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
In view of the response dated 7/14/2026, the drawing objection of 4/21/2026 is no longer valid, and as such, the drawings are considered as acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 21, it is not clear as to how the limitation “wherein all sides of the color filter contact with a color filter transmitting a color other than the first color” is met by the elected embodiment of Fig. 5-7a. None of the color filters are shown as contacting the nearest color filter. Further amendment/clarification is requested.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
1. Claim(s) 1-2,8,14,16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by US 20210335969 A1 (Park).
Regarding claim 1, Park shows (Fig. 1) a light-emitting element (1, para 60) comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
654
768
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a pixel (P1, para 91);
an emitter (222b, para 76) disposed in the pixel;
a color filter (521,522, para 87) disposed on an upper part of the emitter (222b); and
a light-shielding layer (510, para 58) configured to shield light emitted by the emitter, wherein the emitter includes a first light-emitting portion (for P1) and a second light-emitting portion (for P2) which emits light of an emission color of the first light-emitting portion,
wherein the light-shielding layer includes (1) a first opening portion (510H1, para 87) where light emitted by the first light-emitting portion transmits through, and (2) a second opening portion (510H2, para 87) where light emitted by the second light-emitting portion transmits through,
wherein the color filter overlaps with both of the first opening portion (as shown) and the second opening portion (as shown), and
wherein an opening area of the second opening portion is smaller than an opening area of the first opening portion (as shown above, para 89).
Regarding claim 2, Park shows (Fig. 1) wherein each of the first light-emitting portion (P1) and the second light-emitting portion (P2) is constituted of an organic electroluminescence (EL) element (para 76).
Regarding claim 8, Park shows (Fig. 1) wherein the color filter (521,522) is formed integrally with the light-shielding layer (510).
Regarding claim 14, Park shows (Fig. 1) wherein the light-shielding layer (510) is formed of a resin material (organic insulating includes resin, para 85) or a metal material.
Regarding claim 16, Park shows (Fig. 1) wherein at least one of the plurality of pixels includes (1) the light-emitting element according to claim 1, and (2) a transistor (TFT, para 73) connected to the light-emitting element (1, through 221 and DE).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
1. Claim(s) 3-4,12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park.
Regarding claim 3, Park shows the opening area of the second light-emitting portion is smaller than the opening area of the first light-emitting portion.
Park does not specifically show wherein the opening area of the second light-emitting portion is at least 0.3 times and not more than 0.6 times of the opening area of the first light-emitting portion.
However, the ordinary artisan would have recognized the “opening area of the light-shielding layer” to be a result effective variable affecting the amount of light transmitted. Thus, it would have been obvious to have the opening areas within the claimed range, since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II.B.
Regarding claim 4, Park shows the opening area of the second light-emitting portion is smaller than the opening area of the first light-emitting portion.
Park does not specifically show wherein the opening area of the second light-emitting portion is at least 0.05 times and not more than 0.3 times of the opening area of the first light-emitting portion.
However, the ordinary artisan would have recognized the “opening area of the light-shielding layer” to be a result effective variable affecting the amount of light transmitted. Thus, it would have been obvious to have the opening areas within the claimed range, since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II.B.
Regarding claim 12, Park shows the light-emitting element, a distance between an opening center of the first opening portion and an opening center of the second opening portion is smaller than an opening size of the first opening portion.
Park does not show wherein in a top view of the light-emitting element, a distance between an opening center of the first opening portion and an opening center of the second opening portion is smaller than an opening size of the first opening portion.
However, the ordinary artisan would have recognized the “opening size of the first opening portion and distance between an opening center of the first opening portion and an opening center of the second opening portion” to be a result effective variable affecting the amount of light transmitted and the density of the light emitting elements on a substrate. Thus, it would have been obvious to have the opening areas within the claimed range, since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II.B.
Regarding claim 13, Park shows the light-emitting element, a distance between an opening center of the first opening portion and an opening center of the second opening portion is smaller than an opening size of the first opening portion.
Park does not show wherein in a top view of the light-emitting element, a distance between an opening center of the first light-emitting portion and an opening center of the second light-emitting portion is larger than an opening size of the first light-emitting portion.
However, the ordinary artisan would have recognized the “opening size of the first opening portion and distance between an opening center of the first opening portion and an opening center of the second opening portion” to be a result effective variable affecting the amount of light transmitted and the density of the light emitting elements on a substrate. Thus, it would have been obvious to have the opening areas within the claimed range, since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II.B.
2. Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park as applied to claim 5 above, further in view of US 20210013453 A1 (Matsuda).
Regarding claim 9, Park shows the color filter
Park does not show wherein a micro-lens is disposed on an upper part of the color filter.
Matsuda shows (Fig. 9A) wherein a micro-lens (245, para 84) is disposed on an upper part of the color filter (681 to 683, para 85).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at or before the effective filing date of the invention was made, to add the invention of Matsuda, with micro-lens, to the invention of Park.
The motivation to do so is that the selection of an art recognized micro-lens of Matsuda is suitable for the intended use of Park (MPEP §2144.07).
Regarding claim 10, Park as modified with Matsuda shows wherein a first micro-lens (245 right, Matsuda) is disposed on an upper part of the first light-emitting portion, and wherein a second micro-lens (245 center, Matsuda) having a same shape as the shape of the first micro-lens is disposed on an upper part of the second light-emitting portion.
2. Claim(s) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of US 20190334115 A1 (Matsuda2).
Regarding claim 17, Park shows an optical unit including a plurality of lenses;
the display unit includes the light-emitting element.
Park does not show an image pickup element configured to receive light that passed the optical unit; and
a display unit configured to display an image captured by the image pickup element.
Matsuda2 shows (Fig. 9) an image pickup element (camera, para 53) configured to receive light that passed the optical unit (1005, para 52); and
a display unit (1000, para 53) configured to display an image captured by the image pickup element.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use “image pickup element” with Park according to the teaching of Matsuda2, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known “image pickup element” on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice, In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 18, Park shows a display unit including the light-emitting element according to claim 1;
Park does not show a casing in which the display unit is installed; and
a communication unit which is installed in the casing and communicates with the outside.
Matsuda2 shows (Fig. 11) a casing (1203, para 59) in which the display unit (100, para 59) is installed; and
a communication unit (para 59) which is installed in the casing and communicates with the outside.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use “casing and communication unit” with Park according to the teaching of Matsuda2, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known “casing and communication unit” on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice, In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 19, Park shows a light source including the light-emitting element according to claim 1.
Park does not show an optical diffusion unit or an optical film, through which light emitted by the light source is transmitted.
Matsuda2 shows (Fig. 13) an optical diffusion unit (1405, para 62) or an optical film, through which light emitted by the light source is transmitted.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use “optical diffusion unit” with Park according to the teaching of Matsuda2, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known “optical diffusion unit” on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice, In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 20, Park shows a lighting unit including the light-emitting element according to claim 1.
Park does not show moving body comprising: a lighting unit including the light-emitting element according to claim 1; and a body in which the lighting unit is installed.
Matsuda2 shows (Fig. 14) moving body (1500, automobile, para 64) comprising:
a lighting unit (1501, taillight, para 64) including the light-emitting element according to claim 1; and a body (main body, para 64) in which the lighting unit is installed.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use “moving body” with Park according to the teaching of Matsuda2, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known “lighting unit in a moving body” on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice, In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the amendment “wherein the color filter overlaps with both of the first opening portion and the second opening portion” the color filter of Park teaches the limitation as stated above. The elected embodiment (Fig. 5-7a) does not overcome the Park reference as shown above. As such, a final is presented hereby.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WASIUL HAIDER whose telephone number is (571)272-1554. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 a.m. - 6 p.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, William Partridge can be reached at (571) 270-1402. 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.
/WASIUL HAIDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights