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 .
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 11-18 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwami (JP 2013037682, cited by Applicant)
Regarding claim 11, Iwami teaches a image display device 40 (Fig.4) laminate, comprising: a wiring board 10A that includes a substrate 12 that has transparency and a mesh wiring layer (14a, 14b) that is disposed on the substrate; a first transparent adhesive layer (24a, 26a); and a second transparent adhesive layer (24b, 26b), wherein a partial region of the substrate 12 (Fig.2) is disposed in a partial region between the first transparent adhesive layer (24a, 26a) and the second transparent adhesive layer (24b,26b),
a difference in refractive index between the substrate and the first transparent adhesive layer is 0.1 or less, a difference in refractive index between the second transparent adhesive layer and the substrate is 0.1 or less, and a difference in refractive index between the first transparent adhesive layer and the second transparent adhesive layer is 0.1 or less.
(see in Iwami:
The refractive index n2 of the second protective layer 26b is equal to or close to the refractive index n0 of the transparent substrate 12.
Next, an optical phenomenon when the difference in refractive index between the transparent substrate 12 and the first protective layer 26a is small, that is, when the relative refractive index nr1 is a value close to 1, will be described with reference to FIGS. 17A and 17B. To do.
When the relative refractive index nr1 is a value close to 1, the interface transmittance approaches 1 (interface reflectivity is 0) so that it can be easily derived from optical considerations
AND
That is, by setting the relative refractive index nr1 of the transparent substrate 12 and the first protective layer 26a to a value close to 1, the optical density contrast caused by the fine metal wires 16 can be reduced. Thereby, in the planar view of the display apparatus 40, the pattern of the metal fine wire 16 becomes difficult to be visually recognized by the user.
Also see Abstract).
Iwami does not teach a first transparent adhesive layer that has an area that is broader than the substrate; and a second transparent adhesive layer that has an area that is broader than the substrate.
However, Iwami teaches in Fig.4, the conductive sheet is connected externally to elements 50,52,54, where as in Fig.5, Iwami teaches conductive patterns 70a formed on only part of the conductive sheet 10A. Therefore, from the disclosure of Fig.4 and 5,
it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to form part of the conductive sheet extending external to the display unit, such that it serves as a conductive connecting part, connecting to the controls 52 and 54, in order to bypass the additional cable element and thereby directly get power to the conductive sheet.
Regarding claim 12, Iwami teaches an image display device, wherein, at least one of a thickness of the first transparent adhesive layer and a thickness of the second transparent adhesive layer is 2 times a thickness of the substrate or more.
See in Iwami:
a thickness of the transparent substrate 12 of 20 μm,
A first protective layer 26a and a second protective layer 26b made of the same material were attached to both surfaces of the developed photosensitive material. As will be described later, a protective film having a different refractive index n1 was used for each sample of the conductive sheet 10. Moreover, as the 1st contact bonding layer 24a and the 2nd contact bonding layer 24b (refer FIG. 2), the commercially available adhesive tape (NSS50-1310; New Tac Kasei Co., Ltd. make, thickness 50 micrometers)
Regarding claim 13, Iwami teaches an image display device, wherein a thickness of the first transparent adhesive layer and a thickness of the second transparent adhesive layer are same as each other, and the thickness of the first transparent adhesive layer and the thickness of the second transparent adhesive layer are 1.5 times the thickness of the substrate or more.
See in Iwami:
a thickness of the transparent substrate 12 of 20 μm,
A first protective layer 26a and a second protective layer 26b made of the same material were attached to both surfaces of the developed photosensitive material. As will be described later, a protective film having a different refractive index n1 was used for each sample of the conductive sheet 10. Moreover, as the 1st contact bonding layer 24a and the 2nd contact bonding layer 24b (refer FIG. 2), the commercially available adhesive tape (NSS50-1310; New Tac Kasei Co., Ltd. make, thickness 50 micrometers)
Regarding claim 14, Iwami teaches an image display device, wherein a material of the first transparent adhesive layer and a material of the second transparent adhesive layer are same as each other (see in Iwami: The material of the second adhesive layer 24b may be the same as or different from the first adhesive layer 24a).
Regarding claim 15, Iwami teaches an image display device, wherein a material of the first transparent adhesive layer and a material of the second transparent adhesive layer are each an acrylic-based resin (see in Iwami: Examples of the material of the first adhesive layer 24a and the second adhesive layer 24b include a wet laminate adhesive, a dry laminate adhesive, or a hot melt adhesive. In particular, a dry laminating adhesive having a wide variety of materials that can be bonded and having a high bonding speed is preferable. Specifically, an amino resin adhesive, a phenol resin adhesive, a chloroprene rubber adhesive, a nitrile rubber adhesive, an epoxy adhesive, a urethane adhesive, a reactive acrylic adhesive).
Regarding claim 16, Iwami teaches an image display device, wherein a thickness of the substrate is 50 micrometers or less.
See in Iwami: a thickness of the transparent substrate 12 of 20 μm,
Regarding claim 17, Iwami teaches an image display device, wherein a dummy wiring layer that is electrically independent from the mesh wiring layer is provided around the mesh wiring layer.
See in Iwami:
A plurality of first dummy patterns (76a in Fig.9B and 10) disposed in a gap between adjacent first conductive patterns and electrically insulated from each of the first conductive patterns;
The conductive sheet, wherein a wiring density of the first dummy pattern is equal to a wiring density of the first conductive pattern.
Regarding claim 18, Iwami teaches an image display device, wherein a plurality of dummy wiring layers (description of 76a throughout Iwami) that are electrically independent from the mesh wiring layer (see in Iwami: That is, the first dummy pattern 76a is in a state where it is electrically insulated from each first conductive pattern 70a) are provided around the mesh wiring layer (70a), and the plurality of dummy wiring layers have different aperture ratios from each other (see in Iwami: Furthermore, the outline of each first dummy pattern 76a may take various shapes including a triangle, a rectangle, a circle, and the like. Note: the aperture ratio of a dummy mesh antenna (or any aperture antenna) depends on its shape, because the aperture ratio is defined as the ratio of the effective aperture area to the physical aperture area).
Regarding claim 40, Iwami teaches an image display device, comprising: the image display device laminate; and a display device (30 in Fig.4) that is laminated on the image display device laminate (see in Iwami: As shown in FIG. 5A, the first sensor unit disposed on the display area of the display unit 30).
Claims 19, 23 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwami (JP 2013037682, cited by Applicant) in view of Frey (US 20130299214 A1)
Regarding claim 19, Iwami teaches an image display device 40 (Fig.4) laminate, comprising:
a wiring board 10A that includes a substrate 12 that has transparency,
a mesh wiring layer (14a, 14b) that is disposed on the substrate,
and a protective layer 26a (the first protective layer 26a is made of a highly translucent material containing resin, glass, and silicon) that covers the mesh wiring layer;
a first dielectric layer (24a, 26a);
and a second dielectric layer (24b, 26b).
Iwami does not explicitly teach: a partial region of the wiring board is disposed in a partial region between the first dielectric layer and the second dielectric layer.
However, Iwami teaches in Fig.4, the conductive sheet is connected externally to elements 50,52,54, where as in Fig.5, Iwami teaches conductive patterns 70a formed on only part of the conductive sheet 10A. Therefore, from the disclosure of Fig.4 and 5,
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to form part of the conductive sheet extending external to the display unit, such that it serves as a conductive connecting part, connecting to the controls, in order to bypass the additional cable element and thereby directly get power to the conductive sheet.
Iwami does not teach a transmittance of visible light rays of the image display device laminate in a region in which the wiring board, the first dielectric layer, and the second dielectric layer are present as a first transmittance, (the first transmittance is 83% or more and 90% or less)
and
with a transmittance of visible light rays of the image display device laminate in a region in which the first dielectric layer and the second dielectric layer are present and the wiring board is not present as a second transmittance, (a difference between the first transmittance and the second transmittance is 1.5% or less).
However, Iwami discloses:
FIG. 38 is a graph showing an example of the relationship between the arrangement density of the seed points SD and the overall transmittance of the mesh pattern 20. This figure shows that the covering area of the wiring increases as the arrangement density increases, and as a result, the overall transmittance of the mesh pattern 20 decreases.
Furthermore, Frey teaches a conductive mesh pattern, wherein:
In some embodiments, the open area of a region of the mesh conductor micropattern (e.g., a visible light transparent conductive region) is between 80% and 99.5%, in other embodiments between 90% and 99.5%, in other embodiments between 95% and 99%, in other embodiments between 96% and 99.5%, in other embodiments between 97% and 98%, and in other embodiments up to 99.95%.
and
The nanostructured substrate having a conductor micropattern disposed thereon was measured to have visible light transmittance of 89.5%, transmitted haze of 1.58%, and transmitted light clarity of 99.6%.
Further regarding the transmittance, Frey discloses with respect to the transmittance, and Table 4, wherein %T stands for transmittance:
[0248] Results of electrical and transmitted optical measurements for laminated conductor micropattern examples are reported in Table 4. Entries assigned to TAC and PET were derived from measurements made for each substrate type, laminated to glass as described above (baseline data). The light transmittance (% T), clarity (% C), and transmitted haze (% H) were measured using a Haze-Gard Plus (BYK-Gardner, Columbia, Md.).
PNG
media_image1.png
157
327
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, Frey teaches 1. The mesh pattern have different transmittance values, based on the density. 2. The density values can be in the 90-93.9 range as shown in the Table.
Therefore, from the teachings of Frey, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to provide the transmittance as claimed and wherein the difference is 1.5% or less, since where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the “optimum range” by routine experimentation or simulation, based no design options such as the density of the mesh, involves only routine skill in the art, in order to achieve balance of the transmittance and the antenna efficiency.
Regarding claim 23, Iwami in view of Frey teaches an image display device, wherein, following performing work of bending the image display device laminate 180 degrees following a perimeter of a cylinder that is 1 mm in diameter and then straightening out, for 100 times, an amount of increase in resistance value of the mesh wiring layer is 20% or less (the recitations are drawn to method steps and are therefore not germane to the product claim).
Regarding claim 26, Iwami in view of Frey teaches an image display device, comprising: the image display device laminate; and a display device (30 in Fig.4) that is laminated on the image display device laminate (see in Iwami: As shown in FIG. 5A, the first sensor unit disposed on the display area of the display unit 30).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwami (JP 2013037682, cited by Applicant) in view of Frey (US 20130299214 A1) and further in view of Ino (CN 111712888 A)
Regarding claim 20, Iwami in view of Frey teaches the invention set forth in claim 10 above, but is silent regarding a haze value of the image display device laminate in a region in which the wiring board, the first dielectric layer, and the second dielectric layer are present as a first haze value
and
with a haze value of the image display device laminate in a region in which
the first dielectric layer and the second dielectric layer are present and the wiring board is not present as a second haze value,
the first haze value is 0.5% or more and 2% or less, and a difference between the first haze value and the second haze value is 0.5% or less.
Ino discloses a conductive film (Fig.1 and 2); wherein the haze value is disclosed as:
It should be noted that the conductive film 10 of the conductive part is not patterned, but it is a conductive film with a patterned conductive part, haze value is less than 5 %, and more preferably 3 % or less, less than 1.5 %, less than 1.2 %, or less than 1.1 %. It should be noted that, in the laminated body integrated with multilayer overlapping of the touch panel sensor with a conductive film, and also preferably is the same haze value.
Therefore, Ino discloses a haze value for a conductive film 10, having a pattern, to be less than 2% and from the teachings of Ino, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to achieve a haze value of less than 2%, and a difference of 0.5%; as Ino already teaches a haze within the claimed % for the device with the pattern, in order to achieve balance of the transmittance/scattering and the antenna efficiency.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwami (JP 2013037682, cited by Applicant) in view of Frey (US 20130299214 A1) and further in view of Yamashita (JP 2011066692 A)
Regarding claim 21, Iwami in view of Frey teaches the invention set forth in claim 19 above, but is silent regarding: a diffuse light reflectance of the image display device laminate measured in conformance with JIS Z 8722 in a region in which the wiring board, the first dielectric layer, and the second dielectric layer are present as a first diffuse light reflectance,
and
with a diffuse light reflectance of the image display device laminate measured in conformance with JIS Z 8722 in a region in which the first dielectric layer and the second dielectric layer are present and the wiring board is not present as a second diffuse light reflectance, the first diffuse light reflectance is 0.05% or more and 1% or less, and a difference between the first diffuse light reflectance and the second diffuse light reflectance is 1.5% or less.
Yamashita discloses various examples of measurements with total
reflectance and diffused reflectance, with JISZ8722; such as:
About the metal foil of the state before lamination | stacking on a transparent base material, this metal foil which measured the surface planned to adhere | attach on the transparent base material side based on JISZ8722-1982 without interposing any layer in between.
Transparent antenna The transparent antenna according to the present invention is provided with an aluminum pattern layer having a plurality of openings and a line portion surrounding and partitioning the transparent substrate on one surface of the transparent substrate, and , the ratio of the total light reflectance was measured in conformity with JIS Z 8722 of the transparent adhesive layer side surface of the aluminum pattern layer .sub.(R SCI) diffuse light reflectance for .sub.(R SCE) (R SCE / R SCI) is It is 0.4 or less.
Specifically, on one surface of a transparent substrate, the surface of aluminum foil bonded via a transparent adhesive layer, diffuse light reflectance to the total light reflectance was measured in accordance with JIS Z8722 (R .sub.SCI) If the ratio of the .sub.(R SCE) (R SCE / R SCI) is in the range of 0.4 or less, regardless of the value of the arithmetical average roughness Ra of that surface, transmitted through the opening portion of the aluminum pattern layer after the etching treatment. The haze of light to be reduced can be reduced.
The opening of the aluminum pattern layer provided on the transparent substrate, that is, the exposed surface of the transparent adhesive layer, has a fine surface (a smooth surface with low light scattering property) facing the transparent substrate side of the aluminum thin film. The uneven shape is transferred. Therefore, the ratio (R .sub.SCE ) of the diffused light reflectance (R .sub.SCE ) to the total light reflectance (R .sub.SCI ) measured according to JIS Z 8722 on the surface of the transparent adhesive layer exposed from the opening of the aluminum pattern layer. / R .sub.SCI ) and the total light ray measured in accordance with JIS Z 8722 of the line part of the aluminum pattern layer, that is, the surface of the aluminum pattern layer in contact with the transparent adhesive layer (smooth surface with low light scattering property) It is considered that the ratio (R .sub.SCE / R .sub.SCI ) of the diffused light reflectance (R .sub.SCE ) to the reflectance (R .sub.SCI ) is equivalent.
Therefore, from the teachings of Ishibashi, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to achieve the difference in reflectance as claimed, since where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the “optimum range” by routine experimentation or simulation, based on known design criteria, as already indicated in Yamashita, involves only routine skill in the art, in order to improve the haze value.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwami (JP 2013037682, cited by Applicant) in view of Frey and further in view of Prest (US 20220117094 A1, the provisional application is relied upon in the rejection)
Regarding claim 22, Iwami in view of Frey teaches the invention set forth in claim 19 above, but is silent regarding a dielectric loss tangent of the substrate is 0.002 or less.
Prest teaches on page 34, a display device wherein:
[0111] The cover member 634 may be positioned over one or more internal components of the electronic device 600 and may also be configured to allow transmission of electromagnetic signals to and/or from the internal component. As an example, a glass ceramic material of the cover member 634 may be configured to be RF-transmissive and may have a dielectric constant suitable for use over a radio-frequency antenna or wireless charging system. In some cases, the material or combination of materials of the cover member 634 may have a dielectric constant (also referred to as the relative permittivity) having a value greater than or equal to 1 and less than 30, less than 20, less than 10, less than 7, or less than 5. In some cases, the dielectric constant may be from 3 to 7. In some cases, the loss tangent may range from about 0.002 to about 0.05, or from about 0.002 to about 0.025.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to form a substrate, with a dielectric loss tangent of the substrate is 0.002 or less, in the device of Iwami in view of Frey, as disclosed in Prest, in order to improve the efficiency of the substrate.
Claims 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwami (JP 2013037682, cited by Applicant) in view of Frey and further in view of Lee (US 20230223708 A1)
Regarding claims 24 and 25, Iwami in view of Frey teaches the invention set forth in claim 19 above, but is silent regarding: the mesh wiring layer functions as a millimeter wave antenna (for claim 24). and wherein the mesh wiring layer is configured as an array antenna (for claim 25).
Lee discloses:
[0006] In millimeter Wave (mmWave) communication, high free-space path loss occurs, and thus an array antenna structure having a high antenna gain may be used to overcome the loss. Due to the high linearity of the mmWave frequency, radio wave radiation from an antenna may be hindered by a display or a housing including a conductive material. In order to address the hinderance of radio wave radiation from the antenna, a conductive layer including a mesh shape on the front surface (e.g., the surface on which a screen is displayed) of a display may be used as an antenna. When a patch-type antenna is located on the front surface of a display, a coverage area of the patch-type antenna may be limited in the front direction. For example, the patch-type antenna may radiate a millimeter wave signal toward the front surface of the display. In addition, the patch-type antenna using a conductive mesh structure may have low radiation efficiency due to a large sheet resistance value of a conductive pattern formed in the mesh structure. Since the patch-type antenna requires a microstrip-type feeder having at least a halfwave length to operate normally, the radiation efficiency of the antenna may be reduced.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the antennas, as disclosed in Lee, in the device of Iwami in view of Frey, in order to use a wireless antenna within a display device.
Claims 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwami (JP 2013037682, cited by Applicant) in view of Frey (US 20130299214 A1) and further in view of Ishibashi (WO 2006106982 A1)
Regarding claim 27, Iwami in view of Frey teaches the mesh wiring layer includes a plurality of wiring lines, and the mesh wiring layer is made up of a predetermined unit pattern that is repetitively arrayed in a first direction and in a second direction that is different from the first direction (x and y orientations in Fig.5A-5B to 10 and the various conductive pattern shapes up to Fig.57 in Iwami) , the display device has a plurality of pixels that are repetitively arrayed in the first direction and in the second direction,
but does not teach a pitch of the unit pattern in the first direction is (N - 0.05) times (where N is a natural number) a pitch of the pixels in the first direction or less, or is (N + 0.05) times the pitch of the pixels in the first direction or more, and a pitch of the unit pattern in the second direction is (M - 0.05) times (where M is a natural number) a pitch of the pixels in the second direction or less, or is (M + 0.05) times the pitch of the pixels in the second direction or more.
It is well known in the art to design and calculate the size of the mesh antenna patterns with respect to the size of the pixels.
Ishibashi discloses patterns in the first and second directions such as in Fig.25-31 and Fig. 4-6 and 9 and also discloses:
[0094] Further, in order to prevent the display transparent antenna from generating a moire pattern with respect to the mesh pattern forming the display pixels, the mesh of the transparent antenna pattern is selected according to the size and shape of the display pixels. Adjust the shape, mesh pitch, and bias angle. In practice, it is simple to create several types of prototypes, visually check for the presence of moire patterns, and determine the specifications.
[0284] That is, the shape, pitch, and noise angle of the mesh openings of the antenna pattern in the transparent antenna 50a are adjusted according to the size and shape of the pixels of the display. In practice, it is easy to create several types of prototypes, visually check for moire patterns, and determine the specifications.
Therefore, from the teachings of Ishibashi, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to provide a pitch of the unit pattern in the first direction is (N - 0.05) times (where N is a natural number) a pitch of the pixels in the first direction or less, or is (N + 0.05) times the pitch of the pixels in the first direction or more, and a pitch of the unit pattern in the second direction is (M - 0.05) times (where M is a natural number) a pitch of the pixels in the second direction or less, or is (M + 0.05) times the pitch of the pixels in the second direction or more, (wherein N and M is a natural number of any value, that would include be a wide range of values); since where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the “optimum range” by routine experimentation or simulation, based on known design crtieria, as already indicated in Ishibashi, involves only routine skill in the art, in order to prevent the moire effect.
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwami (JP 2013037682, cited by Applicant) in view of Heinrch et al (CA 3006673 A1)
Regarding claim 39, Iwami teaches an image display device, wherein the wiring board further comprises a plurality of first-direction wiring lines (for example: the top V shape in Fig.47A; also see Fig.7,10,11 and 19) and
a plurality of second-direction wiring lines (for example: the bottom V shape in Fig.47A) that interconnect the plurality of first-direction wiring lines, and at intersections of the first-direction wiring lines and the second-direction wiring lines, at least one corner portion of four corner portions formed between the first direction wiring lines and the second-direction wiring lines is rounded (see sections 74b in Fig.47B that is applied to Fig.47A) in plan view.
Iwami does not teach: a primer layer provided on the substrate, the mesh wiring layer is disposed on the primer layer and the primer layer includes a polymer material.
Heinrich teaches conductive patterns, with an option of a primer
PNG
media_image2.png
272
536
media_image2.png
Greyscale
as protective layers made of polymer (see in Heinrich:
an intermediate adhesive layer and/or with the aid of primer layers and/or
adhesive layers. These primer layers and/or adhesive layers can be formed
primer layers and/or adhesive layer made of a hot glue, a cold glue or a
e.g. scratches etc. This protective layer can also contain polymeric and in
contain polymeric and in particular self-supporting films).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to form an additional primer layer over the substrate in Iwami, from the teachings of Heinrich, in order to provide additional protection.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fatima Farokhrooz whose telephone number is (571)-272-6043. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday, 9 am - 5 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s Supervisor, James Greece can be reached on (571) 272-3711.
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.
/Fatima N Farokhrooz/
Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights