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 on 8/2/2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract is consistent with the requirements set forth in the MPEP 608.01(b).
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: DISPLAY DEVICE WITH SELECTIVE VIEWING ANGLE
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the first part" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there is no previous mention of a first part in claim 9 or claims 1 and 5 which claim 9 is dependent on. For examination purposes and for proper antecedence, claim 9 is being interpreted as being dependent on claim 8 which has proper antecedence for the first part mentioned in claim 9. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 10 recites the limitations "the first part" and “the plurality of second parts” in lines 3-4, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim because there is no previous mention of a first part or a plurality of second parts in claim 10 or claims 1 and 5 which claim 10 is dependent on. For examination purposes and for proper antecedence, claim 10 is being interpreted as being dependent on claim 8, which has proper antecedence for the first part and the plurality of second parts mentioned in claim 10. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 recites the limitations "the first part," “the plurality of second parts” and “the third part” in lines 2-3, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim because there is no previous mention of a first part, a plurality of second parts and a third part in claim 11 or claims 1, 3 and 7 which claim 11 is dependent on. For examination purposes and for proper antecedence, claim 11 is being interpreted as being dependent on claim 10 which has proper antecedence for the first part, the plurality of second parts and the third part mentioned in claim 11. Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Regarding claim 1, Hong et al. US PGPub. 2023/0217690 teaches a display device (fig. 1-5) comprising: a plurality of pixels (fig. 10; hereinafter called PX) on a substrate (110, fig. 1) [0044], each of the plurality of pixels (PX) including a plurality of subpixels (SP1, SP2, SP3, fig. 1-4) [0047] configured to display different colors (R, G, B, [0047], the plurality of subpixels (SP1, SP2, SP3) including a first light-emitting element (De2, fig. 1-3) [0044] and a plurality of second light-emitting elements (De1, fig. 1-3) [0044]; a first lens (234, fig. 1, 5) [0052] overlapping a light-emitting area (EA2/165b, fig. 1, 5) [0045], [0084] of the first light-emitting element (De2), and configured to provide a viewing angle of a first value (≥60˚ in horizontal direction, [0131]); and a plurality of second lenses (232, fig. 1, 5) [0052] overlapping light-emitting areas (EA1/165a, fig. 1, 5) [0045], [0084] of the plurality of second light-emitting elements (De1), and configured to provide a viewing angle of a second value smaller (≤30˚ in both horizontal and vertical direction, [0131]) than the first value, wherein the first light-emitting element (De2) and the plurality of second light-emitting elements (De1) each comprise an anode (162, 164, fig. 2) [0083] including a reflective layer (the silver (Ag) layer in the ITO/Ag/ITO triple layer anode stack, [0083]) (Hoing et al., fig. 1-5). But Hong fails to teach wherein an opening portion is disposed in the reflective layer (Ag in ITO/Ag/ITO layer; or the entire 162 or 164) and overlaps an area between the plurality of second lenses (232). Fig. 5 shows no openings in any of the anodes 162 and 164. Claims 1-8 and 12-23 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior arts of record taken alone or in combination neither anticipates nor renders obvious a display device comprising “a first lens overlapping a light-emitting area of the first light-emitting element, and configured to provide a viewing angle of a first value” and “a plurality of second lenses overlapping light-emitting areas of the plurality of second light-emitting elements, and configured to provide a viewing angle of a second value smaller than the first value” in combination with the limitation wherein “the first light-emitting element and the plurality of second light-emitting elements each comprise an anode including a reflective layer, wherein an opening portion is disposed in the reflective layer and overlaps an area between the plurality of second lenses” as recited in claim 1; and a display device comprising “a first lens disposed to overlap a light-emitting area of the first light-emitting element and configured to provide a viewing angle of a first value; and a plurality of second lenses disposed to overlap light-emitting areas of the second light-emitting elements and configured to provide a viewing angle of a second value lower than the viewing angle of the first value” in combination with the limitation wherein “the reflective layer of the second light-emitting element has an opening portion disposed in an area that overlaps an area between the plurality of second lenses” as recited in claim 14. Claims 2-8 and 15-23 are also allowed for further limiting and depending upon allowed claims 1 and 14.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claims 9-11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hong et al. US PGPub. 2023/0215357 teaches a display device (fig. 1-6) with lens overlapping a light emitting area of a first light emitting element and no lens overlapping a light emitting area of a second light emitting element. Shin et al. US PGPub. 2022/0399529 teaches a display device (fig. 2-3) comprising plurality of lenses over plurality of light emitting areas.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NDUKA E OJEH whose telephone number is (571)270-0291. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 9am - 5pm..
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, DREW N RICHARDS can be reached at (571) 272-1736. 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.
/NDUKA E OJEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2892
Prosecution Insights