DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-15, in the reply filed on 5/22/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/22/26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 13, the claims require the element “a discoloration inducer activated by a laser.” It is not clear from the language of the claims what is meant by this. It is unclear whether this would include, for example, a colorant that is viewable when shone on by laser light or whether there is something within the material itself that is intended to change when activated by a laser and, if so, whether this material is meant to change color or to prevent discoloration of other layers. That is, it is unclear what is structurally required by the term “discoloration inducer activated by a laser.” Therefore, claims 1, 13, are indefinite and claims 2-12, 14, and 15 are rejected as indefinite by virtue of their dependency on claims 1 and 13.
Regarding claim 13, it is unclear what is meant how the “electronic module” interacts structurally with the “electronic module region.” The electronic module region is claimed as overlapping the electronic module. But it is not clear whether they share the same components, or whether any region in which the electronic module is placed is definitionally the electronic module region. Therefore, claim 13 is indefinite and claims 14 and 15 are rejected as indefinite by virtue of their dependency on claim 13.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2020/0361192, “Choi”) in view of Lee et al. (US 2021/0055607, “Lee”).
Regarding claim 1, Choi teaches a display device (e.g., [0001] – [0005]) comprising a display module (see, e.g., Fig. 5, below, layer DP, [0051], [0052], the display module may have an active area, TA, and a bezel or non-active area, BZA, see Fig. 5, [0049], [0053]) a window module over or on the display module (including layers above the display, WD, RPP, ISL, Fig. 5, [0052], [0060], [0061]), comprising a window layer (WD, [0058], Fig. 5). Choi additionally teaches that the window module may include a transparent portion overlapping the transmissive region (Fig. 5, TA, [0053]) and a bezel area that includes an ink layer, a print layer, and the like overlapping the bezel area and surrounding the active transmissive area (corresponding to the claimed discoloration portion, [0071], [0072], Fig. 5).
PNG
media_image1.png
408
682
media_image1.png
Greyscale
While Choi teaches to include pigments or colorants in the ink and printed layers in the bezel or non-display area of the display device, Choi fails to teach the inclusion of colorants or pigment material across the entirety of the adhesive film. However in the same field of endeavor of display devices ([0003] – [0010]), Lee teaches that it is known to include colorants or other active materials in a layer over a display ([0074] – [0077]) and that doing so may be used to improve the overall luminance of a display device, depending on the configuration ([0073]). It therefore would have been obvious to have included such colorants across the entirety of the adhesive film in order to improve the overall luminance of a display device ([0073]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Choi additionally teaches the inclusion of a pigment or dye that may be an inorganic or organic pigment (see Choi, [0019], [0073], [0074]; and see Lee, [0053], [0074]).
Regarding claim 3, Choi fails to specifically teach the amount of colorant to provide, however, Choi teaches that an amount of particles on the range of from 1 to 3% by weight permits the film to maintain good coating and transmission properties and therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan to have adopted such a range for the inclusion of colorant particles described above (Choi, [0111]).
Regarding claim 4, Choi additionally teaches that the printed portion may comprise a base material and a pigment or dye ([0006], [0073]) and teaches that acrylates are suitable for base resins ([0011], [0012]).
Regarding claim 5, Choi teaches the layer corresponding to the pattern layer may exist as a single adhesive layer (see, e.g., Fig. 5, above and [0072], [0073]).
Regarding claim 9, Choi additionally teaches that the pattern layer may be positioned in an upper portion of the window module (e.g., Figs. 3 and 5, upper OCA and corresponding BZA features, [0059] – [0061]) and may further include an adhesive layer between the display and the window module (e.g., Fig. 3, lower OCA layer).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Choi additionally teaches that the display window module may include a further protective layer under the window layer itself (e.g., [0078]) and thus would include a base film on the upper surface of the underlying OCA/IKL layer and not including colorant (see, Fig. 5, [0078]). Such a film may be considered to be an adhesive layer as its makeup includes acrylates generally considered to be adhesive in nature and would function to connect the underlying ink layer and the window layer ([0078] – [0083]).
Regarding claim 12, Choi additionally teaches the bezel area includes an additional ink or print layer that overlap each other and may be considered to read on the limitations of claim 12 by providing both two layers that block light and/or provide coloration in the bezel area (see Fig. 5, [0070] – [0080]).
Claim(s) 8, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Lee as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2020/0257162, “Lee ‘162”).
Regarding claim 8, Choi fails to specifically teach the optical densities of the areas corresponding to the discoloration portion and the transparent portions of the above-described adhesive layer and adjacent bezel portion. However, modifying the optical densities of the display area (i.e., the visible area) and the non-display area (i.e., the bezel area) of a display device are known in the art. For example, in the same field of endeavor of display devices ([0001] – [0010]), Lee ‘162 teaches that a bezel or non-display portion of a display device should have an optical density of from 1 to 3 in order to prevent light from transmission through that area ([0104]) and that a transparent area may have an optical density of less than 1 in order to permit light transmission through that area ([0098] – [0100]) and thus the adjustment of the optical densities of the display and non-display portions of the display device of Choi would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Choi teaches a display device (e.g., [0001] – [0005]) comprising various electronic modules (see, e.g., [0048], [0055] - [0060], e.g., input sensing layer, various sensing modules) and a display module (see, e.g., Fig. 5, below, layer DP, [0051], [0052], the display module may have an active area, TA, and a bezel or non-active area, BZA, see Fig. 5, [0049], [0053]). The input sensing layer may be placed in a region overlapping the active region (i.e., the display region, see Fig. 3). The device of Choi may comprise a window module over or on the display module (including layers above the display, WD, RPP, ISL, Fig. 5, [0052], [0060], [0061]), comprising a window layer (WD, [0058], Fig. 5). Choi additionally teaches that the window module may include a transparent portion overlapping the transmissive region (Fig. 5, TA, [0053]) and a bezel area that includes an ink layer, a print layer, and the like overlapping the bezel area and surrounding the active transmissive area (corresponding to the claimed discoloration portion, [0071], [0072], Fig. 5). While Choi teaches to include pigments or colorants in the ink and printed layers in the bezel or non-display area of the display device, Choi fails to teach the inclusion of colorants or pigment material across the entirety of the adhesive film. However in the same field of endeavor of display devices ([0003] – [0010]), Lee teaches that it is known to include colorants or other active materials in a layer over a display ([0074] – [0077]) and that doing so may be used to improve the overall luminance of a display device, depending on the configuration ([0073]). It therefore would have been obvious to have included such colorants across the entirety of the adhesive film in order to improve the overall luminance of a display device ([0073]). Choi fails to specifically teach the optical densities of the areas corresponding to the discoloration portion and the transparent portions of the above-described adhesive layer and adjacent bezel portion. However, modifying the optical densities of the display area (i.e., the visible area) and the non-display area (i.e., the bezel area) of a display device are known in the art. For example, in the same field of endeavor of display devices ([0001] – [0010]), Lee ‘162 teaches that a bezel or non-display portion of a display device should have an optical density of from 1 to 3 in order to prevent light from transmission through that area ([0104]) and that a transparent area may have an optical density of less than 1 in order to permit light transmission through that area ([0098] – [0100]). It therefore would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have adjusted the optical densities of the display and non-display portions, including the ink layer and printing layer of the display device of Choi, so as to modify the transmission of light through the layers.
Regarding claim 15, modified Choi additionally teaches the inclusion of a pigment or dye (see Choi, [0019], [0073], [0074], i.e., an organic or inorganic pigment; and see Lee, [0053], [0074], including titanium oxide).
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Lee as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Bae et al. (US 2018/0171181, “Bae”).
Regarding claim 6, while Choi teaches an adhesive layer (first adhesive layer) corresponding to the claimed pattern layer (or sub-pattern layer) and containing the transparent portion and the bezel portion (corresponding to the claimed discoloration portion; see discussion of claim 1, above), Choi fails to teach the inclusion of an additional adhesive layer applied to the upper or lower surface of the first adhesive layer. However, in the same field of endeavor of display devices ([0003] – [0005]), Bae teaches that multi-layer adhesives are well known in the art and may be used in order to impart desired physical properties to an adhesive stack ([0056] – [0059]). It would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of filing to have applied an additional adhesive layer either to the top or bottom of the first adhesive layer of Choi in order to provide better compatibility between various layers or to provide additional physical properties to the display (e.g., antioxidants, UV stabilizers, and the like, Bae [0056], [0057]).
Regarding claim 7, Choi teaches that the print layer may include a dye or pigment and a base material. It would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan to have used the adhesive material in which the printed layer is embedded as the base material as the adhesive as such material is not otherwise limited by Choi (Choi, e.g., [0073], [0074]). Therefore, the layer would be considered to be a “single” adhesive layer.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following constitutes a list of prior art which are not relied upon herein, but are considered pertinent to the claimed invention and/or written description thereof. The prior art are purposely made of record hereinafter to facilitate compact/expedient prosecution, and consideration thereof is respectfully suggested.
Park et al. (US 2020/0257338) discloses a display device having layers that include particles across the entirety of the display area.
Kwon et al. (US 2016/0377770) discloses a display device having particle matter in a bezel area in order to control light reflection in that area of the device (e.g., Figs. 4, 5, [0050] – [0075]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY J FROST whose telephone number is (571)270-5618. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday, 8:00am to 4:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aaron Austin, can be reached on 571-272-8935. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANTHONY J FROST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights