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 .
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang et al. (US. Pub: 2019/0123306 A1~hereinafter “Liang”) of record in view of Xia (US. Pub: 2023/0180585 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Liang discloses (in at least figs. 1 and 2) a display apparatus comprising: a device substrate (11; [0093]); a light emitting device on an emission area (10A; [0050]) of the device substrate; a corrective lens (20, 20a; [0046]) overlapping with a transparent area (10B; [0049]) of the device substrate; an encapsulation structure (18; [0094]) on the device substrate, the encapsulation structure (18) covering the light emitting device; and at least one optical lens (30, 40) on the light-emitting device and the corrective lens (20, 20a), wherein a surface of the corrective lens (20, 20a) opposite to the at least one optical lens (30) has a concave curve shape ([0046]; see at least fig. 1).
Liang does not expressly disclose the corrective lens is between the encapsulation structure and the at least one optical lens.
Xia in the same field of endeavor discloses (in at least fig. 1) a corrective lens (1061) between the encapsulation structure (1062) and the at least one optical lens (1064) for the benefit of having a display device with improved viewing angle ([0004]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the display apparatus of Liang with the teaching of Xia for the benefit of having a display device with improved viewing angle. Also, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, Liang discloses (in at least figs. 1 and 2) a surface of the at least one optical lens (40) opposite to the device substrate has a convex curved shape (see at least fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Liang discloses (in at least figs. 1 and 2) the device substrate (11) includes a first surface toward the light-emitting device (see fig. 1) and a second surface opposite to the first surface (see fig. 1), and the corrective lens (20, 20a) is on the second surface of the device substrate (11).
Regarding claim 4, Liang discloses (in at least figs. 1 and 2) a surface of the corrective lens (20, 20a) toward the at least one optical lens (30, 40) is in contact with the second surface of the device substrate.
Regarding claim 6, Liang discloses (in at least figs. 1 and 2) the at least one optical lens (40) includes a first lens region overlapping with the emission area (10A; see fig. 1) and a second lens region overlapping with the transparent area (10B), but fails to disclose a width of the second lens region is a same as a width of the first lens region.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to consider forming the width of the second lens region of Liang same as the width of the first lens region in order to reduce the manufacturing steps of the display device. Also, it has been held that a change in size of a component is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 7, Liang discloses (in at least figs. 1 and 2) a display apparatus comprising: a device substrate including a plurality of pixel areas (10A; [0050]); light-emitting devices, each of the light-emitting devices on an emission area of each of the plurality of pixel areas (see at least fig. 1); a correction structure (20; 20a) on the device substrate, the correction structure (20a) including curved surfaces of a concave shape overlapping a transparent area (10B) of each of the plurality of pixel areas (10A); and at least one optical lens (30, 40) on the light-emitting devices and the correction structure (20, 20a); and an encapsulation structure (18) on the device substrate, the encapsulation structure (18) covering the light-emitting devices; wherein the correction structure (20, 20a) includes a first surface toward the at least one optical lens (30, 40) and a second surface opposite to the first surface (see fig. 1), and the curved surfaces of the concave shape are at the second surface of the correction structure (see at least fig. 1).
Liang does not expressly disclose the corrective lens is between the encapsulation structure and the at least one optical lens.
Xia in the same field of endeavor discloses (in at least fig. 1) a corrective lens (1061) between the encapsulation structure (1062) and the at least one optical lens (1064) for the benefit of having a display device with improved viewing angle ([0004]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the display apparatus of Liang with the teaching of Xia for the benefit of having a display device with improved viewing angle. Also, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 8, Liang discloses (in at least figs. 1 and 2) a surface of the at least one optical lens (30, 40) has a curved surface of a convex shape (see at least fig. 1), and the curved surface of the convex shape has a different curvature from the curved surface of the concave shape (see at least fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, Liang discloses (in at least figs. 1 and 2) the correction structure (20) extends onto the emission area of each of the plurality pixel areas (10A).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang et al. (US. Pub: 2019/0123306 A1~hereinafter “Liang”) of record in view of Xia (US. Pub: 2023/0180585 A1) and further in view of LEE et al. (US. Pub: 2022/0077431 A1~hereinafter “Lee”) of record.
Regarding claim 5, Liang as modified by Xia discloses all the claimed limitations except for further comprising: a filter insulating layer between the light-emitting device and the at least one optical lens, the filter insulating layer extending onto the transparent area; and a color filter between the light-emitting device and the filter insulating layer, the color filter overlapping with the emission area, wherein the at least one optical lens is in contact with the filter insulating layer.
Lee in the same field of endeavor discloses (in at least fig. 5) a filter insulating layer (520; [0060]) between the light-emitting device (130) and the at least one optical lens (210), the filter insulating layer (520); and a color filter (515) between the light-emitting device (130) and the filter insulating layer (520), the color filter (515) overlapping with the emission area, wherein the at least one optical lens (210) is in contact with the filter insulating layer (see fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the display device of Liang as modified by Xia with the filter insulating layer comprises the color filter of Lee, wherein the filter insulating layer extending onto the transparent area in order to convert the light emitted from the light emitting device to a different wavelength.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-15 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.
Regarding claim 11, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest further comprising: corrective patterns between the encapsulation structure and the correction structure, the corrective patterns contacting the curved surfaces of the concave shape, wherein a refractive index of each corrective pattern is smaller than a refractive index of the correction structure. Claims 12-15 are objected due to their dependency upon claim 11.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8 and 10-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELMITO BREVAL whose telephone number is (571)270-3099. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th~ 7:30-5:30.
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, James R. Greece can be reached at 571-272-3711. 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.
ELMITO BREVAL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2875
/ELMITO BREVAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights