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 with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 7, 9-15, 24-27 and 32-34 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 9-15, 24-27 and 32-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103) as being unpatentable over Zhu US 2019/0302328 in view of Wada WO 2019/065009 (translation provided in previous office action) in view of Tamada US 2019/0235304.
Regarding claim 1, Zhu teaches a display screen , comprising a display panel (fig. 2) configured to generate a display light ray; and a transmissive layer (4 second polarizer) disposed on the display panel configured to transmit the display light ray, and comprising a first surface distal from the display panel, wherein the first surface comprises a plurality of micro structural units (3 second antiglare layer), wherein the first surface comprises a plurality of micro structural units (3 second antiglare layer), wherein teach of the micro structural units comprises: a curved surface (see fig. 2).
Zhu does not explicitly teach wherein a maximum size of each of the micro structural units is based on a maximum length of a straight-line distance between two edge portions of the micro structural unit in a direction parallel to the first surface, and wherein a maximum size of each of the micro structural units is not greater than ½ of a pixel pitch.
However Wada teaches an average size of a micro structural unit is 6 μm or less from the viewpoint of further enhancing the clearness of the transmitted image or less from the viewpoint of further enhancing the clearness of the transmitted image (page 3 4th paragraph).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhu in view of Wada to enhance the clarity of a transmitted image.
Zhu and Wada do not explicitly teach an arithmetic average height Ra of the plurality of micro structural units is greater than 0.2 micrometers (µm) and less than or equal to .5 µm and wherein a ratio Ra/Rsm of the arithmetic average height Ra of the plurality of micro structural units to an average length Rsm of contour curve elements of the plurality of micro structural units is greater than or equal to .5%. Tamada teaches an arithmetic average height Ra of the plurality of micro structural units is greater than 0.2 micrometers (µm) and less than or equal to .5 µm [0090] and wherein a ratio Ra/Rsm of the arithmetic average height Ra of the plurality of micro structural units to an average length Rsm of contour curve elements of the plurality of micro structural units is greater than or equal to .5% ([0092] ex .5 µm / 30 µm = 1.67%) to reduce asperities of a cover glass [0092].
MPEP 2144.05 states:
I. OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS
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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range."). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhu and Wada in view of Tamada to reduce asperities of a glass.
Regarding claim 2, Zhu teaches the orthographic projections of at least two micro structural units are located in a sub-region of the pixel region (see fig. 2), and the sub-region comprises a region in which the sub-pixel is located and a spaced region between the sub-pixel and any adjacent sub-pixel.
Regarding claim 3, Zhu teaches a height of each micro structural unit is any value in [0.5 μm, 1.5 μm], the height of each micro structural unit is a distance between a peak point and a valley bottom of the micro structural unit, the peak point of the micro structural unit is a point that is in the micro structural unit and that is at a maximum distance from the display panel, and the valley bottom of the micro structural unit is a point that is in the micro structural unit and that is at a minimum distance from the display panel [0031].
Regarding claim 4, Zhu teaches a height of each micro structural unit is any value in [1.5 μm, 4 μm], the height of each micro structural unit is a distance between a peak point and a valley bottom of the micro structural unit, the peak point of the micro structural unit is a point that is in the micro structural unit and that is at a maximum distance from the display panel, and the valley bottom of the micro structural unit is a point that is in the micro structural unit and that is at a minimum distance from the display panel [0031].
Regarding claim 7, Zhu does not explicitly teach the first surface, density of the micro structural unit is greater than or equal to 5000/mm2. Zhu is silent with respect to any density or size of the microstructural units . However Wada teaches a length of a microstructural unit to be 10 μm or less (see abstract). Therefore this translates to a density of 10,000/mm2. Even accounting for differences in spacing this would be well over unit is greater than or equal to 5000/mm2. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have a density of greater than or equal to 5000/mm2 as similar antiglare layers demonstrated in the prior art have densities in this range.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Zhu in view of Wada as Wada demonstrates typical values of Rsm known in the prior art.
Regarding claim 9-10, while the limitations of wherein within a range of 1° deviation from a reflection angle, attenuation of reflected light of the first surface is less than or equal to 5% or any value [5%, 10%] is not directly taught the specification does not tie this performance to any particular structure. The specification states [0024] To improve paper-like display effect, in a possible implementation, within a range of 1° deviation from a reflection angle, attenuation of reflected light of the first surface is less than or equal to 5%. It is found through research that, in a medium luminance range of 11.89 to 142.3 cd/m.sup.2, a relationship between a minimum visual perceptible difference luminance of human eyes and background luminance meets the Weber's Law, and a ratio of the two is approximately equal to 0.017. In other words, when a modulation transfer function of a reflection image is greater than or equal to 0.017, the human eye can perceive the reflection image. In this application, the attenuation of the reflected light of the first surface is less than 5% within a range of 1° deviation from the reflection angle, so that the modulation transfer function MTF of the reflection image is less than 0.17, and a user cannot perceive specular reflection. This facilitates paper-like display.
[0025] In addition, in another possible implementation, within a range of 1° deviation from a reflection angle, attenuation of the reflected light of the first surface is any value in [5%, 10%]. It is difficult for the user to observe the specular reflection. This facilitates paper-like display.
However does not provide context to facilitate this optimization. Since Zhu in view of Wada teaches Ra/Rsm, Ra and similar Rsm and a similar shape of the microstructural units it is the examiner’s position that this would result in a within a range of 1° deviation from a reflection angle, attenuation of reflected light of the first surface is less than or equal to 5% or any value [5%, 10%].
Regarding claim 11, Zhu teaches the display screen further comprises an intermediate layer (fig. 2 first anti-glare layer 2), the intermediate layer is located between the display panel and the transmissive layer, and the intermediate layer is configured to scatter the display light ray.
Regarding claim 12, Zhu teaches the intermediate layer comprises an optical adhesive layer (protective material layer 21 - resin adhesive [0027]), and the optical adhesive layer is configured to adhere the display panel to the transmissive layer [0027].
Regarding claim 13, Zhu does not explicitly teach the intermediate layer comprises a first optical adhesive layer, a second optical adhesive layer, and a third optical adhesive layer that are stacked, and the second optical adhesive layer is located between the first optical adhesive layer and the third optical adhesive layer; and the second optical adhesive layer comprises a scattering particle, the first optical adhesive layer is disposed on a surface that is of the second optical adhesive layer and that is close to the display panel, and the third optical adhesive layer is disposed on a surface that is of the second optical adhesive layer and that is close to the transmissive layer but Zhu does teach the equivalent of a second optical adhesive layer (2 first antiglare layer) the second optical adhesive layer comprises a scattering particle (antiglare particle 22). Adding corresponding first optical adhesive and third optical adhesive layer such that a first optical adhesive layer, a second optical adhesive layer, and a third optical adhesive layer that are stacked, and the second optical adhesive layer is located between the first optical adhesive layer and the third optical adhesive layer; and the second optical adhesive layer comprises a scattering particle, the first optical adhesive layer is disposed on a surface that is of the second optical adhesive layer and that is close to the display panel, and the third optical adhesive layer is disposed on a surface that is of the second optical adhesive layer and that is close to the transmissive layer would be a matter of obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art as first and optical adhesives can thus be separately cured which enables increased design flexibility and modularity. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add first and third optical adhesive layers to improve flexibility and modularity.
Regarding claim 14, Zhu teaches all the limitations of claim . The display screen according to claim 11, wherein the intermediate layer comprises a touch layer, and the touch layer is configured to generate a touch signal. Virtually all mobile display units implement some form of touch layer and positioning it between the display panel and the cover layer would have been obvious to implement touch functionality and examiner takes official notice of this.
Regarding claim 15, Zhu teaches the display panel comprises an intermediate layer (first antiglare layer 2), the intermediate layer is disposed close to the transmissive layer, and the intermediate layer is configured to scatter the display light ray (see fig. 2).
Regarding claim 24, Zhu teaches a display screen protective film, wherein the display screen protective film comprises a rough surface; and the rough surface comprises a plurality of micro structural units (fig. 2 second antiglare layer 3), an orthographic projection of each micro structural unit along a thickness direction is located in a pixel region, a projection area of the micro structural unit is less than or equal to an area of the pixel region (R, G B), the micro structural unit is a curved surface, and the pixel region comprises a region in which a sub-pixel (R G and B are individual subpixels) is located on the display screen and a spaced region between the sub-pixel and another sub-pixel that is located around the sub-pixel and adjacent to the sub-pixel. Zhu and Wada do not explicitly teach an arithmetic average height Ra of the plurality of micro structural units is greater than 0.2 micrometers (µm) and less than or equal to .5 µm and wherein a ratio Ra/Rsm of the arithmetic average height Ra of the plurality of micro structural units to an average length Rsm of contour curve elements of the plurality of micro structural units is greater than or equal to .5%. Tamada teaches an arithmetic average height Ra of the plurality of micro structural units is greater than 0.2 micrometers (µm) and less than or equal to .5 µm [0090] and wherein a ratio Ra/Rsm of the arithmetic average height Ra of the plurality of micro structural units to an average length Rsm of contour curve elements of the plurality of micro structural units is greater than or equal to .5% ([0092] ex .5 µm / 30 µm = 1.67%) to reduce asperities of a cover glass [0092].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhu and Wada in view of Tamada to reduce asperities of a glass.
Regarding claim 25, Zhu teaches the orthographic projections of at least two micro structural units (second antiglare layer 3) are located in a sub-region of the pixel region, and the sub-region comprises a region in which the sub-pixel is located and a spaced region between the sub-pixel and any adjacent sub-pixel.
Regarding claim 26, Zhu teaches a height of each micro structural unit is any value in [0.5 μm, 1.5 μm], the height of each micro structural unit is a distance between a peak point and a valley bottom of the micro structural unit, the peak point of the micro structural unit is a point that is in the micro structural unit and that is at a maximum distance from the display panel, and the valley bottom of the micro structural unit is a point that is in the micro structural unit and that is at a minimum distance from the display panel [0031].
Regarding claim 27, Zhu teaches a height of each micro structural unit is any value in [1.5 μm, 4 μm], the height of each micro structural unit is a distance between a peak point and a valley bottom of the micro structural unit, the peak point of the micro structural unit is a point that is in the micro structural unit and that is at a maximum distance from the display panel, and the valley bottom of the micro structural unit is a point that is in the micro structural unit and that is at a minimum distance from the display panel [0031].
Regarding claim 32, Zhu an electronic device comprising: a display screen comprising a display panel (fig. 2) configured to generate a display light ray; and a transmissive layer (4 second polarizer) disposed on the display panel configured to transmit the display light ray, and comprising a first surface distal from the display panel, wherein the first surface comprises a plurality of micro structural units (3 second antiglare layer), wherein teach of the micro structural units comprises: a curved surface (see fig. 2). Zhu does not explicitly teach wherein a maximum size of each of the micro structural units is based on a maximum length of a straight-line distance between two edge portions of the micro structural unit in a direction parallel to the first surface, and wherein a maximum size of each of the micro structural units is not greater than ½ of a pixel pitch.
However Wada teaches an average size of a micro structural unit is 6 μm or less from the viewpoint of further enhancing the clearness of the transmitted image or less from the viewpoint of further enhancing the clearness of the transmitted image (page 3 4th paragraph).
A typical prior art display such as an Apple Iphone 11 Pro max (this model was selected as it was released in 2019) has pixel pitch of 55 μm. (Calculated from 458 pixels per inch). An average size of 6 μm would easily translate to a maximum size of each of the micro structural units is not greater than ½ of a pixel pitch. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhu in view of Wada to enhance the clarity of a transmitted image.
Regarding claim 33, Zhu an electronic device comprising: a display screen , comprising a display panel (fig. 2) configured to generate a display light ray; and a transmissive layer (4 second polarizer) disposed on the display panel configured to transmit the display light ray, and comprising a first surface distal from the display panel, wherein the first surface comprises a plurality of micro structural units (3 second antiglare layer)
wherein the first surface comprises a plurality of micro structural units (3 second antiglare layer), wherein teach of the micro structural units comprises: a curved surface (see fig. 2).
Zhu and Wada do not explicitly teach an arithmetic average height Ra of the plurality of micro structural units is greater than 0.2 micrometers (µm) and less than or equal to .5 µm and wherein a ratio Ra/Rsm of the arithmetic average height Ra of the plurality of micro structural units to an average length Rsm of contour curve elements of the plurality of micro structural units is greater than or equal to .5%. Tamada teaches an arithmetic average height Ra of the plurality of micro structural units is greater than 0.2 micrometers (µm) and less than or equal to .5 µm [0090] and wherein a ratio Ra/Rsm of the arithmetic average height Ra of the plurality of micro structural units to an average length Rsm of contour curve elements of the plurality of micro structural units is greater than or equal to .5% ([0092] ex .5 µm / 30 µm = 1.67%) to reduce asperities of a cover glass [0092].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhu and Wada in view of Tamada to reduce asperities of a glass.
Regarding claim 34, Zhu as modified by Wada teaches the display screen of claim 1, wherein a size of each micro structural unit is with a range of 3μm to 20 μm (see Wada page 3 4th paragraph).
Regarding claim 35, Zhu as modified by Wada and Tamada teaches in claim 1 teaches the ratio of Ra/Rsm is within a range of greater than or equal to .5% and less than 1.8% (.5 micron/ 30 micron = 1.6% see [0090][0092] and MPEP 2144.05 cited above).
Regarding claims 36-38, Zhu teaches an intermediate layer (fig. 1 -2 first anti-glare layer 2)configured to scatter the display light ray. Zhu does not explicitly teach a haze value of 5-40, 20-30 or 40-95 however this encompasses virtually the entire range of haze values. One of ordinary skill in the art could easily adjust the haze value to any within this range as haze value determines how clear/ sharp an image is (low haze) high glare and on the other side one would increase haze to implement a privacy display and less glare. Therefore a have value 5-40, 20-30 or 40-95 could easily be conceived of by one of ordinary skill in the art according to the desired display outcomes and examiner takes official notice of this. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the haze value 5-40, 20-30 or 40-95 according to desired display characteristics regarding sharpness, glare and privacy.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHU VU whose telephone number is (571)272-1562. The examiner can normally be reached 11:00 - 7:00 M-F.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at 571-272-9791. 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.
/PHU VU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights