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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the claims received on 10/26/2023.
Communications via email (MPEP 502.03)
In order to advance prosecution of the instant application, the Applicants are invited to file a form PTO/SB/439 "Internet Communications Authorized", and to include, in their response, the Applicants’ contact telephone number and e-mail address:
http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf
Claim Interpretation
MPEP 2111.01 Plain Meaning states: The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification. An applicant is entitled to be their own lexicographer and may rebut the presumption that claim terms are to be given their ordinary and customary meaning by clearly setting forth a definition of the term that is different from its ordinary and customary meaning(s) in the specification at the relevant time. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1674 (Fed. Cir. 1994). MPEP 2111.01 part III explains that in some cases it is also appropriate to look to how the claim term is used in the prior art, which includes prior art patents, published applications, trade publications, and dictionaries. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1317, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005). In this case:
“Print layer”: The specification mentions this term several times, without redefining it, for example in par. 76: "print layer 10 may be formed on the bottom surface SF1 of the base member 210 by various methods such as spraying, deposition, coating, and printing processes". Therefore, claimed "print layer" has its original meaning. Lee et al (publication number 2013/0242385), hereinafter Lee, provides the meaning of "print layers" as explained in the analysis under 35 USC 103.
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 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 of this title, 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.
7.20.02.aia Joint Inventors, Common Ownership Presumed
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 at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed 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 at the time a later invention was effectively filed 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.
7.23.aia Test for Obviousness
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 11, 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (publication number 2013/0242385), hereinafter Lee, and further in view of Ikeda et al (publication number 2007/0154685), hereinafter Ikeda, and further in view of Masubuchi et al (publication number 2018/0043718), hereinafter Masubuchi.
Lee teaches (Please refer to Lee Fig. 1, 2) a mobile terminal (Lee par. 48 and Fig. 1, mobile terminal 100) having a front case 101 and a rear case 102 (Lee par. 49). Image modules 200, 300 are mounted onto the front case 101, as shown in FIG. 1, to form the front surface of the terminal body or configure the battery cover 103 of FIG. 2; image modules 200, 300 are for externally providing a stereoscopic image, or three-dimensional (3D) image, giving a sophisticated visual effect (Lee par. 88). The image modules 200, 300 include the following print layers (Lee par. 92, 131):
Optically transmissive layer 201 (Lee par. 115: pattern layer 210, 310 may be formed by printing an optically transmissive synthetic resin, for example, acryl silicon-based resin, onto the rear surface of the optically transmissive layer 201; par. 135: The pattern layer 610 may be formed on the reflection layer 620 in a manner of printing or spraying optically transmissive or colored ink; par. 138: The optically transmissive layer 601 may be made of an optically transmissive material, and disposed to cover the color layer 630 and the pattern layer 610 through a spraying process – therefore, the optically transmissive layer may be formed by a printing process).
Pattern layer 210 (Lee par. 95, 115, 135: pattern layer 210 may be formed in a manner of printing, UV molding or the like).
Reflection layer 220 (Lee par. 117, 127: reflection layer 220, 320 is formed by coating or depositing a metal having high luminance or coating mirror ink; the reflection layer 520 may be masked in a printing manner).
Color layer 230 (Lee par. 99, 133: color layer 230 is printed)
For purposes of examination, based on the layers above-described by Lee, a print layer is interpreted as a layer which is formed by either method of printing, coating, spraying, molding depositing a material on a surface, or a similar method.
PNG
media_image1.png
704
515
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
636
516
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Lee teaches a cover window ("Window section 152" in Lee par. 73 in reference to Fig. 1, 3: Display unit 150 including display 151 and a window section 152 covering the display 151") comprising (Please refer to Lee Figs. 10, 12):
PNG
media_image3.png
281
453
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
316
460
media_image4.png
Greyscale
a base member (Base member 660, 760 in Lee par. 131, 132 in reference to Figs. 10, 12);
a first print layer (Second pattern layer 790 in Lee par. 146 in reference to Fig. 12) formed on a first surface of the base member (Lee par. 145 in reference to Fig. 12: The second pattern layer 790 is formed prior to depositing a reflection layer 720 on a color layer 730, and protrude; par. 133: The color layer covers base member through printing or deposition); and
a second print layer (pattern layer 610, 710 in Lee par. 135, 145 in reference to Figs. 10, 12) formed on the first print layer (Lee par. 135, 145 in reference to Figs. 10, 12: pattern layer 610 is formed on the reflection layer 620 by printing or spraying optically transmissive or colored ink), wherein
the second print layer (pattern layer 610, 710 in Lee par. 135, 145 in reference to Figs. 10, 12) comprises an opening exposing the first print layer (Lee par. 146 in reference to Fig. 12: the second pattern layer 790 overlaps part of the first pattern layer 710 – the area where 710 and 790 don't overlap meets claimed "opening exposing" Lee's layer 790).
Lee does not explicitly teach: "the first print layer and the second print layer have a same color, and a gloss of the first print layer is greater than a gloss of the second print layer."
Ikeda teaches (please refer to Ikeda par. 69 in reference to Fig. 2A, print pattern 12 over film 14):
PNG
media_image5.png
111
510
media_image5.png
Greyscale
the first print layer and the second print layer have a same color (Ikeda par. 54: with the print pattern formed in monochrome of the same color as the ground color of the base body of the articles, there is obtained an appearance of the decorative layer only by the differences of the glossy degree).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Lee, by forming a pattern in monochrome of the same color as the ground color of the base body, as suggested by Ikeda, in order to obtain an appearance of the decorative layer only by the differences of the glossy degree and therefore provide the products with modern and new feelings and unique feeling imparted thereto, and in order to provide the expression of design variation of a decorative layer accomplished and a touch feeling of the decorative layer improved because of unevenness formed thereon (Ikeda par. 19, 54). This motivation is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Lee as modified does not explicitly teach: "a gloss of the first print layer is greater than a gloss of the second print layer".
Masubuchi teaches (Masubuchi par. 104 in reference to Fig. 1):
PNG
media_image6.png
251
398
media_image6.png
Greyscale
a gloss of the first print layer (5 in Masubuchi par. 104 in reference to Fig. 1) is greater than a gloss of the second print layer (4 in Masubuchi par. 104 in reference to Fig. 1: The second surface protective layer 5 has a higher gloss than the first surface protective layer 4. It would have been obvious to reverse the layer of higher gloss with the layer of lower gloss, in re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955) and MPEP 2144.04).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Lee as modified, by deploying a second surface protective layer having a higher gloss than the first surface protective layer, or vice versa, as suggested by Masubuchi, because in recent years, there has been a trend to further enhance the design aesthetics by imparting a three-dimensional feel, thereby distinguishing an item from other products; also, in order to provide a high-gloss portion and a low-gloss portion within a surface protective layer, thereby portraying an uneven 3D feel due to an optical illusion arising from the gloss difference (Masubuchi par. 3-5). This motivation is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Regarding claim 17, Lee teaches wherein the first print layer (Second pattern layer 790 in Lee par. 146 in reference to Fig. 12) and the second print layer (pattern layer 610, 710 in Lee par. 135, 145 in reference to Figs. 10, 12) are only print layers disposed on the first surface of the base member (Base member 660, 760 in Lee par. 131, 132 in reference to Figs. 10, 12).
Regarding claim 18, Lee teaches wherein the first print layer (Second pattern layer 790 in Lee par. 146 in reference to Fig. 12) contacts the base member (Base member 660, 760 in Lee par. 131, 132 in reference to Figs. 10, 12) and the second print layer (pattern layer 610, 710 in Lee par. 135, 145 in reference to Figs. 10, 12).
Regarding claim 19, Lee teaches wherein in a plan view (Lee par. 144: FIG. 12 is a sectional view of battery cover 700) on the first surface (Base member 660, 760 in Lee par. 131, 132 in reference to Figs. 10, 12), the opening (Lee par. 146 in reference to Fig. 12: the second pattern layer 790 overlaps part of the first pattern layer 710 – the area where 710 and 790 don't overlap meets claimed "opening exposing" Lee's layer 790) has a shape that indicates information of a display device (Lee par. 26: the optically transmissive region may define a logo) the cover window is disposed on (Lee par. 73 in reference to Fig. 1, 3: Display unit 150 including display 151 and a window section 152 covering the display 151").
Claims 1, 7-10, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, in view of Ikeda, in view of Masubuchi, and further in view of Han et al (publication number 2020/0178384), hereinafter Han.
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a display device (Lee par. 48 and Fig. 1: mobile terminal 100, including display unit 150 as explained in par. 52) comprising:
a display panel (Lee par. 52 and Fig. 1: display unit 150) including a display area (Lee par. 52 and Fig. 1: The display unit 150 is implemented to display visual information using, for example, a Liquid Crystal Display (LCD)) and a peripheral area disposed adjacent to the display area (Image module 200 in Lee par. 88 in reference to Fig. 1); and
a cover window ("Window section 152" in Lee par. 73 in reference to Fig. 1, 3: Display unit 150 including display 151 and a window section 152 covering the display 151") including a transmissive area corresponding to the display area and a non-transmissive area corresponding to the peripheral area (Lee par. 81 in reference to Fig. 3: window 152a is made of a material through which light can be transmitted. The window 152a includes a non-transparent portion – Fig. 3 clearly represents a non-transparent portion of window 152a on its peripheral area), wherein
the cover window ("Window section 152" in Lee par. 73 in reference to Fig. 1, 3: Display unit 150 including display 151 and a window section 152 covering the display 151") comprises:
a base member (Base member 660, 760 in Lee par. 131, 132 in reference to Figs. 10, 12);
a first print layer (Second pattern layer 790 in Lee par. 146 in reference to Fig. 12) formed on a first surface of the base member (Lee par. 145 in reference to Fig. 12: The second pattern layer 790 is formed prior to depositing a reflection layer 720 on a color layer 730, and protrude; par. 133: The color layer covers base member through printing or deposition); and
a second print layer (pattern layer 610, 710 in Lee par. 135, 145 in reference to Figs. 10, 12) formed on the first print layer (Lee par. 135, 145 in reference to Figs. 10, 12: pattern layer 610 is formed on the reflection layer 620 by printing or spraying optically transmissive or colored ink),
the second print layer (pattern layer 610, 710 in Lee par. 135, 145 in reference to Figs. 10, 12) comprises an opening exposing the first print layer (Lee par. 146 in reference to Fig. 12: the second pattern layer 790 overlaps part of the first pattern layer 710 – the area where 710 and 790 don't overlap meets claimed "opening exposing" Lee's layer 790).
Lee does not explicitly teach: "the first print layer and the second print layer have a same color, and a gloss of the first print layer is greater than a gloss of the second print layer"; "including a plurality of pixels".
Ikeda teaches (please refer to Ikeda par. 69 in reference to Fig. 2A, print pattern 12 over film 14): the first print layer and the second print layer have a same color (Ikeda par. 54: with the print pattern formed in monochrome of the same color as the ground color of the base body of the articles, there is obtained an appearance of the decorative layer only by the differences of the glossy degree).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Lee, by forming a pattern in monochrome of the same color as the ground color of the base body, as suggested by Ikeda, in order to obtain an appearance of the decorative layer only by the differences of the glossy degree and therefore provide the products with modern and new feelings and unique feeling imparted thereto, and in order to provide the expression of design variation of a decorative layer accomplished and a touch feeling of the decorative layer improved because of unevenness formed thereon (Ikeda par. 19, 54). This motivation is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Lee as modified does not explicitly teach: "a gloss of the first print layer is greater than a gloss of the second print layer"; "including a plurality of pixels".
Masubuchi teaches (Masubuchi par. 104 in reference to Fig. 1): a gloss of the first print layer (5 in Masubuchi par. 104 in reference to Fig. 1) is greater than a gloss of the second print layer (4 in Masubuchi par. 104 in reference to Fig. 1: The second surface protective layer 5 has a higher gloss than the first surface protective layer 4. It would have been obvious to reverse the layer of higher gloss with the layer of lower gloss, in re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955) and MPEP 2144.04).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Lee as modified, by deploying a second surface protective layer having a higher gloss than the first surface protective layer, or vice versa, as suggested by Masubuchi, because in recent years, there has been a trend to further enhance the design aesthetics by imparting a three-dimensional feel, thereby distinguishing an item from other products; also, in order to provide a high-gloss portion and a low-gloss portion within a surface protective layer, thereby portraying an uneven 3D feel due to an optical illusion arising from the gloss difference, and because a matte coating composition is able to impart decorative material with an uneven three-dimensional feel, thereby enhancing the design aesthetics (Masubuchi par. 3-5 and 38). This motivation is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Lee as modified does not explicitly teach: "including a plurality of pixels".
Han teaches a display panel including a display area including a plurality of pixels and a peripheral area disposed adjacent to the display area (Han par. 9, in summary: display panel with a base substrate including an active area and a peripheral area adjacent to the active area, a plurality of pixels for displaying an image on the active area). Han teaches (please refer to Han Fig. 2A for detailed explanation) a display panel (Han par. 69, display panel DP) including a display area (Han par. 70, active area AA) including a plurality of pixels (Han par. 72, pixels PX to realize the image IM in the active area AA) and a peripheral area disposed adjacent to the display area (Han par. 70, peripheral area NAA adjacent to AA).
PNG
media_image7.png
663
454
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Lee as modified, by deploying Han's display panel with a base substrate including an active area and a peripheral area adjacent to the active area, a plurality of pixels for displaying an image on the active area, as suggested by Han, in order to provide a method of manufacturing an electronic apparatus, which is capable of improving reliability and of simplifying processes; in order to prevent damage of the circuit board by the collision with the window, improving as a result, reliability of the display unit (Han par. 7, 103). This motivation is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Regarding claim 7, Lee teaches wherein the first print layer (Second pattern layer 790 in Lee par. 146 in reference to Fig. 12) and the second print layer (pattern layer 610, 710 in Lee par. 135, 145 in reference to Figs. 10, 12) are only print layers disposed on the first surface of the base member (Base member 660, 760 in Lee par. 131, 132 in reference to Figs. 10, 12).
Regarding claim 8, Lee teaches wherein the first print layer (Second pattern layer 790 in Lee par. 146 in reference to Fig. 12) contacts the base member (Base member 660, 760 in Lee par. 131, 132 in reference to Figs. 10, 12) and the second print layer (pattern layer 610, 710 in Lee par. 135, 145 in reference to Figs. 10, 12).
Regarding claim 9, Lee teaches wherein the first surface is a plane (Base member 660, 760 in Lee par. 131, 132 in reference to Figs. 10, 12) that faces the display panel (Lee par. 52 and Fig. 1: display unit 150; par. 88: Image modules 200, 300 are mounted onto the terminal body; par. 129 in reference to Fig. 9: image modules 200, 300 include the base member. Therefore, Lee's base member's surface is on a plane which faces the display panel, as claimed).
Regarding claim 10, Lee teaches wherein in a plan view (Lee par. 144: FIG. 12 is a sectional view of battery cover 700) on the first surface (Base member 660, 760 in Lee par. 131, 132 in reference to Figs. 10, 12), the opening (Lee par. 146 in reference to Fig. 12: the second pattern layer 790 overlaps part of the first pattern layer 710 – the area where 710 and 790 don't overlap meets claimed "opening exposing" Lee's layer 790) has a shape that indicates information of a display device (Lee par. 26: the optically transmissive region may define a logo).
Regarding claim 20, Lee teaches a display device (Lee par. 48 and Fig. 1: mobile terminal 100, including display unit 150 as explained in par. 52) comprising:
a display panel (Lee par. 52 and Fig. 1: display unit 150) including a display area (Lee par. 52 and Fig. 1: The display unit 150 is implemented to display visual information using, for example, a Liquid Crystal Display (LCD)) and a peripheral area disposed adjacent to the display area (Image module 200 in Lee par. 88 in reference to Fig. 1); and
a cover window ("Window section 152" in Lee par. 73 in reference to Fig. 1, 3: Display unit 150 including display 151 and a window section 152 covering the display 151") including a transmissive area corresponding to the display area and a non-transmissive area corresponding to the peripheral area (Lee par. 81 in reference to Fig. 3: window 152a is made of a material through which light can be transmitted. The window 152a includes a non-transparent portion – Fig. 3 clearly represents a non-transparent portion of window 152a on its peripheral area), wherein
the cover window ("Window section 152" in Lee par. 73 in reference to Fig. 1, 3: Display unit 150 including display 151 and a window section 152 covering the display 151") comprises:
a base member (Base member 660, 760 in Lee par. 131, 132 in reference to Figs. 10, 12);
a first print layer (Second pattern layer 790 in Lee par. 146 in reference to Fig. 12) formed on a first surface of the base member (Lee par. 145 in reference to Fig. 12: The second pattern layer 790 is formed prior to depositing a reflection layer 720 on a color layer 730, and protrude; par. 133: The color layer covers base member through printing or deposition); and
a second print layer (pattern layer 610, 710 in Lee par. 135, 145 in reference to Figs. 10, 12) formed on the first print layer (Lee par. 135, 145 in reference to Figs. 10, 12: pattern layer 610 is formed on the reflection layer 620 by printing or spraying optically transmissive or colored ink),
the second print layer (pattern layer 610, 710 in Lee par. 135, 145 in reference to Figs. 10, 12) comprises an opening exposing the first print layer (Lee par. 146 in reference to Fig. 12: the second pattern layer 790 overlaps part of the first pattern layer 710 – the area where 710 and 790 don't overlap meets claimed "opening exposing" Lee's layer 790).
Lee does not explicitly teach: "the first print layer and the second print layer have a same color, and a gloss of the first print layer is greater than a gloss of the second print layer"; "an amount of a matting agent included in the second print layer is greater than an amount of the matting agent included in the first print layer"; "including a plurality of pixels".
Ikeda teaches (please refer to Ikeda par. 69 in reference to Fig. 2A, print pattern 12 over film 14): the first print layer and the second print layer have a same color (Ikeda par. 54: with the print pattern formed in monochrome of the same color as the ground color of the base body of the articles, there is obtained an appearance of the decorative layer only by the differences of the glossy degree).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Lee, by forming a pattern in monochrome of the same color as the ground color of the base body, as suggested by Ikeda, in order to obtain an appearance of the decorative layer only by the differences of the glossy degree and therefore provide the products with modern and new feelings and unique feeling imparted thereto, and in order to provide the expression of design variation of a decorative layer accomplished and a touch feeling of the decorative layer improved because of unevenness formed thereon (Ikeda par. 19, 54). This motivation is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Lee as modified does not explicitly teach: "a gloss of the first print layer is greater than a gloss of the second print layer"; "an amount of a matting agent included in the second print layer is greater than an amount of the matting agent included in the first print layer"; "including a plurality of pixels".
Masubuchi teaches (Masubuchi par. 104 in reference to Fig. 1):
a gloss of the first print layer (5 in Masubuchi par. 104 in reference to Fig. 1) is greater than a gloss of the second print layer (4 in Masubuchi par. 104 in reference to Fig. 1: The second surface protective layer 5 has a higher gloss than the first surface protective layer 4. It would have been obvious to reverse the layer of higher gloss with the layer of lower gloss, in re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955) and MPEP 2144.04); and
an amount of a matting agent ("matte coating composition" in Masubuchi par. 42: In the matte coating composition, silica is used in order to reduce the gloss by forming unevenness on the cured coating film surface) included in the second print layer (4 in Masubuchi par. 104 in reference to Fig. 1: the first surface protective layer 4 is formed from matte coating; the second surface protective layer 5 is formed from coating having a higher gloss) is greater than an amount of the matting agent included in the first print layer (5 in Masubuchi par. 104 in reference to Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Lee as modified, by deploying a second surface protective layer having a higher gloss than the first surface protective layer, or vice versa, and by using "matte coating composition" where silica is used in order to reduce the gloss by forming unevenness on the cured coating film surface as suggested by Masubuchi, because in recent years, there has been a trend to further enhance the design aesthetics by imparting a three-dimensional feel, thereby distinguishing an item from other products; also, in order to provide a high-gloss portion and a low-gloss portion within a surface protective layer, thereby portraying an uneven 3D feel due to an optical illusion arising from the gloss difference (Masubuchi par. 3-5). This motivation is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Lee as modified does not explicitly teach: "including a plurality of pixels".
Han teaches a display panel including a display area including a plurality of pixels and a peripheral area disposed adjacent to the display area (Han par. 9: display panel with a base substrate including an active area and a peripheral area adjacent to the active area, a plurality of pixels for displaying an image on the active area). Han teaches (please refer to Han Fig. 2A) a display panel (Han par. 69, display panel DP) including a display area (Han par. 70, active area AA) including a plurality of pixels (Han par. 72, pixels PX to realize the image IM in the active area AA) and a peripheral area disposed adjacent to the display area (Han par. 70, peripheral area NAA adjacent to AA).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Lee as modified, by deploying Han's display panel with a base substrate including an active area and a peripheral area adjacent to the active area, a plurality of pixels for displaying an image on the active area, as suggested by Han, in order to provide a method of manufacturing an electronic apparatus, which is capable of improving reliability and of simplifying processes; in order to prevent damage of the circuit board by the collision with the window, improving as a result, reliability of the display unit (Han par. 7, 103). This motivation is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, in view of Ikeda, in view of Masubuchi, in view of Han, and further in view of Agerton et al (publication number 2020/0024021), hereinafter Agerton.
Agerton teaches (please refer to Fig. 1A, 8A) an article such as a bottle (Agerton par. 51). The area 30 towards the top of the bottle or shoulder 31 is colored and glossy (Agerton par. 47, 72). The area 10 towards base 11 is a matte region, which has a relatively rough surface texture as compared to the glossy region, resulting in a matte finish (Agerton par. 48, 72). Agerton's "gloss gradient" refers to a region having a first region and a second region. The gloss can vary continuously across the gradient and generally trends from a region of more gloss to less gloss, or vice versa (Agerton par. 58). "Gloss 20 method" consists of measuring the gloss at different points along the article. Gloss 20° measurements are made every 10 mm along the length of the article. The measurements provided by the Micro-Tri Gloss meter have the unit "GU" which stands for "gloss units" (Agerton par. 117, 168). The Gloss 20 measurements are displayed in the tables of Agerton's Figs. 8A-C (Agerton par. 118)
PNG
media_image8.png
648
438
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
622
984
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Lee as modified does not explicitly teach: "wherein the gloss of the first print layer is greater than or equal to about 70 gloss unit (GU), and the gloss of the second print layer is less than or equal to about 10 GU."
Agerton teaches wherein the gloss of the first print layer is greater than or equal to about 70 gloss unit (GU, Agerton Fig. 8A, gloss values greater than 70 GU towards the top of the table), and the gloss of the second print layer is less than or equal to about 10 GU (Agerton Fig. 8A, gloss values below 10 GU towards the bottom of the table).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Lee as modified, by adopting the gloss values measured in GU and displayed in Agerton's Figs. 8A-C, and by adopting a matte finish, as suggested by Agerton, because consumers want to purchase articles that grab their attention by having a premium appearance at the store shelf or webpage or app. Also, in order to make eye-catching articles that connotate luxury and quality, it can be desirable for the article to have an appearance gradient. It will be particularly attractive to combine glossy and matte visual effects along with sensorial touch features (Agerton par. 2, 3). This motivation is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Regarding claim 3, Lee as modified does not explicitly teach: Wherein a difference between the gloss of the first print layer and the gloss of the second print layer is greater than or equal to about 60 GU.
Agerton teaches: "Wherein a difference between the gloss of the first print layer (Agerton Fig. 8A, gloss values greater than 70 GU towards the top of the table) and the gloss of the second print layer (Agerton Fig. 8A, gloss values below 10 GU towards the bottom of the table) is greater than or equal to about 60 GU (from Fig. 8A, for example, the difference between the highest value and lowest value is greater than 60 GU).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Lee as modified, by adopting the gloss values measured in GU and displayed in Agerton's Figs. 8A-C, and by adopting a matte finish, as suggested by Agerton, because consumers want to purchase articles that grab their attention by having a premium appearance at the store shelf or webpage or app. Also, in order to make eye-catching articles that connotate luxury and quality, it can be desirable for the article to have an appearance gradient. It will be particularly attractive to combine glossy and matte visual effects along with sensorial touch features (Agerton par. 2, 3). This motivation is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Regarding claim 4, Lee as modified does not explicitly teach wherein the second print layer includes a material containing a matting agent.
Agerton teaches wherein the second print layer includes a material containing a matting agent (Matte finish in Agerton par. 48).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Lee as modified, by adopting the gloss values measured in GU and displayed in Agerton's Figs. 8A-C, and by adopting a matte finish, as suggested by Agerton, because consumers want to purchase articles that grab their attention by having a premium appearance at the store shelf or webpage or app. Also, in order to make eye-catching articles that connotate luxury and quality, it can be desirable for the article to have an appearance gradient. It will be particularly attractive to combine glossy and matte visual effects along with sensorial touch features (Agerton par. 2, 3). This motivation is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Regarding claim 5, Lee as modified does not explicitly teach wherein the matting agent is greater than or equal to about 10% of the material of the second print layer.
Masubuchi teaches wherein the matting agent ("matte coating composition" in Masubuchi par. 42: In the matte coating composition, silica is used in order to reduce the gloss by forming unevenness on the cured coating film surface) is greater than or equal to about 10% of the material of the second print layer (Masubuchi Table 4, silica content value of 12.5%, for example).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Lee as modified, by deploying a second surface protective layer having a higher gloss than the first surface protective layer, or vice versa, and by using "matte coating composition" where silica is used in order to reduce the gloss by forming unevenness on the cured coating film surface as suggested by Masubuchi, because in recent years, there has been a trend to further enhance the design aesthetics by imparting a three-dimensional feel, thereby distinguishing an item from other products; also, in order to provide a high-gloss portion and a low-gloss portion within a surface protective layer, thereby portraying an uneven 3D feel due to an optical illusion arising from the gloss difference (Masubuchi par. 3-5). This motivation is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Regarding claim 6, Lee as modified does not explicitly teach wherein the first print layer includes a material containing the matting agent, and the matting agent is in a range of about 0 % to about 3 % of the material of the first print layer.
Masubuchi teaches wherein the first print layer includes a material containing the matting agent ("matte coating composition" in Masubuchi par. 42: In the matte coating composition, silica is used in order to reduce the gloss by forming unevenness on the cured coating film surface), and the matting agent is in a range of about 0 % to about 3 % of the material of the first print layer (Masubuchi Table 4, silica content value of 0%, for example).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Lee as modified, by deploying a second surface protective layer having a higher gloss than the first surface protective layer, or vice versa, and by using "matte coating composition" where silica is used in order to reduce the gloss by forming unevenness on the cured coating film surface as suggested by Masubuchi, because in recent years, there has been a trend to further enhance the design aesthetics by imparting a three-dimensional feel, thereby distinguishing an item from other products; also, in order to provide a high-gloss portion and a low-gloss portion within a surface protective layer, thereby portraying an uneven 3D feel due to an optical illusion arising from the gloss difference (Masubuchi par. 3-5). This motivation is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Claims 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, in view of Ikeda, in view of Masubuchi, and in view of Agerton.
Regarding claim 12, Lee as modified does not explicitly teach: "wherein the gloss of the first print layer is greater than or equal to about 70 gloss unit (GU), and the gloss of the second print layer is less than or equal to about 10 GU."
Agerton teaches wherein the gloss of the first print layer is greater than or equal to about 70 gloss unit (GU, Agerton Fig. 8A, gloss values greater than 70 GU towards the top of the table), and the gloss of the second print layer is less than or equal to about 10 GU (Agerton Fig. 8A, gloss values below 10 GU towards the bottom of the table).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Lee as modified, by adopting the gloss values measured in GU and displayed in Agerton's Figs. 8A-C, and by adopting a matte finish, as suggested by Agerton, because consumers want to purchase articles that grab their attention by having a premium appearance at the store shelf or webpage or app. Also, in order to make eye-catching articles that connotate luxury and quality, it can be desirable for the article to have an appearance gradient. It will be particularly attractive to combine glossy and matte visual effects along with sensorial touch features (Agerton par. 2, 3). This motivation is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Regarding claim 13, Lee as modified does not explicitly teach: Wherein a difference between the gloss of the first print layer and the gloss of the second print layer is greater than or equal to about 60 GU.
Agerton teaches: "Wherein a difference between the gloss of the first print layer (Agerton Fig. 8A, gloss values greater than 70 GU towards the top of the table) and the gloss of the second print layer (Agerton Fig. 8A, gloss values below 10 GU towards the bottom of the table) is greater than or equal to about 60 GU (from Fig. 8A, for example, the difference between the highest value and lowest value is greater than 60 GU).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Lee as modified, by adopting the gloss values measured in GU and displayed in Agerton's Figs. 8A-C, and by adopting a matte finish, as suggested by Agerton, because consumers want to purchase articles that grab their attention by having a premium appearance at the store shelf or webpage or app. Also, in order to make eye-catching articles that connotate luxury and quality, it can be desirable for the article to have an appearance gradient. It will be particularly attractive to combine glossy and matte visual effects along with sensorial touch features (Agerton par. 2, 3). This motivation is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Regarding claim 14, Lee as modified does not explicitly teach wherein the second print layer includes a material containing a matting agent.
Agerton teaches wherein the second print layer includes a material containing a matting agent (Matte finish in Agerton par. 48).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Lee as modified, by adopting the gloss values measured in GU and displayed in Agerton's Figs. 8A-C, and by adopting a matte finish, as suggested by Agerton, because consumers want to purchase articles that grab their attention by having a premium appearance at the store shelf or webpage or app. Also, in order to make eye-catching articles that connotate luxury and quality, it can be desirable for the article to have an appearance gradient. It will be particularly attractive to combine glossy and matte visual effects along with sensorial touch features (Agerton par. 2, 3). This motivation is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Regarding claim 15, Lee as modified does not explicitly teach wherein the matting agent is greater than or equal to about 10% of the material of the second print layer.
Masubuchi teaches wherein the matting agent ("matte coating composition" in Masubuchi par. 42: In the matte coating composition, silica is used in order to reduce the gloss by forming unevenness on the cured coating film surface) is greater than or equal to about 10% of the material of the second print layer (Masubuchi Table 4, silica content value of 12.5%, for example).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Lee as modified, by deploying a second surface protective layer having a higher gloss than the first surface protective layer, or vice versa, and by using "matte coating composition" where silica is used in order to reduce the gloss by forming unevenness on the cured coating film surface as suggested by Masubuchi, because in recent years, there has been a trend to further enhance the design aesthetics by imparting a three-dimensional feel, thereby distinguishing an item from other products; also, in order to provide a high-gloss portion and a low-gloss portion within a surface protective layer, thereby portraying an uneven 3D feel due to an optical illusion arising from the gloss difference (Masubuchi par. 3-5). This motivation is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Regarding claim 16, Lee as modified does not explicitly teach wherein the first print layer includes a material containing the matting agent, and the matting agent is in a range of about 0 % to about 3 % of the material of the first print layer.
Masubuchi teaches wherein the first print layer includes a material containing the matting agent ("matte coating composition" in Masubuchi par. 42: In the matte coating composition, silica is used in order to reduce the gloss by forming unevenness on the cured coating film surface), and the matting agent is in a range of about 0 % to about 3 % of the material of the first print layer (Masubuchi Table 4, silica content value of 0%, for example).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Lee as modified, by deploying a second surface protective layer having a higher gloss than the first surface protective layer, or vice versa, and by using "matte coating composition" where silica is used in order to reduce the gloss by forming unevenness on the cured coating film surface as suggested by Masubuchi, because in recent years, there has been a trend to further enhance the design aesthetics by imparting a three-dimensional feel, thereby distinguishing an item from other products; also, in order to provide a high-gloss portion and a low-gloss portion within a surface protective layer, thereby portraying an uneven 3D feel due to an optical illusion arising from the gloss difference (Masubuchi par. 3-5). This motivation is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONALD EISNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3334. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday and Tuesday from 9:00 AM to 5:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kathy Wang-Hurst, can be reached at telephone number (571) 270-5371. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats see MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/RONALD EISNER/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2644