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
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 15, 17 – 19 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bower, US 2020/0295120.
Regarding Claim 1, Bower teaches A display area (99, Fig. 1)comprising:
a plurality of tiles 40 arranged in an array (Fig. 18), each of the plurality of tiles comprising an optically transparent layer 10 comprising a first major surface and an opposing second major surface, wherein each of the plurality of tiles comprises:
a substrate 42 comprising a major surface facing the second major surface of the transparent layer (Fig. 1 );
a plurality of light sources 52 positioned on the major surface of the substrate 42; and a non-transparent layer 22 between the transparent layer 10 and the plurality of light sources 52, the non-transparent layer 22 comprising an opening extending over an area between at least one of the plurality of light sources and the transparent layer (Fig. 1) with reference to Fig. 1 in paragraphs 53 – 58.
Bower fails to teach wherein a seam extends between adjacent tiles of the plurality of tiles; and the non-transparent layer extends across the seam.
However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a seam (gap) extends between adjacent tiles of the plurality of tiles; and the non-transparent layer extends across the seam based on the Figs. 1 and 5.
Regarding Claim 2, Bower teaches the transparent layer 10 comprises glass in paragraph 54.
Regarding Claim 3, Bower teaches wherein the plurality of light sources comprise light emitting diodes (LEDs) in paragraph 58.
Regarding Claim 4, Bower teaches the opening extends over an area comprising a red-green-blue (RGB) LED chip in paragraph 59.
Regarding Claim 5, Bower teaches wherein the non-transparent layer is adhered to the transparent layer in paragraph 53 with reference to Fig. 1.
Regarding Claim 6, Bower teaches the non-transparent layer comprises a black film or an absorbing/polarizing film in paragraph 53.
Regarding Claims 7 – 10, Bower teaches each of the plurality of tiles further comprises at least one anti- reflective (AR) layer; the AR layer comprises a major surface facing the first major surface of the transparent layer; the AR layer extends between the non-transparent layer and the plurality of light sources and the AR layer comprises at least one material selected from magnesium fluoride, fluoropolymers, andmesoporous silica nanoparticles in paragraph 69.
Regarding Claims 11 – 15, Bower teaches each of the plurality of tiles further comprises at least a second transparent layer 30, the second transparent extending between the transparent layer and the plurality of light sources and wherein the second transparent layer extends across the opening; wherein the second transparent layer extends between the non-transparent layer and the plurality of light sources; the second transparent layer extends between the transparent layer and the non-transparent layer and the second transparent layer comprises a polymeric material with reference to Fig. 1 in paragraphs 53 and 56.
Regarding Claim 17, Bower teaches the opening comprises a plurality of openings with reference to Fig. 3 in paragraph 59.
Regarding Claim 18, Bower teaches the display area comprises a very low reflectance value in paragraph 71, but fails to teach a value of less than about 0.04.
However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a good antireflection coating on the display will afford a low reflectance value of less than about 0.04 and can be obtained with experimentation and optimization.
Regarding Claim 19, Bower teaches a method of making the display comprising positioning the transparent layer and the non-transparent layer such that the opening extends over an area between at least one of the plurality of light sources and the transparent layer in paragraph 53.
Regarding Claim 22, Bower teaches an electronic device comprising the display area with reference to Fig. 1.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bower, US 2020/0295120 in view of Greene, US 5,661531.
Bower fails to teach wherein the second transparent layer is tinted or comprises a material with transformable transparency.
Greene teaches a seamless tiled display device with color filter 52 and lightvalves 56 with reference to Fig. 13 (column 19, line 54) for the benefit of restoring the brightness of the display in column 3, lines 21 – 23.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the second transparent layer to be tinted or comprises a material with transformable transparency for the benefit of restoring the brightness of the display as taught by Greene in column 3, lines 21 – 23.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bower, US 2020/0295120.
Limitations of this claim have been described earlier in rejecting Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 21, Bower teaches the limitations as was described earlier in rejecting Claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yoon, US 2021/0391390 teaches a display device with low reflectance.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASOK K SARKAR whose telephone number is (571)272-1970. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri; 9:30 AM - 6:30 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, Matthew Landau can be reached at 571 - 272 - 1731. 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.
/ASOK K SARKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891 December 31, 2025