 4) on a side of a microlens film layer (MLA 410) away from a base (400), wherein an orthographic projection of at least part of the barrier layer on the base is overlapped with an orthographic projection of the microlenses on the base (Fig. 4) (the examiner considers Para. [0048] of Ma generally teaches providing protection to other parts of a device into which an optical component is integrated).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the microlens array substrate as disclosed by Lee with the teachings of Ma, to have a barrier layer disposed on a side of the microlens film layer away from the base, wherein an orthographic projection of at least part of the barrier layer on the base is overlapped with an orthographic projection of the microlenses on the base, for the purpose of protecting lens layers (Ma: Para. [0048]).
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Ma, and in further view of Shao et al. (CN 114913558 A, the English translation document attached; hereinafter “Shao”).
Regarding claim 7, Lee as modified by Ma discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Lee does not disclose the microlens film layer further comprises a first alignment mark, and an orthographic projection of the first alignment mark on the base is not overlapped with the orthographic projection of the microlenses on the base, and wherein the base comprises a second alignment mark, and an orthographic projection of at least part of the first alignment mark on the base is overlapped with the second alignment mark.
However, Shao teaches a microlens film layer (Fig. 2) comprises a first alignment mark (34), and an orthographic projection of the first alignment mark on a base (31) is not overlapped with an orthographic projection of microlenses (33) on the base, and wherein the base comprises a second alignment mark (62), and an orthographic projection of at least part of the first alignment mark on the base is overlapped with the second alignment mark (Fig. 2; Page 7 line 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the microlens array substrate as disclosed by Lee with the teachings of Shao, wherein the microlens film layer further comprises a first alignment mark, and an orthographic projection of the first alignment mark on the base is not overlapped with the orthographic projection of the microlenses on the base, and wherein the base comprises a second alignment mark, and an orthographic projection of at least part of the first alignment mark on the base is overlapped with the second alignment mark, for the purpose of fabricating an microlens array with high-precision (Shao: Page 2 lines 36-37).
Regarding claim 16, Lee as modified by Ma discloses the limitations of claim 2 above.
Lee does not disclose the microlens film layer further comprises a first alignment mark, and an orthographic projection of the first alignment mark on the base is not overlapped with the orthographic projection of the microlenses on the base, and wherein the base comprises a second alignment mark, and an orthographic projection of at least part of the first alignment mark on the base is overlapped with the second alignment mark.
However, Shao teaches a microlens film layer (Fig. 2) comprises a first alignment mark (34), and an orthographic projection of the first alignment mark on a base (31) is not overlapped with an orthographic projection of microlenses (33) on the base, and wherein the base comprises a second alignment mark (62), and an orthographic projection of at least part of the first alignment mark on the base is overlapped with the second alignment mark (Fig. 2; Page 7 line 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the microlens array substrate as disclosed by Lee with the teachings of Shao, wherein the microlens film layer further comprises a first alignment mark, and an orthographic projection of the first alignment mark on the base is not overlapped with the orthographic projection of the microlenses on the base, and wherein the base comprises a second alignment mark, and an orthographic projection of at least part of the first alignment mark on the base is overlapped with the second alignment mark, for the purpose of fabricating an microlens array with high-precision (Shao: Page 2 lines 36-37).
Claims 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Ma, and in further view of Niu et al. (US 20150181202, hereinafter “Niu”).
Regarding claim 10, Lee as modified by Ma discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Lee does not disclose a microlens is in a strip shape, the microlens extends along a first direction, and the plurality of microlenses are arranged along a second direction, a length of the microlenses in the second direction being from 10 microns to 300 microns; and/or, an arch height of the microlens is from 5 microns to 30 microns; and/or, a length of the spacer portion in the second direction is from 1.5 microns to 5 microns.
However, Niu teaches a similar microlens array substrate (Fig. 4; Paras. [0036]-[0037]), in which a microlens is in a strip shape (Fig. 4), the microlens extends along a first direction (y-axis), and the plurality of microlenses are arranged along a second direction (x-axis), a length of the microlenses in the second direction (Paras. [0037], [0050] teaching the width of 23 being 196 μm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the microlens array substrate as disclosed by Lee with the teachings of Niu, wherein a microlens is in a strip shape, the microlens extends along a first direction, and the plurality of microlenses are arranged along a second direction, a length of the microlenses in the second direction being from 10 microns to 300 microns; and/or, an arch height of the microlens is from 5 microns to 30 microns; and/or, a length of the spacer portion in the second direction is from 1.5 microns to 5 microns, for the purpose of using microlens array substrate for a display device with improving the display effect (Niu: Para. [0072]).
Regarding claim 18, Lee as modified by Ma discloses the limitations of claim 2 above.
Lee does not disclose a microlens is in a strip shape, the microlens extends along a first direction, and the plurality of microlenses are arranged along a second direction, a length of the microlenses in the second direction being from 10 microns to 300 microns; and/or, an arch height of the microlens is from 5 microns to 30 microns; and/or, a length of the spacer portion in the second direction is from 1.5 microns to 5 microns.
However, Niu teaches a similar microlens array substrate (Fig. 4; Paras. [0036]-[0037]), in which a microlens is in a strip shape (Fig. 4), the microlens extends along a first direction (y-axis), and the plurality of microlenses are arranged along a second direction (x-axis), a length of the microlenses in the second direction (Paras. [0037], [0050] teaching the width of 23 being 196 μm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the microlens array substrate as disclosed by Lee with the teachings of Niu, wherein a microlens is in a strip shape, the microlens extends along a first direction, and the plurality of microlenses are arranged along a second direction, a length of the microlenses in the second direction being from 10 microns to 300 microns; and/or, an arch height of the microlens is from 5 microns to 30 microns; and/or, a length of the spacer portion in the second direction is from 1.5 microns to 5 microns, for the purpose of using microlens array substrate for a display device with improving the display effect (Niu: Para. [0072]).
Claims 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Ma, and in further view of Tonkikh et al. (US 20230307584, hereinafter “Tonkikh”).
Regarding claim 12, Lee as modified by Ma discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Lee does not necessarily disclose the barrier layer has a thickness of 10 nm to 100 nm.
However, Tonkikh teaches a known barrier layer for a micro-lens (1390 on 1380 in Fig. 13A) has a thickness of 100 nm (see Para. [0148] teaching the protective SiO2 coating 1390).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the barrier layer as disclosed by Lee with the teachings of Ma, wherein the barrier layer has a thickness of 10 nm to 100 nm, for the purpose of providing a protective layer for a microlens (Tonkikh: Para. [0148]), and as conventionally known in the art.
Regarding claim 20, Lee as modified by Ma discloses the limitations of claim 2 above.
Lee does not necessarily disclose the barrier layer has a thickness of 10 nm to 100 nm.
However, Tonkikh teaches a known barrier layer for a micro-lens (1390 on 1380 in Fig. 13A) has a thickness of 100 nm (see Para. [0148] teaching the protective SiO2 coating 1390).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the barrier layer as disclosed by Lee with the teachings of Ma, wherein the barrier layer has a thickness of 10 nm to 100 nm, for the purpose of providing a protective layer for a microlens (Tonkikh: Para. [0148]), and as conventionally known in the art.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Ma, and in further view of Liu.
Regarding claim 13, Lee as modified by Ma discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Lee does not necessarily disclose a maximum thickness of the light shielding pattern is from 1 micron to 5 microns.
However, Liu teaches a height of a microlens is 10 μm-30 μm and the height difference between the microlens and a light shielding pattern is 5 μm-10 μm (Page 3 lines 20-21, Page 9 line 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the barrier layer as disclosed by Lee with the teachings of Liu, wherein a maximum thickness of the light shielding pattern is from 1 micron to 5 microns., for the purpose of blocking the angle with a large inclination angle as desired (Liu: Page 4 lines 5-6).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 4, Lee as modified by Ma discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and Ma further teaches providing a barrier layer (420 in Fig. 4) comprising a first portion (a portion on MLA 410), an orthographic projection of the first portion on the base is overlapped with an orthographic projection of the microlenses on the base (Fig. 4), an orthographic projection of at least part of the light shielding pattern on the base is overlapped with an orthographic projection of the microlenses on the base (the examiner considers Para. [0048] of Ma generally teaches providing protection on the lens surface and to other parts of a device into which an optical component is integrated).
However, Lee and Ma fail to explicitly disclose, in light of the specification, “at least part of the light shielding pattern is disposed on a side of the first portion away from the base and in contact with the first portion”. The examiner further considered Iguchi (US 20210005583, hereinafter “Iguchi”) and Park et al. (US 20140160395, hereinafter “Park”). However, Iguchi and Park and the prior art of Lee, Ma, Shao, Niu, Tonkikh and Liu, applied alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest the combination and arrangement of elements recited in Applicant's claim 4.
Dependent claims 5-6 are allowable by virtue of their dependence on claim 4.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN Y JUNG whose telephone number is (469)295-9076. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 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, Michael H Caley can be reached on (571)272-2286. 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.
/JONATHAN Y JUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871