DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the applicant's application filed October 9th, 2024. In virtue of this communication, claims 1-15 are currently presented in the instant application.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4 are objected to because of the following informalities: It is noted that some of the values in the ranges for r/H and nm and nt do not satisfy the equation of claim 1. For example, in claim 2, if r/H is 1.99 and the difference between nm and nt is 0.2 then the inequality equation is not satisfied. The equation of claim 1 is 0.3 < (nm - nt) - 0.1(r/H)2 + 0.2(r/H) < 0.6. Inputting the above values yields: 0.2 - 0.396 + 0.398 = 0.202. Additionally, there is no upper limit on the values of the radius r or the height H. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US 2021/0159463 A1; hereinafter Huang).
With respect to claim 1, Huang discloses a display unit in at least Figs. 7a, 7c, and 8 with Figs. 1-6 teaching overlapping subject matter, comprising:
a device substrate 110 (see Fig. 8 and paragraphs 52, 79);
a plurality of light sources (of 130 at openings 144) positioned on the device substrate 110 (see Figs. 1, 7c, 8, and paragraphs 52, 58, 60, 67, 77; note light arrows);
a protective layer 400 formed on the device substrate 110 such that the protective layer 400 is covering the plurality of light sources (see Fig. 8 and paragraphs 79, 81);
a color filter 600 formed on the protective layer 400 and including a plurality of monochromatic filters (600 overlapping each opening 144) positioned corresponding to the plurality of light sources (of 130 at openings 144), respectively (see Fig. 8 and paragraphs 79, 80);
a lens array (plural 200) formed on the color filter 600 and including a plurality of microlenses 200 positioned corresponding to the plurality of monochromatic filters of the color filter 600, respectively (see Fig. 7a, 7c, 8, and paragraphs 63, 65, 75, 76); and
a flattening layer (2, cover plate) formed on the lens array 200 such that the flattening layer 2 is covering the plurality of microlenses 200 and has a refractive index (n3) that is lower than a refractive index (n2) of the plurality of microlenses 200 (see Figs. 7a, 7c, 8, and paragraphs 71, 73, 74; note n3 is less than n2).
Huang does not explicitly disclose wherein a ratio r/H between a curvature radius r and a height H of a lens surface of the plurality of microlenses satisfy 0.3 < (nm - nt) - 0.1(r/H)2 + 0.2(r/H) < 0.6 where nm is the refractive index of the plurality of microlenses, and nt is the refractive index of the flattening layer.
However, Huang discloses a range of values for the radius r and the height H of the microlens, the refractive index n2 of the plurality of microlenses, and the refractive index n3 of the flattening layer 2 (see Figs. 7a, 7c, 8, and paragraphs 71, 73, 74; note n2 is 1.5-1.8, n3 is 1.0-1.5, r is 2-15 µm, and H is 1-5 µm). This range of values satisfy the claimed equation so that a ratio r/H between a curvature radius r and a height H of a lens surface of the plurality of microlenses satisfies 0.3 < (nm - nt) - 0.1(r/H)2 + 0.2(r/H) < 0.6 where nm (n2) is the refractive index of the plurality of microlenses, and nt (n3) is the refractive index of the flattening layer 2. This range of values can be selected so the microlens 200 can better achieve the convergence of the light emitted by the light-emitting element of the display board (see paragraph 74) so that the display brightness of the display panel at a positive viewing angle is significantly improved (see paragraph 77). Therefore, these values are result effective variables.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that in Huang a ratio r/H between a curvature radius r and a height H of a lens surface of the plurality of microlenses would satisfy 0.3 < (nm - nt) - 0.1(r/H)2 + 0.2(r/H) < 0.6 where nm is the refractive index of the plurality of microlenses, and nt is the refractive index of the flattening layer because Huang discloses the necessary variable values that meet this inequality. These values are optimized to achieve convergence of light for improved display brightness and are result effective variables. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 II).
With respect to claim 2, Huang discloses the display unit according to claim 1, wherein r/H is 1 or greater and less than 2, and a difference between nm n2 and nt n3 is in a range of 0.2 to 0.5 (see Figs. 7a, 7c, 8, and paragraphs 71, 73, 74; note that equation is met with values r/H equal to 2/2=1 and n2 - n3 equal to 1.5-1.2=0.3, so inequality from claim 1 is 0.3-0.1+0.2=0.4).
With respect to claim 3, Huang discloses the display unit according to claim 1, wherein r/H is 2 or greater and less than 3, and a difference between nm and nt is in a range of 0.3 to 0.6 (see Figs. 7a, 7c, 8, and paragraphs 71, 73, 74; note that equation is met with values r/H equal to 4/2=2 and n2 - n3 equal to 1.5-1.1=0.4, so inequality from claim 1 is 0.4-0.4+0.4=0.4).
With respect to claim 4, Huang discloses the display unit according to claim 1, wherein r/H is 3 or greater, and a difference between nm and nt is in a range of 0.6 to 0.8 (see Figs. 7a, 7c, 8, and paragraphs 71, 73, 74; note that equation is met with values r/H equal to 15/5=3 and n2 - n3 equal to 1.8-1.1=0.7, so inequality from claim 1 is 0.7-0.9+0.6=0.4).
With respect to claim 5, Huang discloses a display unit in at least Figs. 7a, 7c, and 8 with Figs. 1-6 teaching overlapping subject matter, comprising:
a device substrate 110 (see Fig. 8 and paragraphs 52, 79);
a plurality of light sources (of 130 at openings 144) positioned on the device substrate 110 (see Figs. 1, 7c, 8, and paragraphs 52, 58, 60, 67, 77; note light arrows);
a protective layer 400 formed on the device substrate 110 such that the protective layer 400 is covering the plurality of light sources (see Fig. 8 and paragraphs 79, 81);
a color filter 600 formed on the protective layer 400 and including a plurality of monochromatic filters (600 overlapping each opening 144) positioned corresponding to the plurality of light sources (of 130 at openings 144), respectively (see Fig. 8 and paragraphs 79, 80);
a lens array (plural 200) formed on the color filter 600 and including a plurality of microlenses 200 positioned corresponding to the plurality of monochromatic filters of the color filter 600, respectively (see Fig. 7a, 7c, 8, and paragraphs 63, 65, 75, 76); and
a flattening layer (2, cover plate) formed on the lens array 200 such that the flattening layer 2 is covering the plurality of microlenses 200 and has a refractive index (n3) that is lower than a refractive index (n2) of the plurality of microlenses 200 (see Figs. 7a, 7c, 8, and paragraphs 71, 73, 74; note n3 is less than n2).
Huang does not explicitly disclose wherein a ratio r/H between a curvature radius r and a height H of a lens surface of the plurality of microlenses is 3 or greater, and a difference between a refractive index nm of the plurality of microlenses and a refractive index nt of the flattening layer is 0.3 or greater.
However, Huang discloses a range of values for the radius r and the height H of the microlens, the refractive index n2 of the plurality of microlenses, and the refractive index n3 of the flattening layer 2 (see Figs. 7a, 7c, 8, and paragraphs 71, 73, 74). This range of values satisfy the claimed requirements (see Figs. 7a, 7c, 8, and paragraphs 71, 73, 74; note n2 is 1.5-1.8, n3 is 1.0-1.5, r is 2-15 µm, and H is 1-5 µm). This range of values satisfy the claimed requirements so that a ratio r/H between a curvature radius r and a height H of a lens surface of the plurality of microlenses is 3 or greater, and a difference between a refractive index nm of the plurality of microlenses and a refractive index nt of the flattening layer is 0.3 or greater (see paragraph 74 and note selection of r/H to 15/5=3, and selection of n2 - n3 to 1.8-1.1=0.7). This range of values can be selected so the microlens 200 can better achieve the convergence of the light emitted by the light-emitting element of the display board (see paragraph 74) so that the display brightness of the display panel at a positive viewing angle is significantly improved (see paragraph 77). Therefore, these values are result effective variables.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that in Huang a ratio r/H between a curvature radius r and a height H of a lens surface of the plurality of microlenses is 3 or greater, and a difference between a refractive index nm of the plurality of microlenses and a refractive index nt of the flattening layer is 0.3 or greater because Huang discloses the necessary variable values that meet these claimed requirements. These values are optimized to achieve convergence of light for improved display brightness and are result effective variables. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 II).
Claims 6-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US 2021/0159463 A1; hereinafter Huang) in view of Lius (US 2023/0320180 A1).
With respect to claims 6-10, Huang discloses the display unit according to claims 1-5, respectively.
Huang does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of light sources is a plurality of organic EL devices.
Lius discloses a display unit in Figs. 1, 2, and 8-11 where a plurality of light sources 11 is a plurality of organic EL devices (see Figs. 1, 2, 8-11, and paragraph 27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the plurality of light sources of Huang would be a plurality of organic EL devices as taught by Lius because organic EL devices are well known light sources and it has been held by the courts that selection of a prior art material on the basis of its suitability for its intended purpose is within the level of ordinary skill (see MPEP 2144.07). Additionally, the selection of organic EL devices for the plurality of light sources would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application (see MPEP 2144 I).
With respect to claims 11-15, Huang discloses the display unit according to claims 1-5, respectively.
Huang does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of light sources is a plurality of micro LEDs.
Lius discloses a display unit in Figs. 1, 2, and 8-11 wherein a plurality of light sources 11 is a plurality of micro LEDs (see Figs. 1, 2, 8-11, and paragraph 27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the plurality of light sources of Huang would be a plurality of micro LEDs as taught by Lius because micro LEDs are well known light sources and it has been held by the courts that selection of a prior art material on the basis of its suitability for its intended purpose is within the level of ordinary skill (see MPEP 2144.07). Additionally, the selection of organic EL devices for the plurality of light sources would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application (see MPEP 2144 I).
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure because the prior art discloses a display unit similar to that of the claimed invention: US 20210202917 A1.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN M KLEIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7544. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Sue Purvis can be reached at 571-272-1236. 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.
/J.M.K/Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/SUE A PURVIS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights