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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55, which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/21/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 8/21/2024. These drawings are considered acceptable by Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
i. Claim(s) 1-20 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 7-8, 13, 17, 19-20 recite the limitation "the blocking part (overlap of 512, 513) has a thickness of about 3.0 μm to about 10.0 μm, and an optical density of about 3.0 or more" per Claim 1, as well as components in following claims. The term "about" is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "about" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically, the specification does not provide any coefficient of variance (i.e., + 10 nanometers) or any means to determine the range within which to apply the term “about” thereto.
Claim(s) 2-16, 18-20 are rejected at least for their dependency on the rejected independent claim(s) 1, 17.
America Invents Act
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
1. Claim(s) 1-16, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Song et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0130907 A1) as cited by Applicant(s) in view of Lee et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0395574 A1) in further view of Tseng et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0001909 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Song et al., teaches a display device, comprising: a display panel (100, display panel, ¶ [0057]-¶ [0060]; see at least Fig. 2) including a plurality of light emitting regions (of 290n, for emission) in which a plurality of light emitting elements (regions 290_1, 290_2, 290_3) are disposed and a non-light emitting region (of 420, light blocking member) disposed adjacent to the light emitting regions (of 290n); and a color filter layer (510, color filters) disposed on the display panel (100), wherein the color filter layer (510) comprises: a plurality of filter parts (512, 513) which overlap the light emitting regions (of 290n), respectively, and in which a single type of color filter is disposed; and a blocking part (overlap of 512, 513) which overlaps the non-light emitting region (of 420) and in which at least two color filters overlap. Song et al., is silent regarding the blocking part having a thickness of about 3.0 μm to about 10.0 μm.
In the same field of endeavor of color filter(s) in display panel(s), Lee et al., teaches the blocking part (overlap of 342, 343 or 341, same as … thickness of the color filter, ¶ [0109]) has a thickness of about 3.0 μm to about 10.0 μm (sum of two of DP2, DP3 [Wingdings font/0xE0] 2.7 μm + 1.5 μm) in order to adequately provide a display device with components that render the device to be thin and the production cost to be reduced (¶ [0006]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the color filter thicknesses, as disclosed by Lee et al., in the device of Song et al., in order to adequately provide a display device with components that render the device to be thin and the production cost to be reduced (¶ [0006]). It should be noted that both references are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are from the same field of endeavor of color filter(s).
Furthermore, Examiner additionally notes that it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Song et al., is additionally silent regarding the blocking part having an optical density of about 3.0 or more.
In the same field of endeavor of color filter(s) in display panel(s), Tseng et al., teaches the blocking part having an optical density of about 3.0 or more (4.0, optical density of the stacked structure of filters, ¶ [0026]) in order to prevent a decrease of contrast that would otherwise occur during operation (¶ [0007]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the color filter thicknesses, as disclosed by Tseng et al., in the device of Song et al., in order to prevent a decrease of contrast that would otherwise occur during operation (¶ [0007]). It should be noted that both references are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are from the same field of endeavor of color filter(s).
Furthermore, Examiner additionally notes that it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 2, Song et al., teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the color filter layer (510) comprises: a first color filter (511) configured to transmit a first color light; a second color filter (512) configured to transmit a second color light; and a third color filter (513) configured to transmit a third color light.
Regarding Claim 3, Song et al., teaches the display device of claim 2, wherein the blocking part (overlap of 512, 513) is formed by stacking a portion of the first color filter (511) and a portion of the third color filter (513, as clearly depicted in Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 4, Song et al., as modified by Tseng et al., teaches the display device of claim 3, wherein the blocking part (overlap of 512, 513) has an optical density of about 3.0 to about 5.0.
Motivation to combine would be the same as stated above.
Regarding Claim 5, Song et al., as modified by Lee et al., teaches the display device of claim 3, wherein the first color filter (511) disposed in the blocking part (overlap of 512, 513) has a thickness of about 2.0 μm to about 4.5 μm, and wherein the third color filter (513) disposed in the blocking part (overlap of 512, 513) has a thickness of about 1.0 μm to about 3.0 μm (overlap of 342, 343 or 341, same as … thickness of the color filter, sum of two of DP2, DP3 [Wingdings font/0xE0] 2.7 μm, 1.5 μm, ¶ [0109].
Motivation to combine would be the same as stated above.
Regarding Claim 6, Song et al., teaches the display device of claim 2, wherein the blocking part (overlap of 512, 513) is formed by stacking a portion of each of the first to third color filters (513, as clearly depicted in Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 7, Song et al., as modified by Tseng et al., teaches the display device of claim 6, wherein the blocking part (overlap of 512, 513) has an optical density of about 4.0 to about 5.0.
Motivation to combine would be the same as stated above.
Regarding Claim 8, Song et al., as modified by Lee et al., teaches the display device of claim 6, wherein the first color filter (511) disposed in the blocking part (overlap of 512, 513) has a thickness of about 1.0 μm to about 3.0 μm, wherein the second color filter (512) disposed in the blocking part (overlap of 512, 513) has a thickness of about 2.0 μm to about 4.0 μm, and wherein the third color filter (513) disposed in the blocking part (overlap of 512, 513) has a thickness of about 1.0 μm to about 3.0 μm (sum of two of DP2, DP3 [Wingdings font/0xE0] 2.7 μm + 1.5 μm of Lee et al.,).
Motivation to combine would be the same as stated above.
Regarding Claim 9, Song et al., teaches the display device of claim 2, wherein the first color filter (511) comprises a first pigment, wherein the second color filter (512) comprises a second pigment, and wherein the third color filter (513) comprises a third pigment.
Regarding Claim 10, Song et al., teaches the display device of claim 9, wherein each of the first to third color filters (513) further comprises a scatterer (each of the three filters may include scattering material, ¶ [0105]).
Regarding Claim 11, Song et al., teaches the display device of claim 2, wherein the color filter layer (510) further comprises an overcoat layer (495) at least partially covering the first to third color filters (of 513).
Regarding Claim 12, Song et al., teaches the display device of claim 2, wherein one color filter among the first to third color filters (of 513) is disposed in each of the filter parts (511, 512, 513).
Regarding Claim 13, Song et al., as modified by Tseng et al., teaches the claimed invention (see rejection in the claim above) except for the specific limitation of a reflectance to external light of the blocking part is about 0.1 or less.
However, Examiner reasonably contemplates that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify a reflectance to external light of the blocking part (overlap of 512, 513) is about 0.1 or less, since optimization of workable ranges is considered within the skill of the art as it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would entertain the idea of providing a reflectance to external light of the blocking part (overlap of 512, 513) is about 0.1 or less in order to improve the reduction of back-scatter that would otherwise occur during operation.
Regarding Claim 14, Song et al., teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein each of the light emitting elements (regions 290_1, 290_2, 290_3) emits the first color light, and in a plan view, the display device includes a first pixel region configured to emit the second color light different from the first color light, a second pixel region configured to emit the third color light different from the first and second color lights, and a third pixel region configured to emit the first color light (as described in ¶ [0136]-¶ [0137]).
Regarding Claim 15, Song et al., teaches the display device of claim 14, further comprising a light control layer (530) disposed between the display panel (100) and the color filter layer (510), wherein the light control layer (530) comprises: a first light control part (531) at least partially overlapping the first pixel region and convert the first color light into the second color light; a second light control part (533) at least partially overlapping the second pixel region and convert the first color light into the third color light; and a third light control part (532) at least partially overlapping the third pixel region and transmit the first color light.
Regarding Claim 16, Song et al., teaches the display device of claim 15, further comprising: a low refractive layer (495) disposed between the light control layer (530) and the color filter layer (510); and an anti-reflection layer (side surfaces of 420) disposed on the color filter layer (510).
Regarding Claim 19, Song et al., as modified by Lee et al., teaches the display device of claim 18, wherein the blocking part (overlap of 512, 513) is formed by stacking a portion of the first color filter (511) and a portion of the third color filter (513), and the blocking part (overlap of 512, 513) has a thickness of about 3.0 μm to about 7.5 μm (sum of two of DP2, DP3 [Wingdings font/0xE0] 2.7 μm + 1.5 μm of Lee et al.,).
Motivation to combine would be the same as stated above.
2. Claim(s) 17-18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Song et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0130907 A1) as cited by Applicant(s) in view of Tseng et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0001909 A1).
Regarding Claim 17, Song et al., teaches a display device, comprising: a display panel (100) including a plurality of light emitting regions (of 290n) in which a plurality of light emitting elements (regions 290_1, 290_2, 290_3) are disposed and a non-light emitting region (of 420) disposed adjacent to the light emitting regions (of 290n); a light control layer (530) disposed on the display panel (100); and a color filter layer (510) disposed on the light control layer (530), wherein the color filter layer (510) comprises: a plurality of filter parts (511, 512, 513) which overlap the light emitting regions (of 290n), respectively, and in which a single type of color filter is disposed; and a blocking part (overlap of 512, 513) which overlaps the non-light emitting region (of 420) and in which at least two color filters overlap. Song et al., is silent regarding the blocking part having an optical density of about 3.0 to about 5.0.
In the same field of endeavor of color filter(s) in display panel(s), Tseng et al., teaches the blocking part having an optical density of about 3.0 to about 5.0 (4.0, optical density of the stacked structure of filters, ¶ [0026]) in order to prevent a decrease of contrast that would otherwise occur during operation (¶ [0007]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the color filter thicknesses, as disclosed by Tseng et al., in the device of Song et al., in order to prevent a decrease of contrast that would otherwise occur during operation (¶ [0007]). It should be noted that both references are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are from the same field of endeavor of color filter(s).
Furthermore, Examiner additionally notes that it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 18, Song et al., teaches the display device of claim 17, wherein the color filter layer (510) comprises: a first color filter (511) configured to transmit first color light; a second color filter (512) configured to transmit second color light; and a third color filter (513) configured to transmit third color light.
Regarding Claim 20, Song et al., as modified by Tseng et al., teaches the claimed invention (see rejection in the claim above) except for the specific limitation of a reflectance to external light of the blocking part is about 0.1 or less.
However, Examiner reasonably contemplates that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify a reflectance to external light of the blocking part (overlap of 512, 513) is about 0.1 or less, since optimization of workable ranges is considered within the skill of the art as it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would entertain the idea of providing a reflectance to external light of the blocking part (overlap of 512, 513) is about 0.1 or less in order to improve the reduction of back-scatter that would otherwise occur during operation.
Examiner's Note
The Examiner cites particular figures, paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the reference(s), as applied to the claims above. Although the particular citations are representative teachings and are applied to specific limitations within the claims, other passages, internally cited references, and figures may also apply. In preparing a response, it is respectfully requested that the Applicant fully consider the references, in their entirety, as potentially disclosing or teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as fully consider the context of the passage as taught by the reference(s) or as disclosed by the Examiner.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner H. Featherly whose telephone number is 571-272-8654. The examiner can normally be reached on M-. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James Greece can be reached on 571-272-3711.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-272-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/H. Featherly/
Examiner Featherly
Art Unit 2875 Patent Examiner
/JAMES R GREECE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875
