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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/2/2026 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(s) 1-3, 11, 12 and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20200257162 A1) and Hong (US 20180095570 A1) in view of Zhang (US 20210359008 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a display device (Figs. 3A-C), comprising: an active area (Fig. 3A; comprises PXA-R, PXA-G, PXA B); an encapsulation layer (Fig. 3B; ENL2); a black matrix positioned on the encapsulation layer (BM); a color filter positioned on the encapsulation layer (CF-R, CF-G, CF B). However, Lee does not explicitly disclose an adhesive layer positioned on the black matrix and the color filter, and the black matrix not overlapping the color filter in the active area in a direction between the encapsulation layer and the adhesive layer.
On the other hand, Hong discloses an adhesive layer positioned on the black matrix and the color filter (Fig. 8 shows adhesive layer 600 positioned on the black matrix 510 and the color filter 520); and the black matrix not overlapping the color filter in any area (Fig. 8 shows black matrix 510 not overlapping color filter 520 in accordance with Merriam-Webster’s definition of overlap: “to extend over or past and cover a part of”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the invention to modify Lee according to the teachings of Hong such that an adhesive layer would be positioned on the black matrix and the color filter, and in a direction between the encapsulation layer and the adhesive layer the black matrix would not overlap the color filter in the active area or any other area, in order to minimize unused color filter material and maximize light utilization by placing the black matrix such that it would block any light that would otherwise enter or exit the color filters.
Lee in view of Hong still does not disclose wherein the black matrix is in contact with the color filter only at side surfaces of the black matrix. On the other hand, Zhang discloses wherein the black matrix (Fig. 1, 20) is in contact with the color filters (31(30), 32(30), and 33(30)) on its side surface (see Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the time of effective filing of the invention to modify Lee in view of Hong according to the teachings of Zhang such that the black matrix would be in contact with the color filter only at side surface of the black matrix in order to minimize the height of the device by reducing the portion of the filters extending above or below the black matrix.
Regarding claim 2, Lee discloses wherein color filter patterns of the color filter have angles between respective upper surfaces and respective sidewalls thereof, the angles being greater than or equal to 90 degrees (Attached figure shows angle between upper surface and sidewall of color filter forming a 90 degree angle). However, Lee does not explicitly disclose the upper surfaces facing the adhesive layer.
PNG
media_image1.png
496
697
media_image1.png
Greyscale
On the other hand, Hong discloses an adhesive layer positioned on the black matrix and the color filter (Fig. 8 shows adhesive layer 600 positioned on the black matrix 510 and the color filter 520). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the invention to modify Lee according to the teachings of Hong such that the upper surfaces of the color filters would be facing the adhesive layer, in order to improve the structural integrity of the device by bonding the upper surface of the color filter and the upper surface of the black matrix to a common layer.
Regarding claim 3, Hong discloses wherein the color filter is in direct contact with the adhesive layer (Fig. 8 shows adhesive layer 600 in direct contact with the color filter 520).
Regarding claim 11, Lee discloses wherein the color filter includes a first color filter pattern (Fig. 3B; CF-G, for example) and a second color filter pattern (CF-R, for example), wherein a thickness of the second color filter pattern is greater than a thickness of the black matrix (Fig. 3B shows CF-G being thicker than BM).
PNG
media_image2.png
496
700
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Lee discloses wherein the active area includes an opening portion and a non-opening portion, wherein the black matrix is positioned in the non-opening portion and positioned to be spaced apart from the opening portion (see attached figure).
Regarding claim 15, Lee discloses a display device (Figs. 3A-C), comprising: a substrate (BS1); a light emitting element on the substrate (OLED); an encapsulation layer on the light emitting element (ENL2); a color filter on the encapsulation layer (CF-R, CF-G, CF-B), the color filter including color filter patterns (Fig. 3B; CF-R, CF-G, CF B), the color filter patterns having sidewalls that are equally distant or increasingly distant from each other with increased proximity to the substrate (See attached figure); a black matrix (BM) laterally surrounding the color filter (Fig. 3B shows BM laterally surrounding at least CF-G) and laterally separated from the light emitting element by a distance (See attached figure). However, Lee does not explicitly disclose an adhesive layer on the color filter and the black matrix, and an adhesive layer on the color filter and the black matrix, wherein the black matrix is in contact with the color filter only at side surfaces of the black matrix, and in a direction between the encapsulation layer and the adhesive layer, the black matrix does not overlap with the color filter.
PNG
media_image3.png
508
677
media_image3.png
Greyscale
On the other hand, Hong discloses an adhesive layer positioned on the black matrix and the color filter (Fig. 8 shows adhesive layer 600 positioned on the black matrix 510 and the color filter 520); and the black matrix not overlapping the color filter in any area (Fig. 8 shows black matrix 510 not overlapping color filter 520 in accordance with Merriam-Webster’s definition of overlap: “to extend over or past and cover a part of”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the invention to modify Lee according to the teachings of Hong such that an adhesive layer would be positioned on the black matrix and the color filter, and in a direction between the encapsulation layer and the adhesive layer the black matrix would not overlap the color filter in the active area or any other area, in order to minimize unused color filter material and maximize light utilization by placing the black matrix such that it would block any light that would otherwise enter or exit the color filters.
Lee in view of Hong still does not disclose wherein the black matrix is in contact with the color filter only at side surfaces of the black matrix. On the other hand, Zhang discloses wherein the black matrix (Fig. 1, 20) is in contact with the color filters (31(30), 32(30), and 33(30)) on its side surface (see Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the time of effective filing of the invention to modify Lee in view of Hong according to the teachings of Zhang such that the black matrix would be in contact with the color filter only at side surface of the black matrix in order to minimize the height of the device by reducing the portion of the filters extending above or below the black matrix.
PNG
media_image4.png
508
677
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Lee discloses further comprising: a bank layer laterally surrounding the light emitting element (PDL); wherein a first opening of the bank layer in which the light emitting element is positioned is smaller than a second opening of the black matrix in which the color filter is positioned (see attached figure).
Regarding claim 17, Lee discloses wherein the black matrix vertically overlaps interfaces between neighboring pairs of the color filter patterns (Fig. 3B shows BM vertically overlapping interface neighboring color filters).
Regarding claim 18, Lee discloses a display device (Figs. 3A-C), comprising: a light emitting element (OLED); a bank layer laterally surrounding the light emitting element; an encapsulation layer on the light emitting element (PDL); a color filter on the encapsulation layer (ENL2), the color filter including color filter patterns (CF-R, CF-G, CF-B), the color filter patterns having: respective lower surfaces facing the encapsulation layer; and respective upper surfaces facing away from the encapsulation layer; wherein the upper surfaces are smaller than the lower surfaces (See attached figure); a black matrix disposed in openings of the color filter (BM);. However, Lee does not explicitly disclose an adhesive layer on the color filter and the black matrix.
On the other hand, Hong discloses an adhesive layer positioned on the black matrix and the color filter (Fig. 8 shows adhesive layer 600 positioned on the black matrix 510 and the color filter 520); and the black matrix not overlapping the color filter in any area (Fig. 8 shows black matrix 510 not overlapping color filter 520 in accordance with Merriam-Webster’s definition of overlap: “to extend over or past and cover a part of”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the invention to modify Lee according to the teachings of Hong such that an adhesive layer would be positioned on the black matrix and the color filter, and in a direction between the encapsulation layer and the adhesive layer the black matrix would not overlap the color filter in the active area or any other area, in order to minimize unused color filter material and maximize light utilization by placing the black matrix such that it would block any light that would otherwise enter or exit the color filters.
Lee in view of Hong still does not disclose wherein the black matrix is in contact with the color filter only at side surfaces of the black matrix. On the other hand, Zhang discloses wherein the black matrix (Fig. 1, 20) is in contact with the color filters (31(30), 32(30), and 33(30)) on its side surface (see Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the time of effective filing of the invention to modify Lee in view of Hong according to the teachings of Zhang such that the black matrix would be in contact with the color filter only at side surface of the black matrix in order to minimize the height of the device by reducing the portion of the filters extending above or below the black matrix.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20200257162 A1) in view of Hong (US 20180095570 A1) and Zhang (US 20210359008 A1) as applied to claims 1-3, 11, 12 and 15-18 above, and further in view of Paek (US 20170062529 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Lee in view of Hong and Zhang discloses the display device of claim 1. However, Lee in view of Hong and Zhang does not explicitly disclose wherein the adhesive layer has a transmittance that varies according to wavelength in a visible light range.
On the other hand, Paek discloses wherein the adhesive layer has a transmittance that varies according to wavelength in a visible light range (Fig. 4; para. 86 "The adhesive layer 290 including first to third dyes…"); para. 87 "The first dye absorbs the light having a first wavelength range below about 450 nm, the second dye absorbs the light having a second wavelength range of about 550 to 650 nm, and the third dye absorbs the light having a third wavelength range above about 720 nm". It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the invention to modify Lee in view of Hong and Zhang according to the teachings of Paek such that the adhesive layer would have a transmittance that varies according to wavelength in a visible light range, in order to allow the adhesive to filter unwanted light and thereby improve the visibility of the display (para. 95 "by disposing the adhesive layer 290 under the first to third color filter layer 285, the reflectance of the external light is efficiently blocked such that the visibility of the OLED device 200 is improved".
Claim(s) 5, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20200257162 A1) in view of Hong (US 20180095570 A1) and Zhang (US 20210359008 A1) as applied to claims 1-3, 11, 12 and 15-18 above, and further in view of Son (US 20180188837 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Lee in view of Hong and Zhang discloses the display device of claim 1. However, Lee in view of Hong and Zhang does not explicitly disclose an overcoat layer positioned between the black matrix and the adhesive layer.
On the other hand, Son discloses an overcoat layer positioned between the black matrix and the adhesive layer (Fig. 9; overcoat 630 is positioned between black matrix 610 and adhesive layer 700). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the invention to modify Lee in view of Hong and Zhang according to the teachings of Son such that an overcoat layer would be positioned between the black matrix and the adhesive layer, in order to planarize the upper surface created by the black matrix and color filters (See para. 112).
Regarding claim 19, Lee in view of Hong and Zhang discloses the display device of claim 18. However, Lee in view of Hong and Zhang does not explicitly disclose a touch-on-encapsulation between the encapsulation layer and the color filter.
On the other hand, Son discloses further comprising a touch-on-encapsulation between the encapsulation layer and the color filter (Fig. 6; 500). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the invention to modify Lee in view of Hong and Zhang according to the teachings of Son such that the display device would comprise a touch-on-encapsulation between the encapsulation layer and the color filter, in order to enable the display device to receive touch input from a user, as is extremely common in the art.
Regarding claim 20, Lee in view of Hong and Zhang discloses the display device of claim 18. However, Lee in view of Hong and Zhang does not explicitly disclose an overcoat layer in the openings of the color filter.
On the other hand, Son discloses further comprising an overcoat layer in the openings of the color filter (Fig. 6; 630). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the invention to modify Lee in view of Hong and Zhang according to the teachings of Son such that the display device would further comprise an overcoat layer in the openings of the color filter, in order to planarize the upper surface created by the black matrix and color filters (See para. 112).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20200257162 A1) in view of Hong (US 20180095570 A1), Zhang (US 20210359008 A1), and Son (US 20180188837 A1) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Kim (US 20180197921 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Lee in view of Hong, Zhang, and Son discloses the display device of claim 5. However, Lee in view of Hong, Zhang, and Son does not explicitly disclose wherein the overcoat layer has a transmittance that varies according to wavelength in a visible light range.
On the other hand, Kim discloses wherein the overcoat layer has a transmittance that varies according to wavelength in a visible light range (Fig. 6 shows overcoat 353 doped with pigment P4; para. 120 "P4 may be a red pigment”; therefore the overcoat layer has a transmittance of red light different from other wavelengths and the transmittance varies according to wavelength in a visible light range). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the invention to modify Lee in view of Hong, Zhang, and Son according to the teachings of Kim such that the overcoat layer would have a transmittance that varies according the wavelength in a visible light range, in order to allow the overcoat to filter unwanted internal/external light and thereby improve the visibility of the display.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20200257162 A1) in view of Hong (US 20180095570 A1) and Zhang (US 20210359008 A1) as applied to claims 1-3, 11, 12 and 15-18 above, and further in view of Bechtel (US 20020167275 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Lee in view of Hong and Zhang discloses the display device of claim 1. However, Lee in view of Hong and Zhang does not explicitly disclose wherein the black matrix includes a first layer and a second layer, wherein the first layer includes black nanoparticles, and the second layer includes white nanoparticles.
On the other hand, Bechtel discloses wherein the black matrix includes a first layer (Fig. 1; black matrix 8) and a second layer (reflecting layer 9), wherein the first layer includes black nanoparticles (Para. 33 describes the black portion of the black matrix being formed of graphite nanoparticles smaller than 1 µm; graphite is known to be black, and particle size is within the order of nanometers), and the second layer includes white nanoparticles (Para. 28 "the suspension with the white pigment is similarly deposited on the black matrix", para. 34 describes the white pigment suspension having "a mean particle diameter of 300 nm"). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the invention to modify Lee in view of Hong and Zhang according to the teachings of Bechtel such that the black matrix would include a first layer and a second layer, wherein the first layer would include black nanoparticles, and the second layer would include white nanoparticles, in order to improve the display quality by employing white nanoparticles to improve luminance and black nanoparticles to reduce reflection of external light.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim limitations added to amended claims 1, 15 and 18 are disclosed by Hong. Specifically, Hong discloses the black matrix not overlapping the color filter in the active area or any other area of the device in accordance with the definition of overlap given by Merriam-Webster: “to extend over or past and covering a part of”. Hong discloses a black matrix not extending over the color filter, nor covering a part of the color filter. The combination of Lee and Hong teaches at least a display device comprising an active area, an encapsulation layer, a black matrix positioned on the encapsulation layer, and an adhesive layer positioned on the black matrix and the color filter such that in a direction between the encapsulation layer and the adhesive layer (the vertical direction), the black matrix would not overlap the color filter in the active area or any other area.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL J SMITH whose telephone number is (703)756-5706. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, Marlon Fletcher can be reached at (571) 272-2063. 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.
/S.J.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/MARLON T FLETCHER/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817