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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A (Fig. 6-9; Claims 1-8, 11-13 and 17-20) in the reply filed on 04/27/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 9, 10 and 14-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/27/2026.
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) 1 and 4-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (2021/0167144 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2020/0091247 A1) Kim et al. (US 2018/0182814 A1)
Regarding Claim 1, Lim (Fig. 4, 5) discloses a display device comprising:
an active area (display area DA) comprising a first active area (first section of DA) and a second active area (second section of DA) (“display area DA may include the plurality of display pixels DPX and a plurality of sensor pixels SPX”) [0053];
pixels disposed in the first active area (DPX first section of DA) and the second active area (DPX second section of DA) and comprising respective light emitting elements (EMLs in first and second section of DA);
a first optical sensor (sensor pixel SPX in first section of DA) disposed in the first active area and comprising a first photoelectric conversion element (RL);
a second optical sensor (sensor pixel SPX in second section of DA) disposed in the second active area and comprising a second photoelectric conversion element (RL);
a light blocking member (light blocking layer BM in first and second section of DA) disposed in the first active area and the second active area, comprising first openings exposing the light emitting elements (opening above EMLs in first and second section of DA) and a second opening exposing the first photoelectric conversion element (sections TA above in sensor pixel SPX in first section of DA), and covering the second photoelectric conversion element (sections of BA above in sensor pixel SPX in first section of DA); and
a first color filter (CF_D) and a second color filter (CF_S) disposed on the light blocking member (BM) above the second photoelectric conversion element. (SPX).
The Examiner notes that as long as a first color filter and a second color filter disposed on the light blocking member and on a level above the second photoelectric conversion element the limitation is considered to be met.
Lim does not explicitly disclose a first color filter and a second color filter overlapping each other a change in shape of an element was considered a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (MPEP §2144.04).
Regarding Claim 4, Lim in view of Kim the display device of claim 1.
Lim in view of Kim does not explicitly disclose that the second active area is located at an edge of the active area.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a display device in Lim in view of Kim such that a first color filter and a second color filter overlapping each other in order to to enhance its adhesion and prevent color filter from being peeled away or torn out. [0051]
The Examiner noted that since the Applicant did not explicitly stated metes and bounds of the second active area and the active area. The Examiner selected respective areas of the active area to meet the claim limitation
Regarding Claim 5, Lim in view of Kim the display device of claim 1, further comprising
Lim in view of Kim does not explicitly disclose a third color filter disposed in the second opening to overlap the first photoelectric conversion element.
However, Lim discloses that color filter CF_S may be formed of a green or cyan color filter [0143]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a display device in Lim in view of Kim to have a green color filter to overlap the first photoelectric conversion element and cyan color filter to overlap the second photoelectric conversion element such that third a third color filter disposed in the second opening to overlap the first photoelectric conversion element in order to block external light having a long wavelength incident on the optical sensor OPD and increase a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of the optical sensor OPD [0143] and since the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (See MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding Claim 6, Lim in view of Kim the display device display device of claim 5, wherein
Lim in view of Kim as previously combined does not explicitly disclose the first color filter is a red color filter, the second color filter is a blue color filter, and the third color filter is a green color filter.
However, Kim (Fig. 3, 4) discloses a red, blue and green color filters [0049].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a display device in Lim in view of Kim to have the first color filter is a red color filter, the second color filter is a blue color filter, and the third color filter is a green color filter and since the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (See MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding Claim 7, Lim in view of Kim the display device of claim 5, wherein the pixels comprise first color pixels, second color pixels, and third color pixels. (Fig. 4, Lim)
Regarding Claim 8, Lim in view of Kim the display device of claim 7.
Lim in view of Kim as previously combined does not explicitly disclose first color filters disposed in first openings of a first group exposing light emitting elements of the first color pixels among the first openings (P1, P2, P3); second color filters disposed in first openings of a second group exposing light emitting elements of the second color pixels among the first openings; and third color filters disposed in first openings of a third group exposing light emitting elements of the third color pixels among the first openings.
However, Kim discloses first color filters (CF1) disposed in first openings of a first group exposing light emitting elements (LEDs in P1) of the first color pixels among the first openings (P1, P2, P3); second color filters (CF2) disposed in first openings of a second group exposing light emitting elements of the second color pixels (LEDs in P2) among the first openings; and third color filters (CF3) disposed in first openings of a third group exposing light emitting elements of the third color pixels (LED’s in P3) among the first openings. [0046-0051].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a display device in Lim in view of Kim to have the first color filter is a red color filter, the second color filter is a blue color filter, and the third color filter is a green color filter in order to have light emitting diode includes a white organic light emitting diode only, the organic light emitting display device includes red, green and blue color filters for displaying red, green and blue. Also, the organic light emitting display device may include red, green and blue color filters to reduce external light reflection or calibrate color coordinates even when the organic light emitting diode includes red, green and blue organic light emitting diodes. [0006]
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 3 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 11-13, 17-20 are allowable.
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance:
With regards to claim 11, none of the prior art teaches or suggests, alone or in combination, “light blocking member disposed above at least the second photoelectric conversion elements, and completely covering the second photoelectric conversion elements; and first color filters and second color filters disposed on the light blocking member, and overlapping each other above the second photoelectric conversion elements.” in the combination required by the claim.
Claims 12,13, 17-20 are allowed by virtue of their dependency on the independent claim 11.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled "Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance."
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DMITRIY YEMELYANOV whose telephone number is (571)270-7920. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a.m.-6p.m.
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, Matthew Landau can be reached at (571) 272-1731. 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.
/DMITRIY YEMELYANOV/Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Prosecution Insights