DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hong et al. (2022/0285657).
Re claim 1, Hong et al. disclose first, second and third subpixels (PX) (Fig. 6) disposed on a substrate (BS); first, second and third light emitting diodes (PX1/PX2/PX3) disposed in the first, second and third subpixels, respectively; a black matrix (BM2) disposed in boarder regions of the second subpixel (PX2) and the third subpixel (PX3); a first color filter (CF-1) disposed in the first subpixel (PX1) and overlapping with the first light emitting diode; and a transparent layer (CF-2/CF-3) disposed in at least one of the second and third subpixels between portions of the black matrix (CF-2/CF-3 are made of a photosensitive resin which are known to be transparent [0157]) (See Fig. 6 annotated below), and configured to transmit light having second and third main peaks corresponding to the second and third colors, respectively (filters are known to transmit the specific color light of its correspondent color pixel and desired wavelengths).
PNG
media_image1.png
544
776
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re claim 2, Hong et al. disclose wherein the first subpixel (PX1) excludes any portion of the black matrix (BM).
Re claim 3, Hong et al. disclose wherein a first width of a first portion of the black matrix (BM2) disposed between the second (PX2) and third subpixels (PX3) is greater than a second width of a second portion of the black matrix (BM1) disposed between the first (PX1) and second (PX2) subpixels (Fig. 6) ([0053-0054]).
Re claim 5, Hong et al. disclose further comprising a third color filter (CF-3) disposed in the third subpixel (PX3) between portions of the black matrix (BM) (Fig. 6).
Re claim 6, Hong et al. disclose wherein the black matrix (BM) is disposed in the first subpixel (PX1) and in border regions between the first (PX1), second (PX2) and third (PX3) subpixels (Fig. 6).
Re claim 15, Hong et al. disclose wherein portions of the black matrix (BM2/BM3) surrounding four sides of the third subpixel (PX3) have a first width in a plan view, wherein portions of the black matrix (BM2) surrounding three sides of the second subpixel (PX2) have the first width and a portion of the black matrix (BM 1) surrounding one side of the second subpixel (PX2) has a second width that is less than the first width in the plan view (Fig. 6), and wherein two portions of the black matrix surrounding two opposites of the first subpixel have the first width in the plan view ([0053-0054]).
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) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al. as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 6 and 15 above, and further in view of Jo et al. (2023/0006007).
Re claim 7, Hong et al. does not disclose wherein the transparent layer covers the black matrix and the first color filter to planarize the black matrix and the first color filter.
Jo et al. disclose wherein the transparent layer (630) covers the black matrix (610) and the first color filter (620) to planarize the black matrix and the first color filter (Fig. 9) ([0149]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Hong et al. and Jo et al. to dispose a transparent layer that covers the black matrix and the first color filter as taught by Jo et al. into the teachings of Hong et al. to planarize the structure as taught in [0149] by Jo et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-14 and 22 are 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.
Claims 4, 16, 17 and 19-21 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/11/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., selectively omitting the color filter in specific subpixels and replacing it with a structurally distinct transparent layer disposed between portions of the black matrix in the second and third subpixels) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim 1 recites having a transparent layer disposed in at least one of the second and third subpixels between portions of the black matrix, which is encompassed by Hong et al. There is no specific position of the transparent layer other than between portions of the black matrix in the respective pixel which is disclosed by Hong et al. in Fig. 6. The claims are not limited to a specific position of the transparent layer in the vertical direction or orthographic projection of its respective pixel.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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 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 MICHELLE MANDALA whose telephone number is (571)272-1858. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 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, Sue Purvis can be reached at 571-272-1236. 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.
/MICHELLE MANDALA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893 May 29, 2026
Prosecution Insights