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 Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “color filter greater than” in line 2. For the purpose of examination, it is considered as “color filter is greater than”. 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.
1. Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by US 20210305324 A1 (Kawamura).
Regarding claim 1, Kawamura shows (Fig. 4A-4B) a display device (120, para 26) comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
822
632
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a light emitting layer (light emitting layer of 110B, para 36) disposed on a substrate (121, para 26) and configured to emit a first color (blue); and
a color filter layer (101B+101R, para 36-37) disposed on the light emitting layer,
wherein the color filter layer includes a first color filter (101R) having a maximum transmittance at a first peak wavelength (620nm, Fig. 4A) and a second color filter (101B) having a maximum transmittance at a second peak wavelength (450nm, Fig. 4A) shorter than the first peak wavelength, and
wherein the first color filter and second color filter overlap each other (as shown).
Regarding claim 2, Kawamura shows (Fig. 4A-4B) wherein a transmittance of the second color filter (low luminosity transmittance at 670nm shown in Fig. 4A) is greater than a maximum transmittance of the first color filter (620nm).
Regarding claim 3, Kawamura shows (Fig. 4A-4B) wherein the first color filter (101R) has a first thickness, and the second color filter (101B) has a second thickness, and a ratio of the second thickness to the first thickness is equal to or greater than 1 (as shown in figure above).
Regarding claim 4, Kawamura shows (Fig. 4A-4B) wherein the first color filter (101R) has a first thickness, and the second color filter (101B) has a second thickness, and a ratio of the first thickness to the second thickness ranges from 1:1 to 1:9 (close to 1:2 as shown above).
Regarding claim 5, Kawamura shows (Fig. 4A-4B) wherein the first color filter and the second color filter allow light having the first color to pass therethrough (as shown in figure).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
1. Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of US 20250338771 A1 (Ujiie).
Regarding claim 6, Kawamura shows (Fig. 4A-4B) the first peak wavelength (620nm) of the first color filter, the light emitting layer and the second peak wave length (450nm).
Kawamura does not show wherein the first peak wavelength of the first color filter is greater than a peak wavelength of the light emitting layer, and a difference between the second peak wave length and the peak wave length is within a range of 50 nm.
Ujiie shows peak wavelength of the light emitting layer 410nm (10B, blue pixel, para 70).
Kawamura in combination with Ujiie teaches the whole limitation (450nm – 410nm < 50nm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at or before the effective filing date of the invention was made, to add the invention of Ujiie with peak wavelength of the light emitting layer, to the invention of Kawamura.
The motivation to do so is that the selection of an art recognized light emitting layer of Ujiie is suitable for the intended use of Kawamura (MPEP §2144.07).
Regarding claim 7, Kawamura shows (Fig. 4A-4B) the second peak wavelength of the second color filter (450nm), the light emitting layer, and the first peak wave length and the peak wave length (620nm).
Kawamura does not show wherein the second peak wavelength of the second color filter is smaller than a peak wavelength of the light emitting layer, and a difference between the first peak wave length and the peak wave length is within a range of 50 nm.
Ujiie shows peak wavelength of the light emitting layer 590 nm (10R, Red pixel, para 70).
Kawamura in combination with Ujiie teaches the whole limitation (620nm – 590nm < 50nm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at or before the effective filing date of the invention was made, to add the invention of Ujiie with peak wavelength of the light emitting layer, to the invention of Kawamura.
The motivation to do so is that the selection of an art recognized light emitting layer of Ujiie is suitable for the intended use of Kawamura (MPEP §2144.07).
Regarding claim 8, Kawamura shows the light emitting layer (light emitting layer of 110B, para 36).
Kawamura does not show wherein the light emitting layer emits any one of red, green, and blue color lights.
Ujiie shows wherein the light emitting layer emits any one of red, green, and blue color lights (10R or 10G or 10B, para 70).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at or before the effective filing date of the invention was made, to add the invention of Ujiie with color emission of the light emitting layer, to the invention of Kawamura.
The motivation to do so is that the selection of an art recognized light emitting layer of Ujiie is suitable for the intended use of Kawamura (MPEP §2144.07).
2. Claim(s) 9-12,14-15,17-18,20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura in view of US 20250098385 A1 (Wu).
1st rejection:
Regarding claim 9, Kawamura shows (Fig. 4A-4B) a display device (120, para 26) comprising:
a substrate (121, para 26) including a flat area,
wherein a first light emission area (110 below 101G, para 37) disposed in the flat area and a second light emission area (110 below 101B, para 36), the first light emission area includes a first emission layer (light emitting layer of 110 below 101G) and a first color filter layer (101G) disposed on the first emission layer, and the second light emission area includes a second emission layer (light emitting layer of 110 below 101B) and a second color filter layer (101B+101R, para 36-37) disposed on the second emission layer, the second color filter layer includes a third sub-color filter (101R) having a maximum transmittance at a third peak wavelength (620nm, Fig. 4A), and a fourth sub-color filter (101B) having a maximum transmittance at a fourth peak wavelength shorter than the third peak wavelength (450nm, Fig. 4A), and the third sub-color filter and fourth sub-color filter overlap each other.
Kawamura does not show a bending area disposed at one side of the flat area,
second light emission area disposed in the bending area.
Wu shows (Fig. 1-2) a bending area (R2, para 34) disposed at one side of the flat area (R1, para 34),
second light emission area (L of leftmost EC2 in R2, para 45) disposed in the bending area.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at or before the effective filing date of the invention was made, to add the invention of Wu with light emission area in the bending area, to the invention of Kawamura.
The motivation to do so is that the selection of an art recognized bending display area of Wu is suitable for the intended use of Kawamura (MPEP §2144.07).
2nd rejection:
Regarding claim 9, Kawamura shows (Fig. 4A-4B) a display device (120, para 26) comprising:
a substrate (121, para 26) including a flat area,
wherein a first light emission area (110 below 101B+101R, para 36) disposed in the flat area and a second light emission area (110 below 101B+101R, para 36, similar to the first light emission area), the first light emission area includes a first emission layer (light emitting layer of 110 below 101B) and a first color filter layer (101B+101R) disposed on the first emission layer, and the second light emission area includes a second emission layer (light emitting layer of 110 below 101B) and a second color filter layer (101B+101R, para 36-37) disposed on the second emission layer, the second color filter layer includes a third sub-color filter (101R) having a maximum transmittance at a third peak wavelength (620nm, Fig. 4A), and a fourth sub-color filter (101B) having a maximum transmittance at a fourth peak wavelength shorter than the third peak wavelength (450nm, Fig. 4A), and the third sub-color filter and fourth sub-color filter overlap each other.
Kawamura does not show a bending area disposed at one side of the flat area,
second light emission area disposed in the bending area.
Wu shows (Fig. 1-2) a bending area (R2, para 34) disposed at one side of the flat area (R1, para 34),
second light emission area (L of leftmost EC2 in R2, para 45) disposed in the bending area.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at or before the effective filing date of the invention was made, to add the invention of Wu with light emission area in the bending area, to the invention of Kawamura.
The motivation to do so is that the selection of an art recognized bending display area of Wu is suitable for the intended use of Kawamura (MPEP §2144.07).
Regarding claim 10, Kawamura in view of Wu shows (from 1st rejection of claim 9) wherein the first color filter layer (101G) includes one layer, and the second color filter layer (101B+101R, para 36-37) includes two layers of the third sub-color filter and the fourth color filter.
Regarding claim 11, Kawamura in view of Wu shows (from 2nd rejection of claim 9) wherein the first color filter layer (101B+101R) includes a first sub-color filter (101R) having a maximum transmittance at a first peak wavelength and a second sub-color filter (101B) having a maximum transmittance at a second peak wavelength, and the first sub-color filter and second sub-color filter overlap each other (as shown by Kawamura).
Regarding claim 12, Kawamura in view of Wu shows (from 2nd rejection of claim 9) wherein the first sub-color filter is disposed under the second sub-color filter, and the third sub-color filter is disposed under the fourth sub-color filter (as shown).
Regarding claim 14, Kawamura in view of Wu shows (from 2nd rejection of claim 9) wherein a transmittance of the second sub-color filter (620nm) is greater than a transmittance of the first sub-color filter (450nm), and a transmittance of the fourth sub-color filter is greater than a transmittance of the third sub-color filter.
Regarding claim 15, Kawamura in view of Wu shows (from 2nd rejection of claim 9) a third light emission area (middle EC2 in R2) disposed in the bending area and disposed outside the second light emission area (leftmost EC2 in R2), wherein the third light emission area includes a third light emitting layer (L of middle EC2 in R2) and a third color filter layer (middle CF2 in R2 replaced with Kawamura filter) disposed on the third light emitting layer, the third color filter layer includes a fifth sub-color filter (101R) having a maximum transmittance at a fifth peak wavelength, and a sixth sub-color filter (101B) having a maximum transmittance at a sixth peak wavelength, and the fifth sub-color filter and sixth sub-color filter overlap each other.
Regarding claim 17, Kawamura in view of Wu shows (from 2nd rejection of claim 9) wherein a transmittance of the fourth sub-color filter (101B) is greater than a transmittance of the third sub-color filter (101R), and a transmittance of the sixth sub-color filter (101B) is greater than a transmittance of the fifth sub-color filter (101R).
Regarding claim 18, Kawamura in view of Wu shows (from 2nd rejection of claim 9) a third light emission area (middle EC2 in R2) disposed in the bending area and disposed outside the second light emission area (leftmost EC2 in R2), wherein the third light emission area includes a third light emitting layer (L of middle EC2 in R2) and a third color filter layer (middle CF2 in R2 replaced with Kawamura filter) disposed on the third light emitting layer, the third color filter layer includes a fifth sub-color filter (101R) having a maximum transmittance at a fifth peak wavelength, and a sixth sub-color filter (101B) having a maximum transmittance at a sixth peak wavelength, and the fifth sub-color filter and sixth sub-color filter overlap each other.
Regarding claim 20, Kawamura in view of Wu shows (from 2nd rejection of claim 9) wherein a transmittance of the fourth sub-color filter (101B) is greater than a transmittance of the third sub-color filter (101R), and a transmittance of the sixth sub-color filter (101B) is greater than a transmittance of the fifth sub-color filter (101R).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13,16,19 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.
Regarding claim 13, the prior art of record, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the combination of limitations including “a ratio of the second thickness of the second sub-color filter to the first thickness of the first sub-color filter is smaller than a ratio of the fourth thickness of the fourth sub-color filter to the third thickness of the third sub-color filter”.
Regarding claim 16 or 19, the prior art of record, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the combination of limitations including “a ratio of the fourth thickness of the fourth sub-color filter to the third thickness of the third sub-color filter is smaller than a ratio of the sixth thickness of the sixth sub-color filter to the fifth thickness of the fifth sub-color filter”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WASIUL HAIDER whose telephone number is (571)272-1554. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 a.m. - 6 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, William Partridge can be reached at (571) 270-1402. 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.
/WASIUL HAIDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights