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 .
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.
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)(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 1-2, 6-7, 11, 14-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US publication 2023/0209886 A1), hereinafter referred to as Lee886.
Regarding claim 1, Lee886 teaches a display apparatus (fig. 3 and related text) comprising: a light-emitting panel including a first substrate (110, [0030], fig. 3), a plurality of light-emitting diodes (De, [0030]) on the first substrate, a bank layer (210, [0071]) including a plurality of openings (fig. 3), a functional layer (220, [0083]) in the openings of the bank layer, and a plurality of lenses (230, [0083]) on the functional layer; a color panel (260/270/280, [0076-0099]) on the light-emitting panel, the color panel including a second substrate (280) and a color filter layer (260) on the second substrate; and a filling layer (240, [0076]) covering the plurality of lenses between the light-emitting panel and the color panel (fig. 3), the filling layer having a refractive index lower than a refractive index of the plurality of lenses ([0087]), wherein the plurality of lenses include a first lens (lens corresponding B & R regions, fig. 3) overlapping the functional layer, and a second lens (lens corresponding G region, fig. 3) overlapping a partition wall of the bank layer (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 2, Lee886 teaches wherein the first lens and the second lens include a same material (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 6, Lee886 teaches wherein a thickness of the first lens is equal to a thickness of the second lens (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 7, Lee886 teaches wherein a thickness (edges of lens) of the first lens is less than a thickness (middle of lens) of the second lens (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 11, Lee886 teaches wherein the plurality of lenses are spaced apart from each other (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 14, Lee886 teaches a display apparatus (fig. 3 and related text) comprising: a substrate (110, [0030], fig. 3); a plurality of light-emitting elements (De, [0030]) on the substrate; an encapsulation layer (190, [0030]) covering the plurality of light-emitting elements (fig. 3); a bank layer (210, [0071]) on the encapsulation layer and having a plurality of openings (fig. 3); a functional layer (220, [0083]) in the plurality of openings of the bank layer; a light collection layer (lens (230, [0083]) corresponding B or R region, fig. 3) on the functional layer and overlapping the functional layer (fig. 3); a spacer (lens (230, [0083]) corresponding G region, fig. 3) on a same layer as the light collection layer on the functional layer (fig. 3), the spacer overlapping a partition wall of the bank layer (fig. 3); a filling layer (240, [0076]) on the light collection layer and the spacer; and a color filter layer (260, [0076-0099]) on the filling layer, wherein the light collection layer has a refractive index higher than a refractive index of the filling layer ([0087]).
Regarding claim 15, Lee886 teaches wherein the light collection layer and the spacer include a same material as each other (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 17, Lee886 teaches wherein a thickness of the light collection layer is less than or equal to a thickness of the spacer (fig. 3).
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 of this title, 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 3-5, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee886, as applied to claim 1 or 14 above, and further in view of Sui et al. (US publication 2023/0116030 A1), hereinafter referred to as Sui030.
Regarding claim 3, Lee886 discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above on which this claim depends.
Lee886 does not explicitly teach wherein a difference between a refractive index of the plurality of lenses and a refractive index of the filling layer is in a range of 0.1 to 0.7.
Sui030 teaches wherein a difference between a refractive index of the plurality of lenses (n1) and a refractive index of the filling layer (n2, fig. 3a) is in a range of 0.1 to 0.7 ([0190-0191]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lee886 with that of Sui030 so that wherein a difference between a refractive index of the plurality of lenses and a refractive index of the filling layer is in a range of 0.1 to 0.7 for reducing color breakup of reflection of ambient light in a display panel ([0003]).
Regarding claim 4, Lee886 discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above on which this claim depends.
Lee886 does not explicitly teach wherein a refractive index of the plurality of lenses is in a range of 1.65 to 2.
Sui030 teaches wherein a refractive index (n1) of the plurality of lenses (n1) is in a range of 1.65 to 2 ([0190-0191]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lee886 with that of Sui030 so that wherein a refractive index of the plurality of lenses is in a range of 1.65 to 2 for reducing color breakup of reflection of ambient light in a display panel ([0003]).
Regarding claim 5, Lee886 discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above on which this claim depends.
Lee886 does not explicitly teach wherein a refractive index of the filling layer is in a range of 1.3 to 1.6.
Sui030 teaches wherein a refractive index of the filling layer (n2) is in a range of 1.3 to 1.6 ([0190-0191]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lee886 with that of Sui030 so that wherein a refractive index of the filling layer is in a range of 1.3 to 1.6 for reducing color breakup of reflection of ambient light in a display panel ([0003]).
Regarding claim 16, Lee886 discloses all the limitations of claim 14 as discussed above on which this claim depends.
Lee886 does not explicitly teach wherein a difference between a refractive index of the light collection layer and a refractive index of the filling layer is in a range of 0.1 to 0.7.
Sui030 teaches wherein a difference between a refractive index of the light collection layer (n1) and a refractive index of the filling layer (n2, fig. 3a) is in a range of 0.1 to 0.7 ([0190-0191]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lee886 with that of Sui030 so that wherein a difference between a refractive index of the light collection layer and a refractive index of the filling layer is in a range of 0.1 to 0.7 for reducing color breakup of reflection of ambient light in a display panel ([0003]).
Regarding claim 19, Lee886 teaches a display apparatus (fig. 3 and related text) comprising: a light-emitting panel including a first substrate (110, [0030], fig. 3), a plurality of light-emitting diodes (De, [0030]) on the first substrate, a bank layer (210, [0071]) including a plurality of openings (fig. 3), a functional layer (220, [0083]) in the openings of the bank layer, and a plurality of lenses (230, [0083]) on the functional layer; a color panel (260/270/280, [0076-0099]) on the light-emitting panel, the color panel including a second substrate (280) and a color filter layer (260) on the second substrate; and a filling layer (240, [0076]) between the light-emitting panel and the color panel, the filling layer covering the plurality of lenses (fig. 3), the filling layer having a refractive index lower than a refractive index of the plurality of lenses ([0087])
Lee886 does not explicitly teach wherein a difference between a refractive index of the plurality of lenses and a refractive index of the filling layer is in a range of 0.1 to 0.7.
Sui030 teaches wherein a difference between a refractive index of the plurality of lenses (n1) and a refractive index of the filling layer (n2, fig. 3a) is in a range of 0.1 to 0.7 ([0190-0191]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lee886 with that of Sui030 so that wherein a difference between a refractive index of the plurality of lenses and a refractive index of the filling layer is in a range of 0.1 to 0.7.for reducing color breakup of reflection of ambient light in a display panel ([0003]).
Claim 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee886, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li et al. (US publication 2021/0096283 A1), hereinafter referred to as Li283.
Regarding claim 8, Lee886 discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above on which this claim depends.
Lee886 does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of lenses are arranged such that a virtual line connecting centers of lenses closest to one lens among the plurality of lenses forms a square.
Li283 teaches wherein the plurality of lenses are arranged such that a virtual line connecting centers of lenses closest to one lens among the plurality of lenses forms a square ([0073], fig. 2a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lee886 with that of Li283 so that wherein the plurality of lenses are arranged such that a virtual line connecting centers of lenses closest to one lens among the plurality of lenses forms a square with reduced viewing angle for better protection for user's privacy, or/and reduced light waste for reduced power consumption and reduced light interference between pixels with better images ([0007]).
Regarding claim 9, Lee886 discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above on which this claim depends.
Lee886 does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of lenses are arranged such that a virtual line connecting centers of lenses closest to one lens among the plurality of lenses forms a hexagon.
Li283 teaches wherein the plurality of lenses are arranged such that a virtual line connecting centers of lenses closest to one lens among the plurality of lenses forms a hexagon ([0073], fig. 2a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lee886 with that of Li283 so that wherein the plurality of lenses are arranged such that a virtual line connecting centers of lenses closest to one lens among the plurality of lenses forms a hexagon with reduced viewing angle for better protection for user's privacy, or/and reduced light waste for reduced power consumption and reduced light interference between pixels with better images ([0007]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee886, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Oh et al. (US publication 2014/0252331 A1), hereinafter referred to as Oh331.
Regarding claim 10, Lee886 discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above on which this claim depends.
Lee886 does not explicitly teach wherein a distance between centers of a pair of lenses adjacent to each other among the plurality of lenses is equal to a width of each of the lenses.
Oh331 teaches wherein a distance between centers of a pair of lenses adjacent to each other among the plurality of lenses is equal to a width of each of the lenses ([0062]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lee886 with that of Oh331so that wherein a distance between centers of a pair of lenses adjacent to each other among the plurality of lenses is equal to a width of each of the lenses for improved color display effect according to the viewing angle may be maximized ([0062]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee886 in view of Sui030, as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Sun (US publication 2024/0164191 A1), hereinafter referred to as Sun191.
Regarding claim 20, Lee886 and Sui030 disclose all the limitations of claim 19 as discussed above on which this claim depends.
Lee886 also teaches and the filling layer has a refractive index lower than the refractive index of the plurality of lenses ([0087]).
Lee886 and Sui030 do not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of lenses have a refractive index higher than a refractive index of the functional layer.
Sun191 discloses wherein the plurality of lenses have a refractive index higher than a refractive index of the functional layer ([0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lee886 and Sui030 with that of Sun191 so that wherein the plurality of lenses have a refractive index higher than a refractive index of the functional layer so as to improve the viewing angle symmetry of the existing OLED display panel ([0004]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-13 and 18 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:
The claims contain limitations that none of the prior art of record discloses, teaches or fairly suggests, alone or in combinations when taken in combination with all other limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mohammed R Alam whose telephone number is 469-295-9205 and can normally be reached between 8:00am-6:00pm (M-F) or by e-mail via Mohammed.Alam1@uspto.gov.
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, Jacob Choi can be reached on 469-295-9060. 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.
/MOHAMMED R ALAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights