DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s application 18/809,918 filed on August 20, 2024 in which claims 1 to 20 are pending.
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 submitted on August 20, 204 have been reviewed and accepted by the Examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS), filed on August 20, 2024 and March 5, 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosed therein has been considered by the Examiner.
Notation
References to patents will be in the form of [C:L] where C is the column number and L is the line number. References to pre-grant patent publications will be to the paragraph number in the form of [xxxx].
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over U.S. 2022/0013750 (Cheng).
Regarding claim 1 Choi discloses at annotated Figure 16A a display device comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
609
770
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a substrate, 34 [0138];
a pixel electrode, 30/30A [0196], disposed on the substrate, as shown, and configured to receive a pixel voltage;
a light emitting element, 94, 96, 98 [0165], on the pixel electrode to emit light; and
a common electrode, 18 [0139, 141, 152], disposed on the light emitting element and configured to receive a common voltage; and
a selective transmission film 10 DBR [0138], disposed on the common electrode, as shown, to reflect light incident to an upper surface of the selective transmission film.
In reference to the claim language referring to the functions of the device, i.e., "configured to receive a pixel voltage", “configured to receive a common voltage” and “to reflect light incident to an upper surface of the selective transmission film“ intended use and other types of functional language must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed. Cir. 1997). This is because “Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, (Fed. Cir. 1990). If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); see MPEP 2114.
In the instant case and as explained above, Cheng shows all structural limitations specifically recited in the claim. From Applicant’s explanation of the functioning of the claimed device (as set forth in Applicant’s specification), it appears that any device having the specifically recited structural limitations could perform the recited function. Accordingly, it appears that the recited functional limitation does not affect the structure of Cheng's device and so it meets the claim.
If it is determined that Cheng’s structure is not capable of "configured to receive a pixel voltage", “configured to receive a common voltage” and “to reflect light incident to an upper surface of the selective transmission film“, Examiner notes that "configured to receive a pixel voltage", “configured to receive a common voltage” and “to reflect light incident to an upper surface of the selective transmission film“ are merely design choices to improve the functionality of the display, see MPEP 2143 and because the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-14 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 2, the prior art fails to disclose the device of claim 1 wherein the selective transmission film includes a first sub-selective transmission film comprising a plurality of first odd numbered layers having a first refractive index and a plurality of first even numbered layers having a second refractive index greater than the first refractive index, and wherein the plurality of first odd numbered layers and the plurality of first even numbered layers are alternately arranged with each other in a thickness direction of the substrate.
Regarding claim 7, the prior art fails to disclose the device of claim 1 further comprising: an insulating film disposed on a side surface of the light emitting element.
Claims 3-6 and 8-15 depend directly or indirectly on claims 2 or 7 and are allowable on that basis.
Claims 16-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 16, the prior art fails to disclose the device of claim 16 comprising a first color filter and a second color filter disposed on the selective transmission film.
Claims 17-20 depend directly or indirectly on claim 16 and are allowable on that basis.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed on the notice of references cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joe Schoenholtz whose telephone number is (571)270-5475. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur 7 AM to 7 PM PST.
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, Ms. Yara Green can be reached at (571) 272-3035. 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.
/J.E. Schoenholtz/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights