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 .
Applicant’s submission, filed 30 March 2026, has been entered and acknowledged by the examiner.
Applicant's arguments filed 30 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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.
Claims 1, 5-6, 9-12, 14, 15, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rho (USPN 2021/0143223).
With regard to claim 1,
Rho discloses, in at least the figures, a display device comprising: a display panel (title) comprising a first light emitting area (the pixel area PXA-B) configured to emit a source light (EE, ¶ [0070]); a barrier wall (BK3, ¶ [0141]) on the display panel (100, ¶ [0062]), and having a first opening (WCL3 points to it) corresponding to the first light emitting area (PXA-B); a first light control pattern (WCL3,¶[0074]) in the first opening (WCL1 points to it); and a light shielding pattern (BK2, ¶ [0141]) between the display panel (100) and the barrier wall (BK3), and overlapping with the barrier wall (BK3) and the first opening (WCL3 points to it), wherein the light shielding pattern (BK2) overlaps with a portion of the first light control pattern (WCL3). While Rho does not explicitly disclose the light shielding pattern BK2 to include a black coloring agent, Rho does disclose an analogous layer (BM4, BM1-1, see paragraph 138) to include a black coloring agent. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate this concept of the BM layers of Rho into the BK layers of Rho in order to prevent color mixing as directed by Rho (see paragraph 143).
With regard to claim 5,
Rho discloses: further comprising a first color filter(CF2-33, ¶ [0140]) on the barrier wall (BK3), wherein the first light control pattern (WCL3) is configured to convert the source light (EE) to a first output light having a color different from a color of the source light (EE), and wherein the first color filter (CF2-33) is configured to block the source light (EE) and transmit the first output light (¶ [0074], the first light is absorbed (blocked) and changed).
With regard to claim 6,
Rho discloses: wherein the first light control pattern (WCL3) comprises a base resin, and a quantum dot dispersed in the base resin (¶ [0125]).
With regard to claim 9,
Rho discloses in figure 9: further comprising a second light control pattern (WCL2,¶ [0074]), wherein the display panel (100) further comprises a second light emitting area (pixel area PXA-G) (the pixel area PXA-G) configured to emit the source light (EE), wherein the barrier wall (BK3) has a second opening (WCL2 points to it) (WCL2 points to it) corresponding to the second light emitting area (pixel area PXA-G), and wherein the second light control pattern (WCL2) is in the second opening (WCL2 points to it).
With regard to claim 10,
Rho discloses in figure 9: wherein the light shielding pattern (BK2) further overlaps with the second opening (WCL2 points to it).
With regard to claim 11,
Rho discloses in figure 9: wherein: the first opening (WCL3 points to it) and the second opening (WCL2 points to it) are spaced from each other in a first direction (horizontally); a first portion of the light shielding pattern (BK2) overlaps with an area between the first opening (WCL3 points to it) and the second opening (WCL2 points to it) in the first direction; a second portion of the light shielding pattern (BK2) extends from the first portion of the light shielding pattern (BK2), and overlaps with the first opening (WCL3 points to it); And a third portion of the light shielding pattern (BK2) extends from the first portion of the light shielding pattern (BK2), and overlaps with the second opening (WCL2 points to it).
With regard to claim 12,
Rho fails to disclose: wherein a shortest distance in a first direction between the first opening (WCL3 points to it) and the second opening (WCL2 points to it) is within a range from about 5 micrometers to about 8 micrometers. However, applicant has not shown in the specification how the claimed range produces any novel or unexpected result or solves any known problem. The specification only discloses that when the barrier wall is reduced the opening becomes larger which is common sense. Since applicant has established no criticality for this range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try parameters within the claimed range as a matter of obvious design choice and, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With regard to claim 14,
Rho fails to disclose: wherein the first opening (WCL3 points to it) has a width equal to or greater than about 41 micrometers in the first direction. However, as is obvious, the width of the opening will determine the amount of light of a particular color (red for WCL3) that gets through. Furthermore, applicant has not shown in the specification how providing a width greater than 41 micrometers produces any novel or unexpected result or solves any known problem. The specification only discloses that the width may be greater than 41 um. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to try widths of greater than 41 micrometers in the device of Rho to adjust the output color of the device to a desired hue.
With regard to claim 15,
Rho discloses in figure 9: further comprising a base layer (FNL, ¶ [0110]) facing the display panel (100) in a thickness direction of the display panel (100), wherein the barrier wall (BK3) is on a lower surface of the base layer (FNL).
With regard to claim 17,
Rho discloses in figure 9: A display device comprising: a display panel (100) comprising a light emitting element (EE); and a light conversion panel (WCL2-3 convert light) spaced from the display panel (100) in a thickness direction of the display panel (100), the light conversion panel comprising: a base layer (FNL); a barrier wall (BK3) on a lower surface of the base layer(FNL), and having an opening corresponding to the light emitting element (EE); a light control pattern (WCL3) in the opening; Anda light shielding pattern (BK2) under the barrier wall (BK3), and overlapping with the barrier wall (BK3) and the opening, wherein the light shielding pattern (BK2) overlaps with a portion of the light control pattern (WCL3). While Rho does not explicitly disclose the light shielding pattern BK2 to include a black coloring agent, Rho does disclose an analogous layer (BM4, BM1-1, see paragraph 138) to include a black coloring agent. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate this concept of the BM layers of Rho into the BK layers of Rho in order to prevent color mixing as directed by Rho (see paragraph 143).
With regard to claim 19,
Rho discloses in figure 9: A display device comprising: a light emitting element (EE); a thin film encapsulation layer (FNL, ¶[0111[) encapsulating the light emitting element (EE); a barrier wall (BK3) on the thin film encapsulation layer (FNL), and having an opening corresponding to the light emitting element (EE); a light control pattern (WCL3) in the opening; and a light shielding pattern (BK2) between the barrier wall (BK3) and the thin film encapsulation layer (FNL), and overlapping with the barrier wall (BK3) and the opening, wherein the light shielding pattern (BK2) overlaps with a portion of the light control pattern (WCL3). While Rho does not explicitly disclose the light shielding pattern BK2 to include a black coloring agent, Rho does disclose an analogous layer (BM4, BM1-1, see paragraph 138) to include a black coloring agent. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate this concept of the BM layers of Rho into the BK layers of Rho in order to prevent color mixing as directed by Rho (see paragraph 143).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rho (as above) in view of Lee et al (US PG Pub. No. 2020/0091247).
With regard to claim 7,
Rho discloses in figure 9:further comprising a second color filter and a third color filter overlapping with the first color filter (CF2-33), wherein the first color filter (CF2-33) comprises a first pixel area (PXA-B) that does not overlap with the second color filter and the third color filter, and wherein the first pixel area (PXA-B) overlaps with the first light emitting area (in PXA-B) in a plan view. While Rho fails to disclose the first, second and third color filters overlap, Lee teaches in paragraph that the red, green and blue color filters may overlap in the light blocking areas (since light is not transmitted in that region). This would simplify fabrication of the color filter layer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to allow the first, second and third color filters of Rho to overlap in the light blocking regions, as taught by Lee, since this would simplify fabrication of the color filter layer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 8, 13, 16,18 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With regard to claim 2, the references of the Prior Art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations as set forth in Claim 2, and specifically comprising the limitation of “ wherein the first light emitting area is located in the first opening in a plan view, and the first light emitting area is biased to one side of the first opening in a first direction ” including the remaining limitations’
With regard to claim 3, the references of the Prior Art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations as set forth in Claim 3, and specifically comprising the limitation of “ wherein the light shielding pattern has a first-first opening corresponding to the first opening, and the first-first opening has a size smaller than a size of the first opening in a plan view” including the remaining limitations’
. Claim 4 is allowable, at least, because of its dependency on claim 3.
With regard to claim 8 , the references of the Prior Art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations as set forth in Claim 8, and specifically comprising the limitation of “ wherein the light shielding pattern has a first-first opening corresponding to the first opening, wherein the first-first opening is smaller than the first opening in a plan view, and wherein the first pixel area has a width equal to or greater than a width of the first-first opening in a first direction” including the remaining limitations.
. With regard to claim 13, the references of the Prior Art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations as set forth in Claim 13, and specifically comprising the limitation of “a width of the second portion of the light shielding pattern in the first direction is greater than the shortest distance” including the remaining limitations.
. . With regard to claim 16, the references of the Prior Art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations as set forth in Claim 16, and specifically comprising the limitation of “ wherein the barrier wall further has a dummy opening defining a main well area that does not overlap with the first light emitting area in a plan view, and a sub-opening defining a sub-well area between the first light emitting area and the main well area, and wherein the light shielding pattern overlaps with the main well area or the sub- well area” including the remaining limitations.
With regard to claims 18 and 20, the references of the Prior Art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations as set forth in Claims 18 and 20, and specifically comprising the limitation of “ wherein the light emitting element is in the opening in a plan view, and the light emitting element is biased to one side of the opening in a first direction” including the remaining limitations.
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 Christopher Raabe whose telephone number is (571)272-8434. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0530-1430.
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, James R Greece can be reached at (571)272-3711. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER M RAABE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights