The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim(s) 2-3, 5-7, 9-10, 12-13, 15-17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Matsui et al. (8,605,238).
Regarding claim 2, Matsui et al. teach in figure 9A and related text a display device comprising:
a plurality of sub-pixel groups arranged in a matrix form; and
a first light shielding portion 40 disposed on a light extraction side of the sub-pixel groups,
wherein each of the sub-pixel groups include:
a plurality of pixels arrayed in a first direction and a second direction,
wherein each pixel includes:
a first sub-pixel R,
a second sub-pixel B that is disposed to be adjacent to the first sub-pixel in the first direction,
a third sub-pixel W that is disposed to be adjacent to at least one of the first sub-pixel or the second sub-pixel in the second direction, and
a first light shielding portion 40 that is disposed corresponding to a position on which the third sub-pixel W is disposed,
wherein the first light shielding portion 40 is not disposed between the first sub-pixel and the second sub-pixel.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Matsui et al. teach in figure 9A and related text that the first light shielding portion is disposed somewhere other than a center portion of the third sub-pixel.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Matsui et al. teach in figure 9A and related text that the first light shielding portion extends in the first direction
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Matsui et al. teach in figure 9A and related text that the first sub-pixel includes a first light-emitting element configured to emit light of a first color, the second sub-pixel includes a second light-emitting element configured to emit light of a second color, and the third sub-pixel includes a third light-emitting element configured to emit light of a third color.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Matsui et al. teach in figure 9A and related text that the first, second, and third light-emitting elements respectively include an organic layer.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Matsui et al. teach in figure 9A and related text that the first light shielding portion is rectangular in shape.
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Matsui et al. teach in figure 9A and related text that a second light shielding portion (the horizontal portion) is provided on a boundary portion of adjacent pixels in the first direction.
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 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 of this title, 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 2-3, 5-9, 11-13, 15-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (2014/0292622) in view of Endo et al. (2009/0219458).Regarding claims 2 and 12, Lee teaches in figure 1 and related text a display device comprising:
a plurality of sub-pixel groups arranged in a matrix form; and
wherein each of the sub-pixel groups include:
a plurality of pixels arrayed in a first direction and a second direction,
wherein each pixel includes:
a first sub-pixel 12,
a second sub-pixel 14 that is disposed to be adjacent to the first sub-pixel in the first direction,
a third sub-pixel 16 that is disposed to be adjacent to at least one of the first sub-pixel or the second sub-pixel in the second direction.
Lee does not teach using a light shield such that the first light shielding portion disposed on a light extraction side of the sub-pixel groups, and the first light shielding portion that is disposed corresponding to a position on which the third sub-pixel is disposed, and wherein the first light shielding portion is not disposed between the first sub-pixel and the second sub-pixel.
Endo et al. teach in figure 6 and related text a light shield S such that the first light shielding portion disposed on a light extraction side of the sub-pixel groups, and the first light shielding portion that is disposed corresponding to a position on which the third sub-pixel is disposed, and wherein the first light shielding portion is not disposed between the first sub-pixel and the second sub-pixel.
Endo et al. and Lee are analogous art because they are directed to light emitting semiconductor devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Lee because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to use a light shield such that the first light shielding portion disposed on a light extraction side of the sub-pixel groups, and the first light shielding portion that is disposed corresponding to a position on which the third sub-pixel is disposed, and wherein the first light shielding portion is not disposed between the first sub-pixel and the second sub-pixel, as taught by Endo et al., in Lee’s device, in order to improve the light illumination of the device by using conventional light shield, as is well-known in the art.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Lee in view of Endo et al. teach that the first light shielding portion is disposed somewhere other than a center portion of the third sub-pixel.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Lee in view of Endo et al. that the first light shielding portion extends in the first direction
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Lee teaches in figure 1 and related text a that the first sub-pixel includes a first light-emitting element configured to emit light of a first color, the second sub-pixel includes a second light-emitting element configured to emit light of a second color, and the third sub-pixel includes a third light-emitting element configured to emit light of a third color.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Lee teaches in figure 1 and related text a that the first, second, and third light-emitting elements respectively include an organic layer.
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Lee in view of Endo et al. teach that first light shielding portion 40 has a major first axis along the first direction that is less than an opening width of the third sub-pixel.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Lee in view of Endo et al. teach that the first light shielding portion 40 is rectangular in shape.
Claims 4, 10, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (2014/0292622) and Endo et al. (2009/0219458), as recited in the claims above, and further in view of Tanno et al. (209/0309821).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Lee and Endo et al. teach substantially the entire claimed structure, as applied to the claims above, except teaching that a width of the first sub-pixel in the second direction is larger than a width of the third sub- pixel in the second direction, and a width of the second sub-pixel in the second direction is larger than the width of the third sub-pixel in the second direction.
Tanno et al. teach in figure 3 and related text that a width of the first sub-pixel R in the second direction is larger than a width of the third sub- pixel G in the second direction, and a width of the second sub-pixel B in the second direction is larger than the width of the third sub-pixel G in the second direction.
Tanno et al., Endo et al. and Lee are analogous art because they are directed to light emitting semiconductor devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Lee because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to use a width of the first sub-pixel in the second direction is larger than a width of the third sub- pixel in the second direction, and a width of the second sub-pixel in the second direction is larger than the width of the third sub-pixel in the second direction, as taught by Tanno et al., in Lee’s device, in order to adjust the light illumination of the device according to the requirements of the application in hand.
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Lee and Endo et al. teach substantially the entire claimed structure, as applied to the claims above, except teaching that a second light shielding portion is provided on a boundary portion of adjacent pixels in the first direction.
Tanno et al. teach in figure 1 and related text that a second light shielding portion BM is provided on a boundary portion of adjacent pixels in the first direction.
Tanno et al., Endo et al. and Lee are analogous art because they are directed to light emitting semiconductor devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Lee because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to provide a second light shielding portion on a boundary portion of adjacent pixels in the first direction, as taught by Tanno et al., in Lee’s device, in order to adjust the light illumination of the device according to the requirements of the application in hand.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ORI NADAV whose telephone number is 571-272-1660. The examiner can normally be reached between the hours of 7 AM to 4 PM (Eastern Standard Time) Monday through Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynne Gurley can be reached on 571-272-1670. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
O.N. /ORI NADAV/
1/27/2026 PRIMARY EXAMINER
TECHNOLOGY CENTER 2800