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 .
This Office Action is made in response to applicant’s amendment filed on 08/10/2026. Claims 1-15 and 18-22 are currently pending in the application. Claims 6-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected species and nonelected Group II as indicated by the applicant in the RESPONSE TO ELECTION REQUIREMENT, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/12/2021. Claims 1-5, 10-15 and 18-22 are considered. An action follows below:
Response to Arguments
In response to the rejections of claims 20-22 under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant has amended claim 20 and argued Kim failing to teach the new limitation, “wherein an entirety of a top surface of the viewing angle controlling patterns does not overlap any part of a top surface of the transparent material in a plan view” in last 3 lines of claim 20. This argument is not persuasive because Suzuki discloses this limitation (see the below rejection or see Suzuki at least Fig. 1.)
In response to the request for rejoining the withdrawn claims 6-9, These claims would be considered when the application is in condition for allowance.
Notice to Applicant(s)
Examiner notes that the specification is not the measure of invention. Therefore, limitations contained therein can’t be read into the claims for the purpose of avoiding the prior art. See In re Sporck, 55 CCPA 743, 386 F.2d 924, 155 USPQ 687 (1968).
Further, the names/ terms of the features/elements used in the pending application or pending claims may be different from the names/terms of the matching features/ elements of the prior arts; however, the matching features/ elements of the prior arts contain all characteristics/ functions of the features/elements DEFINED by the pending claims.
Note that in order to avoid confusion, the below citations in the below rejection(s) are mere one or more places in the reference to disclose the "claimed" limitation(s) and/or are directed to one or more of embodiments disclosed by the cited reference(s). In other words, the “claimed” features/limitations may be read in other places in the reference or other embodiments of the reference. In order to better understand how the claimed limitations are taught by the reference(s), a review of the entire reference(s) is suggested by the examiner. Applicant is reminded a prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention as not all relevant paragraphs may have been cited in the rejection. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
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.
Note that since the pending claims 20-22 are directed to a completely-made display, some elements are covered by other elements, thereby rendering some covered elements no longer to be exposed. Specifically, Fig. 5 of this application, as best understood, shows openings of the viewing angle controlling member [300] filled with the viewing angle controlling patterns [350] which overlaps and covers the thin film encapsulation layer [270] in the overlapped area, thereby the thin film encapsulation layer [270] not exposing in the overlapped area. Therefore, in light of the disclosure of this application, the claimed opening is construed to correspond to the overlapped area filled with the viewing angle controlling pattern which overlaps and covers the thin film encapsulation layer in the overlapped area.
Claims 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2019/0013495 A1; hereinafter Kim) in view of Aoyama et al. (US 2017/0062528 A1; hereinafter Aoyama) and Suzuki (US 2017/0229519 A1.)
As per claim 20, Kim discloses a display (Figs. 1, 13, 14; ¶ 115) comprising:
a display member (see Figs. 1, 14, disclosing a display member comprising at least elements [110, 120, 125, 135, 140, 160, 162, 164, 175, OLED, 180, 350, 410-430]) at which a plurality of pixels are defined (see at least ¶¶ 21, 65-66,) the display member comprising a base substrate [110], a light-emitting element [OLED] on the base substrate at each pixel, and a thin film encapsulation layer [410-430] on the light-emitting element and comprising an inorganic encapsulation film [430] (see at least Figs. 1, 14; ¶ 71, ¶ 91;)
a polarization layer [610] on see at least Figs. 1, 13;)
a viewing angle controlling member [230, 510] on the display member and having openings (see at least Fig. 14, disclosing openings where the elements [510, 530] are filled in) penetrating entirely through a thickness of a transparent material [of the element 230] of the viewing angle controlling member to expose a surface of the inorganic encapsulation film [430] of the thin film encapsulation layer, the viewing angle controlling member comprising a plurality of viewing angle controlling patterns [510] filled in the openings while top surfaces of the viewing angle controlling patterns are exposed by the openings see at least Figs. 1, 14;)
a cover window [620] on the plurality of viewing angle controlling patterns (Figs. 1, 14;) and
a light barrier member [530; Fig. 14] Figs. 1, 14,)
wherein the light-emitting element [OLED] comprises:
a first electrode [191] on the base substrate [110] (see at least Figs. 1, 14);
a second electrode [270] opposite to the first electrode [191] (see at least Figs. 1, 14); and
a light-emitting layer [370] between the first electrode and the second electrode (see at least Figs. 1, 14,)
wherein each of the pixels comprises a light-emitting area [ER] at which a top surface of the first electrode [191] is partially exposed by a pixel definition film [350] on the first electrode, a non-emitting area is defined at a periphery of the light-emitting area, and each of the viewing angle controlling patterns [510] is at the non-emitting area (see at least Figs. 1, 14,)
wherein each of the viewing angle controlling patterns [510] does not overlap with the light-emitting area [ER] of an adjacent pixel (see at least Figs. 1, 14.)
wherein the plurality of viewing angle controlling patterns [510] are directly on the thin film encapsulation layer [410-430] in the openings while the transparent material [of the element 230] and the plurality of viewing angle controlling patterns [510] of the viewing angle controlling member [230, 510] are spaced from an entirety of the second electrode [270] of the light-emitting element [OLED] with the thin film encapsulation layer [410-430] being between the transparent material and the second electrode [270] of the light-emitting element [OLED] and the thin film encapsulation layer [410-430] being between the plurality of viewing angle controlling patterns [510] and the second electrode [270] of the light-emitting element [OLED] (see at least Figs. 1, 14,)
wherein the one of the viewing angle controlling patterns [510] overlapping with the light barrier member [530] has a width in a second/horizontal direction crossing the first/vertical direction that is greater than a width of the light barrier member [530] in the second/horizontal direction (see at least Fig. 14,)
wherein the viewing angle controlling patterns include a light-barrier material or a light-reflecting material (Kim, at least Figs. 2 and 5 and ¶¶ 78-79, discloses the viewing angle controlling pattern [510] of the viewing angle controlling member including an inherent light-reflecting material in order to totally reflect the emission light from the light emitting region toward a front surface of the display,) and
wherein a portion of a top surface of the viewing angle controlling patterns [510] does not overlap any part of a top surface of the transparent material [of the element 230] in a plan view (see at least Fig. 14, disclosing that a portion of a top surface of the viewing angle controlling patterns [510] being in contact with the bottom surface of the element [530] does not overlap any part of a top surface of the transparent material [of the element 230] in a plan view.)
Accordingly, Kim discloses all limitations of this claim except for the above strikethrough limitations.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Aoyama discloses a related display (see at least Fig. 14) comprising:
a touch member/sensor (see at least Fig. 14, disclosing a touch member/sensor including elements [151-153, 162-164]) on the plurality of viewing angle controlling patterns [132] and on the display member (see at least Fig. 14, disclosing a display member including elements from the element 21 to the element 141) (see at least Figs. 11, 13, 14;)
a polarization layer [130] on the touch member (see at least Figs. 11, 13, 14;) and
a light barrier member [133] spaced, in a first/vertical direction, from an entirety of the viewing angle controlling member [131, 132] with a plurality of layers between the light barrier member [133] and the viewing angle controlling member [131, 132], at least one of the plurality of layers between the light barrier member and the viewing angle controlling member comprises a material different from that of the transparent material of the viewing angle controlling member (see at least Fig. 14, disclosing the light barrier member [133] spaced, in a first/vertical direction, from an entirety of the viewing angle controlling member [131, 132] with the touch sensor/member and a plurality of layers [151-153, 162-164] being between the light barrier member [133] and the viewing angle controlling member [131, 132] and comprising a material different from that of the transparent material [of the element 131] of the viewing angle controlling member [131, 132],) and overlapping with one of the viewing angle controlling patterns [132] in the first/vertical direction while being located between the viewing angle controlling member [131, 132] and the cover window [31/ 31, 130] in the first/vertical direction (Fig. 14,) thereby providing a touch sensor with high visibility and low power (see at least ¶ 369,) capable of providing an input function of sensing contact or approach of an object such as a finger or a stylus (see at least ¶ 333,) while the light barrier member [133] hinders external light (see at least ¶ 371:1-8.)
Kim, as discussed above, discloses the polarization layer [610] on the light barrier member [530] and directly below/on the cover window [620] and the light barrier member [530] on the viewing angle controlling member [230, 510], but is silent to “a touch member/sensor on the display member,” “the polarization layer on the touch member,” and “the light barrier member spaced, in the first/vertical direction, from an entirety of the viewing angle controlling member by at least one layer comprising a material different from that of the transparent material of the viewing angle controlling member,” as claimed. Aoyama, as discussed above, remedies for the deficiency of Kim.
Furthermore, a change in location is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, see In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of invention of the pending application to modify the display of Kim to include a touch sensor and relocate the light barrier member, in view of the above teachings in the Aoyama reference, to improve the above modified display of the Kim reference for the predictable result of providing a touch sensor with high visibility and low power, capable of providing an input function of sensing contact or approach of an object such as a finger or a stylus while the light barrier member hinders external light.
Accordingly, the above modified Kim in view of Aoyama obviously renders all limitations of this claim including: (i) the top surfaces of the viewing angle controlling patterns exposed by the openings, but not at a top surface of the transparent material of the viewing angle controlling member, as claimed (note that the above modified Kim in view of Aoyama relocates the light barrier members [530] so that the light barrier members [530] are no longer in the openings), and (ii) a portion, but not an entity as claimed, of a top surface of the viewing angle controlling patterns does not overlap any part of a top surface of the transparent material in a plan view, as claimed.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Suzuki discloses a related display (see at least Fig. 1) comprising: a viewing angle controlling member [17, 18] on a display member [11-16, 19] and having openings penetrating entirely through a thickness of a transparent material [17] of the viewing angle controlling member, wherein top surfaces of viewing angle controlling patterns [18] are exposed by the openings at a top surface of the transparent material [17] of the viewing angle controlling member and wherein an entirety of a top surface of the viewing angle controlling patterns [18] does not overlap any part of a top surface of the transparent material [17] in a plan view (see at least Fig. 1,) thereby reflecting the emission light to outside to enhancement in efficiency of the light extraction and suppress the emission light from entering the adjacently-disposed color filter of another color, leading to reduction in the color mixture (see at least ¶ 34.)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of invention of the pending application to modify the viewing angle controlling member of Kim to have top surfaces of viewing angle controlling patterns exposed by the openings at a top surface of the transparent material of the viewing angle controlling member such that an entirety of a top surface of the viewing angle controlling patterns does not overlap any part of a top surface of the transparent material in a plan view, in view of the above teachings in the Suzuki reference, to improve the above modified display of the Kim reference for the predictable result of reflecting the emission light to outside to enhancement in efficiency of the light extraction and suppress the emission light from entering the adjacently-disposed color filter of another color, leading to reduction in the color mixture.
Accordingly, the above modified Kim in view of Aoyama and Suzuki obviously renders all limitations of this claim.
IN THE ALTERNATIVE, assuming that Kim's the viewing angle controlling pattern [510] does not include a light-barrier material or a light-reflecting material. Accordingly, the above modified Kim in view of Aoyama and Suzuki, as discussed above, obviously renders all limitations of this claim except that Kim's the viewing angle controlling pattern [510] does not include a light-barrier material or a light-reflecting material.
However, Suzuki further discloses the viewing angle controlling patterns [18] of the viewing angle controlling member comprising at least one of a black-based dye material [as the claimed light-barrier material] and a metal oxide material [as the claimed light-reflecting material] (see at least ¶ 37; note that this application discloses at ¶ 87 of the specification: "[0087] … The viewing angle controlling pattern 350 may include a light-barrier material and/or a light-reflecting material. The light barrier material may include various suitable materials, for example, such as a dark-colored pigment (e.g., a black pigment and/or a gray pigment), a dark-colored dye (e.g., a black dye and/or a gray dye), carbon black, a photoresist, and/or the like. The light-reflecting material may include various suitable materials, for example, such as a metal material (e.g., aluminum (AI) and/or silver (Ag)",) thereby reflecting the emission light to outside to enhancement in efficiency of the light extraction and suppress the emission light from entering the adjacently-disposed color filter of another color, leading to reduction in the color mixture (see at least ¶ 34.) Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of invention of the pending application to further modify the viewing angle controlling patterns of Kim to comprise at least one of a black-based dye [as the claimed light-barrier material] and a metal [as the claimed light-reflecting material], in view of the above teaching in the Suzuki reference, to improve the above modified display of the Kim reference for the predictable result of reflecting the emission light to outside to enhancement in efficiency of the light extraction and suppress the emission light from entering the adjacently-disposed color filter of another color, leading to reduction in the color mixture.
Accordingly, the above modified Kim in view of Aoyama and Suzuki obviously renders all limitations of this claim.
As per claim 21, the above modified Kim obviously renders the viewing angle controlling patterns comprising at least one of a black-based dye and a metal (see the discussion in the rejection of claim 1; or see Suzuki at least ¶ 37 disclosing the viewing angle controlling patterns [18] of the viewing angle controlling member comprising at least one of a black-based dye material [as the claimed light-barrier material] and a metal oxide material [as the claimed light-reflecting material].)
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Aoyama and Suzuki, and further in view of Kubota et al. (US 2018/0277610 A1; hereinafter Kubota.)
As per claim 22, Kim discloses the viewing angle controlling member further comprising a light transmission pattern between adjacent ones of the viewing angle controlling patterns (see at least Fig. 14, disclosing the viewing angle controlling member [230, 510] further comprising a color filter [230], as a light transmission pattern, between adjacent ones of the viewing angle controlling patterns [510],) but is silent to the color filter, as the light transmission pattern, comprising a transparent photosensitive material, as claimed.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kubota discloses a related display [100] (see at least Fig. 5) comprising the color filter [36], as the light transmission pattern, comprising a transparent photosensitive material (see at least Fig. 5; ¶ 110 or ¶ 171,) to at least improve color purity of light emitted from each of the color pixels/subpixels (see at least ¶ 125.)
Kim, as discussed above, discloses the color filter, as the light transmission pattern, between adjacent ones of the viewing angle controlling patterns, but is silent to the color filter, as the light transmission pattern, comprising a transparent photosensitive material. Kubota remedies for the above-discussed deficiency of Kim by teaching the color filter, as the light transmission pattern, comprising a transparent photosensitive material to at least improve color purity of light emitted from each of the color pixels/subpixels. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of invention of the pending application to recognize Kubota remedying the above-discussed deficiency of Kim or to modify the color filter, as the light transmission pattern, of Kim to comprise a transparent photosensitive material, in view of the teaching in Kubota, to improve the above modified display of the Kim reference for the predictable result of at least improving color purity of light emitted from each of the color pixels/subpixels.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5, 10-15, 18 and 19 are allowed. See the a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter in the Office action dated 01/30/2026. Note that the withdrawn claims 6-9 would be considered when the application is in condition for allowance.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Jimmy H Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-7675. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9AM-5:30PM.
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, Temesghen Ghebretinsae, can be reached at (571) 272-3017. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Jimmy H Nguyen/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2626
Prosecution Insights