DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 3, 5, 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Barrett et al. (2018/0107050 A1).
Re claim 1, Barrett et al. disclose (Fig. 5C) a display panel (screen of an electronic device [0133]); a window (508) disposed on the display panel; and a window protection layer (512/274, [0113], [0131] & [0134]) disposed on the window, wherein the window protection layer (film 274 Fig. 2C) selectively absorbs light in a blue-red hue (film 274 absorbs light in the blue-red hue~ 390-400 nm [0106]) or a green-blue hue ([0012]~ absorbs light in the green-blue hue 415-455 nm & [0139]).
Re claim 3, Barrett et al. disclose wherein the at least one of the display panel or the window protection layer that selectively absorbs light in the yellow-green hue, the green-blue hue, or the blue-red hue, transmits light having a different wavelength than the absorbed light ([0127] & [0137]).
Re claim 5, Barrett et al. disclose wherein the window protection layer includes: a protective film disposed on the window ([0042]); and an adhesive layer disposed between the window and the protective film ([0113]).
Re claim 6, Barrett et al. disclose wherein the window protection layer further includes a color adjustment layer disposed below the protective film, wherein the color adjustment layer selectively absorbs light in a specific wavelength range ([0123-0124] ~ blue dye, PET layer or both which blocks blue light).
Re claim 15, Barrett et al. disclose a substrate; a light emitting devices disposed on the substrate ([0130] mentions the suitability of the protection layer in LED displays~ it is inherent that the display device would have a substrate with light emitted devices disposed therein); and an anti-reflection layer disposed on the light emitting devices and including a light blocking member ([0114]).
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.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barrett et al. as applied to claims 1, 3, 5, 6 and 15 above, and further in view of the following comments.
Barrett et al. does not disclose wherein the color adjustment layer has a thickness of about 10 µm or less.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited thickness through routine experimentation to achieve a desired amount of reflected light and color improvement.
In addition, the selection of thickness, it's obvious because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996)(claimed ranges or a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill or art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1995) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed thickness or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen thickness or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen thickness is critical. In re Woodruf, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4, 8-14 and 16 are 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.
Pending the correction of issues outlined in the rejection above, the following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not disclose or fairly suggest the following in combination the remaining limitations called for in each claim:
further comprising: a folding area of the display panel, the window, and the window protection layer; and a flat area adjacent to the folding area, as recited in claim 2;
wherein the display device satisfies at least one of Equation 1 or Equation 2: [Equation 1]
A1×A2 < 0
[Equation 2]
B1×B2 < 0
wherein A1 is a* value of the display panel on a red-green coordinate axis, A2 is a* value of the window protection layer on the red-green coordinate axis, B1 is b* value of the display panel on a yellow-blue coordinate axis, and B2 is b* value of the window protection layer on the yellow-blue coordinate axis, as recited in claim 4;
wherein the protective film selectively absorbs light in a first specific wavelength range and the adhesive layer selectively absorbs light of a second specific wavelength range, wherein the first specific wavelength range and the second specific wavelength range are one of a same range or a different range, as recited in claim 8;
wherein the window protection layer further includes: a functional layer disposed on the protective film and having a thickness of about 10 um or less, as recited in claim 9;
wherein the functional layer includes a hard coating layer disposed on the protective film, as recited in claim 10;
wherein the hard coating layer selectively absorbs light in a specific wavelength range, as recited in claim 11;
wherein the functional layer includes: a first refractive layer disposed on the protective film; and a second refractive layer disposed on the first refractive layer, having a refractive index lower than a refractive index of the first refractive layer, and including an anti-fingerprint material, as recited in claim 12;
wherein the first refractive layer selectively absorbs light of a specific wavelength range, as recited in claim 13;
wherein the functional layer includes: a first refractive layer disposed on the protective film; a second refractive layer disposed on the first refractive layer and having a refractive index lower than a refractive index of the first refractive layer; and an anti-fingerprint layer disposed on the second refractive layer, as recited in claim 14;
wherein the anti-reflection layer further includes: a plurality of color filters, wherein the color filters correspond to the light emitting devices; and an overcoat layer disposed on the anti-reflection layer, as recited in claim 16.
Claims 17-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
With respect to claim 17, the known prior art does not teach the claim as a whole. In particular, the prior art does not disclose or fairly suggest wherein a saturation of a reflective color exhibited by the display panel is greater than a saturation of a color displayed by the display device in combination with the remaining limitations recited in claim 17.
None of the prior art on record contains such a limitation, nor given the prior art on record is it obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to add said limitations as recited in claim 17. Therefore, claim 17 is allowed as it is not anticipated by or obvious over the teachings of the prior art on record. Furthermore, claims 18 and 19 are also allowed as they depend from an allowed base claim.
With respect to claim 20, the known prior art does not teach the claim as a whole. In particular, the prior art does not disclose or fairly suggest wherein the window protection layer offsets a reflective color of the display panel for a specific range of wavelengths, and wherein a saturation of a color displayed by the display device is less than a saturation of the reflective color exhibited by the display panel in the specific range of wavelengths in combination with the remaining limitations recited in claim 20.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE MANDALA whose telephone number is (571)272-1858. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 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, Sue Purvis can be reached at 571-272-1236. 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.
/MICHELLE MANDALA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
April 20, 2026