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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/05/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The response filed 01/05/2026 is accepted, in which, independent claims 1 and 12 are amended, and claims 6 and 17 are canceled. Claims 8-11 are allowed, leaving claims 1-5, 7, 12-16 and 18-24 awaiting an action on the merits as follows.
Response to Arguments
Regarding amended claims 1 and 12, on page 9 of the response, Applicant argues,
"… even if Hawa's inorganic layer 16, which is made of chromium oxide, is combined with Adib, silicon oxide would be merely placed over the chromium oxide. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully notes that there is no clear technical basis to conclude that a covalent bond is formed between chromium oxide and silicon based solely on this arrangement."
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
MPEP section 2112.01.II states, "if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present."
As Applicant concedes above, the combination of Hawa with Adib places a second layer of chromium oxide with a layer of silicon oxide on top of it; as discussed in the previous rejection. Since in combination, Hawa and Adib meet the structure of the claims, where a layer containing silicon is on top of a chromium oxide layer, the claims are rejected. 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.
Therefore, the combination of Hawa with Adib is valid and the rejection stands.
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 § 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 1 and 12 are rejected for indefiniteness.
Regarding claims 1 and 12, the claims state, "a second layer disposed on the first layer, wherein the second layer comprises chromium oxide (Cr203) covalently bonded to silicon (Si)." The claims are indefinite because it is unclear where the silicon is in the structure.
Utility patents are examined based on the structure of the invention, not how it functions or the chemical interactions between elements. The portion of the claim quoted above does not clearly identify where the silicon is in the structure. Examiner does not know if the silicon is part of the second layer and therefore the layer is comprised of chromium oxide and silicon, which if covalently bonded would create chromium metal and silicon oxide, accounting for the third layer above the second layer comprised of silicon dioxide; or, if the second layer is chromium oxide and that layer is covalently bonded to silicon elsewhere in the device, which might also account for the third layer to be silicon dioxide.
Since there is no other reference to silicon to clarify claim 1, the claim is indefinite. Please see rejection below for Examiner's interpretation to further prosecution.
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 Hawa (US 20030116270 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 chromium oxide (Cr203) covalently bonded to silicon (Si).
However, Hawa teaches wherein the second layer comprises chromium oxide (Cr203) (chromium oxide; inorganic materials used in antireflection coatings, [0021]).
As discussed above, the combination of Hawa with Adib places a second layer of chromium oxide with a layer of silicon oxide on top of it. Since in combination, Hawa and Adib meet the structure of the claims, where a layer containing silicon is on top of a chromium oxide layer, the claim 1 is rejected. 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.
Adib and Hawa 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 Hawa to create a window substrate wherein the second layer comprises chromium oxide (Cr203) covalently bonded to silicon (Si) in order to reduce the amount of contamination or damage to the surface of the article (Hawa, [0003]) and provide good scratch or abrasion resistance and good stain, smudge, and soil resistance (Hawa, [0007]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Adib and Hawa 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 Hawa 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 Hawa 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 Hawa 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 Hawa (US 20030116270 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 chromium oxide (Cr203) covalently bonded to 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),
Hawa teaches wherein the second layer comprises chromium oxide (Cr203) (chromium oxide; inorganic materials used in antireflection coatings, [0021]).
As discussed above, the combination of Hawa with Adib places a second layer of chromium oxide with a layer of silicon oxide on top of it. Since in combination, Hawa and Adib meet the structure of the claims, where a layer containing silicon is on top of a chromium oxide layer, the claim 12 is rejected. 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.
Adib, Li, and Hawa 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 chromium oxide (Cr203) covalently bonded to silicon (Si) so as to prevent from a phenomenon of nonuniform display occurred in the display device including the light-emitting diode display panel (Li, [0050]), and to reduce the amount of contamination or damage to the surface of the article (Hawa, [0003]) and provide good scratch or abrasion resistance and good stain, smudge, and soil resistance (Hawa, [0007]).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Adib, Li, and Hawa 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 Hawa 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 Hawa 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 Hawa 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 Hawa 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 Hawa 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 Hawa 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 Hawa 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 Hawa 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 Hawa 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.
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