DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/3/2025 has been entered.
Status of the Application
2. Acknowledgement is made of the amendment received on 11/13/2025. Claims 1-22 are pending in this application. Claims 17-20 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-16 & 21-22 are examined in this Office Action.
Claim Objections
3. The claims are objected because of the following reasons:
Re claim 1, line 15: after “75%”, delete “or less” because of claimed range about 65% to about 75%.
Re claim 11, line 21: after “75%”, delete “or less” because of claimed range about 65% to about 75%.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
4. Claims 1-3, 7, 8, 11, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2020/0006437) in view of Shima et al. (JP 2008-286827, English translation attached).
Re claim 1, Kim teaches, under BRI, Fig. 3, [0062-0069], a display panel comprising:
-a light-emitting element (OLED) which outputs source light and includes a first electrode (EL1), a light-emitting layer (EML) disposed on the first electrode, and a second electrode (EL2) disposed on the light-emitting layer;
-a light control layer (CCL) disposed on the light-emitting element (OLED) and including a first light control pattern (CCP2) which converts the source light into first light, and a second light control pattern (CCP1) which transmits the source light; and
-a color filter layer (CFL) disposed on the light control layer (CCL) and including a first color filter (R-CFP) overlapping the first light control pattern (CCP3), and a second color filter (B-CFP) overlapping the second light control pattern (CCP1),
wherein the first color filter is a red color filter (R-CFP), and the second color filter is a blue color filter (B-CFP).
PNG
media_image1.png
567
691
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kim teaches red & blue color filters (R-CFP, B-CFP), does not explicitly teach wherein the first color filter has a light transmittance of about 60% to about 70% all wavelengths in a wavelength range of about 600 nm to about 640 nm, and the second color filter has a light transmittance of about 65% to about 75% or less for all wavelengths in a wavelength range of about 430 nm to about 470 nm.
Shima teaches, abstract & claims, wherein the first color filter (red R) has a light transmittance of about 60% to about 70% (e.g., 60-80%) all wavelengths in a wavelength range of about 600 nm to about 640 nm (e.g., 600 nm), and the second color filter (blue B) has a light transmittance of about 65% to about 75% or less (e.g., 58-93%) for all wavelengths in a wavelength range of about 430 nm to about 470 nm (e.g., 450 nm).
As taught by Shima, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize & modify the above teaching to obtain the first color filter has a light transmittance of about 60% to about 70% in a wavelength range of about 600 nm to about 640 nm, and the second color filter has a light transmittance of about 65% to about 75% or less in a wavelength range of about 430 nm to about 470 nm as claimed, because it aids in achieving display device(s) which can display the safer color. Further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Alter, 105 USPQ 233.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Shima in combination with Kim due to above reason.
Re claims 2 & 3, in combination cited above, Shima teaches, Figs. 3-4, wherein the first color filter (red R) includes a point at which the light transmittance is about 10% in a wavelength range of about 590 nm to about 610 nm; wherein the first color filter (red R) has a transmittance of less than 10% in a wavelength range of about 590 nm or less.
Re claim 7, Kim teaches the first color filter (R-CFP) includes a red colorant, and the second color filter (B-CFP) includes a blue colorant.
Re claim 8, Kim teaches the first color filter, but Kim/Shima does not explicitly teach the first color filter further includes a black colorant, and the black colorant is included in an amount of 1 wt% or less with respect to the total weight of red colorant and the black colorant.
Kim does teach “The color filter layer CFL may be on the color conversion layer CCL and include first to third color filter parts B-CFP, G-CFP, and R-CFP and the light blocking part BM” [0081] & “The light blocking part BM may contain an organic light blocking material or an inorganic light blocking material including a black pigment or dye” [0084].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ & modify the teaching as taught by Kim to obtain he first color filter further includes a black colorant, and the black colorant is included in an amount of 1 wt% or less with respect to the total weight of red colorant and the black colorant as claimed, because it aids in preventing occurrence of light leakage phenomenon and improving light efficiency of the formed device.
Note: 0 wt% of black colorant is also considered.
Re claim 11, Kim teaches, Fig. 3, a base substrate (SUB2) disposed below the light emitting element (OLED); and the base layer (SUB1) disposed on the color filter layer (CFL).
Re claim 14, Kim teaches, Fig. 14, [0018, 0151], the color filter layer (CFL) further comprises a low refractive index layer (LRL) disposed between the light control layer (CCL) and the first and second color filters (R-CFP, B-CFP), and a refractive index of the low refractive layer is about 1.3 or less (e.g., about 1.1 to about 1.5).
Re claim 15, Kim teaches, Fig. 3, the light emitting element (OLED) is disposed between the first electrode (EL1) and the second electrode (EL2), and the light emitting element (OLED) includes a plurality of light emitting stacks, each including the light emitting layer (EML).
5. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as modified by Shima as applied to claims 1 & 2 above, and further in view of Sekiya et al. (US 2008/0029710).
The teachings of Kim/Shima have been discussed above.
Re claim 4, Kim/Shima does not teach the transmittances of the first color filter and the second color filter are measured through a spectrometer.
Sekiya teaches transmission spectrum of each color filter measured by spectrometer [0160].
As taught by Sekiya, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize the above teach to measure the transmittances of color filters as claimed, because spectrometer is known instrument for measuring wavelengths of light spectra.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Sekiya in combination with Kim/Shima due to above reason.
6. Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as modified by Shima as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoshimura et al. (US 2019/0140148).
The teachings of Kim/Shima have been discussed above.
Re claim 5, Kim/Shima does not explicitly teach the second color filter has a full width of half maximum of a light transmittance spectrum about 95 nm or less.
Yoshimura teaches blue color filter having a transmission spectrum with a full width at half maximum of 100 nm or less [0113].
As taught by Yoshimura, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize & modify the above teaching to obtain the second color filter has a full width of half maximum of a light transmittance spectrum about 95 nm or less as claimed, because it aids in achieving device that can achieve high luminous efficiency. Further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Alter, 105 USPQ 233.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Yoshimura in combination with Kim/Shima due to above reason.
Re claim 6, Kim teaches a wavelength of the first light (red light) is longer than a wavelength of the source light, and the first light control pattern (CCP3) includes first quantum dots which converts the source light into the first light [0071, 0075].
7. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as modified by Shima as applied to claims 1 & 7 above, and further in view of Asakawa (US 2017/0139269).
The teachings of Kim/Shima have been discussed above.
Re claim 9, Kim/Shima does not teach the second color filter further includes a purple colorant, and a weight ratio of the blue colorant to the purple colorant is in a range of about 70:30 to about 80:20.
Asakawa teaches “the blue filter film CFB should contain a blue color material and a purple color material…The ratio by weight between the blue and purple color materials (the weight of the blue color material: the weight of the purple color material) falls within, preferably the range of 85:15 to 20:80 and more preferably the range of 80:20 to 25:75” [0063].
As taught by Asakawa, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize & modify the above teaching to obtain the second color filter further includes a purple colorant, and a weight ratio of the blue colorant to the purple colorant is in a range of about 70:30 to about 80:20 as claimed, because it aids in achieving/exhibiting wavelength of light having the maximum light transmittance.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Asakawa in combination with Kim/Shima due to above reason.
8. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as modified by Shima as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kuma et al. (US 2005/0116619).
The teachings of Kim/Shima have been discussed above.
Re claim 10, Kim/Shima does not teach the first color filter has a thickness in a range of about 3 um to about 5.5 um, and the second color filter has a thickness in a range of about 1.8 um to about 4.2 um.
Kuma teaches “the film thickness of the color filter, which can be set within an arbitrary range as far as the function of the color filter is not damaged, is usually from 1 um to 10 mm, preferably from 1 um to 500 um, and more preferably from 1 um to 10 um” [0309].
As taught by Kuma, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize & modify the above teaching to obtain the first color filter has a thickness in a range of about 3 um to about 5.5 um, and the second color filter has a thickness in a range of about 1.8 um to about 4.2 um as claimed, because thickness of color filter is known to affect device properties and would depend on the desired device density and the desired device characteristics. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited thickness through routine experimentation to achieve desired characteristics of the formed device.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Kuma in combination with Kim/Shima due to above reason.
9. Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as modified by Shima as applied to claims 1 & 11 above, and further in view of Braak et al. (US 2005/0253505).
The teachings of Kim/Shima have been discussed above.
Re claims 12 & 13, Kim/Shima does not teach an anti-reflection layer disposed on the base layer, and wherein light emitting element receives unpolarized incident light from above the anti-reflection layer.
Braak teaches, Fig. 2, [0018], an anti-reflection layer (15) disposed on the base layer (12), and wherein the light emitting element (8, 10) receives unpolarized incident light from above the anti-reflection layer (15).
As taught by Braak, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize & modify the above teaching to obtain an anti-reflection layer disposed on the base layer, and wherein the light emitting element receives unpolarized incident light from above the anti-reflection layer as claimed, because it aids in generating a higher light yield by optimizing the transmission of light between the consecutive layers.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Braak in combination with Kim/Shima due to above reason.
10. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as modified by Shima as applied to claims 1 & 15 above, and further in view of Park et al. (US 2019/0198788).
The teachings of Kim/Shima have been discussed above.
Re claim 16, Kim/Shima does not teach the plurality of light-emitting stacks include: a first light-emitting stack disposed on the first electrode and including a first light-emitting layer; a charge generation layer disposed on the first light-emitting stack; and a second light-emitting stack disposed on the charge generation layer and including a second light-emitting layer, and the first light-emitting layer emits light of a color different from light emitted from the second light-emitting layer.
Park teaches, Fig. 2C, [0009, 0023, 0071, 0087], the plurality of light-emitting stacks include: a first light-emitting stack (20) disposed on the first electrode (11) and including a first light-emitting layer (51); a charge generation layer (40) disposed on the first light-emitting stack (20); and a second light-emitting stack (30) disposed on the charge generation layer (40) and including a second light-emitting layer (32), and the first light-emitting layer (51) emits light of a color different from light emitted from the second light-emitting layer (32).
As taught by Park, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize & modify the above teaching to obtain the plurality of light-emitting stacks include: a first light-emitting stack disposed on the first electrode and including a first light-emitting layer; a charge generation layer disposed on the first light-emitting stack; and a second light-emitting stack disposed on the charge generation layer and including a second light-emitting layer, and the first light-emitting layer emits light of a color different from light emitted from the second light-emitting layer as claimed, because it aids in improving a viewing angle, lifetime and efficiency in the formed organic light emitting device.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Park in combination with Kim/Shima due to above reason.
11. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2020/0006437) in view of Kuma et al. (US 2005/0116619), Shima et al. (JP 2008-286827) and Lin et al. (US 2020/0249382).
Re claim 21, Kim teaches, under BRI, Fig. 3, [0062-0069], a display panel (DD) comprising:
-a lower panel including a display element layer (OLED) and an encapsulation layer (TFE) disposed on the display element layer;
-an upper panel (CCL, CFL, SUB1) disposed on the lower panel; and
-a filling layer (BFL) disposed between the lower panel (OLED, TFE) and the upper panel (CCL, CFL, SUB1),
wherein the upper panel (CCL, CFL, SUB1) includes:
a light control layer (CCL) disposed on the filling layer (BFL) and including a first light control pattern (CCP3) which converts source light into first light and a second light control pattern (CCP1) which transmits the source light, and
a color filter layer (CFL) disposed on the light control layer (CCL) and including a first color filter (R-CFP) overlapping the first light control pattern (CCP3), and a second color filter (B-CFP) overlapping the second light control pattern (CCP1),
wherein the first color filter is a red color filter (R-CFP), and the second color filter is a blue color filter (B-CFP).
PNG
media_image1.png
567
691
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kim does not explicitly teach wherein the first color filter has a thickness in a range of about 3 um to about 5.5 um, and the second color filter has a thickness in a range of about 1.8 um to about 4.2 um.
Kuma teaches “the film thickness of the color filter, which can be set within an arbitrary range as far as the function of the color filter is not damaged, is usually from 1 um to 10 mm, preferably from 1 um to 500 um, and more preferably from 1 um to 10 um” [0309].
As taught by Kuma, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize & modify the above teaching to obtain the first color filter has a thickness in a range of about 3 um to about 5.5 um, and the second color filter has a thickness in a range of about 1.8 um to about 4.2 um as claimed, because thickness of color filter is known to affect device properties and would depend on the desired device density and the desired device characteristics. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited thickness through routine experimentation to achieve desired characteristics of the formed device.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Kim in combination with Kim due to above reason.
Kim/Kuma does not explicitly teach the first color filter has a light transmittance of about 60% to about 70% all wavelengths in a wavelength range of about 600 nm to about 640 nm, and the second color filter has a light transmittance of about 65% to about 75% or less for all wavelengths in a wavelength range of about 430 nm to about 470 nm.
Shima teaches, abstract & claims, the first color filter (red R) has a light transmittance of about 60% to about 70% (e.g., 60-80%) all wavelengths in a wavelength range of about 600 nm to about 640 nm (e.g., 600 nm), and the second color filter (blue B) has a light transmittance of about 65% to about 75% or less (e.g., 58-93%) for all wavelengths in a wavelength range of about 430 nm to about 470 nm (e.g., 450 nm).
As taught by Shima, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize & modify the above teaching to obtain the first color filter has a light transmittance of about 60% to about 70% in a wavelength range of about 600 nm to about 640 nm, and the second color filter has a light transmittance of about 65% to about 75% or less in a wavelength range of about 430 nm to about 470 nm as claimed, because it aids in achieving display device(s) which can display the safer color. Further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Alter, 105 USPQ 233.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Shima in combination with Kim/Kuma due to above reason.
Kim/Kuma/Shima does not explicitly teach the thickness of the first color filter is greater than the thickness of the second color filter.
Lin teaches, Fig. 1, [0027], the thickness (TR) of the first color filter (22) is greater than the thickness (TB) of the second color filter (26).
As taught by Lin, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize & modify the above teaching to obtain the thickness of the first color filter is greater than the thickness of the second color filter as claimed, because it is recognized that the thicknesses of color filters can be adjusted in order to facilitating light penetration. Further, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Lin in combination with Kim/Kuma/Shima due to above reason.
12. Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as modified by Kuma/Shima/Lin as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Braak et al. (US 2005/0253505).
The teachings of Kim/Kuma/Shima/Lin have been discussed above.
Re claim 22, Kim/Kuma/Lin does not teach an anti-reflection layer disposed on the color filter layer, and wherein the display element layer receives unpolarized incident light from above the anti-reflection layer.
Braak teaches, Fig. 2, [0018], an anti-reflection layer (15) disposed on the color filter layer (11), and wherein the display element layer (8, 10) receives unpolarized incident light from above the anti-reflection layer (15).
As taught by Braak, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize & modify the above teaching to obtain an anti-reflection layer disposed on the color filter layer, and wherein the display element layer receives unpolarized incident light from above the anti-reflection layer as claimed, because it aids in generating a higher light yield by optimizing the transmission of light between the consecutive layers.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Braak in combination with Kim/Kuma/Shima/Lin due to above reason.
13. Claims 1 and 10 are, alternatively, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuma et al. (US 2005/0116619) in view of Shima et al. (JP 2008-286827).
Re claim 1, Kuma teaches, under BRI, Figs. 1, 8 & 9, [0382, 0400, 0406], a display panel comprising:
-a light-emitting element (organic EL element 710) which outputs source light and includes a first electrode (anode 680), a light-emitting layer (714) disposed on the first electrode, and a second electrode (cathode 716) disposed on the light-emitting layer;
-a light control layer (640, 642) disposed on the light-emitting element (710) and including a first light control pattern (642) which converts the source light into first light, and a second light control pattern (640) which transmits the source light; and
-a color filter layer (630, 632, 634) disposed on the light control layer (640, 642) and including a first color filter (634) overlapping the first light control pattern (642), and a second color filter (632) overlapping the second light control pattern (640),
wherein the first color filter (634) is a red color filter (red filter), and the second color filter (630) is a blue color filter (blue filter) and has a light transmittance of about 75% or less in all wavelengths (BCF2, Fig. 9D).
PNG
media_image2.png
471
798
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kuma teaches red & blue color filters (420, 460), does not explicitly teach wherein the first color filter has a light transmittance of about 60% to about 70% for all the wavelengths in a wavelength range of about 600 nm to about 640 nm, and the second color filter has a light transmittance of about 65% to about 75% or less in a wavelength range of about 430 nm to about 470 nm.
Shima teaches, abstract & claims, the first color filter (red R) has a light transmittance of about 60% to about 70% (e.g., 60-80%) all wavelengths in a wavelength range of about 600 nm to about 640 nm (e.g., 600 nm), and the second color filter (blue B) has a light transmittance of about 65% to about 75% or less (e.g., 58-93%) for all wavelengths in a wavelength range of about 430 nm to about 470 nm (e.g., 450 nm).
As taught by Shima, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize & modify the above teaching to obtain the first color filter has a light transmittance of about 60% to about 70% in a wavelength range of about 600 nm to about 640 nm, and the second color filter has a light transmittance of about 65% to about 75% or less in a wavelength range of about 430 nm to about 470 nm as claimed, because it aids in achieving display device(s) which can display the safer color. Further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Alter, 105 USPQ 233.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Shima in combination with Kuma due to above reason.
Re claim 10, Kuma teaches the first color filter has a thickness in a range of about 3 um to about 5.5 um, and the second color filter has a thickness in a range of about 1.8 um to about 4.2 um (e.g., 1 um to 10 um) [0039].
Response to Arguments
14. Applicant's arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Response to arguments on newly added limitations are responded to in the above rejection.
Conclusion
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUY T.V. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7431. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7AM-4PM, alternative Friday off.
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, EVA MONTALVO can be reached at (571) 270-3829. 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.
/DUY T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818 3/25/26