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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/24/2023; 05/07/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-8, 10 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Shimatsu (US. Pub: 2022/0085335 A1) of record.
Regarding claim 1, Shimatsu discloses (in at least figs. 1 and 2) a display device comprising: a first substrate (11) including emission areas (30) and a peripheral area surrounding the emission areas (see figs. 1 and 2); a light emitting element layer (33) on the first substrate and overlapping the emission areas (30); a plurality of light control patterns (50) overlapping the emission areas and the peripheral area and on the light emitting element layer (see at least fig. 1); and a transmission pattern (35) between the plurality of light control patterns (50) and having a refractive index of about 1.2 or more and less than about 1.5 ([0273]; i.e. n=1.25).
Regarding claim 2, Shimatsu discloses (in at least figs. 1 and 2) a planarization layer (36) covering the plurality of the light control patterns (50) and the transmission pattern (35).
Regarding claim 5, Shimatsu discloses (in at least figs. 1 and 2) the planarization layer (36) includes an organic matrix and inorganic particles dispersed in the organic matrix ([0177]).
Regarding claim 6, Shimatsu discloses (in at least figs. 1 and 2) a second substrate (10) overlapping the emission areas (30) and the peripheral area and on the transmission pattern (35).
Regarding claim 7, Shimatsu discloses (in at least figs. 1 and 2) the second substrate (12) includes glass ([0213]).
Regarding claim 8, Shimatsu discloses (in at least figs. 1 and 2) a refractive index of the second substrate (12) is greater than the refractive index of the transmission pattern (35; [0260]; [0273]; i.e. n=1.45 and n=1.25).
Regarding claim 10, Shimatsu discloses (in at least [0180]-[0196]) the transmission pattern (35) includes an organic matrix and inorganic particles dispersed in the organic matrix.
Regarding claim 12, Shimatsu discloses ([0180]-[0196]) the organic matrix includes acrylic resin and epoxy resin and the inorganic particles include hollow silica.
Regarding claim 13, Shimatsu discloses (in at least figs. 1 and 2) the light control patterns (50) are arranged side by side in a plan view (see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 14, Shimatsu discloses (in at least figs. 1 and 2) the plurality of the light control patterns (50) is arranged at equal interval from each other.
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.
Claim(s) 3-4, 9, 11 and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimatsu (US. Pub: 2022/0085335 A1) of record.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Shimatsu does not expressly discloses a refractive index of the planarization layer is equal to the refractive index of the transmission pattern; and the planarization layer includes a same material as the transmission pattern.
However, Shimatsu discloses (in at least figs. 1 and 2) the planarization layer (36) has a refractive index in the range of 1.38 to 1.64 ([0174]-[0177]), and the transmission pattern has a refractive index of 1.25 ([0273]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to form the planarization layer of Shimatsu with a material that has the same refractive index with the transmission pattern in order to reduce the manufacturing steps of the device.
Regarding claim 9, Shimatsu does not expressly disclose a refractive index of the second substrate is 1.5.
However, Shimatsu discloses ([0260]) the second substrate has a refractive index of 1.45.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to form the second substrate of Shimatsu with a material having a refractive of 1.45, 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.
Regarding claim 11, Shimatsu discloses all the claimed limitations except for the organic matrix includes polysiloxane and the inorganic particles include silica clusters.
However, Shimatsu discloses ([0180]-[0196]) the organic matrix includes hollow silica.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to consider using a polysiloxane and silica clusters particles to form the transmission pattern of Shimatsu, 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.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Shimatsu does not expressly disclose the plurality of the light control patterns includes molybdenum-tantalum oxide (MTO); and wherein each of the plurality of light control patterns has a multilayer structure and the multilayer structure is at least one selected from the group consisting of MTO/Mo, MTO/Cu, MTO/Al, MTO/Mo/MTO, MTO/Cu/MTO, and MTO/Al/MTO.
However, it is well-known in the art to form light control patterns includes molybdenum-tantalum oxide (MTO) and multilayer structure selected from the group consisting of MTO/Mo, MTO/Cu, MTO/Al, MTO/Mo/MTO, MTO/Cu/MTO, and MTO/Al/MTO as evident by Bae et al. (US. Pub: 2021/0013455 A~ hereinafter “Bae”) at least fig. 5 ([0156]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the light control material of Bae in the device of Shimatsu, 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.
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Shimatsu discloses (in at least fig. 1) the transmission pattern includes: a first transmission pattern (35); but is silent about a second transmission pattern alternately arranged with the first transmission pattern, and wherein the first transmission pattern and the second transmission pattern include a same material, and a height of the second transmission pattern is greater than a height of the first transmission pattern.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to consider forming a second transmission pattern alternately arranged with the first transmission pattern of Shimatsu wherein the first transmission pattern and the second transmission pattern include a same material, and a height of the second transmission pattern is greater than a height of the first transmission pattern, since it has been held mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. Also, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimatsu (US. Pub: 2022/0085335 A1) of record in view of Lee et al. (US. Pub: 2020/0020885 A1~ hereinafter “Lee”).
Regarding claim 19, Shimatsu discloses (in at least figs. 1 and 2) an encapsulation layer (34’) between the light emitting element layer (33) and the plurality of light control patterns (50).
Shimatsu does not expressly a touch sensing layer between the encapsulation layer and the plurality of light control patterns.
Lee in the same field of endeavor discloses (in at least fig. 4) a touch sensing unit disposed between the display and the window member ([0021]). Lee further discloses ([0140]) “when the display device includes the touch sensing unit, the second substrate 200 may be provided as an encapsulation substrate.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the display device of Shimatsu with the touch sensing unit of Lee wherein the touch sensing unit layer is disposed between the encapsulation layer and the plurality of light control patterns for the benefit of providing a touch screen type display device.
Regarding claim 20, Shimatsu as modified by Lee discloses (in at least figs. 1 and 2) a color filter layer (CF) between the touch sensing layer ([0140] of LEE) and the plurality of light control patterns (50).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELMITO BREVAL whose telephone number is (571)270-3099. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th~ 7:30-5:30.
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, James R. Greece can be reached at 571-272-3711. 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.
ELMITO BREVAL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2875
/ELMITO BREVAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875