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 § 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) 1-8, 11-17 and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park US 20200117042 in view of Noh KR 20170063289A (see document of 18535393_2026-01-28_KR_20170063289_A_M.pdf).
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses a display device, in at least figs.1-7 and 9, comprising:
a display panel (DP) including a display area and a non-display area (it’s inherent to have a display area and a non-display area surrounding the display area);
a light control layer (LBL) disposed over the display panel (figs.2, 6A-7 and 9); and
a polarization layer (POL or PL or POL-1) disposed between the display panel and the light control layer (figs.2, 6A-7 and 9),
wherein the polarization layer has a light transmission axis extending in a first direction (DR1, or DR2, see figs.2, 6A-7 and 9),
wherein the light control layer includes:
a light-transmissive portion (central portion of the light control layer, figs.1, 2, 6A-7 and 9) overlapping the display area of the display panel; and
a light-blocking portion (edge portions of the light control layer, see fig.1) overlapping the non-display area of the display panel,
Park does not explicitly disclose the light-blocking portion has a light transmission axis extending in a second direction different from the first direction.
Noh discloses a display device, in at least figs.2-5, an orientation of each of the reactive mesogen (132) and the dichroic dye (134) of the light-blocking portion (A2) is different from an orientation of each of the reactive mesogen and the dichroic dye of the light-transmissive portion (A1)(see figs.2 and 3) for the purpose of suppressing the occurrence of a step-like phenomenon at the outer periphery of the display device and to prevent a deterioration in image quality (last sentence of 6th paragraph of page 5).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an orientation of each of the reactive mesogen and the dichroic dye of the light-blocking portion is different from an orientation of each of the reactive mesogen and the dichroic dye of the light-transmissive portion as taught by Noh in the display device of Park in order to have the light-blocking portion has a light transmission axis extending in a second direction different from the first direction for the purpose of suppressing the occurrence of a step-like phenomenon at the outer periphery of the display device and to prevent a deterioration in image quality.
Regarding claim 2, Park in view of Noh does not explicitly disclose the second direction is perpendicular to the first direction. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the second direction is perpendicular to the first direction since it was known in the art that when the second direction is perpendicular to the first direction, this kind of arrangement will block the light to pass through in order to form a light-blocking portion.
Regarding claim 3, Park in view of Noh discloses both the first direction and the second direction are parallel to an upper surface of the polarization layer for the purpose of suppressing the occurrence of a step-like phenomenon at the outer periphery of the display device and to prevent a deterioration in image quality (last sentence of 6th paragraph of page 5). The reason for combining is the same as claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Park discloses the light control layer includes a reactive mesogen (RM) and a dichroic dye (DY)(para.88).
Regarding claim 5, Park discloses each of the light-transmissive portion and the light-blocking portion includes a composition of the reactive mesogen and the dichroic dye (para.88), wherein the composition of the light-transmissive portion and the composition of the light-blocking portion are identical with each other (para.88).
Regarding claim 6, Park discloses each of the light-transmissive portion and the light-blocking portion includes the reactive mesogen and the dichroic dye (para.88).
Noh discloses a display device, in at least figs.2-5, an orientation of each of the reactive mesogen (132) and the dichroic dye (134) of the light-blocking portion (A2) is different from an orientation of each of the reactive mesogen and the dichroic dye of the light-transmissive portion (A1)(see figs.2 and 3) for the purpose of suppressing the occurrence of a step-like phenomenon at the outer periphery of the display device and to prevent a deterioration in image quality (last sentence of 6th paragraph of page 5). The reason for combining is the same as claim 4.
Regarding claim 7, Noh discloses each of the reactive mesogen and the dichroic dye of the light-blocking portion is oriented in the first direction (horizontal direction) for the purpose of suppressing the occurrence of a step-like phenomenon at the outer periphery of the display device and to prevent a deterioration in image quality (last sentence of 6th paragraph of page 5). The reason for combining is the same as claim 6.
Regarding claim 8, Park discloses each of the reactive mesogen and the dichroic dye of the light-transmissive portion is oriented in a third direction (DR3) perpendicular to an upper surface of the polarization layer (see figs.2 and 6A-7).
Regarding claim 11, Park discloses further comprising a cover window (BS, LSL, or BS with LSL) disposed on the light control layer (figs.2, 6A-7 and 9).
Regarding claim 12, Park discloses the display device further comprises a base film (LSL or BL1) disposed between the polarization layer and the cover window (BS or LSL, or BS with LSL), wherein the light control layer is directly disposed on one surface of the base film (see figs.2, 6A-7 and 9).
Regarding claim 13, Park discloses the light control layer is directly disposed on a lower surface of the cover window (see figs.2 and 6A-7).
Regarding claim 14, Park discloses further comprising a support structure (POL-B or LU) disposed under the display panel.
Regarding claim 15, Park discloses a display device, in at least figs.1-7 and 9, comprising:
a display panel (DP) including a display area and a non-display area (it’s inherent to have a display area and a non-display area surrounding the display area);
a light control layer (LBL) disposed over the display panel (figs.2, 6A-7 and 9); and
a polarization layer (POL or PL or POL-1) disposed between the display panel and the light control layer (figs.2, 6A-7 and 9), wherein the light control layer includes a reactive mesogen (RM) and a dichroic dye (DY)(para.88), wherein the light control layer includes:
a light-transmissive portion (central portion of the light control layer, figs.1, 2, 6A-7 and 9) overlapping the display area of the display panel (figs.1, 2, 6A-7 and 9); and
a light-blocking portion (edge portions of the light control layer, see fig.1) overlapping the non-display area of the display panel (figs.1, 2, 6A-7 and 9),
wherein each of the light-transmissive portion and the light-blocking portion includes the reactive mesogen and the dichroic dye (figs.2, 4, 6A-7 and 9 and para.88),
Park does not explicitly disclose an orientation of each of the reactive mesogen and the dichroic dye of the light-blocking portion is different from an orientation of each of the reactive mesogen and the dichroic dye of the light-transmissive portion.
Noh discloses a display device, in at least figs.2-5, an orientation of each of the reactive mesogen (132) and the dichroic dye (134) of the light-blocking portion (A2) is different from an orientation of each of the reactive mesogen and the dichroic dye of the light-transmissive portion (A1)(see figs.2 and 3) for the purpose of suppressing the occurrence of a step-like phenomenon at the outer periphery of the display device and to prevent a deterioration in image quality (last sentence of 6th paragraph of page 5).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an orientation of each of the reactive mesogen and the dichroic dye of the light-blocking portion is different from an orientation of each of the reactive mesogen and the dichroic dye of the light-transmissive portion as taught by Noh in the display device of Park for the purpose of suppressing the occurrence of a step-like phenomenon at the outer periphery of the display device and to prevent a deterioration in image quality.
Regarding claim 16, Noh discloses each of the reactive mesogen and the dichroic dye of the light-blocking portion (A2) is oriented in a direction parallel to a light transmission axis of the polarization layer (see fig.3, the orientation of each of the reactive mesogen and the dichroic dye of the light-blocking portion are in the plane direction and a light transmission axis of the polarization layer is in the plane direction as well) for the purpose of suppressing the occurrence of a step-like phenomenon at the outer periphery of the display device and to prevent a deterioration in image quality. The reason for combining is the same as claim 15.
Regarding claim 17, Park discloses each of the reactive mesogen and the dichroic dye of the light-transmissive portion is oriented in a direction perpendicular to an upper surface of the polarization layer (see fig.6B).
Regarding claim 19, Park discloses further comprising a cover window (BS, LSL, or BS with LSL) disposed on the light control layer (figs.2, 6A-7 and 9).
Regarding claim 20, Park discloses the display device further comprises a base film (LSL or BL1) disposed between the polarization layer and the cover window (BS or LSL, or BS with LSL), wherein the light control layer is directly disposed on one surface of the base film (see figs.2, 6A-7 and 9).
Regarding claim 21, Park discloses the light control layer is directly disposed on a lower surface of the cover window (see figs.2 and 6A-7).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park US 20200117042 in view of Noh KR 20170063289A (see document of 18535393_2026-01-28_KR_20170063289_A_M.pdf) as applied to claim 4, and further in view of Kim KR 20120067868A (see document of 18535393_2026-01-28_KR_20120067868_A_M.pdf).
Regarding claim 9, Park in view of Noh does not explicitly disclose the reactive mesogen includes smectic reactive mesogen.
Kim discloses a display device, in at least fig.1, the reactive mesogen includes smectic reactive mesogen (8th paragraph of page 4 and 7th paragraph of page 7) for the purpose of serving as a polarizer (8th paragraph of page 4 and 7th paragraph of page 7).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the reactive mesogen includes smectic reactive mesogen as taught by Kim in the display device of Park in view of Noh for the purpose of serving as a polarizer.
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park US 20200117042 in view of Noh KR 20170063289A (see document of 18535393_2026-01-28_KR_20170063289_A_M.pdf) as applied to claim 4, and further in view of Kim KR 20210053663A (see document of 18535393_2026-01-28_KR_20210053663_A_M.pdf).
Regarding claim 9, Park in view of Noh does not explicitly disclose the reactive mesogen includes smectic reactive mesogen.
Kim discloses an analogous art, the reactive mesogen includes smectic reactive mesogen (last two paragraphs of page 4) for the purpose of having reactive mesogen arranged parallel to each other and perpendicular to a surface (last paragraph of page 4).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the reactive mesogen includes smectic reactive mesogen as taught by Kim in the display device of Park in view of Noh for the purpose of having reactive mesogen arranged parallel to each other and perpendicular to a surface.
Regarding claim 10, Park in view of Noh does not explicitly disclose the dichroic dye includes a first dye having a maximum absorption wavelength of 300 to 450 nm, a second dye having a maximum absorption wavelength of 450 to 600 nm, and a third dye having a maximum absorption wavelength of 600 to 750 nm.
Kim discloses an analogous art, the dichroic dye includes a first dye having a maximum absorption wavelength of 300 to 450 nm, a second dye having a maximum absorption wavelength of 450 to 600 nm, and a third dye having a maximum absorption wavelength of 600 to 750 nm (7th paragraph of page 5) for the purpose of linearly polarizing light over the entire visible region (7th paragraph of page 5).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the dichroic dye includes a first dye having a maximum absorption wavelength of 300 to 450 nm, a second dye having a maximum absorption wavelength of 450 to 600 nm, and a third dye having a maximum absorption wavelength of 600 to 750 nm as taught by Kim in the display device of Park in view of Noh for the purpose of linearly polarizing light over the entire visible region.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park US 20200117042 in view of Noh KR 20170063289A (see document of 18535393_2026-01-28_KR_20170063289_A_M.pdf) as applied to claim 15, and further in view of Kim KR 20120067868A (see document of 18535393_2026-01-28_KR_20120067868_A_M.pdf).
Regarding claim 18, Park in view of Noh does not explicitly disclose the reactive mesogen includes smectic reactive mesogen.
Kim discloses a display device, in at least fig.1, the reactive mesogen includes smectic reactive mesogen (8th paragraph of page 4 and 7th paragraph of page 7) for the purpose of serving as a polarizer (8th paragraph of page 4 and 7th paragraph of page 7).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the reactive mesogen includes smectic reactive mesogen as taught by Kim in the display device of Park in view of Noh for the purpose of serving as a polarizer.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park US 20200117042 in view of Noh KR 20170063289A (see document of 18535393_2026-01-28_KR_20170063289_A_M.pdf) as applied to claim 15, and further in view of Kim KR 20210053663A (see document of 18535393_2026-01-28_KR_20210053663_A_M.pdf).
Regarding claim 18, Park in view of Noh does not explicitly disclose the reactive mesogen includes smectic reactive mesogen.
Kim discloses an analogous art, the reactive mesogen includes smectic reactive mesogen (last two paragraphs of page 4) for the purpose of having reactive mesogen arranged parallel to each other and perpendicular to a surface (last paragraph of page 4).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the reactive mesogen includes smectic reactive mesogen as taught by Kim in the display device of Park in view of Noh for the purpose of having reactive mesogen arranged parallel to each other and perpendicular to a surface.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIA X PAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7574. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 11:00AM - 5:00PM.
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, Michael H Caley can be reached at (571)272-2286. 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.
/JIA X PAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871