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. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the sensing electrodes in claims 8-10, 17-18 and the third color filter in the second region in claims 1, 3, 6, 8 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. 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 - 3 , 5, 7, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20220190274 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Kim” in view of Lee et al. (US 20180019280 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Lee” and Kubota et al ( US 20230117024 A1 ) hereinafter referred to as “Kubota” . Regarding claim 1 , Kim discloses a display device (DP) comprising: a base layer (BS) , including light-emitting regions of first to third colors (ED1-ED3) , respectively, and a non-light-emitting region (NPXA) surrounding the light-emitting regions (Fig. 4) a display element layer (DP-CL) disposed on the base layer, including first to third light-emitting elements each corresponding to the light-emitting regions of the first to third colors (ED1-ED3) , respectively , a color filter layer (CFL, Fig. 4) disposed on the display element layer and including first to third color filters (CF1-CF3) . However, Kim disclose s a first region (PXA-B , PXA-R, PXA-G ) , a second region (NPXA), and third region (NPXA). Kim does not disclose first regions each having one color filter corresponding to a respective one of the first to third color filters disposed therein and each overlapping a respective one of the first to third color light-emitting regions; a second region in which two different color filters of the first to third color filters are stacked; and a third region in which three different color filters of the first to third color filters are stacked , wherein the third region surrounds the light-receiving region when viewed on a plane . However, Lee discloses first regions each having one color filter corresponding to a respective one of the first (156a) to third color filters (156c) disposed therein and each overlapping a respective one of the first to third color light-emitting regions; a second region in which two different color filters of the first to third color filters are stacked (a first color filter layer (156a), a second color filter layer (156b), and a third color filter layer (156c) may be stacked (paragraph 80, Fig. 20) in the first to third region disclosed by Kim above) ; and a third region in which three different color filters of the first to third color filters are stacked , ( a first color filter layer (156a), a second color filter layer (156b), and a third color filter layer (156c) may be s tacked (paragraph 80, Fig. 20) in the first to third region disclosed by Kim above) . Kubota et al. disclose a light receiving region (20), and a third region (31) surrounds the light-receiving region (20) when viewed on a plane (Fig. 6A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim in view of Lee and Kubota such that the color filters are stacked in their respective order in the first to third region described by Kim . Doing so would transform broadband white light from a backlight into precise primary colors, enabling a wider color gamut, high color saturation, and improved image contrast. Regarding claim 2 , Kim discloses a third region (NPXA), but does not disclose the second and third color filters are stacked on the first color filter. However, Lee discloses the second (156b) and third color filters (156c) are stacked on the first color filter (156a) (paragraph 88, Fig. 20) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim in view of Lee such that the second and third color filters are stacked in the third region. Doing so would form a black matrix, which serves to enhance image contrast, prevent light leakage, and improve color purity. Regarding claim 3, Kim disclose s second (NPXA) and third regions (NPXA) However, Kim does not disclose the third color filter is disposed on the second color filter, wherein in a thickness direction of the base layer, a distance from the base layer to the third color filter in the third region is greater than a distance from the base layer to the third color filter in the second region. Lee discloses the third color filter (156c) is disposed on the second color filter (156b) , wherein in a thickness direction of the base layer, a distance from the base layer to the third color filter in the third region is greater than a distance from the base layer to the third color filter in the second region. It is reasonable for one skilled in the art to conduct reasonable experimentation to obtain the desired thickness and distance from the base layer to the third color filter. In United States v. Telectronics , Inc., 857 F.2d 778, 8 USPQ2d 1217 (Fed. Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1046 (1989) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim in view of Lee such that the thickness of the base layer to the third color filter in the third region is greater than a distance to the third filter in the second region. Doing so would manage structural integrity and optical performance at different areas of the display. Regarding claim 5 , Kim discloses the second region (NPXA) overlaps each of the non-light-emitting region (NPXA) disposed between the first (PXA-R) and second (PXA-G) light-emitting regions, the non-light-emitting region (NPXA) disposed between the first (PXA-R) and third (PXA-B) color light-emitting regions, and the non-light-emitting region disposed between the second and third color light-emitting regions (Fig. 4) . Regarding claim 7 , Kim does not disclose the first color filter comprises: a first portion overlapping the light-receiving region; and a second portion overlapping the first light-emitting region. However, Kubota et al. disclose the first color filter (31) comprises: a first portion overlapping the light-receiving region (20) ; and a second portion overlapping the first light-emitting region (20 , same reference number as light-receiving region, as described in the paragraph ) (paragraph 8 6, Fig. 2A ) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim in view of Kubota such that the first color filter overlaps the light-receiving region and the light emitting region. Doing so would balance display quality with sensor functionality. Regarding claim 15 , Kim discloses a first color-light emitting region (PXA-R) , second color light-emitting region (PXA-G), and a third color light-emitting region (PXA-B). However, Kim does not disclose wherein in the second color filter, a first opening overlapping the light-receiving region, a second opening overlapping the first color light-emitting region, and a third opening overlapping the third color light-emitting region are defined. On the other hand, Ku bota discloses opening portions that overlap the light-emitting region and light receiving element (20) (paragraph 112, Fig. 6A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim in view of Kubota such that the opening portions overlap the light-emitting and light-receiving region . Doing so would improve transparency and optimize electrical performance in under-display sensor integration. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20220190274 A1) , Lee et al. ( US 20180019280 A1 ) and Kubota et al ( US 20230117024 A1 ) as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Huang et al. (US 20210408131 A1 ) hereinafter referred to as “ Huang ”. Regarding claim 4 , Kim is discussed above. Kim discloses the color filter layer (CFL) and non-light-emitting region (NPXA), and first to third color light-emitting regions (ED1-ED3) . Kim , Lee, and Kubota do not disclose the color filter layer overlapping the non-light-emitting region between the light-receiving region and the light-emitting region adjacent to the light-receiving region among the first to third color light-emitting regions is thicker than the color filter layer overlapping the non-light-emitting region between adjacent light-emitting regions among the first to third color light-emitting regions. However, Huang discloses the light-emitting regions (302) is thicker than the color filter layer overlapping the non-light-emitting region (301) between adjacent light-emitting regions among the first to third color light-emitting regions (Fig. 8) . None of the prior references disclose a light receiving region. However, Kubota et al. disclose a light receiving region (20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kim , Lee, and Kubota in view of Huang such that the color filter layer overlapping the non-light-emitting region between light-receiving region and light-emitting region is thicker than the color filter layer overlapping the non-light-emitting region between the adjacent light-emitting region and first to third color light-emitting regions. Doing so would manage optical path differences, optimize color purity, and improve structural stability . Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20220190274 A1) , Lee et al. ( US 20180019280 A1 ) and Kubota et al ( US 20230117024 A1 ) as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Lee et al. ( US 20210013267 A1 ) hereinafter referred to as “ Lee (‘267’) ” . Regarding claim 6 , none of the prior references disclos e in the second region, the two-color filters among the first to third color filters are the second and third color filters. However , “Lee (‘267) discloses a region (SP1-1) (equivalent to the claimed second region), including two color filters among the first to third color filters are the second (CSP-G) and third color filters (CSP-B) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim and Lee according to Lee (‘267’) such that the two-color filters in the second region are second and third color filters. Doing so would maximize contrast and prevent light leakage between adjacent, independently colored subpixels. Claim s 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20220190274 A1) , Lee et al. ( US 20180019280 A1 ), and Kubota et al ( US 20230117024 A1 ) as applied to claim 7 above, in further view of Lee ( US 20150048346 A1 ), hereinafter referred to as “ Lee (‘346) ” and Lee et al. ( US 20190371865 A1 ) hereinafter referred to as Lee (‘865’) . Regarding claim 8 , none of the prior references disclose an input sensing layer including a sensing electrode overlapping the non-light-emitting region and at least one insulating layer covering the sensing electrode, and disposed between the display element layer and the color filter layer, wherein the sensing electrode overlaps each of the second and third color filters. However, Lee (‘865) disclose an input sensing layer (ISL) including a sensing electrode overlapping the non-light-emitting region (NPXA) and at least one insulating layer (TFL) disposed between the display element layer (DP-OLED) and the color filter layer (CF-G) , However, Lee (‘865) does not disclose at least one insulating layer covering the sensing electrode, and disposed between the display element layer and the color filter layer, wherein the sensing electrode overlaps each of the second and third color filters. On the other hand, Lee (‘346’) disclose at least one insulating layer (280) covering the sensing electrode (260) , wherein the sensing electrode overlaps each of the second and third color filters (270, Fig. 2) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim and Lee with the teachings of Lee (‘865’) and Lee (‘346’) such that the insulating layer covers the sensing electrode, and is disposed between the display element layer and the color filter layer. Doing so would prevent electrical interference and isolate the touch sensor from driving signals. Regarding claim 9 , Kim discloses a non-light-emitting region (NPXA) and Kubota discloses a light-receiving region (20) However, none of the prior references disclose the sensing electrode overlapping the non-light-emitting region overlaps the first portion in each space between the light-receiving region and the first color light-emitting region, between the light-receiving region and the second color light-emitting region, and between the light-receiving region and the third color light-emitting region. However, Lee (‘346’) discloses a sensing electrode layer (250) laid across the display panel. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim in view of Kubota and Lee (‘346’) such that the sensing electrodes overlap the light receiving region and the first to third color light emitting region. Doing so would enable high-integration, multifunctional, and compact display panels . Regarding claim 10 , Kim discloses the first (PXA_R) and second (PXA_B) light-emitting regions, between the first and third (PXA_G) light-emitting regions, and between the second and third light-emitting regions (Fig. 4) . However, Kim , Lee (‘280), and Kubota do not disclose the sensing electrode overlapping the non-light-emitting region non-overlaps the second portion in each space between . On the other hand, Lee (‘865’) discloses not disclose the sensing electrode (included in ISL, paragraph 155, Fig. 6E) overlapping the non-light-emitting region (NPXA) non-overlaps the second portion in each space between and the sensing electrodes may have different widths depending on an intended use of the input-sensing layer (paragraph 93). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim and Lee with the teachings of Lee (‘865’) such that the sensing electrode overlapping the non-light-emitting region non-overlaps the second portion in each space between the light emitting regions. Doing so would optimize the distance between the electrode and the base layer, likely to improve touch sensitivity, reduce parasitic capacitance, and ensure reliable fabrication in a display panel. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20220190274 A1) , Lee et al. ( US 20180019280 A1 ), Kubota et al ( US 20230117024 A1 ) , Lee ( US 20150048346 A1 ), hereinafter referred to as “ Lee (‘346) ” and Lee et al. ( US 20190371865 A1 ) hereinafter referred to as Lee (‘865’) as applied to claim 8 above, in further view of Yun ( US 20230120521 A1 ) . Regarding claim 11 , Kim discloses a color filter layer (CFL) overlapping the non-light emitting region (NPXA). None of the prior references disclose the color filter layer overlapping the non-light-emitting region is entirely in contact with an insulating layer disposed on an uppermost side of the at least one insulating layer. However, Yun et al. disclose the color filter layer (CFL) is entirely in contact with an insulating layer disposed on an uppermost side (UINS) of the at least one insulating layer (paragraph 213, Fig. 14) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim in view of Yun such that the non-light-emitting region is entirely in contact with an insulating layer deposed on an uppermost side of the insulating layer. Doing so would improve structural stability, reduce display defects, and streamline manufacturing. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20220190274 A1) , Lee et al. ( US 20180019280 A1 ) and Kubota et al ( US 20230117024 A1 ) as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Kim et al. ( US 20210043686 A1 ) hereinafter referred to as “ Kim (‘686) ” . Regarding claim 19 , none of the prior references disclose t he display device of claim 1, wherein when viewed on a plane, the first color light-emitting region has a smaller area than each of the second and third color light-emitting regions. However, Kim (‘686’). disclose when viewed on a plane (Fig. 4) , the first color light-emitting region (G1E) has a smaller area than each of the second (RE) and third color light-emitting regions (BE) (paragraph 73, Fig. 4) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim in view of Kim (‘686’) such that the first color-emitting region has a smaller area than each of the second and third light-emitting regions. Doing so would prevent rapid degradation and optimize lifetime. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20220190274 A1) , Lee et al. ( US 20180019280 A1 ) and Kubota et al ( US 20230117024 A1 ) as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Oh et al. ( US 20220005874 A1 ) Regarding claim 20 , none of the prior references disclose t he display device of claim 1, further comprising: a planarization layer disposed on the color filter layer to cover the color filters; and a window disposed on the planarization layer. However, Oh et al. discloses the display device of claim 1, further comprising: a planarization layer (FTL) disposed on the color filter layer (CF) to cover the color filters; and a window (WM) disposed on the planarization layer (paragraph 108-109, Fig. 3) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim in view of Oh et al. such that the planarization layer covers the color filter layer and the window is disposed on the planarization layer. Doing so would smooth out surface irregularities, reduce scattering/reflections, and protect the filters Allowable Subject Matter Claim s 12-14, 16-18 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. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT STEVE Q PHAN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1227 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday 8am - 5pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Marlon Fletcher can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-2063 . 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. /STEVE PHAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2817 /MARLON T FLETCHER/ Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817