DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 02/19/2026.
3. Claims 1-18 are pending. Claims 1-18 are under examination on the merits. Claims 17-18 are newly added.
4. The objections and rejections not addressed below are deemed withdrawn.
5. Applicant's arguments filed 02/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, thus claims 1-16 stand rejected as set forth in Office action dated 12/11/2025 and further discussed in the Response to Arguments below.
Information Disclosure Statement
6. The information disclosure statement submitted on 02/19/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the examiner has considered the information disclosure statement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-14, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Shim et al. (US Pub. No. 2014/0175404 A1, hereinafter “’404”) in view of Fukagawa et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0109128 A1, hereinafter “’128”).
Regarding claims 1-2: ‘404 teaches optical films for reducing color shift and/or organic light-emitting display apparatuses employing the same (Page 1, [0003]). ‘404 teaches an optical film 300 includes the high refractive index pattern layer 110 and the low refractive index pattern layer 120 as shown in Fig. 9 (Page 6, [0128]). The high refractive index pattern layer 110 includes a plurality of grooves GR, whereas the low refractive index pattern layer 120 is formed of a material having a lower refractive index than a material constituting the high refractive index pattern layer 110, and includes a filling material which fills the plurality of grooves GR formed in the high refractive index pattern layer 110 (Page 6, [0128]). ‘404 teaches, a first base 320 may be further formed on the high refractive index pattern layer 110. The first base 320 may be formed of an optically isotropic material, e.g., triacetyl cellulose (TAC). A circular polarization layer 340 may be further arranged on the first base 320, where the circular polarization layer 340 may include a phase converting layer 342, a linear polarization layer 344, and a second base 346. The second base 346 an optically isotropic material (Page 6, [0130]). Thus, as the viewing angle is tilted from the front to a side, the maximum resolution wavelength becomes shorter, and thus a color shift occurs as the maximum resolution wavelength decreases (Page 1, [0009]). ‘404 does not expressly teach a light absorbing part that contains a dye, and
an absorption waveform of the light absorbing part is selected from the following absorption waveforms A to D, and the light absorbing part has the following absorption waveform B or C as set forth.
PNG
media_image1.png
218
430
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, ’128 teaches a wavelength selective absorption filter and an organic electroluminescent (OLED) display device (Page 3, [0049]), wherein in the wavelength selective absorption filter, the dyes A to D have main absorption wavelength ranges in 390 to 435 nm, 480 to 520 nm, 580 to 620 nm, and 680 to 780 nm with respect to wavelength ranges of B (Blue, 460 nm), G (Green, 520 nm), and R (Red, 620 nm) which are used as light emitting sources of the OLED display device, respectively (Page 3, [0061]). Therefore, by containing these dyes A to D and satisfying Relational Expressions (I) to (VI), the wavelength selective absorption filter according to the embodiment of the present invention can suppress the external light reflection without impairing a color reproduction range of light emitted from the OLED (Page 3, [0059]). ‘128 teaches that although the feature of suppressing the reflection of external light by providing a circular polarizing plate is well known, this feature causes a problem in which brightness decreases (Page 1, [0005]). Furthermore, as a result of using the dyes A to D in the wavelength-selective absorption filter no. 103 (Page 3, [0047], Fig. 1; Page 115, [0598]-[0599]), maximum absorbance occurs at the wavelengths of 425 nm, 500 nm, 599 nm, and 750 nm. The absorbance at 500 nm is 1.00, the wavelengths at which the absorbance is 0.50 are 513 nm and 475 nm, and the difference between the wavelengths is 38 nm. In addition, the absorbance at 599 nm is 0.98, the wavelengths at which the absorbance is 0.49 are 580 nm and 613 nm, and the difference between the wavelengths is 33 nm. Furthermore, the values of formulas (1) and (2) are usually values smaller than 30 nm in organic light-emitting display devices with benefit of providing the form of the wavelength selective absorption filter may be a filter that can achieve both suppression of external light reflection and suppression of brightness decrease, and that does not easily affect an original tint of a display image (Page 3, [0059]).
PNG
media_image2.png
462
786
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In an analogous art of the optical member for use in a display device, and in the light of such benefit before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art of using the wavelength-selective absorption filter by ‘128 instead of a circular polarizing plate as taught by ‘104, and would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing the form of the wavelength selective absorption filter may be a filter that can achieve both suppression of external light reflection and suppression of brightness decrease, and that does not easily affect an original tint of a display image as suggested by ‘128 (Page 3, [0059]).
Regarding claims 3-4: ‘402 teaches the optical member for use in a display device (Page 1, [0003]), wherein the front-surface transmittance and improvement to changes in color are taken into account and A/C (= the area of the curved surface 110a/ the total area) is set to 0.5 or less (Page 4, [0092]-[0094]; Page 1, [0096], Fig. 1; Page 4, [0099], Fig. 2; Page 4, [0101], Fig. 3). In addition, in light of Fig. 2 (Page 4, [0099]), the refraction of light mainly occurs in light entering the curved surface 110a. A person skilled in the art could thus easily have conceived of referencing the range, optimizing the ratio of the curved surface110a part, and setting the value to a value in the range specified such that the light bending filter bends 1% to 20% of the light amount of the incident straight light, and a total light transmittance of the light bending filter is 99% or more.
Regarding claim 5: ‘402 teaches the optical member for use in a display device (Page 1, [0003]), wherein the light bending filter has at least a region I and a region II exhibiting a refractive index different from a refractive index of the region I (Page 1, [0011]; Page 6, [0128], Fig. 9).
Regarding claims 6-7: ‘402 teaches the optical member for use in a display device (Page 1, [0003]), wherein the use of diffusion beads in the high refractive index pattern layer 110 (Page 4, [0090]) and the use of diffusion beads in the low refractive index layer 120 (Page 4, [0096]). Furthermore, the use of zirconium oxide particles or hollow particles as diffusion beads is so well known that no example thereof is necessary.
Regarding claims 8-10: The disclosure of ‘404 in view of ‘128 is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘128 teaches the preparation of resin solution (Page 115, [0598]), wherein each component is mixed with the composition shown below to prepare a wavelength selective absorption filter forming liquid (composition) (Page 115, [0599]), wherein a dye contained in a light absorbing filter exhibiting the absorption waveform B or C includes a squaraine-based coloring agent represented by C-80 and 7-21, wherein a dye contained in a light absorbing filter exhibiting the absorption waveform A includes a coloring agent E13, and wherein a dye contained in a light absorbing filter exhibiting the absorption waveform D includes at least one of a coloring agent (Page 114, [0583]).
PNG
media_image3.png
360
444
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
494
434
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
570
412
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11: The disclosure of ‘404 in view of ‘128 is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference.’128 teaches the light absorbing filter contains an antifading agent represented by IV-8 (Page 104, [0432], Compound IV-8; Page 115, [0599]).
PNG
media_image6.png
116
264
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12: The disclosure of ‘404 in view of ‘128 is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘128 teaches the light absorbing filter contains a polystyrene resin (Page 99, [0345]; Page 99, [0349]; Page 114, [0576]; Page 115, [0599]). or a cyclic polyolefin resin ( Page 100. [0360]-[0361]).
Regarding claim 13: The disclosure of ‘404 in view of ‘128 is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘128 teaches the light absorbing filter exhibits all of the absorption waveforms A to D (Page 3, [0047], Fig. 1; Page 115, [0598]-[0599]).
Regarding claim 14: The disclosure of ‘404 in view of ‘128 is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘128 teaches a display device comprising: the optical member for use in a display device, and a light emitting unit, wherein the light emitting unit is an organic electroluminescent light emitting element or a micro light emitting diode (Page 116, [0601]-[0615]).
Regarding claim 17-18: The disclosure of ‘404 in view of ‘128 is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘404 teaches the optical member for use in a display device, wherein the display device is a display device having a microcavity structure (Page 2, [0041]; Page 8, [0160], Fig. 22).
9. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Shim et al. (US Pub. No. 2014/0175404 A1, hereinafter “’404”) in view of Fukagawa et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0109128 A1, hereinafter “’128”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Endo et al. (JP2017-004639 A, machine translation, hereinafter, “‘639”).
Regarding claim 15: The disclosure of ‘404 in view of ‘128 is adequately set forth in paragraph 8 above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘404 in view of ‘128 does not expressly teach the display device, further comprising: a quantum dot sheet for wavelength conversion, on a visible side of the light emitting unit of the display device.
However, ‘404 teaches the inclusion of a microcavity structure. In addition, with regard to the combined use of a wavelength conversion layer and an element with a resonant structure. ‘639 teaches the device having a wavelength conversion layer and an element with a resonant structure (Page 30/43, [0115]-[0116]; Fig. 5). Furthermore, the use of quantum dots in a wavelength conversion layer is so well known that no example thereof is necessary.
PNG
media_image7.png
656
746
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Thus, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, since the design incentives of the wavelength conversion unit provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
10. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Shim et al. (US Pub. No. 2014/0175404 A1, hereinafter “’404”) in view of Fukagawa et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0109128 A1, hereinafter “’128”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shikina et al. (US Pub. No. 2009/0296366 A1 , hereinafter, “‘366”).
Regarding claim 16: The disclosure of ‘404 in view of ‘128 is adequately set forth in paragraph 8 above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘404 in view of ‘128 does not expressly teach the display device, further comprising: a matrix that absorbs or scatters external light, wherein the matrix is disposed between light emitting elements constituting the light emitting unit.
However, ‘404 reaches the reflectance of external light is reduced by using a polarizing layer as discussed above. In addition, providing a member that absorbs external light between pixels in order to prevent the reflection of external light is a well-known feature. For example, ‘366 teaches the anode 42 is provided for each pixel through patterning and separated by a device separation layer 423. The device separation layer 423 includes a member absorbing external light, such as a resin including carbon black, so as to decrease the external light reflection occurring between pixels and achieve a display apparatus with a higher contrast (Page 4, [0054]; Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image8.png
630
512
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Thus, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, since a person skilled in the art could thus easily have conceived of using this well-known feature in conjunction with the invention as taught by ‘404.
Response to Arguments
11. Applicant's arguments filed 02/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive
In response to Applicant’s argument that Shim’404 in view of Fukagawa’128 fails to teach an optical member for use in a display device such as a light absorbing part and a light bending part that bend and emit a part of a straight light.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The disclosure of ‘404 in view of ‘128 is adequately set forth in paragraph 8 above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘404 does not expressly teach a light absorbing part that contains a dye, and an absorption waveform of the light absorbing part is selected from the following absorption waveforms A to D, and the light absorbing part has the following absorption waveform B or C as set forth.
However, ’128 teaches a wavelength selective absorption filter (read on a light absorbing part and a light bending part that bend and emit a part of a straight light), and an organic electroluminescent (OLED) display device (Page 3, [0049]), wherein in the wavelength selective absorption filter, the dyes A to D have main absorption wavelength ranges in 390 to 435 nm, 480 to 520 nm, 580 to 620 nm, and 680 to 780 nm with respect to wavelength ranges of B (Blue, 460 nm), G (Green, 520 nm), and R (Red, 620 nm) which are used as light emitting sources of the OLED display device, respectively (Page 3, [0061]). Therefore, by containing these dyes A to D and satisfying Relational Expressions (I) to (VI), the wavelength selective absorption filter according to the embodiment of the present invention can suppress the external light reflection without impairing a color reproduction range of light emitted from the OLED (Page 3, [0059]). ‘128 teaches that although the feature of suppressing the reflection of external light by providing a circular polarizing plate is well known, this feature causes a problem in which brightness decreases (Page 1, [0005]). Furthermore, as a result of using the dyes A to D in the wavelength-selective absorption filter no. 103 (Page 3, [0047], Fig. 1; Page 115, [0598]-[0599]), maximum absorbance occurs at the wavelengths of 425 nm, 500 nm, 599 nm, and 750 nm. The absorbance at 500 nm is 1.00, the wavelengths at which the absorbance is 0.50 are 513 nm and 475 nm, and the difference between the wavelengths is 38 nm. In addition, the absorbance at 599 nm is 0.98, the wavelengths at which the absorbance is 0.49 are 580 nm and 613 nm, and the difference between the wavelengths is 33 nm. Furthermore, the values of formulas (1) and (2) are usually values smaller than 30 nm in organic light-emitting display devices with benefit of providing the form of the wavelength selective absorption filter may be a filter that can achieve both suppression of external light reflection and suppression of brightness decrease, and that does not easily affect an original tint of a display image (Page 3, [0059]).
Thus, ‘128 cures the deficiency in ‘404’s reference relied upon in rejecting independent claim 1, and one skilled in the art would naturally look prior art such as ‘128 addressing the same problem as the invention at hand, and in this case would find an appropriate solution.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Shim’404 in view of Fukagawa’128 wavelength selective absorption filters No. 101 to No. 103 using Dye B (7-21) and Dye C (C-80) satisfy the requirements of Claim 1. However, wavelength selective absorption filters No. 101 to No. 103 do not exhibit any characteristic properties compared with wavelength selective absorption filters No. 104 to No. 108 using Dye B (R111) and/or Dye C (FDG007).
The examiner respectfully disagrees. It is axiomatic that a reference must be considered in its entirety, and it is well established that the disclosure of a reference is not limited to specific working examples contained therein. In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794 n.1, 215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (C.C.P.A. 1982). A reference must be considered for everything it teaches by way of technology. EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal Inc., 755 F.2d 898, 907, 225 USPQ 20, 25 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 843 (1985). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also > Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971).
‘128 teaches the preparation of resin solution (Page 115, [0598]), wherein each component is mixed with the composition shown below to prepare a wavelength selective absorption filter forming liquid (composition) (Page 115, [0599]), wherein a dye contained in a light absorbing filter exhibiting the absorption waveform B or C includes a squaraine-based coloring agent represented by C-80 and 7-21, wherein a dye contained in a light absorbing filter exhibiting the absorption waveform A includes a coloring agent E-13, and wherein a dye contained in a light absorbing filter exhibiting the absorption waveform D includes at least one of a coloring agent D-35 (Page 114, [0583]).
PNG
media_image3.png
360
444
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
494
434
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
570
412
media_image5.png
Greyscale
"Where ... the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical ... the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977) (citations and footnote omitted). The mere recitation of a property or characteristic not disclosed by the prior art does not necessarily confer patentability to a composition or a method of using that composition. See In re Skoner, 51 7 F .2d 94 7, 950 ( CCP A 197 5)
Turning to Applicant’s last argument regarding unexpected results, examiner agrees that Applicant’s proffered evidence of the Table 1 of Specification, is insufficient to establish unexpected results for claim 1. Whether an invention has produced unexpected results is a question of fact. In re Mayne, 104 F.3d 1339, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 1997). "[T]here is no hard and-fast rule for determining whether evidence of unexpected results is sufficient to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness." Kao Corp. v. 7 Appeal 2017-004282 Application 13/877,156 Unilever US., Inc., 441 F.3d 963, 970 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see also In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 692-93 (Fed. Cir.1990) ("[e]ach situation must be considered on its own facts."). However, a party asserting unexpected results as evidence of nonobviousness has the burden of proving that the results are unexpected. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-70 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Such burden requires Applicant to proffer factual evidence that actually shows unexpected results relative to the closest prior art, see In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 392 (Fed. Cir. 1991), and that is reasonably commensurate in scope with the protection sought by claim 1, In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 743 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1035 (CCPA 1980); In re Hyson, 453 F.2d 764, 786 (CCPA 1972). "[I]t is not enough to show that results are obtained which differ from those obtained in the prior art: that difference must be shown to be an unexpected difference." In re Klosak, 455 F.2d 1077, 1080 (CCPA 1972). The extent of the showing relied upon by Applicant also must reasonably support the entire scope of the claims at issue. See In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2005). It is submitted the absorption waveform of the light absorbing part is selected from the absorption waveform A to D (i.e., genus, see claims 8-10), while only one specific dye A, dye B-1, dye C-1 and dye D are represented in Table 1 of the instant specification, where the claim to a genus is being sought. It is unclear as why only these four dyes are chosen as representative absorption waveform A to D. The showing of one species is insufficient to overcome a genus. In re Shokal 113 USPQ 283 (CCPA 1957). On the other hand the showing of unexpected results does not have to cover every species within the genus. Only a "representative" number need be shown. Ex parte Winters 11 USPQ 2d 1387, 1388 (BPAI 1~89). Additionally, it is also unclear as the preferable lower/higher limit value
amount of each dye and the total content of the dyes A to D in the wavelength selective absorption filter for a favorable both suppressing external light reflection and suppressing a decrease in brightness. For instance, the amount of dye B-1 and dyes C-1 in the laminates of No 101 to 106 are different compare to those use in the comparative examples. Furthermore, it is noted that any differences between the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected or whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The applicant is invited to submit any declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 to overcome the rejection based upon reference applied under 35 U.S.C. 103 (a) as set forth in this Office action to compare their invention product (i.e., the optical member) and show the product is actually different from and unexpectedly better than the teachings of the references. It is noted that the burden is on the applicant to establish that the results are in fact unexpected, unobvious, and of statistical and practical significance. See MPEP 716.02(b). See also Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992), and such a showing also must be commensurate with the scope of the claimed invention, i.e., must bear a reasonable correlation to the scope of the claimed invention.
12. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Examiner Information
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bijan Ahvazi, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571) 270-3449. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9.00 A.M. -7 P.M..
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph Del Sole can be reached on 571-272-1130. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Bijan Ahvazi/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
03/17/2026
bijan.ahvazi@uspto.gov