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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed January 12, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 3-5 remain pending in the application.
The objection to the Specification previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed October 08, 2025 remains. Specifically, the objection relates to the length of the Abstract, which does not appear to have been changed.
Drawings
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 second layer of the base material layer of claim 5 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.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuie (US 20140091704 A1).
Furuie teaches a display device (Fig 1 organic EL display device 1, [0033]) comprising: a first substrate (Fig 2 substrate 10, [0033]); a second substrate (Fig 2 substrate 20, [0033]) that faces the first substrate (Fig 2 substrate 10, [0033]); a plurality of light emitting elements (Fig 2 EL elements 30, [0034]) in a display region (Fig 2 display area D1, [0033]) between the first substrate (Fig 2 substrate 10, [0033]) and the second substrate (Fig 2 substrate 20, [0033]); and a sealing part (Fig 2 part of adhesion layer 19 in non-display area D2, [0037]) in a peripheral region (Fig 2 non-display area D2, [0033]) sandwiched the first substrate (Fig 2 substrate 10, [0033]) and the second substrate (Fig 2 substrate 20, [0033]), wherein the sealing part surrounds the display region (Fig 2 display area D1, [0033]), the sealing part (Fig 2 part of adhesion layer 19 in non-display area D2, [0037]) seals between (Fig 2) the first substrate (Fig 2 substrate 10, [0033]) and the second substrate (Fig 2 substrate 20, [0033]), the sealing part (Fig 2 part of adhesion layer 19 in non-display area D2, [0037]) includes main sealing parts (Figs 1 and 2 part of adhesion layer 19 in non-display area D2 surrounding opening 23a, [0039]) and a sub sealing part (Figs 1 and 2 part of adhesion layer 19 in non-display area D2 under opening 23a, [0039]) between the main sealing parts (Figs 1 and 2 part of adhesion layer 19 in non-display area D2 surrounding opening 23a, [0039]), an alignment mark (Fig 2 alignment mark A1, [0039]) is between the sub sealing part (Figs 1 and 2 part of adhesion layer 19 in non-display area D2 under opening 23a, [0039]) and the first substrate (Fig 2 substrate 10, [0033]), the sub sealing part (Figs 5 part of adhesion layer 19 in non-display area D2 under opening 23a, [0039]) has a stacked structure of a base material layer (Fig 5 sealing film 18, [0061]) formed of a non-light shielding member (Fig 5 sealing film 18, [0061]) and the sealing member layer (Fig 5 adhesion layer 19, [0037]) from the side of the first substrate side (Fig 2 substrate 10, [0033]).
Furuie fails to teach each of the main sealing parts has a stacked structure of a light shielding member layer and a sealing member layer from the first substrate side, and an extending part of the sealing member layer constituting the sub sealing part is formed on the light shielding member layer.
Regarding the choice of placing the light shielding member layer (Fig 5 light-impermeable film 23, [0061]) between the sealing member layer (Fig 5 adhesion layer 19, [0037]) and the first substrate (Fig 2 substrate 10, [0033]), this particular location would have been obvious to try. Furuie teaches a light-impermeable layer to control light emitted in a non-display area ([0069]). In pursuing this arrangement in the device of Furuie, there are only three locations for the light-impermeable layer to achieve this result: between 20/19, between 19/18, or between 18/30. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the light control would be achieved equally, regardless of which of these three locations is chosen. That is, "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421.
In modifying the structure of Furuie, each of the main sealing parts would have a stacked structure of a light shielding member layer and a sealing member layer from the first substrate side. Further, an extending part (Fig 5 part of adhesion layer 19 that extends under opening 23a) of the sealing member layer (Fig 5 adhesion layer 19, [0037]) constituting the sub sealing part (Figs 5 part of adhesion layer 19 in non-display area D2 under opening 23a, [0039]) is formed on the light shielding member layer (Fig 5 light-impermeable layer 23, [0061]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuie (US 20140091704 A1), in view of Ohta (US 20120217521 A1).
Furuie as modified in claim 1 teaches each of the plurality of light emitting elements (Fig 2 EL elements 30, [0034]) includes a first electrode (Fig 5 anode 32, [0044]), an organic layer (Fig 5 organic layer 33, [0044]), a second electrode (Fig 5 cathode 34, [0044]).
Furuie fails to teach an optical path control unit from the side of the first substrate side, and the base material layer is made of a material constituting the optical path control unit.
However, Ohta teaches an optical path control unit (Fig 2 lens 22, [0115]) from the side of the first substrate side (Fig 3 substrate 13 corresponds to Furuie: Fig 3 substrate 10, [0033]), and the base material layer (Furuie: Fig 5 sealing film 18, [0050]) includes a first layer (See note below) made of a material constituting (The sealing film 18 of Furuie is formed of a resin, [0050] and the lens 22 of Ohta is formed of an acrylic resin) the optical path control unit (Ohta: Fig 2 lens 22, [0115]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Furuie to incorporate the teachings of Ohta by having an optical path control unit. This would increase the efficiency of extracting light ([0125]).
Examiner notes that since the lens of Ohta is made of a resin and Furuie teaches the base material layer is a resin, the base material layer would include a first layer made of a material constituting the optical path control unit.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuie (US 20140091704 A1), in view of Ohta (US 20120217521 A1), in further view of Totani (JP 2015076298 A).
Regarding claim 4, Furuie as modified in claim 3 teaches each of the plurality of light emitting elements (Furuie: Fig 2 EL elements 30, [0034]) includes a color filter layer (Furuie: Fig 3 color filter 21, [0038]) between the second electrode (Furuie: Fig 5 cathode 34, [0044]) and the optical path control unit (Ohta: Fig 2 lens 22, [0115]), and
Furuie as modified in claim 3 fails to teach the light shielding member layer is made of a material constituting the color filter layer.
However, Totani teaches color filter layers can be stacked to provide a light blocking effect ([0070] of translation). One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be able to use the teachings of Totani with Furuie to provide a light blocking effect for the light-impermeable film 22. This would reduce the materials needed since a black matrix material is no longer needed (Furuie: [0038]). In doing so, the light shielding member layer would be made of a material constituting the color filter layer.
Regarding claim 5, Furuie as modified in claim 4 teaches each of the plurality of light emitting elements (Furuie: Fig 2 EL elements 30, [0034]) includes a planarization layer (Ohta: Fig 3 sealing resin 30, [0118]) between the second electrode (Ohta: Fig 3 electrode 18, [0143] corresponds to Furuie: Fig 5 cathode 34, [0044]) and the color filter layer (Ohta: Fig 2 color filter unit 21, [0120] corresponds to Furuie: Fig 3 color filter 21, [0038]), and the base material layer (Furuie: Fig 5 sealing film 18, [0050]) includes a second layer (See note below) made of a material constituting (The sealing film 18 of Furuie is formed of a resin, [0050] and the sealing resin 30 of Ohta from the name implies a resin; further Ohta teaches the sealing resin is injected, [0216]) the planarization layer (Ohta: Fig 3 sealing resin 30, [0118]).
Examiner notes that since the planarization layer of Ohta is made of a resin and Furuie teaches the base material layer is a resin, the base material layer would include a second layer made of a material constituting the planarization layer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see 35 USC §112 section on page 5, filed January 12, 2026, with respect to amendments to claim 5 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC §112 rejection of claim 5 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see 35 USC §103 section on page 6, filed January 12, 2026, with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As outlined in the rejection above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the order of the layers. In changing the order of the layers, the limitations of amended claim 1 would be met.
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.
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALVIN L LEE whose telephone number is (703)756-1921. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5 pm (ET).
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, STEVEN GAUTHIER can be reached at (571)270-0373. 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.
/ALVIN L LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2813
/STEVEN B GAUTHIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2813