DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 21 July 2026 has been entered.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of the Species 1 embodiment in the reply filed on 9 September 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-21, directed to a non-elected species, are withdrawn from further consideration.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant' s Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS). The IDS(es) has/have been considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 22-24, 26, and 27 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
The objections to the claims are withdrawn, responsive to Applicant’s amendment of the claims.
Drawings
The objections to the drawings are withdrawn, responsive to Applicant’s arguments and amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejections of the claims under § 112(b) are withdrawn, responsive to Applicant’s amendment of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 22, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0212113 (published July 2, 2020) (hereinafter “Song”) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0161579 (published May 21, 2020) (hereinafter “Kim”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Song discloses: A display device (FIG. 6; [0109]: “FIG. 6 is a cross-sectional view of the display device according to the exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure . . . .”) comprising:
a first substrate (FIG. 6, first base 110, [0112]) comprising a first emission area (FIG. 6, first emission area LA1, [0113]), a second emission area (FIG. 6, second emission area LA2, [0113]), and a third emission area (FIG. 6, third emission area LA3, [0113]);
a first wavelength conversion pattern (FIG. 6, first wavelength conversion pattern 330, [0154]) overlapping the first emission area (FIG. 6, depicting wherein the first wavelength conversion pattern 330 overlaps the first emission area LA1);
a second wavelength conversion pattern (FIG. 6, second wavelength conversion pattern 340, [0154]) overlapping the second emission area (FIG. 6, depicting wherein the second wavelength conversion pattern 340 overlaps the second emission area LA2);
a light-transmitting pattern (FIG. 6, light transmission pattern 350, [0155]) overlapping the third emission area (FIG. 6, depicting wherein the light transmission pattern 350 overlaps the third emission area LA3);
a first color filter (FIG. 6, first color filter 231, [0154]) on the first wavelength conversion pattern (FIG. 6, depicting wherein the first color filter 231 is on the first wavelength conversion pattern 330);
a second color filter (FIG. 6, second color filter 233, [0154]) on the second wavelength conversion pattern (FIG. 6, depicting wherein the second color filter 233 is on the second wavelength conversion pattern 340); and
a third color filter (FIG. 6, third color filter 235, [0154]) on the light-transmitting pattern (FIG. 6, depicting wherein the third color filter 235 is on the light transmission pattern 350), and
a second substrate (FIG. 6, second base 310, [0132]) opposed to the first substrate (FIG. 6, depicting wherein the second base 310 is opposed to the first base 110) and comprising a first light-transmitting area (FIG. 6, light-transmitting area TA1, [0081]) overlapping the first emission area (FIG. 6, depicting wherein the light-transmitting area TA1 overlaps the first emission area LA1), a second light-transmitting area (FIG. 6, light-transmitting area TA2, [0081]) overlapping the second emission area (FIG. 6, depicting wherein the light-transmitting area TA2 overlaps the second emission area LA2), and a third light-transmitting area (FIG. 6, light-transmitting area TA3, [0081]) overlapping the third emission area (FIG. 6, depicting wherein the light-transmitting area TA3 overlaps the third emission area LA3).
Song does not specifically disclose wherein a ratio in area of the third light-transmitting area to the second light-transmitting area is in a range of 1.3 to 2.1 and a ratio in the area of the third light- transmitting area to the first light-transmitting area is in a range of 0.8 to 1.7.
In the same field of endeavor, Kim discloses a display device including a plurality of light transmitting areas (FIG. 12, pixels PX1-PX3 including emission regions PA1-PA3, [0100]) wherein the light transmitting areas have different areas, such that the light transmitting areas (FIG. 12, [0201]: “As described above, the areas of the first light outputting region PA1, the second light outputting region PA2, and the third light outputting region PA3 may be different from each other.”) would have different ratios in areas. Regarding the areas of the light emitting areas, and thus the different ratio areas, in [0201], Kim states: “When the areas of the first light outputting region PA1, the second light outputting region PA2, and the third light outputting region PA3 are different, reflected light due to external light may not be seen as neutral black. For example, when the area of the third light outputting region PA3 which outputs blue light is small, the amount of blue light reflected by external light may also be small. That is, in some embodiments, when blue light is lacking in reflected light, red light and green light may be seen relatively more than the blue light. Accordingly, the reflected light may be, on the whole, yellowish black.” Accordingly the light emitting areas, and thus ratio of areas, is a result-effective variable for optimizing the color of the external light reflected by the display device.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary, through routine optimization, the areas of the light transmitting areas, identified by Kim as a result-effective variable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at a ratio of light transmitting areas wherein a ratio in area of the third light-transmitting area to the second light-transmitting area is in a range of 1.3 to 2.1 and a ratio in the area of the third light- transmitting area to the first light-transmitting area is in a range of 0.8 to 1.7 in order to achieve a desired achieve a desired color of reflected light from the display device as disclosed in Kim in [0117]. See MPEP § 2144.05 (“[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.”) (quoting In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (C.C.P.A. 1955)).
Applicant further claims “wherein the display device has a reflectance ratio (%) of a light of a first color of 5.3 to 9.2, a reflectance ratio (%) of a light of a second color of 67.6 to 73.6, and a reflectance ratio (%) of a light of a third color of 18.3 to 24.7, the light of the first color having a wavelength in a range from 380 nm to 500 nm, the light of second color having a wavelength in a range from 500 nm to 600 nm, and the light of the third color having a wavelength in a range from 600 nm to 780 nm, each reflectance ratio being measured in a specular component included (SCI) mode by emitting a measurement light source to the first substrate, the measurement light source comprising the light of the first color, the light of the second color and the light of the third color.”
When the structure recited in a reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. MPEP § 2112.01(I). “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” Id. (citing In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 U.S.P.Q. 430, 433 (C.C.P.A. 1977)). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” Id. (quoting In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). “Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product.” Id. (citing In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255).
In the instant case, Song in view of Kim discloses a display device structure that is identical to the display device structure claimed in Applicant’s claim 1, and thus necessarily possesses the properties of the display device structure claimed in Applicant’s claim 1, including wherein the display device has a reflectance ratio (%) of a light of a first color of 5.3 to 9.2, a reflectance ratio (%) of a light of a second color of 67.6 to 73.6, and a reflectance ratio (%) of a light of a third color of 18.3 to 24.7, the light of the first color having a wavelength in a range from 380 nm to 500 nm, the light of second color having a wavelength in a range from 500 nm to 600 nm, and the light of the third color having a wavelength in a range from 600 nm to 780 nm, each reflectance ratio being measured in a specular component included (SCI) mode by emitting a measurement light source to the first substrate, the measurement light source comprising the light of the first color, the light of the second color and the light of the third color. Compare, e.g., [0092] of Applicant’s disclosure, with [0112] of Song (disclosing wherein Applicant’s first base and Song’s first base may comprise the same materials); compare, e.g., [0240]-[0254] of Applicant’s disclosure, with [0158]-[0165] of Song (disclosing wherein Applicant’s first wavelength conversion pattern and Song’s first wavelength conversion pattern comprise the same materials); compare, e.g., [0255]-[0262] of Applicant’s disclosure, with [0166]-[0174] of Song (disclosing wherein Applicant’s second wavelength conversion pattern and Song’s second wavelength conversion pattern may comprise the same materials); compare, e.g., [0233]-[0236] of Applicant’s disclosure, with [0179]-[0181] of Song (disclosing wherein Applicant’s light-transmitting pattern and Song’s light transmitting pattern may comprise the same materials); compare, e.g., [0213] of Applicant’s disclosure, with [0149] of Song (disclosing wherein Applicant’s first color filter and Song’s first color filter may comprise the same materials); compare, e.g., [0214] of Applicant’s disclosure, with [0150] of Song (disclosing wherein Applicant’s second color filter and Song’s second color filter may comprise the same materials); compare, e.g., [0215] of Applicant’s disclosure, with [0135] of Song (disclosing wherein Applicant’s third color filter and Song’s third color filter may comprise the same materials).
Accordingly, Song in view of Kim discloses a display device that necessarily possesses the properties of the display device structure claimed in Applicant’s claim 1, and thus renders obvious claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Applicant further claims wherein a color gamut (%) of the display device is 90.2 to 90.6 in a BT2020 region.
Claim 6 recites further properties of the display device structure of Applicant’s claim 1, but does not recite further limitations on the display device structure of Applicant’s claim 1. Noted above with respect to independent claim 1, Song in view of Kim discloses a display device structure that is identical to the display device structure claimed in Applicant’s claim 1. Because Applicant’s claim 6 does not recite further limitations on the display device structure, Song in view of Kim discloses a display device that also necessarily possesses the properties of the display device structure claimed in Applicant’s claim 6, including wherein a color gamut (%) of the display device is 90.2 to 90.6 in a BT2020 region, for the same reasons recited above with respect to claim 1.
Accordingly, Song in view of Kim discloses a display device that necessarily possesses the properties of the display device structure claimed in Applicant’s claim 6, and thus renders obvious claim 6.
Regarding claim 8, Applicant further claims wherein a ratio between a reflectance of the light of the first color and a reflectance of the light of the second color is 1:7.5 to 1:13.6.
Claim 8 recites further properties of the display device structure of Applicant’s claim 1, but does not recite further limitations on the display device structure of Applicant’s claim 1. Noted above with respect to independent claim 1, Song in view of Kim discloses a display device structure that is identical to the display device structure claimed in Applicant’s claim 1. Because Applicant’s claim 8 does not recite further limitations on the display device structure, Song in view of Kim discloses a display device that also necessarily possesses the properties of the display device structure claimed in Applicant’s claim 8, including wherein a ratio between a reflectance of the light of the first color and a reflectance of the light of the second color is 1:7.5 to 1:13.6, for the same reasons recited above with respect to claim 1.
Accordingly, Song in view of Kim discloses a display device that necessarily possesses the properties of the display device structure claimed in Applicant’s claim 8, and thus renders obvious claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, Applicant further claims wherein a ratio between a reflectance of the light of the first color and a reflectance of the light of the third color is 1:2.3 to 1:4.3.
Claim 9 recites further properties of the display device structure of Applicant’s claim 1, but does not recite further limitations on the display device structure of Applicant’s claim 1. Noted above with respect to independent claim 1, Song in view of Kim discloses a display device structure that is identical to the display device structure claimed in Applicant’s claim 1. Because Applicant’s claim 9 does not recite further limitations on the display device structure, Song in view of Kim discloses a display device that also necessarily possesses the properties of the display device structure claimed in Applicant’s claim 9, including wherein a ratio between a reflectance of the light of the first color and a reflectance of the light of the third color is 1:2.3 to 1:4.3, for the same reasons recited above with respect to claim 1.
Accordingly, Song in view of Kim discloses a display device that necessarily possesses the properties of the display device structure claimed in Applicant’s claim 9, and thus renders obvious claim 9.
Regarding claim 11, Applicant further claims wherein the display device has a color difference AEab of 3 or less, which is measured by a spectrochromometer, and the color difference ΔEab is calculated by Equation 1 below: ΔEab={(ΔL*)2+(Δa*)2+(Δb*)2}1/2 where L*, a*, and b* are colorimetric values in CIE 1931 space measured utilizing the spectrochromometer under conditions of an illuminant C and 2° viewing angle.
Claim 11 recites further properties of the display device structure of Applicant’s claim 1, but does not recite further limitations on the display device structure of Applicant’s claim 1. Noted above with respect to independent claim 1, Song in view of Kim discloses a display device structure that is identical to the display device structure claimed in Applicant’s claim 1. Because Applicant’s claim 11 does not recite further limitations on the display device structure, Song in view of Kim discloses a display device that also necessarily possesses the properties of the display device structure claimed in Applicant’s claim 11, including wherein a reflected color of the reflected light has a color difference ΔEab of 3 or less, which is measured by a spectrochromometer, and the color difference ΔEab is calculated by Equation 1 below: ΔEab={(ΔL*)2+(Δa*)2+(Δb*)2}1/2 where L*, a*, and b* are colorimetric values in CIE 1931 space measured utilizing the spectrochromometer under conditions of an illuminant C and 2° viewing angle, for the same reasons recited above with respect to claim 1.
Accordingly, Song in view of Kim discloses a display device that necessarily possesses the properties of the display device structure claimed in Applicant’s claim 11, and thus renders obvious claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, Applicant further claims wherein the measurement light source comprises standard illuminant C, or D65.
Claim 12 recites further properties of the display device structure of Applicant’s claim 1, but does not recite further limitations on the display device structure of Applicant’s claim 1. Noted above with respect to independent claim 1, Song discloses a display device structure that is identical to the display device structure claimed in Applicant’s claim 1. Because Applicant’s claim 12 does not recite further limitations on the display device structure, Song in view of Kim discloses a display device that also necessarily possesses the properties of the display device structure claimed in Applicant’s claim 12, including wherein the measurement light source comprises standard illuminant C, or D65, for the same reasons recited above with respect to claim 1.
Accordingly, Song in view of Kim discloses a display device that necessarily possesses the properties of the display device structure claimed in Applicant’s claim 12, and thus renders obvious claim 12.
Regarding independent claim 22, Song discloses: A display device (FIG. 6; [0109]: “FIG. 6 is a cross-sectional view of the display device according to the exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure”) comprising:
a first substrate (FIG. 6, display substrate 10, [0066]) comprising a first emission area (FIG. 6, first emission area LA1, [0113]), a second emission area (FIG. 6, second emission area LA2, [0113]), and a third emission area (FIG. 6, third emission area LA3, [0113]), each of which is to emit a first light (FIG. 6, depicting wherein the display substrate 10 is configured to emit light L1, which is light of a first color);
a second substrate (FIG. 6, second base 310, [0132]) having a first surface facing the first substrate (FIG. 6, depicting the bottom surface of the second base 310 facing the display substrate 10) and on which a first light-transmitting area (FIG. 6, light-transmitting area TA1, [0081]) overlapping the first emission area (FIG. 6, depicting wherein the light-transmitting area TA1 overlaps the first emission area LA1), a second light-transmitting area (FIG. 6, light-transmitting area TA2, [0081]) overlapping the second emission area (FIG. 6, depicting wherein the light-transmitting area TA2 overlaps the second emission area LA2), and a third light-transmitting area (FIG. 6, light-transmitting area TA3, [0081]) overlapping the third emission area are defined (FIG. 6, depicting wherein the light-transmitting area TA3 overlaps the third emission area LA3), and a second surface opposite to the first surface (FIG. 6, depicting the top surface of the second base 310, which is opposite the bottom surface of the second base 310);
a first color filter (FIG. 6, first color filter 231, [0154]) on the first surface of the second substrate (FIG. 6, depicting wherein the first color filter 231 is on the bottom surface of the second base 310) and overlapping the first light-transmitting area (FIG. 6, depicting wherein the first color filter 231 overlaps the light-transmitting area TA1);
a second color filter (FIG. 6, second color filter 233, [0154]) on the first surface of the second substrate (FIG. 6, depicting wherein the second color filter 233 is on the bottom surface of the second base 310) and overlapping the second light-transmitting area (FIG. 6, depicting wherein the second color filter 233 overlaps the light-transmitting area TA2);
a third color filter (FIG. 6, second color filter 235, [0154]) on the first surface of the second substrate (FIG. 6, depicting wherein the second color filter 235 is on the bottom surface of the second base 310) and overlapping the third light-transmitting area (FIG. 6, depicting wherein the second color filter 235 overlaps the light-transmitting area TA3);
a first wavelength conversion pattern (FIG. 6, first wavelength conversion pattern 330, [0154]) on the first color filter (FIG. 6, depicting wherein the first wavelength conversion pattern 330 is on the first color filter 231);
a second wavelength conversion pattern (FIG. 6, second wavelength conversion pattern 340, [0154]) on the second color filter (FIG. 6, depicting wherein the second wavelength conversion pattern 340 is on the second color filter 233);
a light-transmitting pattern (FIG. 6, light transmission pattern 350, [0155]) on the third color filter (FIG. 6, depicting wherein the light transmission pattern 350 is on the third color filter 235),
a second substrate (FIG. 6, second base 310, [0132]) opposed to the first substrate (FIG. 6, depicting wherein the second base 310 is opposed to the first base 110) and comprising a first light-transmitting area (FIG. 6, light-transmitting area TA1, [0081]) overlapping the first emission area (FIG. 6, depicting wherein the light-transmitting area TA1 overlaps the first emission area LA1), a second light-transmitting area (FIG. 6, light-transmitting area TA2, [0081]) overlapping the second emission area (FIG. 6, depicting wherein the light-transmitting area TA2 overlaps the second emission area LA2), and a third light-transmitting area (FIG. 6, light-transmitting area TA3, [0081]) overlapping the third emission area (FIG. 6, depicting wherein the light-transmitting area TA3 overlaps the third emission area LA3).
Song does not specifically disclose wherein a ratio in area of the third light-transmitting area to the second light-transmitting area is in a range of 1.3 to 2.1 and a ratio in the area of the third light- transmitting area to the first light-transmitting area is in a range of 0.8 to 1.7.
In the same field of endeavor, Kim discloses a display device including a plurality of light transmitting areas (FIG. 12, pixels PX1-PX3 including emission regions PA1-PA3, [0100]) wherein the light transmitting areas have different areas, such that the light transmitting areas (FIG. 12, [0201]: “As described above, the areas of the first light outputting region PA1, the second light outputting region PA2, and the third light outputting region PA3 may be different from each other.”) would have different ratios in areas. Regarding the areas of the light emitting areas, and thus the different ratio areas, in [0201], Kim states: “When the areas of the first light outputting region PA1, the second light outputting region PA2, and the third light outputting region PA3 are different, reflected light due to external light may not be seen as neutral black. For example, when the area of the third light outputting region PA3 which outputs blue light is small, the amount of blue light reflected by external light may also be small. That is, in some embodiments, when blue light is lacking in reflected light, red light and green light may be seen relatively more than the blue light. Accordingly, the reflected light may be, on the whole, yellowish black.” Accordingly the light emitting areas, and thus ratio of areas, is a result-effective variable for optimizing the color of the external light reflected by the display device.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary, through routine optimization, the areas of the light transmitting areas, identified by Kim as a result-effective variable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at a ratio of light transmitting areas wherein a ratio in area of the third light-transmitting area to the second light-transmitting area is in a range of 1.3 to 2.1 and a ratio in the area of the third light- transmitting area to the first light-transmitting area is in a range of 0.8 to 1.7 in order to achieve a desired achieve a desired color of reflected light from the display device as disclosed in Kim in [0117]. See MPEP § 2144.05 (“[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.”) (quoting In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (C.C.P.A. 1955)).
Applicant further claims “wherein the display device has a reflectance ratio (%) of a light of a first color of 5.3 to 9.2, a reflectance ratio (%) of a light of a second color of 67.6 to 73.6, and a reflectance ratio (%) of a light of a third color of 18.3 to 24.7, the light of the first color having a wavelength in a range from 380 nm to 500 nm, the light of second color having a wavelength in a range from 500 nm to 600 nm, and the light of the third color having a wavelength in a range from 600 nm to 780 nm, each reflectance ratio being measured in a specular component included (SCI) mode by emitting a measurement light source to the first substrate, the measurement light source comprising the light of the first color, the light of the second color and the light of the third color, and wherein the display device has a color difference ΔEab of 3 or less, which is measured by a spectrochromometer, and the color difference ΔEab is calculated by Equation 1 below: ΔEab={(ΔL*)2+(Δa*)2+(Δb*)2}1/2 where L*, a*, and b* are colorimetric values in CIE 1931 space measured utilizing the spectrochromometer under conditions of an illuminant C and 2° viewing angle.”
When the structure recited in a reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. MPEP § 2112.01(I). “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” Id. (citing In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 U.S.P.Q. 430, 433 (C.C.P.A. 1977)). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” Id. (quoting In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). “Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product.” Id. (citing In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255).
In the instant case, Song in view of Kim discloses a display device structure that is identical to the display device structure claimed in Applicant’s claim 22, and thus necessarily possesses the properties of the display device structure claimed in Applicant’s claim 22, including wherein the display device has a reflectance ratio (%) of a light of a first color of 5.3 to 9.2, a reflectance ratio (%) of a light of a second color of 67.6 to 73.6, and a reflectance ratio (%) of a light of a third color of 18.3 to 24.7, the light of the first color having a wavelength in a range from 380 nm to 500 nm, the light of second color having a wavelength in a range from 500 nm to 600 nm, and the light of the third color having a wavelength in a range from 600 nm to 780 nm, each reflectance ratio being measured in a specular component included (SCI) mode by emitting a measurement light source to the first substrate, the measurement light source comprising the light of the first color, the light of the second color and the light of the third color, and wherein the display device has a color difference ΔEab of 3 or less, which is measured by a spectrochromometer, and the color difference ΔEab is calculated by Equation 1 below: ΔEab={(ΔL*)2+(Δa*)2+(Δb*)2}1/2 where L*, a*, and b* are colorimetric values in CIE 1931 space measured utilizing the spectrochromometer under conditions of an illuminant C and 2° viewing angle. Compare, e.g., [0132]-[0208] of Applicant’s disclosure, with [0112]-[0129] of Song (disclosing wherein Applicant’s display substrate and Song’s display substrate may comprise the same materials); compare, e.g., [0132]-[0208] of Applicant’s disclosure, with [0112]-[0129] of Song (disclosing wherein Applicant’s second base and Song’s second base may comprise the same materials); compare, e.g., [0240]-[0254] of Applicant’s disclosure, with [0158]-[0165] of Song (disclosing wherein Applicant’s first wavelength conversion pattern and Song’s first wavelength conversion pattern comprise the same materials); compare, e.g., [0255]-[0262] of Applicant’s disclosure, with [0166]-[0174] of Song (disclosing wherein Applicant’s second wavelength conversion pattern and Song’s second wavelength conversion pattern may comprise the same materials); compare, e.g., [0233]-[0236] of Applicant’s disclosure, with [0179]-[0181] of Song (disclosing wherein Applicant’s light-transmitting pattern and Song’s light transmitting pattern may comprise the same materials); compare, e.g., [0213] of Applicant’s disclosure, with [0149] of Song (disclosing wherein Applicant’s first color filter and Song’s first color filter may comprise the same materials); compare, e.g., [0214] of Applicant’s disclosure, with [0150] of Song (disclosing wherein Applicant’s second color filter and Song’s second color filter may comprise the same materials); compare, e.g., [0215] of Applicant’s disclosure, with [0135] of Song (disclosing wherein Applicant’s third color filter and Song’s third color filter may comprise the same materials).
Accordingly, Song in view of Kim discloses a display device that necessarily possesses the properties of the display device structure claimed in Applicant’s claim 22, and thus renders obvious claim 22.
Regarding claim 27, Song in view of Kim further discloses wherein the first substrate further comprises a light-blocking area disposed between the first emission area and the second emission area (FIG. 6, those portions of the color filter 231, color filter 233, and color filter 235, collectively, that overlap the non-emitting areas NLA, [0151]), wherein the display device further comprises:
a first light-blocking pattern portion overlapping the light-blocking area and made of the same material as the third color filter (FIG. 6, depicting those portions of the color filter 235 overlapping the non-emitting areas NLA);
a second light-blocking pattern portion overlapping the first light-blocking pattern portion and made of the same material as the first color filter (FIG. 6, depicting those portions of the color filter 231 overlapping the non-emitting areas NLA and the color filter 235); and
a third light-blocking pattern portion overlapping the first light-blocking pattern portion and made of the same material as the second color filter (FIG. 6, depicting those portions of the color filter 233 overlapping the non-emitting areas NLA and the color filter 231);
wherein every portion of the first light-blocking pattern portion overlapping the second light-blocking pattern portion overlaps the third light-blocking pattern portion (FIG. 6, depicting wherein every portion of the color filter 235 overlapping the color filter 231 overlaps the color filter 233 in a direction running parallel to the first base 110).
Claims 2 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Song in view of Kim, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0199959 (filed Dec. 22, 2021) (hereinafter “Yu”).
Regarding claim 2, while Song discloses in [0151] wherein “the first color filter 231, the second color filter 233 and the third color filter 235 may have different thicknesses,” Song in view of Kim does not specifically disclose wherein a thickness of the first color filter is greater than a thickness of the second color filter and the thickness of the second color filter is greater than a thickness of the third color filter, the first color filter is a red color filter, the second color filter is a green color filter, and the third color filter is a blue color filter.
In the same field of endeavor, Yu discloses a display device (FIG. 14, depicting a display panel, [0024]) including a first color filter (FIG. 14, leftmost color filter part 80/81, [0086], [0100]), a second color filter (FIG. 14, second from leftmost color filter part 80/82, [0086], [0100]), and a third color filter (FIG. 14, third from leftmost color filter part 80/83, [0086], [0100]), wherein a thickness of the first color filter is greater than a thickness of the second color filter (FIG. 14, depicting wherein the thickness of the leftmost color filter part 80/81 is greater than a thickness of the second from leftmost color filter part 80/82) and the thickness of the second color filter is greater than a thickness of the third color filter (FIG. 14, depicting wherein the thickness of the second from leftmost color filter part 80/82 is greater than a thickness of the third from leftmost color filter part 80/83), and further wherein the first color filter is a red color filter (FIG. 14, [0100]: “Therefore, while ensuring the flatness of the display panel, along the direction perpendicular to the base substrate 10, the thickness of the red color filter part 81 is the largest, the thickness of the green color filter part 82 is the second largest, and the thickness of the blue color filter part 83 is the smallest.”), the second color filter is a greed color filter (FIG. 14, [0100]: “Therefore, while ensuring the flatness of the display panel, along the direction perpendicular to the base substrate 10, the thickness of the red color filter part 81 is the largest, the thickness of the green color filter part 82 is the second largest, and the thickness of the blue color filter part 83 is the smallest.”), and the third color filter is a blue color filter (FIG. 14, [0100]: “Therefore, while ensuring the flatness of the display panel, along the direction perpendicular to the base substrate 10, the thickness of the red color filter part 81 is the largest, the thickness of the green color filter part 82 is the second largest, and the thickness of the blue color filter part 83 is the smallest.”). Regarding the color filter configuration, in [0100], Yu states: “As a result, the filter rates of the red color filter part 81, the green color filter part 82, and the blue color filter part 83 may tend to be consistent, and the display effect of the display panel may be improved.”
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosed display device of Song by substituting the color filter configuration of Yu in order to improve filter rate consistency and improve the display effect of the display panel. See Yu [0100].
Regarding claim 23, while Song discloses in [0151] wherein “the first color filter 231, the second color filter 233 and the third color filter 235 may have different thicknesses,” Song in view of Kim does not specifically disclose wherein a thickness of the first color filter is greater than a thickness of the second color filter and the thickness of the second color filter is greater than a thickness of the third color filter. wherein the first color filter is a red color filter, wherein the second color filter is a green color filter, and wherein the third color filter is a blue color filter.
In the same field of endeavor, Yu discloses a display device (FIG. 14, depicting a display panel, [0024]) including a first color filter (FIG. 14, leftmost color filter part 80/81, [0086], [0100]), a second color filter (FIG. 14, second from leftmost color filter part 80/82, [0086], [0100]), and a third color filter (FIG. 14, third from leftmost color filter part 80/83, [0086], [0100]), wherein a thickness of the first color filter is greater than a thickness of the second color filter (FIG. 14, depicting wherein the thickness of the leftmost color filter part 80/81 is greater than a thickness of the second from leftmost color filter part 80/82) and the thickness of the second color filter is greater than a thickness of the third color filter (FIG. 14, depicting wherein the thickness of the second from leftmost color filter part 80/82 is greater than a thickness of the third from leftmost color filter part 80/83), and further wherein the first color filter is a red color filter (FIG. 14, [0100]: “Therefore, while ensuring the flatness of the display panel, along the direction perpendicular to the base substrate 10, the thickness of the red color filter part 81 is the largest, the thickness of the green color filter part 82 is the second largest, and the thickness of the blue color filter part 83 is the smallest.”), the second color filter is a greed color filter (FIG. 14, [0100]: “Therefore, while ensuring the flatness of the display panel, along the direction perpendicular to the base substrate 10, the thickness of the red color filter part 81 is the largest, the thickness of the green color filter part 82 is the second largest, and the thickness of the blue color filter part 83 is the smallest.”), and the third color filter is a blue color filter (FIG. 14, [0100]: “Therefore, while ensuring the flatness of the display panel, along the direction perpendicular to the base substrate 10, the thickness of the red color filter part 81 is the largest, the thickness of the green color filter part 82 is the second largest, and the thickness of the blue color filter part 83 is the smallest.”). Regarding the color filter configuration, in [0100], Yu states: “As a result, the filter rates of the red color filter part 81, the green color filter part 82, and the blue color filter part 83 may tend to be consistent, and the display effect of the display panel may be improved.”
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosed display device of Song by substituting the color filter configuration of Yu in order to improve filter rate consistency and improve the display effect of the display panel. See Yu [0100].
Claims 3-5, 24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Song in view of Kim and Yu, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0078264 (effectively filed Sept. 16, 2021) (hereinafter “Choi”).
Regarding claim 3, Song in view of Kim and Yu does not specifically disclose wherein the thickness of the first color filter is 4.0 μm to 4.4 μm.
In the same field of endeavor, Choi discloses a display device (FIG. 4, display device 100, [0174]) including a plurality of color filters having varying thicknesses (FIG. 4, [0191]: “The color filter layer may have a different thickness for each area. The first to third color filters 251, 252, and 253 may have the same thickness, but to enhance the light transmittance thereof, at least one color filter layer may have a different thickness.”). Regarding the thicknesses of the color filter layers, in [0194], Choi states: “The thickness of each color filter layer may be at least 1 μm or more, and may be 6 μm or less. If the thickness of the color filter layer is smaller than 1 μm, the content of pigment or dye constituting the color filter layer increases, and the own curing rate of the material decreases. If the thickness of the color filter layer is larger than 6 μm, the processability deteriorates due to the large thickness upon manufacture or a color filter layer pattern is difficult to form, rendering it hard to implement the pattern in a desired shape.” Thus, noted in Choi, the thickness of the color filter layer is a result-effective variable for optimizing pigment or dye content, curing rate of the color filter material, and processability.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary, through routine optimization, the thickness of the color filter layer, identified by Choi as a result-effective variable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at a color filter thickness ranging from 4.0 μm to 4.4 μm in order to achieve a desired balance between pigment or dye content, curing rate of the color filter material, and processability as disclosed in Choi in [0194]. See MPEP § 2144.05 (“[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.”) (quoting In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (C.C.P.A. 1955)).
Furthermore, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed range is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e., that the invention would not work without the specific claimed dimensions).
Regarding claim 4, Song in view of Kim and Yu does not specifically disclose wherein the thickness of the second color filter is 3.0 μm to 3.4 μm (FIG. 4, [0194]: “The thickness of each color filter layer may be at least 1 μm or more, and may be 6 μm or less.”).
In the same field of endeavor, Choi discloses a display device (FIG. 4, display device 100, [0174]) including a plurality of color filters having varying thicknesses (FIG. 4, [0191]: “The color filter layer may have a different thickness for each area. The first to third color filters 251, 252, and 253 may have the same thickness, but to enhance the light transmittance thereof, at least one color filter layer may have a different thickness.”). Regarding the thicknesses of the color filter layers, in [0194], Choi states: “The thickness of each color filter layer may be at least 1 μm or more, and may be 6 μm or less. If the thickness of the color filter layer is smaller than 1 μm, the content of pigment or dye constituting the color filter layer increases, and the own curing rate of the material decreases. If the thickness of the color filter layer is larger than 6 μm, the processability deteriorates due to the large thickness upon manufacture or a color filter layer pattern is difficult to form, rendering it hard to implement the pattern in a desired shape.” Thus, noted in Choi, the thickness of the color filter layer is a result-effective variable for optimizing pigment or dye content, curing rate of the color filter material, and processability.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary, through routine optimization, the thickness of the color filter layer, identified by Choi as a result-effective variable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at a color filter thickness ranging from 3.0 μm to 3.4 μm in order to achieve a desired balance between pigment or dye content, curing rate of the color filter material, and processability as disclosed in Choi in [0194]. See MPEP § 2144.05 (“[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.”) (quoting In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (C.C.P.A. 1955)).
Furthermore, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed range is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e., that the invention would not work without the specific claimed dimensions).
Regarding claim 5, Song in view of Kim and Yu does not specifically disclose wherein the thickness of the third color filter is 2.8 μm to 3.2 μm (FIG. 4, [0194]: “The thickness of each color filter layer may be at least 1 μm or more, and may be 6 μm or less.”).
In the same field of endeavor, Choi discloses a display device (FIG. 4, display device 100, [0174]) including a plurality of color filters having varying thicknesses (FIG. 4, [0191]: “The color filter layer may have a different thickness for each area. The first to third color filters 251, 252, and 253 may have the same thickness, but to enhance the light transmittance thereof, at least one color filter layer may have a different thickness.”). Regarding the thicknesses of the color filter layers, in [0194], Choi states: “The thickness of each color filter layer may be at least 1 μm or more, and may be 6 μm or less. If the thickness of the color filter layer is smaller than 1 μm, the content of pigment or dye constituting the color filter layer increases, and the own curing rate of the material decreases. If the thickness of the color filter layer is larger than 6 μm, the processability deteriorates due to the large thickness upon manufacture or a color filter layer pattern is difficult to form, rendering it hard to implement the pattern in a desired shape.” Thus, noted in Choi, the thickness of the color filter layer is a result-effective variable for optimizing pigment or dye content, curing rate of the color filter material, and processability.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary, through routine optimization, the thickness of the color filter layer, identified by Choi as a result-effective variable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at a color filter thickness ranging from 2.8 μm to 3.2 μm in order to achieve a desired balance between pigment or dye content, curing rate of the color filter material, and processability as disclosed in Choi in [0194]. See MPEP § 2144.05 (“[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.”) (quoting In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (C.C.P.A. 1955)).
Furthermore, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed range is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e., that the invention would not work without the specific claimed dimensions).
Regarding claim 24, Song in view of Kim and Yu does not specifically disclose wherein a thickness of the first color filter is 4.0 μm to 4.4 μm, a thickness of the second color filter is 3.0 μm to 3.4 μm, and a thickness of the third color filter is 2.8 μm to 3.2 μm.
In the same field of endeavor, Choi discloses a display device (FIG. 4, display device 100, [0174]) including a plurality of color filters having varying thicknesses (FIG. 4, [0191]: “The color filter layer may have a different thickness for each area. The first to third color filters 251, 252, and 253 may have the same thickness, but to enhance the light transmittance thereof, at least one color filter layer may have a different thickness.”). Regarding the thicknesses of the color filter layers, in [0194], Choi states: “The thickness of each color filter layer may be at least 1 μm or more, and may be 6 μm or less. If the thickness of the color filter layer is smaller than 1 μm, the content of pigment or dye constituting the color filter layer increases, and the own curing rate of the material decreases. If the thickness of the color filter layer is larger than 6 μm, the processability deteriorates due to the large thickness upon manufacture or a color filter layer pattern is difficult to form, rendering it hard to implement the pattern in a desired shape.” Thus, noted in Choi, the thickness of the color filter layer is a result-effective variable for optimizing pigment or dye content, curing rate of the color filter material, and processability.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary, through routine optimization, the thickness of the color filter layer, identified by Choi as a result-effective variable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at a first color filter thickness ranging from 4.0 μm to 4.4 μm, a second color filter thickness ranging from 3.0 μm to 3.4 μm, and a third color filter thickness ranging from 2.8 μm to 3.2 μm in order to achieve a desired balance between pigment or dye content, curing rate of the color filter material, and processability as disclosed in Choi in [0194]. See MPEP § 2144.05 (“[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.”) (quoting In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (C.C.P.A. 1955)).
Furthermore, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed range is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e., that the invention would not work without the specific claimed dimensions).
Regarding claim 26, Song in view of Kim and Yu does not specifically disclose wherein a thickness of the first color filter is 3.0 μm to 3.4 μm, a thickness of the second color filter is 2.1 μm to 2.5 μm, and a thickness of the third color filter is 2.1 μm to 2.5 μm.
In the same field of endeavor, Choi discloses a display device (FIG. 4, display device 100, [0174]) including a plurality of color filters having varying thicknesses (FIG. 4, [0191]: “The color filter layer may have a different thickness for each area. The first to third color filters 251, 252, and 253 may have the same thickness, but to enhance the light transmittance thereof, at least one color filter layer may have a different thickness.”). Regarding the thicknesses of the color filter layers, in [0194], Choi states: “The thickness of each color filter layer may be at least 1 μm or more, and may be 6 μm or less. If the thickness of the color filter layer is smaller than 1 μm, the content of pigment or dye constituting the color filter layer increases, and the own curing rate of the material decreases. If the thickness of the color filter layer is larger than 6 μm, the processability deteriorates due to the large thickness upon manufacture or a color filter layer pattern is difficult to form, rendering it hard to implement the pattern in a desired shape.” Thus, noted in Choi, the thickness of the color filter layer is a result-effective variable for optimizing pigment or dye content, curing rate of the color filter material, and processability.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary, through routine optimization, the thickness of the color filter layer, identified by Choi as a result-effective variable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at a first color filter thickness ranging from 3.0 μm to 3.4 μm, a second color filter thickness ranging from 2.1 μm to 2.5 μm, and a third color filter thickness ranging from 2.1 μm to 2.5 μm in order to achieve a desired balance between pigment or dye content, curing rate of the color filter material, and processability as disclosed in Choi in [0194]. See MPEP § 2144.05 (“[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.”) (quoting In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (C.C.P.A. 1955)).
Furthermore, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed range is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e., that the invention would not work without the specific claimed dimensions).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM D WEILAND whose telephone number is (703)756-4760. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am-5pm.
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 Gauthier can be reached at (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.
/ADAM D WEILAND/Examiner, Art Unit 2813
/STEVEN B GAUTHIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights