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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 12/1/2025 is acknowledged.
Prior Art of Record
The applicant's attention is directed to additional pertinent prior art cited in the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited, which, however, may not be currently applied as a basis for the following rejections. While these references were considered during the examination of this application and are deemed relevant to the claimed subject matter, they are not presently being applied as a basis for rejection in this Office action. The pertinence of these documents, however, may be revisited, and they may be applied in subsequent Office actions, particularly in light of any amendments or further clarification of the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments directed to the newly amended claims filed 3/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant’s argument that the cited referenceses fail to disclose a color filter overlapping an “entire portion” of the light-blocking area is unpersuasive because the phrase is being interpreted more narrowly thant its broadest reasonable construction allows. In the contest of the claim, the work “portion” is a term of degree that lacks a fixed boundary or a requirement for 100% coverage of the underlying structure. Because any segment of the light-blocking area constitutes a “portion” of that area, a filter that overlaps even a small fraction of the structure, such as the distal edges disclosed in Choe or the partial shielding in Kawaguchi, inherently overlaps the entirety of that specific fraction. The claim does not recite that the filter covers the “entire width” of the “total surface area” of the light-blocking region, and thus it fails to structurally distinguish the present invention from the partial overlaps taught in the prior art.
Furthermore, the addition of the word “entire” to modify “portion” does not change the fact that the claim reads on a subset of the light-blocking area. Since the prior art demonstrates filters that overlap at least a part of the light-blocking zone, those filters necessarily overlap an “entire portion” as broadly but reasonably interpreted. When combined clear and explicit secondary reference teaching that color filters may meet in the middle of a light-blocking layer to prevent light leakage, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to extend the filters of Chloe or Kawaguchi to cover the respective halves of the area. In such an arrangement, each filter would beet the limitation of overlapping and “entire portion” of the light-blocking area, as the claim lacks a specific percentage or geometric boundary to exclude such and obvious modification.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choe (US 20200381484 A1) in view of Kawaguchi (JP 2011053339 A) in view of Kim et al. ()US 2022/0077224.
PNG
media_image1.png
546
634
media_image1.png
Greyscale
CLAIM 1. Choe in view of Kawaguchi discloses a display device comprising:
an upper substrate BL2;
a lower substrate BL1 disposed opposite to the upper substrate, wherein first to third light emitting areas [PXA1-3] and a light blocking area [NPXA] surrounding the first to third light emitting areas [PXA1-3] are defined on each of the upper substrate BL2 and the lower substrate BL1 (Choe Fig. 11);
a plurality of light emitting diodes (EDL1-3] disposed on the lower substrate BL1(Choe Fig. 11);
a color conversion layer CCL1-2 including a light transmission pattern CCL3 (¶0071 – Discloses CCL1-2 convert, while CCL3 may be a transmission pattern. “a third color conversion layer CCL3 transmitting the first color light therethrough.”) disposed in the first light emitting area (See below marked-up figure 11) on the lower substrate BL1, a first color conversion pattern CCL1 disposed in the second light emitting area (See below marked-up figure 11) on the lower substrate, and a second color conversion pattern CCL2 disposed in the third light emitting area (See below marked-up figure 11) on the lower substrate BL1(Choe Fig. 11);
PNG
media_image2.png
546
637
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a color filter layer CF1-3 including a first color filter CF3 disposed in the first light emitting area and the light blocking area under the upper substrate BL1, a second color filter CF1 disposed in the second light emitting area and the light blocking area under the upper substrate BL2, and a third color filter CF2 disposed in the third light emitting area under the upper substrate BL2 and having an island pattern shape (Choe fig. 01 & 11 Note: Patterns shown in fig. 10 may be described as a island shape.); and
PNG
media_image3.png
678
572
media_image3.png
Greyscale
While Choe et al. is silent regarding the inclusion of a spacer, it was well-known at the time of the invention to use spacers in analogous display structures to maintain structural integrity. Kawaguchi provides evidence of this common practice, specifically disclosing an organic EL display device that utilizes a color filter and a spacer formed in a non-pixel region to hold a gap between substrates (Kawaguchi, Abstract).
[Abstract] –"The color filter is used in the organic EL display device constituted by sealing a filler between the color filter and an organic EL element substrate having an organic EL element and has: a transparent substrate; a colored layer formed in a pattern in a display region on the transparent substrate; a spacer formed in a non-pixel region in the display region on the transparent substrate and holding a gap between the color filter and the organic EL element substrate; and a bulkhead formed in a non-display region on the transparent substrate to surround the display region. The spacer and the bulkhead include members made of the same material. “
Kawaguchi teaches forming spacers in the light-blocking area between layers—such as the color filter and color conversion layers—to provide support for the bulkhead or second substrate. Furthermore, Kawaguchi discloses that these spacers may be fabricated from the same material as a colored layer, such as the third color filter (Kawaguchi at [Fig. 12(a)–12(c)] and corresponding translated text).
Kawaguchi – “12 (a) to 12 (c) are steps showing an example of a method for producing a color filter for an organic EL display device of the present invention in the case where a spacer made of the same material,”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Choe to include a spacer disposed in the light-blocking area, wherein the spacer is made of the same material as the third color filter. Implementing this known technique from Kawaguchi into the device of Choe represents the application of a known element to a known device to yield predictable results (e.g., improved structural stability and gap maintenance). Such a modification is considered obvious under the principles established in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Choe discloses a display device comprising a light-blocking area and color filters. While Choe shows color filters positioned over a light-blocking structure, it does not explicitly recite that each of the first and second color filters overlaps the entire (Note: the claim only requires a “entire portion” not the entire width or surface area.) of the light blocking area. However, Kim teaches a display architecture wherein adjacent color filters are extended to meet or overlap over the center of the light blocking layers/area. This configuration is employed to ensure the light blocking area is fully utilized to prevent color mixing and light leakage between adjacent sub-pixels.
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of the invention to modify the color filter dimensions of Cho to incorporate the extended overlap taught by Kim. The motivation for this modification is to improve the optical isolation of the sub-pixels and maximize color purity. Under the guidance of MPEP§2143, this represents the application of a known configuration to a known device to achieve a predictable result.
Because the term “portion” in the claim lacks a specific numerical boundary or relative limit, it is broadly but reasonably interpreted to encompass any distinct segment of the light-blocking area. A filters that extend completely over, to the center of the light blocking area, or even just some finite fraction over, as demonstrated in Choe and Kim, necessarily overly the entirety of the “portion”. Thus, the combined teachings of Choe and Kim result in a structure where each color filter overlaps and entire portion of the light-blocking area, rendering the claimed invention obvious to a PHOSITA.
Claim(s) 2-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choe (US 20200381484 A1) in view of Kawaguchi (JP 2011053339 A) in view of Kim et al. (US 20220077239 A1) in view of Cok et al. (US 20060290276 A1)
CLAIM 2. Choe in view of Kawaguchi in view of Kim discloses a display device of claim 1, however are silent upon wherein the first color filter and the second color filter overlap each other in the light blocking area. At the time of the invention, it was a known practice to overlap color filter layers to adjust the height of structural features within a display. Cok et al. (paragraph [0031]1; Figs. 7A–7C) specifically teaches that color filter layers can be overlapped in the light-blocking regions to provide spacing or to form discrete spacer elements. Cok discloses that these spacer elements can be formed by "overlapping one color filter 21 with another to form an additional layer 24," thereby creating a structure thicker than the individual color filters to maintain substrate separation.
PNG
media_image4.png
796
460
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Choe (optionally as modified by Kawaguchi) to include overlapping color filters as taught by Cok. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to employ this overlapping technique to precisely control spacer height or to reinforce a spacer structure. This modification represents the application of a known technique (overlapping layers) to a known device (an organic display) to yield predictable results (increased spacer height or improved structural support). Such a combination is considered obvious under the standards set forth in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
CLAIM 3. Choe in view of Kawaguchi in view of Cok et al. discloses a display device of claim 1, wherein a planar shape of the third color filter is a polygonal, a rhombic, a circular, a track-shaped, or an elliptical planar shape (Choe et al. fig. 11 - polygon, Kawaguchi Figs. 12A-C polygon, elliptical planar shape, Cok et al. Fig. 7A-C polygonal, track shaped.)
CLAIM 4. Choe in view of Kawaguchi in view of Kim in view of Cok et al. discloses a display device of claim 1, wherein a first opening and a second opening exposing a portion of the upper substrate are defined through the first color filter, wherein a third opening exposing a portion of the first color filter and a fourth opening exposing a portion of the upper substrate and overlapping the second opening are defined through the second color filter, and wherein the third color filter is disposed in the second opening (Choe et al. fig. 11 – The limitations define the openings used in a process to for a patterned arrangement of the color filter layers relative to the upper substrate. The prior art discloses an analogous final display structure comprising these layers in the identical spatial configuration as claimed. A person of ordinary skill in the art, viewing the prior art device, would recognize that the boundaries described by the 'first opening,' 'second opening,' 'third opening,' and 'fourth opening' are the necessary, understood physical structure required by the prior art device.
The prior art demonstrates the corresponding openings which define the respective color filter areas. The presence of these structural configurations in the prior art references, even if described using different terminology, renders the instant claim unpatentable because every element of the claimed structure as best understood is disclosed.)
CLAIM 5. Choe in view of Kawaguchi in view of Kim in view of Cok et al. discloses a display device of claim 4, wherein the third color filter CF2 is spaced apart from the light blocking area NPXA (Choe et al. fig. 11 – Color filters are shown in the same manner as understood from Applicant’s figures. The claim does not define any physical dimension to define any particular spacing.)
CLAIM 6. Choe in view of Kawaguchi in view of Cok et al. discloses a display device of claim 5, wherein the fourth opening exposes a portion of the second color filter, and wherein the third color filter is disposed to cover the portion of the second color filter exposed through the fourth opening (See regarding Claim 2, as modified by the teachings of Cok et al., the process of forming color filters such that they overlap inherently involves depositing filter layers into and within specific patterned openings or mask apertures. These openings are understood to correspond precisely to the final boundaries and physical locations of the respective deposited color filter layers. The prior art inherently discloses both the process (using openings) and the resulting structure (the specific pattern and overlaps).).
CLAIM 7. Choe in view of Kawaguchi in view of Kim in view of Cok et al. discloses a display device of claim 1, further comprising: a thin film encapsulation layer OL/IL2 disposed on the lower substrate and covering the plurality of light emitting diodes, and wherein the color conversion layer is disposed on the thin film encapsulation layer to directly contact the thin film encapsulation layer (Choe et al. Fig. 11).
PNG
media_image5.png
544
748
media_image5.png
Greyscale
CLAIM 8. Choe in view of Kawaguchi in view of Kim in view of Cok et al. discloses a display device of claim 1, further comprising: a refractive layer PL2 disposed to cover the color filter layer and the spacer (Choe et al. Fig. 11 – Note: any of the layers located in the region may be a “refractive” layer, as refractive is merely a property that the layers will have. The claim does define any boundaries to define what is to be considered a refractive layer, thus any layer having refractive properties meets the broad scope of the claim.).
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choe (US 20200381484 A1) in view of Kawaguchi (JP 2011053339 A) in view of Kim et al. (US 20220077239 A1) in view of Cok et al. (US 20060290276 A1) in view of Park et al. (US 20200081292 A1).
CLAIM 9. Choe in view of Kawaguchi in view of Kim in view of Cok et al. discloses a display device of claim 1, however may be silent upon the device further comprising: a capping layer disposed to cover the color conversion layer; and a refractive layer disposed to cover the capping layer.
When forming analogous device structures, it was known in the art at the time of the invention to include additional capping and optical layers to protect components and improve light transmission quality. Capping and refractive layers were recognized as known, optional layers that could be used to enhance these device structures. See Park et al. Fig. 6 and paragraph 127.
Paragraph 127 in Park et al. states:
“[0127] The color conversion element 11 of FIGS. 5-6 is substantially the same as the aforementioned color conversion element 10 of FIGS. 1-4, except that the color conversion element 11 further includes a plurality of capping layers CL on and under the plurality of low refractive layers 400a and 400b. Hereinafter, duplicative descriptions of features that have already been described herein will not be repeated, and the differences will be mainly described instead.”
PNG
media_image6.png
536
404
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the display device of Choe, Kawaguchi and /or Cok with a conversion layer further comprising a capping layer and optical layers [e.g. refractive layer], since applying a known technique (forming capping and refractive layers to protect parts and improve light transmission quality) to a known device ready for improvement (display device including a conversion layer) to yield predictable results (improved device protection and enhanced light transmission quality) is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.-, 82 USPQ2d 1385).
CLAIM 10. Choe in view of Kawaguchi in view of Kim in view of Cok et al. in view of Park et al. discloses a display device of claim 1, wherein the first color filter is a blue color filter which selectively transmits blue light, wherein the second color filter is a red color filter which selectively transmits red light, and wherein the third color filter is a green color filter which selectively transmits green light (RGB is the understood color filter standard in the art, universally used in electronic displays. The mere placement of standard RGB filters within a display structure would be an obvious design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA), as such a mere rearrangement of parts would produce only the expected result of filtering the R, G, or B spectrums.
The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP), specifically § 2144.04(VI)(C), "Rearrangement of Parts". This section clarifies that merely shifting a known element to a different position is not an invention if the resulting operation is unchanged or only produces predictable results.)
CLAIM 11. Choe in view of Kawaguchi in view of Kim in view of Cok et al. in view of Park et al. discloses a display device of claim 1, wherein the first color filter is a blue color filter which selectively transmits blue light, wherein the second color filter is a green color filter which selectively transmits green light, and wherein the third color filter is a red color filter which selectively transmits red light (RGB is the understood color filter standard in the art, universally used in electronic displays. The mere placement of standard RGB filters within a display structure would be an obvious design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA), as such a mere rearrangement of parts would produce only the expected result of filtering the R, G, or B spectrums.
The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP), specifically § 2144.04(VI)(C), "Rearrangement of Parts". This section clarifies that merely shifting a known element to a different position is not an invention if the resulting operation is unchanged or only produces predictable results.)
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 JARRETT J STARK whose telephone number is (571)272-6005. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4 M-F.
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, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. 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.
JARRETT J. STARK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2822
3/26/2026
/JARRETT J STARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
1 Cok et al. -- [0031] “The spacer elements 22 may be formed from portions of the color filters 21 positioned over light-emitting areas of the OLEDs themselves, for example by employing a black, light-absorbing color filter in combination with a color selective filer, or by employing a combination of different color filters. Additionally, the spacer elements 22 may include other materials, for example desiccating materials and may be black in color. As disclosed in the present invention, the spacer elements 22 must be thicker than the color filters 21. Referring to FIG. 7a, this may be achieved by coating an additional color filter layer 24 over a color filter 21, by overlapping one color filter 21 with another to form an additional layer 24 as shown in FIG. 7b, or by forming a separate color filter spacer element 22 thicker than the other color filters as shown in FIG. 7c. Preferably, the spacer element is more than 500 nm thicker than the other individual color filters, and more preferably one micron thicker or more.”
Prosecution Insights