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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that there is no teaching or suggestion within the art that the polarization layer of Kim should be combined with the transparent layer within which a plurality of light blocking lines are disposed, of Lee.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. These arguments appear to ignore the fact that the rejection is a 103 obviousness rejection and that the Examiner has provided a motivation to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing. Applicant has not address what has been outlined in the rejection and therefore this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant further argues that there would be no reason to believe that the combination would result in the plurality of blocking lines being disposed closer to the display layer than to the polarization layer.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Clearly, the combination would be the polarization film layer 160 of Kim being attached to the device of Lee. Applicant appears to think that the combination of references would result in taking the device of Lee apart, putting the polarization film layer 160 of Kim on 100 of Lee, and then re-applying the blocking lines BR and transparent layer 200 on top of polarization film layer 160. This thought process is completely ridiculous and is not what is proposed by Examiner’s rejection since Applicant’s assertion would possibly destroy the function the device of Lee and expectation of success would be questionable.
Clearly, one of ordinary skill in the art as well as the Examiner have recognized that the complete device of Lee would have the polarization film layer 160 placed atop 200,BR of Lee. This combination would not destroy the function of the device of Lee and the combination has a high expectation of success.
Applicant argues that the amendment overcomes the prior art of record does not teach the structural relationship between these elements which cannot be inferred from the combination of references.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As can be seen in elected embodiment fig. 10, the structure of Lee is identical to all the layers from the bottom substrate 100 to 520. The layers 550 of the instant application which includes the polarization film is above the light blocking lines and is substantially identical to the layers 160 of Kim which includes a polarization film and is attached to the upper most layer of the display of Lee, therefore the structural relationship is clearly established since layer 160 is incorporated onto the device of Lee.
Applicant recites a plurality of benefits and improvements of the instant application on pages 11-12. This is not persuasive. MPEP 2112.01(i) recites that claimed properties are presumed to be present when the prior art structure is substantially identical to that recited in the claims.
The response above is applicable to the arguments presented with respect to claim 12.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10-17, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US PGPub 2020/0020885; hereinafter “Lee”) in view of Kim et al. (US PGPub 2017/0125743; hereinafter “Kim”).
Re claim 1: Lee teaches (e.g. fig. 4 and 3B) a display apparatus, comprising: a substrate (101) comprising a display area (DA) and a non-display area (NDA); a display layer (102, 103) disposed in the display area (DA) and comprising a pixel circuit (102) and a light-emitting device (103); an encapsulation structure (104; e.g. paragraph 137) at least partially covering the display layer (103); and an optical control polarization film (200, BR) disposed on the encapsulation structure (104) and comprising a transparent layer (plastic substrate material 201; e.g. paragraph 140), wherein a plurality of light blocking lines (light blocking members BR; e.g. paragraph 96) are disposed in the transparent layer (201).
Lee is silent as to explicitly teaching an optical control polarization film further comprising a polarization film layer including a polarization layer; wherein the polarization film layer is disposed directly on the transparent layer within which the plurality of light blocking lines are disposed, and wherein the plurality of light blocking lines are disposed closer to the display layer than to the polarization layer.
Kim teaches (e.g. fig. 8) an optical control polarization film (200 of Lee) further comprising a polarization film layer (optical film layer 160; e.g. paragraph 70) including a polarization layer(polarizer 163; e.g. paragraph 103); wherein the polarization film layer (160) is disposed directly on the transparent layer (200 of Lee) within which the plurality of light blocking lines (BR of Lee) are disposed, wherein the plurality of light blocking lines (BR of Lee) are disposed closer to the display layer (103 of Lee) than to the polarization layer (163 would be adhered to the structure 200 of Lee using transparent adhesive 146 of Kim).
The combined teachings of Lee and Kim would have resulted in the device of Lee provided with the polarization film layer 160 provided thereon. The combined structure would have resulted in the light blocking lines BR would be below 160 of Kim.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, absent unexpected results, to use the polarizer structure as well as the retardation layers as taught by Kim in the device of Lee in order to have the predictable result of increasing transmittance without increasing reflectance (see paragraph 103 of Kim).
Re claim 2: Lee in view of Kim teaches the display apparatus of claim 1, wherein the plurality of light blocking lines (BR) extend in a first direction (fig. 3B shows BR extending in line in the direction DR2), the plurality of light blocking lines (BR) extend in a second direction (each of the BR structures has a dimension in the direction DR1), and an absorption axis of the polarization layer (linear polarizer 163 absorbs light not parallel to the polarization direction; e.g. paragraph 98 of Kim) also extends in the second direction (the polarizer would be preferred to have the polarization axis extend in the first direction and absorb in the second direction when combined with the light blocking lines extending in the first direction since highly directional display images would be obtained that allows for the ability to limit side viewing of the display while allowing for viewing from above or below).
Re claim 3: Lee teaches the display apparatus of claim 1, wherein the transparent layer (201) comprises a plurality of grooves (grooves in 201 allowing for BR; hereinafter “G”), and the plurality of light blocking lines (BR) respectively fill the plurality of grooves (G).
Re claim 4: Lee in view of Kim teaches the display apparatus of claim 1, wherein the optical control polarization film further comprises a first protective layer (146 of Kim) disposed between the transparent layer (201) and the polarization layer (163 of Kim), wherein the transparent layer (201) is in direct contact with the first protective layer (146), and wherein the first protective layer (146) comprises tri-acetyl cellulose (TAC), cyclo-olefin polymer, and/or polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) (transparent adhesive 146; e.g. paragraph 69; while specific material of 146 is not disclosed, PMMA is a well-known resin used as adhesives in displays; for example US PGPub 2005/0194896 paragraph 99 and US PGPub 2010/0176382 paragraph 67 are two examples).
Re claim 5: Lee teaches the display apparatus of claim 1, wherein a vertical distance from an emission layer (EL) of the light-emitting device to the plurality of light blocking lines (BR) ranges from about 10 μm to about 300 μm (the height of BR d2a is 100 microns, therefore BR is about 100-200 microns from EL; e.g. paragraph 145).
Re claim 6: Lee teaches the display apparatus of claim 1, wherein the plurality of light blocking lines (BR) are spaced apart from each other at a first interval in one direction (interval of BR in direction DR1 as shown in fig. 3B).
Re claim 7: Lee teaches the display apparatus of claim 6, wherein a width (width of EA-R in direction DR1) of an emission area (EA-R) of the light-emitting device (103) in the one direction (DR1) is a multiple of the first interval (EA-R is twice the interval of BR).
Re claim 8: Lee in view of Kim teaches the display apparatus of claim 1, wherein the encapsulation structure comprises an encapsulation layer (Lee shows cover layer 104 may be provided as at least one layer, and includes at least one of an inorganic layer or an organic layer; e.g. paragraph 138 of Lee) in which at least one inorganic encapsulation layer and at least one organic encapsulation layer are alternately stacked (film encapsulation 140 consists of organic film 140b with inorganic layers 140a and 140c provided above and below; e.g. paragraph 67 of Kim).
Re claim 10: Lee in view of Kim teaches the display apparatus of claim 1, wherein an adhesive layer (146 of Kim) is disposed on a surface of the optical control polarization film (161, 162 of Kim) facing the encapsulation structure (200 of Lee).
Re claim 11: Lee in view of Kim teaches the display apparatus of claim 1, wherein the optical control polarization film (161, 162 of Kim) further comprises a hard coating layer (166; e.g. paragraph 94 of Kim) disposed on the polarization layer (163 of Kim), and the hard coating layer (166 of Kim) has a hardness of about 3 H to about 9 H (when the prior art element is substantially identical to the claimed structure, claimed properties are presumed to be present; see MPEP 2112.01(i)).
Re claim 12: Lee teaches (e.g. figs. 3B, 4 and 16) a vehicle, comprising: a pair of side window glasses (side window as shown in fig. 16) spaced apart from each other in a first direction (direction between two side windows; hereinafter “1D”); and a display apparatus (display DD-Q) disposed between the pair of side window glasses (side windows as shown in fig. 16), wherein the display apparatus comprises: a substrate (101) comprising a display area (DA) and a non-display area (NDA); a display layer (102, 103) disposed in the display area (DA) and comprising a pixel circuit (102) and a light-emitting device (103); an encapsulation structure (104; e.g. paragraph 137) at least partially covering the display layer (102, 103); and an optical control polarization film (200, BR) disposed on the encapsulation structure (104) and comprising a transparent layer (plastic substrate material 201; e.g. paragraph 140), wherein a plurality of light blocking lines (light blocking members BR; e.g. paragraph 96) are disposed in the transparent layer (201).
Lee is silent as to explicitly teaching an optical control polarization film further comprising a polarization film layer including a polarization layer; wherein the polarization film layer is disposed directly on the transparent layer within which the plurality of light blocking lines are disposed, and wherein the plurality of light blocking lines are disposed closer to the display layer than to the polarization layer.
Kim teaches (e.g. fig. 8) an optical control polarization film (200 of Lee) further comprising a polarization film layer (optical film layer 160; e.g. paragraph 70) including a polarization layer(polarizer 163; e.g. paragraph 103); wherein the polarization film layer (160) is disposed directly on the transparent layer (200 of Lee) within which the plurality of light blocking lines (BR of Lee) are disposed, wherein the plurality of light blocking lines (BR of Lee) are disposed closer to the display layer (103 of Lee) than to the polarization layer (163 would be adhered to the structure 200 of Lee using transparent adhesive 146 of Kim).
The combined teachings of Lee and Kim would have resulted in the device of Lee provided with the polarization film layer 160 provided thereon. The combined structure would have resulted in the light blocking lines BR would be below 160 of Kim.
Re claim 13: Lee teaches the vehicle of claim 12, wherein, in the display apparatus, the plurality of light blocking lines (BR) extend in a first direction (fig. 3B shows BR extending in line in the direction DR2), the plurality of light blocking lines (BR) extend in a second direction (each of the BR structures has a dimension in the direction DR1), and an absorption axis of the polarization layer (linear polarizer 163 absorbs light not parallel to the polarization direction; e.g. paragraph 98 of Kim) also extends in the second direction (the polarizer would be preferred to have the polarization axis extend in the first direction and absorb in the second direction when combined with the light blocking lines extending in the first direction since highly directional display images would be obtained that allows for the ability to limit side viewing of the display while allowing for viewing from above or below).
Re claim 14: Lee teaches the vehicle of claim 12, wherein, in the display apparatus, the transparent layer (201) comprises a plurality of grooves (grooves in 201 allowing for BR; hereinafter “G”), and the plurality of light blocking lines (BR) respectively fill the plurality of grooves (G).
Re claim 15: Lee teaches the vehicle of claim 12, the optical control polarization film further comprises a first protective layer (146 of Kim) disposed between the transparent layer (201) and the polarization layer (163 of Kim), wherein the transparent layer (201) is in direct contact with the first protective layer (146), and wherein the first protective layer (146) comprises tri-acetyl cellulose (TAC), cyclo-olefin polymer, and/or polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) (transparent adhesive 146; e.g. paragraph 69; while specific material of 146 is not disclosed, PMMA is a well-known resin used as adhesives in displays; for example US PGPub 2005/0194896 paragraph 99 and US PGPub 2010/0176382 paragraph 67 are two examples).
Re claim 16: Lee teaches the vehicle of claim 12, wherein, in the display apparatus, a vertical distance from an emission layer (EL) of the light-emitting device to the plurality of light blocking lines (BR) ranges from about 10 μm to about 300 μm (the height of BR d2a is 100 microns, therefore BR is about 100-200 microns from EL; e.g. paragraph 145).
Re claim 17: Lee teaches the vehicle of claim 12, wherein the encapsulation structure comprises an encapsulation layer (Lee shows cover layer 104 may be provided as at least one layer, and includes at least one of an inorganic layer or an organic layer; e.g. paragraph 138 of Lee) in which at least one inorganic encapsulation layer and at least one organic encapsulation layer are alternately stacked (film encapsulation 140 consists of organic film 140b with inorganic layers 140a and 140c provided above and below; e.g. paragraph 67 of Kim).
Re claim 19: Lee teaches the vehicle of claim 12, wherein an adhesive layer (146 of Kim) is disposed on a surface of the optical control polarization film (161, 162 of Kim) facing the encapsulation structure (200 of Lee).
Re claim 20: Lee teaches the vehicle of claim 12, wherein the optical control polarization film (161, 162 of Kim) further comprises a hard coating layer (166; e.g. paragraph 94 of Kim) disposed on the polarization layer (163 of Kim), and the hard coating layer (166 of Kim) has a hardness of about 3 H to about 9 H (when the prior art element is substantially identical to the claimed structure, claimed properties are presumed to be present; see MPEP 2112.01(i)).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSE Y MIYOSHI whose telephone number is (571)270-1629. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. 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.
/JESSE Y MIYOSHI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights