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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites “located on at least one side a carrier”. The claim should read “located on at least one side of a carrier”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 9 and 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 9 recites “wherein the microlens and the stray light guiding layer are integrally formed, and a material of the microlens is identical to a material of the stray light guiding layer.”
The limitation layer has been interpreted as “ a structure lying over or under another”.
The Examiner notes that the limitation “light guiding layer, disposed on a side surface of the microlens” requires a structure lying over, or surrounding, the side of the microlens. The layer may be made of the same material or a different material, but the Examiner finds that there must be an indication of a change from the microlens to the layer, e.g. a border, gap, or change in refractive index.
I.e. Claim 1 sets forth that the light guiding layer is a layer disposed on a side surface of the microlens, claim 9 sets forth that the structures are integral and does not forth a distinction between the “layer” and the “microlens”. The Examiner finds that this is more broad than the independent claim 1, as claim 9 appears to set forth that the “light guiding layer” is not a layer but a region or portion.
As claim 9 directly contradicts claim 1, the Examiner is unable to interpret the claim.
In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner further notes that claim 9 is directed to an exclusive embodiment. Further clarification, or recitation as an independent claim, may requires an election of species.
Claim 11 recites that the passivation layer is an “inorganic or organic passivation layer”. All known materials are classified as “inorganic or organic”. Therefore the claim fails to further limit the claim from which it depends as, by definition, it must be inorganic or organic.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 1, 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey (U.S. 8,231,250) in view of 796 (cn117192796, included on IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Bailey teaches a light-emitting array module (see fig. 5), comprising:
a light source array (see fig. 1, 2 multiple emitters), comprising a plurality of light-emitting elements arranged in an array; and
a plurality of microlens units, disposed on the light source array, each of the microlens units comprising:
a microlens (inner collimation lens 54);
a stray light guiding layer (TIR lens 55), disposed on a side surface of the microlens,
wherein a refractive index of a medium or space on an outer side of the stray light guiding layer (55) is less than a refractive index of the stray light guiding layer (forms ITR and has air outside of 55); and
a stray light reflecting layer (reflecting layer 51), disposed at one side of the stray light guiding layer adjacent to the light source array, wherein light emitted by the light-emitting elements corresponding to the microlens units and reflected into the stray light guiding layer by the stray light reflecting layer (51 redirects and reflect lights into 53, 54, and 55) undergoes total internal reflection on a surface of the stray light guiding layer (TIR boundary).
Bailey does not teach that the lens is a microlens and that it is a plurality of microlens units.
796 teaches that the lens is a microlens and that it is a plurality (see fig. 3) of microlens and that it is a plurality of microlens units (hole is 5 microns, see example 7).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used the lens shape of Bailey for the array such as taught by 796 to provide a highly uniform light distribution as taught by Bailey into a display as taught by 796.
Regarding claim 3, Bailey teaches that the stray light reflecting layer is disposed on a surface located on at least one side of a carrier (board 52).
Regarding claim 4, Bailey teaches that the stray light guiding layer, the stray light reflecting layer, or both are of a circular ring shape, a polygonal ring shape, an irregular shape, or a partially disconnected and not completely continuous shape (ring shaped).
Regarding claim 5, Bailey teaches that the microlens (54) has a refractive surface facing away from the light source array, and the refractive surface is a spherical surface, an aspherical surface, or a free-form surface (free form, 58).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Bailey and 796 teaches that an air gaps exist between the stray light guiding layers of the adjacent microlens units (see fig. 4 of 796).
Claim(s) 2, 7, 8, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey in view of 796, further in view of Bierhuizen (U.S. 2011/0062470)
Regarding claim 2, Bailey does not teach that a refractive index of the microlens (54) is less than the refractive index of the stray light guiding layer (55).
Bierhuizen teach that a refractive index of the micro lens (404) is less than the refractive index of the stray light guiding layer (402, see p. 0031 404 has a lower index of refraction as it is made of silicone).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used a lower index of refraction for the second optic structure as taught by Bierhuizen to prevent TIR boundary between 54 and 55 of Bailey, and therefore preventing a reduced angular emission cone.
Regarding claim 7, Bailey does not teach that the stray light guiding layers of the adjacent microlens units are connected by a connection portion, and a refractive index of the connection portion is less than the refractive index of the stray light guiding layers.
Bierhuizen teach that a refractive index of the micro lens (404) is less than the refractive index of the stray light guiding layer (402, see p. 0031 404 has a lower index of refraction as it is made of silicone).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used a lower index of refraction for the second optic structure as taught by Bierhuizen to prevent TIR boundary between 54 and 55 of Bailey, and therefore preventing a reduced angular emission cone.
The combination of Bailey and Bierhuizen teaches that the stray light guiding layers of the adjacent microlens units are connected by a connection portion (see fig. 3 of 796), and a refractive index of the connection portion is less than the refractive index of the stray light guiding layers (connection portion is integral with the microlens unit, all of which has a refractive index less than the stray light guiding layers).
Regarding claim 8, Bailey teaches that the microlens (54) comprises: a flat portion (58), surrounded by the stray light guiding layer, wherein a refractive index of the flat portion is less than the refractive index of the stray light guiding layer; and a lens portion (58), disposed on a surface of the flat portion facing away from the light source array.
Bierhuizen teach that a refractive index of the micro lens (404) is less than the refractive index of the stray light guiding layer (402, see p. 0031 404 has a lower index of refraction as it is made of silicone).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used a lower index of refraction for the second optic structure as taught by Bierhuizen to prevent TIR boundary between 54 and 55 of Bailey, and therefore preventing a reduced angular emission cone.
The combination of Bierhuizen and Bailey results in the flat portion (58) having a refractive index less than the stray light guiding layer.
Regarding claim 14, Bailey does not specifically teach that the refractive index of the stray light guiding layer falls within a range from 1.1 to 6.0, a refractive index of the microlens falls within a range from 1.0 to 6.0, and the refractive index of the medium or the space on the outer side of the stray light guiding layer falls within a range from 1.0 to 5.1.
Bierhuizen teaches that the refractive index of the stray light guiding layer falls within a range from 1.1 to 6.0, a refractive index of the microlens falls within a range from 1.0 to 6.0, and the refractive index of the medium or the space on the outer side of the stray light guiding layer falls within a range from 1.0 to 5.1 (glass, silicone, air, see p. 0019-0022).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used a refractive index material as taught by Beirhuizen to form the optical structures of Bailey as such ranges of refractive index are well suited for transparent optical structures.
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey in view of 796, further in view of Tonkikh (U.S. 12,148,863, filed 3/24/2022, all references made to US patent for ease of reference).
Regarding claim 10, Bailey does not specifically teach that each of the microlens units further comprises a passivation layer covering the light source array and disposed between the microlens and the light source array, and the stray light reflecting layer is embedded into the passivation layer.
Tonkikh teaches that that each of the microlens units further comprises a passivation layer (passivation layer 1250) covering the light source array and disposed between the microlens and the light source array, and the stray light reflecting layer is embedded into the passivation layer (reflection layer 1252, embedded within).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used a passivation layer to embed the reflective layer as taught by Tonkikh for the reflective structure of Bailey as the passivation layer is well known to isolate the semiconductor mesa and is commonly used in micro led structures, see col. 36.
Regarding claim 11, Tonkikh teaches that the passivation layer is an organic passivation layer or an inorganic passivation layer (all materials are organic or inorganic).
Regarding claim 12, Bailey does not teach that the stray light reflecting layer comprises an inclined reflection portion inclined relative to the light source array and the stray light guiding layer, and the inclined reflection portion is configured to reflect stray light emitted by the light-emitting elements to the stray light guiding layer.
Tonkikh teaches that the stray light reflecting layer comprises an inclined reflection portion (1252 is inclined) inclined relative to the light source array and the stray light guiding layer, and the inclined reflection portion is configured to reflect stray light emitted by the light-emitting elements to the stray light guiding layer.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used an inclined reflecting surface as taught by Tonkikh to reflect the stray light from Bailey into the lens, see col. 36.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 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 allowance:
Claim 13 recites, inter alia, “an edge of the microlens covers the other side of the stray light guiding layer away from the light source array.”
The structure of Bailey does not teach a microlens that covers the other side of the stray light guiding layer away from the light source array. Such a recitation requires that the layer surrounds the base of an expanding microlens. WO2019/201794 teaches a similar structure in figure 4, however the light source is located within the stray light guide layer (8) and the reflector does not reflect light into such.
The Examiner finds that redesigning Bailey to create such a structure would completely alter the optical effects of the lenses of Bailey and would not be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
The limitation layer has been interpreted as “ a structure lying over or under another”.
The Examiner notes that the limitation “light guiding layer, disposed on a side surface of the microlens” requires a structure lying over, or surrounding, the side of the microlens. The layer may be made of the same material or a different material, but the Examiner finds that there must be an indication of a change from the microlens to the layer, e.g. a border, gap, or change in refractive index.
The Examiner notes that the limitation “a stray light reflecting layer, disposed at one side of the stray light guiding layer adjacent to the light source array” additionally requires that the light reflecting layer is a structure that lays over or under the light guiding layer.
With this in mind, the Examiner finds that CN117192796A, included on the IDS, does not read on the claim as set forth. ‘796 sets forth a series of microlenses that are arranged together as a collimating film. The microlenses do not set forth layers, there is no differentiation between the inner and outer portions of the lens. The designations of “a” “b” “c” in figure 1 and figure 2 indicate different optical regions, i.e. a transmitting and reflecting region. Furthermore, “1” and “2” are both part of 101 and are defined by their shapes. The Examiner finds that interpreting “A” and “B” as the light guiding layer and the light reflecting layer would be an overly broad interpretation of the claim language inconsistent with the plain meaning and would not be reading the claim in light of the disclosure.
Bierhuizen (U.S. 2011/0062470) sets forth a lens structure that has a stray light reflecting layer (104, or 404) that reflects light into the microlens, however Bierhuizen fails to teach a stray light guiding layer disposed on a side surface of the microlens as recited. Furthermore, there is a TIR interaction formed at 104, but not at the edge of the microlens.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J PEERCE whose telephone number is (571)272-6570. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4pm EST.
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 Greece can be reached on (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.
/Matthew J. Peerce/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights