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
Applicant’s amendment and remarks received on 27 May 2026 have been entered.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shimatsu (US 2022/0085335).
Regarding independent claim 1, Shimatsu teaches a display device comprising a light emitting area (Fig. 5, Element 10; ¶ [0238]) and a non-light emitting area (Fig. 5; area between adjacent light emitting areas); a light emitting element (¶ [0238]) disposed in the light emitting area on a substrate (Fig. 5, Element 11; ¶ [0262]) and including a pixel electrode (Fig. 5, Element 31; ¶ [0260]); a light emitting layer (Fig. 5, Element 33; ¶ [0260]); and an upper electrode (Fig. 5, Element 32; ¶ [0260]), the pixel electrode, the light emitting layer, and the upper electrode being sequentially disposed (Fig. 5); a light blocking layer (Fig. 14, Element BM; ¶ [0120]) disposed on the light emitting element in the non-light emitting area; and a reflection control layer (Fig. 5, Element 50; ¶ [0242]) disposed on the light emitting element, covering the light blocking layer, and including a recess (Fig. 5, Element 55; ¶ [0327]) concavely depressed from an upper surface in the light emitting area in a direction toward the light emitting layer; and an adhesive layer (Fig. 5, Element 38; ¶ [0276]) disposed on the reflection control layer and contacting the recess of the reflection control layer.
Regarding claim 2, Shimatsu teaches a refractive index of the adhesive layer (¶ [0276]; acrylic~1.49) being greater than a refractive index of the reflection control layer (¶ [0166]; 1.25).
Regarding claim 3, Shimatsu teaches a difference between the refractive index of the adhesive layer and the refractive index of the reflection control layer being about 0.05 or more (See above for claim 2).
Regarding claim 4, Shimatsu teaches the adhesive layer directly contacting the reflection control layer (Fig. 5).
Regarding independent claim 5, Shimatsu teaches a display device comprising a light emitting area (Fig. 7, Element 10; ¶ [0238]) and a non-light emitting area (Fig. 7; area between adjacent light emitting areas); a light emitting element (¶ [0238]) disposed in the light emitting area on a substrate (Fig. 7, Element 11; ¶ [0262]) and including a pixel electrode (Fig. 7, Element 31; ¶ [0260]); a light emitting layer (Fig. 7, Element 33; ¶ [0260]); and an upper electrode (Fig. 7, Element 32; ¶ [0260]), the pixel electrode, the light emitting layer, and the upper electrode being sequentially disposed; a light blocking layer (Fig. 14, Element BM; ¶ [0120]) disposed on the light emitting element in the non-light emitting area; a reflection control layer (Fig. 7, Element 50; ¶ [0242]) disposed on the light emitting element, covering the light blocking layer, and including a recess concavely depressed from an upper surface in the light emitting area in a direction away from the light emitting layer; and a filling layer (Fig. 7, Element 34; ¶ [0241]) disposed between the light emitting element and the reflection control layer and contacting the recess of the reflection control layer, wherein a refractive index of the filling layer is greater than a refractive index of the reflection control layer (¶ [0275]; Table).
Regarding claim 6, Shimatsu teaches the filling layer directly contacting the reflection control layer (Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 7, Shimatsu teaches a difference between the refractive index of the filling layer and the refractive index of the reflection control layer is about 0.05 or more (¶ [0275]; Table).
Regarding claim 8, Shimatsu teaches a light absorbing layer disposed on the upper electrode and including an inorganic material (¶ [0122]).
Regarding claim 9, Shimatsu teaches a light absorbing layer (Fig. 5, Element 35; ¶ [0248]) disposed only in the light emitting area (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 10, Shimatsu teaches a light absorbing layer (Fig. 5, Element 36; ¶ [0248]) entirely disposed in the light emitting area and the non-light emitting area (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 11, Shimatsu teaches the light absorbing layer including at least one selected from a group consisting of a metal, a silicon compound, and a metal oxide (¶ [0273]).
Regarding claim 12, Shimatsu teaches the reflection control layer including an inorganic material or an organic material (¶ [0168]).
Regarding claim 13, Shimatsu teaches the reflection control layer including at least one selected from a group consisting of solvent, dye, pigment, and surfactant (¶ [0300]).
Regarding claim 14, Shimatsu teaches the organic material including photoresist (¶ [0300]).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimatsu (US 2022/0085335) in view of Lee (US 2020/019113).
Regarding claim 15, Shimatsu teaches the limitations of independent claim 1 discussed earlier but fails to exemplify a touch sensing layer disposed between the light emitting element and the light blocking layer, and including a first touch electrode and a second touch electrode electrically connected to the first touch electrode.
Lee teaches a display device comprising a touch sensing layer (Fig. 4, Element 50a; ¶ [0056]) disposed between the light emitting element and the light blocking layer (Fig. 6), and including a first touch electrode (Fig. 4, Element IE1; ¶ [0056]) and a second touch electrode (Fig. 4, Element IE2; ¶ [0056]) electrically connected to the first touch electrode (Fig. 4, via Element BE; ¶ [0133]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the display device of Shimatsu with the touch sensing layer taught by Lee for sensing the touch of a user.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 27 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument, in regards to independent claim 1, that the sealing layer 38 of Shimatsu does not contact the light emitting surface 55 of the optical path control unit 50, the Examiner notes that the claim does not require the adhesive layer to contact a surface of the reflection control layer. The claim requires the adhesive layer to contact the recess of the reflection control layer. Figure 5 of Shimatsu shows the sealing layer 38 (analogous to applicant’s adhesive layer) contacting the recess of the optical path control unit 50 (analogous to applicant’s reflection control layer). Thus, Shimatsu teaches the limitations of independent claim 1 as discussed earlier in this Office Action.
In response to applicant’s argument, in regards to independent claim 5, that Shimatsu fails to disclose a filling layer disposed between the light emitting element and the reflection control layer and contacting the recess of the reflection control layer, the notes that Figure 7 of Shimatsu teaches these features, as discussed earlier in this Office Action.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Quarterman whose telephone number is (571)272-2461. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10am-6pm.
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, James Greece can be reached at (571) 272-3711. 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.
/Kevin Quarterman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875 12 June 2026
Prosecution Insights