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
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.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al (U.S. Pub #2017/0200915).
With respect to claim 1, Lee teaches a display device comprising:
a display panel (Fig. 4B, DP) including a display area (Fig. 3A, DA), in which a plurality of pixels are arranged, and a peripheral area (Fig. 3A, NDA adjacent to the display area;
a polarizing member (Fig. 4B, POL and Paragraph 50) disposed on the display panel;
a cover window (Fig. 4B, WD) disposed on the polarizing member; and
an adhesive layer (Fig. 4B, AD2) attaching the polarizing member and the cover window to each other, wherein the adhesive layer has a stress relaxation rate in a range of about 0.36 to about 0.45 (Paragraph 124 and 127).
With respect to claim 11, Lee teaches that the adhesive layer includes an optically clear adhesive (Fig. 4B, the adhesive is transparent to the light emission of the display DP).
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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, in view of Eo (U.S. Pub #2019/0173050).
With respect to claim 12, Lee does not teach a light blocking layer disposed on a lower surface of the cover window and overlapping a part of the peripheral area.
Eo teaches a light blocking layer (Fig. 1, FR and Paragraph 101) disposed on a lower surface of the cover window and overlapping a part of the peripheral area.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to provide a light blocking layer on the lower surface of the window of Lee as taught by Eo in order to block light leaking from the side surface of the assembly (Paragraph 101).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-10 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.
Claims 13-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the best prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest
in claim 13:
wherein the adhesive layer has a stress relaxation rate in a range of about 0.36 to about 0.45, a creep value of about 6% to about 7%, and a modulus in a range of about 0.15 Mpa to about 0.3 Mpa at a room temperature.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN P SANDVIK whose telephone number is (571)272-8446. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10-6.
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, Davienne Monbleau can be reached at (571)-272-1945. 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.
/BENJAMIN P SANDVIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights