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 1-10 in the reply filed on 1/9/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/9/2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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)(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 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Seo et al. (US 2024/0122048 A1) .
The applied reference has a common inventor and applicant with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding independent claim 1, Seo et al. (‘048) teaches in figures 3, 12, 15, and the corresponding text, a display device (1000) comprising: a light emitting element (EML) disposed on a substrate (1) and including an emission layer (EMLb and EMLg); and a light controller (10) disposed over the light emitting element, wherein the light controller includes: light blocking patterns (BL) to extend in a first direction (BLa and Blb) and spaced apart in a second direction (BLc see paragraph 0097) intersecting the first direction; and a transmission portion (T) disposed between the light blocking patterns to extend in the first direction, and the transmission portion includes: a first transparent organic layer (TOLa); a transparent inorganic layer (TIL) disposed on the first transparent organic layer; and a second transparent organic layer (TOLb) disposed on the transparent inorganic layer.
Regarding dependent claim 5, Seo et al. (‘048) teaches in figure 12 the transparent inorganic layer (TIL) contacts an upper surface of the first transparent organic layer (TOLa) and a lower surface of the second transparent organic layer (TOLb).
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.
Claims 2-4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo et al. (US 2024/0122048 A1), of record above, in view of Chiu et al. (US 6,398,370).
Regarding claim 2, Seo et al. (‘048) teaches all of the claimed limitations except for a cross-section of the first transparent organic layer has a substantially forward tapered shape.
Further regarding claim 2, Chiu et al. (‘370) teaches in figure 1 and the corresponding text, a cross section of the light transmission portion (100A) (corresponding to the first transparent organic layer of Seo) has a substantially forward tapered shape for the purpose of improving the light reflection from the emitters and thus improve the brightness of the display.
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the substantially forward tapered shape of the light transmission portion of Chiu in the display of Seo for the purpose of improving the light reflection from the emitters and thus improve the brightness of the display.
Regarding claim 3, Chiu et al. (‘370) teaches the second transparent organic layer has a substantially quadrangular or a substantially reverse tapered cross-section.
The reason for combining is the same as for claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 4, Chiu et al. (‘370) teaches a cross-section of the first transparent organic layer has a substantially reverse tapered shape, and a cross-section of the second transparent organic layer has a substantially forward tapered shape.
The reason for combining is the same as for claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 6, Chiu et al. (‘370) teaches the light blocking patterns (102B) have a substantially reverse tapered lower cross-section.
The reason for combining is the same as for claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 7, Chiu et al. (‘370) teaches the light blocking patterns have a substantially diamond or substantially hourglass shape in a cross-sectional view.
The reason for combining is the same as for claim 2 above.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo et al. (US 2024/0122048 A1), of record above.
Regarding claims 8-10 Seo (‘048) teaches all of the claimed limitations except for the claimed height and density ranges.
However, Seo (‘048) does teach throughout the text the general parameters of the thickness of the organic, inorganic, and light blocking layers, depending upon the size of the display and the intended amount of light that is desired to be transmitted of blocked. Therefore, the actual thickness is an obvious choice in design.
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of the thickness of Seo for the purpose controlling the amount of light desired to be transmitted of blocked. Therefore, the actual thickness is an obvious choice in design.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 8,395,569 and US 2005/0140285 disclose the state of the art for a light control layer for a display device.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH L WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-2465. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:30 AM- 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, JAMES R. 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.
JOSEPH L. WILLIAMS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2875
/JOSEPH L WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875