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 .
Response to Amendment
The response filed 05/20/2026 is accepted, in which, independent claims 1 and 12 are amended. Claims 8-11 are allowed and claims 7 and 18 would be allowable if written in independent form as noted in the previous office action. Claims 1, 8, and 12 are independent with claims 1-5, 7, 12-16, and 18-24 awaiting an action on the merits as follows.
The rejection of claims 1 and 12 under USC 112b is withdrawn in view of the amended claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 12 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-11 are allowed.
Regarding claim 8, prior art found during the search fails to teach or suggest a window substrate wherein a contact angle of a surface of the window with respect to water is about 95° or more after applying a load of 1 kg to the surface of the window by using an eraser and then reciprocating by a distance of 15 mm at a speed of 40 cycles/min for 6000 times.
Claims 7 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claims 7 and 18, prior art found during the search fails to teach or suggest wherein a contact angle of a surface of the window with respect to water is about 95° or more after applying a load of 1 kg to the surface of the window by using an eraser and then reciprocating by a distance of 15 mm at a speed of 40 cycles/min for 6000 times.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adib (US 20180319704 A1), and further in view of Yoon (US 20120250132 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Adib teaches a window (100a, Fig 1A) comprising:
a window substrate (10, Fig 1A);
a first layer (80L; a low index layer of the multi-layer optical film, [0068]) disposed on (shown on) the window substrate (10), wherein the first layer (80L) has a refractive index (1.3) in a range of about 1.2 to about 1.4;
a second layer (80H; a high index layer of the multi-layer optical film, [0068]) disposed on (shown on) the first layer,
a third layer (80M; a medium index layer of the multi-layer optical film, [0068]) disposed on (shown on) the second layer (80H), wherein the third layer (80M) has a refractive index (1.5) in a range of about 1.4 to about 1.6 (comprised of SiO2, [0069], it is well known in the art to have an index of 1.5); and
an anti-fingerprint layer (70) disposed on (shown on) the third layer (80M), wherein the anti-fingerprint layer (70) comprises perfluoropolyether (PFPE) (ETC coating comprises PFPE, [0012]).
Adib fails to explicitly teach wherein the second layer comprises silicon (Si) and chromium oxide (Cr203) covalently bonded to the silicon (Si).
However, Yoon teaches wherein the second layer (240, Fig 4, The shutter 240 has a
double-layer structure including a light absorbing layer L3 and a semiconductor layer L2, [0060]) comprises silicon (Si) (L2, silicon, [0062]) and chromium oxide (Cr203) (L3, chromium oxide, [0062]) covalently bonded (Yoon and Adib meet the structure of the claims, where a layer comprising silicon and chromium oxide of Yoon can be combined with Adib to create the second layer. How and whether the chromium oxide bonds with the silicon is inherent to the structure since the materials are the same as the instant application's disclosure.) to the silicon (Si) (L2).
Adib and Yoon are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are from the same field of endeavor of window devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the device of Adib with the features of Yoon to create a window substrate wherein the second layer comprises silicon (Si) and chromium oxide (Cr203) covalently bonded to the silicon (Si) because the semiconductor layer prevents light from being reflected toward outside of the display apparatus (Yoon, [0059]), while the light absorbing layer may reduce light-leakage (Yoon, [0064]), which increases image quality (Yoon, [0005]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Adib and Yoon discloses the window of claim 1. Adib goes on to teach wherein the second layer (80H, Fig 1A) has a refractive index (2.0, [0068]) which is greater (greater) than a refractive index (1.3) of the first layer (80L) and a refractive index (1.5) of the third layer (80M).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Adib and Yoon discloses the window of claim 2. Adib goes on to teach wherein the second layer (80H, Fig 1A) has a refractive index (2.0) in a range of about 1.6 to about 2.0.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Adib and Yoon discloses the window of claim 1. Adib goes on to teach wherein the first layer (80L, Fig 1A) has a thickness (60 nm, [0074]) in a range of about 50 nm to about 150 nm,
the second layer (80H) has a thickness (5nm, [0077]) in a range of about 5 nm to about 15 nm, and
the third layer (80M) has a thickness (5nm, [0077]) in a range of about 5 nm of about 15 nm.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Adib and Yoon discloses the window of claim 1. Adib goes on to teach wherein the first layer (80L, Fig 1A) comprises magnesium fluoride (MgF2) (MgF2, [0068]), and
the third layer (80M) comprises silicon oxide (SiO2) (SiO2, [0069]).
Claims 12-16, and 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adib (US 20180319704 A1), in view of Li (US 20220328567 A1), and further in view of Yoon (US 20120250132 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Adib teaches a display device (7100, Fig 7) and a window (100a, Fig 1A), wherein the window (100a) comprises:
a window substrate (10);
a first layer (80L; a low index layer of the multi-layer optical film, [0068]) disposed on (shown on) the window substrate (10), wherein the first layer (80L) has a refractive index (1.3) in a range of about 1.2 to about 1.4;
a second layer (80H; a high index layer of the multi-layer optical film, [0068]) disposed on (shown on) the first layer (80L),
a third layer (80M; a medium index layer of the multi-layer optical film, [0068]) disposed on (shown on) the second layer (80H), wherein the third layer (80M) has a refractive index (1.5) in a range of about 1.4 to about 1.6 (comprised of SiO2, [0069], it is well known in the art to have an index of 1.5); and
an anti-fingerprint layer (70) disposed on (shown on) the third layer (80M), wherein the anti- fingerprint layer (70) comprises perfluoropolyether (PFPE) (ETC coating comprises PFPE, [0012]).
Adib fails to explicitly teach a substrate; a light-emitting element disposed on the substrate, wherein the light-emitting element comprises a first electrode, a second electrode, and an intermediate layer between the first electrode and the second electrode; a filter layer disposed on the light-emitting element, wherein the filter layer comprises a color filter layer and a light-blocking layer; and a window disposed on the filter layer; wherein the second layer comprises silicon (Si) and chromium oxide (Cr203) covalently bonded to the silicon (Si).
However, Li teaches a substrate (600, Fig 9);
a light-emitting element (700) disposed on (shown on) the substrate (600), wherein the light-emitting element (700) comprises a first electrode (710), a second electrode (730), and an intermediate layer (720) between (shown between) the first electrode (710) and the second electrode (730);
a filter layer (200, [0150]) disposed on (shown on) the light-emitting element (700), wherein the filter layer (200) comprises a color filter layer (210) and a light-blocking layer (220; color filter structure includes color resistance (filter, [0150]) and light-blocking structure, [0103]); and
a window disposed on (shown on) the filter layer (200),
Yoon teaches wherein the second layer (240, Fig 4, The shutter 240 has a
double-layer structure including a light absorbing layer L3 and a semiconductor layer L2, [0060]) comprises silicon (Si) (L2, silicon, [0062]) and chromium oxide (Cr203) (L3, chromium oxide, [0062]) covalently bonded (Yoon and Adib meet the structure of the claims, where a layer comprising silicon and chromium oxide of Yoon can be combined with Adib to create the second layer. How and whether the chromium oxide bonds with the silicon is inherent to the structure since the materials are the same as the instant application's disclosure.) to the silicon (Si) (L2).
Adib, Li, and Yoon are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are from the same field of endeavor of display devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the device of Adib with the features of Li and Hawa to create a window substrate a substrate; a light-emitting element disposed on the substrate, wherein the light-emitting element comprises a first electrode, a second electrode, and an intermediate layer between the first electrode and the second electrode; a filter layer disposed on the light-emitting element, wherein the filter layer comprises a color filter layer and a light-blocking layer; and a window disposed on the filter layer; wherein the second layer comprises silicon (Si) and chromium oxide (Cr203) covalently bonded to the silicon (Si) because the semiconductor layer prevents light from being reflected toward outside of the display apparatus (Yoon, [0059]), while the light absorbing layer may reduce light-leakage (Yoon, [0064]), which increases image quality (Yoon, [0005]); so as to prevent from a phenomenon of nonuniform display occurred in the display device including the light-emitting diode display panel (Li, [0050]).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Adib, Li, and Yoon discloses the device of claim 12. Adib goes on to teach wherein the second layer (80H, Fig 1A) has a refractive index (2.0, [0068]) which is greater (greater) than a refractive index (1.3) of the first layer (80L) and a refractive index (1.5) of the third layer (80M).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Adib, Li, and Yoon discloses the device of claim 12. Adib goes on to teach wherein the second layer (80H, [0068]) has a refractive index (2.0) in a range of about 1.6 to about 2.0.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Adib, Li, and Yoon discloses the device of claim 14. Adib goes on to teach wherein the first layer (80L, Fig 1A) has a thickness (60 nm, [0074]) in a range of about 50 nm to about 150 nm,
the second layer (80H) has a thickness (5nm, [0077]) in a range of about 5 nm to about 15 nm, and
the third layer (80M) has a thickness (5nm, [0077]) in a range of about 5 nm of about 15 nm.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Adib, Li, and Yoon discloses the device of claim 12. Adib goes on to teach wherein the first layer (80L, Fig 1A) comprises magnesium fluoride (MgF2) (MgF2, [0068]), and
the third layer (80M) comprises silicon oxide (SiO2) (SiO2, [0069]).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Adib, Li, and Yoon discloses the device of claim 12. Li goes on to teach a pixel defining layer (800, Fig 9) in which a first opening (800A; opening for 700) is defined to expose (shown exposing) at least a portion of the first electrode (710).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Adib, Li, and Yoon discloses the device of claim 19. Li goes on to teach wherein the light-blocking layer (220, Fig 9) defines (shown defining) a second opening (100'A; opening in 100') overlapping (shown overlapping) the first opening (800A).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Adib, Li, and Yoon discloses the device of claim 20. Li goes on to teach wherein at least a portion of the color filter layer (210, Fig 9) is in (shown in) the second opening (100'A; the second pixel color filter is the second sub-color-resistance layer (filter) and the second light-blocking structure, [0068]).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Adib, Li, and Yoon discloses the device of claim 12. Li goes on to teach wherein the color filter layer (210, Fig 9) at least partially overlaps (shown overlapping) the intermediate layer (720).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Adib, Li, and Yoon discloses the device of claim 12. Li goes on to teach wherein the filter layer (200, Fig 9) further comprises an overcoat layer (100') disposed on (shown on) the color filter layer (210).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Adib, Li, and Yoon discloses the device of claim 12. Li goes on to teach an encapsulation layer (100, Fig 9) between (shown between) the light-emitting element (700) and the filter layer (200); and
an input sensing layer (103) between (shown between) the encapsulation layer (100) and the filter layer (200).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Downey (US 20040119172 A1) - Covalently bonded Cr2O3 in an IC using insulated wire.
Huang (CN 114075044 A) - Chromium oxide covalently bonded to SiO2.
Yoneda (US 20040041518 A1) - anti-reflection layer of chromium oxide on a silicon active layer
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 Jeremy D Watts whose telephone number is (703)756-1055. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 8:00am-4:30pm, F 8:00-3pm 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, Chad Dicke can be reached at (571) 270-7996. 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.
/JEREMY DANIEL WATTS/Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/CHAD M DICKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights