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 .
Remarks
The 04/13/2026 amendments of claims 1-3, 9-10, 13-14, 16 and 19-20 have been noted and entered.
The 04/13/2026 cancellation of claims 17-18 has been noted and entered.
The 04/13/2026 addition of new claim 21 has been noted and entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/23/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the application on10/14/2022. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks page 8, filed 04/13/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 13-14 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the newly added amendments. The previous rejections of record have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pages 9-12, filed 04/13/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the newly added amendments. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Baek et al, US 20170160583 A1 (Baek) and Kim et al, US 20210109400 A1 (Kim ‘400).
New Grounds of Rejection
New grounds of rejection, prior art references Baek et al, US 20170160583 A1 (Baek) and Kim et al, US 20210109400 A1 (Kim ‘400) appear below.
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 1-9, 12, 15, 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al, US 20190288043 A1 (Shin) in view of Hou et al, CN 112467005 A (Hou) in further view of Baek et al, US 20170160583 A1 (Baek).
Regarding claim 1; Shin teaches a display device (DP) comprising:
a substrate (Shin: Annotated Fig (5) shared in this OA: SUB+IL);
a pixel (PXA) on the substrate (SUB+IL) in a display area (PXA); and
an optical structure (Optical Structure) on the substrate (SUB+IL) in a non-display area (NPXA) surrounding the display area in plan view, having a bar shape or a plurality of island shapes surrounding the display area in plan view,
and comprising a first layer (PDL),
wherein a refractive index of the first layer is greater than a refractive index of the substrate.
PNG
media_image1.png
948
1524
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Shin does not teach wherein a refractive index of the first layer is greater than a refractive index of the substrate.
Hou teaches wherein a refractive index of the first layer (Hou: Fig (10): AIN) is greater than a refractive index of the substrate (AI2O3, see Page: 6 Lines: 42-43 of the specification of the translated copy of Hou attached to this OA: “…as shown in FIG. 10; and in the multi-layer composite substrate; the AlN film refractive index is higher than the SiO2 layer and the Al2O3 substrate;…”).
Shin and Hou are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Shin by making the refractive index of the first layer higher than the refractive index of the substrate as disclosed in Hou to improve the amount of light extracted from the display device and thus leading to a more efficient device.
PNG
media_image2.png
775
701
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Shin in view of Hou does not teach the optical structure surrounding the display area in plan view, having a bar shape or a plurality of island shapes surrounding the display area in plan view.
Baek teaches the optical structure (Baek: Fig (5): 172) surrounding the display area (DA) in plan view, having a bar shape or a plurality of island shapes surrounding the display area (DA) in plan view.
Shin in view of Hou and Baek are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Shin in view of Hou by constructing the optical structure such that it surrounds the display area and has the bar shape disclosed in Baek to reduce the light leakage phenomenon leading to a better performing display ([0107]: “Light-blocking layers 172 and 174 may be disposed over the pixel electrodes 162-1 and 162-2. The light-blocking layers 172 and 174 serve to prevent light leakage.”).
Regarding claim 2; Shin in view of Hou in further view of Baek teach all the limitations of the display device of claim 1.
Further, Shin teaches wherein the optical structure (Shin: Annotated Fig (5) shared in this OA: Optical Structure) and the substrate (SUB+IL) form an optical interface (Optical Interface), wherein the display device further comprises a middle layer (EML) on the substrate, the middle layer (EML) not overlapping with the optical interface (Optical Interface) in plan view, and wherein a refractive index of the middle layer is less than the refractive index of the first layer
However, Shin does not teach wherein a refractive index of the middle layer is less than the refractive index of the first layer.
Hou teaches wherein a refractive index of the middle layer (Hou: Fig (10): SiO2) is less than the refractive index of the first layer (AIN, see Page: 6 Lines: 42-43 of the specification of the translated copy of Hou attached to this OA: “…as shown in FIG. 10; and in the multi-layer composite substrate; the AlN film refractive index is higher than the SiO2 layer and the Al2O3 substrate;…”).
Shin and Hou are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Shin by making the refractive index of the first layer higher than the refractive index of the middle layer as disclosed in Hou to improve the amount of light extracted from the display device and thus leading to a more efficient device.
Regarding claim 3; Shin in view of Hou in further view of Baek teach all the limitations of the display device of claim 2.
Further, Shin teaches wherein the pixel comprises: a pixel circuit layer (Shin: Annotated Fig (5) shared in this OA: DP-CL) comprising a transistor (T1); a first electrode (DE1) and a second electrode (SE1) on the pixel circuit layer (DP-CL); a first insulating layer (IL) over the first electrode (DE1) and the second electrode (SE1); a light-emitting element (OEL) on the first insulating layer (IL); a second insulating layer (TFE) on the light-emitting element (OEL); a first contact electrode (EL1) and a second contact electrode (EL2) electrically connected to the light-emitting element (OEL); and a third insulating layer (OBL) over the first contact electrode (EL1), and wherein the first layer (PDL) comprises a first optical layer (PDL on the right side of the pixel) in a same layer as the second insulating layer (TFE), and a second optical layer (PDL on the left hand side of the pixel structure) in a same layer as the third insulating layer (OBL).
.
Regarding claim 4; Shin in view of Hou in further view of Baek teach all the limitations of the display device of claim 1.
Further, Shin teaches wherein one of the second insulating layer (Shin: annotated Fig (5) shared in this OA: TFE) and the third insulating layer (OBL) comprise one of silicon nitride (SiNx), aluminum oxide (AIOx), and titanium oxide (TiOx) ([0078] – [0079]).
Regarding claim 5; Shin in view of Hou in further view of Baek teach all the limitations of the display device of claim 1.
However, Shin does not teach wherein the refractive index of the first layer is greater by about 0.2 or more than the refractive index of the substrate.
Hou teaches wherein the refractive index of the first layer (Hou: Fig (10): AlN) is greater by about 0.2 or more than the refractive index of the substrate (Al2O3).
Shin and Hou are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Shin by making the difference between the first layer and the substrate refractive indices larger than 0.2 as disclosed in Hou to improve the efficiency of light production of the device leading to a more efficient device.
Regarding claim 6; Shin in view of Hou in further view of Baek teach all the limitations of the display device of claim 3.
Further, Shin teaches wherein the optical structure further comprises a second layer (Shin: Annotated Fig (5) shared in this OA: EL1) between the middle layer (EML) and the first layer (PDL), wherein the second layer (EL1) comprises a reflective material.
Regarding claim 7; Shin in view of Hou in further view of Baek teach all the limitations of the display device of claim 6.
Further, Shin teaches wherein the second layer (Shin: Annotated Fig (5) shared in this OA: EL1) is on a base surface of the middle layer (EML), and wherein the base surface is inclined with respect to the substrate (SUB+IL).
Regarding claim 8; Shin in view of Hou in further view of Baek teach all the limitations of the display device of claim 6.
Further Shin teaches wherein the second layer (Shin: Annotated Fig (5) shared in this OA: EL1) comprises a reflective electrode layer in a same layer as the first electrode (DE1) and the second electrode (SE1).
Regarding claim 9; Shin in view of Hou in further view of Baek teach all the limitations of the display device of claim 2.
Further, Shin teaches further comprising a third layer (Shin: Fig (10): OBL-E) on the first layer (PDL), the third layer (OBL-E) being configured to absorb light having a wavelength in a band, wherein the first layer (PDL) and the third layer (OBL-E) overlap with the optical interface (Optical Interface) in plan view.
PNG
media_image3.png
841
1244
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12; Shin in view of Hou in further view of Baek teach all the limitations of the display device of claim 2.
However, Shin does not teach wherein the middle layer comprises one of silicon oxide (SiOx) and silicon oxynitride (SiOxNy).
Hou teaches wherein the middle layer (Hou: Fig (10): SiO2) comprises one of silicon oxide (SiOx) and silicon oxynitride (SiOxNy).
Shin and Hou are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Shin by making the middle layer out of SiO2 as disclosed in Hou to improve the amount of light extracted from the display device and thus leading to a more efficient device.
Regarding claim 15; Shin in view of Hou in further view of Baek teach all the limitations of the display device of claim 2.
Further, Shin teaches wherein the first layer (Shin: annotated Fig (5) shared in this OA: PDL) and the substrate (SUB+IL) are in contact with each other at the optical interface (Optical Interface).
Regarding claim 19; Shin in view of Hou in further view of Baek in further view of Lu teaches all the limitations of the display device of claim 1.
Further, Shin teaches further comprising a line area (Shin: Annotated Fig (5) shared in this OA: SE2) in the non- display area (NPXA), and in which a line (SE2) electrically connected to the pixel (PXA) is located, wherein the line area (area that contains SE2) is between the optical structure (Optical Structure) and the display area (area which contains the pixel PXA).
Regarding claim 21; Shin teaches an electronic device comprising the display device of claim 1 (Shin: [0002], [0021]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al, US 20190288043 A1 (Shin) in view of Hou et al, CN 112467005 A (Hou) in further view of Lu, US 20220165082 A1 (Lu).
Regarding claim 16; Shin in view of Hou in further view of Baek teach all the limitations of the display device of claim 2.
Further, Shin teaches wherein the pixel comprises: a light-emitting element (Shin: Annotated Fig (5) shared in this OA: OEL) for emitting light; and a pixel circuit layer (DP-CL) comprising a transistor (T1) electrically connected to the light-emitting element (OEL), and an electrode layer (layer containing EL1 and EL2), wherein light emitted from the light-emitting element is reflected between the substrate, and an air layer outside of the substrate, and is reflected by the electrode layer, wherein at least a portion of the light emitted from the light-emitting element is provided to the optical structure, and wherein the light provided to the optical structure is provided at an incident angle to the optical interface, and is transmitted at a transmission angle that is smaller than the incident angle through the optical structure.
However, Shin in view of Hou in further view of Baek does not teach wherein light emitted from the light-emitting element is reflected between the substrate, and an air layer outside of the substrate, and is reflected by the electrode layer, wherein at least a portion of the light emitted from the light-emitting element is provided to the optical structure, and wherein the light provided to the optical structure is provided at an incident angle to the optical interface, and is transmitted at a transmission angle that is smaller than the incident angle through the optical structure.
Lu teaches wherein light emitted from the light emitting element (Lou: Fig (1): 031) is reflected between the substrate (01), and an air layer outside of the substrate (01), and is reflected by the electrode layer (03), wherein at least a portion of the light emitted from the light emitting element (031) is provided to the optical structure (05), and wherein the light provided to the optical structure (05) is provided at an incident angle to the optical interface (optical interface between 02 and 01), and is transmitted at a transmission angle that is smaller than the incident angle through the optical structure (05).
Shin in view of Hou in further view of Baek and Lu are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Shin in view of Hou in further view of Baek by using the light reflected from the air gap between the substrate and the optical structure as disclosed in Lu to improve the ability of the device to capture images of objects facing it using the light produced by the light-emitting devices leading to a more efficient device.
PNG
media_image4.png
794
613
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al, US 20190288043 A1 (Shin) in view of Hou et al, CN 112467005 A (Hou) in further view of Baek et al, US 20170160583 A1 (Baek) in further view of Kim et al, US 20210202587 A1 (Kim ‘587).
Regarding claim 10; Shin in view of Hou in further view of Baek teaches all the limitations of the display device of claim 9.
However, Shin in view of Hou in further view of Baek does not teach wherein the pixel comprises: a first sub-pixel for emitting light of a first color; a second sub-pixel for emitting light of a second color; a third sub-pixel for emitting light of a third color; and a light-emitting element comprised in each of the first sub-pixel, the second sub- pixel, and the third sub-pixel, the light-emitting element being configured to emit light of the third color, wherein, in plan view, the first sub-pixel overlaps with a first color filter that is configured to substantially block the light of the second color and the light of the third color, and that is configured to allow the light of the first color to be transmitted therethrough, wherein, in plan view, the second sub-pixel overlaps with a second color filter that is configured to substantially block the light of the first color and the light of the third color, and that is configured to allow the light of the second color to be transmitted therethrough, wherein, in plan view, the third sub-pixel overlaps with a third color filter that is configured to substantially block the light of the first color and the light of the second color, and is configured to allow the light of the third color to be transmitted therethrough, and wherein the third layer comprises a same material as at least one of the first color filter and the second color filter.
Kim ‘587 teaches wherein the pixel comprises: a first sub-pixel (Kim ‘587: Fig (7): structure where Lb is produced) for emitting light of a first color; a second sub-pixel (structure where Lg is produced) for emitting light of a second color; a third sub-pixel (structure where Lr is produced) for emitting light of a third color; and a light-emitting element (OLED) comprised in each of the first sub-pixel (structure where Lb is produced), the second sub- pixel (structure where Lg is produced), and the third sub-pixel (structure where Lr is produced), the light-emitting element (OLED) being configured to emit light of the third color, wherein, in plan view, the first sub-pixel (structure where Lb is produced) overlaps with a first color filter (313) that is configured to substantially block the light of the second color and the light of the third color, and that is configured to allow the light of the first color to be transmitted therethrough, wherein, in a plan view, the second sub-pixel (structure where Lg is produced) overlaps with a second color filter (312) that is configured to substantially block the light of the first color and the light of the third color, and that is configured to allow the light of the second color to be transmitted therethrough, wherein, in plan view, the third sub-pixel (structure where Lr is produced) overlaps with a third color filter (311) that is configured to substantially block the light of the first color and the light of the second color, and is configured to allow the light of the third color to be transmitted therethrough, and wherein the third layer (301) comprises a same material as at least one of the first color filter (313) and the second color filter (312, [0081]: “The light-shielding member 301 includes the same material as the third color filter 313”).
Shin in view of Hou in further view of Baek and Kim ‘587 are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Shin in view of Hou by using the three light filters disclosed in Kim ‘587 to improve the quality of the display device.
PNG
media_image5.png
826
1114
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11; Shin in view of Hou in further view of Baek in further view of Kim ‘587 teach all the limitations of the display device of claim 10.
However, Shin in view of Hou in further view of Baek does not teach further comprising an organic insulating layer on the first layer, wherein the third layer is on the organic insulating layer.
Kim ‘587 teaches further comprising an organic insulating layer (Kim ‘587: Fig (7): 320) on the first layer (610), wherein the third layer (301) is on the organic insulating layer (320, [0076]: “… The first partition 320 is formed of an organic insulating material such as polyimide,…”).
Shin in view of Hou and Kim ‘587 are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Shin in view of Hou by using the organic material structure disclosed in Kim ‘587 to make the production process of the device more efficient.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al, US 20190288043 A1 (Shin) in view of Hou et al, CN 112467005 A (Hou) in further view of Baek et al, US 20170160583 A1 (Baek) in further view of Kim et al, US 20210202587 A1 (Kim ‘587) in further view of Kim et al, US 20210109400 A1 (Kim ‘400) in further view of Wu et al, CN 106129219 A (Wu).
Regarding claim 13; Shin in view of Hou in further view of Baek in further view of Kim ‘587 teach all the limitations of the display device of claim 10.
Shin in view of Hou in further view of Baek in further view of Kim ‘587 does not teach wherein the pixel comprises: a display element layer comprising the light-emitting element and a color conversion layer; a low refractive index layer above the display element layer and the low refractive index layer having a refractive index that is lower than a refractive index of the color conversion layer; and a capping layer contacting the low refractive index layer, wherein the display device further comprises a valley between the display area and the optical structure, wherein a portion of the low refractive index layer is accommodated in the valley, and wherein the optical structure is located outside of the valley in plan view
Kim ‘400 teaches wherein the pixel (Kim ‘400: Fig (2): PA) comprises: a display element layer (100+200) comprising the light-emitting element (100) and a color conversion layer (140); a low refractive index layer (170) above the display element layer (100+200) and the low refractive index layer (170) having a refractive index that is lower than a refractive index of the color conversion layer (140, [0077]: “A refractive index of the low refractive index layer 170 may be less than a refractive index of the light-converting layer 140.”); and a capping layer (182) contacting the low refractive index layer (170), wherein the display device further comprises a valley between the display area and the optical structure, wherein a portion of the low refractive index layer is accommodated in the valley, and wherein the optical structure is located outside of the valley in plan view.
Shin in view of Hou in further view of Baek in further view of Kim ‘587 and Kim ‘400 are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Shin in view of Hou in further view of Baek in further view of Kim ‘587 by using the display element structure disclosed in Kim ‘400 to enhance the device’s ability to capture leaking light and thus improve the performance of the device.
Shin in view of Hou in further view of Baek in further view of Kim ‘587 in further view of Kim ‘400 does not teach wherein the display device further comprises a low refractive valley between the display area and the optical structure, wherein a portion of the low refractive layer is accommodated in the low refractive valley, and wherein the optical structure is located outside of the low refractive valley in plan view.
Wu teaches wherein the display device further comprises a low refractive valley (Wu: Fig (1): 7) between the display area and the optical structure (structure under 10), wherein a portion of the low refractive layer (5) is accommodated in the low refractive valley (7), and wherein the optical structure (structure under 10) is located outside of the low refractive valley (7) in plan view.
Shin in view of Hou in further view of Baek in further view of Kim ‘587 in further view of Kim ‘400 and Wu are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Shin in view of Hou in further view of Baek in further view of Kim ‘587 in further view of Kim ‘400 by using the low refractive index material disclosed in Wu to improve the separation of light produced by the different parts of the pixels leading to a better performing display device.
PNG
media_image6.png
682
782
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14; Shin in view of Hou in further view of Baek in further view of Kim ‘587 in further view of Kim ‘400 in further view of Wu teach all the limitations of the display device of claim 13.
However, Shin in view of Hou in further view of Baek in further view of Kim ‘587 in further view of Kim ‘400 does not teach wherein the capping layer does not overlap with the optical interface in a plan view.
Wu teaches wherein the capping layer (Wu: Fig (1): 10) does not overlap with the optical interface (interface between 1 and 2 below 9) in plan view.
Shin in view of Hou in further view of Baek in further view of Kim ‘587 in further view of Kim ‘400 and Wu are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Shin in view of Hou in further view of Baek in further view of Kim ‘587 in further view of Kim ‘400 by making the capping layer not overlap the optical interface as disclosed in Wu to improve the light production quality of the device leading to a better performing display device.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al, US 20190288043 A1 (Shin) in view of Kim et al, US 20210202587 A1 (Kim ‘587) in further view of Hou et al, CN 112467005 A (Hou) in further view of Baek et al, US 20170160583 A1 (Baek).
Regarding claim 20; Shin teaches a display device comprising
a display area (Shin: Annotated Fig (5) shared in this OA: area that contains PXA) and a non-display area (area that contains NPXA), the display device comprising:
a substrate (SUB+IL);
a pixel (PXA) comprising: a pixel circuit layer (DP-CL) that is on the substrate (SUB+IL) in the display area, and that comprises an electrode layer (layer containing electrodes EL1 and EL2);
a display element layer (OEL) that is on the pixel circuit layer (DP-CL), and that comprises a light-emitting element (OEL) and an insulating layer (PDL); and
a color filter layer that is on the display element layer, and that comprises a color filter for absorbing light in a corresponding band;
an optical refractive layer over the substrate in the non-display area, having a bar shape or a plurality of island shapes surrounding the display area in plan view, and
an optical absorption layer on the optical refractive layer, and comprising a same material as the color filter,
wherein a refractive index of the optical refractive layer is greater than a refractive index of the substrate.
However, Shin does not teach a color filter layer that is on the display element layer, and that comprises a color filter for absorbing light in a corresponding band; an optical refractive layer over the substrate in the non-display area, having a bar shape or a plurality of island shapes surrounding the display area in pan view; and comprising a same material as the insulating layer; and an optical absorption layer on the optical refractive layer, and comprising a same material as the color filter.
Kim ‘587 teaches a color filter layer (313) that is on the display element layer (layer containing light emitting elements (OLED)), and that comprises a color filter (313) for absorbing light in a corresponding band; an optical refractive layer (320) over the substrate (100) in the non-display area (area under (320)), and comprising a same material as the insulating layer (320); and an optical absorption layer (301) on the optical refractive layer (320), and comprising a same material as the color filter (313). Shin and Kim ‘587 are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Shin by introducing the color filter and light reflective layers disclosed in Kim ‘587 to improve the sharpness of the light wavelength produced by the display device leading to a better performing device.
However, Shin in view of Kim ‘587 does not teach wherein a refractive index of the optical refractive layer is greater than a refractive index of the substrate.
Hou teaches wherein a refractive index of the optical refractive layer (AIN) is greater than a refractive index of the substrate (AI2O3) (see the specification of Hou: “…as shown in FIG. 10; and in the multi-layer composite substrate; the AlN film refractive index is higher than the SiO2 layer and the Al2O3 substrate;…”). Shin in view of Kim ‘587 and Hou are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Shin in view of Kim ‘587 by making the refractive index of the refractive layer higher than the refractive index of the substrate as disclosed in Hou to improve the amount of light extracted from the display device and thus leading to a more efficient device.
Shin in view of Kim ‘587 in further view of Hou does not teach the optical refractive layer having a bar shape or a plurality of island shapes surrounding the display area in pan view.
Baek teaches the optical refractive layer (Baek: Fig (5): 172) having a bar shape (see the bar shape of 172) or a plurality of island shapes surrounding the display area (DA) in plan view.
Shin in view of Kim ‘587 in further view of Hou and Baek are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Shin in view of Kim ‘587 in further view of Hou by constructing the optical structure such that it surrounds the display area and has the bar shape disclosed in Baek to reduce the light leakage phenomenon leading to a better performing display ([0107]: “Light-blocking layers 172 and 174 may be disposed over the pixel electrodes 162-1 and 162-2. The light-blocking layers 172 and 174 serve to prevent light leakage.”)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Moataz Khalifa whose telephone number is (703)756-1770. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (8:30 am - 5:00).
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, Kretelia Graham can be reached at (571) 272-5055. 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.
/M.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/Kretelia Graham/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights