DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Note by the Examiner
2. For clarity, the reference to specific claim numbers are presented in bold. Cited claim limitations are presented in bold the first time they are associated with a particular prior art disclosing the cited limitations, and subsequent reference to the already disclosed claim limitations are presented un-bolded. Certain elements from prior art which are not required by the claims are also presented un-bolded if they are particularly pertinent to understanding how the references are being combined. Item-to-item matching and Examiner explanations for 102 &/or 103 rejections have been provided in parenthesis.
Claim Objections
3. Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 recited “apposed” which should be changed to “opposed”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(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.
4. Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 8-10, 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1)&(a2) as being anticipated by Yun et al. (US 2015/0014655 A1), hereinafter as Y1
5. Regarding Claim 1, Y1 discloses a display device (see in particular Figs. 1, 11, 15 and [0039] “display device 100”) comprising:
a base layer (element 10, see [0048] “substrate 10”) including a light-emitting region (region of the pixel elements P, see [0049] “pixels P1 through P3”) and a non-light-emitting region (region of elements 20, see [0049] “pixel defining layer 20”) adjacent to the light-emitting region;
a display element layer (layer of elements 30-50, see [0040] “control the emission luminance of the organic light-emitting layer 40 by controlling a signal transmitted to each of the first electrodes 30”) disposed on the base layer and including a light-emitting element (see [0040,0041]) corresponding to the light-emitting region; and
a color filter (elements 60, 70, 84, and see Figs. 1, 11, 15) disposed on the display element layer (see Fig. 1, 11, 15) and including a colorant (elements PA, see [0103] “The light-absorbing particles PA may absorb light of certain wavelengths”), the color filter including (see in particular Fig. 15):
a first portion (element A2) overlapping the light-emitting region (see Figs. 1, 11, 15); and
a second portion (element A1) surrounding the first portion (see Figs. 11, 15),
wherein a first weight percent of the colorant with respect to a total weight of the first portion is smaller than a second weight percent of the colorant with respect to a total weight of the second portion (see [0103] “The density of the light-absorbing particles PA in a first region A1 may be higher than the density of the light-absorbing particles PA in a second region A2. When the density of the light-absorbing particles PA in the first region A1 is higher than the density of the light-absorbing particles PA in the second region A2, the light transmittance of the second region A2 may be higher than the light transmittance of the first region A1.”)
6. Regarding Claim 4, Y1 discloses the display device of claim 1, wherein the light-emitting element emits source light (see [0040, 0043] “control the emission luminance of the organic light-emitting layer 40 by controlling a signal transmitted to each of the first electrodes 30”), and
the color filter absorbs at least portion of the source light (see [0043, 0103-0104]).
7. Regarding Claim 5, Y1 discloses the display device of claim 4, wherein, with respect to the source light, a first light transmittance of the first portion is higher than a second light transmittance of the second portion (see [0103]).
8. Regarding Claim 8, Y1 discloses the display device of claim 4, wherein an absorbance of the first portion with respect to the source light is lower than an absorbance of the second portion with respect to the source light (see [0043, 0103-0104]).
9. Regarding Claim 9, Y1 discloses the display device of claim 1, wherein a centerline which is virtual is defined in the light-emitting region in a plan view (see Figs. 1-2, 15), and
the first portion is defined as a portion adjacent to the centerline (see Fig. 15 adjacent on left and right sides of the centerline).
10. Regarding Claim 10, Y1 discloses the display device of claim 9, wherein the light-emitting element emits source light (see [0040, 0043] “control the emission luminance of the organic light-emitting layer 40 by controlling a signal transmitted to each of the first electrodes 30”), and
a light transmittance of the color filter with respect to the source light becomes lower in a direction of getting farther away from the centerline in the plan view (see in particular Fig. 15 lower from A2 to A1 [0043, 0103-0104]).
11. Regarding Claim 13, Y1 discloses the display device of claim 1, further comprising an overcoat layer (element 90, see [0050] “The second substrate 90 may be formed of an optically transparent material such as, but not limited to, PET, PC, PES, PI or PMMA.”) which covers the color filter and overlapping an entirety of the light-emitting region and the non-light-emitting region (see Fig. 1 and [0050]).
12. Regarding Claim 14, Y1 discloses a display device (see in particular Figs. 1, 11, 14-16 and [0039] “display device 100”) comprising:
a base layer (element 10, see [0048] “substrate 10”) including a first light-emitting region (region a first pixel among elements P, see [0049] “pixels P1 through P3”), a second light-emitting region (region a second pixel among elements P), a third light-emitting region (region a third pixel among elements P), which are spaced apart from each other in a plan view (see Fig. 1, 16), and a non-light-emitting region (region of elements 20, see [0049] “pixel defining layer 20”) defined between the first to third light-emitting regions (see Fig. 1, 16);
a display element layer (layer of elements 30-50, see [0040] “control the emission luminance of the organic light-emitting layer 40 by controlling a signal transmitted to each of the first electrodes 30”) disposed on the base layer and including first to third light-emitting elements (elements 30, 40, 50 of each element P) corresponding to the first to third light-emitting regions; and
a color filter layer (elements 60, 70, 84, and see Figs. 1, 11, 14-15) disposed on the display element layer, the color filter layer including (see in particular Fig. 15 and [0104] each of the first, second, and third color filters may have the same density relationship as element 84 illustrated in Fig. 15 and as illustrated in Fig. 14 for each color filter having two regions with an inner region having higher transmittance):
a first filter part (element A2) overlapping the first light-emitting region (see Figs. 1, 11, 15, 16) and including a first colorant (see [0103-0104] selectable as colorant for either transmitting red or blue or green and absorbing the non-transmitted color), the first filter part including:
a first portion having a first concentration (see Fig. 15 and [0103]) of the first colorant; and
a second portion (element A1) having a second concentration (see Fig. 15 and [0103]) of the first colorant;
a second filter part (element A4) overlapping the second light-emitting region and including a second colorant (see [0103] second selected as red, green, or blue pixel different from the first pixel); and
a third filter part (element A3) overlapping the third light-emitting region, wherein the first concentration is lower than the second concentration (see [0103] “The density of the light-absorbing particles PA in a first region A1 may be higher than the density of the light-absorbing particles PA in a second region A2. When the density of the light-absorbing particles PA in the first region A1 is higher than the density of the light-absorbing particles PA in the second region A2, the light transmittance of the second region A2 may be higher than the light transmittance of the first region A1.” [0104] “the density of the light-absorbing particles in a third region A3 may be higher than the density of the light-absorbing particles in a fourth region A4”).
13. Regarding Claim 15, Y1 discloses the display device of claim 14, wherein a concentration of the second colorant in the second filter part is substantially uniform in the second light-emitting region (see Fig. 15 and [0104]; note, the claim as currently recited broadly requires “substantially uniform” for which no specific standard for determining the degree of uniformity is presented).
14. Regarding Claim 16, Y1 discloses the display device of claim 14, wherein the first to third light-emitting elements respectively emit first to third light (see [0103-0104] red, blue, green), and
a light transmittance of the first portion with respect to the first light is higher than a light transmittance of the second portion with respect to the first light (see [0103]).
15. Regarding Claim 17, Y1 discloses the display device of claim 16, wherein the first light is red light (see [0103-0104] selected as red), the second light is green light (see [0103-0104] selected as green), and the third light is blue light (see [0103-0104] selected as blue).
16. Regarding Claim 18, Y1 discloses the display device of claim 16, wherein a light transmittance of the second filter part with respect to the second light is substantially same in the second light-emitting region (see Fig. 15 and [0104]; note, the claim as currently recited broadly requires “substantially uniform” for which no specific standard for determining the degree of uniformity is presented), and
a light transmittance of the third filter part with respect to the third light is substantially same in the third light-emitting region (see Fig. 15 and [0104]; note, the claim as currently recited broadly requires “substantially uniform” for which no specific standard for determining the degree of uniformity is presented).
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.
17. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yun et al. (US 2015/0014655 A1), hereinafter as Y1 in view of Helber et al. (US 2011/0183066 A1), hereinafter as H1
18. Regarding Claim 2, Y1 discloses the display device of claim 1.
Y1 does not explicitly disclose wherein the colorant includes a dye or a pigment.
H1 discloses wherein the colorant includes a dye or a pigment (see [0053, 0055, 0058] “pigment particles” for green, blue, red).
The type of light-absorbing particles being a pigment as taught by H1 is incorporated as the type of light-absorbing particles of Y1.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of H1 with Y1 because the combination is simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results – simple substitution of one known type of light-absorbing particle for another in a similar color filter for a display device to obtain predictable results (see H1 [0053, 0055, 0058]).
19. Claims 3, 7, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yun et al. (US 2015/0014655 A1), hereinafter as Y1 in view of Ishigaki et al. (US 2007/0046868 A1), hereinafter as I1
[Lee et al. (US 2018/0292750 A1), herein after as L1 is utilized herein as evidence]
20. Regarding Claim 3, Y1 discloses the display device of claim 1.
Y1 does not disclose wherein the second portion overlaps the light-emitting region and the non-light-emitting region.
I1 discloses (see Figs. 1-11, in particular Figs. 3, 11 and [0037] “display device”) wherein the second portion (element 203a1, see [0072] “first filter layer 203a1”) overlaps the light-emitting region (region overlapped with element 4 but not overlapped with element 202, see [0054] “numeral 202 indicates a black matrix”) and the non-light-emitting region (region overlapped with element 202 and outside the boundary of element 4, in particular see Fig. 3).
The black matrix and partial overlap with the color filter as taught by I1 is incorporated as a black matrix and partial overlap with the color filter of Y1.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of I1 with Y1 because the combination provides a light-blocking separation matrix for division of the pixels (see Figs. 3-4 and [0059]); furthermore, the combination is simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results – simple substitution of one known color filter interface with adjacent color pixels for another in a similar display device to obtain predictable results (see I1 Figs. 3-4, 11; also see evidentiary reference L1 [0162] “For example, to be used in a color filter of the OLED or LCD, the pattern-forming composition may include a pigment, a dye, or other additives.”).
21. Regarding Claim 7, Y1 discloses the display device of claim 5.
Y1 does not explicitly disclose further comprising a division pattern apposed to the color filter on the display element layer and overlapping the non-light-emitting region,
wherein, with respect to the source light, a light transmittance of the division pattern is lower than the second light transmittance.
I1 discloses (see Figs. 1-11, in particular Figs. 3, 11 and [0037] “display device”) further comprising a division pattern (element 202, see [0054] “numeral 202 indicates a black matrix”) apposed to the color filter on the display element layer (element 4, see [0054] “numeral 4 indicates a liquid crystal material”) and overlapping the non-light-emitting region (element 202 is a black matrix which is part of the non-light-emitting region),
wherein, with respect to the source light, a light transmittance of the division pattern is lower than the second light transmittance (see [0063] “The black matrix 202 is formed using a resist in which black pigment” the division pattern is a black matrix with black pigment which has lower light transmittance than the second light transmittance which is a color filter for red, blue, green pixel transmittance).
The black matrix and partial overlap with the color filter as taught by I1 is incorporated as a black matrix and partial overlap with the color filter of Y1.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of I1 with Y1 because the combination provides a light-blocking separation matrix for division of the pixels (see Figs. 3-4 and [0059]); furthermore, the combination is simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results – simple substitution of one known color filter interface with adjacent color pixels for another in a similar display device to obtain predictable results (see I1 Figs. 3-4, 11; also see evidentiary reference L1 [0162] “For example, to be used in a color filter of the OLED or LCD, the pattern-forming composition may include a pigment, a dye, or other additives.”).
22. Regarding Claim 19, Y1 discloses the display device of claim 14,.
Y1 does not explicitly disclose wherein the color filter layer further comprises a division pattern overlapping the non-light-emitting region
I1 discloses (see Figs. 1-11, in particular Figs. 3, 11 and [0037] “display device”) wherein the color filter layer further comprises a division pattern (element 202, see [0054] “numeral 202 indicates a black matrix”) overlapping the non-light-emitting region (element 202 is a black matrix which is part of the non-light-emitting region).
The black matrix and partial overlap with the color filter as taught by I1 is incorporated as a black matrix and partial overlap with the color filter of Y1.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of I1 with Y1 because the combination provides a light-blocking separation matrix for division of the pixels (see Figs. 3-4 and [0059]); furthermore, the combination is simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results – simple substitution of one known color filter interface with adjacent color pixels for another in a similar display device to obtain predictable results (see I1 Figs. 3-4, 11; also see evidentiary reference L1 [0162] “For example, to be used in a color filter of the OLED or LCD, the pattern-forming composition may include a pigment, a dye, or other additives.”).
23. Regarding Claim 20, Y1, I1 disclose the display device of claim 19, wherein each of the first to third filter parts extends up to the non-light-emitting region (see I1 Figs. 3-4 three filters with red, blue, green pixels each extending to the non-light-emitting region comprising elements 202), and
the division pattern has a structure in which at least a portion of the first to third filter parts is stacked (see I1 Fig. 4, 11).
Allowable Subject Matter
16. Claims 6, 11-12 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 an examiner’s statement of reason for indicating allowable subject matter:
The prior art made of record, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest at least the claim limitations of:
17. Claim 6, “the second light transmittance is about 82 percent to about 90 percent of the first light transmittance” – as instantly claimed and in combination with the additionally claimed limitations.
18. Claim 11, “the light-emitting region has a first width with respect to a first direction from the centerline, the first portion has a second width with respect to the first direction from the centerline to correspond to the light-emitting region, and a ratio of the second width to the first width is about 0.4 to about 0.6” – as instantly claimed and in combination with the additionally claimed limitations. All claims depending on the current claim incorporate the same allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL PARK whose telephone number is (303)297-4277. The examiner can normally be reached Normal Schedule: M-F Sometime between 6:30 a.m. - 7:00 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, Steven H. Loke can be reached at (571) 272-1657. 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.
/SAMUEL PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights