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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “part of the light-shielding layer is embedded in the sealing layer” must be shown or the feature canceled from the claims. 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 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Motoyama et al.; US 9,343,516 B2; 09/2013 in view of Choi et al.; US 2018/0374905 A1; 08/2018
Claim 1: Motoyama discloses an organic electroluminescent display device ( Fig. 1), comprising: a light-emitting device substrate assembly ( Fig. 6 is a diagram illustrating a configuration of the display unit illustrated in Fig. 1; Fig. 6 #11 ) comprising a drive circuit board ( Fig. 6 pixel drive circuit #140 ) and a plurality of light-emitting devices ( Fig. 6 #10R, #10G, and #10B ) positioned on the drive circuit board ( Fig. 6 #140 ); a color filter ( Col. 5 lines 7-11 The color elements #23 are generally called color filters) including a plurality of red colored pixels ( Fig. 6 #10R ), a plurality of green colored pixels ( Fig. 6 # 10G ), and a plurality of blue colored pixels ( Fig. 6 #10B) at positions corresponding to the plurality of light-emitting devices of the light-emitting device substrate assembly ( Fig. 1); and a light-shielding layer ( Fig. 2 is an enlarged plan view (A) and an enlarged sectional view (B) illustrating one pixel of the display unit illustrated in Fig. 1; Fig. 2 light-shielding film #22) formed such that the light-shielding layer does not overlap the plurality of light-emitting devices of the light-emitting device substrate assembly ( Fig. 2(A) #22A ) and is straddling a boundary between the colored pixels of the color filter ( Fig. 2(A) #22B ), wherein the drive circuit board ( Fig. 6 #140 ) includes a semiconductor substrate ( Fig. 6 #11) having a drive circuit formed therein ( Fig. 8 cross section with #140 on top of #11).
Motoyama does not appear to disclose each of the light-shielding layer and the color filter has a surface oriented toward the light-emitting devices such that the surface of the light-shielding layer is flush with the surface of the color filter or closer to the light-emitting devices of the light- emitting device substrate assembly than the surface of the color filter
However, Choi teaches each of the light-shielding layer ( Fig. 1 #430 ) and the color filter ( Fig. 1 #410 ) has a surface oriented toward ( as shown in Fig. 1 ) the light-emitting devices ( Fig. 1 P1, P2, and P3 ) such that the surface of the light-shielding layer is flush with the surface of the color filter ( Fig. 1 shows the bottom surface of #410 and #430 are flush ) or closer to the light-emitting devices ( Fig. 1 P1, P2, and P3 ) of the light-emitting device substrate assembly ( Fig. 1 ) than the surface of the color filter ( flush condition was satisfied above ) .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize the teachings of Choi with Motoyama to implement each of the light-shielding layer and the color filter has a surface oriented toward the light-emitting devices such that the surface of the light-shielding layer is flush with the surface of the color filter or closer to the light-emitting devices of the light- emitting device substrate assembly than the surface of the color filter because this configuration improves display quality through optical precision, reduction of crosstalk, and improved color purity.
Claim 2 is rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Motoyama et al.; US 9,343,516 B2; 09/2013 in view of Choi et al.; US 2018/0374905 A1; 08/2018 as it relates to claim 1 and further in view of Tani et al.; US 2015/0177602 A1; 09/2012
Claim 2: Motoyama and Choi disclose the organic electroluminescent display device according to claim 1 ( as discussed above).
Neither Motoyama nor Choi appear to disclose the light-shielding layer has an upper surface in a cross-section in a width direction of the light-shielding layer, and the upper surface is a convex curved surface.
However, Tani teaches the light-shielding layer ( Fig. 11 #30 ) has an upper surface in a cross-section in a width direction of the light-shielding layer ( as shown in Fig. 11), and the upper surface is a convex curved surface ( [0042] a plurality of microstructural convex portions may be formed in light shield #30. Each convex portion preferably has a conical or pyramidal shape ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize the teachings of Tani with Motoyama and Choi to implement the light-shielding layer has an upper surface in a cross-section in a width direction of the light-shielding layer, and the upper surface is a convex curved surface because this design will scatter and diffuse ambient light, which minimizes glare and reflections.
Claim 3,4, and 19 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Motoyama et al.; US 9,343,516 B2; 09/2013 in view of Choi et al.; US 2018/0374905 A1; 08/2018 as it relates to claim 1 and further in view of Masatoshi et al.; JP 2020205417 A; 06/2020
Claim 3: Motoyama and Choi disclose the organic electroluminescent display device according to claim 1 ( as discussed above).
Neither Motoyama nor Choi appear to disclose the light-shielding layer includes a vertically intermediate section in a cross-section in a width direction of the light-shielding layer, and the intermediate section has a reverse tapered shape in which the intermediate section has a width that gradually decreases downward.
However, Masatoshi teaches the light-shielding layer ( Fig. 4 #5 ) includes a vertically intermediate section in a cross-section in a width direction of the light-shielding layer, and the intermediate section has a reverse tapered shape in which the intermediate section has a width that gradually decreases downward ( as shown in Fig. 4 #5A ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize the teachings of Masatoshi with Motoyama to implement the light-shielding layer includes a vertically intermediate section in a cross-section in a width direction of the light-shielding layer, and the intermediate section has a reverse tapered shape in which the intermediate section has a width that gradually decreases downward because this structure is designed to minimize light reflection and maximize light transmission into a photodetector.
Claim 4: Motoyama and Choi disclose the organic electroluminescent display device according to claim 1 ( as discussed above).
Neither Motoyama nor Choi appear to disclose the light-shielding layer includes a lower end section facing the light-emitting devices and having a tapered shape in which the lower end section has a width that gradually increases toward the light-emitting devices.
However, Masatoshi teaches the light-shielding layer includes a lower end section ( Fig. 4: area shown with Y2 distance) facing the light-emitting devices and having a tapered shape in which the lower end section has a width that gradually increases ( Fig. 4 the width of the bottom section increased from a width of X1 to W ) toward the light-emitting devices ( Fig. 1 : 2R, 2G, and 2B)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize the teachings of Masatoshi with Motoyama and Choi to implement the light-shielding layer includes a lower end section facing the light-emitting devices and having a tapered shape in which the lower end section has a width that gradually increases toward the light-emitting devices because this shape can improve display performance.
Claim 19: Motoyama, Choi, and Masatoshi disclose the organic electroluminescent display device according to claim 3 ( as discussed above).
Neither Motoyama nor Choi appear to disclose the light-shielding layer includes a lower end section facing the light-emitting devices and having a tapered shape in which the lower end section has a width that gradually increases toward the light-emitting devices.
However, Masatoshi teaches the light-shielding layer ( Fig. 4 #5 ) includes a lower end section facing the light-emitting devices ( Fig. 4 bottom section of #5 shown by width #Y2 ) and having a tapered shape in which the lower end section has a width that gradually increases ( Fig. 4 lower section width increases from X1 to W ) toward the light-emitting devices ( Fig. 1: 2R, 2G, and 2B ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize the teachings of Masatoshi with Motoyama and Choi to implement the light-shielding layer includes a lower end section facing the light-emitting devices and having a tapered shape in which the lower end section has a width that gradually increases toward the light-emitting devices because this shape can improve display performance.
Claims 5, 7-9, 11-13, and 15-17 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Motoyama et al.; US 9,343,516 B2; 09/2013 in view of Choi et al.; US 2018/0374905 A1; 08/2018 as it relates to claim 1 and further in view of Tani et al.; US 2015/0177602 A1; 09/2012 and Masatoshi et al.; JP 2020205417 A; 06/2020
Claim 5: Motoyama and Choi disclose the organic electroluminescent display device according to claim 1 ( as discussed above).
Neither Motoyama nor Choi appear to disclose the light-shielding layer includes an upper section having an upper surface that is a convex curved surface, an intermediate section formed below the upper section and having a reverse tapered shape in which the intermediate section has a width that gradually decreases downward, and a lower section formed below the intermediate section and having a tapered shape in which the lower section has a width that gradually increases toward the light-emitting devices.
Tani discloses the light-shielding layer ( Fig. 11 #30 ) includes an upper section having an upper surface that is a convex curved surface ( [0042] a plurality of microstructural convex portions may be formed in light shield #30. Each convex portion preferably has a conical or pyramidal shape ).
Tani does not appear to disclose an intermediate section formed below the upper section and having a reverse tapered shape in which the intermediate section has a width that gradually decreases downward, and a lower section formed below the intermediate section and having a tapered shape in which the lower section has a width that gradually increases toward the light-emitting devices.
However, Masatoshi teaches an intermediate section formed below the upper section ( Fig. 4 #5A) and having a reverse tapered shape in which the intermediate section has a width that gradually decreases downward ( Fig. 4 #5A), and a lower section formed below the intermediate section ( Fig. 4 bottom section of #5 shown by width #Y2) and having a tapered shape in which the lower section has a width that gradually increases ( Fig. 4 lower section width increases from X1 to W ) toward the light-emitting devices ( Fig. 1: 2R, 2G, and 2B ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize the teachings of Masatoshi with Motoyama, Choi, and Tani to implement an intermediate section formed below the upper section and having a reverse tapered shape in which the intermediate section has a width that gradually decreases downward, and a lower section formed below the intermediate section and having a tapered shape in which the lower section has a width that gradually increases toward the light-emitting devices because this shape can improve display performance.
Claim 7: Motoyama, Choi, Tani, and Masatoshi disclose the organic electroluminescent display device according to claim 5 ( as discussed above).
Neither Motoyama nor Choi nor Tani appear to disclose the intermediate section has a minimum width in a range of 0.4 to 0.6 times a maximum width of the intermediate section.
However, Masatoshi teaches the intermediate section has a minimum width ( [0034] The minimum 5A of the widths of the light-shielding portion X1 is preferably 0.5 µm or more, and more preferably 1.0 m or more) in a range of 0.4 to 0.6 times a maximum width of the intermediate section ( [0034] The maximum value 5A of the widths of the light shielding portions X2 is preferably 1 µm or more and 90 µm or less).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize the teachings of Masatoshi with Motoyama, Choi, and Tani to implement the intermediate section has a minimum width in a range of 0.4 to 0.6 times a maximum width of the intermediate section because these ranges are effective for preventing light leakage.
Claim 8: Motoyama, Choi, Tani, and Masatoshi disclose the organic electroluminescent display device according to claim 5 ( as discussed above).
Neither Motoyama nor Choi nor Tani appear to disclose the lower section has a maximum width smaller than a maximum width of the upper section.
However, Masatoshi teaches the lower section has a maximum width ( Fig. 4: X1) smaller than a maximum width of the upper section ( Fig. 4: X2 ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize the teachings of Masatoshi with Motoyama, Choi, and Tani to implement the lower section has a maximum width smaller than a maximum width of the upper section because a tapered or funnel shape effectively directs incoming light to the sensitive parts of each pixel while preventing spilling over to the adjacent pixel.
Claim 9: Motoyama, Choi, Tani, and Masatoshi disclose the organic electroluminescent display device according to claim 8 ( as discussed above).
Neither Motoyama nor Choi nor Tani appear to disclose the maximum width of the lower section is in a range of 0.5 to 0.7 times the maximum width of the upper section.
However, Masatoshi teaches the maximum width of the lower section ( [0034] The minimum 5A of the widths of the light-shielding portion X1 is preferably 0.5 µm or more, and more preferably 1.0 m or more ) is in a range of 0.5 to 0.7 times the maximum width of the upper section ( [0034] The maximum value 5A of the widths of the light shielding portions X2 is preferably 1 µm or more and 90 µm or less ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize the teachings of Masatoshi with Motoyama, Choi, and Tani to implement the maximum width of the lower section is in a range of 0.5 to 0.7 times the maximum width of the upper section because this geometry helps to focus incoming light more precisely into the correct photosensitive area.
Claim 11: Motoyama, Choi, and Tani disclose the organic electroluminescent display device according to claim 2 ( as discussed above).
Neither Motoyama nor Choi nor Tani appear to disclose the light-shielding layer includes a vertically intermediate section in a cross-section in a width direction of the light-shielding layer, and the intermediate section has a reverse tapered shape in which the intermediate section has a width that gradually decreases downward.
However, Masatoshi teaches the light-shielding layer ( Fig. 4: #5 ) includes a vertically intermediate section in a cross-section in a width direction of the light-shielding layer ( Fig. 4 #5A ), and the intermediate section has a reverse tapered shape in which the intermediate section has a width that gradually decreases downward ( as shown in Fig. 4 #5A ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize the teachings of Masatoshi with Motoyama, Choi, and Tani to implement the light-shielding layer includes a vertically intermediate section in a cross-section in a width direction of the light-shielding layer, and the intermediate section has a reverse tapered shape in which the intermediate section has a width that gradually decreases downward because this structure is designed to minimize light reflection and maximize light transmission into a photodetector.
Claim 12: Motoyama, Choi, and Tani disclose the organic electroluminescent display device according to claim 2 ( as discussed above).
Neither Motoyama nor Choi nor Tani appear to disclose the light-shielding layer includes a lower end section facing the light-emitting devices and having a tapered shape in which the lower end section has a width that gradually increases toward the light-emitting devices.
However, Masatoshi teaches the light-shielding layer ( Fig. 4 #5 ) includes a lower end section facing the light-emitting devices ( Fig. 4 bottom section of #5 shown by width #Y2 ) and having a tapered shape in which the lower end section has a width that gradually increases ( Fig. 4 lower section width increases from X1 to W ) toward the light-emitting devices ( Fig. 1: 2R, 2G, and 2B ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize the teachings of Masatoshi with Motoyama, Choi, and Tani to implement the light-shielding layer includes a lower end section facing the light-emitting devices and having a tapered shape in which the lower end section has a width that gradually increases toward the light-emitting devices because this shape can improve display performance.
Claim 13: Motoyama, Choi, and Tani disclose the organic electroluminescent display device according to claim 2 ( as discussed above).
Neither Motoyama nor Choi appear to disclose the light-shielding layer includes an upper section having an upper surface that is a convex curved surface, an intermediate section formed below the upper section and having a reverse tapered shape in which the intermediate section has a width that gradually decreases downward, and a lower section formed below the intermediate section and having a tapered shape in which the lower section has a width that gradually increases toward the light-emitting devices.
Tani discloses the light-shielding layer ( Fig. 11 #30 ) includes an upper section having an upper surface that is a convex curved surface ( [0042] a plurality of microstructural convex portions may be formed in light shield #30. Each convex portion preferably has a conical or pyramidal shape ).
Tani does not appear to disclose an intermediate section formed below the upper section and having a reverse tapered shape in which the intermediate section has a width that gradually decreases downward, and a lower section formed below the intermediate section and having a tapered shape in which the lower section has a width that gradually increases toward the light-emitting devices.
However, Masatoshi teaches an intermediate section formed below the upper section ( Fig. 4 #5A) and having a reverse tapered shape in which the intermediate section has a width that gradually decreases downward ( Fig. 4 #5A), and a lower section formed below the intermediate section ( Fig. 4 bottom section of #5 shown by width #Y2) and having a tapered shape in which the lower section has a width that gradually increases ( Fig. 4 lower section width increases from X1 to W ) toward the light-emitting devices ( Fig. 1: 2R, 2G, and 2B ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize the teachings of Masatoshi with Motoyama, Choi, and Tani to implement an intermediate section formed below the upper section and having a reverse tapered shape in which the intermediate section has a width that gradually decreases downward, and a lower section formed below the intermediate section and having a tapered shape in which the lower section has a width that gradually increases toward the light-emitting devices because this shape can improve display performance.
Claim 15: Motoyama, Choi, Tani, and Masatoshi disclose the organic electroluminescent display device according to claim 13 ( as discussed above).
Neither Motoyama nor Choi nor Tani appear to disclose the intermediate section has a minimum width in a range of 0.4 to 0.6 times a maximum width of the intermediate section.
However, Masatoshi teaches the intermediate section has a minimum width ( [0034] The minimum 5A of the widths of the light-shielding portion X1 is preferably 0.5 µm or more, and more preferably 1.0 m or more) in a range of 0.4 to 0.6 times a maximum width of the intermediate section ( [0034] The maximum value 5A of the widths of the light shielding portions X2 is preferably 1 µm or more and 90 µm or less).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize the teachings of Masatoshi with Motoyama, Choi, and Tani to implement the intermediate section has a minimum width in a range of 0.4 to 0.6 times a maximum width of the intermediate section because these ranges are effective for preventing light leakage.
Claim 16: Motoyama, Choi, Tani, and Masatoshi disclose the organic electroluminescent display device according to claim 13 ( as discussed above).
Neither Motoyama nor Choi nor Tani appear to disclose the lower section has a maximum width smaller than a maximum width of the upper section.
However, Masatoshi teaches the lower section has a maximum width ( Fig. 4: X1) smaller than a maximum width of the upper section ( Fig. 4: X2 ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize the teachings of Masatoshi with Motoyama, Choi, and Tani to implement the lower section has a maximum width smaller than a maximum width of the upper section because a tapered or funnel shape effectively directs incoming light to the sensitive parts of each pixel while preventing spilling over to the adjacent pixel.
Claim 17: Motoyama, Choi, Tani, and Masatoshi disclose the organic electroluminescent display device according to claim 16 ( as discussed above).
Neither Motoyama nor Choi nor Tani appear to disclose the maximum width of the lower section is in a range of 0.5 to 0.7 times the maximum width of the upper section.
However, Masatoshi teaches the maximum width of the lower section ( [0034] The minimum 5A of the widths of the light-shielding portion X1 is preferably 0.5 µm or more, and more preferably 1.0 m or more ) is in a range of 0.5 to 0.7 times the maximum width of the upper section ( [0034] The maximum value 5A of the widths of the light shielding portions X2 is preferably 1 µm or more and 90 µm or less ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize the teachings of Masatoshi with Motoyama, Choi, and Tani to implement the maximum width of the lower section is in a range of 0.5 to 0.7 times the maximum width of the upper section because this geometry helps to focus incoming light more precisely into the correct photosensitive area.
Claim 10 is rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Motoyama et al.; US 9,343,516 B2; 09/2013 in view of Choi et al.; US 2018/0374905 A1; 08/2018 as it relates to claim 1 and further in view of Koshihara et al.; US 2008/0211394 A1; 02/2008
Claim 10: Motoyama and Choi disclose the organic electroluminescent display device according to claim 1 ( as discussed above).
Neither Motoyama nor Choi appear to disclose a sealing layer formed between the light-emitting devices and the color filter such that part of the light-shielding layer is embedded in the sealing layer.
However, Koshihara teaches a sealing layer ( Fig. 4 #12 ) formed between the light-emitting devices ( [0037] A combination of the pixel electrode #20, the organic EL layer #50, and the counter electrode #21 constitutes a light-emitting element ) and the color filter ( Fig. 4 #54 ) such that part of the light-shielding layer is embedded in the sealing layer ( [0058] The light-shielding portion #54a is made of a light-absorbing electrical conducting material) further comprising: a sealing layer ( Fig. 4 #12) formed between the light-emitting devices ( as discussed above) and the color filter ( as discussed above) such that part of the light-shielding layer is embedded in the sealing layer ( Fig. #4 #54a is part of #12 ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize the teachings of Koshihara with Motoyama and Choi to implement a sealing layer formed between the light-emitting devices and the color filter such that part of the light-shielding layer is embedded in the sealing layer because embedding the light-shield in the sealing layer can protect it during manufacturing.
Claim 18 is rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Motoyama et al.; US 9,343,516 B2; 09/2013 in view of Choi et al.; US 2018/0374905 A1; 08/2018 and Tani et al.; US 2015/0177602 A1; 09/2012 as it relates to claim 2 and further in view of Koshihara et al.; US 2008/0211394 A1; 02/2008
Claim 18: Motoyama, Choi, and Tani disclose the organic electroluminescent display device according to claim 2 ( as discussed above).
Neither Motoyama nor Choi nor Tani appear to disclose a sealing layer formed between the light-emitting devices and the color filter such that part of the light-shielding layer is embedded in the sealing layer.
However, Koshihara teaches a sealing layer ( Fig. 4 #12 ) formed between the light-emitting devices ( [0037] A combination of the pixel electrode #20, the organic EL layer #50, and the counter electrode #21 constitutes a light-emitting element ) and the color filter ( Fig. 4 #54 ) such that part of the light-shielding layer is embedded in the sealing layer ( [0058] The light-shielding portion #54a is made of a light-absorbing electrical conducting material) further comprising: a sealing layer ( Fig. 4 #12) formed between the light-emitting devices ( as discussed above) and the color filter ( as discussed above) such that part of the light-shielding layer is embedded in the sealing layer ( Fig. #4 #54a is part of #12 ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize the teachings of Koshihara with Motoyama, Choi and Tani to implement a sealing layer formed between the light-emitting devices and the color filter such that part of the light-shielding layer is embedded in the sealing layer because embedding the light-shield in the sealing layer can protect it during manufacturing.
Claim 21 is rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Motoyama et al.; US 9,343,516 B2; 09/2013 in view of Choi et al.; US 2018/0374905 A1; 08/2018 as it relates to claim 1 and further in view of Sasaki; US 2020/0219940 A1; 12/2019
Claim 21: Motoyama and Choi disclose the organic electroluminescent display device according to claim 1 ( as discussed above ).
Neither Motoyama nor Choi appear to disclose a sealing layer formed between the light-emitting devices and the color filter, wherein the sealing layer is interposed between the light-emitting devices and the surface of the light-shielding layer which is oriented toward the light-emitting devices.
However, Sasaki teaches a sealing layer ( Fig. 6: sealing layer 60 ) formed between the light-emitting devices ( Fig. 6: light emitting layers EMr, EMg, and EMb ) and the color filter ( Fig. 6: color filter layer 64 ), wherein the sealing layer ( Fig. 6 #60 ) is interposed between the light-emitting devices ( Fig. 6: EMr, EMg, and EMb ) and the surface of the light-shielding layer ( Fig. 6 #64; [0052] According to the embodiment, the color filter layer 64 can make a chromaticity change caused by a visual field angle inconspicuous. That is, the light emission from the peripheral area 48 and the light emission from the central area 46 have different chromaticity, but the color filter layer 64 adjusts the light emitting luminance and the chromaticity from the peripheral area 48, thereby improving display performance. For example, as compared with a case where the color filter layer 64 is not provided, it is possible to suppress a variation in the light emitting chromaticity emitted outside the display device. Further, as compared with a case where a light shielding layer (black matrix layer) is provided at a pixel boundary as in a liquid crystal display device, deterioration in the luminance can be suppressed. Since the filter layers CFr, CFg, and CFb include the filter opening 66 at the center, there is little decrease in the amount of light or little deterioration in the luminance. ) which is oriented toward the light-emitting devices ( Fig. 6: EMr, EMg, and EMb ).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is 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.
Claim 14 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.
Response to Amendment / Argument
Applicant's arguments, see pages 7 – 8 of remarks, filed 01/29/2026, with respect to the objection to the drawings have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Any structural detail that is of sufficient importance to be described should be shown in the drawing. (Ex parte Good, 1911 C.D. 43, 164 OG 739 (Comm’r Pat. 1911).).
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8 - 10 of remarks, filed 01/29/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Choi.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIMBERLY N FREY whose telephone number is (571)272-5068. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5 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, Marlon Fletcher can be reached at (571)272-2063. 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.
/K.N.F./Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/MARLON T FLETCHER/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817