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
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 and 4 – 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu, et al. (US 2021/0386363 A1) in view of Hakla, et al. (US 2020/0036205 A1) and further in view of Cheng (US 9,250,647).
With respect to claim 1, Xu, et al. teach a glass article, comprising: a glass substrate having a first major surface and a second major surface, the second major surface being opposite the first major surface (paragraph 0057; reference teaches an area 102 being translucent which may be made of glass; examiner notes that the glass substrate will have opposing surfaces); an opaque layer disposed on the second major surface (item 211 – figure 2; paragraph 0058; the opaque layer may be visible through the translucent layer, while at the same time visually obscuring of blocking view of internal components), wherein the opaque layer comprises or is made of a curable ink (paragraph 0057) and as such, will exhibit the optical density as claimed (per applicant’s specification, paragraph 0060, optical density correlates to the ability to block light transmittance which comes from its composition constructed from a suitable ink. Thus, the examiner contends that because the opaque layer of Xu, et al. is also comprised of an ink, the optical density would be expected). In addition, the opaque layer is within a sensor region (paragraph 0057). The opaque layer of Xu, et al. also includes micropores 212 (paragraph 0058) which does allow light therethrough; however, the opaque layer may also prevent light from passing therethrough (paragraph 0058) as the entire surface does not include the micropores. The micropores may be used to receive or reflect light back as part of the bio-sensor (paragraph 0060 and 0061).
Xu, et al. however, do not specifically teach the average optical transmission of the opaque layer, an average optical transmission of the glass article within the sensor region, the thickness of the opaque layer nor where each of the ablated portions (or pores) have a material of the opaque layer only partially removed therein such that the opaque layer comprises at least some of the material in each of the plurality of ablated portions.
Hakla, et al. teach a reactive illuminated wireless charging surface which incorporates a series of blind holes or through holes aligned to the LEDs to facilitate transmission of luminous output. Blind holes extend partially through the reactive outer surface (paragraph 0020). Alternatively, the holes may be through holes which extend fully through the outer surface (paragraph 0021). In either case, the purpose of the blind hole or through hole is to allow luminous output.
Hakla, et al., however, like Xu, et al. is silent with respect to the thickness of the opaque layer. Cheng teaches an opaque ink layer for a display screen with a relative thin thickness of 3 – 6 micron (column 4, lines 40 – 60).
Therefore, the examiner contends that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include blind holes in some of the micropores of Xu, et al. per the teachings of Hakla, et al., for the purpose of light transmission. In addition, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further incorporate the thickness of Cheng of between 3 – 6 micron for the opaque layer of the display screen as this range is typical for the opaque region per the teachings in Cheng.
Because the combination of Xu, et al. modified per Hakla, et al., and Cheng renders obvious the glass substrate with an opaque layer comprised of ink, a sensor region, and micropores with partially ablated regions, the examiner contends that the average optical transmission is thus expected because the purpose of the micropore region within the opaque layer of Xu, et al. is to allow the transmittance of light, cooperating with a sensor – similar to that which is disclosed in applicant’s specification.
With respect to claim 4, Xu, et al., teach the dimensions of the micropores to be 30 – 70 microns (paragraph 0059). The examiner contends that this correlates to a horizontal dimension and thus, renders obvious the range “that is less than or equal to 100 micron.”
With respect to claim 5, Xu, et al. teach that the micropores may be spaced apart from each other between 80 – 500 micron (paragraph 0059), which renders obvious the range “minimum edge-to-edge separation distance that is greater than or equal to the maximum horizontal dimension.”
With respect to claim 6 – 7, while the combination of reference(s) fails to explicitly recite that combined surface area as recited, the examiner contends that the surface areas of the ablated portions as claimed is optimizable per the teachings in the prior art. Specifically, Xu, et al teach that the purpose of the micropores is to allow sufficient light to transmit or to receive light (paragraph 0060). The configuration and geometry of the micropores depends on their intended purpose and there may even be a separation between micropore regions used to 1) transmit light and 2) receive light (paragraph 0061). Thus, the examiner contends that the surface area as recited is obvious and can be optimized.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu, et al., Hakla, et al. and Cheng as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lu, et al. (US 2020/0382739 A1).
Xu, et al., Hakla, et al. and Cheng teach or render obvious the features as noted above, but do not specifically teach that the opaque layer comprises an edge that delineates a boundary between an image region that is not covered by the opaque layer and a peripheral region, wherein the sensor region comprises a sub-region of the peripheral region.
Lu, et al. teach a display with an opaque border around the perimeter of a display screen. Furthermore, the reference teaches an ambient light senor below a portion of the opaque edge border (paragraph 0020, Figure 1).
Because the instant invention requires an opaque edge border in a display screen with a perforated area under which an ambient light sensor is situated, it would be obvious to incorporate an opaque edge in the opaque layer of Xu, et al. to hide components outside the image area of the screen per Lu, et al.
Examiner further notes that Xu, et al. already teach that the translucent area houses a sensor (such as a bio-sensor) which interacts with the micropores to receive or transmit light. Thus, incorporating the edge feature as claimed in claim 9 would be obvious over the combination of Xu, et al. as modified by Hakla, et al., Cheng and further in view of Lu, et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 26, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s first argument is that the claimed optical transmission is not inherent in Xu. Applicant argues that the examiner has misstated examination rules with respect to inherency of properties because per MPEP section 2112, the structure is that which governs the claimed properties or functions. In other words, applicant continues, there must be an allegation of structural similarity for there to be a corresponding presumption of inherency. The examiner does not dispute this point. The examiner contends that the structure of Xu, et al. renders obvious the structure of the opaque layer comprising a curable ink, wherein in the sensor region of the glass article, the opaque layer comprises micropores or ablated portions. The prior office action (and that included above) detailed the structure of Xu, et al. to include the 1) substrate, 2) opaque layer made of a curable ink and 3) the ablated regions or micropores disposed on the second surface of the substrate. Thus, because of this structure and the intended function (per Xu, et al.) wherein the micropores in the opaque layer are meant to receive and/or transmit light, the examiner asserts that this structure functions like the article in the instant application and thus, the examiner contends that the light transmission would be obvious. The examiner has outlined in the rejection what the structure of the article is in Xu, et al. and its intended purpose and thus, concludes that it can function such that the optical transmission is within the claimed range. The rejection has outlined structural similarity and thus, the examiner contends that the optical transmission is expected.
Applicant’s second argument is that Hakla, et al. is not analogous because Hakla, et al. teach an illuminated wireless charging surface with decorative lighting areas (see page 9). Applicant continues by arguing that the wireless charger of the prior art is not in the same field of endeavor nor reasonably pertinent. Examiner respectfully disagrees. While Hakla, et al. teaches a wireless charger, the product in Hakla, et al. (as noted by the examiner) utilizes holes (either blind holes or through holes) in order to allow illumination and light transmittance. The holes allow light to pass through. The examiner only introduced Hakla, et al. because the reference also used holes or slits for the same purpose as that of Xu, et al. – allowing light transmittance. Regardless of whether the holes extend completely through the outer surface or only partially, the objective is the same and thus, the examiner contends the combination is proper.
Applicant then argues that the introduction of Cheng to teach the thickness of the opaque layer is not proper, as Cheng teaches away from the claimed range. Cheng focuses on a substrate with a light-cured material layer having a plurality of [nano-scale] pores and thus, applicant concludes that Cheng teaches away from using an ink-based opaque layer. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Cheng was introduced for its teaching of the opaque layer being thin. Regardless of whether the layer is made of a curable ink or a light cured material, the examiner contends that the layer is opaque and thus, is combinable with Xu, et al. Both Xu, et al. and Cheng teach display products or articles with opaque regions. Xu, et al. is simply silent with respect to any thickness and thus, per Cheng, it would be obvious to make the opaque layer between 3- 6 micron (which is within the range of less than 25 micron) for the purpose of keeping it thin per Cheng.
Thus, the examiner contends that the combination of reference(s) is still proper and renders obvious independent claim 1, 4 – 7 and 9. The action is made final.
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 MARIA VERONICA EWALD whose telephone number is (571)272-8519. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri ~9am-5:30pm 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, Srilakshmi Kumar can be reached at 571-270-7769. 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.
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783