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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/04/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The response filed 03/04/2026 is accepted, in which, claims 1, 4, 12, and 18 are amended and claims 21 and 22 are canceled. Claims 1-20 await an action on the merits as follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 12 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 5, 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 20190025634 A1), in view of Kim (US 20210036063 A1), and further in view of Cho (US 20140160408 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches a color conversion panel (SUB2, Fig 4) comprising:
a color conversion layer (310/320) and a transmission layer (400) spaced apart from each other (shown spaced apart); and
a partition wall (104, Fig 12A) between (shown between) the color conversion layer (310/320) and the transmission layer (400) are disposed (shown disposed in),
the partition wall (104) defining:
an opening (100h, Fig 7A) in which the color conversion laver (310/320, Fig 12A) or the transmission laver (400) is disposed (shown disposed)
Park fails to explicitly teach grooves which are coplanar with each of the color conversion layer and the transmission laver and spaced apart from each other in a direction along a periphery of the opening, wherein a portion of the color conversion layer is disposed in at least one of the grooves.
However, Kim teaches grooves (GR2, Fig 8) which are coplanar (shown coplanar) with each of the color conversion layer and the transmission laver and spaced apart (shown spaced apart) from each other in a direction (Y) along (shown along the inside edge of the periphery of opening PXA) a periphery of the opening.
Cho teaches a portion (FL, Fig 5G; the flattening layer FL functions as the light conversion layer 147, [0095; 0103]; the light conversion layer 147 is also shown disposed in the groove in Fig 6) of the color conversion layer is disposed in (shown disposed in) at least one of the grooves.
Park teaches a base product of a partition wall between the color conversion layer and the transmission layer that includes a groove which the claimed invention can be seen as an improving display quality by blocking the travel of light between adjacent pixels (Park, [0008]).
Cho teaches a known technique of forming the color conversion layer such that a portion of the color conversion layer is disposed in the groove that is comparable to the base product.
Cho’s known technique, as cited above, would have been recognized by one skilled in the art as applicable to the base product of Park and the results would have been predictable and resulted in improved lighting efficiency (Cho, [0030]) which results in an improved product.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Park, Kim, and Cho are considered analogous to the claimed invention because all are from the same field of endeavor of semiconductor display devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the device of Park with the features of Kim and Cho to create grooves which are coplanar with each of the color conversion layer and the transmission laver and spaced apart from each other in a direction along a periphery of the opening, wherein a portion of the color conversion layer is disposed in at least one of the grooves in order to provide a color conversion panel having an improved light efficiency (Kim, [0005]) and improve lighting efficiency (Cho, [0030]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Park, Kim, and Cho discloses the color conversion panel of claim 1. Park teaches the opening (100h, Fig 7A) and the partition wall (104, Fig 12A).
Kim goes on to teach wherein each of the grooves (GR2, Fig 8) has a volume (V; volume of depth shown in Fig 8 combined with area shown in Fig 7), and
volumes (V) of the grooves (GR2) are spaced apart (shown along the inside edge of the periphery of opening PXA) from each other around the periphery of the opening by portions (shown spaced apart by flat portions of partition wall 550 disposed in the Y direction, Fig 8) of the partition wall.
Regarding claim 12, Park teaches an electronic apparatus (5, Fig 12A) comprising:
a color conversion panel (SUB2, Fig 4) comprising:
a color conversion layer (310/320), and
a partition wall (104, Fig 12A) in which the color conversion laver (310/320) is disposed (shown disposed in),
the partition wall (104) defining:
an opening (100h, Fig 7A) in which the color conversion layer (310/320) is disposed (shown disposed)
and a display panel (SUB1, Fig 4) facing (shown facing) the partition wall (104) of the color conversion panel (SUB2), the display panel (SUB1) comprising:
an organic light emitting element (LCA1; includes a polymer organic material, [0078]) which faces (shown facing) the color conversion layer (310/320); and
a transistor (Q, Fig 3) connected (shown connected) to the organic light emitting element (LCA1).
Park fails to explicitly teach grooves which are coplanar with each of the color conversion layer and the transmission laver and spaced apart from each other in a direction along a periphery of the opening, wherein a portion of the color conversion layer is disposed in at least one of the grooves.
However, Kim teaches grooves (GR2, Fig 8) which are coplanar (shown coplanar) with each of the color conversion layer and the transmission laver and spaced apart (shown spaced apart) from each other in a direction (Y) along (shown along the inside edge of the periphery of opening PXA) a periphery of the opening.
Cho teaches a portion (FL, Fig 5G; the flattening layer FL functions as the light conversion layer 147, [0095; 0103]; the light conversion layer 147 is also shown disposed in the groove in Fig 6) of the color conversion layer is disposed in (shown disposed in) at least one of the grooves.
Park teaches a base product of a partition wall between the color conversion layer and the transmission layer that includes a groove which the claimed invention can be seen as an improving display quality by blocking the travel of light between adjacent pixels (Park, [0008]).
Cho teaches a known technique of forming the color conversion layer such that a portion of the color conversion layer is disposed in the groove that is comparable to the base product.
Cho’s known technique, as cited above, would have been recognized by one skilled in the art as applicable to the base product of Park and the results would have been predictable and resulted in improved lighting efficiency (Cho, [0030]) which results in an improved product.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Park, Kim, and Cho are considered analogous to the claimed invention because all are from the same field of endeavor of semiconductor display devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the device of Park with the features of Kim and Cho to create grooves which are coplanar with each of the color conversion layer and the transmission laver and spaced apart from each other in a direction along a periphery of the opening, wherein a portion of the color conversion layer is disposed in at least one of the grooves in order to provide a color conversion panel having an improved light efficiency (Kim, [0005]) and improve lighting efficiency (Cho, [0030]).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Park, Kim, and Cho discloses the electronic apparatus of claim 12. Park teaches the opening (100h, Fig 7A) and the partition wall (104, Fig 12A).
Kim goes on to teach wherein each of the grooves (GR2, Fig 8) has a volume (V; volume of depth shown in Fig 8 combined with area shown in Fig 7), and
volumes (V) of the grooves (GR2) are spaced apart (shown along the inside edge of the periphery of opening PXA) from each other around the periphery of the opening by portions (shown spaced apart by flat portions of partition wall 550 disposed in the Y direction, Fig 8) of the partition wall.
Claims 2-4, 6, 13-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 2019/0025634 A1), in view of Kim (US 2021/0036063 A1), in view of Cho (US 20140160408 A1), as applied to claims 1, 5, 12, and 16 above, and further in view of the obviousness of range optimization.
In cases like the present, where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited within the claims, applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. As such, the claimed dimensions appear to be an obvious matter of engineering design choice and thus, while being a difference, does not serve in any way to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the applied prior art. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Kuhle, 526 F2d. 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Park, Kim, and Cho discloses the panel of claim 1. Kim teaches grooves (GR2, Fig 8).
Park goes on to teach wherein the partition wall (104, Fig 12A) has a thickness adjacent (shown with thickness adjacent to the groove) to each groove (150g) among the grooves, the each groove (150g) has a depth (shown with depth), and
the depth of the each groove (150g) which is in the partition wall (104) is about 1/3 or more and about 1/2 or less of the thickness of the partition wall (104) which is adjacent to the each groove (150g).
Park discloses the claimed invention except for the depth of the each groove which is in the partition wall is about 1/3 or more and about 1/2 or less the thickness of the partition wall which is adjacent to the each groove.
On Page 2, Ln 12-14, the disclosure states,
“A depth of the groove may be about 1/3 or more and about 1/2 or less of a thickness of a portion of the partition wall in which the groove is not formed (e.g., thickness portion which is adjacent to the groove).”
The specification does not disclose that the making the depth of the each groove 1/3 to 1/2 the thickness of the partition wall solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the each groove extend 1/3 to 1/2 the thickness of the partition wall in order to ensure liquid overflow does not mix across color conversion regions, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Park, Kim, and Cho discloses the panel of claim 1. Kim teaches grooves (GR2, Fig 8).
Park goes on to teach wherein the partition wall (104, Fig 12A) has a thickness corresponding (shown with thickness corresponding to the groove) to the each groove (150g) among the grooves and a thickness which is adjacent (shown with thickness adjacent to the groove) to the each groove (150g), and
the thickness of the partition wall (104) which corresponds (thickness between 151 and 152) to the each groove (150g) is about 1/2 or more and about 2/3 or less of the thickness of the partition wall (104) which is adjacent to the each groove (150g).
Park discloses the claimed invention except for the thickness of the partition wall which corresponds to the each groove is about 1/2 or more and about 2/3 or less of the thickness of the partition wall which is adjacent to the each groove.
On Page 2, Ln 15-17, the disclosure states,
“A thickness of a portion of the partition wall in which the groove may be formed (e.g., thickness portion which corresponds to the groove) may be about 1/2 or more and about 2/3 or less of a thickness of a portion of the partition wall in which the groove is not formed.”
The specification does not disclose that making the thickness of the partition wall in which the each groove may be formed about 1/2 to 2/3 the thickness of the partition wall outside the each groove solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the thickness of the partition wall in which the groove may be formed about 1/2 to 2/3 the thickness of the partition wall outside the each groove in order to ensure liquid overflow does not mix across color conversion regions, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Park, Kim, and Cho discloses the panel of claim 3. Park goes on to teach wherein the color conversion layer (310/320, Fig 12A) within (shown within) the opening (100h, Fig 7A) defined (shown defined) by the partition wall (104, Fig 12A) has a thickness (shown with thickness),
the thickness (H120, Fig 5; 10.5 µm, [0097]) of the partition (104) which is adjacent to the each groove (150g, labeled as 120g in Fig 5) is about 10 micrometers or more (10.5 µm),
the thickness of the partition (104, Fig 12A) which corresponds to the each groove (150g) is about 5 micrometers or more (Please see below for range optimization discussion.), and
the thickness (9.0 µm, [0115]) of the color conversion layer (310/320) is about 9 micrometers or more (9.0 µm).
Park discloses the claimed invention except for the thickness of the partition which corresponds to the each groove is about 5 micrometers or more.
On Page 2, Ln 19-20, the disclosure states,
“the thickness of the portion of the partition in which the groove may be formed may be about 5 µm or more”
The specification does not disclose that the making the thickness of the portion of the partition in which the each groove may be formed about 5 µm or more solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Also, in view of the discussion for claims 2 and 3 above, making the thickness of the partition in which the each groove is formed about 5 µm would correspond to the each groove being between 1/3 and 1/2 the thickness of the partition wall. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the thickness of the portion of the partition in which the each groove may be formed about 5 µm or more in order to ensure liquid overflow does not mix across color conversion regions, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Park, Kim, and Cho discloses the panel of claim 1. Kim teaches grooves (GR2, Fig 8).
Park goes on to teach wherein each groove (150g, Fig 12A) among the grooves which is in the partition wall (104), and the color conversion layer (310/320), has a volume (shown with volume in Fig 7A), and
the volume of the each groove (150g; labeled as 110 in Fig 7A) is about 23 % or less of the volume of the color conversion layer (310/320, Fig 12A; fills opening 100h in Fig 7A).
Park discloses the claimed invention except for the volume of the each groove is about 23 % or less of the volume of the color conversion layer.
On Page 2, Ln 23-24, the disclosure states,
“A volume of the groove may be about 23 % or less of a volume of the color conversion
layer.”
The specification does not disclose that making the volume of the each groove 23% or less the volume of the color conversion layer solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the volume of the each groove 23% or less the volume of the color conversion layer in order to ensure liquid overflow does not mix across color conversion regions, but doesn’t oversize the each groove to cause it to take up unnecessary space in the panel, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Park, Kim, and Cho discloses the apparatus of claim 12. Kim teaches grooves (GR2, Fig 8).
Park goes on to teach wherein the partition wall (104, Fig 12A) has a thickness adjacent (shown with thickness adjacent to the groove) to each groove (150g) among the grooves,
the each groove (150g) has a depth (shown with depth), and
the depth of the each groove (150g) which is in the partition wall (104) is about 1/3 or more and about 1/2 or less of the thickness of the partition wall (104) which is adjacent to the each groove (150g).
Park discloses the claimed invention except for the depth of the each groove which is in the partition wall is about 1/3 or more and about 1/2 or less the thickness of the partition wall which is adjacent to the each groove.
On Page 2, Ln 12-14, the disclosure states,
“A depth of the groove may be about 1/3 or more and about 1/2 or less of a thickness of a portion of the partition wall in which the groove is not formed (e.g., thickness portion which is adjacent to the groove).”
The specification does not disclose that the making the depth of the each groove 1/3 to 1/2 the thickness of the partition wall solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the each groove extend 1/3 to 1/2 the thickness of the partition wall in order to ensure liquid overflow does not mix across color conversion regions, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Park, Kim, and Cho discloses the apparatus of claim 12. Kim teaches grooves (GR2, Fig 8).
Park goes on to teach wherein the partition wall (104, Fig 12A) has a thickness corresponding (shown with thickness corresponding to the groove) to each groove (150g) among the grooves and a thickness which is adjacent (shown with thickness adjacent to the groove) to the each groove (150g), and
the thickness of the partition wall (104) which corresponds (thickness between 151 and 152) to the each groove (150g) is about 1/2 or more and about 2/3 or less of the thickness of the partition wall (104) which is adjacent to the each groove (150g).
Park discloses the claimed invention except for the thickness of the partition wall which corresponds to the each groove is about 1/2 or more and about 2/3 or less of the thickness of the partition wall which is adjacent to the each groove.
On Page 2, Ln 15-17, the disclosure states,
“A thickness of a portion of the partition wall in which the groove may be formed (e.g., thickness portion which corresponds to the groove) may be about 1/2 or more and about 2/3 or less of a thickness of a portion of the partition wall in which the groove is not formed.”
The specification does not disclose that making the thickness of the partition wall in which the each groove may be formed about 1/2 to 2/3 the thickness of the partition wall outside the each groove solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the thickness of the partition wall in which the each groove may be formed about 1/2 to 2/3 the thickness of the partition wall outside the each groove in order to ensure liquid overflow does not mix across color conversion regions, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Park, Kim, and Cho discloses the apparatus of claim 14. Park goes on to teach wherein the color conversion layer (310/320, Fig 12A) which is within (shown within) the opening (100h, Fig 7A) defined (shown defined) by the partition wall (104, Fig 12A) has a thickness (shown with thickness),
the thickness (H120, Fig 5; 10.5 µm, [0097]) of the partition wall (104) which is adjacent to the each groove (150g, labeled as 120g in Fig 5) is about 10 micrometers or more (10.5 µm),
the thickness of the partition wall (104, Fig 12A) which corresponds to the each groove (150g) is about 5 micrometers or more (Please see below for range optimization discussion.), and
the thickness (9.0 µm, [0115]) of the color conversion layer (310/320) is about 9 micrometers or more (9.0 µm).
Park discloses the claimed invention except for the thickness of the partition which corresponds to the each groove is about 5 micrometers or more.
On Page 2, Ln 19-20, the disclosure states,
“the thickness of the portion of the partition in which the groove may be formed may be about 5 µm or more”
The specification does not disclose that the making the thickness of the portion of the partition in which the each groove may be formed about 5 µm or more solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Also, in view of the discussion for claims 2 and 3 above, making the thickness of the partition in which the each groove is formed about 5 µm would correspond to the each groove being between 1/3 and 1/2 the thickness of the partition wall. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the thickness of the portion of the partition in which the each groove may be formed about 5 µm or more in order to ensure liquid overflow does not mix across color conversion regions, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Park, Kim, and Cho discloses the apparatus of claim 12. Kim teaches grooves (GR2, Fig 8).
Park goes on to teach wherein each groove (150g, Fig 12A) among the grooves which is in the partition wall (104), and the color conversion layer (310/320), has a volume (shown with volume in Fig 7A), and
the volume of the each groove (150g; labeled as 110 in Fig 7A) is about 23 % or less of the volume of the color conversion layer (310/320, Fig 12A; fills opening 100h in Fig 7A).
Park discloses the claimed invention except for the volume of the each groove is about 23 % or less of the volume of the color conversion layer.
On Page 2, Ln 23-24, the disclosure states,
“A volume of the groove may be about 23 % or less of a volume of the color conversion
layer.”
The specification does not disclose that making the volume of the each groove 23% or less the volume of the color conversion layer solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the volume of the each groove 23% or less the volume of the color conversion layer in order to ensure liquid overflow does not mix across color conversion regions, but doesn’t oversize the each groove to cause it to take up unnecessary space in the panel, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 7-10, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 2019/0025634 A1), in view of Kim (US 2021/0036063 A1), in view of Cho (US 20140160408 A1), and further in view of Bae (US 2020/0343310 A1).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Park, Kim, and Cho discloses the panel of claim 1. Park teaches the transmission layer (400, Fig 12A), and goes on to teach a color filter layer (210/220, Fig 12A) including a first color filter (210) and a second color filter (220),
the opening (100h, Fig 7A) which is defined (shown defined) by the partition wall (104, Fig 12A) is provided in plural (shown in plural) including a plurality of openings (100h), the plurality of openings comprising:
a first opening (opening for 310) overlapping (shown overlapping) the first color filter (210), and
a second opening (opening for 320) overlapping (shown overlapping) the second color filter (220), and
a light control layer (300, Fig 4) including:
the color conversion layer (310/320, Fig 12A) within (shown within) the first opening (opening for 310) which is defined (shown defined) by the partition wall (104).
Park fails to explicitly teach the transmission layer within the second opening which is defined by the partition wall.
However, Bae teaches the transmission layer (170, Fig 2) within (shown within) the second opening (opening for 170) which is defined (shown defined) by the partition wall (180).
Park, Kim, Cho, and Bae are considered analogous to the claimed invention because all are from the same field of endeavor of semiconductor display devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the device of Park, Kim, and Cho with the features of Bae to create a panel with the transmission layer within the second opening which is defined by the partition wall in order to have a color control member enabling prevention of color mixing between pixel areas of the display device, as well as optimization of transmission of light from the pixel areas (Bae, [0002]) and a display device having improved color reproduction and improved light efficiency (Bae, [0004]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Park, Kim, Cho, and Bae discloses the panel of claim 7. Park goes on to teach wherein the first opening (opening for 310, Fig 12A) which is defined (shown defined) by the partition wall (104) does not overlap (shown not overlapping) the second color filter (220), and
the second opening (opening for 320) which is defined (shown defined) by the partition wall (104) does not overlap (shown not overlapping) the first color filter (210).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Park, Kim, Cho, and Bae discloses the panel of claim 8. Park goes on to teach wherein the partition wall (104, Fig 12A) overlaps (shown overlapping) the first color filter (210) or the second color filter (220).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Park, Kim, Cho, and Bae discloses the panel of claim 7. Park teaches the plurality of openings (100h, Fig 7A) which is defined (shown defined) by the partition wall (104, Fig 12A), the color conversion layer (310/320), the transmission layer (400), the first color filter (210), and the second color filter (220).
Bae goes on to teach wherein the plurality of openings which is defined by the partition wall further comprises a third opening (opening for 160b, Fig 2) excluding (shown excluding) the color conversion layer and the transmission layer (170), the third opening (opening for 160b) overlapping (shown overlapping) the first color filter or the second color filter (120b).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Park, Kim, and Cho discloses the apparatus of claim 12. Park teaches the transmission layer (400, Fig 12A), and goes on to teach within the color conversion panel (SUB2, Fig 4):
a color filter layer (210/220, Fig 12A) including a first color filter (210) and a second color filter (220),
the opening (100h, Fig 7A) which is defined (shown defined) by the partition wall (104, Fig 12A) is provided in plural (shown in plural) including a plurality of openings (100h), the plurality of openings comprising:
a first opening (opening for 310) overlapping (shown overlapping) the first color filter (210), and
a second opening (opening for 320) overlapping (shown overlapping) the second color filter (220), and
a light control layer (300, Fig 4) including:
the color conversion layer (310/320, Fig 12A) within (shown within) the first opening (opening for 310) which is defined (shown defined) by the partition wall (104).
The combination fails to explicitly teach the transmission layer within the second opening which is defined by the partition wall.
However, Bae teaches the transmission layer (170, Fig 2) within (shown within) the second opening (opening for 170) which is defined (shown defined) by the partition wall (180).
Park, Kim, Cho, and Bae are considered analogous to the claimed invention because all are from the same field of endeavor of semiconductor display devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the device of Park, Kim, and Cho with the features of Bae to create a panel with the transmission layer within the second opening which is defined by the partition wall in order to have a color control member enabling prevention of color mixing between pixel areas of the display device, as well as optimization of transmission of light from the pixel areas (Bae, [0002]) and a display device having improved color reproduction and improved light efficiency (Bae, [0004]).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Park, Kim, Cho, and Bae discloses the apparatus of claim 18. Park goes on to teach wherein the first opening (opening for 310, Fig 12A) which is defined (shown defined) by the partition wall (104) does not overlap (shown not overlapping) the second color filter (220), and
the second opening (opening for 320) which is defined (shown defined) by the partition wall (104) does not overlap (shown not overlapping) the first color filter (210), and
the partition wall (104, Fig 12A) overlaps (shown overlapping) the first color filter (210) or the second color filter (220).
Claims 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 2019/0025634 A1), in view of Kim (US 2021/0036063 A1), in view of Cho (US 20140160408 A1), in view of Bae (US 2020/0343310 A1), and further in view of Lee (US 2021/0202900 A1).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Park, Kim, Cho, and Bae discloses the panel of claim 10. Bae teaches the third opening (opening for 160b). Kim teaches grooves (GR2, Fig 8).
Park teaches the each groove (150g, Fig 12A), and goes on to teach wherein the partition wall (104, Fig 12A) further defines (shown defining) a plurality of sub-walls (151/152) which are between (shown between) the first opening (opening for 310) and the third opening, the plurality of sub-walls (151/152) are spaced apart (shown spaced) from each other.
The combination fails to explicitly teach the plurality of sub-walls are spaced apart from each other by an opening portion which is extended through a thickness of the partition wall and is between the first opening and the third opening, and within the partition wall: each of the opening portion and each groove among the grooves has a depth, and the depth of the opening portion is greater than the depth of the each groove.
However, Lee teaches the plurality of sub-walls are spaced apart from each other by an opening portion (TA, Fig 2C) which is extended through (shown extended through) a thickness of the partition wall (530) and is between (shown between) the first opening and the third opening, and
within the partition wall:
each of the opening portion (TA) and each groove among the grooves has a depth (shown with depth), and
the depth of the opening portion (TA) is greater (shown greater) than the depth of the each groove (opening portion TA extends through the color conversion layer and past the light emitting elements, when combined with Park, the opening portion extends much deeper than the groove).
Park, Kim, Cho, Bae, and Lee are considered analogous to the claimed invention because all are from the same field of endeavor of semiconductor display devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the device of Park, Kim, Cho, and Bae with the features of Lee to create the plurality of sub-walls are spaced apart from each other by an opening portion which is extended through a thickness of the partition wall and is between the first opening and the third opening, and within the partition wall: each of the opening portion and each groove among the grooves has a depth, and the depth of the opening portion is greater than the depth of the each groove to create a panel in which diffraction of light passing through a transmission area may be reduced (Lee, [0006]).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Park, Kim, Cho, and Bae discloses the apparatus of claim 18. Kim teaches grooves (GR2, Fig 8).
Park teaches the plurality of openings (100h, Fig 7A) which is defined (shown defined) by the partition wall (104, Fig 12A), the color conversion layer (310/320), the first color filter (210), the second color filter (220), the each groove (150g), and goes on to teach the plurality of sub-walls (151/152) are spaced apart (shown spaced apart) from each other.
Bae goes on to teach wherein the plurality of openings which is defined by the partition wall further comprises a third opening (opening for 160b, Fig 2) excluding (shown excluding) the color conversion layer, the third opening (opening for 160b) overlapping (shown overlapping) the first color filter or the second color filter (120b),
the partition wall further defines a plurality of sub-walls which are between (shown between) the first opening and the third opening (opening for 160b).
The combination fails to explicitly teach the plurality of sub-walls are spaced apart from each other by an opening portion which is extended through a thickness of the partition wall and is between the first opening and the third opening, and within the partition wall: each of the opening portion and each groove among the grooves has a depth, and the depth of the opening portion is greater than the depth of the each groove.
However, Lee teaches the plurality of sub-walls are spaced apart from each other by an opening portion (TA, Fig 2C) which is extended through (shown extended through) a thickness of the partition wall and is between (shown between) the first opening and the third opening, and
within the partition wall:
each of the opening portion (TA) and each groove among the grooves has a depth (shown with depth), and
the depth of the opening portion (TA) is greater (shown greater) than the depth of the each groove (opening portion TA extends through the color conversion layer and past the light emitting elements, when combined with Park, the opening portion extends much deeper than the groove).
Park, Kim, Cho, Bae, and Lee are considered analogous to the claimed invention because all are from the same field of endeavor of semiconductor display devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the device of Park, Kim, Cho, and Bae with the features of Lee to create the plurality of sub-walls are spaced apart from each other by an opening portion which is extended through a thickness of the partition wall and is between the first opening and the third opening, and within the partition wall: each of the opening portion and each groove among the grooves has a depth, and the depth of the opening portion is greater than the depth of the each groove to create a panel in which diffraction of light passing through a transmission area may be reduced (Lee, [0006]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kawamura (US 8902140 B2) - Color conversion panel with partition walls with grooves to prevent color mixing.
Bae (US 2012/0218622 A1) - Display device with a color filter disposed between partitions.
Lee (US 2019/0267420 A1) - Image sensor wherein each partition pattern surrounding a corresponding color filter to be separate from an adjacent color filter; grooves formed in upper portions of the partition patterns, and providing air gaps between the adjacent partition patterns.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeremy D Watts whose telephone number is (703)756-1055. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 8:00am-4:30pm, F 8:00-3pm 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, Chad Dicke can be reached on (571) 270-7996. 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.
/JEREMY DANIEL WATTS/Examiner, Art Unit 2897 /CHAD M DICKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights