DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive the response filed 26 January 2026.
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Claims 13-21, directed to a non-elected species, are withdrawn from further consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Drawing Objections
The objections to the drawings are maintained.
§ 112 Rejections
Regarding claim 1, Applicant states:
Applicant affirms that the measurement light source and the reflected measurement light are not a part of the claimed apparatus. Here, claim 1 recites that "reflected light caused by a measurement light source emitted to the first substrate comprises light of. . .", which should be clear that the measurement light source and the reflected measurement light are not part of the claimed display device. It should also be clear that the recited reflectance ratios are properties of the claimed display device.
Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment (filed 26 January 2026) at 10. Applicant’s statements further obfuscate the scope of the claims. If neither the measurement light source nor the reflected light caused by the measurement light source are part of the claimed apparatus, neither are the properties of the reflected light. Thus, it is unclear why Applicant has chosen to include the limitation in the claim, and whether the limitation refers to a capability that is required to be present in the invention or whether it refers to a device capability that is a mere possibility that is not required. In other words, it is unclear whether a display device can practice the invention of claim 1 by satisfying all the limitations of claim 1 without necessarily being required to possess the capability to reflect light caused by a measurement light source emitted to the first substrate comprising light of a first color having a wavelength in a range from 380 nm to 500 nm, light of a second color having a wavelength in a range from 500 nm to 600 nm, and light of a third color having a wavelength in a range from 600 nm to 780 nm, and wherein a reflectance ratio (%) of the light of the first color, a reflectance ratio (%) of the light of the second color, and a reflectance ratio (%) of the light of the third color, which are measured in a specular component included (SCI) mode, are 5.3 to 9.2, 67.6 to 73.6, and 18.3 to 24.7, respectively. See also id. at 17 (“Applying these legal principles and tenets to the present case, Song does not teach or even suggest the claimed optional properties.”) (emphasis added).
Moreover, Applicant’s statement that the limitation “wherein reflected light caused by a measurement light source emitted to the first substrate comprises light of a first color having a wavelength in a range from 380 nm to 500 nm, light of a second color having a wavelength in a range from 500 nm to 600 nm, and light of a third color having a wavelength in a range from 600 nm to 780 nm, and wherein a reflectance ratio (%) of the light of the first color, a reflectance ratio (%) of the light of the second color, and a reflectance ratio (%) of the light of the third color, which are measured in a specular component included (SCI) mode, are 5.3 to 9.2, 67.6 to 73.6, and 18.3 to 24.7, respectively” are not part of the claimed display device directly contradicts and undermines Applicant’s own arguments regarding the § 102 rejection of claim 1. See, e.g., id. at 14, 17 (asserting that because the Examiner asserted the properties “wherein a reflectance ratio (%) of the light of the first color, a reflectance ratio (%) of the light of the second color, and a reflectance ratio (%) of the light of the third color, which are measured in a specular component included (SCI) mode, are 5.3 to 9.2, 67.6 to 73.6, and 18.3 to 24.7, respectively” were inherently present, the claim was not anticipated, and describing the properties as “optional properties”).
Accordingly, the § 112(b) rejection of claim 1 is maintained.
Regarding claim 11, Applicant states:
Applicant respectfully submits that claim 11 recites a property of the display device, as defined by the color difference value ΔEab being 3 or less. Claim 11 also defined that the color difference value ΔEab is obtained by Equation 1, which calculates the ΔEab based on the colorimetric values L*, a*, and b* in CIE 1931 space. In addition, claim 11 defines that the colorimetric values L*, a*, and b* in CIE 1931 space are measured using a spectrochromometer under conditions of an illuminant C and 20 viewing angle. As such, claim 11 clearly defines a property of the display device and how this property is measured.
Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment (filed 26 January 2026) at 11-12. Like Applicant’s statements regarding claim 1, Applicant’s statements regarding claim 11 further obfuscate the scope of the claims. Again, if neither the measurement light source nor the reflected light caused by the measurement light source are part of the claimed apparatus, neither are the properties of the reflected light. Thus, it is unclear whether the limitation refers to a capability that is required to be present in the invention or whether it refers to a device capability that is a mere possibility that is not required. In other words, it is unclear whether a display device can practice the invention of claim 11 by satisfying all the limitations of claim 11 without necessarily being required to possess the capability to reflect light caused by a measurement light source emitted to the first substrate such that 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 (1) 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.
Moreover, Applicant’s statement that “[a]s such, claim 11 clearly defines a property of the display device and how this property is measured” directly contradicts Applicant’s claim language stating that the claim defines a reflected color of the reflected light, as well as Applicant’s prior statement regarding claim 1 that “Applicant affirms that the measurement light source and the reflected measurement light are not a part of the claimed apparatus.” If the reflected measurement light is not a part of the claimed apparatus, neither are properties of said reflected measurement light. Compare id. at 11 (“Applicant affirms that the measurement light source and the reflected measurement light are not a part of the claimed apparatus.”) with id. (“Applicant respectfully submits that claim 11 recites a property of the display device, as defined by the color difference value AEab [which is a property of the reflected measurement light according to claim 11] being 3 or less.”).
Accordingly, the § 112(b) rejection of claim 11 is maintained.
Regarding claim 12, Applicant states:
Applicant respectfully submits that claim 12, further defines the measurement light source used in obtaining the claimed reflectance ratios. As discussed above with respect to claim 1, the measurement light source and the reflected measurement light are not a part of the claimed apparatus, but that light reflected from the claimed structure is directly related to a property of the claimed structure, and thus further defines a property of the display device structure. As such, claim 12 further defines conditions under which a property of the display device is measured.
Id. at 12. Like Applicant’s statements regarding claims 1 and 11, Applicant’s statements regarding claim 12 further obfuscate the scope of the claims. Again, if neither the measurement light source nor the reflected light caused by the measurement light source are part of the claimed apparatus, neither are the properties of the reflected light. Thus, it is unclear whether the limitation refers to a capability that is required to be present in the invention or whether it refers to a device capability that is a mere possibility that is not required. In other words, it is unclear whether a display device can practice the invention of claim 12 by satisfying all the limitations of claim 12 without necessarily being required to possess the capability to reflect light caused by a measurement light source wherein the measurement light source comprises standard illuminant C, or D65.
Moreover, Applicant’s statement that “As such, claim 12 further defines conditions under which a property of the display device is measured” directly contradicts Applicant’s claim language stating that the claim defines the measurement light source, as well as Applicant’s prior statement regarding claim 1 that “Applicant affirms that the measurement light source and the reflected measurement light are not a part of the claimed apparatus.” If the reflected measurement light is not a part of the claimed apparatus, neither are properties of said reflected measurement light. Compare id. at 1 (“Applicant affirms that the measurement light source and the reflected measurement light are not a part of the claimed apparatus.”) with id. at 12 (“Applicant respectfully submits that claim 12, further defines the measurement light source used in obtaining the claimed reflectance ratios.”).
Accordingly, the § 112(b) rejection of claim 12 is maintained.
Regarding claim 22, Applicant states:
Applicant respectfully submits that, similar to the remarks above regarding claims 1 and 11, the measurement light source and the reflected measurement light are not a part of the claimed apparatus, but that light reflected from the claimed structure is directly related to a property of the claimed structure, and thus further defines a property of the display device structure. . . . As such, claim 22 clearly defines a property of the display device and how this property is measured.
Id. at 13. The Examiner respectfully asserts that those applicable portions of the present response (e.g., those sections of the present response concerning claims 1 and 11 concerning limitations similar to those of claim 22) also apply to claim 22, and are asserted herein regarding claim 22.
Accordingly, the § 112(b) rejection of claim 22 is maintained.
§§ 102 and 103 Rejections
Claims 1, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 22
“Where, as here, the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977). “Whether the rejection is based on ‘inherency’ under 35 U.S.C. § 102, one ‘prima facie obviousness’ under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products.” Id. “[A]fter the PTO establishes a prima facie case . . . based on inherency, the burden shifts to appellant to ‘prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on.’” In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (quoting In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13 (CCPA 1971)). “[T]he prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product.” MPEP § 2112.01(I) (citing In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255).
The Examiner properly rejected independent claim 1 under § 102, establishing that the claimed display device is identical or substantially identical in structure to the display device disclosed in Song. See Non-Final Rejection (mailed 28 October 2025) at 9-12. Regarding the inherency portion of the rejection, the Examiner established a prima facie case based on inherency, supporting the finding that the claimed properties of the claimed device were inherent in the device disclosed in Song, and comparing each of the claimed structures and materials thereof to analogous portions of Song. See id. at 11-12. Accordingly, the burden of production shifted to Applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on.
The Examiner respectfully asserts that Applicant fails to rebut the prima facie case for several reasons.
First, and fundamentally, Applicant fails to apply the correct legal standard for rebutting the prima facie case. Applicant’s entire rebuttal is based on a discussion of Applicant’s own disclosure, and at no point does Applicant substantially address the teachings of Song. In order to rebut the prima facie case, the law makes clear that Applicant is required to present evidence that the prior art does not possess the claimed properties of the claimed device. Applicant acknowledges this point in the response, immediately after applying an incorrect standard. See Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment (filed 26 January 2026) at 17 (“Here, even assuming arguendo that the prior art structure were substantially similar, the above evidence should be sufficient to rebuttal any presumption of inherency under MPEP §2112.01(1) by demonstrating that the cited reference does not necessarily possess the claimed optical characteristics.”). Applicant’s only discussion of Song appears as conclusory argument that Song does not anticipate or inherently possess the characteristics of the claimed display device. See id. at 15, 17.
Even assuming, arguendo, Applicant applied the correct standard, Applicant’s “evidence” still fails to rebut the prima facie case. Applicant states:
Here, as evidenced by the current specification, e.g., paragraphs [0277]-[0279], reproduced below, the claimed reflectance ratio (%) is not only determined by the materials, but also other factors, such as the areas, the area ratios, the thicknesses, etc.: [Applicant then cites to paragraphs 0277-0279 of Applicant’s own disclosure].
Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment (filed 26 January 2026) at 10. Noted above, “the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product.” In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255 (emphasis added). Applicant does not claim areas, area ratios, thicknesses or any of the other properties in any of 0277-0279 in claim 1 that Applicant asserts differentiates the claimed invention from Song. By Applicant’s own admission, the reflected light and measurement light source are not a part of the claimed device. See Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment (filed 26 January 2026) at 14, 17. Applicant claims only those structures appearing in independent claim 1. Song discloses all of those claimed structures.
Accordingly, Applicant fails to identify or evidence any claimed difference between the claimed display device and the display device disclosed in Song, and thus fails to rebut the prima facie case.
Moreover, to the extent Applicant argues that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, the Examiner notes that those features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., areas, area ratios, thicknesses, etc.) are not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Accordingly, the § 102 rejection of claim 1 is maintained.
Applicant does not make any further arguments regarding any of claims 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 22. For the purposes of examination, however, the Examiner respectfully asserts that those portions of the response regarding claim 1 are also applicable to claim 22 and are asserted herein. Accordingly, the § 102 rejection of claim 22 is maintained.
The rejections of claims 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, which depend from independent claim 1, are maintained.
Claims 2 and 23
Currently amended claims 2 and 23 are rejected under § 103, below, responsive to Applicant’s amendment of the claims.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 2 and 23 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 10
Applicant does not make any further arguments regarding claim 10.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 10 is maintained.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the features of claim 10 “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” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Currently, FIG. 4 depicts each of the areas S1-S3 of the light-transmitting areas TA1-TA3 to be equal to each other. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 23 objected to because of the following informalities: each of claims 2 and 23 contain a typo and should read: “the second color filter is a gree[[d]]n color filter,”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-12, 22-24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
“The essential inquiry pertaining to this requirement is whether the claims set out and circumscribe a particular subject matter with a reasonable degree of clarity and particularity. ‘As the statutory language of “particular[ity]” and “distinct[ness]” indicates, claims are required to be cast in clear—as opposed to ambiguous, vague, indefinite—terms. It is the claims that notify the public of what is within the protections of the patent, and what is not.’” MPEP § 2173.02(II) (quoting In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1313, 110 USPQ2d 1785, 1788 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
Regarding claim 1: Claim 1 recites, in relevant part: “wherein reflected light caused by a measurement light source emitted to the first substrate comprises light of a first color having a wavelength in a range from 380 nm to 500 nm, light of a second color having a wavelength in a range from 500 nm to 600 nm, and light of a third color having a wavelength in a range from 600 nm to 780 nm . . . .”
Claim 1 is further rejected under § 112(b) for those reasons noted above in the Response to Arguments section of the present response, responsive to Applicant’s 112(b) arguments.
Claims 2-6 and 8-12, which depend from claim 1, are rejected under § 112(b) for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 11: Claim 11 recites, in relevant part: “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 (1) 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 is further rejected under § 112(b) for those reasons noted above in the Response to Arguments section of the present response, responsive to Applicant’s 112(b) arguments.
Regarding claim 12: Claim 12 recites, in relevant part: “wherein the measurement light source comprises standard illuminant C, or D65.”
Claim 12 is further rejected under § 112(b) for those reasons noted above in the Response to Arguments section of the present response, responsive to Applicant’s 112(b) arguments.
Regarding claim 22: Claim 22 states in relevant part: (1) “wherein reflected light caused by a measurement light source emitted to the first substrate from a side of the second surface comprises light of a first color having a wavelength ranging from 380 nm to 500 nm, light of a second color having a wavelength ranging from 500 nm to 600 nm, and light of a third color having a wavelength ranging from 600 nm to 780 nm,” and (2) “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 (1) 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 22 is further rejected under § 112(b) for those reasons noted above in the Response to Arguments section of the present response, responsive to Applicant’s 112(b) arguments.
Claims 23, 24, and 26, which depend from claim 22, are rejected under § 112(b) for the same reasons as claim 22.
Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims, or present a sufficient showing that the claims comply with the statutory requirements.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0212113 (published July 2, 2020) (hereinafter “Song”).
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).
Applicant further claims “wherein a reflectance ratio (%) of the light of a first color, a reflectance ratio (%) of the light of a second color, and a reflectance ratio (%) of the light of a third color, which are measured in a specular component included (SCI) mode, are 5.3 to 9.2, 67.6 to 73.6, and 18.3 to 24.7, respectively.”
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 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 reflectance ratio (%) of light of a first color, a reflectance ratio (%) of the light of a second color, and a reflectance ratio (%) of the light of a third color, which are measured in a specular component included (SCI) mode, are 5.3 to 9.2, 67.6 to 73.6, and 18.3 to 24.7, respectively. 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 discloses a display device that necessarily possesses the properties of the display device structure claimed in Applicant’s claim 1, and thus anticipates 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 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 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 discloses a display device that necessarily possesses the properties of the display device structure claimed in Applicant’s claim 6, and thus anticipates 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 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 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 discloses a display device that necessarily possesses the properties of the display device structure claimed in Applicant’s claim 8, and thus anticipates 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 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 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 discloses a display device that necessarily possesses the properties of the display device structure claimed in Applicant’s claim 9, and thus anticipates claim 9.
Regarding claim 11, Applicant further claims 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.
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 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 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 discloses a display device that necessarily possesses the properties of the display device structure claimed in Applicant’s claim 11, and thus anticipates 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 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 discloses a display device that necessarily possesses the properties of the display device structure claimed in Applicant’s claim 12, and thus anticipates 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); and
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).
Applicant further claims “wherein a reflectance (%) of the light of the first color at 460 nm, a reflectance (%) of the light of the second color at 540 nm, and a reflectance (%) of the light of the third color at 640 nm, which are measured in a specular component included (SCI) mode, are 1.8 to 2.2, 1.7 to 2.3, and 2.8 to 3.8, respectively, 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.”
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 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 a reflectance (%) of the light of the first color at 460 nm, a reflectance (%) of the light of the second color at 540 nm, and a reflectance (%) of the light of the third color at 640 nm, which are measured in a specular component included (SCI) mode, are 1.8 to 2.2, 1.7 to 2.3, and 2.8 to 3.8, respectively, 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. 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 discloses a display device that necessarily possesses the properties of the display device structure claimed in Applicant’s claim 22, and thus anticipates claim 22.
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.
Claims 2 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Song 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Song in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0074188 (filed Jan. 4, 2019) (hereinafter “Du”).
Regarding claim 10, Song further discloses wherein the 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 . . . .”) further comprises 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).
While Song discloses in [0078] wherein “the area of the first light-emitting area LA1 may be greater than the area of the second light-emitting area LA2, and the area of the second light-emitting area LA2 may be greater than the area of the third light-emitting 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, Du discloses a display device (FIG. 1, display panel 100, [0034]) including a plurality of light transmitting areas (FIG. 1, pixel units P1, P2, [0038]-[0039]), wherein the light transmitting areas have different ratios (FIG. 1, [0049]: “In the present embodiment, a ratio of effective light emitting areas of the red sub-pixel P1R, the green sub-pixel P1G, and the blue sub-pixel P1B in each main pixel unit P1 is X:Y:Z. A ratio of effective light emitting areas of the red sub-pixel P2R1, the green sub-pixel P2G1, and the blue sub-pixel P2B1 in each first edge pixel unit P21 is X:(m1×Y):(n1×Z), where m1 is greater than or equal to 1, and n1 is greater than or equal to 1.1. In one example, m1 is equal to 1 and n1 is equal to 1.5.”). Regarding the ratios of the light emitting areas, in [0038]-[0039], Du states: “When the main display portion 110 in a flat state is driven to display the first white image at a first time instant, each main pixel unit P1 within the main display portion 110 is driven to display a white pixel point. The white pixel point displayed by each main pixel unit P1 has a corresponding color temperature. . . . When the edge display portion 120 in a flat state is driven to display the second white image at the first time instant, each edge pixel unit P2 within the edge display portion 120 is driven to display a white pixel point.” Thus, noted in Du, the ratio of the areas of the light transmitting areas is a result-effective variable for optimizing the white point of the display.
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 first, second, and third light transmitting areas, identified by Du 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 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 display white point as disclosed in Du in [0038]-[0039]. 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)).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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