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 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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1–4, 15, 16, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0132433 to Numata (hereinafter “Numata_1”).
Regarding Claim 1, Numata_1 discloses (e.g., at least Figs. 5 and 6 and their related descriptions in at least paragraphs [0031]–[0052]) a display device DSP comprising: a first substrate SUB2 comprising a first transparent substrate 20 and pixel electrodes PE disposed in a plurality of pixels, respectively, on the first transparent substrate (Figs. 5/6); a second substrate SUB1 comprising a second transparent substrate 10, a common electrode CE opposing the pixel electrodes, and a transparent layer 50 disposed between the second transparent substrate 10 and the common electrode CE (Fig. 6, which is an alternative to Fig. 5, where organic insulating film 50 is formed between substrate 10 and CE to achieve similar effects, paragraphs[0051]–[0052]); a liquid crystal layer LC containing stripe-shaped polymers and liquid crystal molecules (e.g., paragraphs [0014] and [0021]), and disposed between the first substrate and the second substrate (Figs. 5/6); and a plurality of light emitting elements LD arranged along a first direction, wherein the transparent layer comprises: a first transparent layer 50 including a plurality of grooves (where transparent layer 40 is formed) arranged along the first direction and extending along a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (e.g., Figs. 4–6); and a second transparent layer 40 provided in each of the plurality of grooves, each of the plurality of grooves has an aperture opposing the liquid crystal layer (Figs. 5/6); and the second transparent layer has a refractive index lower than those of the second transparent substrate and the first transparent layer (paragraph [0033] that the second transparent layer has a refractive index lower than those of the second transparent substrate; and based on the description of the total internal reflection and frustration thereof, it would have been obvious that the second transparent layer 40 also has a refractive index lower than the first transparent layer 50 so as to effect the light extraction at interfaces with layer 50, but cause reflection at interfaces with layer 40, e.g., Fig. 5 and paragraph [0042]).
Regarding Claim 2, Numata_1 discloses (e.g., at least Figs. 5 and 6 and their related descriptions in at least paragraphs [0031]–[0052]) a display device DSP comprising: a first substrate SUB2 comprising a first transparent substrate 20 and pixel electrodes PE disposed in a plurality of pixels, respectively, on the first transparent substrate (Figs. 5/6); a second substrate SUB1 comprising a second transparent substrate 10, a common electrode CE opposing the pixel electrodes, and a transparent layer 50 disposed between the second transparent substrate 10 and the common electrode CE (Fig. 6, which is an alternative to Fig. 5, where organic insulating film 50 is formed between substrate 10 and CE to achieve similar effects, paragraphs[0051]–[0052]); a liquid crystal layer LC containing stripe-shaped polymers and liquid crystal molecules (e.g., paragraphs [0014] and [0021]), and disposed between the first substrate and the second substrate (Figs. 5/6); and a plurality of light emitting elements LD arranged along a first direction, wherein the transparent layer comprises: a first transparent layer 50 including a plurality of grooves (where transparent layer 40 is formed) arranged along the first direction and extending along a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (e.g., Figs. 4–6); and a second transparent layer 40 provided in each of the plurality of grooves, the first transparent layer is formed of an inorganic material (e.g., paragraph [0032], suggesting that insulating materials, such as insulating material 50, may be formed of inorganic materials), the second transparent layer is formed of an organic material (paragraph [0032]), and the second transparent layer has a refractive index lower than those of the second transparent substrate and the first transparent layer (paragraph [0033] that the second transparent layer has a refractive index lower than those of the second transparent substrate; and based on the description of the total internal reflection and frustration thereof, it would have been obvious that the second transparent layer 40 also has a refractive index lower than the first transparent layer 50 so as to effect the light extraction at interfaces with layer 50, but cause reflection at interfaces with layer 40, e.g., Fig. 5 and paragraph [0042]).
Regarding Claims 3 and 4, Numata_1 would have rendered obvious wherein the first transparent layer is formed of silicon dioxide (e.g., paragraph [0032], suggesting various materials; also where the first transparent layer 50 of Numata_1 is an insulating film, and selecting known materials to achieve the known function of insulating, such as silicon dioxide, would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results; MPEP §2144.06–07).
Regarding Claims 15 and 16, Numata_1 would have rendered obvious wherein the first substrate comprises a scanning line, a signal line intersecting the scanning line, and a switching element electrically connected to the scanning line and the signal line, and the second transparent layer overlaps the signal line in plan view (e.g., at least paragraph [0014] of Numata_1).
Regarding Claims 21 and 22, Numata_1 would have rendered obvious wherein the pixel electrodes include a first pixel electrode and a second pixel electrode arranged along the second direction, the first pixel electrode is located between the second pixel electrode and the plurality of light emitting elements, and area of the first pixel electrode that overlaps the second transparent layer is larger than area of the second pixel electrode that overlaps the second transparent layer (Fig. 4 of Numata_1).
Claims 5–174, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Numata_1 in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0132279 to Numata et al. (hereinafter “Numata_2”).
Regarding Claims 5 and 6, Numata_1 appears silent regarding the thickness of the first transparent layer.
Numata_2 discloses a very similar display setup (referencing Fig. 15 of Numata_2), and teaches that the layer AD corresponding to the claimed first transparent layer has a thickness of 4–4000 µm (paragraph [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the device of Numata_1 such that the first transparent layer has a thickness of 1 μm or more, as suggested by Numata_2, as a suitable configuration for the first transparent layer, where Numata_1 is silent regarding the specific thickness, and Numata_2 teaches a suitable thickness (e.g., MPEP § 2144.06–07).
Regarding Claims 7 and 8, the combination of Numata_1 and Numata_2 would have rendered obvious wherein the transparent layer further comprises a third transparent layer (e.g., 30 in Fig. 15 of Numata_2) covering the first transparent layer and the second transparent layer (Fig. 15, layer 30 covering AD and 40), and the third transparent layer is formed of an organic material that is different from that of the second transparent layer and has a refractive index higher than that of the second transparent layer (e.g., paragraphs [0036]–[0038] and [0046] of Numata_2).
Regarding Claims 9 and 10, the combination of Numata_1 and Numata_2 would have rendered obvious wherein the second transparent layer is in contact with the second transparent substrate, the first transparent layer, and the third transparent layer (Fig. 15 of Numata_2).
Regarding Claims 11 and 12, the combination of Numata_1 and Numata_2 would have rendered obvious wherein each of the plurality of grooves comprises a first end portion on a side opposing the light emitting element and a second end portion on an opposite side to the first end portion, and a width of the first end portion is greater than a width of the second end portion (e.g., Figs. 3, 4, 9, and 10 of Numata_2 illustrate this feature, described starting in paragraph [0040]).
Regarding Claims 13 and 14, the combination of Numata_1 and Numata_2 would have rendered obvious a third transparent substrate (e.g., 30 of Fig. 15 of Numata_2) comprising a side surface opposing the plurality of light emitting elements (Fig. 15 of Numata_2), wherein the third transparent substrate is adhered to the second transparent substrate (through adhesive AD, Fig. 15 of Numata_2).
Regarding Claims 17 and 18, the combination of Numata_1 and Numata_2 would have rendered obvious wherein the second substrate further comprises a light shielding layer (BM in both Numata_1 and Numata_2) between the third transparent layer and the common electrode, and the second transparent layer overlaps the light shielding layer in plan view (e.g., Fig. 6 of Numata_1; Figs. 2 and 15 of Numata_2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19 and 20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art of record fails to disclose, and would not have rendered obvious, the combination of all features recited in Claims 19 and 20, including those features of claims from which they respectively depend, all taken together in combination and as a whole. In particular, while spacers are known in LC devices, the art does not appear to teach the relationship between the spacer location and the second transparent layer as defined in the claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Numata_2 might alternatively form the basis of the above rejections (e.g., at least Fig. 15 and its related description, where Fig. 15 illustrates another configuration example, where “only main parts are illustrated,” and it would have been obvious to look to the preceding examples in Numata for the further details omitted in the description of Fig. 15, paragraph [0076]), such that the order of combining the reference would be reversed, but to the same effect in rejecting the claims over the combined teachings of the two applied Numata references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN CROCKETT whose telephone number is (571)270-3183. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am to 5pm.
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, Michael Caley can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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.
/RYAN CROCKETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights