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 § 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 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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hong et al (US 2020/0168838, ‘838 hereafter).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 5-6 and 8, ‘838 discloses a display apparatus comprising a cover window (Fig. 1 and Fig. 3B, Layer 310, [0028], [0068]); a light shielding pattern disposed on the cover window (Fig. 3B, layer 350, [0032], [0064]); a viewing angle control layer disposed on the light shielding pattern, which is in contact with upper portion of inner end of the light shielding pattern, and spaced apart by light shielding from the cover window (Fig. 3B, layer 330, [0052]-[0053], [0055]-[0057]); an adhesive layer disposed on the viewing angle control layer, which is in contact with lateral portion of the view angle control payer, but no in contact with inner end of the light shielding pattern ([0032]); a functional layer comprising polarizing film (Fig. 1, item 200, [0031]); and a display panel disposed on the adhesive layer (Fig 1 and 2, Item 100, [0030]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 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.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 2019/0058148, of record, ‘148 hereafter) in view of Hong et al (US 2020/0168838, ‘838 hereafter)
Regarding claims 1-6 and 8, ‘418 discloses a display apparatus comprising a window cover (Fig. 2, layer 110, [0048] ) and a bezel layer may include a shielding layer or colored pattern layer disposed on the window cover (Fig 2, layer 120, [0048]-[0050], [0081]-[0084]), which forms an air gap between cover window and other layers in the display device (Fig 2, space between layer 110 and layers 210, 222 and 500), an adhesive layer disposed on bezel layer which is in contact with upper portion of an inner end and an outer end of the bezel layer ([Fig. 2 and Fig 6A ad Fig. 7, layer 500 or ADL, [0065]), an optical functional layer including a polarizing film (Fig. 2 layer 400, [0064], [0066]), and a display panel (Fig. 2 , layers 210 to 222, [ 0051]-[0058]). ‘148 does not specifically name a bezel layer being a light shielding pattern and the display apparatus further includes a view angle control layer disposed on the light shielding pattern. However, in the same field of endeavor, ‘838 discloses a display apparatus comprising a cover window (Fig. 1 and Fig. 3B, Layer 310, [0028], [0068]); a light shielding pattern disposed on the cover window (Fig. 3B, layer 350, [0032], [0064]); a viewing angle control layer disposed on the light shielding pattern, which is in contact with upper portion of inner end of the light shielding pattern, and spaced apart by light shielding from the cover window (Fig. 3B, layer 330, [0052]-[0053], [0055]-[0057]); and a display panel disposed on the adhesive layer (Fig 1 and 2, Item 100, [0030]). ‘838 also discloses that the display apparatus is capable of adjusting view range of image displayed and preventing occurrence of ghost mura ([0010]). In light of these teachings, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use light shielding pattern and viewing angle control layer as taught by ‘838, to modify the display apparatus of ‘148, in order to render a display apparatus having adjustable viewing range with less ghost mura. ‘838 also discloses an adhesive layer is disposed on the viewing angle control layer, which should be in contact with lateral portion of the view angle control payer, but no in contact with inner end of the light shielding pattern ([0032]) .
Regarding claim 7 and 9, modified ‘148 teaches all the limitations of claim 1, ‘148 also discloses that the display apparatus further comprises a back plate and a heat dissipation plate (Fig. 2, layer 210, [0051]) and a guide holder disposed on the display panel, which also function as a heat dissipation plate, wherein the guide holder is in direct contact with an upper portion of the adhesive layer (Fig. 2, and Fig. 8A, item 600, [0067]-[0068], [0115]).
Regarding claims 10-12, modified ‘148 teaches all the limitations of claim 1, ‘148 also discloses that the display apparatus further comprises a second bezel layer reading upon light shielding pattern disposed between the cover window and the light shielding pattern, wherein the cover window and the viewing angle control layer are spaced from each other corresponding to the heights of the light shielding pattern and the second light shielding pattern, when the viewing angle control layer is in direct contact with an upper portion of an inner end of the light shielding pattern (Fig. 3 , and 12B, BZL2, [0071]-[0074]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUIYUN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7934. The examiner can normally be reached on 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, Arron Austin can be reached on 571-272-8935. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RUIYUN ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights