DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 02, 2026 has been entered.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0358503 A1 to Liu et al. (“Liu”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0047800 A1 to Choi et al. (“Choi”). As to claim 1, although Liu discloses a display device, comprising: a substrate (104); a first light-emitting unit (134), disposed on the substrate (104) and configured to emit a first light beam (RGB); a first light conversion layer (144) configured to convert the first light beam (RGB) into a first conversion light beam, wherein the first conversion light beam has a first peak wavelength; a pixel definition layer (124), disposed on the substrate (104) and comprising a first opening (126) in which the first light-emitting unit (134) is disposed; and a bottom filler (136, 140, 142), disposed in the first opening (126) and covering the first light-emitting unit (134), wherein a portion of the bottom filler (136, 140, 142) covers a light emitting surface of the first light-emitting unit (134); wherein in a direction perpendicular to the substrate (104), a top surface of the portion of the bottom filler (136, 140, 142) is located between the light emitting surface of the first light-emitting unit (134) and the first light conversion layer (144) (See Fig. 1, Fig. 8, Fig. 9, ¶ 0004, ¶ 0072, ¶ 0087, ¶ 0088, ¶ 0103, ¶ 0105, ¶ 0106, ¶ 0109-¶ 0115, ¶ 0128, ¶ 0129) (Notes: the pixel definition layer isolates and defines the specific light emitting region and the bottom filler occupies the space around the first light-emitting unit), Liu does not further disclose a first band-pass filter, disposed on the first light-emitting unit and having a first cut-off wavelength; the first light conversion layer, disposed on the first band-pass filter, and a difference between the first cut-off wavelength and the first peak wavelength is less than 10% of the first peak wavelength; wherein in the direction perpendicular to the substrate, the top surface of the portion of the bottom filler is located between the light emitting surface of the first light-emitting unit and the first band-pass filter. However, Choi does disclose a first band-pass filter (CL1/CL2), disposed on the first light-emitting unit (OLED) and having a first cut-off wavelength (about 670 nm/about 520 nm, 570 nm); the first light conversion layer (QD1, QD2), disposed on the first band-pass filter (CL1/CL2) and configured to convert the first light beam (BL) into the first conversion light beam (LT1, LT2), wherein the first conversion light beam (LT1, LT2) has the first peak wavelength (about 630-680 nm/about 520-580 nm), and a difference (670-630/680, 570-520/580) between the first cut-off wavelength (about 670 nm/about 520 nm, 570 nm) and the first peak wavelength (about 630-680 nm/about 520-580 nm) is less than 10% of the first peak wavelength (about 630-680 nm/about 520-580 nm) (See Fig. 2-Fig. 4, ¶ 0034, ¶ 0049, ¶ 0051, ¶ 0065-¶ 0069, ¶ 0077, ¶ 0078, ¶ 0083, ¶ 0084, ¶ 0086, ¶ 0088-¶ 0097) (Notes: the first cut-off wavelength respectively blocks a certain first peak wavelength as designed, where the first cut-off wavelength is interpreted as blocking a certain portion of a specific wavelength). In view of the teachings of Liu and Choi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Liu to have a first band-pass filter, disposed on the first light-emitting unit and having a first cut-off wavelength; the first light conversion layer, disposed on the first band-pass filter, and a difference between the first cut-off wavelength and the first peak wavelength is less than 10% of the first peak wavelength; wherein in the direction perpendicular to the substrate, the top surface of the portion of the bottom filler is located between the light emitting surface of the first light-emitting unit and the first band-pass filter because the first light-emitting unit with a desired light emitting path is well sealed and protected by the bottom filler provided above thereof, where the intensity of the lights output to the outside is increased and the display quality of the display device is improved (See Liu Fig. 1 and Choi ¶ 0066, ¶ 0097). As to claim 2, Liu view of Choi further discloses wherein the first cut-off wavelength (about 670 nm/about 570 nm) is greater than the first peak wavelength (about 630 nm/about 520 nm) (See Choi ¶ 0077, ¶ 0078, ¶ 0083, ¶ 0084, ¶ 0093-¶ 0097). As to claim 3, Liu view of Choi further discloses wherein the first cut-off wavelength (about 520 nm) ranges from 510 nm to 630 nm (See Choi ¶ 0077, ¶ 0078, ¶ 0083, ¶ 0084, ¶ 0093-¶ 0097).
As to claim 4, Liu view of Choi further discloses wherein the first cut-off wavelength (about 520 nm) ranges from 510 nm to 550 nm (See Choi ¶ 0077, ¶ 0078, ¶ 0083, ¶ 0084, ¶ 0093-¶ 0097). As to claim 5, Liu view of Choi discloses further comprising: an adhesive layer (OL1), disposed between the first light-emitting unit (134/OLED) and the first light conversion layer (144/QD1, QD2) (See Choi Fig. 2, Fig. 4, ¶ 0065) (Notes: the “adhesive layer” provides bonding between adjacent layers as no specific material is recited). As to claim 7, Liu view of Choi further discloses wherein the first band-pass filter (CL1) is disposed between the adhesive layer (OL1) and the first light-emitting unit (134/OLED) (See Liu Fig. 1 and Choi Fig. 2, Fig. 4).
As to claim 8, Liu view of Choi discloses further comprising: a second band-pass filter (CL2), disposed between the adhesive layer (OL1) and the first light conversion layer (144/QD1, QD2) (See Liu Fig. 1 and Choi Fig. 2, Fig. 4, ¶ 0093-¶ 0097).
As to claim 9, Liu view of Choi further discloses wherein the second band-pass filter (CL2) has a second cut-off wavelength (about 570 nm), and the first cut-off wavelength (about 670 nm) is greater than the second cut-off wavelength (about 570 nm) (See Choi Fig. 2, Fig. 4, ¶ 0077, ¶ 0083, ¶ 0093-¶ 0097). Further, the applicant also has not established the critical nature of the “wherein the first conversion light beam has a first peak wavelength, and a difference between the first cut-off wavelength and the first peak wavelength is less than 10% of the first peak wavelength, wherein the first cut-off wavelength ranges from 510 nm to 630 nm, wherein the first cut-off wavelength ranges from 510 nm to 550 nm.” “The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims….In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.” In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir.1990). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have various ranges. It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentations to obtain optimized the first cut-off wavelength with respect to the first peak wavelength in view of desired output. See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges of a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7438. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12-6.
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, JOSHUA BENITEZ can be reached at (571) 270-1435. 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.
/DAVID CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815