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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because, Figs. 18A and 18B are not consistent with each other in terms of pattern of the sub-pixels. For example, as seen in the first line, second pixel, the pixel is a “G” green pixel in Fig. 18A, whereas the pixel is a “B” Blue pixel in Fig. 18B.
PNG
media_image1.png
235
465
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 18A
PNG
media_image2.png
330
502
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 18B
Based on the descriptions of Figs. 18A, 18B, 19A and 19B and the Figures themselves, the Examiner hypothesizes that Figs. 18B and 19B are mistakenly switched. That is Fig. 18B should actually be Fig. 19B and vice versa.
As seen in Paragraph 109, Fig. 18A is described as having 180 degree rotation between Px1 and PX4 and symmetry across Vi2. This is not true in Fig. 18B, but is true in Fig. 19B.
As seen in Paragraph 110, Fig. 19A is described as having symmetry across Vi2. While this is true for both Figs. 18B and 19B, the lack of recitation of the 180 degree rotation leads the examiner to the hypothesis that the descriptions for Figs. 18 and 19 are mistakenly swapped. This in turn leads the Examiner to the hypothesis the Figs. 18B and 19B are swapped.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Figure 22-24 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
As discussed in the 112(b) rejection of claim 4, below, it appears that the scope of claim 4 is not the intended scope by oversight. Insofar as claim 4 as written were to be the intended scope, the drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitations of claim 4, particularly, that each sub-pixel of the first pixel and second pixel of corresponding color include a first, second and third respective coloring layer must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: - -ELECTRO-OPTICAL DEVICE WITH SUBPIXEL LAYOUT TO ARRANGE SUB-PIXELS OF THE SAME COLOR ADJACENT TO EACH OTHER AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE HAVING THE SAME- -.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
As discussed above with respect to the Drawing Objections of Figs. 18A, 18B, 19A, 19B, the Examiner hypothesizes that Figs. 18B and 19B are mistakenly swapped by Applicant. Insofar as this is the case, Paragraphs 109 and 110 are objected to as the descriptions of Paragraphs 109 and 110 do not appear to match the depictions of Figs. 18B and 19B.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As discussed in the 112(b) rejection of claim 4, below, it appears that the scope of claim 4 is not the intended scope by oversight. Insofar as claim 4 as written were purported to be the intended scope, the Specification and Drawings do not convey to one having ordinary scope that the inventors had possession of the claimed invention. For the reasons discussed in the 112(b) below, it is believed by the Examiner that the claim scope of claim 4 is claimed by oversight rather than an possession of the recited subject matter. The Specification and Drawings do not provide any examples or embodiments encompassing the recited claim language. Paragraph 122 includes similar language, but in parentheses refers to second pixel as Px2, Px3, or Px4, which appears to be that each color can have corresponding sub-pixels with one of the adjacent pixels rather than all of the colors having corresponding sub-pixels with the same adjacent pixel.
Therefore, the subject matter was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 5-6 are dependent on claim 4 and contain the same deficiencies.
Claims 5 and 6 are dependent on claim 4 and contain the same deficiencies.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites that:
“the sub-pixel configured to emit the first color light beam in the first pixel and the sub-pixel configured to emit the first color light beam in the second pixel include a first coloring layer corresponding to the first color light beam,
the sub-pixel configured to emit the second color light beam in the first pixel and the sub-pixel configured to emit the second color light beam in the second pixel include a second coloring layer corresponding to the second color light beam, and
the sub-pixel configured to emit the third color light beam in the first pixel and the sub-pixel configured to emit the third color light beam in the second pixel include a third coloring layer corresponding to the third color light beam.”
While at least some of Applicant’s embodiments disclose each of the three limitations above, individually, none of Applicant’s disclosed embodiments disclose all three limitations in combination.
The recitation of these limitations in combination appears to be an oversight, although the Examiner cannot be completely sure that this is the case.
Therefore, the scope of claim 4 is unclear because it is unclear if Applicant is trying to claim as written, which is an embodiment that appears to lack written description OR if the claim scope was mistakenly wrong by oversight.
Applicant’s claim 4 appears to be described in Paragraph 122 in which each coloring layer is arranged such that one of pixels Px2, Px3, Px4 has a sub-pixel adjacent to the corresponding sub-pixel color of pixel Px1. However, the adjacent sub-pixels for each color could be from any of pixels Px2, Px3, Px4, rather than the same adjacent pixel (Px2, for example), as is required by current claim 4.
To illustrate this, reference is made to Applicant’s Figs. 15A and 15B, wherein G1 in Px1 and Px2 are adjacent; B in Px1, Px2, and Px3 are adjacent and R in Px1 would be adjacent to pixels above or to the left. However, this is different than each sub-pixel color of Px1 having a corresponding adjacent sub-pixel in the same element “second pixel,” as recited by claim 4.
As seen in Paragraph 122, the use of “second pixel” in the context appears to be any one of Px2, Px3, or Px4, for each individual color rather than requiring it be the same second pixel for each recitation of second pixel.
As a separate matter, the Examiner has also considered that Applicant may mean that “a first coloring layer” could refer to all of the individual color filter parts that correspond to red light for ALL of the red filters in the entire display. However, this interpretation is considered unlikely to be the intended meaning by the Examiner, since it would render the limitation almost trivial, as the red light pixels would emit through the red light color filter.
Additionally, the limitation of claim 4 does not explicitly recite what is meant by the sub-pixels “including a first coloring layer.” Does the coloring layer need to be configured to accept light from only one of the sub-pixels? Does the color layer need to be configured to accept light from both sub-pixels? Do the sub-pixels need to be adjacent so that the coloring layer does not have other colors intervening?
Therefore, the claim limitations of claim 4 will be examined as though the recitation of “second pixel” for each of the three colors will each individually be interpreted to be any pixel directly adjacent to the first pixel and not required to be the same adjacent pixel, wherein the sub-pixels recited to correspond to the same color are adjacent and the coloring layer of each color overlaps both of the corresponding sub-pixels.
Claims 5 and 6 are dependent on claim 4 and contain the same deficiencies.
Claim 5 fails to provide proper antecedent basis for the sub-pixel configured to emit the first/second/third color beam. Claim 5 recites “each of the sub-pixel configured to emit the first color light beam, the sub-pixel configured to emit the second color light beam, and the sub-pixel configured to emit the third color light beam includes a light-emitting element,” however parent claim 1 recites two sub-pixels for each color because each of the first sub-pixel and second sub-pixel each include a sub-pixel of the three colors. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because claim 5 fails to distinguish which of the sub-pixels that emit the first/second/color light the claim is referring to.
For the purposes of examination, the limitations of claim 5 will be examined as though the three colored sub-pixels of both the first and the second pixel include a light-emitting layer.
Furthermore, claim 5 recites each sub-pixel comprising a light-emitting element, but then recites “the light-emitting.” It is unclear if “the light-emitting element” refers to a particular light-emitting element or to all light-emitting elements. Therefore, claim 5 fails to provide antecedent basis for “the light-emitting element.” For the purposes of examination the claim will be examined as though it recited “each light-emitting element” and a sealing layer is provided between each light-emitting element and the respective first coloring layer, second coloring layer, and third coloring layer.
Claim 6 is dependent on claim 5 and contains the same deficiencies.
Claim 6 recites “the pixel electrode” and “the common electrode” and “the reflective electrode.” Similar to claim 5, these terms lack antecedent basis because there are more than one of each recited element. For the purposes of examination, the elements will be examined as though they were referring to each of the elements satisfying the recited limitation.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Du (US PGPub 2019/0058017 A1).
PNG
media_image3.png
356
368
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Du
PNG
media_image4.png
296
368
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Du
As to claim 1, Du discloses (Figs. 1 and 2) an electro-optical device, comprising: a first pixel P1; and a second pixel P3 adjacent to the first pixel in a first direction or a second direction, wherein each of the first pixel P1 and the second pixel P2 includes a sub-pixel R11, R31 configured to emit a first color light beam (Paragraphs 20 and 21, red), a sub-pixel G11, G31 configured to emit a second color light beam (Paragraphs 20 and 21, green), and a sub-pixel B11, B31 configured to emit a third color light beam (Paragraphs 20 and 21, blue), and a first pattern that is an arrangement pattern, in plan view, of a plurality of the sub-pixels R11, G11, B11, B12 included in the first pixel P1 and a second pattern P3 that is an arrangement pattern, in plan view, of a plurality of the sub-pixels R31, G31, B31, B32 included in the second pixel P3 are in a relationship of a line symmetry to each other with reference to a virtual line between the first pixel and the second pixel or in a relationship of being rotated by 180 degrees from each other (Paragraph 22). The Examiner notes that while item to item matching for the 180 degree rotational relationship between pixels P1 and P3 are used, that P1 and P2 share the claimed line symmetry with each other.
As to claim 3, Du discloses (Figs. 1-3) that the second pixel P3 is adjacent to the first pixel P1 along the first direction (horizontal direction, as depicted in Fig. 1), a third pixel P2 adjacent to the first pixel P1 in the second direction (vertical, as depicted in Fig. 1) is included, the third pixel P2 including a sub-R21 pixel configured to emit a first color light beam (Paragraphs 20 and 21), a sub-pixel G21 configured to emit a second color light beam (Paragraphs 20 and 21), and a sub-pixel B21 configured to emit a third color light beam (Paragraphs 20 and 21), the first pattern P1 and the second pattern P3 are in a relationship of being rotated by 180 degrees from each other (Paragraph 22), and the first pattern P1 and a third pattern P2 that is an arrangement pattern, in plan view, of a plurality of the sub-pixels R21, G21, B21, B22 included in the third pixel are in a relationship of a line symmetry to each other with reference to a virtual line X2 between the first pixel P1 and the third pixel P2 (Paragraph 24).
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, 2, 4, 8, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oda (US PGPub 2011/0096540 A1) in view of Liu (US PGPub 2003/0160915 A1).
As to claim 1, Oda discloses (Fig. 1) an electro-optical device, comprising: a first pixel 2 (Paragraph 39); and a second pixel (not drawn, Paragraph 39 and 41 discloses a plurality of pixels), wherein each of the first pixel and the second pixel includes a sub-pixel 2R configured to emit a first color light beam (Paragraph 39, red), a sub-pixel 2G configured to emit a second color light beam (Paragraph 39, green), and a sub-pixel 2B configured to emit a third color light beam (Paragraph 39, blue). Furthermore, Oda discloses color filters 36 (36R, 36G, 36B) with each color pixel 36R, 36G, 36B corresponding to a respective color sub-pixel 2R, 2G, 2B (Paragraphs 57-61).
PNG
media_image5.png
352
486
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Oda
Oda is silent as to Applicant’s arrangement of the pixel and sub-pixels.
Liu teaches (Fig. 4) a color filter 4 comprising a first pixel 41, a second pixel 42 adjacent to the first pixel 41 in a first direction or a second direction, wherein each of the first pixel 41 and second sub-pixel includes a sub-pixel 412, 421 corresponding to a first color light (Paragraphs 21, 22, red), a sub-pixel 414, 423 corresponding to a second color light (Paragraphs 21, 22, green), and a sub-pixel 413, 424 corresponding to a third color light (Paragraphs 21, 22, blue), wherein a first pattern that is an arrangement pattern, in plan view, of a plurality of the sub-pixels included in the first pixel and a second pattern that is an arrangement pattern, in plan view, of a plurality of the sub-pixels included in the second pixel are in a relationship of a line symmetry to each other with reference to a virtual line (line between pixels 41, 42) between the first pixel and the second pixel or in a relationship of being rotated by 180 degrees from each other in order to group sub-pixels of the same color together to thereby increase the stability of the color filter while reducing the difficulty to manufacture and increasing the yield rate of the product (Paragraph 24 and 25). The Examiner notes that while citation is made to Fig. 4, substantially similar modification can also be made in view of Fig. 5 of Liu et al. to satisfy the claim limitations.
PNG
media_image6.png
434
426
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Liu
Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the pixel and sub-pixel layout of the color filter to be arranged as it is taught by Liu in order to increase the stability of the color filter while reducing the difficulty to manufacture and increasing the yield rate of the product, as taught by Liu. Since the color filter are arranged to correspond to the same color light-emission sub-pixels as taught by Oda, the light-emission sub-pixel and pixel arrangements would also be changed to correspondingly the same arrangement as the color filter. Alternatively, it would be obvious to make similar modifications to include the pixel arrangement of Fig. 5 of Liu et al.
As to claim 2, Oda in view of Liu teaches (Liu Fig. 4) that the second pixel 42 is adjacent to the first pixel 41 (reference is made hereinafter in this and other dependent claim rejections to the color filter pixels and sub-pixels of Liu for clarity of which pixel/sub-pixel is being referred to in the citation, but actually refer to the corresponding light-emitting pixels and sub-pixels) in the first direction (horizontal direction, as depicted), a third pixel 43 adjacent to the first pixel 41 in the second direction (vertical direction) is included, the third pixel 43 including a sub-pixel R configured to emit a first color light beam, a sub-pixel 432 configured to emit a second color light beam, and a sub-pixel B configured to emit a third color light beam (Paragraphs 21 and 22), the first pattern 41 and the second pattern 42 are in a relationship of a line symmetry to each other with reference to a first virtual line between the first pixel 41 and the second pixel 42, and the first pattern 41 and a third pattern 43 that is an arrangement pattern, in plan view, of a plurality of the sub-pixels included in the third pixel are in a relationship of a line symmetry to each other with reference to a second virtual line (horizontal line between 41 and 43) between the first pixel and the third pixel 43.
As to claim 4, Oda in view of Liu teaches (Liu Fig. 4) that the sub-pixel configured to emit the first color light beam 412 in the first pixel 41 and the sub-pixel 421 configured to emit the first color light beam in the second pixel 42 include a first coloring layer (combination of adjacent color filter areas of 412, 421, Paragraphs 23-25) corresponding to the first color light beam, the sub-pixel 414 configured to emit the second color light beam in the first pixel 41 and the sub-pixel 423 configured to emit the second color light beam in the second pixel 42 include a second coloring layer (combination of adjacent color filter areas of 414, 423, Paragraphs 23-25) corresponding to the second color light beam, and the sub-pixel 413 configured to emit the third color light beam in the first pixel 41 and the sub-pixel B configured to emit the third color light beam in the second pixel 43 include a third coloring layer corresponding to the third color light beam. As noted in the 112(b) rejection, the limitation of claim 4 is being examined as though the “second pixel” of each color can be different adjacent pixels for each color.
As to claim 8, Oda discloses (Fig. 1) an electro-optical device, comprising, a plurality of sub-pixels 2R, 2G, 2B (Paragraph 39 and 41 discloses a plurality of pixels) emitting respective first, second and third color light beams (Paragraph 49, red, green, blue).
Oda is silent as to Applicant’s arrangement of the sub-pixels.
Liu teaches (Fig. 4) a color filter 4 comprising a plurality of sub-pixels provided in a first row include a sub-pixel 411, 422 configured to emit a first color light beam (Paragraphs 21 and 22, green), and a sub-pixel 412, 421 configured to emit a second color light beam (Paragraphs 21 and 22, red), a plurality of sub-pixels provided in a second row adjacent to the first row include the sub-pixel 414, 423 configured to emit the first color light beam (Paragraphs 21 and 22, green), and a sub-pixel 413, 424 configured to emit a third color light beam (Paragraphs 21 and 22, blue), in the first row, a plurality of the sub-pixels configured to emit the first color light beam include two sub-pixels arranged side by side (422 and sub-pixel to the right), and a plurality of the sub-pixels configured to emit the second color light beam include two sub- pixels arranged side by side 412, 421, and in the second row, the plurality of sub-pixels configured to emit the first color light beam include two sub-pixels arranged side by side 414, 423, and a plurality of the sub-pixels configured to emit the third color light beam include two sub-pixels arranged side by side (424 and sub-pixel to the right) in order to group sub-pixels of the same color together to thereby increase the stability of the color filter while reducing the difficulty to manufacture and increasing the yield rate of the product (Paragraph 24 and 25).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the pixel and sub-pixel layout of the color filter to be arranged as it is taught by Liu in order to increase the stability of the color filter while reducing the difficulty to manufacture and increasing the yield rate of the product, as taught by Liu. Since the color filter are arranged to correspond to the same color light-emission sub-pixels as taught by Oda, the light-emission sub-pixel and pixel arrangements would also be changed to correspondingly the same arrangement as the color filter.
As to claim 9, Oda in view of Liu discloses an electronic device (Oda Fig. 5, Paragraph 100) comprising the electro-optical device according to claim 1.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oda in view of Liu as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Urabe et al. (US PGPub 2003/0107314 A1).
As to claim 5, Oda discloses that each of the sub-pixel 2R configured to emit the first color light beam, the sub-pixel 2G configured to emit the second color light beam, and the sub-pixel 2B configured to emit the third color light beam includes a light-emitting element 2R, 2G, 2B, the light-emitting element 2R, 2G, 2B including a light-emitting layer 20R, 20G, 20B sandwiched between a pixel electrode 18 (Paragraph 48) and a common electrode 22 (Paragraph 53) and first coloring layer 36R, second coloring layer 36G, and third coloring layer 36B.
Furthermore, Oda discloses a transparent adhesive 28 between light emitting unit 3 and coloring layer 30, but Oda in view of Liu does not explicitly recite Applicant’s sealing layer.
Urabe et al. teaches (Fig. 1) further including a sealing layer 16 is provided between the light-emitting element 10R, 10G, 10B and the first coloring layer 22R, the second coloring layer 22G, and the third coloring layer 22B in order to prevent invasion of moisture and oxygen to the light-emitting elements 10R, 10G, 10B (Paragraph 33).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a sealing layer between each light-emitting element and the respective coloring layer in order to prevent invasion of moisture and oxygen to the light-emitting elements, as taught by Urabe et al.
As to claim 6, Oda in view of Liu and Urabe teaches (Oda Fig. 1) that the pixel electrode 18 is provided between a reflective element 12 and the common electrode 22, and an optical distance dR, dG, dB between the reflective element and the common electrode 22 is different for the first sub-pixel, the second sub-pixel, and the third sub-pixel. (Paragraph 49)
Oda in view of Liu and Urabe does not explicitly state that the reflective element 12 is specifically an electrode. However, the Examiner takes official notice that it is well-known within the art to make the reflective element a reflective electrode, which would also serve to increase conductivity to the light-emitting element.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the reflective element a reflective electrode in order to increase conductivity to the light-emitting element, as is well-known in the art.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oda in view of Liu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ikeda et al. (US PGPub 2022/0367575 A1, citations refer in “A / B” format to the US PGPub / foreign priority JP 2021-081730).
As to claim 7, Oda in view of Liu is silent as to Applicant’s lens.
Ikeda et al. teaches (Figs. 1 and 19B) forming one lens 133 for at least two sub-pixels 110R, the at least two sub-pixels 110R being adjacent to each other in plan view and configured to emit a same color light beam (Paragraph 98 / Paragraph 70, red) in order to collect and extract light emitted from light-emitting devices (Paragraph 449 and 452 / Paragraphs 420 and 422).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a lens covering at least two adjacent sub-pixels of the same color in order to collect and extract light from the light-emitting devices. Since the pixel arrangement of Fig. 4 of Liu has colors arranged with 4 sub-pixels adjacent, it would be obvious to make the lens cover 2 or 4 adjacent sub-pixels in order to reduce the total number of lenses. Alternatively, since the pixel arrangement of Fig. 5 of Liu has only two adjacent pixels be the same color, it would be obvious to include the lens to cover only two adjacent sub-pixels.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ishiwata et al. (US PGPub 2011/0019041 A1) discloses (Fig. 6B) using one lens OCLG, OCLB, OCLR to cover 4 adjacent sub-pixels in a solid state imaging device.
Mori et al. (USPN 6,326,981 B1) discloses (Fig. 24) a pixel arrangement with one pixel rotated by 180 degrees to form the adjacent pixel.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN Y HORIKOSHI whose telephone number is (571)270-7811. The examiner can normally be reached Monday and Tuesday 2-10PM EDT.
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, ABDULMAJEED AZIZ can be reached at 571-270-5046. 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.
/S.Y.H/Examiner, Art Unit 2875
/ABDULMAJEED AZIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875