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 .
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 6 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Oh et al (US 2020/0379607).
With respect to Claim 6, Oh et al discloses a multilayer body for an image display device (Figures 6-7) comprising a wiring substrate (Figure 6, 200 and 285) including a substrate having transparency (Figure 6, 285, paragraph 109) and a mesh wiring layer (Figure 6, 300) disposed on the substrate (Figure 6, 285) ; and a dielectric layer (Figure 6, 290) stacked on the wiring substrate (Figure 6, 200 and 285), wherein the dielectric layer has a thickness of 50 micron or more and 500 micron or less (Table 2 on page 6, where dielectric layer thicknesses of 50, 100, 200, 300, 400 and 500 microns are disclosed). See Figures 6-7 and corresponding text, especially paragraphs 52-70 and 108-119.
With respect to Claim 9, Oh et al discloses “a self-luminous display device stacked on a dielectric layer side of the multilayer body for an image display device”. See Figure 7, 400 and corresponding text, especially paragraphs 113-114.
With respect to Claim 10, Oh et al discloses “wherein a touch sensor is disposed between the self-luminous display device and the dielectric layer of the multilayer body for an image display device”. See Figure 7, 200 and corresponding text, especially paragraph 71.
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 1-2, 4-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al (US 2020/0379607).
With respect to Claim 1, Oh et al discloses a multilayer body for an image display device (Figures 6-7) comprising a wiring substrate (Figure 6, 200 and 285) including a substrate having transparency (Figure 6, 285, paragraph 109) and a mesh wiring layer (Figure 6, 300) disposed on the substrate (Figure 6, 285) ; and a dielectric layer (Figure 6, 290, which can include a multi-layered structure of two-or more layers, paragraph 52) stacked on the wiring substrate (Figure 6, 200 and 285). Moreover, Oh et al discloses the dielectric layer (290) may have a thickness of 200 microns, and can be formed of multiple layers. See paragraphs 52 and 54. See Figures 6-7 and corresponding text, especially paragraphs 52-70 and 108-119.
However, Oh et al does not explicitly disclose “wherein the dielectric layer and the substrate have a total thickness of 50 micron or more and 500 micron or less”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention to arrive at the claimed dimension, as where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See Allen et al v. Coe, 57 USPQ 136. In the present case, the determination of the thickness of the layers would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art depending on the function of the individual layers which is desired (i.e. greater thickness for more insulation). Moreover, the use of a stack of multiple dielectric layers would result in thicknesses of 100 microns or less for the individual layers. Furthermore, the Examiner notes that changes in size are prima facie obvious. See In re Rose, 220 F 2d 459 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to Claim 2, and the limitation “wherein the dielectric layer has a dielectric constant of 3.5 or less”, Oh et al discloses overlapping ranges. See paragraph 53 (1.5 to 12 dielectric constant). Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious. See In re Wertheim, 541 F2d 257 (1976).
With respect to Claim 4, Oh et al discloses “a self-luminous display device stacked on a dielectric layer side of the multilayer body for an image display device”. See Figure 7, 400 and corresponding text, especially paragraphs 113-114.
With respect to Claim 5, Oh et al discloses “wherein a touch sensor is disposed between the self-luminous display device and the dielectric layer of the multilayer body for an image display device”. See Figure 7, 200 and corresponding text, especially paragraph 71.
With respect to Claim 7, Claim 7 is rejected for the reasons as discussed above with respect to Claim 6.
With respect to the limitation “wherein the dielectric layer has a dielectric constant of 3.5 or less”, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to arrive at the claimed limitation, as Oh et al discloses overlapping ranges. See paragraph 53 (1.5 to 12 dielectric constant). Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious. See In re Wertheim, 541 F2d 257 (1976).
Claims 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et (US 2020/0379607) as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Choi (US 2018/0039361).
Oh et al is relied upon as discussed with respect to Claims 1 and 6.
However, Oh et al do not disclose wherein the dielectric layer includes a polarizing plate as required by the Claims at hand.
Choi also pertains to a laminate in a similar display device, and discloses the use of a polarizing plate in a dielectric, and its benefit in filtering light. See paragraphs 22 and 41-48.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to use a polarizing plate in the device of Oh et al, for its known benefit of filtering light as disclosed by Choi. The use of a known component, polarizing plate, for its known benefit, filtering light would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to Claim 3, the combined references make obvious wherein the dielectric layer includes a polarizing plate. See paragraphs 22 and 41-48 of Choi.
With respect to Claim 8, the combined references make obvious wherein the dielectric layer includes a polarizing plate. See paragraphs 22 and 41-48 of Choi.
Conclusion
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
February 6, 2025
/ALEXANDER G GHYKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812