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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file. .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on was filed after the mailing date of the04/10/2023 AND on 11/01/2023has been considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election Species I is and sub species A including claims 1-11 and 18-19 in the reply filed on 04/13/2026 is acknowledged .Claim 12-17 and 21-26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, Currently claims 1 and 18 are generic. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/13/2026.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a2 as being anticipated by Xu et al. (US 12236030 B2) (Xu, hereafter)
Regarding claim 1, Xu discloses a display device(Figures 1-31 and corresponding text) (figures 1-5) comprising a first substrate (10) including a non-transmission area (Black matrix, 30: LSP retaining wall ) having a plurality of subpixels (Column 7, lines 1-10); a second substrate( 34,cover plate) arranged to face the first substrate (10); a plurality of color filters(31) arranged to respectively correspond to the plurality of subpixels (no number)over the second substrate (34); and a black matrix (30) disposed between each of the plurality of color filters (31)over the second substrate(34), wherein each of the plurality of color filters(31) is disposed to overlap at least a portion the black matrix (30), and the plurality of color filters (31) has different areas overlapped with the black matrix(30) according to positions of corresponding subpixels(no numbers).
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 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (US 12236030 B2) (Xu, hereafter) in view of Zhang et al. (US 20230369539 A1) (Zhang, hereafter).
Regarding claim 2, Xu discloses the display device set forth above (see rejection claim 1). Xu further discloses the plurality of color filters includes a first color filter disposed to corre3spond to the first subpixel and a second color filter disposed to correspond to the second subpixel, and the first color filter and the second color filter have different areas overlapped with the black matrix (see rejection claim 1). Xu fails to explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of subpixels includes a white subpixel, a first subpixel disposed adjacent to the white subpixel, and a second subpixel disposed not adjacent to the white subpixel.
Zhang discloses in Figure 1 the first sub-pixel (101 )is a red sub-pixel, the second sub-pixel ( 102) is a green sub-pixel, the third sub-pixel( 103) is a blue sub-pixel, and the fourth sub-pixel 104 is a white sub-pixel . In which 103 would be adjacent the white pixel )and 101would be far removed from the white pixel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the display device of as disclosed by Zhang wherein the plurality of subpixels includes a white subpixel, a first subpixel disposed adjacent to the white subpixel, and a second subpixel disposed not adjacent to the white subpixel, the motivation being improve brightness and luminous efficiency in the device.
Regarding the claims 3-5, the limitations wherein the first color filter includes a first side facing the white subpixel and a second side facing the second subpixel, the first color filter overlaps the black matrix in a first area at the first side and overlaps the black matrix in a second area at the second side, and a size of the second area is larger than that of the first area(claim 3); wherein the first color filter has a first end disposed in a center of the black matrix at the first side, and a second end of the first color filter is disposed closer to the second subpixel than the first subpixel at the sec3ond side (claim 4);wherein the second color filter includes a first side facing the first subpixel, and the second color filter has a first end disposed closer to a neighboring subpixel than the second subpixel at the first side (claim 5), do not appear to contain any additional features which define more than slight constructional changes which come within the scope of the customary (design) practice followed by persons skilled in the art, especially as the advantages thus achieved can be readily contemplated in advance. Alternatively, these limitations are not deemed patentable since the applicant’s disclosure fails to show such limitations to solve any problems or to yield any unobvious advantage that is not within the scope of the teachings applied. Therefore, such limitations would be a matter of design alternative.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to further modify the display device of Xu utilizing the teachings of Xu and Zhang to derive limitations wherein the first color filter includes a first side facing the white subpixel and a second side facing the second subpixel, the first color filter overlaps the black matrix in a first area at the first side and overlaps the black matrix in a second area at the second side, and a size of the second area is larger than that of the first area; wherein the first color filter has a first end disposed in a center of the black matrix at the first side, and a second end of the first color filter is disposed closer to the second subpixel than the first subpixel at the second side ;wherein the second color filter includes a first side facing the first subpixel, and the second color filter has a first end disposed closer to a neighboring subpixel than the second subpixel at the first side the motivation being to provide a display is self-luminous, fast response, wide viewing angle, high brightness, bright in color, thin and light in weight and since design alternative requires routine skill.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (US 12236030 B2) (Xu, hereafter) in view of Zhang et al. (US 20230369539 A1) (Zhang, hereafter) and in further view of Kim et al; (US 20200168668 A1) (Kim, hereafter).
Xu as modified by Zhang disclose the display device of set forth above(see rejection claim 2). Xu as modified by Zhang fails to explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of color filters is not disposed at a position corresponding to the white subpixel.
Kim discloses No color filter may be disposed in the first subpixel SPX1 of the fourth pixel PX4, which is a white pixel. The first subpixel SPX1 of the fourth pixel PX4 may be filled with a material other than a color filter. For example, the low reflection layer 330 may be formed thickly in the first subpixel SPX1 such that the bottom surface of the first subpixel SPX1 and the bottom surfaces of other pixels can be substantially planarized, but the present disclosure is not limited thereto. Alternatively, the thickness of the low reflection layer 330 may be substantially the same in the first subpixel SPX1 as that in other pixels so that a height difference between the first subpixel SPX1 and other pixels may be formed due to an absence of the color filter layer 320 in the first subpixel SPX1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Xu as disclosed by Zhang wherein the plurality of color filters is not disposed at a position corresponding to the white subpixel thus allowing fir full white luminance which allows for high performance display.
Claims 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. ( US 12236030 B2) (Xu, hereafter) in view of Katayama et al. (US 20240292697 A1) (Katayama. hereafter).
Regarding claim 7, Xu discloses the display device set forth above (see rejection claim 1). Xu further discloses wherein the plurality of subpixels includes a first subpixel and a second subpixel disposed adjacent to each other(column 7,lines 1-15), the plurality of color filters includes a first color filter disposed to correspond to the first subpixel and a second color filter disposed to correspond to the second subpixel(Column 7,lines 20-40)-.Xu fails to explicitly disclose where in the first color filter and the second color filter overlap each other over the black matrix.
Katayama discloses a display device wherein As illustrated in FIG. 7B, the color filter 148G, the color filter 148B, and a light-blocking layer 149 are preferably placed on the substrate 170 side. The color filter 148B is formed to overlap with part of the color filter 148G formed earlier. The light-blocking layer 149 is sometimes referred to as a black matrix and is placed in a portion where the color filters overlap with each other. That is, the light-blocking layer 149 is preferably placed to overlap with a non-light-emitting region.(π194)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the display device of Xu as disclosed by Katayama where in the first color filter and the second color filter overlap each other over the black matrix; the motivation is to ensure that the light transmission and color mixing is prohibited.
Regarding claim 8, Xu as modified by Katayama fail to explicitly disclose wherein one of the first color filter and the second color filter is a blue color filter, and the blue color filter is disposed between the black matrix and the second color filter.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the display device of Xu wherein one of the first color filter and the second color filter is a blue color filter, and the blue color filter is disposed between the black matrix and the second color filter, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claims 9-11, the limitations wherein an end of the first color filter is disposed closer to the second subpixel than the first subpixel, and the end of the second color filter is disposed closer to the first subpixel than the second subpixel (claim 9); wherein the black matrix includes a first side adjacent to the first subpixel and a second side adjacent to the second subpixel, and an end of the first side of the black matrix has a first distance from an end of the first color filter, and an end of the second side of the black matrix has a second distance from the end of the first color filter, wherein the second distance is less than the first distance( Claim 10) wherein the first distance and the second distance have a ratio of 5:2.(claim 11) do not appear to contain any additional features which define more than slight constructional changes which come within the scope of the customary (design) practice followed by persons skilled in the art, especially as the advantages thus achieved can be readily contemplated in advance. Alternatively, these limitations are not deemed patentable since the applicant’s disclosure fails to show such limitations to solve any problems or to yield any unobvious advantage that is not within the scope of the teachings applied. Therefore, such limitations would be a matter of design alternative.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to further modify the display device of Xu utilizing the teachings of Xu and Katayama to derive limitations wherein an end of the first color filter is disposed closer to the second subpixel than the first subpixel, and the end of the second color filter is disposed closer to the first subpixel than the second subpixel ; wherein the black matrix includes a first side adjacent to the first subpixel and a second side adjacent to the second subpixel, and an end of the first side of the black matrix has a first distance from an end of the first color filter, and an end of the second side of the black matrix has a second distance from the end of the first color filter, wherein the second distance is less than the first distance; wherein the first distance and the second distance have a ratio of 5:2 in order to provide a high resolution display and since design alternative requires routine skill.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (US 12236030 B2) (Xu, hereafter).
Xu discloses a display device(Figures 1-31 and corresponding text) (figures 1-5) a first substrate (10) and a second substrate(34) facing the first substrate; a first subpixel (R)on the first substrate configured to emit light; a first color filter on the second substrate corresponding to the first subpixel, wherein the first color filter is configured to receive light from the first subpixel and transmit light of a first color; a second subpixel on the first substrate configured to emit light, wherein the second subpixel is configured to emit light of a second color (column 7, lines 1-40) ; a first portion of a black matrix( 30) in a region between the first subpixel (R )and the second subpixel ( G) at a first side of the first color filter (31 R); and a second portion side opposite of the first portion) of the black matrix (30) at a second side opposite to the first side of the first color filter, (Figure 9)
Xu fails to disclose wherein a width of the second side of the first color filter overlapping the second portion of the black matrix is larger than a width of the first side of the first color filter overlapping the first portion of the black matrix.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the display device of Xu as disclosed by Xu wherein a width of the second side of the first color filter overlapping the second portion of the black matrix is larger than a width of the first side of the first color filter overlapping the first portion of the black matrix, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working
ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (US 12236030 B2) (Xu, hereafter) in view of Kim et al; (US 20200168668 A1) (Kim, hereafter).
Xu teaches the display device set forth above(see rejection claim 18) Xu fails to explicitly teach wherein the second color is a white color, and wherein there is no color filter corresponding to the second subpixel or a transparent organic material is disposed on the second substrate corresponding to the second subpixel.
Kim discloses (Figure 2) a white sub-pixel upon which no filter(π77) is provided and arranged as the fourth pixel being the fourth color. The arrangement of the white pixel is adjusted accordingly .
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would modify the display device of XU as disclosed by Kim to derive wherein the second color is a white color, and wherein there is no color filter corresponding to the second subpixel or a transparent organic material is disposed on the second substrate corresponding to the second subpixel, the motivation being to improve full white luminance and it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found int the 892 and below:
US 20180151824 A1-SAME Assignee-General state of the ART-white pixel in OLED device
US 20110074272 A1-General state of the art OLED with white Pixel
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRACIE Y GREEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3104. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thursday, 10am-8pm.
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.
TRACIE Y. GREEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2875
/TRACIE Y GREEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights