Detailed Action
This office action is in response to the amendment filed on February 5th, 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 9th, 2026, was filed after the mailing date of the non-final rejection. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 5th, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (pgs. 12-16, “Remarks”) that Kimura and the other cited references fail to teach the limitations presented in amended Claims 1 and 11.
However, as seen in more detail below, Claim 1 is now rejected by the combination of Kimura and Ohsawa. Claim 11 is now rejected by the combination of Kimura and Park.
Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection for Claim 6 from the previous office action.
Applicant argues (pgs. 11-12, “Remarks”) that the paragraphs [0160], [0164]-[0170], and [0173] and Fig. 10 show that the percentage in emission through the color filter (the claimed first color filter) having relatively short-wavelength transmittance during low-gradation driving may be increased, whereby negative shift to the short wavelength is achieved, and therefore it is possible to prevent visibility due to other color emission during low-gradation driving. Thus, claim 15 has a direct effect to prevent visibility of other color emission at a low gradation driving. Also, the percentage in emission can be controlled by a number of turning the first and second light emitting elements.
Examiner notes that the suggested amendment does not overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection of Claim 15. The amendment does not address the core issue of comparing numbers of pixels that are turned on. Applicant merely states that the percentage in emission may be increased. While examiner agrees that the emission percentage is affected, the applicant does not define a point at which a pixel can be considered to be turned on or turned off. Applicant refers to figure 10 for support, but defines it as “when each of the first and second subpixels according to the present disclosure emits low-gradation light and when both the first and second subpixels emit low-gradation light” in [0161]. Therefore, the rejection is maintained and elaborated upon below.
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 15 is 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.
In this instance, Claim 15 recites the limitation “a larger number of the first light emitting elements than the second light emitting elements are turned on at a low gradation driving”. Applicant’s filed disclosure only states that first and second subpixels GS1 and GS2 are turned on ([000163]) and that the amount of light emitted is greater for the first subpixel than the second subpixel ([000168]). There is no support that a low gradation has an effect on the number of first and second subpixels that turn on, instead only the ratio of emitted light. Therefore, applicant does not provide support for the above limitation.
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.
Claims 8-10 and 19 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 8 recites the limitation "the anode and the cathode" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation will be interpreted as “an anode and a cathode”.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "each of the first and second light emitting elements comprises a first hole transport assistant layer than each of the third light emitting elements" in lines 1-3. It is unclear as to what is being compared or stated in regards to the third light emitting elements. For the purpose of examination, the claim will be interpreted to only recite the limitation “each of the first and second light emitting elements comprises a first hole transport assistant layer.”
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.
Rejection Note: Italicized claim limitations indicate that the corresponding limitations are addressed with a secondary reference/embodiment in an obviousness analysis.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7-9, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura et al. (2007/0075627 A1; hereinafter Kimura) in view of Ohsawa et al (2012/0223346 A1; hereinafter Ohsawa).
Regarding Claim 1, Kimura (fig. 16 and annotated fig. 14A) teaches a light emitting display device ([0113], display device, see fig. 1) comprising:
first subpixels ([0243]-[0244], 1602/G1, see fig. 16) and second subpixels ([0243]-[0244], 1605/G2, see fig. 16) provided on a substrate ([0221], 1400; see annotated fig. 14A) to be spaced apart from each other, each of the first subpixels (1603/G1) and the second subpixels (1605/G2) being configured to emit a first color of light ([0243]-[0244], 1602 corresponds to G1 and 1605 corresponds to G2, both green);
a first hole transport assistant layer ([0210], a hole transport layer 1202 may be formed underneath a light-emitting layer 1203 for G1 and G2, see fig. 45A) ([0215], note that the embodiments may be utilized together) at the first subpixels (1602/G1) and the second subpixels (1605/G2);
at least one first emission layer ([0221], 1409 formed in subpixels G1 and G2, see annotated fig. 14A) on the first hole transport assistant layer (1202), the first emission layer being configured to emit the first color of light;
third subpixels ([0243]-[0244], 1603/B1, see fig. 16) and fourth subpixels ([0243]-[0244], 1604/R2, see fig. 16) spaced apart from the first (1602/G1) and second subpixels (1605/G2), each of the third subpixels (1603/B1) being configured to emit a second color of light ([0243]-[0244], 1603 corresponds to B1, blue) different from the first color of light (green), each of the fourth subpixels (1604/R2) being configured to emit a third color of light ([0243]-[0244], 1604 corresponds to R2, red) different from the first color of light (green);
at least one second emission layer (1409 formed in B1, see annotated fig. 14A) at the third subpixels (1603/B1) and at least one third emission layer (1409 formed in R2, see annotated fig. 14A) at the fourth subpixels (1604/R2), the second emission layer being configured to emit the second color of light and the third emission layer being configured to emit the third color of light;
a first color filter ([0221], 1413, see annotated fig. 14A) above the at least one first emission layer of (1409 in G1) each of the first subpixels ([0217], G1, see annotated fig. 14A), the first color filter (1413) being configured to transmit the first color of light (green) emitted from the first subpixel (G1) while having a first peak ([0224], 1413 may vary the emission spectrum of G1; [0188], 901 is the emission spectrum of G1, see fig. 9);
a second color filter ([0221], 1414, see annotated fig. 14A) above the at least one first emission layer (1409 in G2) of each of the second subpixels ([0217], G2, see annotated fig. 14A), the second color filter (1414) being configured to transmit the first color of light (green) emitted from the second subpixel (G2) while having a second peak ([0224], 1414 may vary the emission spectrum of G2; [0188], 902 is the emission spectrum of G2, see fig. 9) having a longer wavelength (peak of 902 is larger than peak of 901, see fig. 9) than the first peak (peak of 901); and
third ([0221], 1415, see annotated fig. 14A) and fourth color filters ([0221], 1412, see annotated fig. 14A) provided respectively at the third ([0217], B1, see annotated fig. 14A) and fourth subpixels ([0217], R2, see annotated fig. 14A), the third (1415) and fourth color filters (1412) being configured to respectively transmit the second color of light (blue) and the third color of light (red).
Kimura doesn’t teach the first emission layer being configured to emit the first color of light and the second emission layer being configured to emit the second color of light and the third emission layer being configured to emit the third color of light.
However, Ohsawa (fig. 3C) teaches first emission layer ([0164]-[0165], 120b) being configured to emit the first color of light (green) and the second emission layer ([0164]-[0165], 120a) being configured to emit the second color of light (blue) and the third emission layer ([0164]-[0165], 120c) being configured to emit the third color of light (red). Ohsawa also teaches that using colored light-emitting layers reduces the amount absorbed by a color filter and improves the use efficiency of light ([0083]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the display device of Kimura to include the emission layers of Ohsawa to reduce the amount absorbed by a color filter and improve efficiency.
PNG
media_image1.png
216
726
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 14A
Regarding Claim 4, Kimura (fig. 16 and annotated fig. 14A) teaches the light emitting display device according to claim 1, wherein the first (1602/G1) and second subpixels (1605/G2) are alternately disposed in a row (see fig. 16), in a column, or in a diagonal direction.
Regarding Claim 5, Kimura (fig. 16 and annotated fig. 14A) teaches the light emitting display device according to claim 1, wherein: the first subpixels (G1) and the second subpixels (G2) are disposed side by side (see fig. 16), and the third subpixels (B1) and the fourth subpixels (R2) are disposed in parallel (see fig. 16) to the first subpixels (G1) while being alternately disposed (B1 and R2 alternate) between the first (G1) and second subpixels (G2) disposed side by side while being adjacent to each other (B1 and R2 are adjacent to each other).
Regarding Claim 7, Kimura (fig. 16 and annotated fig. 14A) teaches the light emitting display device according to claim 1, further comprising a black matrix ([0370], 2114, see figs. 47A-C) provided between emission portions of the first to fourth subpixels (2114 is provided between all subpixels including G1, G2, B1, and R2).
Regarding Claim 8, Kimura (fig. 16 and annotated fig. 14A) teaches the light emitting display device according to claim 1, wherein each of the first to fourth subpixels (G1, G2, B1, R2, see annotated fig. 14A) comprises the anode ([0221], 1407, see annotated fig. 14A) and the cathode ([0221], 1410, see annotated fig. 14A) opposite each other, and wherein the at least one first emission layer (1409 in G1/G2), the at least one second emission layer (1409 in B1) and the at least one third emission layer (1409 in R2) are disposed between the anode (1407) and the cathode (1410).
Regarding Claim 9, Kimura (fig. 16 and annotated fig. 14A) teaches the light emitting display device according to claim 8, wherein the first to fourth color filters (1412-1415) are located at equal vertical intervals (the color filters 1412-1415 are located at equal heights for each subpixel) from an upper surface of the cathode (upper surface of 1410).
Regarding Claim 17, Kimura (fig. 16 and annotated fig. 14A) teaches the light emitting display device according to claim 1, further comprising a second hole transport assistant layer (1202 under 1203 in R2) under the at least one third emission layer (1409 in R2) at the fourth subpixels (1604/R2).
Regarding Claim 18, Kimura (fig. 16 and annotated fig. 14A) teaches the light emitting display device according to claim 1, wherein the first hole transport assistant layer (1202 in G1 and G2) has a different thickness ([0210], [0212], thickness of 1202 may be varied for each subpixel) from the second hole transport assistant layer (1202 in R2).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura and Ohsawa, as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Yueh et al. (2020/0083315 A1; hereinafter Yueh).
Regarding Claim 2, Kimura doesn’t explicitly teach the light emitting display device according to claim 1, wherein a difference between the first peak and the second peak is 4 nm to 20 nm.
However, Yueh (fig. 3C) teaches a difference between the first peak ([0054], peak of G) and the second peak ([0054], peak of G’) is 4 nm to 20 nm ([0054], 5 to 15 nm). Peak wavelength differences, however, will not support the patentability of the subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such thicknesses are critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Accordingly, since similar peak wavelength differences are used for light emitting display devices in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the appropriate peak wavelength difference for two pixels of the same color.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura and Ohsawa as applied to Claim 1, above, and further in view of Bae et al. (2014/0070176 A1; hereinafter Bae).
Regarding Claim 3, Kimura doesn’t explicitly teach the light emitting display device according to claim 1, wherein the first peak has a wavelength of 510 nm to 550 nm.
However, Bae (fig. 8) teaches the first peak ([0069], peak of 421) has a wavelength of 510 nm to 550 nm ([0069], peak may range from about 500 nm to about 520 nm). Bae also teaches this is an appropriate wavelength for a deep green pixel in a display device that may display additional colors compared to a conventional display device ([0080]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the light emitting display device of Kimura to include the first peak of Bae to provide a deep green pixel that allows a display device to display additional colors.
Claim 6 is ejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura and Ohsawa, as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Park et al. (2020/0111851 A1; hereinafter Park).
Regarding Claim 6, Kimura doesn’t teach the light emitting display device according to claim 1, wherein: one of the first subpixels, one of the second subpixels, one of the third subpixels, and one of the fourth subpixels constitute a unit pixel, in the unit pixel, the first subpixel and the third subpixel are disposed along a first diagonal line, and the second subpixels and the fourth subpixels are disposed along a second diagonal line parallel to the first diagonal line.
However, Park (annotated fig. 1) teaches one of the first subpixels ([0061], a first 310G, referred to as first subpixel, see annotated fig. 1), one of the second subpixels ([0061], a second 310G, referred to as second subpixel, see annotated fig. 1), one of the third subpixels ([0061], 310B), and one of the fourth subpixels ([0061], 310R) constitute a unit pixel ([0061], Px), in the unit pixel (Px), the first subpixel (first subpixel) and the third subpixel (310B) are disposed along a first diagonal line (line going through first subpixel and 310B, referred to as first diagonal line, see annotated fig. 1), and the second subpixels (second subpixel) and the fourth subpixels (310R) are disposed along a second diagonal line (line going through second subpixel and 310R, referred to as second diagonal line, see annotated fig. 1) parallel to the first diagonal line (see annotated fig. 1). Park also teaches that this arrangement forms a pentile matrix ([0062]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the light emitting display device of Kimura to include the subpixel arrangement of Park to form a pentile matrix.
PNG
media_image2.png
809
1114
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura and Ohsawa as applied to Claim 1, above, and further in view of Lee et al. (2020/0287159 A1; hereinafter Lee).
Regarding Claim 10, Kimura doesn’t teach the light emitting display device according to claim 9, wherein a capping layer and an encapsulation layer are sequentially provided between the cathode and the first to fourth color filters.
However, Lee (fig. 11) teaches a capping layer ([0098]-[0099], capping layer disposed between LED and 390, not shown) and an encapsulation layer ([0097], 390) are sequentially provided between the cathode ([0082], 270 of LED, see fig. 5) and the first to fourth color filters ([0098]-[0101], capping layer and 390 are disposed between 270 of LED and the color filters 230R, 230G, and 230B). Lee also teaches that the capping layer may improve optical efficiency ([0099]) and the encapsulation layer may prevent moisture or oxygen from penetrating ([0097]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the light emitting display device of Kimura to include the capping layer and encapsulation layer of Lee to improve optical efficiency and prevent oxygen and moisture penetration.
Claims 11, 14, 16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura in view of Park.
Regarding Claim 11, Kimura (fig. 16 and annotated fig. 14A) teaches a light emitting display device ([0113], display device, see fig. 1) comprising:
first light emitting elements ([0223]-[0224], 1602/G1, see fig. 16) and second light emitting elements ([0223]-[0224], 1605/G2, see fig. 16) provided on a substrate ([0221], 1400; see annotated fig. 14A) to be spaced apart from each other, each of the first light emitting elements (1602/G1) and the second light emitting elements (1605/G2) being configured to emit a first color of light ([0223]-[0224], 1602 corresponds to G1 and 1605 corresponds to G2, both green);
third light emitting elements ([0223]-[0224], 1603/B1, see fig. 16) and fourth light emitting elements ([0223]-[0224], 1605/R2, see fig. 16) spaced apart from the first (1602/G1) and second light emitting elements (1605/G2), each of the third light emitting elements (1603/B1) being configured to emit a second color of light ([0223]-[0224], 1603 corresponds to B1, blue) different from the first color of light (green), each of the fourth light emitting elements (1604/R2) being configured to emit a third color of light ([0223]-[0224], 1604 corresponds to R2, red) different from the first color of light (green);
first to fourth transistors ([0221], 1402, 1403, 1404 in each light emitting element G1, G2, B1, R2, see fig. 14A) connected respectively to the first to fourth light emitting elements (G1, G2, B1, R2);
a first color filter ([0221], 1413, see annotated fig. 14A) provided on the first light emitting elements ([0217], G1, see annotated fig. 14A), the first color filter (1413) being configured to transmit the first color of light (green) while having a first peak ([0224], 1413 may vary the emission spectrum of G1; [0188], 901 is the emission spectrum of G1, see fig. 9);
a second color filter ([0221], 1414, see annotated fig. 14A) provided on the second light emitting elements ([0217], G2, see annotated fig. 14A), the second color filter (1414) being configured to transmit the first color of light (green) while having a second peak ([0224], 1414 may vary the emission spectrum of G2; [0188], 902 is the emission spectrum of G2, see fig. 9) having a longer wavelength (peak of 902 is larger than peak of 901, see fig. 9) than the first peak (peak of 901); and
third ([0221], 1415, see annotated fig. 14A) and fourth color filters ([0221], 1412, see annotated fig. 14A) provided on the third ([0217], B1, see annotated fig. 14A) and fourth light emitting elements ([0217], R2, see annotated fig. 14A), the third (1415) and fourth color filters (1412) being configured to respectively transmit the second color of light (blue) and the third color of light (red), wherein
one of the first light emitting elements, one of the second light emitting elements, one of the third light emitting elements, and one of the fourth light emitting elements constitute a unit light emitting element, and wherein the unit light emitting element is disposed in a diamond shape.
Kimura doesn’t teach one of the first light emitting elements, one of the second light emitting elements, one of the third light emitting elements, and one of the fourth light emitting elements constitute a unit light emitting element, and wherein the unit light emitting element is disposed in a diamond shape.
However, Park (annotated fig. 1) teaches one of the first light emitting elements ([0061], a first 310G, referred to as first subpixel, see annotated fig. 1), one of the second light emitting elements ([0061], a second 310G, referred to as second subpixel, see annotated fig. 1), one of the third light emitting elements ([0061], 310B), and one of the fourth light emitting elements ([0061], 310R) constitute a unit light emitting element ([0061], Px), and wherein the unit light emitting element (Px) is disposed in a diamond shape (see annotated fig. 1). Park also teaches that this arrangement forms a pentile matrix ([0062]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the light emitting display device of Kimura to include the subpixel arrangement of Park to form a pentile matrix.
Regarding Claim 14, Kimura (fig. 16 and annotated fig. 14A) teaches the light emitting display device according to claim 11, wherein the first light emitting elements (1602/G1) and the second light emitting elements (1605/G2) are alternately disposed in a row (see fig. 16), in a column, or in a diagonal direction.
Regarding Claim 16, Kimura (fig. 16 and annotated fig. 14A) teaches the light emitting display device according to claim 11, wherein: each of the first to fourth light emitting elements (G1, G2, B1, R2, see annotated fig. 14A) has an anode ([0221], 1407, see annotated fig. 14A) and a cathode ([0221], 1410, see annotated fig. 14A) opposite each other, each of the first (G1) and second light emitting elements (G2) comprises at least one first emission layer ([0221], 1409 formed in subpixels G1 and G2, see annotated fig. 14A) provided between the anode (1407) and the cathode (1410), the first emission layer (1409 in G1 and G2) being configured to emit the first color of light ([0218]-[0219], G1 and G2 emit roughly equal emission spectrums, green), each of the third light emitting elements (B1) comprises at least one second emission layer (1409 formed in B1, see annotated fig. 14A) provided between the anode (1407) and the cathode (1410), the second emission layer (1409 in B1) being configured to emit the second color of light ([0218], blue), and each of the fourth light emitting elements (R2) comprises at least one third emission layer (1409 formed in R2, see annotated fig. 14A) provided between the anode (1407) and the cathode (1410), the third emission layer (1409 in B2) being configured to emit the third color of light ([0218], red).
Regarding Claim 19 Kimura (fig. 16 and annotated fig. 14A) teaches the light emitting display device according to claim 11, wherein each of the first (1602/G1) and second light emitting elements (1605/G2) comprises a first hole transport assistant layer ([0210], a hole transport layer 1202 may be formed underneath a light-emitting layer 1203 for G1 and G2, see fig. 45A) ([0241], note that the embodiments may be utilized together) than each of the third light emitting elements (1603/B1).
Regarding Claim 20, Park (annotated fig. 1) teaches the light emitting display device according to claim 11, wherein one of the third light emitting elements (310B) or one of the fourth light emitting elements (310R) is disposed between one of the first light emitting elements (first subpixel) and one of the second light emitting elements (second subpixel) in a diagonal direction (see annotated fig. 1).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura and Park, as applied to Claim 11 above, and further in view of Yueh.
Regarding Claim 12, Kimura doesn’t teach the light emitting display device according to claim 11, wherein a difference between the first peak and the second peak is 4 nm to 20 nm.
However, Yueh (fig. 3C) teaches a difference between the first peak ([0054], peak of G) and the second peak ([0054], peak of G’) is 4 nm to 20 nm ([0054], 5 to 15 nm). Peak wavelength differences, however, will not support the patentability of the subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such thicknesses are critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Accordingly, since similar peak wavelength differences are used for light emitting display devices in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the appropriate peak wavelength difference for two pixels of the same color.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura and Park as applied to Claim 11, above, and further in view of Bae.
Regarding Claim 13, Kimura doesn’t explicitly teach the light emitting display device according to claim 11, wherein the first peak has a wavelength of 510 nm to 550 nm.
However, Bae (fig. 8) teaches the first peak ([0069], peak of 421) has a wavelength of 510 nm to 550 nm ([0069], peak may range from about 500 nm to about 520 nm). Bae also teaches this is an appropriate wavelength for a deep green pixel in a display device that may display additional colors compared to a conventional display device ([0080]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the light emitting display device of Kimura to include the first peak of Bae to provide a deep green pixel that allows a display device to display additional colors.
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 ADIN HRNJIC whose telephone number is (571)270-1794. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM.
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, Kretelia Graham can be reached at (571) 272-5055. 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.
/A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/Kretelia Graham/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights