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 .
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, 4, 5, 11-19, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bouthinon et al. (US 2021/0233975) hereinafter “Bouthinon” in view of Li et al. (US 2009/0147379) hereinafter “Li” and Son et al. (US 2021/0029318) hereinafter “Son” and in further view of Ryu et al. (US 2020/0381492) hereinafter “Ryu”.
Regarding claim 1, Fig. 1 of Bouthinon teaches a display device (Paragraph 0002) comprising: a substrate (Item 10); a plurality of light emitting portions, each of the plurality of light emitting portions comprising a light-emitting element (Item 16) disposed on the substrate (Item 10); a photoelectric conversion element (Item 18) configured to detect light from the light emitting element (Item 16); and a window (Item 24) disposed on the light-emitting element (Item 16) and the photoelectric conversion element (Item 18) and configured to transmit light (Paragraph 0088).
Bouthinon does not teach wherein a plurality of through holes that overlap the photoelectric conversion element in a thickness direction of the substrate are defined in the window, and each of a plurality of filling members is disposed in each of the plurality of through holes nor where the plurality of through holes do not overlap the light emitting element.
Fig. 2 of Li teaches a widow (Item 55), where a plurality of through holes (Items 60a…f) that overlap a photoelectric conversion element (Item 115) in a thickness direction of a substrate (Item 120) are defined in the window (Item 55), and each of a plurality of filling members is disposed in each of the plurality of through holes (Paragraph 0021 where the holes are filled with air or some other material having a lower refractive index from that of Item 55), where a material of the plurality of filling members is different (Paragraph 0021 where the filling material is air or some other material having a lower refractive index from that of Iten 55) from a material of the window (Item 55), where the plurality of through holes do not extend beyond an imaging pixel.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a plurality of through holes that overlap the photoelectric conversion element in a thickness direction of the substrate are defined in the window, and each of a plurality of filling members is disposed in each of the plurality of through holes, where a material of the plurality of filling members is different from a material of the window and the plurality of through holes do not overlap the light emitting element because this aids in focusing light towards the photoelectric conversion element (Li Paragraph 0021).
Bouthinon does not teach where each of the plurality of filling members is configured to transmit light in a visible light wavelength range.
Li further teaches where each of the filling members (Paragraph 0021 where the holes are filled with air or some other material having a lower refractive index from that of Item 55) is configured to transmit light in a visible light wavelength range (Paragraph 0021).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have each of the plurality of filling members is configured to transmit light in a visible light wavelength range because this allows for focusing of light in the window layer towards the photoelectric conversion element (Li Paragraph 0021).
Bouthinon does not teach where each of the plurality of filling members is configured to block light in a wavelength range other than the visible light wavelength range.
Son teaches where s film above a sensor meant to transmit external light, blocks only a predetermined frequency region, such as infrared rays, from external light introduced into the display device (Paragraph 0068).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have each of the plurality of filling members be configured to block light in a wavelength range other than the visible light wavelength range because this allows the filling members to selectively allow a desired frequency through such that the sensor below only receives light in a desired range (Son Paragraph 0068).
Bouthinon does not teach wherein the plurality of light emitting portions comprises a first light emitting portion emitting a first light, a second light emitting portion emitting a second light, a third light emitting portion emitting a third light and a fourth light emitting portion emitting the second light, and wherein a light-guiding area including the plurality of through holes is between the first light emitting area and the third light emitting area in a first direction and between the second light emitting area and the fourth light emitting area in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction.
Fig. 17 of Ryu teaches where a plurality of light emitting portions comprises a first light emitting portion (Item LA1) emitting a first light (Red), a second light emitting portion (Item LA2) emitting a second light (Green), a third light emitting portion (Item LA3) emitting a third light (Blue) and a fourth light emitting portion (Another of LA2) emitting the second light (Green), and wherein a light-guiding area (Item OPA) is between the first light emitting area (Item LA1) and the third light emitting area (Item LA3) in a first direction (Up and down across the page) and between the second light emitting area (Item LA2) and the fourth light emitting area (Another Item LA2) in a second direction (Left to right across the page) perpendicular to the first direction (Up and down across the page).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the plurality of light emitting portions comprise a first light emitting portion emitting a first light, a second light emitting portion emitting a second light, a third light emitting portion emitting a third light and a fourth light emitting portion emitting the second light, wherein a light-guiding area including a through hole is between the first light emitting area and the third light emitting area in a first direction and between the second light emitting area and the fourth light emitting area in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction because this orientation is known to allow the openings to sense a clearer fingerprint pattern while preventing or reducing diffraction of incident light (Ryu Paragraph 0106).
When the teaching in Ryu is combined with Bouthinon and Li as stated above the light guiding area will have the plurality of through holes such that the light-guiding area including the plurality of through holes is between the first light emitting area and the third light emitting area in a first direction and between the second light emitting area and the fourth light emitting area in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction.
Bouthinon does not teach wherein a refractive index of each of the plurality of filling members is 95% to 105% of a refractive index of the window.
However, the refractive index of the filling member is a result effective variable (Li Paragraph 0021 where the refractive index of the filling member will result in the direction in which incident light propagates through the window). In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because "obvious to try" is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding (MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the refractive index of the filling member such that the refractive index of each of the filling members is 95% to 105% because "[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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05).
Bouthinon does not teach that the filling members have a refractive index to prevent of through hole from being recognized from an outside of the display device. However, “to prevent the plurality of through holes from being recognized from an outside of the display device” is an intended result of the structural limitation “each of the plurality of filling members has a refractive index of 95% to 105% of a refractive index of the window”. Therefore, when each of the plurality of filling members has a refractive index of 95% to 105% of a refractive index of the window as is rendered obvious by the teaching in Li above, the result will be the prevention of the plurality of through holes from being recognized from an outside of the display device.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Bouthinon, Li, Son and Ryu teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Bouthinon does not explicitly teach where a thickness of the window is 0.2 mm or more.
However, Bouthinon further teaches where the window may have a thickness between 0.1 mm and 0.3 mm (Paragraph 0089).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a thickness of the window be 0.2 mm or more because “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” (MPEP 2144.05; See also In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)).
Regarding claim 5, Bouthinon further teaches where a thickness of the window (Item 24) is less than 0.2 mm (Paragraph 0089).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Bouthinon, Li, Son and Ryu teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Bouthinon does not teach where each of the plurality of through holes extends in parallel to the thickness direction of the substrate.
Li further teaches where each of the plurality of through holes (Items 60a…60f) extends in parallel to the thickness direction of the substrate (Item 120).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have each of the plurality of through holes extend in parallel to the thickness direction of the substrate because this allows for focusing of light in the window layer towards the photoelectric conversion element (Li Paragraph 0021).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Bouthinon, Li, Son and Ryu teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Bouthinon does not teach where a height of each of the plurality of through holes in the thickness direction of the substrate is equal to a height of the window.
Li further teaches where a height of each of the plurality of through holes (Items 60a…60f) in the thickness direction of the substrate (Item 120) is equal to a height of the window (Item 55).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a height of each of the plurality of through holes in the thickness direction of the substrate is equal to a height of the window because this allows for focusing of light in the window layer towards the photoelectric conversion element (Li Paragraph 0021).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Bouthinon, Li, Son and Ryu teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Bouthinon does not teach where each of the plurality of through holes has a circular shape in a plan view.
Fig. 1A of Li further teaches where each of the plurality of through holes (Items 60a…60f) has a circular shape in a plan view.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have each of the plurality of through holes have a circular shape in a plan view because this allows for focusing of light in the window layer towards the photoelectric conversion element (Li Paragraph 0021).
Regarding claim 14, Fig. 13 of Bouthinon further teaches where each of the plurality of through holes (Items 106) has a linear shape (Where the through hole extends in an up down direction in Fig. 13) in a plan view.
Regarding claim 15, Fig. 1 of Bouthinon further teaches where the light-emitting element (Item 16) includes a pixel electrode (Item 14), a light-emitting layer (Item 30), and a common electrode (Item 22) which are sequentially stacked in the thickness direction of the substrate (Item 10), and the photoelectric conversion element (Item 18) includes a first electrode (Item 15), a photoelectric conversion layer (Combination of Items 40, 42 and 44), and the common electrode (Item 22) which are sequentially stacked in the thickness direction of the substrate (Item 10).
Regarding claim 16, Figs. 1 and 3 of Bouthinon teach a display device (Paragraph 0002) comprising: a substrate (Item 10); a plurality of light-emitting portions (Item 16), each of the plurality of light emitting portions comprising a light emitting element disposed on the substrate (Item 10); a plurality of light-sensing portions (Item 18) disposed on the substrate (Item 10) and configured to detect light from the plurality of light emitting portions (Item 16); a bank (Item 20) configured to partition the plurality of light emitting portions (Items 16) and the plurality of light sensing portions (Items 18); and a window (Item 24) disposed on the bank (Item 20), where the window is transparent (Paragraph 0088).
Bouthinon does not teach wherein the window includes a plurality of light guiding areas that overlap the plurality of light sensing portions in a thickness direction of the substrate, each of the plurality of light-guiding areas includes a plurality of through holes, each of a plurality of filling members is disposed in each of the plurality of through holes, and each of each of the plurality of filling members are transparent, wherein a material of the plurality of filling members is different from a material of the window, nor where the plurality of through holes do not overlap the light emitting element.
Fig. 2 of Li teaches a widow (Item 55), where the window includes a light guiding area (Combination of Item 55 and 60) that overlaps a light sensing portion (Item 115) in a thickness direction of a substrate (Item 120), each of a plurality of through holes (Items 60a…60f) is defined in each of the plurality of light guiding areas, a plurality of filling members (Paragraph 0021) are disposed in the plurality of through holes, and where the plurality of filling members are transparent (Paragraph 0021 where the through holes are filled with air of some other material having a lower refractive index than Item 55), where a material of the plurality of filling members is different (Paragraph 0021 where the filling material is air or some other material having a lower refractive index from that of Item 55) from a material of the window (Item 55), where the plurality of through holes do not extend beyond an imaging pixel.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the window includes a plurality of light guiding areas that overlap the plurality of light sensing portions in a thickness direction of the substrate, each of the plurality of light-guiding areas includes a plurality of through holes, each of a plurality of filling members is disposed in each of the plurality of through holes, and each of each of the plurality of filling members are transparent, wherein a material of the plurality of filling members is different from a material of the window, where the plurality of through holes do not overlap the light emitting element because this configuration aids in focusing light towards the photoelectric conversion element (Li Paragraph 0021).
Bouthinon does not teach where each of the plurality of filling members is configured to transmit light in a visible light wavelength range.
Li further teaches where each of the filling members (Paragraph 0021 where the holes are filled with air or some other material having a lower refractive index from that of Item 55) is configured to transmit light in a visible light wavelength range (Paragraph 0021).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have each of the plurality of filling members is configured to transmit light in a visible light wavelength range because this allows for focusing of light in the window layer towards the photoelectric conversion element (Li Paragraph 0021).
Bouthinon does not teach where each of the plurality of filling members is configured to block light in a wavelength range other than the visible light wavelength range.
Son teaches where s film above a sensor meant to transmit external light, blocks only a predetermined frequency region, such as infrared rays, from external light introduced into the display device (Paragraph 0068).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have each of the plurality of filling members be configured to block light in a wavelength range other than the visible light wavelength range because this allows the filling members to selectively allow a desired frequency through such that the sensor below only receives light in a desired range (Son Paragraph 0068).
Bouthinon does not teach wherein the plurality of light emitting portions comprises a first light emitting portion emitting a first light, a second light emitting portion emitting a second light, a third light emitting portion emitting a third light and a fourth light emitting portion emitting the second light, and wherein a light-guiding area including the plurality of through holes is between the first light emitting area and the third light emitting area in a first direction and between the second light emitting area and the fourth light emitting area in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction.
Fig. 17 of Ryu teaches where a plurality of light emitting portions comprises a first light emitting portion (Item LA1) emitting a first light (Red), a second light emitting portion (Item LA2) emitting a second light (Green), a third light emitting portion (Item LA3) emitting a third light (Blue) and a fourth light emitting portion (Another of LA2) emitting the second light (Green), and wherein a light-guiding area (Item OPA) is between the first light emitting area (Item LA1) and the third light emitting area (Item LA3) in a first direction (Up and down across the page) and between the second light emitting area (Item LA2) and the fourth light emitting area (Another Item LA2) in a second direction (Left to right across the page) perpendicular to the first direction (Up and down across the page).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the plurality of light emitting portions comprise a first light emitting portion emitting a first light, a second light emitting portion emitting a second light, a third light emitting portion emitting a third light and a fourth light emitting portion emitting the second light, wherein a light-guiding area including a through hole is between the first light emitting area and the third light emitting area in a first direction and between the second light emitting area and the fourth light emitting area in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction because this orientation is known to allow the openings to sense a clearer fingerprint pattern while preventing or reducing diffraction of incident light (Ryu Paragraph 0106).
When the teaching in Ryu is combined with Bouthinon and Li as stated above the light guiding area will have the plurality of through holes such that the light-guiding area including the plurality of through holes is between the first light emitting area and the third light emitting area in a first direction and between the second light emitting area and the fourth light emitting area in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction.
Bouthinon does not teach wherein a refractive index of each of the plurality of filling members is 95% to 105% of a refractive index of the window.
However, the refractive index of the filling member is a result effective variable (Li Paragraph 0021 where the refractive index of the filling member will result in the direction in which incident light propagates through the window). In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because "obvious to try" is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding (MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the refractive index of the filling member such that the refractive index of each of the filling members is 95% to 105% because "[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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05).
Bouthinon does not teach that the filling members have a refractive index to prevent of through hole from being recognized from an outside of the display device. However, “to prevent the plurality of through holes from being recognized from an outside of the display device” is an intended result of the structural limitation “each of the plurality of filling members has a refractive index of 95% to 105% of a refractive index of the window”. Therefore, when each of the plurality of filling members has a refractive index of 95% to 105% of a refractive index of the window as is rendered obvious by the teaching in Li above, the result will be the prevention of the plurality of through holes from being recognized from an outside of the display device.
Regarding claim 18, Figs. 3 of Bouthinon further teaches where each of the plurality of light sensing portions (Item 18) is disposed between two light-emitting portions (Item 16) adjacent to each other in a first direction (Up and down across the page) and is disposed between two light-emitting portions (Item 16) adjacent to each other in a second direction (Left to right across the page) that intersects the first direction.
When the light guiding area taught by Li is formed over the plurality of light sensing regions of Bouthinon, a plurality of light guiding areas will be disposed between two light-emitting portions adjacent to each other in a first direction and is disposed between two light-emitting portions adjacent to each other in a second direction that intersects the first direction.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Bouthinon, Li, Son and Ryu teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Bouthinon does not teach where a number of the plurality of through holes disposed in each of the plurality of light guiding areas is at least 12 or more.
Li further teaches where a number of through holes (Items 60) disposed in one of the plurality of light guiding areas (Item 50) is at least 12 or more.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a number of through holes disposed in each of the plurality of light guiding areas be at least 12 or more because this makes it possible to achieve an off center focus of light onto the light sensing portion (Li Paragraph 0023).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Bouthinon, Li, Son and Ryu teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
The embodiment of Fig. 1 of Bouthinon does not teach a light blocking layer disposed between the bank and the window and configured to block light, wherein a light-transmitting hole that transmits light is defined in the light blocking layer, and a diameter in one direction of the light-transmitting hole is narrower than a diameter in one direction of each of the plurality of light-sensing portions.
However, Fig. 11 of Bouthinon teaches a light blocking layer (Item 94) disposed between a bank (Item 72) and a window (Item 102) and configured to block light (Paragraph 0149), wherein a light-transmitting hole (Item 108) that transmits light is defined in the light blocking layer, and a diameter in one direction of the light-transmitting hole is narrower than a diameter in one direction of the light-sensing portion (Item 108).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a light blocking layer disposed between the bank and the window and configured to block light, wherein a light-transmitting hole that transmits light is defined in the light blocking layer, and a diameter in one direction of the light-transmitting hole is narrower than a diameter in one direction of each of the plurality of light-sensing portions because the this allows for the light emitted by the active region of the light-emitting diode to pass and blocks the other wavelengths (Bouthinon Paragraph 0149).
Regarding claim 22, Fig. 1 of Bouthinon further teaches where each of the plurality of light-emitting portions (Item 16) is defined by a pixel electrode (Item 14) disposed on the substrate (Item 10), the bank (Item 20) configured to expose the pixel electrode (Item 14), and a common electrode (Item 22) disposed on the pixel electrode (Item 14), and each of the plurality of light-sensing portions (Item 18) is defined by a first electrode (Item 15) disposed on the substrate (Item 10), the bank (Item 20) configured to expose the first electrode (Item 15), and the common electrode (Item 22) disposed on the first electrode (Item 15).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bouthinon et al. (US 2021/0233975) hereinafter “Bouthinon” in view of Li et al. (US 2009/0147379) hereinafter “Li”, Son et al. (US 2021/0029318) hereinafter “Son” and Ryu et al. (US 2020/0381492) hereinafter “Ryu” and in further view of Wu et al. (US 2020/0098808) hereinafter “Wu”.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Bouthinon, Li, Son and Ryu teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where each of the plurality of filling members includes at least one of silicon resin, urethane resin, acryl resin, epoxy resin, phenolic resin, polyamide resin, or polyimide resin.
Wu teaches where a layer that is designed to reflect or block certain infrared wavelengths of light while passing visible light is made of acryl resin (Paragraph 0019).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the plurality of filling members include acryl resin because this is a known material which allows for filtering of light (Wu Paragraph 0019) and since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), and MPEP 2144.07 Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bouthinon et al. (US 2021/0233975) hereinafter “Bouthinon” in view of Li et al. (US 2009/0147379) hereinafter “Li”, Son et al. (US 2021/0029318) hereinafter “Son” and Ryu et al. (US 2020/0381492) hereinafter “Ryu” and in further view of Kang et al. (US 2016/0154278) hereinafter “Kang”.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Bouthinon, Li, Son and Ryu teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where each of the plurality of filling members has a functional group of a thiol-ene group.
Kang teaches where a functional group of a thiol-ene group is used as photopolymerization functional group (Paragraph 0012).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have each of the plurality of filling members have a functional group of a thiol-ene group because the thiol-ene group is known to remove side effects (non-uniformity) created when a polymer network forms (Kang Paragraph 0077).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bouthinon et al. (US 2021/0233975) hereinafter “Bouthinon” in view of Li et al. (US 2009/0147379) hereinafter “Li”, Son et al. (US 2021/0029318) hereinafter “Son” and Ryu et al. (US 2020/0381492) hereinafter “Ryu” and in further view of Hai et al. (US 2021/0174049) hereinafter “Hai”.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Bouthinon, Li, Son and Ryu teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Bouthinon further teaches where the light emitted from the light emitting element (Item 16) has a wavelength range of visible light (Paragraph 0088).
Bouthinon does not teach a diameter in one direction of each of the plurality of through holes is equal to the wavelength range of the visible light.
Fig.1 of Hai teaches through holes (Item 21) where visible light travels through to reach a photosensor (Item 3) and where the diameter of each of the plurality of through holes is a result effective variable (Hai Paragraph 0050 where a height to width ratio of each through hole, of which the diameter (width) of the through hole will have a direct correlation, will directly affect the incident angle of light which can transmit through the through holes). In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because "obvious to try" is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding (MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the diameter of the through hole such that the diameter in one direction of each of the plurality of through holes is equal to the wavelength range of the visible light because "[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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Bouthinon, Li, Son, Ryu and Hai teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Bouthinon does not teach the diameter in one direction of each of the plurality of through holes is 410 nanometers to 580 nanometers.
Fig.1 of Hai teaches through holes (Item 21) where visible light travels through to reach a photosensor (Item 3) and where the diameter of each of the plurality of through holes is a result effective variable (Hai Paragraph 0050 where a height to width ratio of each through hole, of which the diameter (width) of the through hole will have a direct correlation, will directly affect the incident angle of light which can transmit through the through holes). In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because "obvious to try" is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding (MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the diameter of the through hole such that the diameter in one direction of each of the plurality of through holes is 410 nanometers to 580 nanometers because "[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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bouthinon et al. (US 2021/0233975) hereinafter “Bouthinon” in view of Li et al. (US 2009/0147379) hereinafter “Li”, Son et al. (US 2021/0029318) hereinafter “Son” and Ryu et al. (US 2020/0381492) hereinafter “Ryu” and in further view of Araki et al. (US 2024/0290134) hereinafter “Araki”.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Bouthinon, Li, Son and Ryu teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where the plurality of through holes do not overlap the bank in the thickness direction of the substrate.
Fig. 8 of Araki teaches where a plurality of through holes (Items 51) in a light guiding area (Item 50) is present only over an area occupied by a photo sensor (Item 30).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the plurality of through holes remain only present over the light sensing portion such that the plurality of through holes do not overlap the bank in the thickness direction of the substrate because this configuration directs light towards the light sensing portions (Araki Paragraph 0034).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, with respect to claims 1 and 16, the Applicant argues that the Examiner’s reliance on an “obvious to try” rationale does not support a prima facie case of obviousness because the elements required by an “obvious to try” rationale stated by MPEP 2143 are not present. The Examiner notes that the elements of an obvious to try rationale are not required as the Examiner did not and continues to not rely on an obvious to try rationale. Instead, the Examiner relies on an optimization rationale based on an identified result effective variable to reject the claim. MPEP 2144.05 (II)(B) states “In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because "obvious to try" is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding.” In relying on this the Examiner is relying on a portion of the MPEP that specifically states that “obvious to try” is not the rational ebeing relied upon and instead an optimization rationale is relied upon based finding the optimal range for a variable that has a recognized result. Thus, the Examiner does not find the Applicant’s argument persuasive and continues to rely on the optimization rationale to reject previous claim 8 (which has not been incorporated in claim 1). Further, the added limitation “to prevent the plurality of through holes from being recognized from an outside of the display device” seems to be a result of the 95%-110% range recited in the claim and thus if the range is rendered obvious the result of the structure would follow.
Lastly, the Applicant argues that the combination of references does not teach plurality of through holes do not overlap the light emitting element. However, as the Examiner has stated in the rejection of claims 1 and 16 above, Li teaches where the plurality of holes does not extend beyond an imaging pixel. Thus, when the teaching of Li is applied to the combination, the plurality of holes will not overlap with the light emitting elements. As such, the Examiner does not find the Applicant’s arguments persuasive and continues to rely on the previous combination to reject the claims.
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 ERIC K ASHBAHIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5187. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5:30 PM.
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, Matthew Landau can be reached on 571-272-1731. 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.
/ERIC K ASHBAHIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Prosecution Insights