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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/07/2026 has been entered.
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 1-3, 9 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2018/0013080) hereinafter “Kim” in view of Park et al. (US 2019/0013487) hereinafter “Park” and in further view of Zhang et al. (US 2022/0379406) hereinafter “Zhang” and Lee et al. (US 2015/0185516) hereinafter “Lee”.
Regarding claim 1, Fig. 9 of Kim teaches a display device (Paragraph 0002) comprising: a substrate (Item PRT) comprising a first surface (Top surface) and a second surface (Bottom surface) opposite to the first surface; a display element layer (Item DP) disposed on the first surface of the substrate (Item PRT); and a panel bottom member disposed on the second surface of the substrate, wherein the panel bottom member comprises: a light-blocking layer (Item SDL); a buffer layer (Item BF) comprising a second base resin (Paragraph 0091); where the buffer layer is operative to prevent the permeation of air or moisture (Paragraphs 0142 and 0144 where an adhesive layer is included in the buffer layer between BF1 and BF2, where the material of the adhesive is acryl based copolymer which is known to block air and moisture; alternately, Paragraphs 0137 and 0140 state where the buffer layer may include Item SP which is a fiber reinforced plastic material which is known to be highly resistant to air and moisture permeation); and a thermal protection member (Item AHL) comprising a thermal protection material (Paragraph 0152), wherein a profile of the light-blocking layer (Item SDL) conforms to a profile of the buffer layer (Item BF) in a plan view, and wherein a first surface (Bottom surface) of the light-blocking layer (Item SDL) and a first surface (Top surface) of the buffer layer (BF) are in direct contact with each other.
Kim does not teach where the light blocking layer comprises a first base resin and light-blocking particles dispersed in the first base resin.
Park teaches where a light blocking layer (Item 240) comprises a first base resin and light blocking particles dispersed in the first base resin (Paragraph 0058).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the light blocking layer comprise a first base resin and light-blocking particles dispersed in the first base resin because these materials are known to act as an effective light shielding layer (Park Paragraph 0058).
Kim does not teach where the thickness of the buffer layer has a value that is more than three times greater than the thickness of the light blocking layer nor where the thickness of the light blocking layer is 20 micrometers or more.
Kim further teaches where the thickness of the buffer layer is at least 120 microns (Paragraph 0096) and further where the thickness of the buffer is appropriately adjusted (Paragraph 0103).
Zhang teaches where a light shielding material has a thickness of between 1 and 30 microns and more specifically where the thickness of the light shielding layer may be 20 microns (Paragraph 0040).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the thickness of the buffer layer have a value that is more than three times greater than the thickness of the light blocking layer, where the thickness of the light blocking layer is 20 micrometers or more because this thickness is known to be sufficient to stop light from traveling through a display such that a shielding effect occurs (Zhang Paragraphs 0039-0040) while the thickness of the buffer layer is sufficient to ensure the display is strong against point impact and surface impact (Kim Paragraph 0103). Further, “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)” (MPEP 2144.05).
Kim does not teach where the first surface of the light blocking layer and the first surface of the buffer layer are in direct contact with each other via a concave-convex pattern.
Lee teaches where a light blocking layer has a concavo-convex surface (Paragraph 0041).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first surface of the light blocking layer and the first surface of the buffer layer are in direct contact with each other via a concave-convex pattern because the concave-convex pattern increases the contact area between the surface of the light blocking layer and the buffer layer (Lee Paragraph 0041).
Regarding claim 2, Fig. 9 of Kim further teaches wherein a surface of the thermal protection member (Item AHL) is in direct contact with a second surface (Bottom surface) of the buffer layer (Item BF), and the second surface of the buffer layer is opposite to the first surface of the buffer layer (Item BF).
Regarding claim 3, Kim further teaches where the thermal protection member comprises a third base resin; and nano-metal particles dispersed in the third base resin (Paragraph 0152).
Regarding claim 9, Kim further teaches where the second surface (Bottom surface) of the substrate (Item PRT) is in direct contact with a second surface (Top surface) of the light-blocking layer (Item SDL), and the second surface (Bottom surface) of the light-blocking layer (Item SDL) is opposite to the first surface (Top surface) of the light-blocking layer (Item SDL).
Regarding claim 27, Fig. 9 of Kim teaches an electronic device comprising a display device (Paragraph 0002), comprising: a substrate (Item PRT) comprising a first surface (Top surface) and a second surface (Bottom surface) opposite to the first surface; a display element layer (Item DP) disposed on the first surface of the substrate (Item PRT); and a panel bottom member disposed on the second surface of the substrate, wherein the panel bottom member comprises: a light-blocking layer (Item SDL); a buffer layer (Item BF) comprising a second base resin (Paragraph 0091); where the buffer layer is operative to prevent the permeation of air or moisture (Paragraphs 0142 and 0144 where an adhesive layer is included in the buffer layer between BF1 and BF2, where the material of the adhesive is acryl based copolymer which is known to block air and moisture; alternately, Paragraphs 0137 and 0140 state where the buffer layer may include Item SP which is a fiber reinforced plastic material which is known to be highly resistant to air and moisture permeation); and a thermal protection member (Item AHL) comprising a thermal protection material (Paragraph 0152), wherein a profile of the light-blocking layer (Item SDL) conforms to a profile of the buffer layer (Item BF) in a plan view, and wherein a first surface (Bottom surface) of the light-blocking layer (Item SDL) and a first surface (Top surface) of the buffer layer (BF) are in direct contact with each other.
Kim does not teach where the light blocking layer comprises a first base resin and light-blocking particles dispersed in the first base resin.
Park teaches where a light blocking layer (Item 240) comprises a first base resin and light blocking particles dispersed in the first base resin (Paragraph 0058).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the light blocking layer comprise a first base resin and light-blocking particles dispersed in the first base resin because these materials are known to act as an effective light shielding layer (Park Paragraph 0058).
Kim does not teach where the thickness of the buffer layer has a value that is more than three times greater than the thickness of the light blocking layer nor where the thickness of the light blocking layer is 20 micrometers or more.
Kim further teaches where the thickness of the buffer layer is at least 120 microns (Paragraph 0096) and further where the thickness of the buffer is appropriately adjusted (Paragraph 0103).
Zhang teaches where a light shielding material has a thickness of between 1 and 30 microns and more specifically where the thickness of the light shielding layer may be 20 microns (Paragraph 0040).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the thickness of the buffer layer have a value that is more than three times greater than the thickness of the light blocking layer, where the thickness of the light blocking layer is 20 micrometers or more because this thickness is known to be sufficient to stop light from traveling through a display such that a shielding effect occurs (Zhang Paragraphs 0039-0040) while the thickness of the buffer layer is sufficient to ensure the display is strong against point impact and surface impact (Kim Paragraph 0103). Further, “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)” (MPEP 2144.05).
Kim does not teach where the first surface of the light blocking layer and the first surface of the buffer layer are in direct contact with each other via a concave-convex pattern.
Lee teaches where a light blocking layer has a concavo-convex surface (Paragraph 0041).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first surface of the light blocking layer and the first surface of the buffer layer are in direct contact with each other via a concave-convex pattern because the concave-convex pattern increases the contact area between the surface of the light blocking layer and the buffer layer (Lee Paragraph 0041).
Under an alternative interpretation of Kim, Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2018/0013080) hereinafter “Kim” in view of Park et al. (US 2019/0013487) hereinafter “Park” and in further view of Zhang et al. (US 2022/0379406) hereinafter “Zhang” and Lee et al. (US 2015/0185516) hereinafter “Lee”.
Regarding claim 1, Fig. 9 of Kim teaches a display device (Paragraph 0002) comprising: a substrate (Bottommost portion of DP) comprising a first surface (Top surface) and a second surface (Bottom surface) opposite to the first surface; a display element layer (Item PXL) disposed on the first surface of the substrate (Bottommost portion of DP); and a panel bottom member disposed on the second surface of the substrate, wherein the panel bottom member comprises: a light-blocking layer (Item SDL); a buffer layer (Item BF) comprising a second base resin (Paragraph 0091); where the buffer layer is operative to prevent the permeation of air or moisture (Paragraphs 0142 and 0144 where an adhesive layer is included in the buffer layer between BF1 and BF2, where the material of the adhesive is acryl based copolymer which is known to block air and moisture; alternately, Paragraphs 0137 and 0140 state where the buffer layer may include Item SP which is a fiber reinforced plastic material which is known to be highly resistant to air and moisture permeation); and a thermal protection member (Item AHL) comprising a thermal protection material (Paragraph 0152), wherein a profile of the light-blocking layer (Item SDL) conforms to a profile of the buffer layer (Item BF) in a plan view, and wherein a first surface (Bottom surface) of the light-blocking layer (Item SDL) and a first surface (Top surface) of the buffer layer (BF) are in direct contact with each other.
Kim does not teach where the light blocking layer comprises a first base resin and light-blocking particles dispersed in the first base resin.
Park teaches where a light blocking layer (Item 240) comprises a first base resin and light blocking particles dispersed in the first base resin (Paragraph 0058).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the light blocking layer comprise a first base resin and light-blocking particles dispersed in the first base resin because these materials are known to act as an effective light shielding layer (Park Paragraph 0058).
Kim does not teach where the thickness of the buffer layer has a value that is more than three times greater than the thickness of the light blocking layer nor where the thickness of the light blocking layer is 20 micrometers or more.
Kim further teaches where the thickness of the buffer layer is at least 120 microns (Paragraph 0096) and further where the thickness of the buffer is appropriately adjusted (Paragraph 0103).
Zhang teaches where a light shielding material has a thickness of between 1 and 30 microns and more specifically where the thickness of the light shielding layer may be 20 microns (Paragraph 0040).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the thickness of the buffer layer have a value that is more than three times greater than the thickness of the light blocking layer, where the thickness of the light blocking layer is 20 micrometers or more because this thickness is known to be sufficient to stop light from traveling through a display such that a shielding effect occurs (Zhang Paragraphs 0039-0040) while the thickness of the buffer layer is sufficient to ensure the display is strong against point impact and surface impact (Kim Paragraph 0103). Further, “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)” (MPEP 2144.05).
Kim does not teach where the first surface of the light blocking layer and the first surface of the buffer layer are in direct contact with each other via a concave-convex pattern.
Lee teaches where a light blocking layer has a concavo-convex surface (Paragraph 0041).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first surface of the light blocking layer and the first surface of the buffer layer are in direct contact with each other via a concave-convex pattern because the concave-convex pattern increases the contact area between the surface of the light blocking layer and the buffer layer (Lee Paragraph 0041).
Regarding claim 11, Fig. 9 of Kim further teaches a lower film (Item PRT) disposed directly on the second surface (Bottom surface) of the substrate (Bottommost portion of Item DP), wherein a second surface (Top surface) of the light-blocking layer (Item SDL) is in direct contact with the lower film (Item PRT), and the second surface (Top surface) of the light-blocking layer (Item SDL) is opposite to the first surface (Bottom surface) of the light-blocking layer (Item SDL).
Claims 4 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2018/0013080) hereinafter “Kim” in view of Park et al. (US 2019/0013487) hereinafter “Park”, Zhang et al. (US 2022/0379406) hereinafter “Zhang” and Lee et al. (US 2015/0185516) hereinafter “Lee” and further in view of Hori et al. (US 2019/0187510) hereinafter “Hori”.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Kim, Park, Zhang and Lee teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where each of the first base resin, the second base resin and the third base resin is a solvent-free resin.
Hori teaches where a resin a preferably a solvent-free resin (Paragraph 0048).
It would have been obvious to have each of the first base resin, the second base resin and the third base resin be a solvent-free resin because when a solvent is not present it is not necessary to perform a heating for removal of a solvent such that no drying step during formation of the resin layer is required, saving fabrication time and energy (Hori Paragraph 0048).
Regarding claim 21, Fig. 9 of Kim further teaches where the panel bottom member comprises: a first base (Item SDL), and a thermal protection material (Item AHL), and wherein the panel bottom member conforms to a profile of the substrate in a plan view, and where the first base (SDL) directly contact a buffer layer (Item BF) .
Kim does not teach a first base being a resin no light blocking particles dispersed in the first base.
Park teaches where a light blocking layer (Item 240) comprises a first base resin and light blocking particles dispersed in the first base resin (Paragraph 0058).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the light blocking layer comprise a first base resin and light blocking particles dispersed in the first base resin because these materials are known to act as an effective light shielding layer (Park Paragraph 0058).
Kim does not teach where the resin is solvent free.
Hori teaches where a resin is preferably a solvent free resin (Paragraph 0048).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the resin be a solvent free resin because when a solvent is not present it is not necessary to perform a heating for removal of the solvent such that no drying step during formation of the resin layer is required, saving fabrication time and energy (Hori Paragraph 0048).
Kim does not teach where the first base directly contacts the buffer layer via a concave-convex pattern.
Lee teaches where a light blocking layer has a concavo-convex surface (Paragraph 0041).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first base directly contact the buffer layer via a concave convex pattern because the concave-convex pattern increases the contact area between the surface of the light blocking layer and the buffer layer (Lee Paragraph 0041).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2018/0013080) hereinafter “Kim” in view of Park et al. (US 2019/0013487) hereinafter “Park”, Zhang et al. (US 2022/0379406) hereinafter “Zhang”, Lee et al. (US 2015/0185516) hereinafter “Lee” and Hori et al. (US 2019/0187510) hereinafter “Hori” and in further view of Oya (US 2022/0018992) hereinafter “Oya”.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Kim, Park, Zhang, Lee and Hori teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Kim further teaches where the nano-metal particles comprises copper (Paragraph 0152).
Kim does not teach where a diameter of each of the nano-metal particles is equal to or less than 500 nanometers.
Oya teaches a light shielding film having copper nanometal particles (Paragraph 0236), where a diameter of each of the nanometal particles is 1-100 nanometers (Paragraph 0620).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a diameter of each of the nano-metal particles is equal to or less than 500 nanometers because this is known to act in combination with a resin as a light shielding layer (Oya Paragraph 0620).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2018/0013080) hereinafter “Kim” in view of Park et al. (US 2019/0013487) hereinafter “Park”, Zhang et al. (US 2022/0379406) hereinafter “Zhang” and Lee et al. (US 2015/0185516) hereinafter “Lee” and in further view of Pei et al. (US 2024/0306472) hereinafter “Pei”.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Kim, Park, Zhang and Lee teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Fig. 9 of Kim further teaches where the thermal protection member (Item AHL) is disposed on a second surface (Bottom surface) of the buffer layer (Item BF), and the second surface of the buffer layer is opposite to the first surface of the buffer layer.
Kim does not explicitly teach where an adhesive member is interposed between the second surface of the buffer layer and the thermal protection member.
Pei teaches where an adhesive member (Item 83) is interposed between a buffer layer (Item 82) and a thermal protection member (Item 84) (Paragraph 0111).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an adhesive member be interposed between the second surface of the buffer layer and the thermal protection member because a thermal protection member is known to be attached to a buffer layer through an adhesive layer (Pei Paragraph 0111).
Regarding claim 7, Fig. 9 of Kim further teaches where the thermal protection member (Item AHL) comprises copper (Paragraph 0152), and where a profile of the thermal protection member (Item AHL) conforms to a profile of the buffer layer (Item BF) is the plan view.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2018/0013080) hereinafter “Kim” in view of Park et al. (US 2019/0013487) hereinafter “Park”, Zhang et al. (US 2022/0379406) hereinafter “Zhang” and Lee et al. (US 2015/0185516) hereinafter “Lee” and in further view of Han et al. (US 2018/0157375) hereinafter “Han”.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Kim, Park, Zhang and Lee teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where the first surface of the light-blocking layer forms a first concave-convex pattern with a square wave profile, and wherein the first surface of the buffer layer forms a second concave-convex pattern with a square wave profile that is engaged with the first concave-convex pattern.
Fig. 4A of Han teaches where a first surface (Top surface) of a light-blocking layer (Item 534) forms a first concave-convex pattern (Paragraph 0131), and wherein the first surface (Bottom surface) of a buffer layer (Item 531) forms a second concave-convex pattern (Paragraph 0138) engaged with the first concave-convex pattern.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first surface of the light-blocking layer forms a first concave-convex pattern, and wherein the first surface of the buffer layer forms a second concave-convex pattern engaged with the first concave-convex pattern because the concave-convex surfaces reflect light (Han Paragraph 0131).
Fig. 2 of Lee teaches where a light blocking layer has a concavo-convex surface with a square wave profile (Paragraph 0041).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first concave-convex pattern and the second concave-convex pattern be a square wave profile because the concave-convex pattern having a square wave profile increases the contact area between the surface of the light blocking layer and the buffer layer (Lee Paragraph 0041).
Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2018/0013080) hereinafter “Kim” in view of Park et al. (US 2019/0013487) hereinafter “Park”, Zhang et al. (US 2022/0379406) hereinafter “Zhang” and Lee et al. (US 2015/0185516) hereinafter “Lee” and further in view of Hong et al. (US 2021/0202650) hereinafter “Hong”.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Kim, Park, Zhang and Lee teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where the substrate comprises one of glass and quartz.
Hong teaches where a display panel has a substrate which comprises one of glass and quartz (Paragraph 0058).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the substrate comprise one of glass and quartz because this material is known to be used in application where a rigid substrate is desired (Hong Paragraph 0058).
Under the alternative interpretation of Kim, Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2018/0013080) hereinafter “Kim” in view of Park et al. (US 2019/0013487) hereinafter “Park”, Zhang et al. (US 2022/0379406) hereinafter “Zhang” and Lee et al. (US 2015/0185516) hereinafter “Lee” and further in view of Hong et al. (US 2021/0202650) hereinafter “Hong”.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Kim, Park, Chen and Lee teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where the substrate comprises polyimide.
Hong teaches where a display panel has a substrate which comprises polyimide (Paragraph 0058).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the substrate comprise polyimide because this material is known to be used in applications where a plastic/flexible substrate is desired (Hong Paragraph 0058).
Claims 22 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2018/0013080) hereinafter “Kim” in view of Park et al. (US 2019/0013487) hereinafter “Park”, Zhang et al. (US 2022/0379406) hereinafter “Zhang”, Lee et al. (US 2015/0185516) hereinafter “Lee” and Hori et al. (US 2019/0187510) hereinafter “Hori” and in further view of Yamashita (US 2022/0173280) hereinafter “Yamashita”.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Kim, Park, Zhang, Lee and Hori teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where the first base includes one of a thiol resin, an epoxy cation resin, and an amine resin.
Yamashita teaches where a light shielding layer includes an epoxy resin (Paragraph 0172).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first base include an epoxy cation resin because an epoxy cation resin is known to be a base for a light shielding layer (Yamashita Paragraph 0172) and since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), and MPEP 2144.07 Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Kim, Park, Zhang, Lee and Hori teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Fig. 9 of Kim further teaches a second base (Item BF) in direct contact with the first base (Item SDL).
Kim does not teach where the second base comprises one of a thiol resin, an epoxy cation resin, and an amine resin.
Yamashita teaches where a layer includes an epoxy resin (Paragraph 0172).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the second base include an epoxy cation resin because an epoxy cation resin is known to be a base for a resin layer (Yamashita Paragraph 0172) and since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), and MPEP 2144.07 Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose
Kim does not teach where the second resin is solvent free.
Hori teaches where a resinis preferably a solvent-free resin (Paragraph 0048).
It would have been obvious to have the second base resin be a solvent-free resin because when a solvent is not present it is not necessary to perform a heating for removal of a solvent such that no drying step during formation of the resin layer is required, saving fabrication time and energy (Hori Paragraph 0048).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2018/0013080) hereinafter “Kim” in view of Park et al. (US 2019/0013487) hereinafter “Park”, Zhang et al. (US 2022/0379406) hereinafter “Zhang”, Lee et al. (US 2015/0185516) hereinafter “Lee”, Hori et al. (US 2019/0187510) hereinafter “Hori” and Yamashita (US 2022/0173280) hereinafter “Yamashita” and in further view of Hu (US 2024/0040916) hereinafter “Hu”.
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Kim, Park, Zheng, Lee, Hori and Yamashita teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where a thickness of the first base ranges from about 100 micrometers to about 120 micrometers.
Hu teaches where a light shielding layer is between 100 and 150 micrometers (Paragraph 0062).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the thickness of the first base range from out 100 to 120 micrometers because this thickness is known to be used in applications that do not require folding (Hu paragraph 0062).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2018/0013080) hereinafter “Kim” in view of Park et al. (US 2019/0013487) hereinafter “Park”, Zhang et al. (US 2022/0379406) hereinafter “Zhang”, Lee et al. (US 2015/0185516) hereinafter “Lee”, Hori et al. (US 2019/0187510) hereinafter “Hori”, Yamashita (US 2022/0173280) hereinafter “Yamashita” and Hu (US 2024/0040916) hereinafter “Hu” and in further view of Oya (US 2022/0018992) hereinafter “Oya”.
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Kim, Park, Zhang, Lee Hori, Yamashita and Hu teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Kim does not teach where nano-metal particles are dispersed in the first base.
Park teaches where a light blocking layer (Item 240) comprises a first base resin and light blocking particles dispersed in the first base resin (Paragraph 0058).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the light blocking layer comprise a first base resin and light-blocking particles dispersed in the first base resin because these materials are known to act as an effective light shielding layer (Park Paragraph 0058).
Kim does not teach where the light blocking particles comprise carbon black.
Park further teaches where the light blocking particles comprise carbon back (Paragraph 0058).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have light blocking particles comprise carbon black because carbon black is known to act as light shielding particles (Park Paragraph 0058) and since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), and MPEP 2144.07 Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose
Kim further teaches where the nano-metal particles comprises copper (Paragraph 0152).
Kim does not teach where a diameter of each of the nano-metal particles is equal to or less than 500 nanometers.
Oya teaches a light shielding film having copper nanometal particles (Paragraph 0236), where a diameter of each of the nanometal particles is 1-100 nanometers (Paragraph 0620).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a diameter of each of the nano-metal particles is equal to or less than 500 nanometers because this is known to act in combination with a resin as a light shielding layer (Oya Paragraph 0620).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2018/0013080) hereinafter “Kim” in view of Park et al. (US 2019/0013487) hereinafter “Park”, Zhang et al. (US 2022/0379406) hereinafter “Zhang”, Lee et al. (US 2015/0185516) hereinafter “Lee”, Hori et al. (US 2019/0187510) hereinafter “Hori” andYamashita (US 2022/0173280) hereinafter “Yamashita” and in further view of Toyoshima et al. (US 2016/0062509) hereinafter “Toyoshima” and Hu (US 2024/0040916) hereinafter “Hu”.
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Kim, Park, Zhang, Lee, Hori and Yamashita teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where a glass-transition temperature of the second base is -30 degrees in Celcius or less.
Toyoshima teaches where resin has a temperature from -30 degrees Celcius to 60 degrees Celcius (Paragraph 0059).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before an effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a glass-transition temperature of the second base be -30 degrees in Celcius or less because this is the temperature at which a resin has oblique stretching occur (Toyoshima Paragraph 0059).
Kim does not teach where a thickness of the first base is smaller than a thickness of the second base.
Kim further teaches where a thickness of a buffer layer is about 200 micrometers (Paragraph 0096).
Hu teaches where a thickness of a light shielding layer is between 100 and 150 micrometers (Paragraph 0062).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the thickness of the first base range from out 100 to 120 micrometers because this thickness is known to be used in applications that do not require folding (Hu paragraph 0062).
When the thickness of the light shielding layer (first base resin) is 100-150 micrometers and the buffer layer (second base resin) is about 200 micrometers, the thickness of the first base will be smaller than a thickness of the second base.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2018/0013080) hereinafter “Kim” in view of Shimizu et al. (US 2022/0246594) hereinafter “Shimizu”, Park et al. (US 2009/0213296) hereinafter ”Park2” and Lee et al. (US 2015/0185516) hereinafter “Lee” and in further view of Zhang et al. (US 2022/0379406) hereinafter “Zhang”.
Regarding claim 28, Fig. 9 of Kim teaches a method of fabricating a display device (Paragraph 0002), the method comprising: forming a display element layer (Item PXL) on a first surface of a substrate (Bottom portion of Item DP); applying a resin for a light-blocking layer (Item SDL) on a second surface of the substrate opposite to the first surface; and applying a resin for a buffer layer (Item BF) directly on the light-blocking layer (Item SDL); where the buffer layer is operative to prevent the permeation of air or moisture (Paragraphs 0142 and 0144 where an adhesive layer is included in the buffer layer between BF1 and BF2, where the material of the adhesive is acryl based copolymer which is known to block air and moisture; alternately, Paragraphs 0137 and 0140 state where the buffer layer may include Item SP which is a fiber reinforced plastic material which is known to be highly resistant to air and moisture permeation).
Kim does not explicitly teach forming the light-blocking layer by curing the resin for the light-blocking layer applied on the second surface.
Shimizu teaches forming a light shielding layer (Item 25) by applying a uncured resin on a surface and then curing the resin (Paragraph 0063).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the light-blocking layer by curing the resin for the light-blocking layer applied on the second surface because “(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; and/or (D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results” supports a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP 2143; See also KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Kim does not teach where the light blocking layer contacts the buffer layer via a concave-convex pattern that comprises a square wave profile.
Fig. 2 of Lee teaches where a light blocking layer has a concavo-convex surface with a square wave profile (Paragraph 0041).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the light blocking layer contacts the buffer layer via a concave-convex pattern that comprises a square wave profile because the concave-convex pattern having a square wave profile increases the contact area between the surface of the light blocking layer and the buffer layer (Lee Paragraph 0041).
Kim does not teach forming the buffer layer by curing the resin for the buffer layer applied directly on the light-blocking layer.
Park2 teaches forming a buffer layer (Item 156) by applying a uncured resin on a surface and then curing the resin (Paragraph 0054).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the buffer layer by curing the resin for the buffer layer applied directly on the light blocking layer because “(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; and/or (D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results” supports a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP 2143; See also KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Kim does not teach where the thickness of the light blocking layer is 20 micrometers or more.
Zhang teaches where a light shielding material has a thickness of between 1 and 30 microns and more specifically where the thickness of the light shielding layer may be 20 microns (Paragraph 0040).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the thickness of the light blocking layer is 20 micrometers or more because this thickness is known to be sufficient to stop light from traveling through a display such that a shielding effect occurs (Zhang Paragraphs 0039-0040). Further, “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)” (MPEP 2144.05).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s REMARKS, filed 08/07/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Zhang.
Applicant's arguments filed 08/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, the Applicant argues that Lee does not teach the buffer layer between light blocking layer and a buffer layer. However, Lee is relied upon for why one having ordinary skill in the art would use a square wave convo-convex structure between the light blocking structure and the buffer layer. The Kim reference provides the teaching of the spatial relationship between the buffer layer and the light blocking layer. Lee is brought in to teach why one having ordinary skill in the art would desire a square wave concavo-convex interface between them. Lee teaches that a square wave concavo-convex interface between two layers (a light blocking layer and an adjacent layer) increases the contact area between the surface of the light blocking layer and an adjacent layer. Thus, the Examiner does not find the Applicant’s arguments persuasive and maintains the reliance on Lee for the portion of the rejection discussing the square wave concavo-convex structure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC K ASHBAHIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5187. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5:30 PM.
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, Matthew Landau can be reached at 571-272-1731. 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.
/ERIC K ASHBAHIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Prosecution Insights