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 .
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgment is made that applicant's Amendment, filed on September 09th, 2026, has been entered.
Upon entrance of the Amendment, claims 1, 12, 15, and 20 were amended, and claim 19 was cancelled. Claims 1-18 and 20 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on September 09th, 2026 have been fully considered. Claim 1 was not amended to include all limitations of claims 11-12, therefore it is not allowable. Upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Hsu (U.S. Patent No. 10,043,857).
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0359048) in view of Hsu (U.S. Patent No. 10,043,857).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a light emitting display apparatus comprising:
a substrate including a display area and a non-display area (Fig. 1, [0062]-[0063]);
a white pixel and color pixels provided in the display area (Fig. 1, Figs. 4-5, [0103], last 2 lines); and
a fluorine-based protective layer surrounding the white pixel (Figs. 4-5, Fig. 9, element BL2, [0165], lines 4-7).
Kim does not disclose the fluorine-based protective layer surrounding only the white pixel.
Hsu discloses a protective layer surrounding only the white pixel among the white pixel and the color pixels provided in the display area (Fig. 5, column 4, lines 50-52). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim in view of Hsu to have the fluorine-based protective layer surrounding only the white pixel among the white pixel and the color pixels in order to increase color depth.
Regarding claim 2, Kim teaches the fluorine-based protective layer is provided on a bank surrounding the white pixel (Fig. 4A).
Regarding claim 3, Kim teaches the white pixel includes a first light emitting layer surrounded by the fluorine-based protective layer (Fig. 5), and wherein the first light emitting layer and a second light emitting layer provided outside the fluorine-based protective layer are separated by the fluorine-based protective layer (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 4, Kim teaches a cathode provided on the first light emitting layer and the second light emitting layer is not separated by the fluorine-based protective layer (Fig. 5, element 123; [0121], lines 1-3, Fig. 2, [0067], last 2 lines, the second electrode is a cathode).
Regarding claim 5, Kim teaches a width of an upper end of the fluorine-based protective layer is greater than a width of a lower end of the fluorine-based protective layer (Figs. 4-5).
Regarding claim 6, Kim teaches color filters provided on the color pixels ([0078], lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 7, Hsu discloses no color filter is provided on the white pixel (color filter surrounding the white pixel but not on it).
Regarding claim 8, Kim teaches a black matrix provided on an upper end of the fluorine-based protective layer ([0078], lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 10, Kim teaches a transmission area configured to allow light to transmit is provided adjacent to at least one of outsides of the white pixel (Fig. 1, Figs. 4-5).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-18 and 20 are allowed.
Claim 11-14 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 11, the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed limitations including “a first color pixel and a second color pixel among the three color pixels are arranged with the nth data line interposed therebetween, and a third color pixel among the three color pixels and the white pixel are arranged with the nth data line interposed therebetween” in combination with the limitations recited in claim 1 and the rest of limitations recited in claim 11.
Regarding claim 15, the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious the combination of limitations including “the fluorine-based structure surrounds only the first light emitting layer and the fluorine-based structure does not surround the second light emitting layer, and the first light emitting layer is included in a white pixel and the second light emitting layer is included in a color pixel”.
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 VU A VU whose telephone number is (571)270-7467. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00AM - 5:00PM.
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, CHAD M DICKE can be reached at (571) 270-7996. 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.
/VU A VU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897
