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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “wherein the firs color filter covers an area between at least a part of adjacent second color filters” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters “52” and “42” have been used to designate different features in at least Fig. 4. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Regarding the drawings, Figs. 3-9 are missing labels for what appears to be different color filters and/or structures. It is unclear if the different structures are supposed to be similar color filter elements because they are drawn/shaded differently with no labels or corresponding explanation in the specification. For example, see the annotated figures below:
PNG
media_image1.png
621
610
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
597
648
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Similar appropriate correction is required for figures 3-9.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
¶0052 describes element 51 in Fig. 4 but it is not shown.
¶0053 described 52 is a circle or oval which is not shown in the figures.
¶0057 describes element 51 but it is not shown in the figure 4.
¶0058 describes V is between adjacent 52’s but it is not shown as such in the corresponding figure.
¶0066-¶0067 describe the element “2” as both “the pixel defining layer” and “the pixel delimiting layer”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 31-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 31, it recites “the first color filter covers an area between at least part of adjacent second color filters”. However the drawings do not appear to provide support for the claimed configuration due to the absence of appropriate labels of differently represented features. The text appearing verbatim in the specification does not provide sufficient description to support the claimed subject matter with the deficiencies of the drawings. For at least this reason, claims 32-37 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(a) based on their dependency from claim 31.
Regarding Claim 33, it recites “the second color filter and the third color filter are alternately arranged at a side of each edge of the first color filter”. There does not appear to be support for this limitation, as Fig. 3 appears to show four differently represented and unlabeled features arranged around the color filter labeled “51”. For at least this reason claims 34-37 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(a) based on their dependency from claim 33.
Regarding Claim 38, it recites “the first color filter covers an area between at least part of adjacent second color filters”. However the drawings do not appear to provide support for the claimed configuration due to the absence of appropriate labels of differently represented features. The text appearing verbatim in the specification does not provide sufficient description to support the claimed subject matter with the deficiencies of the drawings. For at least this reason, claims 39-50 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(a) based on their dependency from claim 38.
Regarding Claim 42, it recites “the second color filter and the third color filter arranged alternately around the first color filter are respectively located at a side of each edge of the polygon”. There does not appear to be support for this limitation, as Fig. 3 appears to show four differently represented and unlabeled features arranged around the color filter labeled “51”. For at least this reason claims 43-47 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(2) based on their dependency from claim 38.
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 48 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 48, it recites “the second opening is greater than an area of the first opening”. These lack antecedent basis because they depend from claim 38 which recites “a plurality of first openings … and a plurality of second openings”. This leaves the claim unclear as to what openings “the first opening” and “the second opening” are meant to refer to.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 31-33, 38-42, 48, and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by So Young Lee et al. (US 20220190045 A1; hereinafter Lee).
PNG
media_image3.png
598
627
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 31, Lee discloses a color filter arrangement structure (Fig. 14 and Fig. 15), comprising:
a first color filter (CF3; ¶0118), a second color filter (CF2; ¶0119) and a third color filter (CF1; ¶0120) not overlapping with each other (as shown in Fig. 14 and Fig. 15), wherein the first color filter (CF3) covers an area between at least part of adjacent second color filters (adjacent CF2’s in adjacent pixels PX of the array marked in the annotated Fig. 15 by arrows) except a gap between the second color filter (CF2) and the third color filter (CF1) (as shown in the annotated Fig. 15).
Regarding Claim 32, Lee discloses the color filter arrangement structure of claim 31, wherein a shape of the first color filter (CF3) is a polygon (CF3 is a polygon commensurate in scope with Applicant’s Fig. 3 which comprises no straight lines), a corner of the polygon is a first circular arc that is convex to a side away from a center of the polygon (as shown in Fig. 15 a corner is the convex edge away from the center of CF3), and at least one edge of the polygon is concave toward the center of the polygon (as shown in Fig. 15 at least one edge is concave toward the center of CF3).
Regarding Claim 33, Lee discloses the color filter arrangement structure of claim 32, wherein a shape of the second color filter (CF2) comprises a circle (as shown in Fig. 15 CF2 is a circular shape) or an oval, and a shape of the third color filter (CF1) comprises a circle (as shown in Fig. 14, CF1 comprises four circular shapes arranged around a center into one shape) or an oval; the second color filter (CF2) and the third color filter (CF3) are alternately arranged at a side of each edge of the first color filter (as shown in Fig. 15 wherein CF2 is alternately arranged at each convex edge of CF3, and CF1 is alternately arranged at each concave edge of CF3).
Regarding Claim 38, Lee discloses a display panel, comprising:
a base substrate (SUB; ¶0125);
a pixel defining layer (190; ¶0141) at a side of the base substrate (top side of SUB), wherein the pixel defining layer (190) comprises a plurality of first openings (EA1, EA2, EA3; ¶0096);
an encapsulation layer (TFEL; ¶0094) at a side of the pixel defining layer (190) away from the base substrate (SUB);
a black matrix layer (BM2; ¶0183) at a side of the encapsulation layer (TFEL) away from the base substrate (SUB), wherein the black matrix layer (BM2) comprises a plurality of second openings (OA2) corresponding to the first openings (EA1, EA2, EA3) in one-to-one manner;
a color filter layer (comprising CF1, CF2, and CF3; ¶0100) at a side of the black matrix layer (BM2) away from the base substrate (SUB), wherein the color filter layer comprises a first color filter (CF3), a second color filter (CF2) and a third color filter (CF1) corresponding to the second openings (OA2) in one-to-one manner (as shown in Fig. 14), and the first color filter (CF3), the second color filter (CF2) and the third color filter (CF1) do not overlap with each other (as shown in Fig. 14 and Fig. 15);
wherein the first color filter (CF3) covers an area between at least part of adjacent second color filters (adjacent CF2’s in adjacent pixels PX of the array marked in the annotated Fig. 15 by arrows) except a gap between the second color filter (CF2) and the third color filter (CF1) (as shown in the annotated Fig. 15).
Regarding Claim 39, Lee discloses the display panel of claim 38, wherein an area of the first color filter (CF3 corresponding to EA3) is greater than an area of the third color filter (CF1 corresponding to EA1) (as described in ¶0186-¶0187), and the area of the third color filter (CF1) is greater than an area of the second color filter (CF2 corresponding to EA2) (as described in ¶0186-¶0187 wherein EA3 is largest and EA2 is smallest leaving EA1 with an area between those of EA3 and EA2).
Regarding Claim 40, Lee discloses the display panel of claim 39, wherein a periphery of the first color filter (CF3) is provided with the second color filter (CF2) and the third color filter (CF1) arranged alternately around the first color filter (CF3) (as shown in Fig. 15 in a circular direction around CF3).
Regarding Claim 41, Lee discloses the display panel of claim 40, wherein a shape of the second color filter (CF2) comprises a circle (as shown in Fig. 15 CF2 is a circular shape) or an oval, and a shape of the third color filter (CF1) comprises a circle (as shown in Fig. 14, CF1 comprises four circular shapes arranged around a center into one shape) or an oval.
Regarding Claim 42, Lee disclose the display panel of claim 41, wherein a shape of the first color filter (CF3) is a polygon (CF3 is a polygon commensurate in scope with Applicant’s Fig. 3 which comprises no straight lines), and the second color filter (CF2) and the third color filter (CF1) arranged alternately around the first color filter (CF3) are respectively located at a side of each edge of the polygon (as shown in Fig. 15 wherein CF2 is alternately arranged at each convex edge of CF3, and CF1 is alternately arranged at each concave edge of CF3);
wherein a corner of the polygon is a first circular arc that is convex to a side away from a center of the polygon (as shown in Fig. 15).
Regarding Claim 48, Lee discloses the display panel of claim 38, wherein an area of the second opening (OA2) is greater than an area of the first opening (EA1) (as shown in Fig. 14); and/or an area of the first color filter is greater than an area of a corresponding second opening, an area of the second color filter is greater than an area of a corresponding second opening, and an area of the third color filter is greater than an area of a corresponding second opening.
Regarding Claim 50, Lee discloses a display device (¶0007; ¶0062), comprising the display panel of claim 38.
Claims 38 and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by So Young Lee et al. (US 20220190045 A1; hereinafter Lee).
Regarding Claim 38, Lee discloses a display panel, comprising:
a base substrate (SUB; ¶0125);
a pixel defining layer (190; ¶0141) at a side of the base substrate (top side of SUB), wherein the pixel defining layer (190) comprises a plurality of first openings (EA1, EA2, EA3; ¶0096);
an encapsulation layer (TFEL; ¶0094) at a side of the pixel defining layer (190) away from the base substrate (SUB);
a black matrix layer (BM2; ¶0183) at a side of the encapsulation layer (TFEL) away from the base substrate (SUB), wherein the black matrix layer (BM2) comprises a plurality of second openings (OA2) corresponding to the first openings (EA1, EA2, EA3) in one-to-one manner;
a color filter layer (comprising CF1, CF2, and CF3; ¶0100) at a side of the black matrix layer (BM2) away from the base substrate (SUB), wherein the color filter layer comprises a first color filter (CF1), a second color filter (CF2) and a third color filter (CF3) corresponding to the second openings (OA2) in one-to-one manner (as shown in Fig. 14), and the first color filter (CF1), the second color filter (CF2) and the third color filter (CF3) do not overlap with each other (as shown in Fig. 14 and Fig. 15);
wherein the first color filter (CF1) covers an area between at least part of adjacent second color filters (adjacent CF2’s in adjacent pixels PX of the array marked in the annotated Fig. 15 by arrows) except a gap between the second color filter (CF2) and the third color filter (CF3) (as shown in the annotated Fig. 15).
Regarding Claim 49, Lee discloses the display panel of claim 38, wherein the first color filter (CF1) is a red color filter (¶0160), the second color filter (CF2) is a green color filter (¶0161), and the third color filter (CF3) is a blue color filter (¶0162).
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 34-37 and 43-47 are dependent upon a rejected base claim, but have no prior art rejections. However, due to the above outlined 35 USC 112(a) rejections, 112(b) rejections, drawing objections, and specification objections; allowability cannot be indicated at this time for these dependent claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Weinan Dan et al. (WO 2019134495 A1) teaches subpixel structures in Fig. 5 with similar corresponding shapes to that of the instant application, however do not disclose wherein each edge of the polygon (01) is concave with convex corners.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN PRIDEMORE whose telephone number is (703)756-4640. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 4:00pm EST.
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, JULIO MALDONADO can be reached at (571) 272-1864. 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.
NATHAN PRIDEMORE
Examiner
Art Unit 2898
/NATHAN PRIDEMORE/Examiner, Art Unit 2898
/Leonard Chang/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights