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
The Amendment filed on December 22, 2025 has been entered. Claim(s) 10-13 has/have been canceled and no new claim(s) has/have been added. Therefore, claim(s) 1-9 and 14-23 remain(s) pending in the application with claims 6-7, 14-15 and 20-23 withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lim et al. (US 2019/0172874, hereinafter “Lim”, previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Lim teaches in Fig. 2 (annotated Fig. 2 shown below) and related text, a light emitting device (100, annotated Fig. 2 and ¶[0023]) in which a plurality of light emitting elements (e.g. D1-D3, annotated Fig. 2 and ¶[0023]) sealed by a sealing layer (171, annotated Fig. 2 and ¶[0040]) are arranged on a main surface of a substrate (110, annotated Fig. 2 and ¶[0023]), wherein each of the plurality of light emitting elements comprises:
a first electrode (141, annotated Fig. 2 and ¶[0033]) arranged between the substrate (110, annotated Fig. 2) and the sealing layer (171, annotated Fig. 2);
a second electrode (143, annotated Fig. 2 and ¶[0038]) arranged between the first electrode (141, annotated Fig. 2) and the sealing layer (171, annotated Fig. 2); and
an organic layer (142, annotated Fig. 2 and ¶[0037]) including a light emitting layer (¶[0037]) arranged between the first electrode (141, annotated Fig. 2) and the second electrode (143, annotated Fig. 2), and the light emitting device further comprises:
an insulating layer (IP, annotated Fig. 2 and ¶[0035]) configured to cover a peripheral edge portion of the first electrode (annotated Fig. 2) and arranged between the substrate (110, annotated Fig. 2) and the sealing layer (171, annotated Fig. 2) in a portion between two adjacent light emitting elements (annotated Fig. 2) among the plurality of light emitting elements; and
a light shielding member (e.g. PW1, PW2, annotated Fig. 2 and ¶¶[0040]-[0044]) arranged between the two adjacent light emitting elements among the plurality of light emitting elements (D1-D3, annotated Fig. 2), extending through the insulating layer (IP, annotated Fig. 2), and extending in the insulating layer and the sealing layer (171, annotated Fig. 2) in a direction intersecting the main surface (annotated Fig. 2),
wherein a color filter layer (181, 183, 185, annotated Fig. 2 and ¶[0024]) is arranged at a position farther from the substrate (110, annotated Fig. 2) than the sealing layer (PW1, annotated Fig. 2),
wherein the light shielding member is arranged to the color filter layer (181, annotated Fig. 2) and extends through the color filter layer (181, annotated Fig. 2 and ¶[0024]), and
wherein a widest width (w1, annotated Fig. 2) of the light shielding layer (e.g. PW2, annotated Fig. 2) at a height (h1, annotated Fig. 2) where the color filter (181,183, 185 annotated Fig. 2) is arranged is greater than a widest width (w2, annotated Fig. 2) of the light shielding layer (e.g. PW1, annotated Fig. 2) at a height (h2, annotated Fig. 2) where the sealing layer (171, annotated Fig. 2) is arranged (it is noted that Lim also teaches in paragraph [0042] that the light shielding layer PW1 may have the same width throughout, rather than progressively increasing width as shown in Fig. 2, in which case the widest width w2, shown in the annotated Fig. 2 would be the same through the entire sealing layer and, thus, smaller than the widest width w1 in the color filter).
[AltContent: textbox (widest width (w1) of the light shielding layer at height (h1) in color filter)][AltContent: textbox (widest width (w2) of the light shielding layer at height (h2) in sealing layer)]
[AltContent: ][AltContent: connector][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (a height (h2) where the sealing layer is arranged)][AltContent: textbox (a height (h1) where the color filter is arranged)][AltContent: ][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox ((Annotated Figure))]
PNG
media_image1.png
574
887
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2 (1), Lim teaches wherein the light shielding member (e.g. PW1, annotated Fig. 2 and ¶[0040]) includes a portion extending through the sealing layer (171, Fig. 2), and
in a direction parallel to a virtual line connecting centers of the first electrodes of the two adjacent light emitting elements among the plurality of light emitting elements, a width of the portion at a position where a height of the portion is halved is not larger than 2 µm (¶[0054]).
Regarding claim 3 (1), Lim teaches wherein the light shielding member (PW1, annotated Fig. 2) is arranged to surround each of the plurality of light emitting elements (annotated Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 8 (1), Lim teaches wherein the light shielding member (e.g. PW2, annotated Fig. 2 and ¶[0044]) has an inverted tapered shape in which a sectional area in a direction parallel to the main surface is larger as a distance from the substrate becomes longer (¶[0054]).
Regarding claim 18 (1), Lim teaches wherein the light shielding member (e.g. PW1, PW2, annotated Fig. 2) is arranged from a height where the first electrode (141, annotated Fig. 2 and ¶[0033]) is arranged, and the light shielding member extends in a direction away from the substrate (annotated Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 19 (1), Lim teaches a display device (100, annotated Fig. 2 and ¶[0023]) comprising the light emitting device according to claim 1, and an active element (Td1, annotated Fig. 2 and ¶[0023]) connected to the light emitting device.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 9 (8), teaching of Lim was discussed above in the rejection of claim 1 and includes a taper angle between a side wall of the light shielding member and a virtual plane parallel to the main surface. While Lim does not explicitly teach that the taper angle is not smaller than 40º, Lim teaches that the widths of the upper and middle portions of the light shielding member, and thus the angle between the sidewall of the light shielding member and a virtual plane parallel to the main surface of the substrate, can be modified in various ways in order to meet specific design requirements for the light emitting device (¶[0054]).
Thus, since the prior art teaches all of the claimed elements, using such elements would lead to predictable results and, as such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the light shielding member disclosed by Lim so that the taper angle between a side wall of the light shielding member and a virtual plane parallel to the main surface is not smaller than 40 in order to meet specific design requirements for the light emitting device.
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hamashita et al. (US 2023/0284513, hereinafter “Hamashita”, previously cited).
Regarding claim 16 (1), teaching of Lim was discussed above in the rejection of claim 1. Lim, however, does not explicitly teach a microlens at a position farther from the substrate than the sealing layer.
Hamashita, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches in Fig. 24B and related text, that a microlens (30, Fig. 24B and ¶[0186]) can be formed on the surface of a color filter (17, Fig. 24B and ¶[0186]), such as that disclosed by Lim, in order improve image quality of the light emitting device.
Thus, since the prior art teaches all of the claimed elements, using such elements would lead to predictable results and, as such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a microlens as disclosed by Hamashita, on the color filter disclosed by Lim in order to improve image quality of the light emitting device.
Regarding claim 17 (16), the combined teaching of Lim and Hamashita discloses wherein the light shielding member is in contact with the microlens (i.e. since the light shielding member of Lim extends to the top of the color filter layer, the lens disclosed by Hamashita, disposed directly on the color filter layer would be in contact with the microlens).
Claim(s) 1, 4 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hamashita et al. (US 2023/0284513, hereinafter “Hamashita”, previously cited) in view Aoyagi et al. (US 2015/0277017, hereinafter “Aoyagi”).
Regarding claim 1, Hamashita teaches in Figs. 11 and 16A-16B (Fig. 11 shown below) and related text, a light emitting device (10C, Fig. 11 and ¶[0155]) in which a plurality of light emitting elements (13, Fig. 11 and ¶[0155]) sealed by a sealing layer (15, Fig. 11 and ¶[0155]) are arranged on a main surface of a substrate (11, Fig. 11 and ¶[0159]), wherein each of the plurality of light emitting elements comprises:
a first electrode (13A, Fig. 11 and ¶[0077]) arranged between the substrate (11, Fig. 11) and the sealing layer (15, Fig. 11);
a second electrode (13D, Fig. 11 and ¶[000121]) arranged between the first electrode (13A, Fig. 1) and the sealing layer (15, Fig. 11); and
an organic layer (13B, Fig. 11 and ¶[0080]) including a light emitting layer (¶[0089]) arranged between the first electrode (13A, Fig. 11) and the second electrode (13D, Fig. 11),
wherein the light emitting device further comprises:
an insulating layer (25, Fig. 11 and ¶[0157]) configured to cover a peripheral edge portion of the first electrode (13A, Fig. 11) and arranged between the substrate (11, Fig. 11) and the sealing layer (15, Fig. 11) in a portion between two adjacent light emitting elements (Fig. 11) among the plurality of light emitting elements; and
a light shielding member (e.g. 13E and 21, Fig. 11 and ¶¶[0119]-[0126]) arranged between the two adjacent light emitting elements among the plurality of light emitting elements (13, Fig. 11), extending through the insulating layer (25, Fig. 11), and extending in the insulating layer and the sealing layer (15, Fig. 11) in a direction intersecting the main surface (Fig. 11),
wherein a color filter layer (17, Fig. 11 and ¶[0072]) is arranged at a position farther from the substrate (11, Fig. 11) than the sealing layer (15, Fig. 11),
wherein the light shielding member (e.g. 13E, 21, Fig. 11) is arranged to the color filter layer (17, Fig. 11).
Hamashita, however, does not explicitly teach that the light shielding member extends through the color filter layer, wherein a widest width of the light shielding layer at a height where the color filter is arranged is greater than a widest width of the light shielding layer at a height where the sealing layer is arranged.
PNG
media_image2.png
569
479
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Aoyagi, teaches in Figs. 11A and 15, and related text, teaches that the light shielding member (210, Fig. 15 and ¶[0104]) that extends through a sealing layer (26, Fig. 15 and ¶[0071]) to the color filter (24R, 24G and 24B, Fig. 15), similar to that disclosed by Hamashita (Fig. 11), and the light shielding member (110, Fig. 11A) that extends through the color filter layer (24R, 24G and 24B, Fig. 15), wherein a widest width of the light shielding layer at a height where the color filter is arranged is greater than a widest width of the light shielding layer at a height where the sealing layer (27, Fig. 11A and ¶[0094]) is arranged are known alternative arrangements of the light shielding layer that can be used in order to meet specific design requirements for the light emitting device (¶¶[0075]-[0076] and [0105]).
Thus, since the prior art teaches all of the claimed elements using such elements would lead to predictable results, and as such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the light shielding member disclosed by Hamashita, so that it extends through the color filter layer, wherein a widest width of the light shielding layer at a height where the color filter is arranged is greater than a widest width of the light shielding layer at a height where the sealing layer, as disclosed by Aoyagi, in order to meets specific design requirements for the light emitting device.
Regarding claim 4 (1), the combined teaching of Hamashita and Aoyagi discloses wherein the light shielding member (Hamashita, 13E, 21, Fig. 11) is in contact with the second electrode (Hamashita, 13D, Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 8 (1), the combined teaching of Hamashita and Aoyagi discloses wherein the light shielding member (Hamashita, 21, Fig. 16A) has an inverted tapered shape in which a sectional area in a direction parallel to the main surface is larger as a distance from the substrate becomes longer (Hamashita, Fig. 16A).
Regarding claim 9 (8), the combined teaching of Hamashita and Aoyagi discloses wherein a taper angle between a side wall of the light shielding member and a virtual plane parallel to the main surface is not smaller than 40º (Hamashita, Fig. 16A).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamashita and Aoyagi as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Xiao et al. (US 2020/0075688, hereinafter “Xiao”, previously cited).
Regarding claim 5 (4), teaching of Hamashita and Aoyagi was discussed above in the rejection of claim 1. Hamashita and Aoyagi, however, do not explicitly teach wherein power is supplied to the second electrode via the light shielding member.
Xiao, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches in Fig. 5 and related text, a light emitting device that includes a light shielding layer similar to that disclosed by Hamashita and Aoyagi, wherein the light shielding layer (150, 151, Fig. 5 and ¶¶[0045]-[0047]) in contact with the second electrode (141, Fig. 5 and ¶[0041]) wherein power is supplied to the second electrode via the light shielding member (150, Fig. 5 and ¶[0046]) in order to drive the electroluminescent material region to emit light (¶[0046]).
Thus, since the prior art teaches all of the claimed elements, using such elements would lead to predictable results and, as such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to supply power to the second electrode via the light shielding member in order to drive the electroluminescent material region to emit light.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on December 22, 2025 have been fully considered but are either not persuasive or 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.
With respect to claim 1, the applicant argues on page 10 of the response “that Lim fails to disclose or suggest a light emitting device in which, inter alia, the light shielding member extends through both the insulating layer and the color filter layer such that its widest width at the height where the color filter is arranged is greater than the widest width of the light shielding layer at the height where the sealing layer is arranged”. The examiner respectively disagrees.
As discussed above in the rejection of claim 1, Lim teaches all elements of the amended claim 1, including a light shielding member that extends through both the insulating layer and the color filter layer such that its widest width at a height where the color filter is arranged is greater than its widest width at a height where the sealing layer is arranged. Namely, since both the color filter and the sealing layer disclosed by Lim extend in a direction perpendicular to the top surface of the substrate (i.e. thickness direction of the color filter or thickness direction of the sealing layer), widest width of the light shielding layer at a height where the color filter is arranged or where the sealing layer is arranged, can be considered a width at any height in the thickness direction of the color filter or sealing layer. Accordingly, as shown above in the annotated Fig. 2 of Lim, at the height (h1) where the color filter is arranged the widest width of the light shielding layer is greater than the widest width of the light shielding layer at a height (h2), where the sealing layer is arranged. Moreover, since Lim teaches that the bottom part (PW1, annotated Fig. 2) of the shielding layer may have the same width throughout, rather than progressively increasing width as shown in the annotated Fig. 2, the widest width w2, shown in the annotated Fig. 2 would be the same through the thickness of the entire sealing layer and, thus, smaller than the widest width w1 in the color filter. Accordingly, Lim is considered as disclosing all elements of the amended claim 1.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANETA B CIESLEWICZ whose telephone number is 303-297-4232. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM - 2:30 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, Sue Purvis can be reached at 571-272-1236. 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.
/A.B.C/Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/SUE A PURVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893