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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 2/27/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/27/2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, and 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Wada et al. (US 4,692,662).
Regarding independent claim 1, Wada et al. (‘662) teaches in at least figure 3b and column 3, lines 50-56 and column 6, lines 5-38, a display device (no number) comprising: a display panel (RG) comprising a display area (RC, GC, BC); a plurality of transparent banks (WB) disposed over the display panel in the display area, comprising a first material having a first refractive index (n0), and comprising a side surface (the two materials are mixed throughout the bank on all sides) contacting a second material having a second refractive index (n1) that is lower than the first refractive index (n1 < n0); and an upper layer (BM) disposed on an upper surface of each of the plurality of transparent banks.
Regarding dependent claim 2, Wada et al. (‘662) teaches a window layer (WG) disposed between the display panel and the plurality of transparent banks, the window layer having a third refractive index that is lower than the first refractive index.
Regarding dependent claim 5, Wada et al. (‘662) teaches the plurality of transparent banks is made of titanium oxide.
Regarding dependent claim 7, Wada et al. (‘662) teaches a distance between an upper surface of the upper layer and a lower surface of the upper layer is less than a distance between an upper surface of each of the plurality of transparent banks and a lower surface of each of the plurality of transparent banks.
Regarding dependent claim 8, Wada et al. (‘662) teaches in a plan view, a width of an upper surface of each of the plurality of transparent banks is less than a width of a lower surface of each of the plurality of transparent banks.
Regarding dependent claim 9, Wada et al. (‘662) teaches the plurality of transparent banks comprise a first transparent bank, the upper layer comprises a first upper layer disposed on an upper surface of the first transparent bank, and a side surface of the first transparent bank and a side surface of the first upper layer form a continuous surface.
Regarding dependent claim 10, Wada et al. (‘662) teaches a thickness of each of the plurality of transparent banks is greater than a thickness of the upper layer.
Regarding dependent claim 11, Wada et al. (‘662) teaches the use of a plurality of particles (or in other words beads) comprising the first material (see column 6, lines 8+).
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) 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wada et al. (US 4,692,662), of record.
Regarding claim 3-4, Wada et al. (‘662) teaches all of the claimed limitations except for the index of refraction of the upper layer.
However, further regarding claims 3-4, Wada et al. (‘662) teaches throughout the specification that varying the index of refraction of the transparent glass banks, which the upper layer sits on top of and is part of, for the purpose of improving the contrast of the display. Finding the best index of refraction is a matter of obvious choice in design.
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the transparent glass banks, which the upper layer sits on top of and is part of, for the purpose of improving the contrast of the display. Finding the best index of refraction is a matter of obvious choice in design.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record neither shows nor suggest a display device comprised of, in part, the upper layer of the transparent bank being made of IZO or IGZO.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2022/0317511 and US 2026/0114169 disclose the state of the art for barriers in a display.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH L WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-2465. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:30 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, JAMES R. GREECE can be reached at (571) 272-3711. 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.
JOSEPH L. WILLIAMS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2875
/JOSEPH L WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights