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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/4/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 7 that anticipation requires Hong to disclose the specific arrangement and relationships recited. (i) a width of the light emitting area in a first direction is less than a width of the light emitting area in a second direction; and (ii) heights of the first areas of the reflective layer facing each other in the first direction is greater than heights of the second area of the reflective layer facing each other in the second direction; rather than merely permitting an Examiner to pick directions and imagine a height difference.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Anticipation requires the prior art teach each and every limitation of the claim. The interpretation Applicant is using assumes the claims positively recites multiple widths and heights, but Examiner’s interpretation is that the claims do not necessarily recite what Applicant’s representative assumes the claim recites.
With respect to (i), the claims do not recite or require a first width and a second width, where first width is less than the second width, where the first width is the entire width of the light emitting area in a first direction and the second width is the entire width of the light emitting area in a second direction, second direction being perpendicular to the first direction. Even if the claims did, fig. 2 of Hong shows two LED structures 130 so the width in the row direction would be less than the width in the column direction.
Further, with respect to (ii), the claims do not recite or require a first height which is the entire height of the first area of the reflective layer facing each other in the first direction being greater than a second height which is the entire height of the second area of the reflective layer facing each other in the second direction. Rather, the claims merely recites some undetermined element which relates to “heights” of a first area of the reflector and “heights” of a second area of the reflector.
Therefore, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s assertion and is of the opinion that Hong teaches each and every limitation of the claims.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 7-8 that drawings not to scale cannot be used to infer proportions from the drawings. Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2125(i) clearly states drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed, especially since the narrow interpretation used by Applicant is not required, Hong sufficiently anticipates claim 1.
Further arguments are not persuasive since they pertain to the above arguments.
Rejection is being maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hong et al. (US Pub 2024/0194844; hereinafter “Hong”).
Re claim 1: Hong teaches (e.g. figs. 8 and 2) a display device comprising: a light blocking layer (light absorption layer 870; e.g. paragraph 235) surrounding a light emitting area (area below opening in 870; hereinafter “LEA”); a light emitting element (LED; e.g. paragraph 231) disposed in the light emitting area (LEA); and a reflective layer (reflectors RP; e.g. paragraph 249) disposed on the light emitting element (RP is disposed on the outer periphery area of LED), wherein a width of the light emitting area (LEA) in a first direction (there exists a width in the row direction of fig. 2 that is arbitrarily chosen to have a width in the row direction that is narrow) is less than a width of the light emitting area (LEA) in a second direction (there exists a width in the column direction of fig. 2 that is arbitrarily chosen to have a width in the column direction that is not narrow), and heights of first areas (part of RP in the row direction) of the reflective layer (RP) facing each other in the first direction (row direction) are greater (there exist a height within RP that faces the row direction that is higher than other heights of RP that faces the column direction) than heights of second areas (part of RP in the column direction) of the reflective layer (RP) facing each other in the second direction (column direction).
Re claim 5: Hong teaches the display device of claim 1, further comprising: an organic layer (acryl-based planarization layer 818; e.g. paragraph 251) surrounding the light emitting element (LED).
Re claim 6: Hong teaches the display device of claim 5, wherein the reflective layer (RP) is disposed between the light emitting element (LED) and the organic layer (818).
Re claim 7: Hong teaches the display device of claim 6, wherein the organic layer (818) is disposed directly on the reflective layer (RP).
Re claim 8: Hong teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the light emitting element includes: a first semiconductor layer (131); a second semiconductor layer (133); and an active layer (132) disposed between the first semiconductor layer (131) and the second semiconductor layer (133).
Re claim 9: Hong teaches the display device of claim 8, wherein the second areas of the reflective layer (RP) at least partially expose the second semiconductor layer (133).
Re claim 10: Hong teaches the display device of claim 8, further comprising: a first electrode (134) disposed on the first semiconductor layer (131); and a second electrode (135) disposed on the second semiconductor layer (133).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US Pub 2017/0294451; hereinafter “Kim”).
Re claim 2: Hong teaches substantially the entire device as recited in claim 1 except explicitly teaching the display device wherein the reflective layer is disposed directly on a surface of the light emitting element.
Kim teaches (e.g. fig. 4) the reflective layer (237) is disposed directly on a surface of the light emitting element (233).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, absent unexpected results, to use the reflective layer on the LED as taught by Kim in the device of Hong in order to have the predictable result of improving light directivity by making the reflector close to the LED and reducing stray light emission (see paragraph 125 of Kim).
Claim(s) 3, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takeya et al. (US Pub 2017/0287887; hereinafter “Takeya”).
Re claim 3: Hong teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the light blocking layer (870) includes an opening (opening in 870) having a same planar shape as the light emitting area (LEA).
Hong is silent as to explicitly teaching the display device further includes a color filter disposed in the opening of the light blocking layer.
Takeya teaches (e.g. fig. 3) the display device further includes a color filter (color filter 127f; e.g. paragraph 63) disposed in the opening of the light blocking layer (126d, 127d).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, absent unexpected results, to use the color filter and changing media as taught by Takaya in the device of Hong in order to have the predictable result of using a known method of reducing costs by using all blue LEDs and utilizing phosphors and color filters which would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Re claim 4: Hong teaches the display device of claim 3, further comprising: a color converting layer (color phosphor 126b, 126c; e.g. paragraph 45) disposed between the light emitting element (112a) and the color filter (127f).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSE Y MIYOSHI whose telephone number is (571)270-1629. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. 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.
/JESSE Y MIYOSHI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights