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 § 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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2021/0141276) in view of Drolet et al. (US 2014/0078447), KR20150122852A and Hagiwara (US 2003/0058395).
Kim (2021) discloses in figure 4: a liquid crystal panel 100 configured to display an image, the liquid crystal panel including a touch electrode 151 and a substrate 102 over the touch electrode; a first substrate 101, the first substrate spaced apart from the substrate 102; and an antistatic layer 220 on an upper surface of the liquid crystal display panel. Kim (2021) discloses paragraph [0099], that the antistatic layer 220 may comprise a mixture of In2O3 and SnO2 as a host material. Kim (2021) discloses in paragraph [0095], that the dopant material may include SiO2. Therefore, Kim (2021) discloses that the antistatic layer may comprise In2O3, SnO2 and SiO2. The recitation of incorporating the liquid crystal display device into a vehicle merely constitutes a statement of intended use. The prior art of Kim (2021) is perfectly capable of being incorporated into a vehicle and performing the intended use recited in the claim. See MPEP 2111.02, Section II.
Kim (2021) further discloses in paragraph [0091], wherein a sheet resistance of the antistatic layer 220 is in a range of 106.5 to 109 Ω/sq. This overlaps the claimed range of 106.3 to 107.3 Ω/sq. According to MPEP 2144.05, Section I: In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a sheet resistance of 106.3 to 107.3 Ω/sq based on the overlapping range disclosed by Kim (2021).
Kim (2021) does not disclose wherein a content of the In2O3 is 78 to 85% by weight, a content of the SnO2 is 5 to 10% by weight, and a content of the SiO2 is 10 to 12% by weight. However, Kim (2021) discloses in paragraphs [0097]-[0099] that these concentrations were optimized in order to obtain a desired sheet resistance of 106.5 to 109 Ω/sq (paragraph [0091]) and a desired transmittance of 97% or higher (paragraph [0094]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim (2021) wherein a content of the In2O3 is 78 to 85% by weight, a content of the SnO2 is 5 to 10% by weight, and a content of the SiO2 is 10 to 12% by weight in order to optimize the sheet resistance and transmittance of the antistatic layer. Optimization of result effective variables involve only routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05, Section II.
Kim (2021) does not disclose a refractive index matching layer between the liquid crystal display panel and the antistatic layer, wherein the refractive index matching layer includes a first surface that is in direct contact with the antistatic layer and a second surface that is opposite the first surface and in direct contact with the substrate. Drolet discloses in figure 7, a refractive index matching layer 94 between the liquid crystal display panel and the antistatic layer, wherein the refractive index matching layer 94 includes a first (upper) surface that is in direct contact with the antistatic layer 90 and a second (lower) surface that is opposite the first surface and in direct contact with the substrate 56. Drolet teaches in paragraph [0057] that the refractive index matching layer helps minimize light reflection from the display. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Kim (2021) to include a refractive index matching layer as disclosed by Drolet in order to minimize light reflection from the display.
Drolet does not disclose wherein the refractive index matching layer comprises SiO2 with a thickness in a range of 100 Å to 900 Å. KR20150122852A discloses in figure 1, a refractive index matching layer 123, wherein the refractive index matching layer comprises SiO2 with a thickness in a range of 700 Å to 800 Å. See paragraph [0034]. KR20150122852A further teaches in paragraph [0034] that the refractive index matching layer 123 reduces the reflectivity of external light. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Kim (2021) wherein the refractive index matching layer 94 disclosed by Drolet is modified to comprise SiO2 with a thickness in a range of 700 Å to 800 Å as disclosed by KR20150122852A because such a layer is sufficient to perform the required function of minimizing light reflection from the display.
Kim (2021) does not disclose wherein the substrate is larger than the first substrate. Hagiwara discloses in figures 1-2, an embodiment where the substrate 12a (upper substrate) is larger than the first substrate 12b (lower substrate) so that the driving circuitry (ICs 9a and 9b) can be mounted on the substrate. Hagiwara discloses in figure 15, an embodiment where the first substrate 122 (lower substrate) is larger than the substrate 123 (upper substrate) so that the driving circuitry 127 can be mounted on the first substrate (paragraph [0155]). Hagiwara shows that making the substrate (upper substrate) larger than the first substrate (lower substrate) is one of two identified, predictable solutions for mounting driving circuitry. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Kim (2021) wherein the substrate is larger than the first substrate as disclosed in figures 1-2 of Hagiwara, because it constituted choosing one of two identified, predictable solutions for mounting driving circuitry, with a reasonable expectation of success, and would have been “obvious to try”. See MPEP 2143, Section I, Rationale E.
Claims 1, 3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2021/0141276) in view of Kim et al. (US 2014/0293156), Drolet et al. (US 2014/0078447), KR20150122852A and Hagiwara (US 2003/0058395).
As to claim 1, Kim (2021) discloses in figure 4, a liquid crystal display comprising: a first substrate 101; a plurality of thin film transistors T on the first substrate; a second substrate 102 that overlaps the first substrate and is spaced apart from the first substrate, the second substrate including a first side and a second side that is opposite the first side; a touch electrode 151 on the first substrate; and an antistatic layer 220 on the first side of the second substrate. Kim (2021) discloses paragraph [0099], that the antistatic layer 220 may comprise a mixture of In2O3 and SnO2 as a host material. Kim (2021) discloses in paragraph [0095], that the dopant material may include SiO2. Therefore, Kim (2021) discloses that the antistatic layer may comprise In2O3, SnO2 and SiO2. The recitation of incorporating the liquid crystal display device into a vehicle merely constitutes a statement of intended use. The prior art of Kim (2021) is perfectly capable of being incorporated into a vehicle and performing the intended use recited in the claim. See MPEP 2111.02, Section II.
Kim (2021) further discloses in paragraph [0091], wherein a sheet resistance of the antistatic layer 220 is in a range of 106.5 to 109 Ω/sq. This overlaps the claimed range of 106.3 to 107.3 Ω/sq. According to MPEP 2144.05, Section I: In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a sheet resistance of 106.3 to 107.3 Ω/sq based on the overlapping range disclosed by Kim (2021).
Kim (2021) does not disclose wherein a content of the In2O3 is 78 to 85% by weight, a content of the SnO2 is 5 to 10% by weight, and a content of the SiO2 is 10 to 12% by weight. However, Kim (2021) discloses in paragraphs [0097]-[0099] that these concentrations were optimized in order to obtain a desired sheet resistance of 106.5 to 109 Ω/sq (paragraph [0091]) and a desired transmittance of 97% or higher (paragraph [0094]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim (2021) wherein a content of the In2O3 is 78 to 85% by weight, a content of the SnO2 is 5 to 10% by weight, and a content of the SiO2 is 10 to 12% by weight in order to optimize the sheet resistance and transmittance of the antistatic layer. Optimization of result effective variables involve only routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05, Section II.
Kim (2021) does not disclose a black matrix and a color filter on the second side of the second substrate. However, this was a conventional structure as evidenced by the disclosure of Kim (2014). Kim (2014) discloses in figure 1, a display panel comprising a black matrix 195 and a color filter 197 on the second side of the second substrate 190. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim (2021) by providing a black matrix and a color filter on the second side of the second substrate as disclosed by Kim (2014) because conventional structures were known to be cost effective and reliable.
Kim (2021) does not disclose a refractive index matching layer between the liquid crystal display panel and the antistatic layer, wherein the refractive index matching layer includes a first surface that is in direct contact with the antistatic layer and a second surface that is opposite the first surface and in direct contact with the substrate. Drolet discloses in figure 7, a refractive index matching layer 94 between the liquid crystal display panel and the antistatic layer, wherein the refractive index matching layer 94 includes a first (upper) surface that is in direct contact with the antistatic layer 90 and a second (lower) surface that is opposite the first surface and in direct contact with the substrate 56. Drolet teaches in paragraph [0057] that the refractive index matching layer helps minimize light reflection from the display. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Kim (2021) to include a refractive index matching layer as disclosed by Drolet in order to minimize light reflection from the display.
Drolet does not disclose wherein the refractive index matching layer comprises SiO2 with a thickness in a range of 100 Å to 900 Å. KR20150122852A discloses in figure 1, a refractive index matching layer 123, wherein the refractive index matching layer comprises SiO2 with a thickness in a range of 700 Å to 800 Å. See paragraph [0034]. KR20150122852A further teaches in paragraph [0034] that the refractive index matching layer 123 reduces the reflectivity of external light. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Kim (2021) wherein the refractive index matching layer 94 disclosed by Drolet is modified to comprise SiO2 with a thickness in a range of 700 Å to 800 Å as disclosed by KR20150122852A because such a layer is sufficient to perform the required function of minimizing light reflection from the display.
Kim (2021) does not disclose wherein the second substrate is larger than the first substrate. Hagiwara discloses in figures 1-2, an embodiment where the second substrate 12a (upper substrate) is larger than the first substrate 12b (lower substrate) so that the driving circuitry (ICs 9a and 9b) can be mounted on the second substrate. Hagiwara discloses in figure 15, an embodiment where the first substrate 122 (lower substrate) is larger than the second substrate 123 (upper substrate) so that the driving circuitry 127 can be mounted on the first substrate (paragraph [0155]). Hagiwara shows that making the second substrate (upper substrate) larger than the first substrate (lower substrate) is one of two identified, predictable solutions for mounting driving circuitry. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Kim (2021) wherein the second substrate is larger than the first substrate as disclosed in figures 1-2 of Hagiwara, because it constituted choosing one of two identified, predictable solutions for mounting driving circuitry, with a reasonable expectation of success, and would have been “obvious to try”. See MPEP 2143, Section I, Rationale E.
As to claim 3, Kim (2021) in view of Kim (2014), Drolet, KR20150122852A and Hagiwara discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the antistatic layer includes 30 to 35 atomic % of indium, 2 to 4 atomic % of tin, 8 to 11 atomic % of silicon, and 50 to 60 atomic % of oxygen. However, it was well known to optimize the atomic percentages of these elements in order to maximize the antistatic function of the antistatic layer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim (2021) wherein the antistatic layer includes 30 to 35 atomic % of indium, 2 to 4 atomic % of tin, 8 to 11 atomic % of silicon, and 50 to 60 atomic % of oxygen in order to optimize the antistatic function of the antistatic layer. Optimization of a result effective variables involve only routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05, Section II.
As to claim 5, Kim (2021) in view of Kim (2014), Drolet, KR20150122852A and Hagiwara discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claim 1. Kim (2021) further discloses in paragraph [0094], wherein a light transmittance of the antistatic layer 220 is at least 97%. Because Kim (2021) discloses an antistatic layer having the same composition as the claimed invention (combination of In2O3, SnO2 and SiO2), the antistatic layer of Kim (2021) also would have exhibited a reflectance of 10.5% or less.
As to claim 6, Kim (2021) in view of Kim (2014), Drolet, KR20150122852A and Hagiwara discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claim 1. Kim (2021) further discloses in paragraph [0096], wherein a thickness of the antistatic layer 202 is in a range of 100 angstroms to 300 angstroms.
As to claim 7, Kim (2021) in view of Kim (2014), Drolet, KR20150122852A and Hagiwara discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claim 1. Kim (2021) further discloses in figure 4, a polarizing plate 202 on the antistatic layer 220, and a cover window CW on the polarizing plate.
As to claim 8, Kim (2021) in view of Kim (2014), Drolet, KR20150122852A and Hagiwara discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claim 1. Kim (2021) further discloses in figure 4: insulating layers 125, 135 and 137 on the plurality of thin film transistors; a pixel electrode 140 on the insulating layers, the pixel electrode electrically connected to a thin film transistor T from the plurality of thin film transistors; and wherein the touch electrode 151 is spaced apart from the pixel electrode and is configured for touch sensing during a touch sensing mode and is configured as a common electrode for displaying an image during a display mode (paragraph [0035]).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2021/0141276) in view of Drolet et al. (US 2014/0078447), KR20150122852A and Hagiwara (US 2003/0058395) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2014/0293156).
As to claim 16, Kim (2021) in view of Drolet, KR20150122852A and Hagiwara discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claim 15. Kim (2021) further discloses in figure 4: a plurality of thin film transistors T on the first substrate; a planarization layer 135 on the plurality of thin film transistors, wherein the touch electrode 151 is on the planarization layer; a pixel electrode 140 that is spaced apart from the touch electrode and overlaps the touch electrode; a liquid crystal layer 105 on the pixel electrode.
Kim (2021) in view of Drolet, KR20150122852A and Hagiwara does not disclose a black matrix and a color filter on a lower surface of the substrate, with the black matrix and the color filter being between the liquid crystal layer and the substrate. However, this was a conventional structure as evidenced by the disclosure of Kim (2014). Kim (2014) discloses in figure 1, a black matrix 195 and a color filter 197 on a lower surface of the substrate 190, with the black matrix and the color filter being between the liquid crystal layer 180 and the substrate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Kim (2021) by providing a black matrix and a color filter on the lower surface of the substrate, with the black matrix and the color filter being between the liquid crystal layer and the substrate as disclosed by Kim (2014) because conventional structures were known to be cost effective and reliable.
As to claim 17, Kim (2021) in view of Drolet, KR20150122852A, Hagiwara and Kim (2014) discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claim 16. Kim (2021) further discloses in paragraph [0035], wherein the touch electrode 151 is configured for touch sensing during a touch sensing mode and is configured as a common electrode for displaying an image during a display mode.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 15 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. The new grounds of rejection are based in part on the newly cited prior art of Hagiwara (US 2003/0058395).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 David Chung whose telephone number is (571)272-2288. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Michael Caley can be reached at (571)272-2286. 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.
/DAVID Y CHUNG/Examiner, Art Unit 2871