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 .
Response to Amendment
The applicant has amended their application as follows:
Amended: 1
Cancelled: 18
Added: None
Therefore, claims 1-17, 19 and 20 are currently pending in the instant application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 10-11, 14-16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herschbach (US 2015/0355470 A1, hereinafter “Herschbach”) in view of Chen et al. (US 9,946,089 B2, hereinafter “Chen”).
As to claim 1, Herschbach (Fig. 1) discloses a display device (Para. 0019), comprising:
a display panel (2), having a light emitting side (right side of 2) and a non-light emitting side (left side of 2), comprising a plurality of light emitting units (3) and a plurality of light concentration units (5; Fig. 3), wherein each of the light emitting units corresponds to one of the light concentration units (Para. 0041, each micro-lens on 5 for each light emitting unit);
a heat dissipation element (Fig. 1 element 1), disposed on the non-light emitting side of the display panel (Para. 0034); and
a light adjustment structure (7), disposed on the light emitting side of the display panel and comprising a plurality of light control units (Fig. 6, lens on each structuring unit 7), wherein each of the light control units corresponds to at least two of the light emitting units (each of the bulging part –“lens” on 7 receives light from at least two source 4).
Herschbach does not disclose a number of the light emitting units is less than a number of the light concentration units, and a pitch of the light emitting units in a direction is different from a pitch of the light concentration units in the direction.
However, Chen (Fig. 7) teaches a number of the light emitting units (&35) is less than a number of the light concentration units (732, cells on DOE; Col. 15 lines 1-9) ), and a pitch of the light emitting units in a direction is different from a pitch of the light concentration units in the direction (Col. 14 lines 19-26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Chen to use diffractive optical element with different pitch in the device disclosed by Herschbach. The motivation would have been to collimate and converge/diverge the output beam (Chen; Col. 14 lines 15-26).
As to claim 10, Herschbach (Fig. 1) discloses the display device according to claim 1, comprising:
a light-transmitting layer (4, “air” between layer 2 and 5), disposed between the light emitting units (3) and the light concentration units (5).
As to claim 11, Herschbach discloses the display device according to claim 10, wherein a refractive index of the light- transmitting layer (4) is less than a refractive index of the light concentration units (5, refractive index of air is less than glass/lens).
As to claim 14, Herschbach (Fig. 1) discloses the display device according to claim 1, comprising:
a transparent layer (6), disposed between the display panel (2) and the light adjustment structure (7).
As to claim 15, Herschbach (Fig. 3) discloses the display device according to claim 1, wherein the display panel further comprises a first substrate (2) and a second substrate (base of 5), the light emitting units (3) are disposed on the first substrate (2), and the light concentration units (micro-lens on 5) are disposed on the second substrate (base of 5).
As to claim 16, Herschbach (Fig. 1) discloses the display device according to claim 15, further comprising a transparent layer (6) disposed between the second substrate (5) and the light adjustment structure (7).
As to claim 19, Herschbach (Fig. 1) discloses the display device according to claim 1, wherein the light emitting units (3) comprise a light emitting diode (Para. 0034).
As to claim 20, Herschbach (Fig. 1) discloses the display device according to claim 1, wherein each of the light concentration units (5) comprises a lens, a meta lens, a condenser reflector, or a combination of the above (Para. 0035).
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herschbach and Chen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tada (US 2021/0035528 A1, hereinafter “Tada”).
As to claim 2, Herschbach does not disclose the display device according to claim 1, comprising:
a temperature sensor, configured to sense a temperature of the display panel;
a first controller, configured to control the heat dissipation element; and
a second controller, configured to control the display panel;
wherein the temperature sensor provides a first signal to the first controller according to the temperature, and provides a second signal to the second controller.
However, Tada (Fig. 7) teaches a temperature sensor (104), configured to sense a temperature of the display panel (Para. 0044);
a first controller (Para. 0092), configured to control the heat dissipation element (Para. 0081, 0088); and
a second controller (111), configured to control the display panel (100);
wherein the temperature sensor provides a first signal to the first controller according to the temperature (Para. 0081, 0092), and provides a second signal to the second controller (111; Para. 0055).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Tada to include an active heat dissipation element in the device disclosed by Herschbach/Chen. The motivation would have been to correct the brightness change caused by temperature change of light source with high precision (Tada; Para. 0034).
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herschbach, Chen and Tada as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Jee et al. (US 2023/0215322 A1, hereinafter “Jee”).
As to claim 3, Herschbach does not disclose the display device according to claim 2, comprising:
an emission clock circuit, electrically connected to the second controller and the display panel, wherein the emission clock circuit is configured to provide an emission time duty ratio signal to the display panel to regulate a display brightness of the display panel.
However, Jee (Fig. 1) teaches an emission clock circuit (11), electrically connected to the second controller and the display panel, wherein the emission clock circuit is configured to provide an emission time duty ratio signal to the display panel to regulate a display brightness of the display panel (Para. 0084).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Jee to adjust emission duty ratio in the device disclosed by Herschbach/Chen/Tada. The motivation would have been to adjust the luminance of the display (Jee; Para. 0074).
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herschbach and Chen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wu (US 2023/0137579 A1, hereinafter “Wu”).
As to claim 4, Herschbach does not disclose the display device according to claim 1, comprising:
a data circuit, electrically connected to the second controller and the display panel, wherein the data circuit is configured to provide a data signal to the display panel to regulate a brightness of the display panel.
However, Wu (Fig. 1) teaches a data circuit (11), electrically connected to the second controller ( T-con) and the display panel (12), wherein the data circuit is configured to provide a data signal to the display panel to regulate a brightness of the display panel (Para. 0016).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Wu to control the power to the LEDs in the device disclosed by Herschbach/Chen. The motivation would have been to correct the brightness change caused by temperature change of light source (Wu; Para. 0016).
Claim(s) 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herschbach, Chen and Tada as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Wu.
As to claim 5, Herschbach does not disclose the display device according to claim 2, wherein the temperature sensor is disposed between the display panel and the heat dissipation element.
However, Wu (Fig. 3) discloses wherein the temperature sensor (20) is disposed between the display panel (10) and the heat dissipation element (8; Para. 0028, 0031).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Wu to arrange the temperature sensors in an array in the device disclosed by Herschbach/Chen/Tada. The motivation would have been to compensate for each pixel (Wu; Para. 0035).
As to claim 6, Herschbach (Fig. 5) in view of Tada discloses the display device according to claim 2. Wu further teaches wherein the display panel comprises a first substrate (“substrate”; Para. 0004), wherein the light emitting units (501) and the temperature sensor (513) are disposed on the first substrate (Para. 0059).
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herschbach and Chen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tada (US 2021/0035528 A1, hereinafter “Tada”).
As to claim 7, Herschbach does not disclose the display device according to claim 1, wherein the heat dissipation element comprises an active heat dissipation element.
However, Tada teaches wherein the heat dissipation element comprises an active heat dissipation element (Fig. 7 element 400; Para. 0092).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Tada to include an active heat dissipation element in the device disclosed by Herschbach/Chen. The motivation would have been to correct the brightness change caused by temperature change of light source with high precision (Tada; Para. 0034).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herschbach and Chen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Batten et al. (US 2018/0186309 A1, hereinafter “Batten”).
As to claim 8, Herschbach does not disclose the display device according to claim 1, comprising:
a light sensor, electrically connected to the display panel and configured to sense ambient light, the display panel regulating a brightness of the display panel according to the ambient light.
However, Batten teaches a light sensor, electrically connected to the display panel and configured to sense ambient light, the display panel regulating a brightness of the display panel according to the ambient light (Para. 0032).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Batten to include a light sensor in the device disclosed by Herschbach/Chen. The motivation would have been to adjust the luminance of the display panel (Batten; Para. 0032).
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herschbach and Chen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hisatsugu et al. (US 12,532,420 B2; hereinafter “Hisatsugu”).
As to claim 9, Herschbach does not disclose the display device according to claim 1, comprising:
an adhesive layer, disposed between the non-light emitting side of the display panel and the heat dissipation element.
However, Hisatsugu (Fig. 2) teaches an adhesive layer, disposed between the non-light emitting side of the display panel (24) and the heat dissipation element (41; Col. 8 lines 43-48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Hisatsugu to use an adhesive layer in the device disclosed by Herschbach/Chen. The motivation would have been to attach different parts together (Hisatsugu; Col. 8 lines 45-48).
Claim(s) 12-13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herschbach and Chen as applied to claims 10 and 16 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2019/0108786 A1, hereinafter “Lee”).
As to claim 12, Herschbach does not expressly disclose the display device according to claim 10, wherein a difference between a refractive index of the light-transmitting layer and a refractive index of the light concentration units is greater than 0.5.
However, Lee teaches wherein a difference between a refractive index of the light-transmitting layer (“air”) and a refractive index of the light concentration units is greater than 0.5 (Para. 0009, the refractive index of air is about 1, therefore 1.8 – 1 is greater than 0.5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Lee to have a high refractive index layer in the device disclosed by Herschbach/Chen. The motivation would have been to control the transmission of light (Lee; Para. 0066).
As to claim 13, Herschbach does not disclose the display device according to claim 10, wherein a refractive index of the light- transmitting layer is less than 1.4.
However, Lee teaches wherein a refractive index of the light- transmitting layer is less than 1.4 (Para. 0009).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Lee to have a low refractive index layer in the device disclosed by Herschbach/Chen. The motivation would have been to control the transmission of light (Lee; Para. 0066).
As to claim 17, Herschbach does not disclose the display device according to claim 16, wherein a thickness of the transparent layer is greater than the second substrate.
However, Lee teaches wherein a thickness of the transparent layer (120) is greater than the second substrate (150; Para. 0086).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Lee to have different thickness for different parts in the device disclosed by Herschbach/Chen. The motivation would have been to designed the parts according to refractive index (Lee; Para. 0084-0086).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant‘s disclosure.
Mezouari et al. (US 12,588,345 B1) discloses a micro-LEDs and micro-lens with different pitch (Fig. 10A).
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 BIPIN GYAWALI whose telephone number is (571)272-1597. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30 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, Will Boddie can be reached at 571-272-0666. 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.
BIPIN GYAWALI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2625
/BIPIN GYAWALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2625
Prosecution Insights