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
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) 1-5, 13-14, 18-19, 22-29, 44-45, and 47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (20070063946) in view of Shimizu (20110096530).
In re claim 1, Nakamura teaches A device comprising: an emissive surface having a plurality of pixels (Fig. 1, element 100 “P” has a plurality of “subpixels” [¶0085]), wherein each pixel has four or more sub- pixels (Fig. 1 shows this). However, Nakamura does not explicitly teach “wherein each pixel is capable of: (a) a color rendering index (CRI) that is a minimum of 85, and (b) a minimum color gamut equal to 85% of a color space, wherein the color space is selected from at least one of a group consisting of: DCI-3, BT.2020, and AdobeTM RGB 1998.” (it is noted, however, that in ¶0084 of Nakamura that the reference indicates that organic LEDs [“OLEDs”] can be used as well and OLEDs emit well above 85% and even 100% of the CIEs listed). Shimizu teaches wherein each pixel is capable of: (a) a color rendering index (CRI) that is a minimum of 85, and (b) a minimum color gamut equal to 85% of a color space, wherein the color space is selected from at least one of a group consisting of: DCI-3 (Fig. 7 and ¶0055 indicate the use of DCI-3 and that the pixels fall above a minimum of at least 85%). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Nakamura with Shimizu as the use of a common standard for color measuring color will enable better configuration for desired use cases as well as assisting in determining quality control issues. It is further noted that the claim recitation of “DCI-3, BT.2020, and Adobe RGB” has created a genus of equivalence between these standards, thus each one is considered to be obvious over the other.
In re claim 2, Nakamura et al teaches wherein the CRI that is a minimum of 85 is at least one selected from a group consisting of: greater than 85, greater than 90, and greater than 95 (Fig. 7 teaches above 105%. Also, as noted above, OLEDs will generally produce above 100%)
In re claim 3, Nakamura et al teaches wherein the minimum color gamut of 85% of the at least one selected color space is at least one selected from a group consisting of: greater than 85% of the at least one selected color space, greater than 90% of the at least one selected color space, greater than 95% of the at least one selected color space, greater than 100% of the at least one selected color space, and greater than 105% of the at least one selected color space (Fig. 7 teaches above 105%. Also, as noted above, OLEDs will generally produce above 100%).
In re claim 4, Nakamura et al teaches wherein the emissive surface is part of at least one selected from the group consisting of: an organic light emitting device (OLED), an inorganic light emitting device (LED), and a quantum dot light emitting device (QLED) (Nakamura ¶0084 indicates the use of OLEDs and Shimizu abstract indicates the use of LEDs). It is further noted that the claim recitation of “organic light emitting device (OLED), an inorganic light emitting device (LED), and a quantum dot light emitting device (QLED)” has created a genus of equivalence between these structures, thus each one is considered to be obvious over the other.
In re claim 5, Nakamura et al teaches the device of claim 1, wherein at least two sub-pixels of each pixel are required to output white light (¶0004 Shimizu teaches the use of white pixels. It is noted here that in a pixel array any one pixel can be considered to be a “sub-pixel”, thus the white pixel of Shimizu would read on this).
In re claim 13, Nakamura et al teaches the device of claim 1, wherein at least one of the four or more sub-pixels is selected from the group consisting of: a cyan sub-pixel, a yellow sub-pixel, and an orange sub- pixel (¶0086 teaches this). It is further noted that the claim recitation of “group consisting of: a cyan sub-pixel, a yellow sub-pixel, and an orange sub- pixel” has created a genus of equivalence between these structures, thus each one is considered to be obvious over the other.
In re claim 14, Nakamura et al teaches the device of claim 1, wherein at least one of the four or more sub-pixels is selected from the group consisting of: a deep red sub-pixel, a deep blue sub-pixel, a light red sub-pixel, and a light blue sub-pixel (¶0083 “dark red”). It is further noted that the claim recitation of “a deep red sub-pixel, a deep blue sub-pixel, a light red sub-pixel, and a light blue sub-pixel” has created a genus of equivalence between these structures, thus each one is considered to be obvious over the other.
In re claim 18, Nakamura et al teaches the device of claim 1, wherein four or more sub-pixels comprise a red sub- pixel, a green sub-pixel, a blue sub-pixel, and a white sub-pixel (Nakamura Fig. 1 teaches an array of pixels with subpixels. As any one of these can be considered to be a “subpixel” there will be at least 4 of red for example)
In re claim 19, Nakamura et al teaches the device of claim 18, wherein the red sub-pixel, the green sub-pixel, the blue sub-pixel, and the white sub-pixel are patterned sub-pixels, and wherein the white sub-pixel is individually patterned (as Nakamura indicates that these can be OLED pixels and subpixels, they would, necessarily, be individually patterned. Further, “patterned” and “individually patterned” do not preclude groups being “individually patterned”).
In re claim 22, Nakamura et al teaches the device of claim 19, wherein the emissive surface is configured with high CRI to render unsaturated images, wherein the CRI is selected from a group consisting of: greater than 80, greater than 85, greater than 90, and greater than 95 (rejected the same as claims 1 and 2. The limitation “configured to” is functional language and simply requires the same structure. As the combination above reads on the same structure [OLEDs] and the same color gamuts, “configured” would be met). It is further noted that the claim recitation of “wherein the CRI is selected from a group consisting of: greater than 80, greater than 85, greater than 90, and greater than 95” has created a genus of equivalence between these selections, thus each one is considered to be obvious over the other.
In re claim 23, Nakamura teaches the device of claim 1, wherein a blue sub-pixel and a yellow sub-pixel of the four or more sub-pixels are configured to generate white light (Shimizu ¶0004 indicates blue and yellow make white light).
In re claim 24, Nakamura et al teaches the device of claim 23, wherein the four or more sub-pixels include a red sub- pixel and a green sub-pixel (Fig. 1 of Nakamura teaches “include” a red and blue subpixel).
In re claim 25, Nakamura et al teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the CRI of the emissive surface is configured for object illumination with white light (this is intended use and, as Nakamura et al teach the emission of white light, the structure would meet this limitation).
In re claim 26, Nakamura et al teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the CRI of the emissive surface is configured for an automotive display (this is intended use/functional language and, as such, this limitation is met by Nakamura et al).
In re claim 27, Nakamura et al teaches the device of claim 26, further comprising: a controller communicatively coupled to the automotive display, wherein the controller is configured to control the display in a first mode and a second mode, wherein the controller decreases an amount of cyan, green, and yellow light emitted from the automotive display, and increases an amount of red and blue light emitted from the automotive display (¶0191 of Nakamura indicates the use of a controller that takes external data and adjusts the settings of the display device. It is noted here that the use in an automotive display is intended use. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made to adjust the amount of the various colors as optimizing is routine skill in the art [In re Aller], further ¶0192 indicates that the controller can adjust these parameters)
In re claim 28, Nakamura et al teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the emissive surface comprises a blue emitter and a yellow emitter, wherein at least one color altering layer is disposed over the blue emitter and the yellow emitter (¶0193 indicates the use of a color filter disposed above the device [which would be disposed above the blue and yellow emitters as they are part of the device] which is a “color altering” layer).
In re claim 29, Nakamura et al teaches the device of claim 28, wherein the four or more sub-pixels comprises five sub-pixels (it is assumed here that “five sub-pixels” is sub-pixels in general instead of “sub-sub-pixels; Fig. 1 of Nakamura teaches multiples of beyond 5 subpixels).
In re claim 44, Nakamura et al teaches s consumer electronic device comprising: an emissive surface having a plurality of pixels, wherein each pixel has four or more sub- pixels, and wherein each pixel is capable of:(a) a color rendering index (CRI) that is a minimum of 85, and (b) a minimum color gamut equal to 85% of a color space, wherein the color space is selected from at least one of a group consisting of: DCI-3, BT.2020, and AdobeTM RGB 1998 (rejected as the same as claim 1, also noting the “display” aspect of the cited references).
In re claim 45, Nakamura et al teaches The consumer electronic device of claim 44, wherein the device is at least one type selected from the group consisting of: a flat panel display, a curved display, a computer monitor, a medical monitor, a television, a billboard, a light for interior or exterior illumination and/or signaling, a heads-up display, a fully or partially transparent display, a flexible display, a rollable display, a foldable display, a stretchable display, a laser printer, a telephone, a cell phone, tablet, a phablet, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a wearable device, a laptop computer, a digital camera, a camcorder, a viewfinder, a micro-display that is less than 2 inches diagonal, a 3-D display, a virtual reality or augmented reality display, a vehicle, an automotive display, a video walls comprising multiple displays tiled together, a theater or stadium screen, and a sign (Both Nakamura and Shimizu indicate the device is a “display” which would also “illuminate”). It is further noted that the claim recitation of the various devices has created a genus of equivalence between these selections, thus each one is considered to be obvious over the other.
Claim(s) 47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (20070063946) in view of Shimizu (20110096530) further in view of Daniels (20070014916).
In re claim 47, In re claim 1, Nakamura teaches A device comprising: an emissive surface having a plurality of pixels (Fig. 1, element 100 “P” has a plurality of “subpixels” [¶0085]), wherein each pixel has four or more sub- pixels (Fig. 1 shows this). However, Nakamura does not explicitly teach “wherein each pixel is capable of: (a) a color rendering index (CRI) that is a minimum of 85, and (b) a minimum color gamut equal to 85% of a color space, wherein the color space is selected from at least one of a group consisting of: DCI-3, BT.2020, and AdobeTM RGB 1998.” (it is noted, however, that in ¶0084 of Nakamura that the reference indicates that organic LEDs [“OLEDs”] can be used as well and OLEDs emit well above 85% and even 100% of the CIEs listed). Shimizu teaches wherein each pixel is capable of: (a) a color rendering index (CRI) that is a minimum of 85, and (b) a minimum color gamut equal to 85% of a color space, wherein the color space is selected from at least one of a group consisting of: DCI-3 (Fig. 7 and ¶0055 indicate the use of DCI-3 and that the pixels fall above a minimum of at least 85%). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Nakamura with Shimizu as the use of a common standard for color measuring color will enable better configuration for desired use cases as well as assisting in determining quality control issues. It is further noted that the claim recitation of “DCI-3, BT.2020, and Adobe RGB” has created a genus of equivalence between these standards, thus each one is considered to be obvious over the other.
Nakamura and Shimizu do not explicitly teach wherein at least a first sub-pixel of the four or more sub-pixels is disposed over at least a portion of at least a second sub-pixel of the four or more sub-pixels. Daniels teaches wherein at least a first sub-pixel of the four or more sub-pixels is disposed over at least a portion of at least a second sub-pixel of the four or more sub-pixels (Fig. 53 shows a stacked pixel structure of rgb “sub-pixels”. As such, at least one sub-pixel would be over another one). It would have been obvious at the time the invention was filed to combine Nakamura and Shimizu with Daniels as a stacked pixel structure would allow for a smaller footprint of the device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/7/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first avers that Nakamura et all fails to teach a device “wherein each pixel is capable of a color rendering index that is a minimum of 85”. This is unpersuasive.
The claim recitation merely requires a device that is capable of producing said CRI. This is intended use/functional language and, as such, if the reference device has the same structure as the applicant’s disclosed device, then the reference device would read on the claims. Here, the applicant references OLEDs among a number of other well-known technologies. Nakamura in at least ¶0084 discloses an OLED. Since, Nakamura’s device would be “capable” of producing said CRI recited in the claim limitation, thus the limitation is met.
Applicant next argues that Nakamura does not teach a “white” sub-pixel[s]. This is unpersuasive. Applicant’s specification ¶0113 indicates that at least two subpixels may be required to produce white like. This is known in the art since LEDs, absent any use of phosphor or pixels combinations, can’t produce white light. Applicant’s specification makes no mention of the use of phosphor to produce white light, instead it generically refers to “phosphors” without indicating anything further. What the applicant’s specification does indicate in ¶0113 and at least ¶0029 is the use of multiple sub-pixels, and, specifically, blue AND yellow sub-pixels, to produce white light. Since Nakamura uses multiple of the same types of sub-pixels of at least blue and yellow, and applicant’s specification merely mentions the use of blue and yellow sub-pixels to produce white like, the structure in Nakamura would produce the white “sub-pixels” as recited in the claims and applicant’s argument is found unpersuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DALE E PAGE whose telephone number is (571)270-7877. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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.
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.
/DALE E PAGE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights