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 amendment filed on January 7, 2026 has been entered. Claims 2-3 have been canceled in the present application. Claims 1, 4-6, 8-9, 17-18, and 20 have been amended in the present application. Claims 10-12 are withdrawn. Claims 1, 4-9, and 13-20 are under consideration in the present application. Applicant’s amendments to the drawings, specification, and claims have overcome each and every objection and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed October 7, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 17, and 20 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.
Claims 1 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hankey (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0177300) in view of Wu (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0124262).
Regarding claim 1, Hankey teaches an electronic device (Figure 1) having an interior and an exterior (Figure 1 device 100 has housing 110 which is an enclosure with an interior and exterior, [0027]), the electronic device (device 100) comprising:
a housing (Figure 1 housing 110, [0027]);
a display (Figure 1 window 120, [0027]) in the housing (Figure 1 window 120 is in housing 110), wherein the display has an active area (Figure 2 display area 210, [0031]) and an inactive area (Figure 2 mask areas 220, 222, and 224, [0031]);
a cover layer (Figure 2 window 200) that overlaps the display (Figure 2 window 200 covers display area 210 and mask areas 220, 222, and 224, [0031]);
a thin-film interference layer (Figure 6B dichroic stack 614, [0032] thin layers of SiO2 and TiO2 form a thin-film interference layer).
Furthermore, Hankey teaches matching the reflectivity of the display and non-display areas, corresponding matching the first and second reflectivity ([0035] coatings on glass blend in with bezels by matching reflectivity). Hankey fails to teach a reflective portion on the cover layer, wherein the reflective portion comprises a textured portion in the inactive area of the display, the textured portion has a first reflectivity, and the active area of the display is untextured and has a second reflectivity and coupled to the thin-film interference layer. However, Wu teaches an electronic device (Figure 1A) with a reflective layer (Figure 3D textured surface B of substrate 110, [0085] textured surface B diffusely reflects light) on the cover layer (Figure 3D substrate 110, [0085]) wherein the reflective portion comprises a textured portion in the inactive area of the display (Figure 3D, [0085] textured surface B corresponds to non-display area) , the textured portion has a first reflectivity ([0085] textured surface B diffusely reflects light), and the active area of the display is untextured and has a second reflectivity ([0085] untextured area above display unit 112 has a reflectivity). Wu further teaches adding a textured reflective layer to diffusely reflect light from non-display areas and improve image quality ([0085]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electronic device taught by Hankey by adding the reflective textured layer taught by Wu and couple it to the thin-film interference layer of Hankey in order to increase diffusely reflect light from non-display areas and improve image quality (Wu [0085]).
Regarding claim 6, Hankey and Wu teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Hankey further teaches the thin-film interference layer comprises a plurality of inorganic dielectric layers (Figure 6B dichroic stack 614, [0032] thin layers of SiO2 and TiO2 form inorganic dielectric layers).
Regarding claim 7, Hankey Wu teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 6. Hankey further teaches a layer of ink (Figure 6B ink stack 616, [0048]), on the thin-film interference layer (Figure 6B ink stack 616 is on dichroic stack 614, [0048]).
Regarding claim 8, Hankey and Wu teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Hankey fails to teach the textured portion comprises a textured layer coupled to the cover layer. However, Wu teaches the textured portion comprises a textured layer (Figure 3D textured surface B of substrate 110, [0085]) coupled to the cover layer (Figure 3D textured surface B is coupled to substrate 110, [0085]). Wu further teaches adding a textured reflective layer to diffusely reflect light from non-display areas and improve image quality ([0085]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electronic device taught by Hankey by adding the reflective textured layer taught by Wu in order to increase diffusely reflect light from non-display areas and improve image quality (Wu [0085]).
Regarding claim 9, Hankey and Wu teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Hankey fails to teach the textured portion comprises a textured surface of the cover layer. However, Wu teaches the textured portion comprises a textured surface (Figure 3D textured surface B of substrate 110, [0085]) of the cover layer (Figure 3D textured surface B is the surface of substrate 110, [0085]). Wu further teaches adding a textured reflective layer to diffusely reflect light from non-display areas and improve image quality ([0085]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electronic device taught by Hankey by adding the reflective textured layer taught by Wu in order to increase diffusely reflect light from non-display areas and improve image quality (Wu [0085]).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hankey (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0177300) in view of Wu (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0124262) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wilson et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0377768 – hereinafter referred to as “Wilson”).
Regarding claim 4, Hankey and Wu teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Hankey further teaches an array of pixels arranged in a first pattern (Figure 14 display of electronic device 1400 will have an array of pixels arranged in a first pattern). Hankey and Wu fails to teach the textured portion comprises texture in a second pattern that matches the first pattern. However, Wilson teaches a textured layer on an electronic device (Figure 1D) where the textured portion (textured surface 126) may have any appropriate shape or pattern that may be more or less uniform in size and shape ([0036]-[0037]). Wilson fails to explicitly teach the pattern of the textured layer is the same as the pattern of the pixel array. However, matching the pattern of the textured layer and pixel layer would allow for a more uniform appearance to the cover of the electronic device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electronic device taught by Hankey and Wu by having the pattern of the textured portion match the pattern of the pixel array since Wilson teaches the textured surface may have any appropriate shape or pattern (Wilson [0036]-[0037]) and doing so would provide a more uniform appearance to the cover of the electronic device
Regarding claim 5, Hankey and Wu teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Hankey and Wu fail to teach the textured portion comprises texture that is distributed pseudo-randomly across a surface of the textured portion. However, Wilson teaches textured portion (Figure 4 textured surface 126) comprises texture that is distributed pseudo-randomly across a surface of the textured portion ([0036] the texture of surface 126 may be substantially random). Wilson further teaches using a textured portion to diffusely reflect light to increase the luminance of the structure while reducing specular reflections ([0019] and [0038]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electronic device taught by the combination of Hankey, Wilson, and Liu such that the reflective portion comprises a pseudo-random textured portion as taught by Wilson in order to diffusely reflect light to increase the luminance of the structure while reducing specular reflections (Wilson [0019] and [0038]).
Claims 13-14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hankey (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0177300) in view of Wu (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0124262) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nguyen et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0079230 – hereinafter referred to as “Nguyen”).
Regarding claim 13, Hankey and Wu teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Hankey and Wu fail to teach the reflective portion comprises a reflective layer that extends across the active and inactive areas of the display. However, Nguyen teaches the reflective portion comprises a reflective layer that extends across the active and inactive areas of the display (Figure 8 coating 106; [0049] coating 106 may include filter 54 which can have a tailored reflectivity ([0034]) and extends across substrate 100 which includes active and inactive areas). Nguyen further teaches a reflective layer may be used to achieve the desired appearance of the transparent substrate such as color, reflectivity, or spectrum ([0031]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to modify the electronic device taught by Hankey and Wu by having the reflective layer extend across active and inactive areas of the display as taught by Nguyen in order to achieve the desired appearance of the transparent substrate such as color, reflectivity, or spectrum (Nguyen[0031]).
Regarding claim 14, Hankey, Wu, and Nguyen teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 13. Hankey and Wu fail to teach the reflective layer has a reflectivity between 5% and 10%. However, Nguyen teaches an electronic device with a display (Figure 1 display 14) where the reflective layer has a reflectivity between 5% and 10% ([0038] reflectivity of at least 5% or 10-20% encompasses range of 5-10%). Nguyen teaches such a range allows for a color-neutral partially reflective layer ([0038]). It is a well-established proposition that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP §2144.05(I) first paragraph. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electronic device taught by the combination of Hankey and Wu such that the reflective layer has a reflectivity of 5-10% as taught by Nguyen in order to provide a color-neutral partially reflective layer (Nguyen [0038]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hankey (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0177300) in view of Wu (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0124262) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Silvanto et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0043452 – hereinafter referred to as “Silvanto”).
Regarding claim 15, Hankey and Wu teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Hankey fails to teach the reflective portion has an opening, the electronic device further comprising:
a polarizer layer that extends across the active and inactive portions of the display, wherein the polarizer layer has a window; and
an optical component that receives light through the opening and the window.
However, Wu teaches the reflective portion (Figure 3D textured surface B of substrate 110, [0085] textured surface B diffusely reflects light) has an opening (Figure 3D, [0085] textured surface B corresponds to non-display area and has an opening over display unit 112). Wu further teaches adding a textured reflective layer to diffusely reflect light from non-display areas and improve image quality ([0085]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electronic device taught by Hankey by adding the reflective layer with an opening as taught by Wu in order to increase diffusely reflect light from non-display areas and improve image quality (Wu [0085]).
Hankey and Wu fail to teach a polarizer layer that extends across the active and inactive portions of the display, wherein the polarizer layer has a window; and
an optical component that receives light through the opening and the window. However, Silvanto teaches a display (Figure 6 display 14) with a polarizer layer that extends across the active and inactive portions of the display ([0041] material forming display 14 has a polarized layer), wherein the polarizer layer has a window ([0041] camera window for component 136 is an opening in the polarized layer); and
an optical component (Figure 6 component 136, [0041] component 136 is a light detecting device such as a camera) that receives light through the opening and the window ([0041] component 136 is a camera receives light opening in polarized layer). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electronic device taught by Hankey and Wu by including a polarized layer with an opening and a light receiving component aligned with the opening as taught by Silvanto since polarizers are well-known in the art for polarizing the light emitted from the display and light receiving optical components such as cameras are also well-known in the art and placing the camera in the opening of the polarizer would avoid interference with the light captured by the camera.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hankey (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0177300) in view of Wu (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0124262) and Silvanto et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0043452) as applied to claim 15 above, and in further view of Hung (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0079236).
Regarding claim 16, Hankey, Wu, and Silvanto teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 15. Hankey, Wu, and Silvanto fail to teach a glass layer interposed between the polarizer and the optical component. However, Hung teaches a glass layer (Figures 5 substrate 48, [0046] substrate 48 may be made of glass) interposed between the polarizer and the optical component (Figure 10 mirror 36 with substrate 48 (Figure 5) is between polarizing layer 32 and optical component 18, [0048]). Hung further teaches glass layer between the polarizer and optical component can be used to provide a suitable supporting structure for other layers ([0046]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electronic device taught by Hankey, Wu, and Silvanto by adding a glass layer between the polarizer and optical component as taught by Hung in order to provide a suitable supporting structure for other layers (Hung [0046]).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hankey (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0177300) in view of Wilson (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0377768) and in further view of Nguyen (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0079230).
Regarding claim 17, Hankey teaches an electronic device (Figure 1) comprising:
a display having an active area (Figure 2 display area 210, [0031]) and an inactive area (Figure 2 mask areas 220, 222, and 224, [0031]);
a cover layer that overlaps the active and inactive areas of the display (Figure 2 window 200 covers display area 210 and mask areas 220, 222, and 224, [0031]);
a reflective layer coupled to the cover layer (Figure 6B dichroic stack 614 is a reflective layer, [0030] dichroic stack reflects light), wherein the reflective layer extends across the active area and the inactive area ([0032] dichroic coating can be applied to surface of one or more areas of window 200); and
a layer on the reflective layer (Figure 6B ink stack 616, [0047]), wherein the reflective layer is interposed between the cover layer and layer (Figure 6B dichroic stack 614 is between glass 612 and ink stack 616).
Hankey fails to teach the ink stack layer (Figure 6B ink stack 616) is a physical vapor deposition (PVD) layer. However, Wilson teaches that a pigment layer may be applied using any appropriate manner including PVD ([0071]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the ink stack layer taught by Hankey using PVD as taught by Wilson since the method used to make the layer does not affect the function of the ink layer and PVD is a well-known method in the art.
Hankey and Wilson fail to teach the reflective layer has a reflectivity between 5% and 10% across the active area and the inactive area. However, Nguyen teaches an electronic device with a display (Figure 1 display 14) where the reflective layer has a reflectivity between 5% and 10% ([0038] reflectivity of at least 5% or 10-20% encompasses range of 5-10%). Nguyen teaches such a range allows for a color-neutral partially reflective layer ([0038]). It is a well-established proposition that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP §2144.05(I) first paragraph. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electronic device taught by the combination of Hankey and Wu such that the reflective layer has a reflectivity of 5-10% as taught by Nguyen in order to provide a color-neutral partially reflective layer (Nguyen [0038]).
Regarding claim 18, Hankey, Wilson, and Nguyen teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 17. Hankey further teaches the reflective layer overlaps the inactive area of the display ([0032] dichroic coating can be applied to surface of one or more areas of window 200) and is selected from the group of layers consisting of: a thin-film interference layer ([0032] thin layers of SiO2 and TiO2 form a thin-film interference layer) and an ink layer with embedded particles.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hankey (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0177300) in view of Wilson (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0377768) and Nguyen (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0079230) as applied to claim 18 above in view of Lesuffleur et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0194845 – hereinafter referred to as “Lesuffleur”).
Regarding claim 19, Hankey, Wilson, and Nguyen teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 18. Hankey, Wilson, and Nguyen fail to teach the PVD layer has L*, a*, and b* components in LAB color space, the L* component is between 20 and 30, the a* component is less than 0.35, and the b* component is at least -0.35. However, Lesuffleur teaches a cover glass layer for an electronic device (Figure 2 glass 106) with L*, a*, and b* components in LAB color space, the L* component is between 20 and 30 ([0027 L* component is less than 30), the a* component is less than 0.35 ([0027] a* component is 0), and the b* component is at least -0.35 ([0027] b* component is 0). It is a well-established proposition that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP §2144.05(I) first paragraph. Lesuffleur further teaches these values of L*, a*, and b* allow for a layer with neutral density i.e. no color ([0027]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the values of L*, a*, and b* in the PVD layer taught by Hankey, Wilson, and Nguyen such that a value of L* lies within the narrower claimed range and to choose a* and b* components of 0 as taught by Lesuffleur in order to achieve a layer with neutral density i.e. no color (Lesuffleur [0027]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0377768) in view of Silvanto (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0043452).
Regarding claim 20, Wilson teaches an electronic device (Figure 1A) comprising:
a display having an array of pixels that display an image in an active area (Figure 1A display device 106, [0023]) and having an inactive area adjacent to the active area (Figure 1A frame 108, [0025]);
a cover layer that overlaps the active and inactive areas of the display (Figure 1B cover glass assembly 102, [0024]);
a textured portion in the inactive area (Figure 1D textured surface 126, [0024] textured surface corresponds to frame 108), wherein the textured portion has a first opening ([0058] cover glass assembly which includes textured surface 126 has apertures in the frame area 108 (e.g. aperture for button cover 110 in Figure 1B));
a PVD layer (Figure 1C pigment layer 116, [0071] PVD can be used to apply pigment layer making the pigment layer a PVD layer) on the reflective portion (Figure 4 pigment layer 116 on textured surface 126, [0062]), wherein the PVD layer has a second opening that is aligned with the first opening ([0058] cover glass assembly which includes pigment layer 116 has apertures in the frame area 108 (e.g. aperture for button cover 110 in Figure 1B)).
Wilson fails to teach a component that receives light through the first and second openings. However, Silvanto teaches a display (Figure 6 display 14) with a component that receives light through the first and second openings (Figure 6 component 136, [0041] component 136 may be a light detecting device and the camera window contains an opening in the layers of materials forming the display). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display taught by Wilson by adding a light receiving component as taught by Silvanto that aligns with the openings in the reflective and PVD layers in order to add a camera to the device which are common and well-known in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Roush (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0221825) discloses a display with different textured portions to produce different optical effects.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ALEX PARK RICKEL whose telephone number is (703)756-4561. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 a.m. - 6 p.m. ET.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571)272-2713. 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.
Alex Rickel
Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/A.P.R./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights