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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-16 in the reply filed on 1/6/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al (US 2021/0126219).
With respect to Claim 1, Lee et al discloses a display device (Figures 5-6), comprising a display panel (Figure 5, DP) including a substrate (Figure 6, SUB), a driving device (Figure 5, DDV) dispersed on the substrate, and a light emitting device (Figure 6, OLED) disposed on the substrate and electrically connected to the driving device, a window (Figure 12, WIN_1, space between the PTL, printed layer) disposed on the display panel (Figure 12, DP) ; a printed layer (Figure 12, PTL) disposed between the display panel and the window, where the printed layer includes a light blocking material (paragraph 112); a first functional layer (Figure 12, ASL) disposed between the display panel ( Figure 12, DP) and the window Figure 12, WIN_1, space between the PTL, printed layer) ; a second functional layer (Figures 11-12,AL, AGL) disposed on the window; a third functional layer (Figures 11-12, AL, ARL) disposed on the second functional layer; and a fourth functional layer (Figures 11-12, AL, AFL) disposed on the third functional layer. See Figures 5-6 and 11-12 and corresponding text, especially paragraphs 52-53, 63-65 and 94-111.
With respect to Claim 2, Lee discloses wherein the printed layer (Figure 12, PTL) defines an opening exposing at least a portion of the window, and wherein the first functional layer (Figure 12, ASL) is disposed in the opening. See Figure 12 and corresponding text, especially paragraphs 94-111.
With respect to Claim 3, Lee discloses wherein the first functional layer (Figure 12, ASL) is disposed between the window and the printed layer (Figure 12, PTL) , and wherein the printed layer defines an opening exposing at least a portion of the first functional layer. See Figure 12 and corresponding text, especially paragraphs 94-111.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2021/0126219).
Lee et al is relied upon as discussed above.
However, Lee et al do not disclose the use of the physical characteristics (index of refraction or thickness) or the use of multiple layers or the use of an antireflection layer comprising a color filter and a light blocking layer.
With respect to Claim 10, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention to select the optimum refractive index of the functional layers in the device of Lee, for their known benefit in the art of reducing scattering or reflection of the light. The use of an optimum physical property for its known benefit would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to Claim 11, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention to select the optimum thicknesses in the device of Lee, as changes in size are prima facie obvious. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to Claim 12, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention to use duplicate layers in the device of Lee, as duplication of known parts for their known benefit, is prima facie obvious in the absence of unobvious results. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
With respect to Claim 13, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention to select the optimum thicknesses in the device of Lee, as changes in size are prima facie obvious. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to Claim 14, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention to use duplicate layers in the device of Lee, as duplication of known parts for their known benefit, is prima facie obvious in the absence of unobvious results. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
With respect to Claim 15, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention to select the optimum thicknesses in the device of Lee, as changes in size are prima facie obvious. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to Claim 16, Lee also discloses the use of anti-reflective layers. See Claim 20. Moreover, the Examiner takes Official Notice that the use of color filters in display devices is well known in the art. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention to use color filters in the device of Lee, as the use of known components for their known benefit would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER G GHYKA whose telephone number is (571)272-1669. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-6.
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, Christine Kim can be reached at 571 272-8458. 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.
AGG
March 2, 2026
/ALEXANDER G GHYKA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812