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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 08/27/2026 has been entered. Claims 5-8 are now pending in the application. Claims 5 and 6 have been amended, claims 1-4 have been canceled and new claims 7-8 have been added by the Applicant.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Priority
As required by e M.P.E.P. 210, 214.03, acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on Continuation of PCT/JP2023/018136 , filed 05/15/2023 that claims foreign priority to JP 2022-084869, filed 05/24/2022, and claims foreign priority to JP 2022-178289, filed 11/07/2022 (Japan).
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
However, to overcome a prior art rejection, applicant(s) must submit a translation of the foreign priority papers in order to perfect the claimed foreign priority because said papers has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. See MPEP § 213.04
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5-8 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitations directed to “A wavelength selective absorption filter” that comprises different elements as resin and dyes, followed by the phrase limitation where “the wavelength selective absorption filter is used in an organic electroluminescent display device in which a half-width of emitted light having a peak at a wavelength of 500 to 560 nm in the state that the wavelength selective absorption filter is not provided is 45 nm or less” in last three lines of claim 5. However, this limitation phrase is confusing because it is unclear how it can be understood and treated, given that the claim recites that the wavelength selective absorption filter is not provided, but is part of the claimed device of the wavelength selective absorption filter and used as part of the organic electroluminescent display device that comprises the wavelength selective absorption filter? Furthermore, claim 5 recites the usage of the wavelength selective absorption filter in a display device, which is not part of the claimed wavelength selective absorption filter, but is considered external to the wavelength selective absorption filter, and therefore optional as an intended use of the absorption filter. Specifically, it is unclear how can the organic electroluminescent display device that comprises “a wavelength selective absorption filter” have a state in which the wavelength selective absorption filter is not provided? How is such a state achieved, or is there a mechanism for removing or displacing the wavelength selective absorption filter from the organic electroluminescent display device, so that the organic electroluminescent display device has emitted light having a peak at a wavelength of 500 to 560 nm with a half-width of 45 nm or less? Lastly it is noted that the term for “a half-width” is not defined with respect to the size or range of the emission light feature, meaning that the half-width can be associated with any part of height of the emission feature. . The limitation above will be treated broadly, such that the display device having emission light (e.g. green) in the above range or smaller range has some half-width in the above range. It is suggested to amend the claim and provide explanations in order to remove the indefiniteness issues.
Claim 7 depends on claim 5 and therefore inherits the same deficiency.
Claim 6 recites the phrase limitation for “a half-width of emitted light having a peak at a wavelength of 500 to 560 nm in the state that the wavelength selective absorption filter is not provided is 45 nm or less”, in line 2-3. However, this limitation is confusing, because it is unclear how it can be understood and treated, given that the claim is directed towards “An organic electroluminescent display device” that comprises “a wavelength selective absorption filter” comprising different elements as resin and dyes. Specifically, it is unclear how can the organic electroluminescent display device that comprises “a wavelength selective absorption filter” have a state in which the wavelength selective absorption filter is not provided? How is such a state achieved, or is there a mechanism for removing or displacing the wavelength selective absorption filter from the organic electroluminescent display device, so that the organic electroluminescent display device has emitted light having a peak at a wavelength of 500 to 560 nm with a half-width of 45 nm or less? Lastly it is noted that the term for “a half-width” is not defined with respect to the size or range of the emission light feature, meaning that the half-width can be associated with any part of height of the emission feature. The limitation above will be treated broadly, such that the display device having emission light (e.g. green) in the above range or smaller range has some half-width in the above range. It is suggested to amend the claim and provide explanations in order to remove the indefiniteness issues.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the wavelength selective absorption filter" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, it is unclear as to what limitation refers to?
Claim 6 recites the limitation "a wavelength selective absorption filter" in line 6. Specifically, it is unclear is this limitation is a new limitation for a new wavelength selective absorption filter, or if this limitation is connected to the limitation for the wavelength selective absorption filter as recited in lines 3-4 of claim 6? It is suggested to amend the claim and provide explanations in order to remove the indefiniteness issues.
Claim 6 depends on claim 6 and therefore inherits the same deficiency.
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.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goto et al. (hereafter Goto, of record, see IDS dated 12/24/2024) JP 2019056865 A (where attached English language translation is referenced 1).
In regard to independent claim 1, Goto teaches (see Figs. 1-6) a wavelength selective absorption filter (i.e. as display optical filter and display having the same, see abstract, paragraphs [01-06,11-16, 24-25,89,94,102-112,128-134,138-140], e.g. examples 5-6, see Figs. 4-5) comprising:
a resin (adhesive, acrylic resin e.g. (A), substrate, e.g. paragraphs [25-30,62-63, 94]); and
the following dyes B, C, and D having a main absorption wavelength range in different wavelength regions (i.e. as dyes 1, 2 and 3 with different main absorption wavelength ranges, e.g. paragraphs [16,42-46, 128-134,138-140]),
wherein a light absorbance Ab (λ) of the wavelength selective absorption filter at a wavelength of λ nm satisfies Relational Expressions (I) and (II) (i.e. given display optical filter absorbance spectra, e.g. see Figs. 4-5, e.g. paragraphs [11-16, 24-25,89,94,102-112,128-134,138-140]),
dye B: a dye having a main absorption wavelength range at a wavelength of 480 to 520 nm in the wavelength selective absorption filter (i.e. as dye 1 of display optical filter, with absorption wavelength in such range, paragraphs [11-16, 24-25,102-112,128-134,138-140] see examples 5-6, Figs.4-5),
dye C: a dye having a main absorption wavelength range at a wavelength of 580 to 620 nm in the wavelength selective absorption filter (i.e. as dye 2 of display optical filter, with absorption wavelength in such range, paragraphs [11-16, 24-25,102-112,128-134,138-140] see examples 5-6, Figs.4-5),
dye D: a dye having a main absorption wavelength range at a wavelength of 680 to 780 nm in the wavelength selective absorption filter (i.e. as dye 3 of display optical filter, with absorption wavelength in such range, paragraphs [11-16, 24-25,102-112,128-134,138-140], see examples 5-6, Figs.4-5),
Relational Expression (I) Ab (500)/Ab (600) < 0.7 (i.e. given absorbance spectra at 500, 600 nm see examples 5-6, Figs.4-5 paragraphs [11-16, 24-25,128-134,138-140], ratio of ~0.5), and
Relational Expression (II) Ab (430)/Ab (700) < 3.0 (i.e. given absorbance spectra at 430, 700 nm see examples 5-6, Figs.4-5, paragraphs [11-16, 24-25,128-134,138-140], ratio of ~0.4),
wherein the wavelength selective absorption filter is used in an organic electroluminescent display device (i.e. as best understood, the display optical filter, not provided alone but used in display having the same, where the display is organic electroluminescent display, see abstract, paragraphs [01-06,11-16, 24-25,89,94,102-112,128-134,138-140], e.g. examples 5-6, see Figs. 4-5) in which a half-width of emitted light having a peak at a wavelength of 500 to 560 nm in a state where the wavelength selective absorption filter is not provided is 45 nm or less (i.e. as best understood, the display optical filter used in display having the optical filter but then in a state where the wavelength selective display optical filter is not provided, where the display is organic electroluminescent display with green emission of 530-550 nm, and given that the green emission with peak in 530 to 550 nm implies that the half width of such emission is less than 45 nm, see abstract, paragraphs [03-04,11-16, 24-25,89,94,102-112,128-134,138-140], however, the display as organic electroluminescent display is not part of claimed wavelength selective absorption filter and therefore is external to the recited wavelength selective absorption filter, and is thus treated as optional, as it is held that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Because the prior art optical filter device meets all the structural limitations of the claimed apparatus it therefore also meets the limitation regarding its properties. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was “for mixing flowing developer material” and the body of the claim recited “means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material”. The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected. See MPEP § 2114.).
Regarding claim 6, Goto teaches (see Figs. 1-6) an organic electroluminescent display device in which in a case where a wavelength selective absorption filter is not provided (i.e. as best understood, the display optical filter not provided alone but provided with the display having the display optical filter, where the display is organic electroluminescent displays, see abstract, paragraphs [03-04,11-16, 22, 24-25,89,94,102-112,128-134,138-140]), a half-width of emitted light having a peak at a wavelength of 500 to 560 nm is 45 nm or less (i.e. as best understood, the display optical filter in the display device having the optical filter but then in a state where the wavelength selective display optical filter is not provided, where the display is organic electroluminescent display with green light emission of 530-550 nm, and given that the green emission with peak in 530 to 550 nm means that the half width of such emission is less than 45 nm, see abstract, paragraphs [03-04,11-16, 24-25,89,94,102-112,128-134,138-140], where the limitation is treated in light of the above 112b rejections),
the organic electroluminescent display device comprising:
a wavelength selective absorption filter (i.e. as display optical filter and display having the same, see abstract, paragraphs [01-06,11-16, 24-25,89,94,102-112,128-134,138-140], e.g. examples 5-6, see Figs. 4-5) comprising:
a resin (adhesive, acrylic resin e.g. (A), substrate, e.g. paragraphs [25-30,62-63, 94]); and
the following dyes B, C, and D having a main absorption wavelength range in different wavelength regions (i.e. as dyes 1, 2 and 3 with different main absorption wavelength ranges, e.g. paragraphs [16,42-46, 128-134,138-140]),
wherein a light absorbance Ab (λ) of the wavelength selective absorption filter at a wavelength of λ nm satisfies Relational Expressions (I) and (II) (i.e. given display optical filter absorbance spectra, e.g. see Figs. 4-5, e.g. paragraphs [11-16, 24-25,89,94,102-112,128-134,138-140]),
dye B: a dye having a main absorption wavelength range at a wavelength of 480 to 520 nm in the wavelength selective absorption filter (i.e. as dye 1 of display optical filter, with absorption wavelength in such range, paragraphs [11-16, 24-25,102-112,128-134,138-140] see examples 5-6, Figs.4-5),
dye C: a dye having a main absorption wavelength range at a wavelength of 580 to 620 nm in the wavelength selective absorption filter (i.e. as dye 2 of display optical filter, with absorption wavelength in such range, paragraphs [11-16, 24-25,102-112,128-134,138-140] see examples 5-6, Figs.4-5),
dye D: a dye having a main absorption wavelength range at a wavelength of 680 to 780 nm in the wavelength selective absorption filter (i.e. as dye 3 of display optical filter, with absorption wavelength in such range, paragraphs [11-16, 24-25,102-112,128-134,138-140], see examples 5-6, Figs.4-5),
Relational Expression (I) Ab (500)/Ab (600) < 0.7 (i.e. given absorbance spectra at 500, 600 nm see examples 5-6, Figs.4-5 paragraphs [11-16, 24-25,128-134,138-140], ratio of ~0.5), and
Relational Expression (II) Ab (430)/Ab (700) < 3.0 (i.e. given absorbance spectra at 430, 700 nm see examples 5-6, Figs.4-5, paragraphs [11-16, 24-25,128-134,138-140], ratio of ~0.4).
Regarding claim 7 and 8, Goto teaches (see Figs. 1-6) that the half-width of emitted light having a peak at a wavelength of 500 to 560 nm in the state that the wavelength selective absorption filter is not provided is 32 nm or less (i.e. as best understood, the display optical filter in the display device having the optical filter but then in a state where the wavelength selective display optical filter is not provided, where the display is organic electroluminescent display with green light emission of 530-550 nm, and given that the green emission with peak in 530 to 550 nm, i.e. having total with of 20 nm, means that the half width of such emission is less than 45 nm, see abstract, paragraphs [03-04,11-16, 24-25,89,94,102-112,128-134,138-140], where the limitation is treated in light of the above 112b rejections).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed in the Remarks dated 08/07/2026 with respect to claim 5, 6 and their dependent claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, Applicant argues on page 6-8 that the cited prior art of Goto does not disclose the limitation of amended claim 5 (and 6) where “the wavelength selective absorption filter is used in an organic electroluminescent display device in which a half-width of emitted light having a peak at a wavelength of 500 to 560 nm in the state that the wavelength selective absorption filter is not provided is 45 nm or less” or similarly that “an organic electroluminescent display device in which a half-width of emitted light having a peak at a wavelength of 500 to 560 nm in the state that the wavelength selective absorption filter is not provided is 45 nm or less” because Goto does simply fails to mention display device in which a half- width of emitted light having a peak at a wavelength of 500 to 560 nm in the state that the wavelength selective absorption filter is not provided is 45 nm or less. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. With respect to the above issue(s) the cited prior art of Goto teaches claims 5 and 6, as the cited prior art of Goto teaches (see Figs. 1-6) a wavelength selective absorption filter (i.e. as display optical filter and display having the same, see abstract, paragraphs [01-06,11-16, 24-25,89,94,102-112,128-134,138-140], e.g. examples 5-6, see Figs. 4-5) comprising:
a resin (adhesive, acrylic resin e.g. (A), substrate, e.g. paragraphs [25-30,62-63, 94]); and
the following dyes B, C, and D having a main absorption wavelength range in different wavelength regions (i.e. as dyes 1, 2 and 3 with different main absorption wavelength ranges, e.g. paragraphs [16,42-46, 128-134,138-140]),
wherein a light absorbance Ab (λ) of the wavelength selective absorption filter at a wavelength of λ nm satisfies Relational Expressions (I) and (II) (i.e. given display optical filter absorbance spectra, e.g. see Figs. 4-5, e.g. paragraphs [11-16, 24-25,89,94,102-112,128-134,138-140]),
dye B: a dye having a main absorption wavelength range at a wavelength of 480 to 520 nm in the wavelength selective absorption filter (i.e. as dye 1 of display optical filter, with absorption wavelength in such range, paragraphs [11-16, 24-25,102-112,128-134,138-140] see examples 5-6, Figs.4-5),
dye C: a dye having a main absorption wavelength range at a wavelength of 580 to 620 nm in the wavelength selective absorption filter (i.e. as dye 2 of display optical filter, with absorption wavelength in such range, paragraphs [11-16, 24-25,102-112,128-134,138-140] see examples 5-6, Figs.4-5),
dye D: a dye having a main absorption wavelength range at a wavelength of 680 to 780 nm in the wavelength selective absorption filter (i.e. as dye 3 of display optical filter, with absorption wavelength in such range, paragraphs [11-16, 24-25,102-112,128-134,138-140], see examples 5-6, Figs.4-5),
Relational Expression (I) Ab (500)/Ab (600) < 0.7 (i.e. given absorbance spectra at 500, 600 nm see examples 5-6, Figs.4-5 paragraphs [11-16, 24-25,128-134,138-140], ratio of ~0.5), and
Relational Expression (II) Ab (430)/Ab (700) < 3.0 (i.e. given absorbance spectra at 430, 700 nm see examples 5-6, Figs.4-5, paragraphs [11-16, 24-25,128-134,138-140], ratio of ~0.4),
wherein the wavelength selective absorption filter is used in an organic electroluminescent display device (i.e. as best understood, the display optical filter, not provided alone but used in display having the same, where the display is organic electroluminescent display, see abstract, paragraphs [01-06,11-16, 24-25,89,94,102-112,128-134,138-140], e.g. examples 5-6, see Figs. 4-5) in which a half-width of emitted light having a peak at a wavelength of 500 to 560 nm in a state where the wavelength selective absorption filter is not provided is 45 nm or less (i.e. as best understood, the display optical filter used in display having the optical filter but then in a state where the wavelength selective display optical filter is not provided, where the display is organic electroluminescent display with green emission of 530-550 nm, and given that the green emission with peak in 530 to 550 nm implies that the half width of such emission is less than 45 nm, see abstract, paragraphs [03-04,11-16, 24-25,89,94,102-112,128-134,138-140], however, the display as organic electroluminescent display is not part of claimed wavelength selective absorption filter and therefore is external to the recited wavelength selective absorption filter, and is thus treated as optional, as it is held that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Because the prior art optical filter device meets all the structural limitations of the claimed apparatus it therefore also meets the limitation regarding its properties. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was “for mixing flowing developer material” and the body of the claim recited “means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material”. The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected. See MPEP § 2114.).
Similarly for claim 6, Goto teaches (see Figs. 1-6) an organic electroluminescent display device in which in a case where a wavelength selective absorption filter is not provided (i.e. as best understood, the display optical filter not provided alone but provided with the display having the display optical filter, where the display is organic electroluminescent displays, see abstract, paragraphs [03-04,11-16, 22, 24-25,89,94,102-112,128-134,138-140]), a half-width of emitted light having a peak at a wavelength of 500 to 560 nm is 45 nm or less (i.e. as best understood, the display optical filter in the display device having the optical filter but then in a state where the wavelength selective display optical filter is not provided, where the display is organic electroluminescent display with green light emission of 530-550 nm, and given that the green emission with peak in 530 to 550 nm means that the half width of such emission is less than 45 nm, see abstract, paragraphs [03-04,11-16, 24-25,89,94,102-112,128-134,138-140], where the limitation is treated in light of the above 112b rejections).
Specifically, Goto teaches that the wavelength selective absorption filter is used in an organic electroluminescent display device (i.e. as best understood, the display optical filter, not provided alone but used in display having the same, where the display is organic electroluminescent display, see abstract, paragraphs [01-06,11-16, 24-25,89,94,102-112,128-134,138-140], e.g. examples 5-6, see Figs. 4-5) in which a half-width of emitted light having a peak at a wavelength of 500 to 560 nm in a state where the wavelength selective absorption filter is not provided is 45 nm or less (i.e. as best understood, the display optical filter used in display having the optical filter but then in a state where the wavelength selective display optical filter is not provided, where the display is organic electroluminescent display with green emission of 530-550 nm, and given that the green emission with peak in 530 to 550 nm which means that the half width of such emission is less than 45 nm, see abstract, paragraphs [03-04,11-16, 24-25,89,94,102-112,128-134,138-140], however, the display as organic electroluminescent display is not part of claimed wavelength selective absorption filter and therefore is external to the recited wavelength selective absorption filter, and is thus treated as optional). Note that the claims 5 and 6 are interpreted and treated in light of the above 112b issues, where the wavelength selective absorption filter is both recited to be part of the display device (or used in the display device) and not be part i.e. are not provided in the display device.
Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
No additional substantial arguments were presented after page 8 of the Remarks dated 08/27/2026.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIN PICHLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4015. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am -5:00pm.
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, Thomas K Pham can be reached at (571)272-3689. 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.
/MARIN PICHLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
1 Figures are best reproduced at JP2019056865A - Display optical filter and display having the same - Google Patents
Prosecution Insights