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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment dated 11/25/2025, in which claim 1, 24 were amended, claims 3, 21-23 were cancelled, claim 24 was added, has been entered.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan et al. (US Pub. 20130193843) in view of Ghost et al. (US Pub. 20180269260), Jo et al. (US Pub. 20170294491) and Chung et al. (US Pub. 20130187131) as evidenced by Fukunaga (US Pub. 20010043046).
Regarding claim 1, Yan et al. discloses in Fig. 1A, Fig. 1B, Fig. 3 a light-emitting device of a transmissive type provided with, as subpixels, a red subpixel [R/P2] including a red light-emitting layer, a green subpixel [G/P2] including a green light-emitting layer, and a blue subpixel [B/P1] including a blue light-emitting layer arranged in parallel with one another, the subpixels being one pixel in a light-emitting element, the light emitting device comprising:
an opaque region [P2] that overlaps at least an entire red subpixel [R/P2] and an entire green subpixel [G/P2], in a plan view and blocks background light [paragraph [0021] “a reflective anode 114”. Reflective anode at the back of the device would block/reflect background light as evidenced in paragraph [0020] of Fukunaga]; and
a transparent region [P1] that overlaps at least a portion of the blue subpixel [B/P1] in a plan view, and without overlapping the red subpixel [R/P2] and the green subpixel [G/P2], and transmits the background light [paragraph [0025] “the anode 112a and the cathode 120 of the organic light-emitting device OLED1 of the bottom emission pixel structures P1 both are transparent”. Transparent anode at the back of the device would transmits the background light as evidenced in paragraph [0017] of Fukunaga].
wherein each of the red subpixel [R/P2], the green subpixel [R/P2], and the blue subpixel [B/P1] include an anode electrode [114, 114, 112a respectively] and a cathode electrode [120] [paragraph [0021] “reflective anode 114…transparent cathode 120”, paragraph [0025], “anode 112a and the cathode 120”],
in each of the red subpixel [R/P2], and the green subpixel [R/P2], one of the anode electrode [114] and the cathode electrode [120] is a reflective electrode [reflective anode 114] and another one is a transparent electrode [transparent cathode 120],
in the blue subpixel [B/P1], both the anode electrode [112a] and the cathode electrode [120] include a transparent electrode in a position overlapping the transparent region [P1][paragraph [0025] “the anode 112a and the cathode 120 of the organic light-emitting device OLED1 of the bottom emission pixel structures P1 both are transparent”];
the red subpixel [R/P2] includes a red subpixel circuit [D2] configured to drive the red subpixel, the green subpixel [G/P2] includes a green subpixel circuit [D2] configured to drive the green subpixel, and the blue subpixel [B/P1] includes a blue subpixel circuit [D1] configured to drive the blue subpixel [Fig. 3].
PNG
media_image1.png
321
395
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Yan et al. fails to disclose
a portion of the blue subpixel circuit and one of an entirety of the red subpixel circuit or an entirety of the green subpixel circuit overlap one of the reflective electrode of the red subpixel or the reflective electrode of the green subpixel in the plan view.
Chung et al. discloses in Fig. 7
one of an entirety of the red subpixel circuit or an entirety of the green subpixel circuit [T3] overlap one of the reflective electrode [221] of the red subpixel [PA1/Pr] or the reflective electrode [221] of the green subpixel [PA1/Pr] in the plan view.
Chung et al. further discloses in paragraph [0075], [0078], [0106]
a portion of a bottom emission subpixel circuit [T4] in a bottom emission subpixel [PA2] overlap one of the reflective electrode [221] of the red subpixel [PA1/Pr] or the reflective electrode [221] of the green subpixel [PA1/Pr] in the plan view.
Yan et al. discloses
the blue subpixel comprises a bottom emission subpixel.
Thus, incorporating the teaching of Chung into the method of Yan et al. would result to “a portion of the blue subpixel circuit in the blue subpixel overlaps one of the reflective electrode in the red subpixel or the reflective electrode in the green subpixel in the plan view.
For further providing support that the blue subpixel circuit in the blue subpixel can overlap with the reflective electrode in the adjacent (red/green) subpixel, Jo et al. is cited.
Jo et al. discloses in Fig. 2, paragraph [0082], [0085]
a portion of the blue subpixel circuit in the blue subpixel [SB] overlaps one of the reflective electrode in the red subpixel or the reflective electrode in the green subpixel in the plan view [a portion of the subpixel circuit in the blue subpixel [SB] overlaps one of the reflective electrode [141] in the red subpixel [SR]].
PNG
media_image2.png
435
661
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Chung et al. and Jo et al. into the method of Yan et al. to include a portion of the blue subpixel circuit and one of an entirety of the red subpixel circuit or an entirety of the green subpixel circuit overlap one of the reflective electrode of the red subpixel or the reflective electrode of the green subpixel in the plan view. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Yan et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable configuration of subpixel circuit that may be advantageous in terms of processes and may improve process efficiency [paragraph [0075] of Jo et al.], improving the transmission of the transmissive area and preventing the efficiency of bottom emission being degraded [paragraph [0075], [0078] of Chung et al.]. Further, it would have been obvious to try one of the known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghost et al. (US Pub. 20180269260) in view of Yan et al. (US Pub. 20130193843) and Jo et al. (US Pub. 20170294491) and Chung et al. (US Pub. 20130187131) as evidenced by Fukunaga (US Pub. 20010043046).
Regarding claim 1, Ghost et al. discloses in Fig. 1A-1C, 10A-10B, paragraph [0054]-[0056] a light-emitting device of a transmissive type provided with, as subpixels, a red subpixel including a red light-emitting layer [50], a green subpixel including a green light-emitting layer [52], and a blue subpixel including a blue light-emitting layer [54] arranged in parallel with one another, the subpixels being one pixel in a light-emitting element, the light emitting device comprising:
an opaque region [region overlaps with red subpixel and green subpixel comprising reflective anodes 20, 22 and transparent cathode 70] that overlaps at least an entire red subpixel and an entire green subpixel, in a plan view and blocks background light [paragraph [0054] “RGB electrode layers 20, 22 may be …reflective, paragraph [0056] “Transparent electrode layer 70”. Reflective anodes 20, 22 at the back of the device would block/reflect background light as evidenced in paragraph [0020] of Fukunaga]; and
a subpixel region [region overlaps with blue subpixel] that overlaps at least a portion of the blue subpixel in a plan view, and without overlapping the red subpixel and the green subpixel;
wherein each of the red subpixel, the green subpixel, and the blue subpixel include an anode electrode [20, 22, and 24 respectively] and a cathode electrode [70] [paragraph [0054] “RGB electrode layers 20, 22 and 24 may be …an anode, paragraph [0056] “Transparent electrode layer 70 may be a cathode.”],
in each of the red subpixel and the green subpixel, one of the anode electrode [20 and 22 respectively] and the cathode electrode [70] is a reflective electrode and another one is a transparent electrode [paragraph [0054] “RGB electrode layers 20, 22 may be …reflective, paragraph [0056] “Transparent electrode layer 70”],
wherein the red light-emitting layer [50] includes a first quantum dot that emits red light, and the green light-emitting layer [52] includes a second quantum dot that emits green light [paragraph [0055]].
PNG
media_image3.png
591
724
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Ghost et al. does not explicitly disclose
the subpixel region is a transparent region that transmits the background light,
in the blue subpixel, both the anode electrode and the cathode electrode include a transparent electrode in a position overlapping the transparent region.
However, Ghost et al. suggests in paragraph [0054] “RGB electrode layer 24 may be transparent and Ghost et al. discloses in paragraph [0056] that cathode electrode 70 is a transparent electrode. Transparent anode at the back of the device would transmits the background light as evidenced in paragraph [0017] of Fukunaga.
Thus, it appears Ghost et al. suggests
the subpixel region is a transparent region that transmits the visible background light,
in the blue subpixel, both the anode electrode [24] and the cathode electrode [70] include a transparent electrode in a position overlapping the transparent region.
For further providing support for electrodes in the blue subpixel, Yan et al. is cited.
Yan et al. discloses in Fig. 1A, Fig. 3, paragraph [0025]
the subpixel region is a transparent region [P1] that overlaps at least a portion of the blue subpixel [B/P1] in a plan view, and without overlapping the red subpixel [R/P2] and the green subpixel [G/P2], and transmits the visible background light [paragraph [0025] “the anode 112a and the cathode 120 of the organic light-emitting device OLED1 of the bottom emission pixel structures P1 both are transparent”. Transparent anode at the back of the device would transmits the visible background light as evidenced in paragraph [0017] of Fukunaga];
in the blue subpixel [B/P1], both the anode electrode [112a] and the cathode electrode [120] include a transparent electrode in a position overlapping the transparent region [P1][paragraph [0025] “the anode 112a and the cathode 120 of the organic light-emitting device OLED1 of the bottom emission pixel structures P1 both are transparent”];
PNG
media_image1.png
321
395
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
268
757
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Yan et al. further discloses
in each of the red subpixel [R/P2], and the green subpixel [R/P2], one of the anode electrode [114] and the cathode electrode [120] is a reflective electrode [reflective anode 114] and another one is a transparent electrode [transparent cathode 120].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Yan et al. into the method of Ghost et al. to include the subpixel region is a transparent region that transmits the visible background light, in the blue subpixel, both the anode electrode and the cathode electrode include a transparent electrode in a position overlapping the transparent region. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Ghost et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable configuration of electrodes in blue subpixel to provide a double-side light emitting display panel so that more information for the viewer coming or going can be provided [paragraph [0003], [0013] of Yan et al.].
Ghost et al. fails to disclose
the red subpixel includes a red subpixel circuit configured to drive the red subpixel, the green subpixel includes a green subpixel circuit configured to drive the green subpixel, and the blue subpixel includes a blue subpixel circuit configured to drive the blue subpixel,
a portion of the blue subpixel circuit and one of an entirety of the red subpixel circuit or an entirety of the green subpixel circuit overlap one of the reflective electrode of the red subpixel or the reflective electrode of the green subpixel in the plan view.
Yan et al. discloses in Fig. 1A, Fig. 2, Fig. 3
the red subpixel [R/P2] includes a red subpixel circuit [D2] configured to drive the red subpixel, the green subpixel [G/P2] includes a green subpixel circuit [D2] configured to drive the green subpixel, and the blue subpixel [B/P1] includes a blue subpixel circuit [D1] configured to drive the blue subpixel.
Chung et al. discloses in Fig. 7
one of an entirety of the red subpixel circuit or an entirety of the green subpixel circuit [T3] overlap one of the reflective electrode [221] of the red subpixel [PA1/Pr] or the reflective electrode [221] of the green subpixel [PA1/Pr] in the plan view.
Chung et al. further discloses in paragraph [0075], [0078], [0106]
a portion of a bottom emission subpixel circuit [T4] in a bottom emission subpixel [PA2] overlap one of the reflective electrode [221] of the red subpixel [PA1/Pr] or the reflective electrode [221] of the green subpixel [PA1/Pr] in the plan view.
Ghost et al. suggests the blue subpixel comprises a bottom emission subpixel (i.e., anode is transparent).
Thus, incorporating the teaching of Chung into the method of Yan et al. and Ghost et al. would result to “a portion of the blue subpixel circuit in the blue subpixel overlaps one of the reflective electrode in the red subpixel or the reflective electrode in the green subpixel in the plan view.
For further providing support that the blue subpixel circuit in the blue subpixel can overlap with the reflective electrode in the adjacent (red/green) subpixel, Jo et al. is cited.
Jo et al. discloses in Fig. 2, paragraph [0082], [0085]
a portion of the blue subpixel circuit in the blue subpixel [SB] overlaps one of the reflective electrode in the red subpixel or the reflective electrode in the green subpixel in the plan view [a portion of the subpixel circuit in the blue subpixel [SB] overlaps one of the reflective electrode [141] in the red subpixel [SR]].
PNG
media_image2.png
435
661
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Chung et al., Yan et al. and Jo et al. into the method of Ghost et al. to include the red subpixel includes a red subpixel circuit configured to drive the red subpixel, the green subpixel includes a green subpixel circuit configured to drive the green subpixel, and the blue subpixel includes a blue subpixel circuit configured to drive the blue subpixel, a portion of the blue subpixel circuit and one of an entirety of the red subpixel circuit or an entirety of the green subpixel circuit overlap one of the reflective electrode of the red subpixel or the reflective electrode of the green subpixel in the plan view. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Ghost et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing driving voltage to the light emitting elements in each of subpixels; providing suitable configuration of subpixel circuit that may be advantageous in terms of processes and may improve process efficiency [paragraph [0075], [0082] of Jo et al., paragraph [0018]-[0019], [0021]-[0022] of Yan et al.]; providing suitable configuration of subpixel circuit that improves the transmission of the transmissive area and prevents the efficiency of bottom emission being degraded [paragraph [0075], [0078] of Chung et al.]. Further, it would have been obvious to try one of the known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claims 5-6, Ghost discloses in Fig. 1A-1C, 10A-10C
wherein the transparent region [region overlaps with blue subpixel comprising transparent anode 24 and transparent cathode 70] overlaps an entire blue subpixel in the plan view;
wherein a relationship (1) is satisfied
1
3
≤
a
≤
2
3
a is a ratio of an area of the blue subpixel to a total area of the red subpixel, the green subpixel, and the blue subpixel in the plan view;
a relationship (2) is satisfied
1
+
R
6
(
1
+
R
'
)
≤
a
≤
2
3
a is a ratio of an area of the blue subpixel to a total area of the red subpixel, the green subpixel, and the blue subpixel in the plan view, R is a reflectivity of light of the reflective electrode, and R' is a reflectivity of light of the transparent electrode.
PNG
media_image5.png
486
668
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
591
724
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Ghost discloses in Fig. 1A-1C, 10A-10C wherein the transparent region includes a non-light-emitting transparent region adjacent to the subpixels in the plan view.
PNG
media_image6.png
486
668
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
683
724
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghost et al. (US Pub. 20180269260) in view of Yan et al. (US Pub. 20130193843) and Jo et al. (US Pub. 20170294491) and Chung et al. (US Pub. 20130187131) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Teramoto et al. (US Pub. 20060290830).
Regarding claim 4, Ghost et al., fails to disclose
wherein a portion of the blue subpixel overlaps the opaque region;
in the portion of the blue subpixel overlapping the opaque region, one of the anode electrode and the cathode electrode is a reflective electrode and another one of the anode electrode and the cathode electrode is a transparent electrode.
Teramoto et al. also discloses in Fig. 1, Fig. 3, Fig. 8, Fig. 10, Fig. 12, paragraph [0004]
wherein a portion of the blue subpixel [32B] overlaps the opaque region [reflection area].
Yan et al. discloses in Fig. 1D, Fig. 3,
wherein a portion of the blue subpixel overlaps the opaque region [P2];
in the portion of the blue subpixel overlapping the opaque region [P2], one of the anode electrode [114] and the cathode electrode [120] is a reflective electrode [reflective anode 114] and another one of the anode electrode and the cathode electrode is a transparent electrode [transparent cathode 120].
PNG
media_image8.png
248
295
media_image8.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Teramoto et al. and Yan et al. into the method of Ghost et al., to include wherein a portion of the blue subpixel overlaps the opaque region; in the portion of the blue subpixel overlapping the opaque region, one of the anode electrode and the cathode electrode is a reflective electrode and another one of the anode electrode and the cathode electrode is a transparent electrode. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Ghost et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing a blue subpixel having a transflective area including a transmissive area and a reflective area to increase display quality; providing a display device having good optical characteristics under intense external light as well as in a dark closed environment [paragraph [0005] of Teramoto et al.]; forming a portion of the blue subpixel overlapping the opaque region having top emission pixel structure [paragraph [0021] of Yan et al.].
Claim(s) 7-8, 10-12, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghost et al. (US Pub. 20180269260) in view of Yan et al. (US Pub. 20130193843) and Jo et al. (US Pub. 20170294491) and Chung et al. (US Pub. 20130187131) as applied to claims 1 and 6 above and further in view of Adachi (US Pub. 20180012942)
Regarding claim 7, Yan et al. discloses in Fig. 1A, Fig. 3
wherein the transparent region [P1] overlaps an entire blue subpixel in the plan view.
Ghost discloses in Fig. 1A-1C, 10A-10C
wherein the transparent region [region overlaps with blue subpixel comprising transparent anode 24 and transparent cathode 70] overlaps an entire blue subpixel in the plan view.
Ghost further discloses in Fig. 1A-1C, 10A-10C
wherein
a
<
2
3
a is a ratio of an area of the blue subpixel to a total area of the red subpixel, the green subpixel, and the blue subpixel in the plan view.
PNG
media_image9.png
486
668
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
683
724
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Ghost fails to explicitly disclose
a relationship (2) is satisfied
1
+
R
6
(
1
+
R
'
)
≤
a
≤
2
3
a is a ratio of an area of the blue subpixel to a total area of the red subpixel, the green subpixel, and the blue subpixel in the plan view, R is a reflectivity of light of the reflective electrode, and R' is a reflectivity of light of the transparent electrode.
Adachi discloses in Fig. 4, Fig. 6, paragraph [0042]-[0044], [0047]-[0056],
an area of the blue subpixel with respect to an area of the red subpixel and an area of the green subpixel can be adjusted to prevent the diffraction of light from being strong.
Thus, Adachi suggests a ratio of an area of the blue subpixel to a total area of the red subpixel, the green subpixel, and the blue subpixel can be adjusted.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Adachi into the method of Ghost et al., Yan et al. and Jo et al. to include the claimed range satisfied the relationship (2). The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Ghost et al., Yan et al. and Jo et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable ratio of an area of the blue subpixel to a total area of the red subpixel, the green subpixel, and the blue subpixel to effectively reducing power consumption. Further, it would have been obvious to modify Ghost et al., and Jo et al. and Adachi to provide the claimed range for at least the purpose of optimization and routine experimentation to provide sufficient sizes of subpixels to provide a device having desired ratio of an area of the blue subpixel to a total area of the red subpixel, the green subpixel, and the blue subpixel and providing desired ratio of transparent area to opaque area to effectively reducing power consumption and effectively reducing stray lights. The claimed ranges are merely optimizations, and as such are not patentable over the prior art. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382.
Regarding claim 8, Ghost discloses in Fig. 1A-1C, 10C wherein
a
<
2
3
Ghost et al., and Jo et al. fails to disclose
wherein a relationship (3) is further satisfied.
1
2
≤
a
≤
2
3
Adachi discloses in Fig. 4, Fig. 6, paragraph [0042]-[0044], [0047]-[0056],
an area of the blue subpixel with respect to an area of the red subpixel and an area of the green subpixel can be adjusted to prevent the diffraction of light from being strong.
Thus, Adachi suggests a ratio of an area of the blue subpixel to a total area of the red subpixel, the green subpixel, and the blue subpixel can be adjusted.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Adachi into the method of Ghost et al., Yan et al. and Jo et al. to include the claimed range satisfied the relationship (3). The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Ghost et al., Yan et al., and Jo et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable ratio of an area of the blue subpixel to a total area of the red subpixel, the green subpixel, and the blue subpixel to effectively reducing power consumption.
In addition, Applicant has not provided any criticality of the claimed range. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify Ghost et al. and Adachi to provide the claimed range for at least the purpose of optimization and routine experimentation to provide a device having desired ratio of an area of the blue subpixel to a total area of the red subpixel, the green subpixel, and the blue subpixel and providing desired ratio of transparent area to opaque area to effectively reducing power consumption and effectively reducing stray lights. The claimed ranges are merely optimizations, and as such are not patentable over the prior art. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382.
Regarding claims 10 and 12, Ghost discloses in Fig. 1A-1C, 10C wherein
1
3
≤
a
<
2
3
a is a ratio of an area of the blue subpixel to a total area of the red subpixel, the green subpixel, and the blue subpixel.
Ghost et al., Yan et al. and Jo et al. fails to disclose
wherein a relationship (4) is satisfied.
1
3
(
1
-
b
)
≤
a
≤
2
-
3
b
3
(
1
-
b
)
Wherein a relationship (6) is further satisfied.
1
-
2
b
2
(
1
-
b
)
≤
a
≤
2
-
3
b
3
(
1
-
b
)
b is a ratio of an area of the non-light-emitting transparent region to a total area of all of the transparent regions and the opaque regions in the plan view.
