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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-15 are pending and rejected. Claims 16-20 are withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-15 in the reply filed on 3/10/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 3/10/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohmae, US 2024/0313176 A1 in view of Sakata, JP 2012-073509 A (provided on the IDS of 10/12/2023), Saiki, US 2011/0177240 A1, and Kuramoto, US 2009/0046379 A1 and alternatively further in view of Asai, US 2004/0212030 A1.
The following citations for Sakata, JP 2012073509 are in reference to the machine translation provided by Espacenet and the figures in the original document.
Regarding claim 1, Ohmae teaches a display system that enables video representation of higher quality (abstract). They teach that the display structure includes a light source substrate 210 and a light absorption layer 220 (0046 and Fig. 3). They teach that the light source substrate includes fine RGB LEDs serving as a plurality of light sources arranged in an array on the entire front surface of the substrate (0065). They teach that the light absorption layer has a function of absorbing external light applied to the display surface and it includes a black light-absorptive material, where is includes a black material such as a resin (0066). They teach that the light absorption layer has an uneven structure on the display surface side that suppresses reflection of external light so that the light absorption layer is able to absorb the external light applied to the display surface by the uneven structure and the black light-absorptive material (0076 and Fig. 5). Therefore, Ohmae teaches that it is desirable for a light-shielding layer or black matrix layer to have an uneven surface to suppress reflection of external light, where it is formed on a lower structure comprising a substrate.
They do not teach how the black matrix or light shielding layer is formed.
Sakata teaches a method of manufacturing a display device (a method for manufacturing a liquid crystal display device, 0001), the method comprising:
forming a lower structure comprising a substrate (coating a substrate with a coating liquid for forming a black matrix, 0009 and Fig. 1, such that a lower structure comprising a substrate is formed, i.e., a substrate is formed);
forming, on the lower structure, an organic layer comprising:
a base resin (forming a black matrix on the substrate by coating a liquid for forming the black matrix and a liquid repellent, 0009 and Fig. 1-2, where the black matrix coating solution contains a light-shielding material, a liquid-repellent agent, and a photosensitive resin, 0018, so as to provide a base resin); and
and a liquid-repellent material (where the black matrix coating solution includes a liquid-repellent agent, 0018 and Fig. 2);
performing a pre-baking process by heating the organic layer (pre-baking using a hot plate, 0035 and Fig. 2b, and where pre-baking is described as being done at 80°C, 0058, indicating that the pre-baking process will be performed by heating);
performing an exposure process by irradiating light onto the organic layer (exposing the black matrix forming layer through a photomask, 0036 and Fig. 2c, where exposure is done in a UV exposure apparatus, 0060, and where reference numeral 19 is exposure light, 0071 and Fig. 2c, such that the exposure process is understood to be done by irradiating light to the organic layer); and
performing a development process to form a light-shielding layer by removing a portion of the organic layer (developing the black matrix forming layer and removing the unexposed black matrix forming layer to provide a predetermined pattern, 0037 and Fig. 2d).
From the teachings of Sakata, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Ohmae to have formed the patterned black matrix layer by applying a resin on to the surface of the substrate comprising a lower structure, pre-baking the resin by heating the organic layer, performing an exposure process by irradiating light onto the organic layer, and performing a development process to form the black matrix or light shielding layer to remove a portion of the organic layer because Sakata teaches that such a process successfully forms a patterned black matrix layer such that it will be expected to desirably form the black matrix of Ohmae.
They do not teach including surface treated particles in the black matrix layer.
Sakata teaches that the liquid repellent is not particularly limited as long as it can impart liquid repellency to the black matrix, where examples include fluorine-containing polymer compounds and fine particles of fluorine-containing substances (0023). They teach that during the solvent drying process and pre-baking, the liquid repellent segregates onto the coating surface (0035 and Fig. 2b). They teach that due to the liquid repellency of the upper surface of the black matrix, the coating liquid for forming the colored regions does not penetrate into adjacent pixels (0040 and Fig. 3).
Saiki teaches a method for producing an antiglare film including an antiglare layer-forming coating liquid and a low-refractive index layer-forming coating liquid (abstract). They teach that the low-refractive index layer-forming coating liquid includes particles such as hollow silica particles (0089-0092). They teach that the particle is surface-modified with hydrophobicity imparted to allow easy movement of the particle to the gas-liquid interface of a coating layer after the application of the coating liquid (0093). They teach imparting hydrophobicity using a coupling agent, a hydrophobizing treatment with a low-molecular organic compound, a surface-coating hyrophobizing treatment with a polymer compound, or grafting of a hydrophobic polymer (0094). They teach that including various resin materials in the low-refractive index layer coating (0116). They teach that when the coating layer is applied on a substrate and conveyed to a drying zone, the particles move to the gas-liquid interface (0140 and Fig. 1b). They teach that by imparting hydrophobicity, movement of the particles is promoted (0140). They teach drying and curing the coating layer (0144-0145). Therefore, Saiki teaches mixing a base resin with silica particles surface-treated with a liquid-repellent material, and promoting movement of the particles to the surface of the coating for forming an antiglare film.
Kuramoto teaches an optical element obtained by laminating an optical resin layer on an optical substrate (abstract). They teach forming an intermediate layer by dispersing metal oxide microparticles in a matrix resin (0014). They teach using particles such as SiO2 (0022 and 0037). They teach that by baking the microparticle layer, it is possible to increase the film strength of the layer to the extent that microparticles can be removed with a detergent solution (0031 and Fig. 6). They teach that in the case where the microparticle dispersion liquid contains a photosensitive resin, the microparticle layer can be patterned by selectively exposing the layer to light and dipping the layer in a detergent solution to remove an unexposed portion thereof (0032). They teach forming the particle containing layer by spin-coating a matrix resin containing the silicon oxide particles, heating at 140°C for 1 hour, irradiating with ultraviolet rays, and then removing the silicon oxide particles by bringing them into contact with a BHF solution (0232). They teach forming an antireflection film 7 by coating a silicon oxide particle dispersion liquid on the surface of an optical resin layer (0238 and Fig. 9). They teach bringing the film into contact with a buffered hydrofluoric acid solution to dissolve and remove silicon oxide particles contained in the surface thereof and its vicinity to provide a plurality of pores (0238 and Fig. 9). They teach that such a structure continuously changes refractive index and therefore imparts antireflection function to the antireflection film (0239). In another example, they indicate that the film is heated and irradiated with UV prior to removing the particles (0232). They also teach that when the intermediate layer has surface irregularities, it is possible to further improve adhesion between the intermediate and optical resin layers (0038). Therefore, Kuramoto teaches mixing a base resin with silica particles, baking the film, exposing the film, and removing the particles from the surface region of the film to provide a porous or roughened surface that imparts an antireflection function to the film and also that by providing irregularities it improves adhesion between subsequently applied layers.
From the combination of Sakata, Saiki, and Kuramoto, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Ohmae in view of Sakata to have included silica particles surface-treated with a liquid-repellent material in the black matrix coating liquid, performed the pre-baking process to as to move the particles to the surface, exposed the layer by irradiating light, developed the layer, and remove the particles from the surface because Ohmae indicates it is desirable for a light-shielding layer or black matrix layer to have an uneven surface to suppress reflection of external light, Saiki teaches mixing a base resin with silica particles surface-treated with a liquid-repellent material and promoting movement of the particles to the surface of the coating for forming an antiglare film, Sakata indicates that liquid repelling particles move to the surface during pre-baking, and Kuramoto teaches mixing a base resin with silica particles, baking or curing the layer, and then removing particles at the surface of the coating for forming an antiglare film where providing irregularities improves adhesion such that it will be expected to provide liquid-repellent particles to the surface for subsequent removal for roughening the surface of the light-shielding layer so as to improve the function of the film by providing an antireflection structure and also improved adhesion between the black matrix and any layers applied on top. While they do not teach that the particles are removed in the development process, since they provide the process of claim 1, at least some of the particles are expected to be removed during development. According to MPEP 2112.01 I, “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”.
Alternatively: Asai teaches that when performing exposure and development of a core part containing particles, part of the particles protruding from the surface are removed, resulting in irregularities on the surface of the core part (0522).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that at least some of the particles will be removed during the development process because Asai indicates that in an exposure and development process, particles protruding from a surface are removed to provide irregularities in the surface as is desired by Ohmae in view of Sakata, Saiki, and Kuramoto.
Regarding claim 2, Ohmae in view of Sakata, Saiki, and Kuramoto and alternatively in view of Asai suggest the process of claim 1. As noted above, Sakata teaches that the liquid repelling material moves to the surface during pre-baking (0035 and Fig. 2b). Saiki also teaches that the particles move to the gas-liquid interface while being conveyed to a drying zone (0140). Therefore, the particles are also expected to move to an upper portion of the organic layer during the pre-baking process because they are coated with a liquid repelling material.
Regarding claim 3, Ohmae in view of Sakata, Saiki, and Kuramoto and alternatively in view of Asai suggest the process of claim 1, where it is suggested to remove the particles to form a roughened surface such that it will also be expected to provide a plurality of protrusions associated with the upper surface and depressions resulting from particles removal.
Regarding claims 4-7, Ohmae in view of Sakata, Saiki, and Kuramoto and alternatively in view of Asai suggest the process of claim 1. Saiki teaches that the size of the particle is preferably 10 nm or more and 50 nm or less, more preferably 15 nm or more and 40 nm or less (0114). They teach that by making the size of a particle in this range, the particles can be made to be easily moved to the gas-liquid interface in the particle movement step (0114).
Kuramoto teaches that the average particle size used is preferably 100 nm or less, more preferably in the range of 5 to 50 nm (0086). They teach using silicon oxide particles having a size of 20 nm to form the silicon oxide dispersion liquid (0197-0198), where removal of the particles provides a film with antireflective properties (0238-0239).
From this, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected particles having a size in the range of 10 nm or more and 50 nm or less or 15 nm or more and 40 nm or less because Saiki teaches that such particle sizes allow for the particles to be easily moved to the gas-liquid interface and Kuramoto teaches that a range overlapping this range is desirable, where removal of such particles provides an antireflective structure such that it will be expected to successfully move the particles to the surface and impart antireflective properties as desired. Therefore, the particle size is within the claimed range. According to MPEP 2131.03, “[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art.”
While they do not teach the features of claims 4-6, since they suggest the process of claim 1 of mixing the particles with the resin, pre-baking, exposing, and developing, with particle removal, where the particles have a size within the claimed range, the protrusions are also expected to be irregularly arranged where at least some of the protrusions have different widths in a direction, and the gap between adjacent one of the plurality of protrusions will be within or overlapping the claimed range. According to MPEP 2112.01 I, “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”.
Regarding claim 8, Ohmae in view of Sakata, Saiki, and Kuramoto and alternatively in view of Asai suggest the process of claim 1. Sakata teaches using liquid repellents such as fluorine-containing polymer compounds and fin particles of fluorine-containing substances (0023). Saiki further teaches modifying the particles with a silicane-coupling agent containing a fluorine atom, i.e., a fluorine-based silane coupling agent (0096 and 0098). They also teach using a polymer compound having a fluorine atom for treating the particles with a polymer compound (0101 and 0103). From this, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a fluorine-based material as the liquid-repellent material because both Sakata and Saiki teach using fluorine-based materials to impart liquid-repellency such that it will be expected to provide the particles with the desired property.
Regarding claim 9, Ohmae in view of Sakata, Saiki, and Kuramoto and alternatively in view of Asai suggest the process of claim 1. Sakata teaches that the black matrix is formed from a photosensitive resin and a light-shielding material (0019). They teach that the light-shielding material may be metal oxide powders, metal powders, carbon black, as well as mixtures of pigments such as red, blue, and green (0022). Therefore, when forming the black matrix, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a base resin comprises a photosensitive organic material (photosensitive resin) and a coloring agent (pigments) because Sakata teaches that such a composition is desirable for a black matrix.
Regarding claim 10, Ohmae in view of Sakata, Saiki, and Kuramoto and alternatively in view of Asai suggest the process of claim 1. Sakata further teaches that the black matrix is formed from a photosensitive resin (0019), where the photosensitive resin is a negative-type photosensitive resin (0020). From this, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a negative-type photosensitive resin as the base resin because Sakata teaches that such a composition is desirable for a black matrix.
Regarding claim 11, Ohmae in view of Sakata, Saiki, and Kuramoto and alternatively in view of Asai suggest the process of claim 1. Sakata further teaches pre-baking on a hot plate at 80°C for 3 minutes or 180 seconds (0058). Therefore, the pre-baking process will be performed for a period within the claimed time and temperature range. According to MPEP 2131.03, “[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art.”
Regarding claim 12, Ohmae in view of Sakata, Saiki, and Kuramoto and alternatively in view of Asai suggest the process of claim 1. Sakata further teaches post-baking the black matrix layer (0018), providing the suggestion to post-bake the black matrix in the method of forming the layer.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohmae in view of Sakata, Saiki, and Kuramoto and alternatively in view of Asai as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Tan, US 2019/0011834 A1.
Regarding claim 13, Ohmae in view of Sakata, Saiki, and Kuramoto and alternatively in view of Asai suggest the process of claim 12.
They do not teach post-baking using the claimed time or temperature.
Tan teaches a photolithographic method for fabricating bank structures (abstract). They teach that in a typical photolithography process the post-exposure-bake uses a time of 2 to 120 minutes at 50 to 120°C (0062). They teach developing and then performing a hard bake at 50 to 180°C for 5 to 120 minutes (0062). They teach that the heat treatment time and temperature will depend on the nature of the material used and can be determined by simple experimentation (0062).
From the teachings of Tan, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a post-bake temperature in the range of 50 to 180°C and time of 5 to 120 minutes because Tan teaches that such conditions are suitable for a hard bake after the development stage. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the time and temperature to be within the claimed range depending on the material because Tan teaches that such conditions are material dependent and can be determined by experimentation. Therefore, the time and temperature will overlap the claimed range or be optimized to be within the claimed range. According to MPEP 2144.05, “in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” According to MPEP 2144.05 II A, “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohmae in view of Sakata, Saiki, and Kuramoto and alternatively in view of Asai as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cho, US 2016/0079567 A1 and Lee, US 2022/0020955 A1.
Regarding claim 14, Ohmae in view of Sakata, Saiki, and Kuramoto and alternatively in view of Asai suggest the process of claim 1. Ohmae teaches an LED below the light blocking layer (0074 and Fig. 8).
They do not teach including the claimed layers.
Cho teaches an organic light emitting display apparatus that includes a substrate divided into an emission area and a non-emission area; a pixel electrode disposed in the emission area; an intermediate layer disposed on the pixel electrode, including an organic emission layer; a counter electrode covering the intermediate layer; an external light reflection layer disposed on the counter elected, the external light reflection layer being configured to reflect a portion of incident visible rays; and absorb and transmit another portion of the incident visible rays; a phase control layer disposed between the counter electrode and the external light reflection layer; a thin film encapsulating layer disposed on the external light reflection layer; and a black matrix disposed on the thin-film encapsulating layer in the non-emission area (abstract, Fig. 1, and Fig. 4). They teach that the lower structure comprises emission areas that include electrodes, intermediate layer, and counter electrodes (0029 and Fig. 4). They that the organic emission layers are patterned into a red emission layer, a green emission layer, and a blue emission layer when the device is an OLED (0037), such that the organic emission layers are understood to be light emitting diodes. They teach that the substrate may be a thin-film transistor array substrate, which is formed by arranging driving elements, such as thin-film transistors on a base substrate (0032). They teach that an external light reflection layer 140 is provided on a phase control layer (0030 and Fig. 4). They teach that the external light reflection layer is configured to reflect at least a portion of the incident visible rays and absorb and transmit at least a portion of the incident visible rays, where it is formed from inorganic materials such as Ti, Cr, Ni, Al, W, and Mo (0030), which are inorganic materials meeting the claimed low reflectivity layer as indicated by paragraph 00108 of the instant specification, such that it is considered to be a low reflectivity layer. They also teach that a thin film encapsulation layer is formed on the low reflectivity layer (0031 and Fig. 4). They teach that a touch layer is disposed on the thin-film encapsulating layer and below the black matrix, where the touch layer contains a conductive material and may be formed by forming a conductive material on the topmost layer of the encapsulating layer (0074, 0076, and Fig. 4). They teach that the touch layer provides a touch function, such that it is considered to also be a touch sensor layer for providing such a function (0075). Therefore, they provide a display layer containing the required components, a low-reflection layer on the display layer and comprising an inorganic material, a thin-film encapsulation layer disposed on the low-reflection layer, and a touch sensor (touch layer) disposed on the encapsulation layer and comprising a conductive layer.
From the teachings of Cho, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the structure of Ohmae to have included the claimed layers because Cho teaches that such layers are desirable for forming a display device having a touch function such that it will be expected to provide a desirable display device.
They do not teach that the OLEDs are electrically connected to the TFT layer.
Lee teaches a display device that includes a display area and a non-display area, a light emitting element in the display area, and an encapsulating layer covering the light emitting element (abstract and Fig. 14). They teach that the display includes a transistor and an LED (0063, 0066, 0075, and Fig. 14). They teach that the LED includes a first electrode that is electrically contacted to the transistor (0076 and Fig. 14). They teach that an encapsulation layer is formed to encapsulate the LED (0086 and Fig. 14). They teach that a touch sensor layer TS including a touch electrode is provided on the encapsulation layer (0133 and Fig. 14). They teach that a light blocking member 220 is disposed on the touch sensor layer, where the light blocking member includes a black pigment or dye to prevent light reflection and is also referred to as a black matrix (0134 and Fig. 14). They teach that a color filter 230 may be disposed on the touch sensor layer, where the color filter may transmit any one of red, green, and blue light (0135 and Fig. 14). They teach that color filters representing different colors may overlap in a region overlapping the light blocking member (0135 and Fig. 14).
From the teachings of Lee, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have electrically connected the TFT and the OLEDs of Cho because Lee teaches that such a configuration is desirable in forming a display.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohmae in view of Sakata, Saiki, and Kuramoto and alternatively in view of Asai as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee, US 2022/0020955 A1.
Regarding claim 15, Ohmae in view of Sakata, Saiki, and Kuramoto and alternatively in view of Asai suggest the process of claim 1.
They do not teach forming a color filter on the light-shielding layer.
As discussed above, from the teachings of Lee, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed a color filter layer on the black matrix layer as depicted in Fig. 14 of Lee because Lee teaches that such a layer and configuration is desirable for transmitting colors in a display apparatus similar to that of Ohmae.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA D MCCLURE whose telephone number is (571)272-9761. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00 EST.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/CHRISTINA D MCCLURE/ Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights