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 .
This action is responsive to an Application filed on 08/13/2024, which claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/533,177, filed on 08/17/2023, and to U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/656,215, filed on 06/05/2024.
Currently, claims 1-20 are examined as below.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 12/18/2024. The IDS has been considered.
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:
(Marked-Up Version) Light Emitting Module Capable of Improving Luminance and Display Device Having the Same
(Clean Version) Light Emitting Module Capable of Improving Luminance and Display Device Having the Same
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claims 1-2, 6, 9, 11, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Korean Patent Publication No. 20130035538 A to Min.
PNG
media_image1.png
858
649
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
463
350
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding independent claim 1, Min in Figs. 1-3 teaches a light emitting module 100 (Figs. 1-3 & p.3, organic light emitting diode display 100) comprising:
a light emitting device 120-140 (Figs. 1, 3, p.3, a collective of first electrode layer 120, organic emission layer 130 and second electrode layer 140) that generates light (pp.3-4);
a first lens 153 (Figs. 1-3, p.4, lens 153) disposed above the light emitting device 120-140 to collect light generated from the light emitting device 120-140 (Fig. 3); and
a partition 152 (Figs. 1-3, p.4, partition 152) extending in an up-down direction to surround at least a portion of the first lens 153.
Regarding claim 2, Min in Figs. 1-3 further teaches a first lens support 151 (Figs. 1, 3, pp.5-6, base layer 151) disposed between the light emitting device 120-140 and the first lens 153 to allow light to pass therethrough while supporting the first lens 153 (pp.5-6).
Regarding claim 6, Min in Figs. 1 and 3 further teaches a width of a bottom of the first lens 153 and a height of the first lens 153 are greater than a height of the first lens support 151 (Figs. 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 9, Min in Figs. 1 and 3 further teaches the partition 152 forms a lens accommodation space (Figs. 1, 3) in which the first lens 153 is accommodated, and
a ratio of a width of the bottom of the first lens 153 and a width of the lens accommodation space is 1:1 to 1:1.5 or less (Figs. 1, 3).
Regarding claim 11, Min in Figs. 1 and 3 further teaches a width of the partition 152 is less than or equal to a height of the partition 152 (Figs. 1, 3).
Regarding claim 17, Min in Figs. 1-3 further teaches the first lens 153, the first lens support 151, and the partition 152 are formed integrally with each other (Figs. 1-3, p.3, the components 151, 152, 153 are constituent parts of lens array layer 150 that together form as a whole i.e., formed integrally with each other).
Regarding independent claim 19, Min in Figs. 1-3 and 4b-4c teaches a display device 100 (Figs. 1-3 & p.3, organic light emitting diode display 100) comprising:
a light emitting device 120-140 (Figs. 1, 3, p.3, a collective of first electrode layer 120, organic emission layer 130 and second electrode layer 140) that emits light (pp.3-4);
a lens 153 (Figs. 1-3, p.4, lens 153) disposed above the light emitting device 120-140 to collect light generated from the light emitting device 120-140 (Fig. 3);
a first lens support 151 (Figs. 1, 3, pp.5-6, base layer 151) disposed between the light emitting device 120-140 and the first lens 153 to support the first lens 153 and allow the light to pass therethrough (pp.5-6); and
a partition 152 (Figs. 1-3, p.4, partition 152) extending in an up-down direction to surround at least a portion of the first lens 153 and reflects the light,
the first lens support 151 and the partition 152 are formed integrally with each other (Figs. 1-3, 4b, p.3, the components 151 and 152 are constituent parts of lens array layer 150 that together form as a whole i.e., formed integrally with each other), and the first lens 153 is formed separately from the first lens support 151 and the partition 152 (Fig. 4c, lens 153 is formed after the components 151 and 152 are formed).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3-4, 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Min in view of US 2016/0087018 A1 to Shim et al. (“Shim”).
Regarding claim 3, Min does not explicitly disclose a second lens disposed above the first lens to collect light passing through the first lens and having a downwardly convex shape; and
a second lens support supporting the second lens and through which light passing through the second lens is transmitted.
Shim recognize a need for improving viewing angle and light efficiency (¶ 9). Shim satisfies the need by providing a second lens 304 (Fig. 5, ¶ 65, lens 304) disposed above a first lens 302 (Fig. 5, ¶ 65, lens 302) to collect light passing through the first lens 302 (¶ 54) and having a downwardly convex shape (Fig. 5, ¶ 68); and
a second lens support 200 (Fig. 5, ¶ 63, second substrate 200) supporting the second lens 304 and through which light passing through the second lens 304 is transmitted (Fig. 5, ¶ 63).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the second lens and the second lens support taught by Shim with the first lens taught by Min, so as to improve viewing angle and light efficiency (Shim: ¶ 9).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Min and Shim further teaches the first lens 302 (Shim: Fig. 5) has an upwardly convex shape, and the second lens 304 has a downward convex shape (Shim: Fig. 5), and
wherein a first lens angle of a first virtual line connecting an uppermost point of the first lens 302 and an outer edge of a bottom of the first lens 302 with respect to a first lens support 600 (Shim: Fig. 5, ¶ 64, thin film encapsulation layer 600) and a second lens angle of a second virtual line connecting a lowermost point of the second lens support 200 and an outer edge of a top of the second lens 304 with respect to the second lens support 200.
The combination of Min and Shim does not explicitly disclose that the first lens angle and the second lens angle are formed differently from each other.
However, Shim teaches a general condition in which there are the first lens angle (Fig. 5) and the second lens angle (Fig. 5).
According to Section 2144.05 of the MPEP, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Here, since Shim teaches said general conditions, it would not be inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Unless the Applicant can show that the specific conditions of a first lens angle of a first virtual line connecting an uppermost point of the first lens and an outer edge of a bottom of the first lens with respect to the first lens support and a second lens angle of a second virtual line connecting a lowermost point of the second lens support and an outer edge of a top of the second lens with respect to the second lens support are formed differently from each other produce unexpected results that are different in kind and not different in degree, said general conditions taught by Min and Shim renders claim 4 obvious.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Min and Shim teaches an angle of a first lens tangent passing through an outer edge of a bottom of the first lens 302 (Shim: Fig. 5) with respect to a first lens support 600 (Shim: Fig. 5, ¶ 64, thin film encapsulation layer 600) and an angle of the second lens tangent passing through an outer edge of a top of the second lens 304 with respect to the second lens support 200.
The combination of Min and Shim does not explicitly disclose that the angle of the first lens tangent and the angle of the second lens tangent are formed differently from each other.
However, Shim teaches a general condition in which there are the angle of the first lens tangent (Fig. 5) and the angle of the second lens tangent (Fig. 5).
According to Section 2144.05 of the MPEP, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Here, since Shim teaches said general conditions, it would not be inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Unless the Applicant can show that the specific conditions of an angle of a first lens tangent passing through an outer edge of a bottom of the first lens with respect to the first lens support and an angle of the second lens tangent passing through an outer edge of a top of the second lens with respect to the second lens support are formed differently from each other produce unexpected results that are different in kind and not different in degree, said general conditions taught by Min and Shim renders claim 7 obvious.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Min and Shim further teaches the first lens 302 and the second lens 304 are arranged to be spaced apart from each other (Shim: Fig. 5).
Claims 12-13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable and obvious over Min.
Regarding claim 12, Min in Figs. 1-3 further teaches the light emitting device 120-140 includes:
a light emitting diode chip 120-140 (Figs. 1, 3, p.3, a collective of first electrode layer 120, organic emission layer 130 and second electrode layer 140) that generates light (pp.3-4); and
a light-transmissive substrate 110 (Figs. 1, 3, p.3, substrate 110 formed of a transparent glass or resin) disposed above the light emitting diode chip 120-140 and through which the light transmits (p.3), and
a height of the light-transmitting substrate 110 is greater than a height of the first lens support 151 (Figs. 1, 3), and
the height of the first lens 152 is greater than the height of the first lens support 151 (Figs. 1, 3).
Min does not explicitly disclose wherein a height of the first lens support is greater than a height of the light emitting diode chip.
However, it would have been obvious to form the heights within the claimed range, since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was 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 was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Regarding claim 13, Min in Figs. 1 and 3 further teaches the light emitting device 120-140 includes:
a light emitting diode chip 120-140 (Figs. 1, 3, p.3, a collective of first electrode layer 120, organic emission layer 130 and second electrode layer 140) that generates light (pp.3-4); and
a light-transmissive substrate 110 (Figs. 1, 3, p.3, substrate 110 formed of a transparent glass or resin) through which the light transmits (p.3). Min does not explicitly disclose a refractive index of the light-transmitting substrate is greater than a refractive index of the first lens and a refractive index of the first lens support.
However, Min teaches a general condition in which each of the light-transmitting substrate 110, the first lens 153 and the first lens support 151 has a refractive index, because all materials have a refractive index.
According to Section 2144.05 of the MPEP, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Here, since Min teaches said general conditions, it would not be inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Unless the Applicant can show that the specific conditions of a refractive index of the light-transmitting substrate being greater than a refractive index of the first lens and a refractive index of the first lens support produce unexpected results that are different in kind and not different in degree, said general conditions taught by Fujimoto renders claim 13 obvious.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Min and Shim, and further in view of US 2020/0119236 A1 to Yang et al. (“Yang”).
PNG
media_image3.png
407
836
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding independent claim 20, Min in Figs. 1-3 teaches a display device 100 (Figs. 1-3 & p.3, organic light emitting diode display 100) comprising:
a plurality of light emitting modules (Figs. 1-3, pp.4-5, portions of the display 100 separated by the partitions 152),
wherein the light emitting module (Fig. 3) includes:
a light emitting device 120-140 (Figs. 1, 3, p.3, a collective of first electrode layer 120, organic emission layer 130 and second electrode layer 140) that generates light (pp.3-4);
a first lens 153 (Figs. 1-3, p.4, lens 153) disposed above the light emitting device 120-140 to collect light generated from the light emitting device 120-140 (Fig. 3);
a partition 152 (Figs. 1-3, p.4, partition 152) that extends in an up-down direction to surround at least a portion of the first lens 153 and reflects the light (p.5).
However, Min does not explicitly disclose a display substrate on which an electrical circuit is disposed; and a plurality of light emitting modules disposed on the display substrate to be electrically connected to the electric circuit.
Yang recognizes a need for providing a driving voltage to light emitting device such that the light emitting device may emit light (¶ 69). Yang satisfies the need by providing a display substrate sub (Annotated Fig. 4) on which an electrical circuit 303 (Fig. 4, ¶ 69, driving circuit 303) is disposed; and
a plurality of light emitting modules 310-330 (Figs. 3-4, ¶ 70, display units 310-330) disposed on the display substrate sub to be electrically connected to the electric circuit 303 (Annotated Fig. 4, ¶ 69).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the light emitting modules taught by Min with the display substrate and the electrical circuit taught by Yang, so as to provide a driving voltage to light emitting device such that the light emitting device may emit light (Yang: ¶ 69).
The combination of Min and Yang does not explicitly disclose a second lens disposed above the first lens to collect light passing through the first lens.
Shim recognize a need for improving viewing angle and light efficiency (¶ 9). Shim satisfies the need by providing a second lens 304 (Fig. 5, ¶ 65, lens 304) disposed above a first lens 302 (Fig. 5, ¶ 65, lens 302) to collect light passing through the first lens 302 (¶ 54).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the second lens and the second lens support taught by Shim with the first lens taught by Min and Yang, so as to improve viewing angle and light efficiency (Shim: ¶ 9).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 5, 8, 14-15 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if (i) rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims or (ii) the objected claim and any intervening claims are fully incorporated into the base claim.
Claim 5 would be allowable, because the prior art of record, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other claimed elements in claim 5, an element support disposed below the first lens support and having an element support hole through which the light emitting device is inserted and supported.
Claim 8 would be allowable, because the prior art of record, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other claimed elements in claim 8, wherein the first lens and the second lens are in contact with each other.
Claim 14 would be allowable, because the prior art of record, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other claimed elements in claim 14, wherein a width of the partition becomes smaller as it goes upward.
Claim 15 would be allowable, because claim 15 depends from the allowable claim 14.
Claim 18 would be allowable, because the prior art of record, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other claimed elements in claim 18, wherein a convex portion and a concave portion are formed on an upper part of the first lens.
Claim 16 is rejected.
Claim 16 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.
Claim 16 would be allowable, because the prior art of record, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other claimed elements in claim 16, wherein the partition has an upwardly convex shape, and an angle of a first imaginary line connecting an uppermost point of the partition and an outer edge of a bottom of the partition with respect to the first lens support is greater than an angle of a second imaginary line connecting an uppermost point of the first lens and an outer edge of the bottom of the first lens with respect to the first lens support.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2016/0247976 A1 to Rudmann et a. relates to an optoelectronic module comprising a cover substrate comprising a passive optical element; a base substrate comprising an optoelectronic device; a spacer layer joining the cover substrate to the base substrate, wherein the spacer layer comprises a plurality of first spacer elements fixed to a surface of the cover substrate and a plurality of second spacer elements fixed to a surface of the base substrate, each first spacer element being joined to a corresponding second spacer element through an adhesive layer, and wherein the cover substrate, base substrate, and spacer layer define an interior region of the module in which the optical element is aligned with the optoelectronic device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIKKA LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-2568. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-5AM EST M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano can be reached on 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 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.
/M.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/RATISHA MEHTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