Adachi discloses in Fig. 4, Fig. 6, paragraph [0042]-[0044], [0047]-[0056],
an area of the blue subpixel with respect to an area of the red subpixel and an area of the green subpixel can be adjusted to prevent the diffraction of light from being strong.
Thus, Adachi suggests a ratio of an area of the blue subpixel to a total area of the red subpixel, the green subpixel, and the blue subpixel can be adjusted.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Adachi into the method of Ghost et al., Yan et al. and Jo et al. to include the claimed range satisfied the relationship (4) and/or relationship (6). The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Ghost et al., Yan et al. and Jo et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable ratio of an area of the blue subpixel to a total area of the red subpixel, the green subpixel, and the blue subpixel to effectively reducing power consumption. In addition, Applicant has not provided any criticality of the claimed range. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify Ghost et al., Yan et al., Jo et al. and Adachi to provide the claimed range for at least the purpose of optimization and routine experimentation to provide a device having desired ratio of an area of the blue subpixel to a total area of the red subpixel, the green subpixel, and the blue subpixel and providing desired ratio of transparent area to opaque area to effectively reducing power consumption and effectively reducing stray lights. The claimed ranges are merely optimizations, and as such are not patentable over the prior art. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382.
Regarding claim 11, Ghost discloses in Fig. 1A-1C, 10A-10C
wherein the transparent region includes a non-light-emitting transparent region adjacent to the subpixels in the plan view;
wherein
1
3
≤
a
<
2
3
a is a ratio of an area of the blue subpixel to a total area of the red subpixel, the green subpixel, and the blue subpixel.
PNG
media_image11.png
683
724
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
486
668
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Ghost et al., Yan et al.and Jo et al. fails to disclose
a relationship (5) is satisfied.
1
+
R
6
(
1
+
R
'
)
(
1
-
b
)
≤
a
≤
2
-
3
b
3
(
1
-
b
)
b is a ratio of an area of the non-light-emitting transparent region to a total area of all of the transparent regions and the opaque regions in a plan view, R is a reflectivity of light of the reflective electrode, and R' is a reflectivity of light of the transparent electrode.
Adachi discloses in Fig. 4, Fig. 6, paragraph [0042]-[0044], [0047]-[0056],
an area of the blue subpixel with respect to an area of the red subpixel and an area of the green subpixel can be adjusted to prevent the diffraction of light from being strong.
Thus, Adachi suggests a ratio of an area of the blue subpixel to a total area of the red subpixel, the green subpixel, and the blue subpixel can be adjusted.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Adachi into the method of Ghost et al., Yan et al. and Jo et al. to include the claimed range satisfied the relationship (5). The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Ghost et al., Yan et al. and Jo et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable ratio of an area of the blue subpixel to a total area of the red subpixel, the green subpixel, and the blue subpixel to effectively reducing power consumption. In addition, Applicant has not provided any criticality of the claimed range. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify Ghost et al., Yan et al., Jo et al. and Adachi to provide the claimed range for at least the purpose of optimization and routine experimentation to provide a device having desired ratio of an area of the blue subpixel to a total area of the red subpixel, the green subpixel, and the blue subpixel and providing desired ratio of transparent area to opaque area to effectively reducing power consumption and effectively reducing stray lights. The claimed ranges are merely optimizations, and as such are not patentable over the prior art. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382.
Claims 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghost et al. (US Pub. 20180269260) in view of Yan et al. (US Pub. 20130193843) and Jo et al. (US Pub. 20170294491) and Chung et al. (US Pub. 20130187131) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Hu et al. (US Pub. 20050237450) and Teramoto et al. (US Pub. 20060290830).
Regarding claims 13 and 17, Ghost discloses in Fig. 1A-1C, 10A-10C
wherein the transparent region includes a non-light-emitting transparent region adjacent to the subpixels in the plan view.
PNG
media_image12.png
486
668
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
683
724
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Ghost et al., and Jo et al. fails to disclose
wherein the opaque region overlaps a portion of the blue subpixel in the plan view.
Hu discloses in Fig. 4A.
wherein the opaque region [204] overlaps a portion of the blue subpixel [201B] in the plan view.
Hu further discloses in Fig. 4C
Alternatively, the transparent region overlaps an entire blue subpixel in the plan view and the opaque region does not overlap the blue subpixel in the plan view.
Teramoto et al. also discloses in Fig. 1, Fig. 3, Fig. 8, Fig. 10, Fig. 12, paragraph [0004]
wherein the opaque region [reflection area] overlaps a portion of the blue subpixel [32B] in the plan view.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Hu et al. and Teramoto et al. into the method of Ghost et al., and Jo et al. to include wherein the opaque region overlaps a portion of the blue subpixel in the plan view. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Ghost et al., and Jo et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing a blue subpixel having a transflective area including a transmissive area and a reflective area to increase display quality; providing a display device having good optical characteristics under intense external light as well as in a dark closed environment [paragraph [0005], [0022], [0026], [0027] of Hu et al.].
Regarding claims 14 and 16, Ghost discloses in Fig. 1A-1C, 10A-10C and Lee discloses in Fig. 10 wherein
1
3
≤
a
<
2
3
a is a ratio of an area of the blue subpixel to a total area of the red subpixel, the green subpixel, and the blue subpixel.
Ghost et al., and Jo et al. fails to disclose
a relationship (7) is satisfied.
1
6
(
2
-
c
)
≤
a
≤
2
3
wherein the following relationship (9) is further satisfied.
a
c
≥
1
2
c is a ratio of an area of the transparent region overlapping the blue subpixel to the total area of the red subpixel, the green subpixel, and the blue subpixel in the plan view.
Teramoto et al. discloses in Fig. 1, Fig. 3, Fig. 8, Fig. 10, Fig. 12 that
a ratio of an area of the transparent region overlapping the blue subpixel to the total area of the red subpixel, the green subpixel, and the blue subpixel in the plan view can be adjusted to achieve desired optical characteristics.
Hu et al. also suggests in Fig. 4A-4C that
a ratio of an area of the transparent region overlapping the blue subpixel to the total area of the red subpixel, the green subpixel, and the blue subpixel in the plan view can be adjusted.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Teramoto et al. and Hu et al. into the method of Ghost et al., and Jo et al. to include the claimed range satisfied the relationship (7) and/or relationship (9). The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Ghost et al., and Jo et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable ratio of an area of the blue subpixel to a total area of the red subpixel, the green subpixel, and the blue subpixel to effectively reducing power consumption. In addition, Applicant has not provided any criticality of the claimed range. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify Ghost et al., and Jo et al. to provide the claimed range for at least the purpose of optimization and routine experimentation to provide a device having desired ratio of an area of the blue subpixel to a total area of the red subpixel, the green subpixel, and the blue subpixel and providing desired ratio of transparent area to opaque area to effectively reducing power consumption and effectively reducing stray lights. The claimed ranges are merely optimizations, and as such are not patentable over the prior art. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382.
Regarding claim 15, Ghost et al., and Jo et al. fails to disclose
wherein the opaque region overlaps a portion of the blue subpixel in the plan view.
Hu discloses in Fig. 4A.
wherein the opaque region [204] overlaps a portion of the blue subpixel [201B] in the plan view.
Hu further discloses in Fig. 4C
Alternatively, the transparent region overlaps an entire blue subpixel in the plan view and the opaque region does not overlap the blue subpixel in the plan view.
Teramoto et al. also discloses in Fig. 1, Fig. 3, Fig. 8, Fig. 10, Fig. 12, paragraph [0004]
wherein the opaque region [reflection area] overlaps a portion of the blue subpixel [32B] in the plan view.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Hu et al. and Teramoto et al. into the method of Ghost et al., and Jo et al. to include wherein the opaque region overlaps a portion of the blue subpixel in the plan view. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Ghost et al., and Jo et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing a blue subpixel having a transflective area including a transmissive area and a reflective area to increase display quality; providing a display device having good optical characteristics under intense external light as well as in a dark closed environment [paragraph [0005], [0022], [0026], [0027] of Hu et al; paragraph [0005] of Teramoto et al.].
Ghost discloses in Fig. 1A-1C, 10A-10C wherein
1
3
≤
a
<
2
3
a is a ratio of an area of the blue subpixel to a total area of the red subpixel, the green subpixel, and the blue subpixel.
Ghost et al., and Jo et al. fails to disclose
a relationship (8) is satisfied.
1
+
R
6
{
c