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 certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. 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) 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai (US PG Pub. No. 20230397457) in view of Zhang et al (US PG Pub. No. 2021/0134889). Regarding Claim 1 . Cai discloses, at least in figure 1: A light emitting display device (abstract) comprising: a substrate (01, ¶ [0023]) ; a plurality of anodes (040), ¶ [0027], 3 shown) on the substrate (01) ; a pixel defining layer (03 ¶ [0023]) having a plurality of first openings (031, ¶ [0023]) overlapping the anodes (040) ; a plurality of emission layers (04, ¶ [0023) in the first openings (031) of the pixel defining layer (03) ; a cathode (05, ¶ [0027]) formed on the emission layers (04) and the pixel defining layer (03) ; an encapsulation layer (06 ¶ [0028]) on the cathode (05) ; and a light blocking layer (071, ¶ [0023]) on the encapsulation layer (06) and having a plurality of second openings (072, ¶ [0023]) corresponding to the first openings (031) (see fig. 1) , wherein the first openings (031) and the second openings (072) respectively have an oval shape in a plan view (¶ [0040]) , Cai fails to disclose: and wherein long-axis angles of the second openings (072) comprise at least five different angles. Zhang teaches, at least, in figures 5 and 12, orientations of the light openings in a display device (which would correspond to the openings of PDL and the black matrix ). In figure 5, at least 7 orientations of the long axis are shown and in figure 12, the orientations all appear to be random (many more than 5) . Zhang teaches in paragraph [0048], that the random orientation of the light emitting areas reduces diffraction and improves image quality. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide random orientated (more than 5 different) long-axes of the oval shaped openings of Cai, as taught by Zhang, to reduce diffraction and improve image quality. Regarding Claim 2 , Cai fails to disclose: wherein an angle formed by long-axis directions of respective oval shapes of two of the second openings (072) is less than or equal to 36 degrees. Zhang (889) teaches in figure 12, wherein an angle formed by long-axis directions of respective oval shapes of two of the second openings is less than or equal to 36 degrees. Motivation in claim 1. Regarding Claim 3 , Cai fails to disclose: wherein one of the second openings (072) has an eccentricity of 0.2 to 0.85. However, the eccentricity range of an oval only goes from zero to one , Therefore, this includes most of the range available , questioning its criticality . Furthermore, applicant has not shown in the specification how limiting the eccentricity to the claimed range produces any novel or unexpected result or solves any known problem, therefore It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention , to provide an eccentricity of the oval openings of Cai, within the claimed range, as a matter of obvious design choice. Regarding Claim 4 , Cai discloses in figure 1: wherein the first openings (031) and the second openings (072) overlapping the first openings (031) in a plan view are formed at regular intervals in a plan view. (Figure 6, shows them overlapping in plan view and figure 1 shows them at regular intervals which would also be in plan view). Regarding Claim 5 , Cai fails to disclose: wherein one of the first openings (031) and one of the second openings (072) overlapping the one of the first openings (031) in a plan view have a horizontal gap of 4.5 μm to 10 μm . However, since the overlap of the openings would affect the subsequent light pattern, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the claimed gap in the device of Cai, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch , 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Regarding Claim 6 , Cai discloses in figure 5 : wherein long-axis directions of respective oval shapes of one of the first openings (031) and one of the second openings (072) overlapping the one of the first openings (031) in a plan view are the same or form an angle of less than or equal to 10 degrees. In figure 5, they appear to be exactly the same. Zhang teaches the oval shape with random long-axis directions (not taught by Cai) and also teaches that he is concerned about diffraction and image quality (Para. [0048]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to ensure that corresponding first and second openings where perfectly aligned to avoid creating diffraction and poor imaging. Regarding Claim 7 , Cai fails to disclose: further comprising: a color filter in the respective second openings ( 072) (of the black matrix) . Zhang (889) teaches in figure 21, placing color filters (13) in the openings of the black matrices ( 12) ( ¶ [0076]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide color filters in the second openings of Cai, as taught by Zhang, to improve color purity . Regarding Claim 8, Cai discloses in figure 1: A light emitting display device (abstract) comprising: a substrate (01) ; a plurality of anode s (040) on the substrate (01) ; a pixel defining layer (03) having a plurality of first openings (031) overlapping the anode s (040) ; a plurality of emission layers (04) in the first openings (031) of the pixel defining layer (03) ; a cathode (05) formed on the emission layers (04) and the pixel defining layer (03) ; an encapsulation layer (06) on the cathode (05) ; a light blocking layer (071) on the encapsulation layer (06) and having a plurality of second openings (072) corresponding to the first openings (031) ; and a plurality of color filters in the second openings (072) of the light blocking layer (071) , wherein the first openings (031) and the second openings (072) have oval shapes in a plan view, wherein respective oval shapes of two of the second openings (072) have different eccentricities, and wherein one of the second openings (072) has an eccentricity of 0.2 to 0.85. Cai fails to disclose: further comprising: a color filter in the respective second openings (072) (of the black matrix). Zhang (889) teaches in figure 21, placing color filters (13) in the openings of the black matrices (12) (¶ [0076]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide color filters in the second openings of Cai, as taught by Zhang, to improve color quality. Cai fails to disclose: wherein one of the second openings (072) has an eccentricity of 0.2 to 0.85. However, the eccentricity range of an oval only goes from zero to one. Therefore, this includes most of the range available, questioning its criticality . Furthermore, applicant has not shown in the specification how limiting the eccentricity to the claimed range produces any novel or unexpected result or solves any known problem, therefore It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention , to provide an eccentricity of the oval openings of Cai, within the claimed range, as a matter of obvious design choice. Claim(s) 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai (457) in view of Ma et al (US PG Pub. No. 2022/0376213). Regarding Claims 15 , Cai discloses , at least in figure 1: A light emitting display device (abstract) comprising: a substrate (01) ; an anode (040) on the substrate (01) ; a pixel defining layer (03) having a first opening (031) overlapping the anode (040) ; an emission layer (04) in the first opening (031) of the pixel defining layer (03) ; a cathode (05) formed on the emission layer (04) and the pixel defining layer (03) ; an encapsulation layer (06) on the cathode (05) ; and a light blocking layer (071) on the encapsulation layer (06) and having a second opening (072) corresponding to the first opening (031) , wherein the second opening (072) Cai fails to disclose: wherein the second opening (072) has a shape that is a merging of at least two oval shapes with different eccentricities in a plan view. Ma teaches, at least in fig. 1A, a display pane l (¶ [0061]) and figure 4A shows a black matrix opening (second opening) ( ¶ [0037], which in the drawing appears to be a combination of oval shapes with different eccentricities in different directions . Ma teaches in paragraph [0112] that this weakens a diffraction effect and color separation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the claimed second opening shapes in the device of Cai, as taught by Ma, to weaken the diffraction effect. Regarding Claim 16 , Cai fails to disclose: wherein the second opening (072) has a planar shape formed by cutting a first oval shape with first eccentricity and a second oval shape with second eccentricity in a first direction and combining them. Ma teaches in figure 4A, wherein the second opening (black matrix opening shown in fig. 4A) has a planar shape (at least in the plan view shown in figure 4A) formed by cutting a first oval shape with first eccentricity and a second oval shape with second eccentricity in a first direction and combining them. (it shows multiple arcs (portions of an oval) in multiple direction combined) Regarding Claim 17 , Cai fails to disclose: wherein the first opening (031) or the second opening (072) has an eccentricity of 0.2 to 0.85. However, the eccentricity range of an oval only goes from zero to one. Therefore, this includes most of the range available, questioning its criticality . Furthermore, applicant has not shown in the specification how limiting the eccentricity to the claimed range produces any novel or unexpected result or solves any known problem, therefore It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention , to provide an eccentricity of the oval openings of Cai, within the claimed range, as a matter of obvious design choice. Claim(s) 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai (457) in view of Ma (213) and further in view of Zhang (889). Regarding claim 18 , Cai discloses, at least in figure 1 , wherein the second opening comprises a plurality of second openings, but fails to disclose: 1.) long-axis angles of the second openings comprising at least five different directions, 2.) and wherein an angle formed by long-axis directions of respective oval shapes is less than or equal to 36 degrees. Zhang teaches, at least, in figures 5 and 12, 1.) orientations of the light openings in a display device (which would correspond to the openings of PDL and the black matrix). In figure 5, at least 7 orientations of the long axis are shown and in figure 12, the orientations all appear to be random (many more than 5). Zhang teaches in paragraph [0048], that the random orientation of the light emitting areas reduces diffraction and improves image quality. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide random orientated (more than 5 different) long-axes of the oval shaped openings of Cai, as taught by Zhang, to reduce diffraction and improve image quality. Zhang (889) also teaches in figure 12, 2.) wherein an angle formed by long-axis directions of respective oval shapes of two of the second openings is less than or equal to 36 degrees. Motivation in claim 15. Regarding Claim 19 , Cai discloses in figure 5: wherein long-axis directions of respective oval shapes of the first opening (031) and the second opening (072) overlapping the same in a plan view are the same or form an angle of less than or equal to 10 degrees. Cai discloses in figure 5: wherein long-axis directions of respective oval shapes of one of the first openings (031) and one of the second openings (072) overlapping the the same in a plan view are the same or form an angle of less than or equal to 10 degrees. In figure 5, they appear to be exactly the same. Regarding Claim 20 , Cai discloses, at least in figure 1: wherein the first opening comprises a plurality of first openings (031) and the second opening (072) comprises a plurality of second openings, and wherein the second openings (072) overlapping the first openings in a plan view are at regular intervals in a plan view . (Figure 6, shows them overlapping in plan view and figure 1 shows them at regular intervals which would also be in plan view). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Allowable Subject Matter Claim s 9 - 14 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. Regarding Claim 9 , the references of the Prior Art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations as set forth in Claim 9 , and specifically comprising the limitation of “ w herein two of the second openings corresponding to a color filter of a same color have different eccentricities ” including the remaining limitations . Claims 10-14 are allowable, at least, because of their dependencies on claim 9. Examiner Note: Very few references even mention the eccentricities of openings except the instant assignee. In claim 9, could not find a motivation for making two openings for the same color with different eccentricities. CONTACT INFORMATION Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT DONALD L RALEIGH whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3407 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 7AM -3 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT James R. Greece can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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. /DONALD L RALEIGH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875