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
The instant application having Application No. 18901999 filed on 09/30/2024 is presented for examination by the examiner.
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 and 6 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.
Claims 5 and 6 recite the limitations where “The wavelength selective absorption filter according to claim 1, wherein in a case where the wavelength selective absorption filter is not provided, the wavelength selective absorption filter is used in an organic electroluminescent display device”, and “An organic electroluminescent display device in which in a case where a wavelength selective absorption filter is not provided”, in first two lines of claims 5 and 6, respectively. However, these limitation phrases are confusing because it is unclear how they can be understood and treated, given that they recite that the wavelength selective absorption filter is not provided, but is part of the claimed device of the wavelength selective absorption filter and/or 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 a intended use of the absorption filter. It is suggested to amend the claims and provide explanations in order to remove the indefiniteness issues.
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 1, 3-6 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).
Regarding claim 3, Goto teaches (see Figs. 1-6) that Relational Expression (II-a) is satisfied, Relational Expression (II-a) Ab (430)/Ab (700) < 1.0 (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 4, Goto teaches (see Figs. 1-6) that Relational Expressions (III) and (IV) are satisfied, Relational Expression (III) Ab (430)/Ab (600) < 1.0 (i.e. given absorbance spectra at 430, 600 nm see examples 5-6, Figs.4-5, paragraphs [11-16, 24-25,128-134,138-140], ratio of ~0.14), and
Relational Expression (IV) Ab (700)/Ab (600) < 2.0 (i.e. given absorbance spectra at 430, 600 nm see examples 5-6, Figs.4-5, paragraphs [11-16, 24-25,128-134,138-140], ratio of ~0.3).
Regarding claim 5, Goto teaches (see Figs. 1-6) wherein in a case where the wavelength selective absorption filter is not provided (i.e. as best understood, the display optical filter, not provided alone but provided and used in 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), 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 is 45 nm or less (i.e. as best understood, the display optical filter used in display having the optical filter, where the display is organic electroluminescent display with green emission of 530-550 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 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, the organic electroluminescent display device comprising: the wavelength selective absorption filter according to claim 1 (i.e. as the display optical filter implemented in display with such display optical filter of claim1, where the display is organic electroluminescent display with green emission wavelength range in 530-550 nm, and because that the range is 20 nm wide the half-width of emitted light spectrum is less than 45 nm, see paragraphs [03-04,11-16, 24-25,89,94,102-112,128-134,138-140]).
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, 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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto et al. (hereafter Goto, of record, see IDS dated 12/24/2024) JP 2019056865 A (where attached English language translation is referenced).
Regarding claim 2, Goto teaches (see Figs. 1-6) further comprising: the following dye A (i.e. as dye 4 with main absorption wavelength ranges, e.g. paragraphs [16,42-46, 117,128-134,138-140]),
dye A: a dye having a main absorption wavelength range at a wavelength of 390 to 435 nm in the wavelength selective absorption filter (i.e. as dye 4 has absorption maximum wavelength in the 360 nm to 420 nm wavelength range, with the maximum absorption around 380 nm, e.g. paragraphs [16,42-46, 117,128-134,138-140], Fig. 5). Thus Goto teaches the range of the main absorption range, but not a specific example with the main absorption wavelength in the recited range, as the maximum absorption around 380 nm is at slightly shorter wavelength, see paragraphs [16,42-46, 117,128-134,138-140], Fig. 5.
However, regarding claim 2 as obvious over Goto, as disclosed (i.e. as dye 4 has absorption maximum wavelength in the 360 nm to 420 nm wavelength range, with the maximum absorption around 380 nm, e.g. paragraphs [16,42-46, 117,128-134,138-140], Fig. 5). For claimed ranges, as is consistent with MPEP 2131.03 II, "a case by case determination must be made as to anticipation. In order to anticipate the claims, the claimed subject matter must be disclosed in the reference with "sufficient specificity" to constitute an anticipation under the statute." In this case, Examiner considers the claimed limiting range and precision of two significant figures (e.g. 25) to set forth what Applicant considers "sufficient specificity" and therefore, to value and two significant figures, Goto teaches the range of 360nm to 420 nm that is within the claimed range of 390-435, and provides example for maximum absorption around 380 nm, and thus range values within the claimed range. However, even if the value of the prior art were considered outside the claimed range it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to satisfy an example value for maximum absorption in the claimed range, since the claimed ranges and the prior art value are close enough that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the maximum absorption wavelength within the above range in order to block out unwanted wavelengths, e.g. in the near UV violet range of light and extract the three primary colors, as blue, green, and red as purely as possible, to improve color purity and enhance color reproduction (see e.g. paragraphs [04-06]), and since 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, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kuwahara et al. US 20220223825 A1 also discloses features of instant application (see e.g. Figs. 1-2 and their descriptions).
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