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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 – 8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 3, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Masanori (JP 2015-56335, applicant supplied translation).
Regarding claim 1, Masanori teaches (FIG. 1, 5 – 7):
An electro-optical device comprising:
a substrate (10) having a rectangular shape in plan view (FIG. 1);
a display unit (region E) provided with a light-emitting element (62) at the substrate;
a plurality of first inspection terminals (24) provided, in plan view (FIG. 1), between the display unit and a second side that is on an opposite side of the rectangular shape from a first side, at the substrate, each of the plurality of first inspection terminals being covered with an insulating film (insulating layer 51 is provided as a blanket CVD process, then subsequently patterned to expose inspection terminals 24), the insulating film being configured to be opened, during inspection, with a hole to expose the first inspection terminal; and
a light shielding member (color filter 60 over inspection terminal 24 comprises all three RGB color layers and therefore acts as a light shielding member) provided that covers the plurality of first inspection terminals in plan view (FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 2, Masanori teaches:
The electro-optical device according to claim 1, wherein the light shielding member is provided that surrounds the display unit in plan view (FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Masanori teaches (FIG. 5):
The electro-optical device according to claim 2, wherein in the light shielding member, a first color layer configured to color light emitted from a light-emitting element in a first color, a second color layer configured to color the light emitted from the light-emitting element in a second color, and a third color layer configured to color the light emitted from the light- emitting element in a third color are layered in this order (60B, 60G, 60R).
Regarding claim 7, Masanori teaches (FIG. 1):
The electro-optical device according to claim 1, wherein the substrate includes a plurality of second inspection terminals provided, in plan view, outside the display unit and between the display unit and a third side coupled to the first side of the rectangular shape, and a plurality of third inspection terminals provided, in plan view, outside the display unit and between the display unit and a fourth side that is on an opposite side of the rectangular shape from the third side, and the light shielding member is provided so as to cover the plurality of second inspection terminals and the plurality of third inspection terminals.
Regarding claim 8, Masanori teaches:
An electronic apparatus comprising the electro-optical device according to claim 1.
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 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masanori as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Toya et al. (US 2015/0102376).
Regarding claim 4, Masanori teaches a stacked light blocking layer at the edge of the device, but fails to explicitly show:
The electro-optical device according to claim 3, wherein in plan view, an end portion of the first color layer forming the light shielding member is positioned on an outer side than an end portion of the second color layer forming the light shielding member and an end portion of the third color layer forming the light shielding member, the end portion of the second color layer forming the light shielding member is positioned on an outer side than the end portion of the third color layer forming the light shielding member, and the end portion of the third color layer forming the light shielding member is positioned on an outer side than the plurality of first inspection terminals.
However, Toya teaches a light shielding stacked structure having stepped stacks (FIG. 19).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the light shield stack of Masanori with the structure of Toya for the further advantage of limiting the height difference for the subsequent sealing layer to improve sealant edge performance.
Regarding claim 5, Masanori teaches a stacked light blocking layer at the edge of the device, but fails to explicitly show:
The electro-optical device according to claim 4, wherein in plan view a first distance between the end portion of the third color layer forming the light shielding member and one first inspection terminal of the plurality of first inspection terminals is longer than a second distance between the end portion of the first color layer forming the light shielding member and the end portion of the second color layer forming the light shielding member, and a third distance between the end portion of the second color layer forming the light shielding member and the end portion of the third color layer forming the light shielding member.
However, Toya teaches a light shielding stacked structure having stepped stacks (FIG. 19).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the light shield stack of Masanori with the structure of Toya for the further advantage of limiting the height difference for the subsequent sealing layer to improve sealant edge performance.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masanori as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Furuie (US 2014/0091704).
Regarding claim 6, Masanori teaches open area without light shielding structure at the edge of the device, but fails to expressly disclose:
The electro-optical device according to claim 1, wherein in plan view, the light shielding member is not provided at a corner region corresponding to an included angle between the second side and a third side coupled to the first side of the rectangular shape, the corner region being positioned outside a position where the plurality of first inspection terminals are provided, and the corner region includes an alignment mark.
However, Furuie teaches alignment marks for OLED structures with light shielding portions (22) that are open in areas where the alignment marks (A1, A2) are placed and which may be at the corners of the device (FIG. 1, 3, [0080]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the exposed alignment marks of Furuie in the device of Masanori for the predictable benefit of enabling layer to layer and device to device alignment functionality.
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 CORY W ESKRIDGE whose telephone number is (571)272-0543. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 9 - 5.
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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached at (571) 272-6787. 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.
/CORY W ESKRIDGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624