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
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-9 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egi et al. (Pub. No. US 2007/0177071 A1) in view of Eguchi et al. (Pub. No. US 2013/0250414 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Egi discloses a display panel (Egi: paragraph [0002]), comprising: a substrate 600 (Egi: Figs. 14A-B, paragraph [0133]); a first inorganic layer 604 disposed on the substrate (Egi: paragraph [0134]); a polarizing plate 641-642 disposed on the first inorganic layer, the polarizing plate comprising a polarizing layer (Egi: paragraphs [0140], [0124]); and an absorption layer disposed between the first inorganic layer and the polarizing layer (Figs. 1A-14B, paragraphs [0066], [0085], [0123]).
Egi does not expressly say the absorption layer comprising adsorbing particles for adsorbing ammonia gas and/or ammonium ions.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Eguchi in paragraphs [0002], [0187]-[0188] teaches a display device comprising: “a composition for an antiglare layer was prepared as in Example 1 except that acrylic/styrene copolymer particles (average particle size of 1.0 R1, refractive index of 1.515, product of Sekisui Plastics Co., Ltd.) was used as the organic fine particles in an amount of 10 parts by mass and amorphous aluminosilicate particles (average particle size of 0.5 µm, refractive index of 1.50, product of MIZUSAWA INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS, LTD.) was used as the inorganic fine particles in an amount of 7 parts by mass. An antiglare film according to Reference Example 4 was produced as in Example 1 except that this composition for an antiglare layer was used and the thickness thereof after cured was set to 1.5 µm. A composition for an antiglare layer was prepared as in Example 1 except that acrylic/styrene copolymer particles (average particle size of 10.0 µm, refractive index of 1.515, product of Sekisui Plastics Co., Ltd.) was used as the organic fine particles in an amount of 5 parts by mass, amorphous aluminosilicate particles (average particle size of 5 µm, refractive index of 1.50, product of MIZUSAWA INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS, LTD.) was used as the inorganic fine particles in an amount of 3 parts by mass, and the amount of the fumed silica was 2 parts by mass. An antiglare film according to Reference Example 5 was produced as in Example 1 except that this composition for an antiglare layer was used and the thickness thereof after cured was set to 15.0 µm” capable of sufficiently suppressing screen scintillation and white muddiness in a bright room while maintaining hard coating properties and antiglare properties (Eguchi: paragraph [0011]).
Ammonia gas and/or ammonium ions usually come from process chemicals, resin/adhesive decomposition, moisture-driven reactions, or long-term organic material degradation and they corrode metal electrodes, degrade organic emissive layers, shift threshold voltage in TFT backplanes and reduce lifetime and increase dark spots. Porous materials like silica, aluminosilicates, or zeolites have high surface area and internal pores, and NH3 diffuses into the pores and is retained via hydrogen bonding and van der Waals forces.
Therefore, given the teachings of Eguchi, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have readily recognized the desirability and advantages of modifying Egi in view of Eguchi by employing the adsorbing particles for adsorbing ammonia gas and/or ammonium ions.
Regarding claim 2, Egi in view of Eguchi teaches the display panel according to claim 1, wherein the adsorbing particles comprise at least one of potassium aluminosilicate, calcium aluminosilicate, sodium aluminosilicate, barium aluminosilicate, or strontium aluminosilicate (Egi: paragraph [0066] and Eguchi: paragraphs [0187]-[0188]).
Regarding claims 3-5, Eguchi, in paragraphs [0187]-[0188] states average particle size of 0.5 µm, 5 µm and 10 µm and 10, 7, 5, 2 parts by mass but does not state the exact claimed ranges. However, the claimed ranges are recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result. Smaller aluminosilicate particle sizes improve optical clarity, dispersion, uniformity and surface smoothness, while larger particles can increase light scattering, haze, and surface roughness but may enhance mechanical reinforcement. The particle loading ratio controls viscosity, modulus, thermal expansion and dielectric properties, whereas higher aluminosilicate content typically increases stiffness and dimensional stability while raising viscosity and potentially degrading transparency and processability if not well dispersed. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice bounded by well-known manufacturing constraints and ascertainable by routine experimentation and optimization to choose the particular claimed ranges because applicant has not disclosed that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using other ranges. The claim(s) is(are) obvious without showing that the claimed range(s) achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) and In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges of 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 of art).
Regarding claim 6, Egi in view of Eguchi teaches the display panel according to claim 2, wherein the absorption layer comprises a base, and the adsorbing particles are doped in the base (Egi: Figs. 1A-14B, paragraphs [0066], [0085], [0123]) and Eguchi: paragraphs [0085], [0123]).
Regarding claim 7, Egi in view of Eguchi teaches the display panel according to claim 6, wherein material of the base comprises at least one of cyclic olefin polymer or copolymers of cycloolefin (Egi: Figs. 1A-14B, paragraphs [0066], [0085], [0123]) and Eguchi: paragraphs [0085], [0123]).
Regarding claim 8, Egi in view of Eguchi teaches the display panel according to claim 7, wherein the base has a phase difference of zero, and the polarizing plate is a circular polarizing plate (Egi: Figs. 1A-14B, paragraph [0124] and Eguchi: paragraphs [0187]-[0188]).
Regarding claim 9, Egi in view of Eguchi teaches the display panel according to claim 7, wherein the base has a phase difference of 45°, and the polarizing plate is a linear polarizing plate (Egi: Figs. 1A-14B, paragraph [0124] and Eguchi: paragraphs [0187]-[0188]).
Regarding claim 12, Egi in view of Eguchi teaches the display panel according to claim 1, wherein the display panel comprises a plurality of inorganic layers 604a-604b-611, and the first inorganic layer is an inorganic layer of the plurality of inorganic layers furthest away from the substrate (Egi: Figs. 1A-14B, and paragraph [0134]).
Regarding claim 13, Egi in view of Eguchi teaches the display panel according to claim 12, wherein the display panel further comprises a light emitting layer 402/403/404/405 disposed on the substrate (Egi: Figs. 1A-14B, and paragraphs [0157], [0174]), and a thin film encapsulation layer 615/616/630 disposed on the light emitting layer and covering the light emitting layer, and the thin film encapsulation layer comprises a second inorganic layer, an organic layer, and the first inorganic layer stacked in sequence in a direction away from the substrate (Egi: Figs. 1A-14B, and paragraphs [0134]-[0135]).
Regarding claim 14, Egi in view of Eguchi teaches the display panel according to claim 13, wherein the display panel further comprises a touch layer 692 disposed at a side of the thin film encapsulation layer close to the substrate (Egi: Figs. 1A-14B, and paragraphs [0139], [0145]).
Regarding claim 15, Egi in view of Eguchi teaches the display panel according to claim 12, wherein the display panel further comprises a light emitting layer disposed on the substrate, a thin film encapsulation layer disposed on the light emitting layer and covering the light emitting layer, and a touch layer disposed on the thin film encapsulation layer, and the first inorganic layer is disposed on the touch layer and covers the touch layer (Egi: Figs. 1A-14B, and paragraphs [0134]-[0135], [0139], [0145], [0157], [0174]).
Regarding claim 16, Egi in view of Eguchi teaches the display panel according to claim 1, wherein material of the first inorganic layer comprises SiNx or SiON (Egi: Figs. 1A-14B, and paragraphs [0135], [0146]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-11 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 10, the prior art of record alone or in combination do not teach or fairly suggest, in combination with other elements of the claim, wherein the polarizing plate further comprises a first protective layer at a side of the polarizing layer away from the first inorganic layer, a second protective layer at a side of the polarizing layer close to the first inorganic layer, and an adhesive layer at a side of the second protective layer close to the first inorganic layer, wherein, at least one of the second protective layer or the adhesive layer is further used as the base of the absorption layer.
Regarding claim 11, the prior art of record alone or in combination do not teach or fairly suggest, in combination with other elements of the claim, wherein the polarizing plate further comprises a quarter-wave plate located at a side of the polarizing layer close to the first inorganic layer, and the quarter-wave plate is further used as the base of the absorption layer.
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 MALIHEH MALEK whose telephone number is (571)270-1874. The examiner can normally be reached M/T/W/R/F, 8:30-5.
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, Steven B Gauthier can be reached on (571)270-0373. 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.
February 21, 2026
/MALIHEH MALEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2813