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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo et al. (US 2021/0210692).
With regard to claim 1, Seo teaches, in Figs 9A and 16, a painted component including micro light emitting diodes (microLEDs), comprising: a transparent layer (607c, [0369, 0407-0408]) including a first side (lower side of 607c in the figure) and a second side (upper side of 607c in the figure); a microLED (602, 616, 617, 618 and 607a, [0363-0368, 0407-0408]) attached to or embedded in the transparent layer adjacent to the first side of the transparent layer; a plurality of interconnects (608, [0360-0361]) to the microLED; an encapsulating material (604, 605, 614 unlabeled bank material surrounding transistors 612, 611, 623, 624, [0369-0371, 0407]) encapsulating the transparent layer, the plurality of microLEDs, and the plurality of interconnections.
Seo does not explicitly teach, in the embodiment of Fig 16, a plurality of microLEDs;
that the plurality of interconnects is to the plurality of microLEDs; that the encapsulating material encapsulates the plurality of microLEDs; and a painted layer on the second side of the transparent layer including etched portions or masked portions arranged over the plurality of microLEDs.
Seo teaches, in the embodiment of Figures 23B and 24A, a plurality of microLEDs (layers and transistors of the "plurality of pixels" of 2501 akin to a microLED stated above, [0455, 0474-0476, 0482-0483], see Figures 23B and 24A); that the plurality of interconnects are to the plurality of microLEDs (2511 akin to 608, [0455, 0485], see Figures 23B and 24A); that the encapsulating material encapsulates the plurality of microLEDs (2560 and 2570 akin to encapsulating material stated above, [0472-0473], see Figure 24A); and a painted layer (2567BM, [0478-0481], see Figure 24A) on the second side of the transparent layer including openings (region filled by 2567R) arranged over the plurality of microLEDs (see Figure 24A) to form the display of a touch panel ([0454]) with microLEDs capable of "transmitting light in a particular wavelength range" ([0481]) and increasing the intensity of light at a designated wavelength ([0477]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan at the time of filing to combine the embodiment of Figure 16 of Seo with the plurality of microLEDs, interconnects, encapsulation, and painted layer of embodiment Figures 23B and 24A of Seo to form the display of a touch panel with microLEDs capable of transmitting light in a particular wavelength range and increasing the intensity of light at a designated wavelength.
Seo does not explicitly teach that the openings are etched portions or masked portions. Nonetheless, this is considered an intermediate process step that does not affect the structure of the final device. Note that a “product-by-process” claim is directed to the product per se, no matter how actually made. See In re Thorpe et al., 227 USPQ 964 (CAFC, 1985) and the related case law cited therein which makes it clear that it is the final product per se which must be determined in a “product-by-process" claim, and the patentability of the process, and that, as here, an old or obvious product produced by a new method is patentable as a product, whether claimed in “product-by-process” claims or not. As stated in Thorpe,
even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972); In re Pilkington, 411 F.2d 1345, 1348, 162 USPQ 145, 147 (CCPA 1969); Buono v. Yankee Maid Dress Corp., 77 F.2d 274, 279, 26 USPQ 57, 61 (2d. Cir. 1935).
Note that the Applicant has the burden of proof in such cases as the above case law makes clear.
With regard to claim 2, Seo teaches, in Fig 16, further comprising fibers (fibers of 610 of the encapsulating material, [0371]) arranged adjacent to the first side, wherein the encapsulating material encapsulates the transparent layer, the plurality of microLEDs, the interconnects, and the fibers (see Figure).
With regard to claim 3, Seo teaches wherein the fibers include reinforcing fibers selected from a group consisting of carbon fibers, glass fibers, basalt fibers, flax fibers, hemp fibers, and combinations thereof ([0227]).
With regard to claim 4, Seo teaches wherein the fibers include insulating fibers selected from a group consisting of glass fibers, basalt fibers, flax fibers, hemp fibers, pineapple fibers, cellulose fibers, and combinations thereof ([0225, 0227]).
With regard to claim 7, Seo teaches, in Fig 16, wherein the interconnects are selected from a group consisting of conductive traces and conductive ink (Note: an ordinary artisan at the time of filing would recognize "a wiring" as "a conductive trace", [0360-0361]).
With regard to claim 8, Seo teaches, in Fig 16, further comprising a protective coating (622, [0304, 0370]) on the second side of the transparent layer (see Figure).
With regard to claim 9, Seo teaches wherein: the transparent layer and the encapsulating material are transparent (Note: an ordinary artisan at the time of filing would understand that the transparent layer 607c and encapsulating material 604 must be transparent, as their placement above the microLED necessitates the transmission of light for the proper operation of the display); the transparent layer is selected from a group consisting of polycarbonate, epoxy, polyurethane, polymethylmethacrylate, a polyamide, styrene-acrylonitrile, methyl methacrylate-acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene, and styrene methyl methacrylate ([0407]); and the encapsulating material is selected from a group consisting of polycarbonate, epoxy, polyurethane, polymethylmethacrylate, a polyamide, styrene-acrylonitrile, methyl methacrylate-acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene, and styrene methyl methacrylate ([0369]).
With regard to claim 10, Seo teaches, in Figs 16 and 24A, wherein the plurality of microLEDs are attached to the transparent layer using optical bonding adhesive (607b, [0407-0408, 0472], see Figure 16) and wherein the plurality of microLEDs output light in a direction from the first side to the second side (Figure 16 akin to Figure 24A see description of light emission, [0479]).
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo et al. (US 2021/0210692) in view of Luo et al. (US 2014/0178662).
With regard to claim 5, Seo teaches most of the limitations of this claim, as set forth above with regard to claim 2.
However, Seo does not explicitly teach wherein a first portion of the fibers are selected from a group consisting of glass fibers, carbon fibers, basalt fibers, flax fibers, hemp fibers, and combinations thereof, and a second portion of the fibers are selected from a group consisting of polycarbonate fibers, nylon fibers, polyethylene fibers, polypropylene fibers, and combinations thereof.
Luo teaches wherein a first portion of the fibers are selected from a group consisting of glass fibers, carbon fibers, basalt fibers, flax fibers, hemp fibers, and combinations thereof ([0056,0059]), and a second portion of the fibers are selected from a group consisting of polycarbonate fibers, nylon fibers, polyethylene fibers, polypropylene fibers, and combinations thereof ([0056,0059]) to "improve bonding between components" ([0054-0055]) and "the problems associated with delamination between adjacent layers of continuous fiber composites as have been known in the past can be essentially eliminated" ([0028]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan at the time of filing to combine the device of Seo with the fiber composition of Luo to essentially eliminate problems associated with delamination between adjacent layers of continuous fiber composites.
With regard to claim 6, Seo teaches most of the limitations of this claim, as set forth above with regard to claim 2.
However, Seo does not explicitly teach wherein the fibers include two or more different types of fibers selected from a group consisting of carbon fibers, glass fibers, basalt fibers, flax fibers, hemp fibers, pineapple fibers, cellulose fibers, polycarbonate fibers, nylon fibers, polyethylene fibers, and polypropylene fibers.
Luo teaches wherein the fibers include two or more different types of fibers selected from a group consisting of carbon fibers, glass fibers, basalt fibers, flax fibers, hemp fibers, pineapple fibers, cellulose fibers, polycarbonate fibers, nylon fibers, polyethylene fibers, and polypropylene fibers ([0056-0059]) to "improve bonding between components" ([0054-0055]) and "the problems associated with delamination between adjacent layers of continuous fiber composites as have been known in the past can be essentially eliminated" ([0028]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan at the time of filing to combine the device of Seo with the fiber composition of Luo to essentially eliminate problems associated with delamination between adjacent layers of continuous fiber composites.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious claimed limitations of one of: coating the second side of the transparent layer encapsulated by the encapsulating material with a painted layer and etching portions of the painted layer arranged directly over the plurality of microLEDs to expose the plurality of microLEDs through the transparent layer and allow light from the plurality of microLEDs to pass through the etched portions of the painted layer; or masking the second side of the transparent layer encapsulated by the encapsulating material over the plurality of microLEDs and coating the second side of the transparent layer with a painted layer, and removing the mask to expose the plurality of microLEDs through the transparent layer and allow light from the plurality of microLEDs to pass through openings in the painted layer arranged directly over the plurality of microLEDs, as set forth in independent claim 11, when taken in concert with all the other limitations of the claim. All other allowed claims depend from independent claim 11.
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 RAJ R GUPTA whose telephone number is (571)270-5707. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30AM-4PM, 8PM-10PM.
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, Sue Purvis can be reached at 5712721236. 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.
/RAJ R GUPTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights