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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 21 April 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Office acknowledges receipt on 21 April 2026 of Applicants’ amendments in which claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 19, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, and 29 are amended, claims 23 and 27 are cancelled, and claims 30 and 31 are newly added.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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(s) 1, 2, 5, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (US20110156015A1) in view of Lu et al. (US20190355919A1) and Noudo (US20230230413A1).
Regarding claim 1, Cho teaches in Fig. 3 a display apparatus, comprising:
a display panel (10, 20) {¶0091};
a front member (52, 62, 30, 40/42) disposed on an upper surface of the display panel (10, 20) {¶0091, 0093},
wherein the front member (52, 62, 30, 40/42) includes:
a light absorption layer (52) disposed within the front member (52, 62, 30, 40/42) {¶0091}; and
a black matrix (62) disposed on an upper surface of the light absorption layer (52) and within the front member (52, 62, 30, 40/42), the black matrix (62) covering only portions of the light absorption layer (52) {¶0091}.
Cho does not teach the light absorption layer disposed on an upper surface of the front glass, the light absorption layer covering the entire upper surface of the front glass.
In an analogous art, Lu teaches in Fig. 3 and paragraph [0053] a light absorption layer (14) disposed on an upper surface of a front glass (33), the light absorption layer (14) covering the entire upper surface of the front glass (33). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cho’s display apparatus based on the teachings of Lu, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, to reduce glare and enhance visibility of the display screen. Noudo [0110]. Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., light absorption layer, front glass) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Lu) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Regarding claim 2, Cho as modified by Lu and Noudo teaches the display apparatus of claim 1, and Cho further teaches wherein the front member (40/42) protects the display panel (10, 20), and the light absorption layer (52) absorbs an external light incident on the display apparatus {¶0094, 0099}.
Regarding claim 5, Cho as modified by Lu and Noudo teaches the display apparatus of claim 1, but Cho does not teach further comprising: a first adhesive disposed between the display panel and the front glass.
Lu teaches in Fig. 3 a first adhesive (35) disposed between a display panel (16, 17) and a front glass (33) {¶0053}. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cho’s display apparatus as modified by Lu and Noudo based on the further teachings of Lu, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, so as to bond/secure the front glass to the display panel. Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., adhesive, front glass, display panel) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Lu) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Regarding claim 26, Cho as modified by Lu and Noudo teaches the display apparatus of claim 1, and Cho further teaches wherein the front member (52, 62, 30, 40/42) further includes: a protective film (30) disposed directly on the black matrix (62) {¶0094}.
Claim(s) 3, 15-18, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho in view of Lu and Noudo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Song et al. (KR20210069254A), English translation enclosed.
Regarding claim 3, Cho as modified by Lu and Noudo teaches the display apparatus of claim 1, but Cho does not teach wherein the light absorption layer is formed of a black resin, or has a thickness of about 2 μm to 3 μm {unselected alternative of Markush group}.
However, Cho teaches in paragraph [0094] the light absorption layer (52) includes pigments that selectively absorb light.
In an analogous art, Song teaches in Fig. 1a a light absorption layer (144) is formed of a black resin {¶0052}. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cho’s display apparatus as modified by Lu and Noudo based on the teachings of Song, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, so as to selectively absorb light. Cho [0094]. Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., light absorption layer, black resins) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Song) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Regarding claim 15, Cho as modified by Lu and Noudo teaches the display apparatus of claim 1, but Cho does not teach wherein the display panel includes: a thin film transistor disposed on a substrate; a light emitting element disposed on the thin film transistor; an encapsulation layer disposed on the light emitting element; and a color filter layer disposed on the encapsulation layer.
Song teaches in Fig. 1a the display panel (110) includes: a thin film transistor (a TFT of 104) disposed on a substrate (102) {¶0062}; a light emitting element (RPXL/GPXL/BPXL) disposed on the thin film transistor (a TFT of 104) {¶0060}; an encapsulation layer (106) disposed on the light emitting element (RPXL/GPXL/BPXL) {¶0062}; and a color filter layer (layer of RCF, GCF, BCF) disposed on the encapsulation layer (106) {¶0044}. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cho’s display apparatus as modified by Lu and Noudo based on the teachings of Song, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, to provide a display panel that displays images. Song [0067]. Moreover, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Song) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Regarding claim 16, Cho as modified by Lu, Noudo, and Song teaches the display apparatus of claim 15, but Cho does not teach the encapsulation layer includes: a first encapsulation layer disposed on the light emitting element; a second encapsulation layer disposed on the first encapsulation layer; and a third encapsulation layer disposed on the second encapsulation layer.
Song teaches in Figs. 1a and 1b an encapsulation layer (106) includes: a first encapsulation layer (nth layer of 106) disposed on a light emitting element (RPXL/GPXL/BPXL) {¶0068, encapsulation unit 106 may be formed by sequentially stacking a plurality of inorganic layers and organic layers}; a second encapsulation layer (nth+1 layer of 106) disposed on the first encapsulation layer (nth layer of 106) {¶0068, encapsulation unit 106 may be formed by sequentially stacking a plurality of inorganic layers and organic layers}; and a third encapsulation layer (nth+2 layer of 106) disposed on the second encapsulation layer (nth+1 layer of 106) {¶0068, encapsulation unit 106 may be formed by sequentially stacking a plurality of inorganic layers and organic layers}. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cho’s display apparatus as modified by Lu, Noudo, and Song based on the further teachings of Song, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, for protecting the thin film transistor array … from moisture and oxygen. Song [0062]. Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., first, second, and third encapsulation layers) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Song) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Regarding claim 17, Cho as modified by Lu, Noudo, and Song teaches the display apparatus of claim 16, but Cho does not teach wherein the first encapsulation layer and the third encapsulation layer are formed of an inorganic material, or the second encapsulation layer is formed of an organic material.
Song teaches in Figs. 1a and 1b a first encapsulation layer (nth layer of 106) and a third encapsulation layer (nth+2 layer of 106) are formed of an inorganic material {¶0068, encapsulation unit 106 may be formed by sequentially stacking a plurality of inorganic layers and organic layers}, or a second encapsulation layer (nth+1 layer of 106) is formed of an organic material {¶0068, encapsulation unit 106 may be formed by sequentially stacking a plurality of inorganic layers and organic layers}. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cho’s display apparatus as modified by Lu, Noudo, and Song based on the further teachings of Song, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, for protecting the thin film transistor array … from moisture and oxygen. Song [0062]. Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., first, second, and third encapsulation layers) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Song) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Regarding claim 18, Cho as modified by Lu, Noudo, and Song teaches the display apparatus of claim 15, but Cho does not teach wherein the display panel further includes a touch sensor disposed on the encapsulation layer.
Song teaches in Figs. 1a and 1b a display panel (110, touch panel) further includes a touch sensor disposed on an encapsulation layer (106) {¶0021, a touch panel disposed between the flexible display panel and the external light absorbing adhesive member; a touch panel implicitly has a touch sensor}. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cho’s display apparatus as modified by Lu, Noudo, and Song based on the further teachings of Song, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, for implementing a touch screen. Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., display panel, touch sensor, encapsulation layer) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Song) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Regarding claim 30, Cho as modified by Lu and Noudo teaches the display apparatus of claim 1, but Cho does not teach wherein a thickness of the front member is 100 μm or less.
Base claim 19 recites the front member includes a front glass, a light absorption layer, and a black matrix. Song teaches in Fig. 1a a front member (layers of 120, 140, BM) including: a front glass (120) having a thickness of 50-90 μm [0046], (2) a light absorption layer (144) having a thickness of 0.1-0.5 μm or 10-40 μm [0050, 0053], an adhesive member (140) having a thickness of 10-40 μm [0050], and a black matrix (BM) having a thickness of 1-3 μm [0058]. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP §2144.05(I). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cho’s display apparatus as modified by Lu, and Noudo based on the teachings of Song, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, so the flexibility is improved so that it can be implemented as a foldable display device. Song ¶0078. Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., front member, front glass, light absorption layer, black matrix) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Song) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho in view of Lu and Noudo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ito et al. (US20100244073A1).
Regarding claim 4, Cho as modified by Lu and Noudo teaches the display apparatus of claim 1, but Cho does not teach wherein the light absorption layer is formed of a resin containing at least one of an ultraviolet (UV) absorber and a light stabilizer {unselected alternative of Markush group}.
However, Cho teaches in paragraph [0094] the light absorption layer (52) includes pigments that selectively absorb light.
In an analogous art, Ito teaches in Fig. 1 and paragraph [0095] a resin (15) containing an ultraviolet (UV) absorber. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cho’s display apparatus as modified by Lu and Noudo based on the teachings of Ito, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, so as to improve the … EL device in light resistance, leading to the increase of the light emission life. Ito ¶0095.
Claim(s) 6, 8, 22, 24, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho in view of Lu and Noudo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park et al. (US20170373281A1).
Regarding claim 6, Cho as modified by Lu and Noudo teaches the display apparatus of claim 1, but Cho does not teach wherein the front member further includes: a protective film disposed on the front glass and the black matrix; and a coating layer disposed on the protective film.
Park teaches in Figs. 1 and 2 a front member (200) further includes a protective film (340) disposed on the front glass (150/300) and the black matrix (400) {¶0042}; and a coating layer (350) disposed on the protective film (340) {¶0043}. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cho’s display apparatus as modified by Lu and Noudo based on the teachings of Park, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, so as to improve impact resistance characteristics and bending characteristics of a cover window of a display device. Park [0009]. Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., front member, front glass, protective film, coating layer, black matrix) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Park) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Regarding claim 8, Cho as modified by Lu, Noudo, and Park teaches the display apparatus of claim 6, but Cho does not teach wherein the front member further includes: a second adhesive between the black matrix and the light absorption layer, so that the light absorption layer is disposed below the second adhesive.
Park teaches in Fig. 2 a front member (200) further includes: a second adhesive (360) between a black matrix (400) and a light absorption layer (500) {¶0050}, so that the light absorption layer (500) is disposed below the second adhesive (360) {Fig. 2}. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cho’s display apparatus as modified by Lu, Noudo, and Park based on the further teachings of Park, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, so as to improve impact resistance characteristics and bending characteristics of a cover window of a display device. Park [0009]. Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., front member, second adhesive, black matrix, light absorption layer) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Park) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Regarding claim 22, Cho as modified by Lu and Noudo teaches the display apparatus of claim 1, but Cho does not teach further comprising: a first adhesive disposed between the display panel and the front glass, wherein the front member further includes a second adhesive disposed between the light absorption layer and the black matrix, wherein the light absorption layer is disposed between the first and second adhesives.
Lu teaches in Fig. 3 a first adhesive (35) disposed between a display panel (16, 17) and a front glass (33) {¶0053}. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cho’s display apparatus as modified by Lu and Noudo based on the further teachings of Lu, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, so as to bond/secure the front glass to the display panel. Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., adhesive, front glass, display panel) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Lu) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Cho as modified by Lu does not teach: wherein the front member further includes a second adhesive disposed between the light absorption layer and the black matrix, wherein the light absorption layer is disposed between the first and second adhesives.
Park teaches in Fig. 2 a front member (200) further includes a second adhesive (360) between a light absorption layer (500) and a black matrix (400) {¶0050}; Fig. 2}. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cho’s display apparatus as modified by Lu, and Noudo based on the teachings of Park, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, so as to improve impact resistance characteristics and bending characteristics of a cover window of a display device. Park [0009]. Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., front member, adhesive, black matrix, light absorption layer) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Park) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07. A consequence of this modification is that Park’s light absorption layer is disposed between Song’s first adhesive and Park’s second adhesive.
Regarding claim 24, Cho as modified by Lu and Noudo teaches the display apparatus of claim 1, but Cho does not teach wherein the front member further includes: an adhesive disposed between the black matrix and the light absorption layer.
Park teaches in Fig. 2 a front member (200) further includes an adhesive (360) disposed between a black matrix (400) and a light absorption layer (500) {¶0047, 0048, 0050}. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cho’s display apparatus as modified by Lu, and Noudo based on the teachings of Park, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, so as to bond together the black matrix and the light absorption layer. Park ¶0050. Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., front member, adhesive, black matrix, light absorption layer) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Park) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Regarding claim 25, Cho as modified by Lu, Noudo, and Park teaches the display apparatus of claim 24, but Cho does not teach wherein a top surface of the adhesive contacts a bottom surface of the black matrix, and a bottom surface of the adhesive contacts a top surface of the light absorption layer.
Park teaches in Fig. 2 a top surface of an adhesive (360) contacts a bottom surface of a black matrix (400), and a bottom surface of the adhesive (360) contacts a top surface of a light absorption layer (500). {¶0047, 0048, 0050}. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cho’s display apparatus as modified by Lu, Noudo, and Park based on the further teachings of Park, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, so as to bond together the black matrix and the light absorption layer. Park ¶0050. Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., adhesive, black matrix, light absorption layer) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Park) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Claim(s) 19 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song in view of Cho, Lu, and Noudo.
Regarding claim 19, Song teaches in Fig. 1a a display apparatus, comprising:
a display panel (110) including a plurality of pixels (RPXL, GPXL, BPXL) disposed on a substrate (102) {¶0044}; and
a protective module (layers of 120, 140, BM) disposed on an upper surface of the display panel (110) {¶0044},
wherein the protective module (layers of 120, 140, BM) includes:
a light absorption layer (144) disposed inside the protective module (layers of 120, 140, BM) {¶0049}, and
wherein the display panel (110) includes:
a light emitting element (light emitting element of RPXL/GPXL/BPXL) disposed on the substrate (110) {¶0060},
an encapsulation layer (106) disposed on the light emitting element (light emitting element of RPXL/GPXL/BPXL) {¶0062}, and
a color filter layer (layer of RCF, GCF, BCF) disposed on the encapsulation layer (106) {¶0044}.
Song does not teach the protective module includes: a front glass disposed on the upper surface of the display panel, a light absorption layer disposed on an upper surface of the front glass, the light absorption layer covering the entire upper surface of the front glass, and a black matrix disposed on an upper surface of the light absorption layer, the black matrix covering only portions of the light absorption layer.
Cho teaches in Fig. 3 a protective module (52, 62, 30, 40/42) includes: a light absorption layer (52), and a black matrix (62) disposed on an upper surface of the light absorption layer (52), the black matrix (62) covering only portions of the light absorption layer (52). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Song’s display apparatus based on the teachings of Cho, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, for preventing external light [from entering the display panel, which reduces visibility] and increasing contrast. Cho [0079, 0007]. Moreover, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Cho) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Song as modified by Cho does not teach the protective module includes: a front glass disposed on the upper surface of the display panel, a light absorption layer disposed on an upper surface of the front glass, the light absorption layer covering the entire upper surface of the front glass.
Lu teaches in Fig. 3 and paragraph [0053] a protective module (14, 31, 33) includes: a front glass (33) disposed on an upper surface of a display panel (16, 17), a light absorption layer (14) disposed on an upper surface of the front glass (33), the light absorption layer (14) covering the entire upper surface of the front glass (33). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Song’s display apparatus as modified by Cho based on the teachings of Lu, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, to reduce glare and enhance visibility of the display screen. Noudo [0110]. Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., protective module, display panel, light absorption layer, front glass) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Lu) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Regarding claim 31, Song as modified by Cho, Lu, and Noudo teaches the display apparatus of claim 19, and Song further teaches wherein a thickness of the protective module (layers of 120, 140, BM) is 100 μm or less.
Base claim 19 recites the protective module includes a front glass, a light absorption layer, and a black matrix. Song teaches in Fig. 1a a protective module (layers of 120, 140, BM) including: a front glass (120) having a thickness of 50-90 μm [0046], (2) a light absorption layer (144) having a thickness of 0.1-0.5 μm or 10-40 μm [0050, 0053], an adhesive member (140) having a thickness of 10-40 μm [0050], and a black matrix (BM) having a thickness of 1-3 μm [0058]. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP §2144.05(I).
Claim(s) 20, 28, and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song in view of Cho, Lu, and Noudo as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Park.
Regarding claim 20, Song as modified by Cho, Lu, and Noudo teaches the display apparatus of claim 19, but Song does not teach wherein the protective module further includes: a protective film disposed on the front glass and on the black matrix; and a coating layer disposed on the protective film.
Park teaches in Figs. 1 and 2 a protective module (200) includes: a protective film (340) disposed on a front glass (150/300) {¶0042}; and a coating layer (350) disposed on the protective film (340) {¶0043}. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Song’s display apparatus as modified by Cho, Lu, and Noudo based on the teachings of Park, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, so as to: (1) provide transparency, mechanical strength, thermal stability, a moisture-shielding property and (2) increase[] hardness of the cover window. Park [0042, 0044]. Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., protective module, black matrix, protective film, coating layer) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Park) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Regarding claim 28, Song as modified by Cho, Lu, and Noudo teaches the display apparatus of claim 19, but Song does not teach wherein the protective module further includes: an adhesive disposed between the black matrix and the light absorption layer.
Park teaches in Fig. 2 a protective module (200) further includes an adhesive (360) disposed between a black matrix (400) and a light absorption layer (500) {¶0047, 0048, 0050}. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Song’s display apparatus as modified by Cho, Lu, and Noudo based on the teachings of Park, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, so as to bond together the black matrix and the light absorption layer. Park ¶0050. Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., protective module, adhesive, black matrix, light absorption layer) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Park) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Regarding claim 29, Song as modified by Cho, Lu, Noudo, and Park teaches the display apparatus of claim 28, but Song does not teach wherein the protective module further includes: a protective film disposed directly on the black matrix.
Cho teaches in Fig. 3 a protective module (30, 40, 52, 62) further includes a protective film (30) disposed directly on a black matrix (62) {¶0094}. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Song’s display apparatus as modified by Cho, Lu, Noudo, and Park based on the further teachings of Cho, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, to protect[] the organic light emitting device 20 from external moisture and/or oxygen. Cho ¶0058. Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., protective module, protective film, black matrix) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Cho) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ishihara et al. (US20210357061A1) teaches a flexible image display device includes a window member, a first member, a first laminate or a first touch-sensor-equipped panel member, and a plurality layers of tacky members. The first laminate is a laminate of a second member and a member 3A (including a panel member). When the first laminate is included, one of the first and second members is an optical film, and the other is an optical film or a touch sensor. The plurality layers of tacky members at least include three layers each disposed between the members. When the first touch-sensor-equipped panel member is included, the first member is an optical film, and the plurality layers of tacky members at least include two layers each disposed between the members.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID WARD whose telephone number is (703)756-1382. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30-3:30 EST.
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, Matthew Landau can be reached at (571)-272-1731. 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.
/D.W.W./Examiner, Art Unit 2891
/MATTHEW C LANDAU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Prosecution Insights