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
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) 1-3 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0115629 (hereinafter Suzuki) in view of Kim et al. KR20150059221A (See English Translation, hereinafter Kim) and further in view of Lee et al. U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0200382 (hereinafter Lee).
Consider claim 1, Suzuki teaches a display device comprising: a semiconductor substrate comprising a display area (Figure 1, 10R, 10G, 10B), and transistors (Figure 1, transistors 20); a light-emitting element layer above the semiconductor substrate (Figure 1, light emitting element 31-33 above substrate 11), and comprising light-emitting elements in the display area (Figure 1, light emitting element 31-33, 10R, 10G, 10B); an encapsulation layer above the light-emitting element layer (Figure 1, encapsulation 34); a color filter layer above the encapsulation layer (Figure 1, CFr, CFg, CFb), and comprising color filters respectively overlapping the light-emitting elements (Figure 1, CFr, CFg, CFb and 31-34); a lens array layer above the color filter layer (Figure 1, array 50), in the display area (Figure 1, 10R, 10G, 10B), and comprising: lenses respectively overlapping the light-emitting elements and having a convex cross-sectional shape (Figure 1, array 50 and 31-34); and a cover layer above the lens array layer (Figure 1, 35).
Suzuki does not appear to specifically disclose a non-display area around the display area in plan view; a lens array layer in a portion of the non-display area; and pattern portions in the non-display area around the lenses.
However, in a related field of endeavor, Kim teaches a lenticular lens film LLS for a display 100 in figure 4 and further teaches a non-display area around the display area in plan view (Figure 6, NA and LA); a lens array layer in a portion of the non-display area (Figure 6 and [0044], AM and NA); and pattern portions in the non-display area around the lenses (Figure 6, AM and NA).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a lens film in both the display area and non-display area as taught by Kim with the benefit that the lens patterns having a good shape in consideration of the manufacturing method. For example, when the lens pattern is formed by shaving the surface of the base film BF, the rent pattern of the predetermined region of the edge portion may be damaged or not uniform due to the mechanisms or the environment used in the manufacturing process. Therefore, a portion which is relatively intact and maintains a constant lens pattern is defined as the display area LA, and a predetermined number of lens patterns are moved from the outermost lens pattern of the display area LA to the non-display area NA as suggested in [0045] and figure 6.
Suzuki and Kim do not appear to specifically disclose pattern portions in the non-display area having a maximum thickness in a thickness direction of the semiconductor substrate that is greater than a maximum thickness of the lenses in the thickness direction.
However, in a related field of endeavor, Lee teaches a display device in figure 1 and further teaches pattern portions in the non-display area (Figure 7, 360), and having a maximum thickness in a thickness direction of the semiconductor substrate that is greater than a maximum thickness of the lenses in the thickness direction (Figure 7, 360 and 340).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide pattern portion with a particular thickness in order to protect routing wires as suggested by Lee in [0161]. Accordingly, scribe damage that might occur when a display panel is scribed from mother glass, and damage caused by foreign substances to the routing wire during transportation can be minimized.
Consider claim 2, Suzuki, Kim and Lee teach all the limitations of claim 1. In addition, Kim teaches the pattern portions have a same cross-sectional shape as the lenses (Figure 6 and [0044], a lenticular lens pattern having the same pitch is formed in both the display area LA and the non-display area NA, see motivation to combine in claim 1).
Consider claim 3, Suzuki, Kim and Lee teach all the limitations of claim 1. In addition, Suzuki teaches wherein an area of the cover layer in plan view is substantially equal to an area of the lens array layer in plan view (Figure 1, cover 35 and lens array 50).
Consider claim 20, Suzuki teaches a head mounted display device comprising (Figure 26 and [0155]): a frame configured to be worn on a user’s body, and corresponding to user’s left and right eyes (Figure 27, frame 140); display devices in the frame (Figure 27, 110); and eyepieces respectively on the display devices (Figure 27, 121), wherein the display devices comprise: a semiconductor substrate comprising a display area (Figure 1, 10R, 10G, 10B), and transistors (Figure 1, transistors 20); a light-emitting element layer above the semiconductor substrate (Figure 1, light emitting element 31-33 above substrate 11), and comprising light-emitting elements in the display area (Figure 1, light emitting element 31-33, 10R, 10G, 10B); an encapsulation layer above the light-emitting element layer (Figure 1, encapsulation 34); a color filter layer above the encapsulation layer (Figure 1, CFr, CFg, CFb), and comprising color filters respectively overlapping the light-emitting elements (Figure 1, CFr, CFg, CFb and 31-34); a lens array layer above the color filter layer (Figure 1, array 50), in the display area, comprising lenses respectively overlapping the light-emitting elements in the display area and having a convex cross-sectional shape (Figure 1, array 50 and 31-34); and a cover layer above the lens array layer (Figure 1, 35).
Suzuki does not appear to specifically disclose a non-display area around the display area in plan view; a lens array layer in a portion of the non-display area; and pattern portions in the non-display area around the lenses.
However, in a related field of endeavor, Kim teaches a lenticular lens film LLS for a display 100 in figure 4 and further teaches a non-display area around the display area in plan view (Figure 6, NA and LA); a lens array layer in a portion of the non-display area (Figure 6 and [0044], AM and NA); and pattern portions in the non-display area around the lenses (Figure 6, AM and NA).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a lens film in both the display area and non-display area as taught by Kim with the benefit that the lens patterns having a good shape in consideration of the manufacturing method. For example, when the lens pattern is formed by shaving the surface of the base film BF, the rent pattern of the predetermined region of the edge portion may be damaged or not uniform due to the mechanisms or the environment used in the manufacturing process. Therefore, a portion which is relatively intact and maintains a constant lens pattern is defined as the display area LA, and a predetermined number of lens patterns are moved from the outermost lens pattern of the display area LA to the non-display area NA as suggested in [0045] and figure 6.
Suzuki and Kim do not appear to specifically disclose pattern portions in the non-display area having a maximum thickness in a thickness direction of the semiconductor substrate that is greater than a maximum thickness of the lenses in the thickness direction.
However, in a related field of endeavor, Lee teaches a display device in figure 1 and further teaches pattern portions in the non-display area (Figure 7, 360), and having a maximum thickness in a thickness direction of the semiconductor substrate that is greater than a maximum thickness of the lenses in the thickness direction (Figure 7, 360 and 340).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide pattern portion with a particular thickness in order to protect routing wires as suggested by Lee in [0161]. Accordingly, scribe damage that might occur when a display panel is scribed from mother glass, and damage caused by foreign substances to the routing wire during transportation can be minimized.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki, Kim and Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ohta U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0217521 (hereinafter Ohta).
Consider claim 11, Suzuki, Kim and Lee teach all the limitations of claim 1.
Suzuki does not appear to specifically disclose a light-blocking member on side surfaces of the lens array layer and the cover layer.
However, in a related field of endeavor, Ohta teaches EL unit 10 and lens unit 20 in figure 2 and further teaches a light-blocking member on side surfaces of the lens array layer and the cover layer (Figure 2 and [0134], light-blocking 25, lens 22 and cover 27).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a light-blocking member on side surface as taught by Ohta with the benefit that stray light can be reduced and the color mixture can be prevented as suggested in [0132].
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki, Kim and Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamazaki et al. U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0096242 (hereinafter Yamazaki).
Consider claim 13, Suzuki, Kim and Lee teach all the limitations of claim 1. In addition, Kim teaches in [0044], a lenticular lens pattern having the same pitch is formed in both the display area LA and the non-display area NA.
Suzuki does not appear to specifically disclose an emission driver and a scan driver in the non-display area, wherein the lens array layer overlaps the emission driver and the scan driver.
However, in a related field of endeavor, Yamazaki teaches in a component (e.g., a color filter, an electrode of a touch sensor, a lens array, or the like) is provided above the protective layer in [0293], and further teaches an emission driver and a scan driver in the non-display area (Figure 4 and [0115], 232-233). Furthermore, the combination of Kim and Yamazaki teaches wherein the lens array layer overlaps the emission driver and the scan driver (Yamazaki: [0293], a component (e.g., a color filter, an electrode of a touch sensor, a lens array, or the like) is provided above the protective layer. Yamazaki’s figure 24, protective layer 416 overlaps circuit 201 in non-display area 464. [0393], the circuit 464, for example, a scan line driver circuit can be used. Kim: [0044], a lenticular lens pattern having the same pitch is formed in both the display area LA and the non-display area NA).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide drivers 232-233 with the benefit that the driver circuit 232 and the driver circuit 233 each have a function of determining which of the light-emitting elements 125 in the display region 231 is supplied with a signal as suggested in [0103]. In addition, it would have been obvious to provide lens overlapping the non-display area (and thus the drivers) in order to have lens patterns with a good shape in consideration of the manufacturing method. For example, when the lens pattern is formed by shaving the surface of the base film BF, the rent pattern of the predetermined region of the edge portion may be damaged or not uniform due to the mechanisms or the environment used in the manufacturing process. Therefore, a portion which is relatively intact and maintains a constant lens pattern is defined as the display area LA, and a predetermined number of lens patterns are moved from the outermost lens pattern of the display area LA to the non-display area NA as suggested in [0045] and figure 6.
Consider claim 14, Suzuki, Kim, Lee and Yamazaki teach all the limitations of claim 13.
Suzuki does not appear to specifically disclose pads in the non-display area, and not overlapping the lens array layer.
However, Yamazaki teaches pads in the non-display area, and not overlapping the lens array layer (Figure 24, [0393], FPC472 and connection portion 204. Figure 24 shows that protective layer 416 do not overlap 472 and 204. [0293], a component (e.g., a color filter, an electrode of a touch sensor, a lens array, or the like) is provided above the protective layer. Thus, the lens array above the protective layer do not overlap 472 and 204).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide pads as shown by Yamazaki’s figure 24 with the benefit that the signal and power are input to the wiring 465 from the outside through the FPC 472 as suggested in [0393] and figure 24.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 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 (see new reference Lee).
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 ROBERTO W FLORES whose telephone number is (571)272-5512. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am-4pm, EST.
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, AMR A AWAD can be reached at (571)272-7764. 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.
/ROBERTO W FLORES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621