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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55, which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/2/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 10/2/2024. These drawings are considered acceptable by Examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 2 & 4 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 2 & 4 recites the limitation "about 1.30" and “about 1.65”. The term "about" is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "about" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically, the specification does not provide any coefficient of variance (i.e., + 10 nanometers) or any means to determine the range within which to apply the term “about” thereto.
America Invents Act
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 § 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.
1. Claim(s) 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Okazaki et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0320184 A1) in view of Lee et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0083484 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Okazaki et al., teaches a light emitting display device, comprising: a light emitting diode (130s, “the display apparatus may employ a structure in which subpixels of four colors of red (R), green (G), blue (B), and white (W) express one color. FIGS. 4A and 4B illustrate an example where a pixel is composed of four types of subpixels,” ¶ [0220, see at least Fig. 2B]) disposed at each of emission areas of a first pixel region (R), a second pixel region (G), a third pixel region (B), and a fourth pixel region (W); a color correction pattern (129a, 129b, 129c [Wingdings font/0xE0] quantum dots, ¶ [0330]-¶ [0332]), wherein light emitted from the light emitting diode (130s) is respectively disposed in the first pixel area, the second pixel area, and the third pixel area; a substrate disposed in a direction in which the light from the light emitting diode (130s) is emitted relative to the color correction pattern (129a, 129b, 129c) and the light reduction lens; and a polarizer (polarizing plate, ¶ [0196]) disposed on an outer surface of the substrate, comprising a uniform dispersion phase retardation film (retardation plate, ¶ [0196]). Okazaki et al., is silent regarding a light reduction lens located in a direction in which the light from the light emitting diode disposed in the fourth pixel area is emitted.
In the same field of endeavor, Lee et al., teaches a light emitting device including a light reduction lens (ML, micro-lens [Wingdings font/0xE0] formed of polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), ¶ [0072]) located in a direction in which the light from the light emitting diode disposed in a pixel area is emitted in order to incorporate the added benefit of having the micro-lens emit light emitted from the organic light-emitting element at an angle exceeding an emission critical angle to the outside of the device via refraction of the light, thereby to improve luminance and light-emitting efficiency of the device (¶ [0015]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the light reduction lens, as disclosed by Lee et al., in the device of Okazaki et al., in order to incorporate the added benefit of having the micro-lens emit light emitted from the organic light-emitting element at an angle exceeding an emission critical angle to the outside of the device via refraction of the light, thereby to improve luminance and light-emitting efficiency of the device (¶ [0015]).
It should be noted that the superimposition of Okazaki et al., and Lee et al., would result in the newly added light reduction lens being added exclusively to the fourth pixel area of Okazaki et al., since the fourth pixel is a white pixel and needs no color correction. Furthermore, the light reduction lens of Lee et al., clearly has a shape protruding from the light emitting diode disposed in the fourth pixel region (W) toward the substrate.
Regarding Claim 2, Okazaki et al., as modified by Lee et al., teaches the light emitting display device of claim 1, wherein the light reduction lens (ML of Lee et al.,) comprises a material with a refractive index of about 1.30 to about 1.50.
Motivation to combine would be the same as stated above.
Regarding Claim 3, Okazaki et al., teaches the light emitting display device of claim 1, wherein the light emitting display device further comprises a light intensification lens (127, insulating layer, ¶ [0154]) disposed between the color correction pattern (129a, 129b, 129c) disposed respectively to the third pixel region (B) and the substrate, and wherein the light emitting display device has a shape protruding from the color correction pattern (129a, 129b, 129c) disposed in the third pixel region (B) toward the substrate.
Regarding Claim 4, Okazaki et al., teaches the light emitting display device of claim 3, wherein the light intensification lens (127) comprises a material with a refractive index of about 1.65 to about 2.50 (material, ¶ [0154]).
Regarding Claim 5, Okazaki et al., teaches the light emitting display device of claim 3, wherein the light intensification lens (127) has a semicircular shape or a semielliptical shape protruding the color correction film disposed respectively to the third pixel region (B) toward the substrate (as clearly depicted in Fig. 2B, column-shaped individual/plurality of 127s formed).
Regarding Claim 6, Okazaki et al., teaches the light emitting display device of claim 1, wherein the uniform dispersion phase retardation film comprises at least one of a quarter wave plate (QWP) and a half wave plate (HWP) (of retardation film, ¶ [0196]).
Regarding Claim 7, Okazaki et al., teaches the light emitting display device of claim 1, wherein the polarizer further comprises a linear polarizer attached to the uniform dispersion phase retardation film (¶ [0196]).
Regarding Claim 8, Okazaki et al., teaches the light emitting display device of claim 1, wherein the linear polarizer comprises: a polarizing film; and a first protective film and a second protective film disposed on both sides of the polarizing film (via water repellent film and antistatic film, ¶ [0196]).
Regarding Claim 9, Okazaki et al., teaches the light emitting display device of claim 8, wherein the polarizer further comprises: a first adhesive layer disposed between the linear polarizer and the uniform dispersion phase retardation film; and a second adhesive layer disposed between the uniform dispersion phase retardation film and the substrate (layers as clearly disclosed in ¶ [0195]).
Regarding Claim 10, Okazaki et al., teaches the light emitting display device of claim 9, wherein at least one of the first adhesive layer and the second adhesive layer comprises light scattering particles (via layer 125).
Regarding Claim 11, Okazaki et al., teaches the light emitting display device of claim 10, wherein the light scattering particles are chosen from ZrO2, TiO2, Al2O3, ZnO, MgO, Indium-tin-oxide (ITO), aluminum-zinc-oxide (AZO), SiO2, and combinations thereof (¶ [0151]).
Regarding Claim 12, Okazaki et al., teaches the light emitting display device of claim 1, wherein the uniform dispersion phase retardation film comprises light scattering particles (125, which includes ZrO2, formed on phase retardation film).
Regarding Claim 13, Okazaki et al., teaches the light emitting display device of claim 12, wherein the light scattering particles are chosen from ZrO2, TiO2, Al2O3, ZnO, MgO, Indium-tin-oxide (ITO), aluminum-zinc-oxide (AZO), SiO2, and combinations thereof (ZrO2, ¶ [0151]).
Regarding Claim 14, Okazaki et al., teaches the light emitting display device of claim 1, wherein the light emitting diode (130s) comprises: a first electrode (11aa); a second electrode (115) facing the first electrode; and an emissive layer (113a) disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode, wherein the emissive layer comprises one or more emitting material layers.
Regarding Claim 15, Okazaki et al., teaches the light emitting display device of claim 1, wherein the light emitting display device further comprises a thin film transistor (transistor, ¶ [0204], not shown) disposed on the substrate respectively to each of non-emission areas of the first pixel region (R), the second pixel region (G), the third pixel region (B), and the fourth pixel region (W), wherein the thin film transistor is connected to the light emitting diode (130s) respectively to the first pixel region (R), the second pixel region (G), the third pixel region (B), and the fourth pixel region (W) (130s, “the display apparatus may employ a structure in which subpixels of four colors of red (R), green (G), blue (B), and white (W) express one color. FIGS. 4A and 4B illustrate an example where a pixel is composed of four types of subpixels,” ¶ [0220, see at least Fig. 2B]).
Regarding Claim 16, Okazaki et al., teaches the light emitting display device of claim 1, wherein the first pixel region (R) is a red pixel region, the second pixel region (G) is a green pixel region, the third pixel region (B) is a blue pixel region, and the fourth pixel region (W) is a white pixel region (130s, “the display apparatus may employ a structure in which subpixels of four colors of red (R), green (G), blue (B), and white (W) express one color. FIGS. 4A and 4B illustrate an example where a pixel is composed of four types of subpixels,” ¶ [0220, see at least Fig. 2B]).
Regarding Claim 17, Okazaki et al., as modified by Lee et al., teaches the light emitting display device of claim 1, wherein the light reduction lens (ML of Lee et al.,) has a semicircular shape or a semielliptical shape protruding the light emitting diode toward the substrate (semicircular shape as clearly depicted in Fig. 2).
Motivation to combine would be the same as stated above.
Regarding Claim 18, Okazaki et al., teaches the light emitting display device of claim 1, wherein the color correction pattern (129a, 129b, 129c) comprises a colorant (QD).
Regarding Claim 19, Okazaki et al., teaches the light emitting display device of claim 1, wherein the color correction pattern (129a, 129b, 129c) comprises inorganic luminescent particles (QD, quantum dots).
Other Prior Art Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0285445 teaches similar quantum dot conversion layers as claimed.
Examiner's Note
The Examiner cites particular figures, paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the reference(s), as applied to the claims above. Although the particular citations are representative teachings and are applied to specific limitations within the claims, other passages, internally cited references, and figures may also apply. In preparing a response, it is respectfully requested that the Applicant fully consider the references, in their entirety, as potentially disclosing or teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as fully consider the context of the passage as taught by the reference(s) or as disclosed by the Examiner.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner H. Featherly whose telephone number is 571-272-8654. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9 AM-4 PM. 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 571-272-8300. 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).
/H. Featherly/
Examiner Featherly
Art Unit 2875 Patent Examiner
/JAMES R GREECE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights