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 .
Acknowledgement
The Amendment filed on 5/22/26, responding to the Restriction Requirement mailed on 02/24/2026, has been entered into the record. The present Office action is made with all the suggested amendments being fully considered. Accordingly, pending in this office action are claims 1-10.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, reading on claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 5/22/26 is acknowledged.
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
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.
Claims 1-2, 7, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Seki (US20030146695, cited in IDS and Seki hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Seki teaches a display device (Fig. 3), comprising: a first light-emitting element (i.e., red LED), a second light-emitting element (i.e., green LED) adjacent to the first light-emitting element, a first insulating layer (112a) provided between the first light-emitting element and the second light-emitting element, a light-blocking layer (113) over the first insulating layer, and a second insulating layer (112b) over the light-blocking layer, wherein the first light-emitting element comprises a first pixel electrode (111 red), a first EL layer (110b1) over the first pixel electrode, and a common electrode (12) over the first EL layer, wherein the second light-emitting element comprises a second pixel electrode (111 green), a second EL layer (110b2) over the second pixel electrode, the common electrode over the second EL layer, and wherein the common electrode is placed over the second insulating layer.
Regarding claim 2, Seki teaches the display device according to claim 1, wherein the first insulating layer comprises an inorganic material, and wherein the second insulating layer comprises an organic material. ([0106] and [0107])
Regarding claim 7, Seki teaches the display device according to claim 1, wherein the first insulating layer (112a) comprises a region in contact with the first EL layer (110b1) and the second EL layer (110b2).
Regarding claim 9, Seki teaches a display module (Fig. 2A) comprising: display device according to claim 1; and at least one of a connector (5a) and an integrated circuit (6).
Regarding claim 10, Seki teaches an electronic device ([0378]- [0379], Fig. 27A-B i.e., cell phone or laptop) comprising: the display module according to claim 9; and at least one of a battery, a camera, a speaker, and a microphone. Examiner notes, it is conventional that cell phones or laptops necessary include a camera, speaker, and a microphone.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seki in view of Tao (US2004/0075385, and Tao hereinafter).
Regarding claim 2, Seki teaches the first insulating layer comprise SiO2 or TiO2 but fails to teach aluminum oxide.
Tao in the same field of art teaches aluminum oxide along with SiO2 and TiO2 as material typically used to define an emissive area [0008].
A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention filing would have readily recognized the equivalent substitution of these materials for the first insulating layer, by substituting Seki’s SiO2 or TiO2 material with Tao’s aluminum oxide, and would obtain predictable results. Thus, the claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. 550 U.S. __, 82USPQ2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007) (KSR).
Regarding claim 4, Seki in view of Tao teaches the display device according to claim 3, wherein the second insulating layer comprises an acrylic resin (Seki [0031]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6, and 8 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eva Yan Montalvo whose telephone number is (571)270-3829. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 9AM-7PM ET.
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, John Fristoe can be reached at (571) 272-4926. 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.
EVA YAN MONTALVO
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2818
/EVA Y MONTALVO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights