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
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/12/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the communications filed 2/10/2026 and 3/12/2026.
Cancellation of claims 1, 7, and 12, filed 2/10/2026, are acknowledged and accepted.
Amendments to claims 2-3, 6, 8, 10, and 11, filed 2/10/2026, are acknowledged and accepted.
Response to Arguments
On pgs. 13-15 of the Remarks, filed 2/10/2026, Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 2 have been fully considered but are moot because the Applicant is arguing newly amended claims, filed 2/10/2026, not the Final Rejection, filed 11/13/2025. Newly amended claims are argued below.
Specification
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The disclosure is objected to because the specification is replete with informalities and terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some informalities and unclear, inexact, or verbose terms used in the specification are listed as follows:
paragraphs are inconsistently/improperly numbered across the entire specification
in ¶ 9, lines 8-10, “it takes time about 100 times to 100 times to provide a layer having the same thickness as a gas barrier layer of an organic material to be obtained by a coating method” is grammatically defective and unclear
in the second paragraph following ¶ 6, the entire paragraph consists of a single sentence that is overloaded with poorly coordinated phrases and clauses, and its verbosity, redundancy, and grammatical ambiguity make it generally difficult to parse and understand; ¶ 10 is substantially similar to the second paragraph following ¶ 6 and thus suffers the same issues
in ¶ 11, lines 1-14, the first sentence of the paragraph is overloaded with poorly coordinated phrases and clauses, and its verbosity, redundancy, and grammatical ambiguity make it generally difficult to parse and understand
in the paragraph prior to ¶ 255, line 2 reciting “adding amount of the dye” is nonidiomatic, as is the parallel term “the kind of the dye”. Possible correction involves replacing “the kind or adding amount of the dye” on lines 1-2 with “the kind of dye or the amount of dye added”
in the paragraph following ¶ 311, lines 2-3 reciting “base material-attached base material-attached” is improper duplication
Examiner notes that this list is not exhaustive, and reiterates that the specification should
be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a). Applicant’s specification should be provided in clear and proper idiomatic English and contain no new matter.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 8, lines 4-6, the limitation “in the formula, […]” is not properly integrated into the sentence structure of the claim. Possible remedy for this grammatical deficiency may involve replacing “in the formula” with “where” or by prepending it with “where,” (with a comma).
In claim 9, lines 4-11, the limitation(s) “in the formula […]”produces improper sentence structure in the same manner as claim 8 above.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 2-6 and 8-11 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.
Regarding claim 2, the claim is generally unclear and improper in structure and organization. It consists of multiple distinct limitations that are broken into sub-clauses before being combined in a single undifferentiated/unstructured list flowing beneath the initial “comprising” list header on line 1. The claim therefore lacks a clear/consistent grammatical, logical, or organization framework, which generates ambiguity and indefiniteness, and obscures the relationship between limitations.
For example, lines 2-3 recite “the following dyes A,B, and C;” only to interrupt the claim by meandering through other limitations before returning to the matter of defining each dye on line 10. Additionally, multiple “wherein” clauses are distributed across the claim (lines 5, 16, 24) but have no clear antecedent attachment. Note that the “wherein” on line 24 appears largely improper since, besides the chemical/general formula (3), yet another “wherein” was literally recited immediately prior to it (line 17).
Between lines 24-50 also, the claim repeatedly reintroduces the same variables which is improperly redundant and further generates significant confusion and antecedence issues. Among such statements, lines 40-41, 41-55, and 48-49 – reestablishing that “R3 and R4 each independently represent a hydrogen atom or a substituent, and they respectively have the same meanings as R3” – are defective for listing both R3 and R4, then tying them to only a single referent R3 when “respectively” explicitly requires parallelism through one-to-one mapping. And despite tying them to the same referent, it had also stated that they “each independently represent […]” which is internally inconsistent. The limitation is further ungrammatical, with “R3 and R4 […] have the same meanings as R3” being linguistically awkward and unclear.
Furthermore, apparently regarding reintroduction of variables B1 to B4, lines 32-33 state “the same applies to the preferred ranges thereof”, but the phrase is not clearly attached to any object. Both its meaning and significance are therefore unclear.
Further regarding claim 2, line 5 recites “the wavelength selective filter” which lacks a proper antecedent basis. For examination purposes “the wavelength selective filter” shall be read as “the wavelength selective absorption filter” as earlier introduced on line 2 of the same claim.
Regarding claim 8, lines 4-6 either reintroduces or redefines R1 through R6 in an improperly redundant or contradictory manner (i.e. due to amended claim 2) and now generates significant confusion as well as antecedence issues.
Further regarding claim 8, and also regarding claim 9, line 4 of each claim recites “the formula” which lacks a proper antecedent basis. For examination purposes, “the formula” of claims 8 and 9 are read as “General Formula (A1)” and “General Formula (IV)”, respectively.
Claims not specifically addressed in the rejection above inherit the indefiniteness of the claim from which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 3, both limitations (“wherein the wavelength selective absorption filter […]”, “the gas barrier layer contains […]”) recited on lines 2-6 are already recited verbatim in claim 2, lines 5-9. Claim 3 thus fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 2 upon which it depends (following the most recently filed amendments).
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 2-3, 5, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoneyama and Amimori (JP 2008203436 A, hereinafter “Yoneyama”) in view of Kobashi et al (JP 2019008294 A, hereinafter “Kobashi”) and Sekine and Ookubo (WO 2008090757 A1, hereinafter “Sekine”).
Regarding claim 2, Yoneyama discloses a self-luminous display device comprising:
a wavelength selective absorption filter (“optical filter”, ¶s 9-14) containing a resin (“support”, ¶ 35) and the following dyes A, B, and C;
the dye A: a dye having a main absorption wavelength band at a wavelength of 390 to 435 nm (¶ 24 recites a dye with an absorption maximum of 380 to 420 nm, which overlaps substantially with the claimed range);
the dye B: a dye having a main absorption wavelength band at a wavelength of 500 to 520 nm (¶ 24 recites a dye with an absorption maximum of 480 to 520 nm, which encompasses the claimed range); and
the dye C: a dye having a main absorption wavelength band at a wavelength of 580 to 620 nm (¶ 24 recites a dye with an absorption maximum of 585 to 620 nm, which spans a substantial portion of the claimed range),
wherein the dye B is a squaraine-based coloring agent (¶ 18: “As dyes having an absorption maximum in the wavelength range of 480 nm to 520 nm, squarylium-based […] are preferably used”)
Yoneyama does not disclose:
a light emitting diode as a light emitting source,
wherein the wavelength selective filter has a gas barrier layer directly disposed on at least one surface of the wavelength selective absorption filter, and
the gas barrier layer contains a crystalline resin, where a thickness of the gas barrier layer is 0.1 μm to 10 μm, and an oxygen permeability of the gas barrier layer is 60 cc/m2·day·atm or less,
PNG
media_image1.png
176
542
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the dye B is a squaraine-based coloring agent represented by any one of General Formulae (3) to (5) and (7) to (9), wherein:
wherein R1 and R2 each independently represent a hydrogen atom or a substituent, R1 and R2 may be the same as or different from each other, and may be bonded to each other to form a ring, B1 to B4 each independently represent a carbon atom or a nitrogen atom, and R3 and R4 each independently represent a hydrogen
PNG
media_image2.png
168
466
media_image2.png
Greyscale
atom or a substituent;
PNG
media_image3.png
171
532
media_image3.png
Greyscale
R1 and R2 each independently represent a hydrogen atom or a substituent, R1 and R2 may be the same as or different from each other, and may be bonded to each other to form a ring, B1 to B4 each independently represent a carbon atom or a nitrogen atom, and they have respectively the same meanings as B1 to B4 in General Formula (2), where the same applies to the preferred ranges thereof, and R5 and R6 each independently represent a hydrogen atom or a substituent;
R1 and R2 each independently represent a hydrogen atom or a substituent, R1 and R2 may be the same as or different from each other, and may be bonded to each other to form a ring, B1 to B4 each independently represent a carbon atom or a nitrogen atom, R7 and R8 each independently represent a hydrogen atom or a substituent;
PNG
media_image4.png
158
398
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
131
377
media_image5.png
Greyscale
R3 and R4 each independently represent a hydrogen atom or a substituent, and they respectively have the same meanings as R3 in General Formula (3), two R3's and two R4's may be the same or different from each other;
PNG
media_image6.png
152
490
media_image6.png
Greyscale
R3 and R4 each independently represent a hydrogen atom or a substituent, and they respectively have the same meanings as R3 in General Formula (3), R5 and R6 each independently represent a hydrogen atom or a substituent; and
R3 and R4 each independently represent a hydrogen atom or a substituent, and they respectively have the same meanings as R3 in General Formula (3), R7 and R8 each independently represent a hydrogen atom or a substituent.
Yoneyama and Kobashi commonly relate to light-absorbing layers for display devices.
Kobashi discloses (see ¶ 122, FIG. 4):
a light emitting diode (“OLED cell”) as a light emitting source (light emitting element 110),
wherein the wavelength selective filter (light selective absorption layer 10) has a gas barrier layer (oxygen shielding layer 20) directly disposed on at least one surface of the wavelength selective absorption filter (light selective absorption layer 10), and
the gas barrier layer (oxygen shielding layer 20) contains a crystalline resin (see also ¶s 100-101, reciting a polyester-based resin – polyester being (semi)crystalline), where a thickness of the gas barrier layer (oxygen shielding layer 20) is 0.1 μm to 10 μm (¶s 100-101 also recite a preferred thickness between 0.1 and 200 μm, which encompasses the claimed range), and an oxygen permeability of the gas barrier layer (oxygen shielding layer 20) is 60 cc/m2·day·atm or less (see also ¶ 11 reciting preferred oxygen permeabilities ≤ 100 cc/(m2 day atm), which encompasses the claimed range).
Yoneyama and Sekine commonly relate to squaraine dyes for display devices.
Sekine discloses:
PNG
media_image1.png
176
542
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the dye B is a squaraine-based coloring agent represented by any one of General Formulae (3) to (5) and (7) to (9), wherein:
wherein R1 and R2 each independently represent a hydrogen atom or a substituent, R1 and R2 may be the same as or different from each other, and may be bonded to each other to form a ring, B1 to B4 each independently represent a carbon atom or a nitrogen atom, and R3 and R4 each independently represent a hydrogen atom or a substituent.
(See regarding general formulas 1-2 among items 1-6 on pg. 4 – corresponding to ¶s 15-23 of the original foreign document.)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Yoneyama with Kobashi’s (O)LED light source, in order to provide more modern/superior display performance (as compared to standard plasma, LCD, etc.), and with Kobashi’s oxygen shielding layer, in order to suppress deterioration of light-selective layers (Kobashi ¶ 11).
It would have also been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Yoneyama with teachings of Sekine, in order to provide squarylium dyes with improved spectral absorption characteristics, compatibility, and weather resistance (Sekine pg. 4, ¶ 13).
Regarding claim 3, modified Yoneyama discloses the self-luminous display device according to claim 2.
Kobashi also discloses (refer again to ¶ 122, FIG. 4):
wherein the wavelength selective absorption filter (light selective absorption layer 10) has a gas barrier layer (oxygen shielding layer 20) directly disposed on at least one surface of the wavelength selective absorption filter (light selective absorption layer 10), and
the gas barrier layer (oxygen shielding layer 20) contains a crystalline resin (see also ¶s 100-101, reciting a polyester-based resin – polyester being (semi)crystalline), where a thickness of the gas barrier layer (oxygen shielding layer 20) is 0.1 μm to 10 μm (¶s 100-101 also recite a preferred thickness between 0.1 and 200 μm, which encompasses the claimed range), and an oxygen permeability of the gas barrier layer (oxygen shielding layer 20) is 60 cc/m2·day·atm or less (see also ¶ 11 reciting preferred oxygen permeabilities ≤ 100 cc/(m2 day atm), which encompasses the claimed range).
(all of which was already established in regards to claim 2 above. See Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 above)
Regarding claim 5, modified Yoneyama discloses the self-luminous display device according to claim 2.
Kobashi further discloses wherein the oxygen permeability of the gas barrier layer (oxygen shielding layer 20) is 0.001 cc/m2·day·atm or more and 60 cc/m2·day·atm or less. (See ¶ 11 reciting preferred oxygen permeabilities ≤ 100 cc/(m2 day atm), which encompasses the claimed range.)
Regarding claim 10, modified Yoneyama discloses the self-luminous display device according to claim 2.
Yoneyama further discloses wherein the resin (“support”) in the wavelength selective absorption filter (“optical filter”) includes a polystyrene resin (see ¶ 35 reciting polystyrenes).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoneyama in view of Kobashi and Sekine, as applied to claim 2 above, and in further view of Hongo and Nishio (WO 2019082834 A1, hereinafter “Hongo”).
Regarding claim 4, modified Yoneyama discloses the self-luminous display device according to claim 2.
Modified Yoneyama does not disclose wherein a degree of crystallinity of the crystalline resin contained in the gas barrier layer is 25% or more.
Yoneyama and Hongo commonly relate to optical layers for display devices.
Hongo discloses wherein a degree of crystallinity of the crystalline resin (“polyester film”) contained in the gas barrier layer is 25% or more. (See ¶ 38 reciting the polyester film having a preferred degree of crystallinity > 48%, which is encompassed by the claimed range.)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Yoneyama with Hongo’s polyester films, in order to provide high pencil hardness and durability at low cost (Hongo ¶ 7).
Claims 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoneyama in view of Kobashi and Sekine, as applied to claim 2 above, and in further view of Yonemoto et al (JP 2016001302 A, hereinafter “Yonemoto”).
Regarding claim 6, modified Yoneyama discloses the self-luminous display device according to claim 2.
Modified Yoneyama does not disclose wherein the wavelength selective absorption filter contains an antifading agent for a dye.
Yoneyama and Yonemoto commonly relate to optical dyes for display devices.
Yonemoto discloses wherein the wavelength selective absorption filter contains an antifading agent for a dye. (See ¶s 37-39 including general formulas (1)-(6) regarding compounds which protect against oxidative deactivation and neutralize radicals and peroxides – principles on which antifading agents generally operate.)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Yoneyama with Yonemoto’s antifading agent, in order to maintain display aesthetics and performance by preventing dye degradation (Yonemoto ¶ 37).
Regarding claim 9, modified Yoneyama discloses the self-luminous display device according to claim 6.
Yonemoto further discloses:
PNG
media_image7.png
210
527
media_image7.png
Greyscale
wherein the antifading agent is represented by General Formula (IV),
in the formula, R10’s (R41’s) each independently represent an alkyl group, an alkenyl group, an aryl group, a heterocyclic group, or a group represented by R18CO-, R19SO2-, or R20NHCO-, where R18, R19, and R20 each independently represent an alkyl group, an alkenyl group, an aryl group, or a heterocyclic group,
R11 (R46) and R12 (R43) each independently represent a hydrogen atom, a halogen atom, an alkyl group, an alkenyl group, an alkoxy group, or an alkenyloxy group, and
R13 to R17 (Ra-3, Ra4, omitted H-bonds) each independently represent a hydrogen atom, an alkyl group, an alkenyl group, or an aryl group.
(See general formula (2) and ¶ 39.).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoneyama in view of Kobashi and Sekine, as applied to claim 2 above, and in further view of Sugita et al (JP 2002207268 A, hereinafter “Sugita”).
Regarding claim 8, modified Yoneyama discloses the self-luminous display device according to claim 2.
Modified Yoneyama does not disclose:
PNG
media_image8.png
152
458
media_image8.png
Greyscale
wherein the dye A is a coloring agent represented by General Formula (A1),
in the formula, Rl and R2 each independently represent an alkyl group or an aryl group, R3 to R6 each independently represent a hydrogen atom or a substituent, and R5 and R6 may be bonded to each other to form a 6-membered ring.
Yoneyama and Sugita commonly relate to absorptive optical dyes.
Sugita discloses:
wherein the dye A is a coloring agent represented by General Formula (A1),
in the formula, R1 and R2 each independently represent an alkyl group or an aryl group, R3 to R6 each independently represent a hydrogen atom or a substituent, and R5 and R6 may be bonded to each other to form a 6-membered ring.
(See the annotated formula (18) below.)
PNG
media_image9.png
631
622
media_image9.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Sugita’s chemical formula (18) is annotated to identify various components)]It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Yoneyama with Sugita’s coloring agent, in order to improve dye stability and diffusion-resistance (Sugita ¶s 1, 5).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoneyama in view of Kobashi and Sekine, as applied to claim 2 above, and in further view of Garner and Sorensen (WO 2019079539 A1, hereinafter “Garner”).
Regarding claim 11, modified Yoneyama discloses the self-luminous display device according to claim 2.
Modified Yoneyama does not disclose wherein the light emitting diode includes a mini light emitting diode or a micro light emitting diode.
Yoneyama and Garner commonly relate to light-absorbing layers for display devices.
Garner discloses (see FIGs. 1-2(A,B), ¶s 19-21) wherein the light emitting diode (pixel emitters 32) includes a mini light emitting diode or a micro light emitting diode (¶ 21 recites micro LEDs).
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Yoneyama using design aspects of Garner’s display panel, in order to reduce the amount of ambient or stray light reflecting off internal display components and limit the lowering of image quality (Garner ¶s 4-8).
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 WAI-GA D. HO whose telephone number is (571)270-1624. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 10AM - 6PM E.T..
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at (571) 272-2434. 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.
/W.D.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights