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. The factual inquiries 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 . Claim(s) 1- 11 and 13- 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lubart et al. (US. Pub: 2005/0140846 A1~hereinafter “ Lubart ”) in view of Son et al. (US. Pub: 2022/0342273 A1~hereinafter “Son”). Regarding claim 1, Lubart discloses (in at least figs. 3 and 7 -9A) a display apparatus comprising: a display element layer on a substrate (710 ; [0053] ) ; a cover window (7 35 ) on the display element layer (see fig. 7) ; and a light control film (705 and the structure; see fig. 7 ; [0053] ) between the display element layer and the cover window, wherein the light control film comprises: a reflective wall structure (i.e. the structure; 330; [0037]) ; and a light-transmissive layer (305, 705 ; [0053] ) covering a sidewall of reflective wall structure (see at least figs. 3 and 7-9A) , a width of a lower surface of the reflective wall structure ( 330 and the structure in figs. 7-9A) is less than a width of an upper surface of the reflective wall structure (as evident by at least figs. 7-9A) , and the lower surface of the reflective wall structure faces the display element layer (see figs. 7-9A) . Lubart does not expressly disclose reflective wall structure comprising a plurality of reflective particles. Son in the same field of a display device discloses (in at least fig. 5) a reflective wall structure (320) comprising a plurality of reflective particles (10; [0014]; [00 78 ]) in order to provide a light control member having an improved front luminance ([0009]) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the display apparatus of Lubart with the reflective particles of Son in order to improve the brightness of the display apparatus. Regarding claim s 2 -4 and 17 , Lubart as modified by Son does not expressly disclose (in at least figs. 7-9A Lubart ) the reflective wall structure further comprises: a first reflective wall structure (see figs. 7-9A; i.e. the structure), and a width of a lower surface of the first reflective wall structure (see figs. 7-9A; i.e. the structure) is less than a width of an upper surface of the first reflective wall structure (see figs. 7-9A), but is silent about a second reflective wall structure provided on the first reflective wall structure , and a width of a lower surface of the second reflective wall structure is less than a width of an upper surface of the second reflective wall structure ; and the reflective wall structure further comprises a third reflective wall structure provided on the second reflective wall structure. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to consider forming the reflective wall structure of Lubart with a second reflective wall structure provided on the first reflective wall structure, and a width of a lower surface of the second reflective wall structure is less than a width of an upper surface of the second reflective wall structure ; and the reflective wall structure further comprises a third reflective wall structure provided on the second reflective wall structure , since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. Regarding claim 5, Lubart as modified by Son discloses (in at least fig. 5 Son) the reflective wall structure (320) further comprises a base layer (320a) , the plurality of reflective particles (10) are provided in the base layer (320a; [0078] -[0080]) , and a refractive index of the base layer (320a) is in a range of about 90% to about 110% of a refractive index of the light-transmissive layer ([0074]; [0079]) . Regarding claim s 6 -11 , Lubart as modified by Son does not expressly disclose each of the plurality of reflective particles comprises: a bead portion; and a reflection shell portion covering the bead portion ; and the bead portion is completely covered by the reflection shell portion ; the reflection shell portion covers a portion of the bead portion, and another portion of the bead portion is exposed by the reflection shell portion ; the bead portion has a circular cross-sectional shape ; the bead portion has an oval cross-sectional shape ; the bead portion comprises a transmissive polymer, and the reflection shell portion comprises a metal or a metal oxide. However, Son discloses (in at least fig. 5) each of the plurality of reflective particles comprises metal oxide particles disposed in the light conversion unit ([0014]) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to consider using beads as the reflective particles of Son including the remaining limitations, since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination. Regarding claim 13, the combination of Lubart and Son discloses (in at least figs. 7-9A Lubart ; fig. 28 Son) an encapsulation layer ([0053]; i.e. the upper substrate of the backlight assembly; Lubart ) between the display element layer and the light control film; and an anti-reflection layer (1300 Son) between the encapsulation layer and the light control film. See also Jung et al. (US. Pub: 2021/0217831 A1) of record for the encapsulation layer. Regarding claim 14, the combination of Lubart and Son discloses (in at least figs. 7-9A Lubart ; fig. 28 Son) a lower adhesive layer (not shown; [0259] Son) between the display element layer and the light control film (see fig. 28) ; and an upper adhesive layer (1500; [0252] Son) between the light control film and the cover window. Regarding claim 15, Lubart discloses (in at least figs. 3 and 7-9A) a display apparatus comprising: a display element layer on a substrate (710; [0053]) ; a light control film (see figs. 7-9A; i.e. the structure and item 705) on the display element layer; and a cover window (735) on the light control film, wherein the light control film comprises: a plurality of reflective wall (330, [0037]; figs. 7-9A; i.e. the structure) structures spaced apart from each other; and a light-transmissive layer (705) between the plurality of reflective wall structure s. Lubart does not expressly disclose each of the plurality of reflective wall structures comprises: a first reflective wall structure comprising a first base layer and a plurality of first reflective particles; and a second reflective wall structure provided on an upper surface of the first reflective wall structure and comprising a second base layer and a plurality of second reflective particles. Son in the same field of a display device discloses (in at least fig. 5) a plurality of reflective wall structure s (320) compris es a first reflective wall structure comprising a first base layer (320a) and a plurality of reflective particles (10; [0014]; [0078]) in order to provide a light control member having an improved front luminance ([0009]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the display apparatus of Lubart with the reflective particles of Son in order to improve the brightness of the display apparatus. However, both Lubart and Son fail to disclose a second reflective wall structure provided on an upper surface of the first reflective wall structure and comprising a second base layer and a plurality of second reflective particles. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to consider forming the reflective wall structure of Lubart with a second reflective wall structure provided on the first reflective wall structure, and comprising a second base layer and a plurality of second reflective particles, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. Regarding claim 16, Lubart as modified by Son does not expressly disclose an angle between a lower surface and a sidewall of the first reflective wall structure is an obtuse angle, and an angle between a lower surface and a sidewall of the second reflective wall structure is an obtuse angle. However, Lubart discloses (in at least figs. 7-9A) an angle is formed between the lower surface and a sidewall of the first reflective wall structure. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited angle through design choice. Applicant has not disclos ed that the recited angle is for a particular unobvious purpose, produces an unexpected result, or is otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using the angle of both Lubart and Son. Regarding claim s 18 and 19 , Lubart as modified by Son discloses (see at least figs. 3, 7-9A; fig. 5) the light-transmissive layer comprises: a first light-transmissive layer (305, 705, 310) covering a sidewall of the first reflective wall structure (see at least figs. 3 and 7-9A) ; but is silent about a second light-transmissive layer disposed above the first light-transmissive layer and covering a sidewall of the second reflective wall structure ; and the second light-transmissive layer covers a portion of the upper surface of the first reflective wall structure . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to consider forming the display apparatus of both Lubart and Son with a second light-transmissive layer disposed above the first light-transmissive layer and covering a sidewall of the second reflective wall structure and the second light-transmissive layer covers a portion of the upper surface of the first reflective wall structure , since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. Regarding claim 20, Lubart as modified by Son does not expressly disclose the second light-transmissive layer and the first light-transmissive layer comprise a same material. One of ordinary skill in the art would consider forming the second light-transmissive layer and the first light-transmissive layer of Lubart as modified by Son with the same material in order to reduce the manufacturing steps of the display apparatus. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 12 is 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. Regarding claim 12, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest the light control film further comprises: a first organic layer on the lower surface of the reflective wall structure and a lower surface of the light-transmissive layer; and a second organic layer on the upper surface of the reflective wall structure and an upper surface of the light-transmissive layer, the first organic layer comprises a first transparent polymer, and the second organic layer comprises a second transparent polymer. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ELMITO BREVAL whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3099 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-Th~ 7:30-5:30 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT James R. Greece can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-3711 . 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT ELMITO BREVAL Primary Examiner Art Unit 2875 /ELMITO BREVAL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875