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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/16/2025have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because the applicant argument is random argument base on the applicant mind set and not the examiner examining mind set. Heo discloses all the limitations of claim 1 except that the first printed layer PAa including a first pigment particle distributed in a first base material, wherein a size of the first pigment particle is about 0.5 μm to about 5 μm in diameter. Son is chosen to meet the missing limitation only, and Son does not have to meet all the limitations of claim 1.
Son par [0098] discloses that the light-blocking member 320 may be formed of an organic material containing at least one of graphite, carbon black, black pigment and black dye; and
Heo par [0100] discloses The shield layer PB may be disposed under the color layer PA. The shield layer PB may be at least one-layered color layer. The shield layer PB may be a light blocking tape. The shield layer PB is typically black, but is not limited thereto, and may have various other suitable colors. The shield layer PB may block passing of incident light. For example, the shield layer PB may absorb or reflect light. The width W1 in the first direction DR1 of the shield layer PB may be smaller than the width W2 in the first direction DR1 of the second sub-color layer PAb; and Heo par [0111] discloses that the color layer PA may include a plurality of sub-color layers PAa and PAb. For example, when the color of the bezel area BZA is black, the plurality of sub-color layers may include at least two sub-layers.
Note forming the first printed layer PAa of Heo to including a first pigment such as black pigment as taught by Son would benefit in making the color layer PA into a bigger light shielding layer
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HEO 20200159063 in view of Son et al. 20200274089.
PNG
media_image1.png
389
416
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, figs. 1-7 of Heo discloses a display device comprising:
a display substrate BL;
a display element ED arranged in a display area of the display substrate, and including a first electrode, a second electrode, and an emission layer arranged between the first electrode and the second electrode;
an encapsulation member TFE disposed on the display element; and
a window WM disposed on the encapsulation member, wherein the window comprises:
window substrate WM including a transmission area TA and a bezel area BZA located outside the transmission area;
a first printed layer PAa disposed on the window substrate in the bezel area; and
a second printed layer PAb/PB disposed on the first printed layer in the bezel area, and including an opening (region between left and right PAb is opening) overlapping the first printed layer.
Heo does not disclose that the first printed layer PAa including a first pigment particle distributed in a first base material, wherein a size of the first pigment particle is about 0.5 μm to about 5 μm in diameter.
However, Son par [0098] discloses that the light-blocking member 320 may be formed of an organic material containing at least one of graphite, carbon black, black pigment and black dye;
Heo par [0100] discloses the shield layer PB may be disposed under the color layer PA. The shield layer PB may be at least one-layered color layer. The shield layer PB may be a light blocking tape. The shield layer PB is typically black, but is not limited thereto, and may have various other suitable colors. The shield layer PB may block passing of incident light. For example, the shield layer PB may absorb or reflect light. The width W1 in the first direction DR1 of the shield layer PB may be smaller than the width W2 in the first direction DR1 of the second sub-color layer PAb; and Heo par [0111] discloses that the color layer PA may include a plurality of sub-color layers PAa and PAb. For example, when the color of the bezel area BZA is black, the plurality of sub-color layers may include at least two sub-layers.
Note forming the first printed layer PAa of Heo to including a first pigment such as black pigment as taught by Son would benefit in making the color layer PA into a bigger light shielding layer to improve device reliability by making the PA, the printed layer, of Heo to block light and to define the bezel area.
In addition, claim 14 of Son discloses of a light-blocking portion comprises an organic material and at least one of graphite, carbon black, black pigment and black dye dispersed in the organic material, and wherein the first supporting portions are spherical and have a diameter in a range of 2 to 12 μm.
Note Son uses carbon black, black pigment and black dye dispersed in the organic material and a diameter in a range of 2 to 12 μm meets the missing limitation of Heo.
As such it would have been obvious to form a device of Heo further comprising wherein the first printed layer PAa including a first pigment particle distributed in a first base material, wherein a size of the first pigment particle is about 0.5 μm to about 5 μm in diameter such as taught by Son in order to be able to block light transmission and absorb the light in the bezel area.
Regarding claim 10, Heo and Son discloses (see rejection of claim 1 above) discloses an electronic device comprising:
a display device including a display element arranged in a display area of a display substrate, and a window disposed on the display element; and
a housing EDC accommodating the display device, wherein the window comprises:
a window substrate including a transmission area and a bezel area outside the transmission area;
a first printed layer disposed on the window substrate in the bezel area, and including a first pigment particle distributed in a first base material; and
a second printed layer disposed on the first printed layer in the bezel area, and including an opening overlapping the first printed layer,
wherein a size of the first pigment particle is about 0.5 μm to about 5 μm in diameter.
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Son discloses wherein the first pigment particle includes carbon black.
Regarding claims 3-4 and 14-15, par [0099] of Heo discloses that other color that is not black requires thicker thickness and claim 14 of Son discloses of a light-blocking portion comprises an organic material and at least one of graphite, carbon black, black pigment and black dye dispersed in the organic material, and wherein the first supporting portions are spherical and have a diameter in a range of 2 to 12 μm.
As such it would have been obvious form a device comprising wherein the second printed layer includes a second pigment particle wherein the second pigment particle includes a material the same as that of the first pigment particle in order to have black color layer to have less thickness.
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Son wherein the second pigment particle includes carbon black.
Regarding claims 6 and 17 Son discloses a diameter in a range of 2 to 12 μm and therefore it would have been obvious to form a device comprising wherein a size of the second pigment particle is greater than the size of the first pigment particle and the particle are subject to random statistically distribution and there will exist at least one wherein a size of the second pigment particle is greater than the size of the first pigment particle.
Regarding claims 7 and 18, fig. 5A of Heo discloses wherein the second printed layer has a step difference from the first printed layer.
Regarding claims 8 and 19, fig. 5A of Heo necessary discloses wherein the second printed layer (PAb/PB) has a light transmittance in a visible light area lower than that of the first printed layer (as PAb/PB is a double layer in comparison to PAa).
Regarding claims 9 and 20, it would have been obvious to form a device comprising wherein a light transmittance of the first printed layer in an infrared area is equal to or greater than about 80% in order to meet the applicant specification.
Regarding claim 11, par [0067] of Heo discloses a sensor and it would have been one further comprising a sensor overlapping the opening of the second printed layer because it would be in the opening region and not in the bezel area.
Regarding claim 12, Heo discloses of a touch sensor which would be one wherein the sensor includes a proximity sensor by close proximity of touch.
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 VONGSAVANH SENGDARA whose telephone number is (571)270-5770. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM 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, Sue Purvis can be reached on (571)272-1236. 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.
/VONGSAVANH SENGDARA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893