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 March 20, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-21 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed December 23, 2025.
Election/RestrictionsNewly submitted claim 21 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: the claims to the different species recite the mutually exclusive characteristics of such the anti-reflection layer comprising sub-layers.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 21 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1, 9-10, 14, and 16-20 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: the symbol P used in the equation provided.
Upon amending claim 1, it appears Applicant did not define the symbol P for use in the equation. Fur purposes of Examination, Examiner will interpret the symbol P to be a pitch is formed between the first light emitting unit and the second light-emitting unit from the amendment.
Claims 9-10, 14, and 16-20 are also rejected as they are dependent on claim 1.
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.
Claims 1, 9-10, 14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyoda et. al. (US 20140062294 A1), hereinafter Toyoda, in view of Hanawa et. al. (US 20150097168 A1), hereinafter Hanawa, in further view of Jian et. al. (CN 110957348 A), hereinafter Jian.
Regarding claim 1, Toyoda teaches a display device (Fig 1 EL display device 100, [0017]), comprising: a substrate (Fig 1 substrate 1, [0018]); a plurality of light-emitting units (Fig 1 light emitting units are lower electrodes 4, EL layer 6, and upper electrode 7), disposed on the substrate, wherein the plurality of light-emitting units (Fig 1 light emitting units are lower electrodes 4, EL layer 6, and upper electrode 7) comprise a first light-emitting unit (Fig 1 light emitting unit under color filter 11G) and a second light-emitting unit (Fig 1 light emitting unit under color filter 11R) adjacent to the first light-emitting unit (Fig 1 light emitting unit under color filter 11G), wherein a pitch is formed between (See annotated figure) the first light emitting unit (Fig 1 light emitting unit under color filter 11G) and the second light-emitting unit (Fig 1 light emitting unit under color filter 11G); a spacer layer (Fig 1 pixel separation films 5, [0021]), disposed on the substrate (Fig 1 substrate 1, [0018]) and comprising a first spacer pattern (Fig 1 pixel separation films 5 between light emitting unit under color filter 11G and Fig 1 light emitting unit under color filter 11R), wherein the first spacer pattern (Fig 1 pixel separation films 5 between light emitting unit under color filter 11G and Fig 1 light emitting unit under color filter 11R) is disposed between (Examiner notes that the light-emitting unit is composed of a lower electrode, EL layer and upper electrode; since the lower electrode is separated by the pixel separation film, the light-emitting unit is also separated since there is no light emission without all of the elements) the first light-emitting unit (Fig 1 light emitting unit under color filter 11G) and the second light emitting-emitting unit (Fig 1 light emitting unit under color filter 11R); a plurality of color filter units (Fig 1 color filters 11R, 11G, and 11B, [0026]), which are disposed on the plurality of light-emitting units (Fig 1 light emitting units are lower electrodes 4, EL layer 6, and upper electrode 7) and comprise a first color filter unit (Fig 1 color filter 11G, [0026]), wherein the first color filter unit (Fig 1 color filter 11G, [0026]) is overlapped with the first light-emitting unit (Fig 1 light emitting unit under color filter 11G); and a protecting layer (Fig 1 second substrate 9, [0025]), disposed on the plurality of color filter units (Fig 1 color filters 11R, 11G, and 11B, [0026]), wherein the display device (Fig 1 EL display device 100, [0017]) has a maximum light-emitting angle θ2 (Fig 2 not shown critical angle θm, [0031]), wherein the maximum light-emitting angle is defined as an angle between a viewing angle direction corresponding to zero brightness and a normal direction of the substrate, wherein the protecting layer has a refractive index n1 (not listed; however, glass is used for protecting layer so the refractive index is known, [0031]), the first color filter unit has a width WCF (Fig 2 ½ width of the black matrix, WBM + width of aperture area, WB + ½ width of the black matrix, WBM, [0030]) along a first direction (Fig 2 left-right direction), a light-emitting layer (Fig 1 EL layer 6, [0018]) of the first light-emitting unit (Fig 1 light emitting unit under color filter 11G) has a width WL (Fig 2 width of aperture area, WB, [0030]) along the first direction (Fig 2 left-right direction), and the first color filter unit (Fig 1 color filter 11G, [0026]) has a thickness HCF (Fig 2 thickness of the black matrix, HBM + thickness of the color filter 11B, HB, [0030]), a distance H (Fig 2 distance between a front surface of the pixel separation film 5 and a rear surface of the color filter 11B, HG, [0030]) is formed between the first light-emitting unit (Fig 1 light emitting unit under color filter 11G) and the first color filter unit (Fig 1 color filter 11G, [0026]), and the display device (Fig 1 EL display device 100, [0017]).
Toyoda fails to teach an anti-reflection layer disposed between the plurality of light-emitting units and the plurality of color filter units; and the parameters satisfies the inequation:
2
*
tan
sin
-
1
sin
θ
2
n
1
*
H
C
F
+
H
+
W
L
≤
W
C
F
≤
1
2
*
P
.
However, Toyoda teaches a display that satisfies the inequation taught in claim 1 to reduce the degradation of image quality due to color mixing ([0007]). Further, the parameters of the inequation of Toyoda have similar parameters to that of the instant invention. Hanawa teaches that as the pixel pitch is reduced the possibility of color mixing increases ([0082]-[0083]). The parameters of the inequation are therefore a result-effective variables.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to vary, through routine optimization, the parameters of the inequation as Toyoda and Hanwa has identified the parameters of the inequation as a result-effective variable. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at the inequation:
2
*
tan
sin
-
1
sin
θ
2
n
1
*
H
C
F
+
H
+
W
L
≤
W
C
F
≤
1
2
*
P
, in order to achieve the desired balance between the pixel density and color fidelity, as taught by Toyoda and Hanawa. MPEP 2144.05.
Furthermore, the applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed inequation is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e., that the invention would not work without the specific claimed inequation).
Toyoda and Hanawa fail to teach an anti-reflection layer disposed between the plurality of light-emitting units and the plurality of color filter units.
However, Jian teaches an anti-reflection layer (Fig 10 antireflective layer 15, [0091] of translation), disposed between (Fig 10) the plurality of light-emitting units (Fig 10 not shown located in display device 11, [0052] of translation corresponds to Toyoda: Fig 1 light emitting units are lower electrodes 4, EL layer 6, and upper electrode 7) and the plurality of color filter units (Fig 10 color filter 16, [0091] of translation corresponds to Toyoda: Fig 1 color filters 11R, 11G, and 11B, [0026]).
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 Toyoda and Hanawa to incorporate the teachings of Jian by having an anti-reflection layer, disposed between the plurality of light-emitting units and the plurality of color filter units. This would absorb most of the ambient light reducing the reflection of the ambient light by the cathode of the light-emitting units ([0091] of translation).
PNG
media_image1.png
548
772
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Toyoda as modified in claim 1 teaches the anti-reflection layer (Jian: Fig 10 antireflective layer 15, [0091] of translation) is a light-absorbing layer (Jian: absorbs ambient light, [0091] of translation), and the light-absorbing layer (Jian: Fig 10 antireflective layer 15, [0091] of translation) is continuously disposed on (Jian: Fig 10) the plurality of light-emitting units (Toyoda: Fig 1 light emitting units are lower electrodes 4, EL layer 6, and upper electrode 7).
Regarding claim 10, Toyoda as modified in claim 9 teaches the light-absorbing layer (Jian: Fig 10 antireflective layer 15, [0091] of translation) comprises an encapsulation layer (Jian: Fig 10 antireflective layer 15 includes an optically transparent adhesive layer, [0059] of translation) and a plurality of light-absorbing particles (Jian: Fig 10 light-absorbing nanoparticles 17, [0059] of translation) disposed in (Jian: [0059] of translation) the encapsulation layer (Jian: Fig 10 antireflective layer 15 includes an optically transparent adhesive layer, [0059] of translation).
Regarding claim 14, Toyoda as modified in claim 1 fails to teach an adhesive layer, wherein at least a portion of the adhesive layer is disposed between the anti-reflection layer and the plurality of color filter units.
However, Jian teaches an adhesive layer (not shown, the color filter 16 and anti-reflection layer 15 are first formed and then bonded to the display device 11 with an optically transparent adhesive, [0071]).
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 Toyoda and Hanawa to incorporate the teachings of Jian by having an adhesive layer. This would allow for simplifying the manufacturing process ([0072] of translation).
Regarding the choice of placing at least a portion of the adhesive layer is disposed between the anti-reflection layer and the plurality of color filter units, this particular location would have been obvious to try. As stated above, Jian shows that an adhesive layer simplifies the manufacturing process. In pursuing this arrangement in the device of Toyoda, there are only two locations for the adhesive layer : between the anti-reflection layer and the plurality of light-emitting units or between the anti-reflection layer and the plurality of color filter units. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the desired simplification would be achieved equally, regardless of which of these two 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.
Regarding claim 16, Toyoda as modified in claim 1 teaches a light-shielding layer (Toyoda: Fig 1 black matrix 10, [0025]), disposed between (Toyoda: Fig 1) the plurality of color filter units (Toyoda: Fig 1 color filters 11R, 11G, and 11B, [0026]).
Regarding claim 17, Toyoda as modified in claim 16 fails to teach a thickness of the light-shielding layer is equal to the thickness HCF.
However, Hanawa teaches a thickness of the light-shielding layer (Fig 3 black matric layer 20 corresponds to Toyoda: Fig 1 black matrix 10, [0025]) is equal to the thickness HCF (Fig 3 color filter layers 20R, 20G, 20B, [0072] corresponds to Toyoda: Fig 1 color filters 11R, 11G, and 11B, [0026]).
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 Toyoda to incorporate the teachings of Hanawa by having a thickness of the light-shielding layer is equal to the thickness HCF. This would aid to improve image quality ([0005]).
Regarding claim 18, Toyoda as modified in claim 1 teaches the width WCF (Toyoda: Fig 2 ½ width of the black matrix, WBM + width of aperture area, WB + ½ width of the black matrix, WBM, [0030]) is greater than or equal (Toyoda: Fig 2) to the width WL (Toyoda: Fig 2 width of aperture area, WB, [0030]).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyoda et. al. (US 20140062294 A1), hereinafter Toyoda, in view of Hanawa et. al. (US 20150097168 A1), hereinafter Hanawa, in further view of Jian et. al. (CN 110957348 A), hereinafter Jian, with supporting evidence from Kishimoto et. al. (US 20210333934 A1), hereinafter Kishimoto.
Regarding claim 19, Toyoda as modified in claim 1 fails to teach a first adhesive layer, disposed between the plurality of light-emitting units and the anti- reflection layer; and a second adhesive layer, disposed between the plurality of color filter units and the anti- reflection layer.
However, Jian teaches a first adhesive layer (not shown, the color filter 16 and anti-reflection layer 15 are first formed and then bonded to the display device 11 with an optically transparent adhesive, [0071]), disposed between the plurality of light-emitting units (Fig 10 not shown located in display device 11, [0052] of translation corresponds to Toyoda: Fig 1 light emitting units are lower electrodes 4, EL layer 6, and upper electrode 7) and the anti- reflection layer (Fig 10 antireflective layer 15, [0091] of translation).
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 Toyoda and Hanawa to incorporate the teachings of Jian by having an anti-reflection layer, disposed between the plurality of light-emitting units and the plurality of color filter units; and a first adhesive layer, disposed between the plurality of light-emitting units and the anti- reflection layer. The anti-reflection layer would absorb most of the ambient light reducing the reflection of the ambient light by the cathode of the light-emitting units ([0091] of translation). The first adhesive layer would allow for simplifying the manufacturing process ([0072] of translation).
Toyoda, Hanawa, and Jian fail to teach a second adhesive layer, disposed between the plurality of color filter units and the anti-reflection layer.
However, Jian teaches forming the anti-reflection layer as a discrete component to be placed later ([0059] of translation). Further, Jian teaches bonding a secondary substrate containing a color filter and anti-reflection layer to a first substrate with light emitting units ([0071]). Kishimoto teaches it was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that individual components can be bonded to each other (Fig 4A, [0084]). One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to have a second adhesive layer, disposed between the plurality of color filter units and the anti-reflection layer to further simplify the manufacturing process by having producing different components separately and then bonding them together. MPEP2144(I)
Regarding claim 20, Toyoda as modified in claim 19 fails to teach the distance H is a sum of thicknesses of the anti-reflection layer, the first adhesive layer and the second adhesive layer.
However, Toyoda teaches a distance between a front surface of the pixel separation film 5 and a rear surface of the color filter (Fig 2 HG, [0030]). Further, Toyoda teaches HG contains a sealing layer. One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize that in placing an anti-reflection layer, first adhesive layer and second adhesive layer in between the color filter and light-emitting units, the separation distance would also include the components. MPEP2144(I)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see 35 USC §103 section on starting on page 9, filed September 13, 2024, with respect to a maximum light-emitting angle θ2 not being disclosed in Toyoda, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that the critical angle θm of Toyoda being different from maximum light-emitting angle θ2 of the instant application, Examiner notes that Toyoda teaches that critical angle θm is an angle between the second substrate and air. Fig 1 of the instant invention shows maximum light-emitting angle θ2 at an interface of the top most layer and air, this corresponds to the critical angle θm definition of Toyoda.
Applicant's arguments, see 35 USC §103 section beginning on second to the last paragraph on page 9, filed September 13, 2024, with respect to the first spacer pattern, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that Toyoda does not teach or disclose a “first spacer pattern [is] disposed between the first light-emitting unit and the second light-emitting unit”, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
As mentioned in the rejection above, Examiner noted that the light-emitting unit of Toyoda comprises a lower electrode, EL layer, and upper electrode. Since the lower electrode is separated by the pixel separation films, the light-emitting units are separated. One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize that there would be no different light-emitting units without a separation of at least one of the components of the light emitting structure.
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
Prosecution Insights