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 .
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 1-2 & 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SAITO et al. (US Pub. 2016/0211311) in view of PARK et al. (US Pub. 2026/0107642).
Regarding claim 1, SATO teaches a display device comprising: a plurality of pixels 108 (Fig. 1-2);
an insulating substrate 102 (Fig. 1-4, particularly Fig. 3);
an organic electroluminescent element 120 located on the insulating substrate 102 and including an organic light emitting layer 128 (Fig. 3 and Para [0040]);
a sealing layer 132 sealing the organic electroluminescent element 120 (Fig. 3);
color filter layers located on the sealing layer and including a first color filter of a first color, a second color filter of a second color different from the first color, and a third color filter of a third color different from the first color and the second color (see Fig. 3 below and note the annotations);
a first pixel aperture 142 where the first color filter is located, a second pixel aperture where the second color filter is located, and a third pixel aperture where the third color filter is located, in each of the plurality of pixels 108 (see Fig. 4 below); and
a light-shielding area 136 surrounding each of the first pixel aperture, the second pixel aperture, and the third pixel aperture (see Fig. 4 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
772
896
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
784
769
media_image2.png
Greyscale
SAITO is silent on wherein the first color filter, the second color filter, and the third color filter are stacked one on another.
However, PARK teaches in Fig. 11, wherein a first color filter CF1, a second color filter CF2, and a third color filter CF3 are stacked one on another. This has the advantage of improving color accuracy, brightness and functionality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of SAITO with the stacked color filters, as taught by PARK, so as to obtain an improved display device.
Regarding claim 2, SATO teaches the display device of claim 1, further comprising: a display surface on an opposite side to the insulating substrate 102 with respect to the organic electroluminescent element 120, wherein the first color filter, the second color filter, and the third color filter are stacked one on another in the light-shielding area 136 from a side of the insulating substrate toward a side of the display surface (SAITO’s Fig. 1-4 and PARK’s Fig. 10-11 and their associated texts).
Regarding claim 6, SATO teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the third pixel apertures of the pixels extend along the first direction, the first pixel apertures are aligned along a second direction that intersects the first direction of the third pixel apertures; and the second pixel apertures are aligned along the second direction of the third pixel apertures and aligned along the first direction of the first pixel apertures (SAITO’s Fig. 1-4 & Fig. 5-11, PARK’s Fig. 10-11 and their associated texts).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3-5 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 TIMOR KARIMY whose telephone number is (571)272-9006. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:30 AM -5:00 PM.
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, Eva Montalvo can be reached at (571) 270-3829. 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.
/TIMOR KARIMY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights