DETAILED ACTION
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.
The following title is suggested: LIGHT EMITTING DEVICE HAVING MULTIPLE ARRAYS OF LIGHT EMITTING ELEMENTS AND ELECTRONIC APPARATUS COMPRISING THE SAME
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 1-2, 8, 10-11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Chang; HanBeet et al. (US 2018/0019233; hereinafter Chang).
Regarding claim 1, Chang discloses a light emitting devices comprising:
multiple light emitting element arrays (1100,1200,1300; Figs 5-6; ¶ [0037,0018]) each of which includes multiple light emitting elements (micro-LED pixels; ¶ [0018]; 130, where 1100,1200,1300 are analogous to 100; Figs 1-4; ¶ [0031-34]) and
a main substrate (2000; Figs 5-6; ¶ [0037]) that includes a drive circuit (corresponding to pixel driving circuits 230 of analogous substrate 200; Figs 1-4; ¶ [0034,0018]),
wherein the multiple light emitting element arrays are provided on the same main substrate.
Regarding claim 2, Chang discloses the light emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the light emitting elements provided on at least one of the light emitting element arrays are LED elements (as applied to claim 1).
Regarding claim 8, Chang discloses the light emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the multiple light emitting element arrays (1100,1200,1300) include three types of light emitting element arrays having emission colors different from each other (1100, 1200, and 1300 emit light of different wavelength bands).
Regarding claim 10, Chang discloses the light emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the light emitting element arrays have a layout of any pattern selected from a one-line type, an L-shaped type, and a V-shaped type (a one-line type, as shown in Fig 6, comprising 1100,1200,1300 along a line).
Regarding claim 11, Chang discloses the light emitting device according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the light emitting element arrays (1100; Figs 5-6) is a sub-substrate (comprising the substrate 110; Fig 1; ¶ [0032]) that includes the multiple light emitting elements and is different from the main substrate (2000; Fig 5-6).
Regarding claim 13, Chang discloses an electronic apparatus (head-up display, for example; ¶ [0028]) comprising: the light emitting device according to claim 1.
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 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang; HanBeet et al. (US 2018/0019233; hereinafter Chang) in view of Ohmae; Akira et al. (US 2021/0134765; hereinafter Ohmae).
Regarding claim 3, Chang discloses the light emitting device according to claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the light emitting elements provided on at least one of the light emitting element arrays are OLED elements.
In the same field of endeavor, Ohmae discloses a light emitting device having multiple light emitting arrays (display panels (10; Figs 3-6; ¶ [0029-32]) provided on a same main substrate (20; Figs 3-4; ¶ [0029]), each including multiple light emitting elements (12A; Fig 6; ¶ [0032]), wherein the light emitting elements may be OLED elements, quantum dot light emitting elements or LED elements (¶ [0068-69, 0034]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have combined the OLED display panel configuration of Ohmae with the light emitting device of Chang. One would have been motivated to do this at least as an alternate type of light emitting elements, or for one of several performance or production characteristics known in the art. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success because each of these element types are well-known in the art, and may be used alternately, as evidenced by Ohmae’s disclosure, in many configurations.
Regarding claim 4, Chang discloses the light emitting device according to claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the light emitting elements provided on at least one of the light emitting element arrays are light emitting elements each of which includes a quantum dot.
In the same field of endeavor, Ohmae discloses a light emitting device having multiple light emitting arrays (display panels (10; Figs 3-6; ¶ [0029-32]) provided on a same main substrate (20; Figs 3-4; ¶ [0029]), each including multiple light emitting elements (12A; Fig 6; ¶ [0032]), wherein the light emitting elements may be quantum dot light emitting elements, OLED elements, or LED elements (¶ [0068-69, 0034]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have combined the quantum dot display panel configuration of Ohmae with the light emitting device of Chang. One would have been motivated to do this at least as an alternate type of light emitting elements, or for one of several performance or production characteristics known in the art. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success because each of these element types are well-known in the art, and may be used alternately, as evidenced by Ohmae’s disclosure, in many configurations.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang; HanBeet et al. (US 2018/0019233; hereinafter Chang) in view of Zou; Quanbo et al. (US 20190237618; hereinafter Zou).
Regarding claim 5, Chang discloses the light emitting device according to claim 1, but does not disclose wherein each of the light emitting elements provided on at least two of the light emitting element arrays is selected from a group including an LED element, an OLED element, and a quantum dot light emitting element, and the light emitting elements provided on one of the at least two of the light emitting element arrays are elements of a type different from that of the light emitting elements provided on another of the at least two of the light emitting element arrays.
In the same field of endeavor, Zou discloses a light emitting device comprising an array of red quantum dot light emitting elements (504), an array of green quantum dot light emitting elements (505), and an array of blue LED elements (micro-LED elements 506; Fig 5-6; ¶ [0040,0044]). Zou explains that blue quantum dot light emitting elements and green micro-LEDs have a lower efficiency than other LEDs, and therefore the blue element used is a micro-LED and the green element used is a quantum dot light emitting element. Accordingly, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have configured the light emitting element arrays of Chang in the same fashion, satisfying the limitations of claim 5. One would have been motivated to do this in order to avoid reduced efficiency and/or improve an efficiency of the device as taught by Zou, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success because each of the element types is well-known in the art.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang; HanBeet et al. (US 2018/0019233; hereinafter Chang) in view of Haase; Michael A. (US 2010/0117997; hereinafter Haase).
Regarding claim 6, Chang discloses the light emitting device according to claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the light emitting elements provided on one of at least two of the light emitting element arrays has a size different from that of the light emitting elements provided on another of the at least two of the light emitting element arrays.
However, light emitting elements of different sizes are known in the art, even for a same type of element (such as an LED element), for example for elements emitting different colors of light (see, for example Haase; ¶ [0053]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art for the elements of one light emitting element array of Chang to have a different size from those of another of the arrays, satisfying the limitations of claim 6. One would have been motivated to do this, for example, for an array of one color different from an array of another color, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success because such size differences are well-known and common in the art.
In addition, considering the claim limitations as a stating of dimension, it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). See MPEP 2144.04.IV.A.
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang; HanBeet et al. (US 2018/0019233; hereinafter Chang) in view of Kang; Seung Jae et al. US 2022/0208949; hereinafter Kang).
Regarding claim 7, Chang discloses the light emitting device according to claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the multiple light emitting elements included in each of the light emitting element arrays are two-dimensionally arranged in a first direction and a second direction crossing each other at right angles, and are provided such that the number of the light emitting elements per unit length in the first direction and the number of the light emitting elements per unit length in the second direction are different from each other.
In the same field of endeavor, Kang discloses a light emitting device comprising: multiple light emitting element arrays each of which includes multiple light emitting elements (SPX1-SPX3; Figs 1,4; ¶ [0070]), wherein the light emitting elements are two-dimensionally arranged in a first direction and a second direction crossing each other at right angles such that there are three elements in the x-direction for each one element in the y-direction (as shown in Fig 4.) Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have combined the arrangement of Kang with the light emitting device of claim 1, satisfying the limitations of claim 7. One would have been motivated to do this, with a reasonable expectation of success because such element dimensions and array configurations are well-known in the art and routinely used for a variety of applications.
In addition, considering the claim limitations as a stating of dimension, it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). See MPEP 2144.04.IV.A.
Regarding claim 9, Chang discloses the light emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the multiple light emitting element arrays (1100,1200,1300; Figs 5-6) include a first light emitting element array having a first emission color (1100; may emit red light; ¶ [0038]).
Chang does not disclose the multiple light emitting element arrays include a second light emitting element array having multiple emission colors different from the first color. However, Chang discloses, as is well-known in the art, that a light emitting element array having multiple emission colors (red, green, and blue for example) is known in the art (¶ [0005,0040]). See also, Kang (SPX1-SPX3; Figs 1,4; ¶ [0070]), as another example.
Since each of the light emitting arrays having a single emission color, or multiple emission colors, is known in the art, and a combination of light emitting element arrays of each is known in the art (at least as disclosed by Chang and Kang respectively), a person having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, including at least those disclosed by Chang and/or Kang, with each element performing the same function as it does separately.
Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. In this regard, a Prima Facie case of obviousness is considered met. See MPEP 2143.I.A.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang; HanBeet et al. (US 2018/0019233; hereinafter Chang).
Regarding claim 12, Chang discloses the light emitting device according to claim 11, wherein each of the multiple light emitting element arrays (1100,1200,1300; Fig 6) has a light extraction surface (upper surface), and
an optical system that combines rays of light generated from the light extraction surfaces of the respective light emitting element arrays is provided (an optical system can focus three colors on the same area to achieve full color; ¶ [0040]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art that the optical system would be provided above the light extraction surfaces in order to be within the path of emitted light in order to focus it.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Chong; Wing Cheung et al. (US 2018/0132330; the prior art discloses a light source comprising multiple micro-LED arrays on a substrate having a driving controller);
Liu; Na et al. (US 2024/0389419; the prior art discloses a spliced display panel comprising multiple arrays of OLEDs on a driving backplane);
Moon; Youngkyun et al. (US 2020/0203654; the prior art discloses a segmented lighting device comprising multiple arrays of OLEDs on a substrate having a driving controller);
Duggal; Anil Raj (US 6661029; the prior art discloses a light source comprising multiple OLED arrays on a substrate having a driving controller
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRAD KNUDSON whose telephone number is (703)756-4582. The examiner can normally be reached Telework 9:30 -18:30 ET; M-F.
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, Eliseo Ramos Feliciano can be reached at 571-272-7925. 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.
/B.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/ELISEO RAMOS FELICIANO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights