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 .
Status of the Application
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s application 18/542,772 filed on December 18 2023 in which claims 1 to 10 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on December 18 2023 have been reviewed and accepted by the Examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS), filed on December 18 2023 and February 20 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosed therein has been considered by the Examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of paper submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) which has been placed of record in the file.
Notation
References to patents will be in the form of (C: L) where C is the column number and L is the line number. References to pre-grant patent publications will be to the paragraph number in the form of (¶ xxxx).
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.
(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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 5-10 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2017/0358604 A1; herein after “Lee”).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a display panel (Fig.1-11) and related text e.g., comprising:
a substrate (110; Fig.1; ¶ 0021);
a plurality of display units (120; Fig.1; ¶ 0021) disposed over the substrate (110);
an optical layer (140; ¶ 0021) disposed on the display units (120);
a first adhesive layer (130a; ¶ 0021) contacting (thermal or a physical contact) a side surface of the substrate (130a is in contact with the top side surface of 110; Fig.1); and
a second adhesive layer (150, ¶ 0021) disposed between the first adhesive layer (130a) and the optical layer (140) and contacting a surface of the optical layer facing the substrate (130a is in contact with the side surface and bottom surface of 140; Fig.1), wherein an interface exists between the second adhesive layer (130a) and the first adhesive layer (130a top surface is in contact with the bottom surface of 150; Fig.1).
Regarding claim 2, Lee teaches the second adhesive layer (150; ¶ 0038; “optical clear resin) and the first adhesive layer (130a; ¶ 0030; “acrylic photo resist) have different compositions (130a and 150 are made from different material).
Regarding claim 5, Lee teaches wherein a viscosity of the second adhesive layer before curing is less than a viscosity of the first adhesive layer before curing (150 has high viscosity; ¶ 0036).
Regarding claim 6, Lee teaches the optical layer (140; Fig.1; ¶ 0036) comprises an encapsulant (BK; Fig.1; ¶ 0031) and an optical film (142; ¶ 0031), and the encapsulant (BK; Fig.1) is located between the substrate (110) and the optical film (142) and between the display units (BK is between 120 at least partially in sideview or from the top view; Fig.1).
Regarding claim 7, Lee teaches wherein the encapsulant (BK; Fig.1) is further located between the second adhesive layer (150; Fig.1) and the optical film (142).
Regarding claim 8, Lee teaches wherein a side surface of the second adhesive layer (150; Fig.1), a side surface of the encapsulant (BK; Fig.1), and a side surface of the optical film (142; Fig.1) are aligned with each other (aligned with each other at Fig.1).
Regarding claim 9, Lee teaches wherein the second adhesive layer (150; Fig.1) covers a side surface of the encapsulant (side surface of BK on the right side of 120; Fig.1).
Regarding claim 10, Lee teaches wherein a surface of the second adhesive layer (left side surface of 150; Fig.1) facing away from the encapsulant (side surface of BK on the right side of 120; Fig.1) is aligned with a side surface of the optical film (left side surface of 142; Fig.1).
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 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 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.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2017/0358604 A1; herein after “Lee”) in view of Chien et al. (CN 114005918 A1 published on February 01, 2022; hereinafter “Chien”).
Chien (US 2022/0238768 A1) is used in the rejection for reference Chien et al. (CN 114005918 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Lee does not teach wherein there are bubbles in the first adhesive layer.
However, Chien teaches a similar device in Figure 4 wherein there are bubbles (141; Fig.4; ¶ 0046) in the first adhesive layer (140A; Fig.4; ¶ 0046).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention, to have bubbles in the first adhesive layer in the device of Lee as taught by Chien to absorb the ambient light from outside the display (¶ 0046).
Regarding claim 4, Lee does not teach wherein a surface of the first adhesive layer facing away from the substrate has bubble holes.
However, Chien teaches a similar device in Figure 4 wherein of the first adhesive layer (140A; Fig.4; ¶ 0046) facing away from the substrate (100; Fig.4) has bubble holes (141; Fig.4; ¶ 0046).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention, to have a surface of the first adhesive layer facing away from the substrate has bubble holes.in the device of Lee as taught by Chien to absorb the ambient light from outside the display (¶ 0046).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mounir S Amer whose telephone number is (571)270-3683. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:30.
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, Eva Montalvo can be reached at (571) 270-3829. 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.
/Mounir S Amer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818