DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s Remarks filed on 07/30/2026.
Currently, claims 1, 3-4, 6-8, 10-12, 15, and 23-24 are pending in the application. Currently, claims 8, 15, and 24 are withdrawn.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/01/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6-7, 10-12, and 23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 10-12, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over KIM et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0168668) in view of RYU et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0212110) and further in view of YAMAZAKI et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0296409) and further in view of SUGIYAMA et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0058888).
Regarding independent claim 1, Kim teaches a light-emitting device (Fig. 11), comprising:
a substrate (Fig. 11, 100, ¶ [0059] teaches that substrate 100 can be transparent) transparent to light;
a first light-emitting layer (Fig. 11, 351, ¶ [0087]) provided above the substrate and containing first quantum dots (¶¶ [0088]-[0090] teaches quantum dots in 351 capable of transmitting desired light colors such as red light) configured to emit first light;
a second light-emitting layer (Fig. 11, 232, ¶ [0068]) provided above the substrate and configured to emit second light shorter, in wavelength, than the first light (¶ [0068] teaches that layer 232 can emit blue light or near ultraviolet light, which are both shorter than red light), the second light-emitting layer having a first region (Fig. 11, 232 that overlaps with 351) that overlaps with-the first light-emitting layer in a plan view, the first region comprising a near-ultraviolet light-emitting portion (¶ [0068] teaches that 232 can emit near ultraviolet light);
a first color-correcting layer (Fig. 11, 321, ¶ [0076]) provided above the first light-emitting layer so as to overlap at least a portion of the first light-emitting layer in the plan view, the first color-correcting layer transmitting the first light and absorbing light having a shorter wavelength than the first light (¶ [0078] teaches that color filter 321 selectively transmits red light and blocks non-red light); and
a second color-correcting layer (Fig. 11, 321, ¶ [0076]) provided above the second light-emitting layer so as to overlap with-at least a portion of the second light-emitting layer in the plan view, the second color-correcting layer transmitting the second light and absorbing light having a longer wavelength than the second light (¶ [0141] teaches that color filter 324 selectively transmits blue light and blocks non-blue light),
wherein the second light-emitting layer has a second region (Fig. 11, 232 overlapping 324) that overlaps the second color-correcting layer in the plan view, the second region comprising a blue light-emitting portion (Kim ¶ [0064] does teach that active layer 232 can either emit blue or near-ultraviolet light. Therefore, it would have been obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art to have at Kim’s active layer overlapping 321 emit near-ultraviolet light while having Kim’s active layer overlapping 324 emit blue light because it has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions such as selecting either a blue or near-ultraviolet light emitting layer, with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious. KSR Int'l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007). Further, the embodiment of Kim Fig. 11 does teach that Kim’s light emitting device in SPX2_1 does not include a layer that includes wavelength conversion materials (e.g., 351, 352, and 353, ¶¶ [0086]-[0087]). Therefore, in the case that the active layer 232 emits near-ultraviolet light in PX1, PX2, and/or PX3, it would be obvious that the active layer 232 in SPX2_1 emits blue light due to the lack of wavelength conversion material in SPX2_1 and so that the light emitting device in SPX2_1 emits visible light perceptible to the viewer), and
the first region of the second light-emitting layer and the second region of the second light-emitting layer are separated from each other (Fig. 11, 232 overlapping 321 and 232 overlapping 324 are separated).
However, Kim does not explicitly teach a pair of first color-correcting layers, one of which is provided above the first light-emitting layer and the other one of which is provided below the first light-emitting layer so as to overlap at least a portion of the first light-emitting layer in the plan view, the pair of first color-correcting layers transmitting the first light and absorbing light having a shorter wavelength than the first light; and
a pair of second color-correcting layers, one of which is provided above the second light-emitting layer and the other one of which is provided below the second light-emitting layer so as to overlap with-at least a portion of the second light-emitting layer in the plan view, the pair of second color-correcting layers transmitting the second light and absorbing light having a longer wavelength than the second light.
However, Ryu is a pertinent art that teaches a pair of first color-correcting layers (Fig. 7, 810 + 311, ¶¶ [0042] & [0087]), one of which is provided above the first light-emitting layer (Fig. 7, 812, ¶ [0166]) and the other one of which is provided below the first light-emitting layer so as to overlap at least a portion of the first light-emitting layer in the plan view (Fig. 7), the pair of first color-correcting layers transmitting the first light and absorbing light having a shorter wavelength than the first light (¶¶ [0042] & [0087] teaches that 311 and 810 are red color filters and overlapping Ryu’s red subpixel which would correspond to Kim’s red light emitting subpixel); and
a pair of second color-correcting layers (Fig. 7, 331 + 831, ¶¶ [0056] & [0090]), one of which is provided above the second light-emitting layer (Fig. 7, portion of 500 in EA of P3, ¶ [0040]) and the other one of which is provided below the second light-emitting layer so as to overlap with-at least a portion of the second light-emitting layer in the plan view (Fig. 7), the pair of second color-correcting layers transmitting the second light and absorbing light having a longer wavelength than the second light (¶¶ [0056] & [0090] teaches that 331 and 831 are blue color filters overlapping Ryu’s blue subpixel which would correspond to Kim’s blue light emitting subpixel).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s subpixels to further include lower color filters according to the teaching of Ryu (Fig. 7) in order to adapt Kim’s subpixels for use in a transparent display device because transparent display device have advantages in space availability and design (Ryu ¶ [0004]). Further, it is known in the art that light emitted from a light emitting element is propagated in all directions (as evidence, see Sugiyama ¶ [0005]). Therefore, Kim’s device can be adjusted from a top emission structure to a dual emission structure similar to that of Ryu’s by adjusting electrode material and allowing light to emit through both the anode and cathode of the light emitting device (as evidence, see Yamazaki ¶ [0160]).
Regarding claim 3, Kim modified by Ryu teaches the light-emitting device according to claim 1, and Kim teaches that an entirety of the first light-emitting layer (Fig. 11, 351, ¶ [0087]) is formed, such that the first light-emitting layer overlaps (Fig. 11, 351 at least partially overlaps with 232. The Examiner notes that this limitation does not explicitly require that the entirety of the first light-emitting layer overlaps the first region of the first light emitting layer. Therefore, under broadest reasonable interpretation, Kim modified by Ryu fulfills this limitation) the first region of the second light-emitting layer (Fig. 11, 232 that overlaps with 351) in the plan view.
Regarding claim 4, Kim modified Ryu teaches the light-emitting device according to claim 3, and Kim teaches that the second light-emitting layer (Fig. 11, 232, ¶ [0068]) is separately formed such that a first part of the second light-emitting layer overlaps the first light-emitting layer (Fig. 11, 351, ¶¶ [0088]-[0089]) in the plan view and a second part of the second light-emitting layer (Fig. 11, 232 overlaps with 351 in PX1 but does not overlap in SPX2_1) does not overlap the first light-emitting layer in the plan view.
Regarding claim 6, Kim modified by Ryu teaches the light-emitting device according to claim 1, and Kim teaches that the second light-emitting layer (Fig. 11, 232, ¶ [0068]) emits the second light by electroluminescence (¶ [0068]), and the first light-emitting layer (Fig. 11, 351, ¶¶ [0088]-[0089]) emits the first light by photoluminescence (¶¶ [0088]-[0089] teaches that the quantum dot material in 351 absorbs near ultraviolet light then emits light of a desired wavelength (i.e., the quantum dot material emits light by photoluminescence)) based on the second light emitted from the second light-emitting layer.
Regarding claim 7, Kim modified by Ryu teaches the light-emitting device according to claim 1, and Ryu teaches that the pair of first color-correcting layers (Fig. 7, 810 + 311, ¶¶ [0042] & [0087]) transmits the first light emitted from the first light-emitting layer (¶¶ [0042] & [0087] teaches that 311 and 810 are red color filters and overlapping Ryu’s red subpixel which would correspond to Kim’s red light emitting subpixel. It would be obvious that red color filters are capable of transmitting red light while absorbing non-red light), and absorbs the second light emitted toward the first light-emitting layer.
Regarding claim 10, Kim modified by Ryu teaches the light-emitting device according to claim 1, and Kim teaches that the second light-emitting layer (Fig. 11, 232 in PX1, ¶ [0068]) contains second quantum dots (¶ [0069] teaches that 232 can be include quantum dots. ¶ [0068] teaches that layer 232 can emit blue light or near ultraviolet light) configured to emit the second light.
Regarding claim 11, Kim modified by Ryu teaches the light-emitting device according to claim 10, and Ryu teaches that the pair of first color-correcting layers (Fig. 7, 810 + 311, ¶¶ [0042] & [0087]) absorbs light with a wavelength shorter than an absorption edge of the second quantum dots (Ryu’s red color filters are capable of filtering out light other than red light. Applicant’s color correcting layers can also be typical wavelength filters. Therefore, Kim modified by Ryu’s red color filters would fulfill this limitation).
Regarding claim 12, Kim modified by Ryu teaches the light-emitting device according to claim 1, and Ryu teaches that the pair of first color-correcting layers (Fig. 7, 810 + 311, ¶¶ [0042] & [0087]) absorbs light having a wavelength of 530 nm or less (Ryu’s red color filters are capable of filtering out light other than red light. Applicant’s color correcting layers can also be typical wavelength filters. Therefore, Kim modified by Ryu’s red color filters would fulfill this limitation).
Regarding claim 23, Kim modified by Ryu teaches the light-emitting device according to claim 1, and Kim modified by Ryu teaches that the first light-emitting layer (Kim Fig. 11, 351, ¶¶ [0088]-[0089] teaches that the quantum dot material in 351 absorbs near ultraviolet light then emits light of a desired wavelength (i.e., the quantum dot material emits light by photoluminescence). It would be obvious that portions of the light emitted by the quantum dot material in 351 would emit towards the substrate and away from the substrate) emits the first light in a direction toward the substrate and a direction away from the substrate, and the second light-emitting layer (It would be obvious that portions of light emitted by Kim’s active layer 232 would emit towards the substrate and away from the substrate (see Sugiyama ¶ [0005])) emits the second light in the direction toward the substrate and the direction away from the substrate.
Cited Prior Art
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant.
Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RHYS P. SHEKER whose telephone number is (703)756-1348. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am to 5 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven B Gauthier can be reached on 571-270-0373. 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.
/R.P.S./
Examiner, Art Unit 2813
/STEVEN B GAUTHIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights