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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/26/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-6 and 8-16 are currently pending. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the 35 USC 112 rejection previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed 10/28/2026.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-10, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2023/0108271, hereby referred as Park) in view of Take et al. (US 12424752, hereby referred as Take).
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches the following:
an antenna device comprising:
a dielectric layer (element 110, figures 1-2); and
an antenna unit (element 120, figures 1-2) disposed on the dielectric layer, the antenna unit comprising a metal layer, a metal oxide layer provided as a blackening portion, and a transparent conductive oxide layer (paragraphs [0052]-[0055], when it is a “two-layer structure of transparent conductive oxide layer-metal layer or a three-layer structure of transparent conductive oxide layer-metal layer-transparent conductive oxide layer”, and then ”the surface of the metal layer included in the antenna conductive layer 120 is converted into metal oxide or metal sulfide to form a blackened layer”) including at least one of indium tin oxide (ITO), indium zinc oxide (IZO), indium zinc oxide (ITZO) and zinc oxide (ZNOx) (“a transparent conductive oxide such as indium tin oxide (ITO), indium zinc oxide (IZO), indium zinc tin oxide (IZTO), zinc oxide (ZnOx), or copper oxide (CuO)”, paragraph [0052]),
wherein the metal oxide layer is an oxide of a metal or an alloy that is included in the metal layer (“the surface of the metal layer included in the antenna conductive layer 120 is converted into metal oxide or metal sulfide to form a blackened layer”, paragraph [0055]).
Park does not explicitly teach the metal oxide layer having a thickness of 60 to 100 nm.
Take suggests the teachings of the metal oxide layer having a thickness of 60 to 100 (“The thickness T2 of the blackened layer 28 is 100 nm or less, preferably 60 nm or less”, column 1, lines 58-65; column 8, lines 10-47; column 12, lines 35-39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the metal oxide layer of Park to have a thickness of 60 to 100 nm as suggested by the teachings of Take so that visible light can be sufficiently absorbed by the blackening portion and reflection of visible light can be suppressed (Take, column 8, lines 10-47). Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 2, Park as modified in claim 1 teaches the antenna device with the exception for the following:
wherein the thickness of the metal layer is in a range from 200 to 1,000 nm.
Take suggests the teachings of the thickness of the metal layer is in a range from 200 to 1,000 nm (“the thickness of the conductive layer 51 is 200 nm. However, the thickness of the conductive layer 51 is not limited to this, and may be selected as appropriate from the range of 10 nm or more and 1000 nm or less”, column 11, lines 29-33).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the thickness of the metal layer of Park as modified to range from 200 to 1,000 nm as suggested by the teachings of Take so that visible light can be sufficiently absorbed by the blackening portion and reflection of visible light can be suppressed (Take, column 8, lines 10-47). Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 5, Park as modified in claim 1 teaches the following:
wherein the metal layer, the metal oxide layer and the transparent conductive oxide layer are sequentially stacked on the dielectric layer (Park, paragraphs [0052]-[0055], when it is a “two-layer structure of transparent conductive oxide layer-metal layer”, and then ”the surface of the metal layer included in the antenna conductive layer 120 is converted into metal oxide or metal sulfide to form a blackened layer”, this would result in a metal layer, the metal oxide layer and the transparent conductive oxide layer stack).
Regarding claim 6, Park as modified in claim 1 teaches the following:
wherein the transparent conductive oxide layer, the metal layer and the metal oxide layer are sequentially disposed on the dielectric layer (Park, paragraphs [0052]-[0055], when it is a “three-layer structure of transparent conductive oxide layer-metal layer-transparent conductive oxide layer”, and then ”the surface of the metal layer included in the antenna conductive layer 120 is converted into metal oxide or metal sulfide to form a blackened layer”, this would result in a transparent conductive oxide layer, a metal layer, a metal oxide layer and a transparent conductive oxide layer stack).
Regarding claim 8, Park as modified in claim 1 teaches the following:
wherein the metal oxide layer, the metal layer and the transparent conductive oxide layer are sequentially stacked on the dielectric layer (Park, paragraphs [0052]-[0055], when it is a “three-layer structure of transparent conductive oxide layer-metal layer-transparent conductive oxide layer”, and then ”the surface of the metal layer included in the antenna conductive layer 120 is converted into metal oxide or metal sulfide to form a blackened layer”, this would result in a transparent conductive oxide layer, a metal layer, a metal oxide layer and a transparent conductive oxide layer stack).
Regarding claim 9, Park as modified in claim 1 teaches the following:
wherein the antenna unit comprises a radiator (Park, element 210, figures 1-2), a transmission line (Park, element 220, figures 1-2) extending from the radiator, a signal pad (Park, element 240, figures 1-2) connected to a terminal end portion of the transmission line, and a pair of ground pads (Park, elements 242, figures 1-2) disposed with the signal pad interposed therebetween and spaced apart from the transmission line and the signal pad (Park, as shown in figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 10, Park as modified in claim 9 teaches the following:
wherein the radiator and the transmission line include a mesh structure (Park, paragraphs [0018], [0063], [0068]).
Regarding claim 12, Park as modified in claim 9 teaches the following:
wherein the signal pad and the ground pads include a solid pattern (Park, paragraphs [0018], [0080]).
Regarding claim 15, Park as modified in claim 1 teaches the following:
an image display device (Park, figure 7) comprising: a display panel (Park, element 710, figure 7); the antenna device of claim 1 disposed on the display panel (Park, paragraph [0048], [0060], [0063], [0075]).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2023/0108271, hereby referred as Park) in view of Take et al. (US 12424752, hereby referred as Take), and further in view of Hwang et al. (US 2016/0282982, hereby referred as Hwang).
Regarding claim 3, Park as modified in claim 1 teaches the antenna device with the exception for the following:
wherein each of a* and b* values is in a range from -1.0 to 0.5 in a Commission Internationale de l'Eclairage (CIE) L*a*b* colorimetric system.
Hwang suggests the teachings of wherein each of a* and b* values is in a range from -1.0 to 0.5 in a Commission Internationale de l'Eclairage (CIE) L*a*b* colorimetric system (paragraph [0104]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have each of a* and b* values of Park as modified to be in a range from -1.0 to 0.5 in a Commission Internationale de l'Eclairage (CIE) L*a*b* colorimetric system as suggested by the teachings of Hwang so that the visibility of the metal layer would be reduced when the antenna device is placed in conjunction with a display (paragraphs [0103]-[0104]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Park, Take, and Hwang as modified in claim 3 teaches the following:
wherein each of the a* and the b* values is in a range from -0.6 to 0.3 (Hwang, paragraph [0104], as explained in claim 3).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2023/0108271, hereby referred as Park) in view of Take et al. (US 12424752, hereby referred as Take), and further in view of Yoon et al. (US 2018/0046005).
Regarding claim 11, Park as modified in claim 10 teaches the following:
wherein the mesh structure comprises a plurality of conductive lines crossing each other (paragraphs [0018], [0063], [0068]).
Park as modified does not explicitly teach a line width of each of the conductive lines is in a range from 0.5 to 10 μm.
Yoon suggests the teachings of a line width of each of the conductive lines is in a range from 0.5 to 10 μm (paragraphs [0020], [0047], [0100]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have a line width of each of the conductive lines of Park as modified to be in a range from 0.5 to 10 μm as suggested by the teachings of Yoon to block the visibility of the antenna while maintaining the transmittance when the antenna device is included in a display (paragraphs [0020], [0047], [0100]).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2023/0108271, hereby referred as Park) in view of Take et al. (US 12424752, hereby referred as Take), and further in view of Kim et al. (KR 102150998, hereby referred as Kim).
Regarding claim 13, Park as modified in claim 9 teaches the antenna device with the exception for the following:
wherein the metal oxide layer is included only in the radiator and the transmission line.
Park generally teaches that the metal oxide layer is included in the antenna unit (paragraphs [0052]-[0055]).
Kim suggests the teachings of that the metal oxide layer may or may not be included in the signal pad and the ground pads (“In some embodiments, the radiation electrode 142, the transmission line 144 and/or the pad 145 may include a stacked structure of a transparent conductive oxide layer and a metal layer”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the metal oxide layer of Park as modified to be included only in the radiator and the transmission line as suggested by the teachings of Park and Kim since only the radiator and transmission line are in the display area (Park, paragraph [0099]) so having the metal oxide layer only in the radiator and transmission line would be a way to reduce to amount metal oxide needed which may reduce the costs of the antenna device.
Regarding claim 14, Park as modified in claim 9 teaches the following:
wherein the metal oxide layer is included in all of the radiator, the transmission line, the signal pad (paragraphs [0052]-[0055]).
Park does not explicitly teach the metal oxide layer is included in the ground pads.
Kim suggests the teachings of the metal oxide layer is included in the ground pads (“In some embodiments, the radiation electrode 142, the transmission line 144 and/or the pad 145 may include a stacked structure of a transparent conductive oxide layer and a metal layer”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have metal oxide layer of Park as modified to be included in the ground pads as suggested by the teachings of Kim which may allow for improved corrosion resistance and transparency (“corrosion resistance and transparency may be improved by the transparent conductive oxide layer”).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2023/0108271, hereby referred as Park) in view of Take et al. (US 12424752, hereby referred as Take), and further in view of Dongwoo Fine Chem Co LTD (KR 10-2204410, cited by the applicant, hereby referred as Dongwoo, US 2023/0155279 will be relied on as a translation).
Regarding claim 16, Park as modified in claim 15 teaches the image display device without explicitly teaching the following:
further comprising an optical layer disposed on the display panel and a cover window disposed on the antenna device, wherein the antenna device is disposed between the optical layer and the cover window.
Dongwoo suggests the teachings of further comprising an optical layer (elements 115 or 260, figures 2-3 and 6) disposed on the display panel (element 201/DA/NDA, figures 2-3 and 6) and a cover window (element 150, figures 2-3 and 6) disposed on the antenna device (as shown in figures 2-3 and 6), wherein the antenna device is disposed between the optical layer and the cover window (as shown in figures 2-3 and 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have image display device of Park as modified to include an optical layer disposed on the display panel and a cover window disposed on the antenna device, wherein the antenna device is disposed between the optical layer and the cover window as suggested by the teachings of Dongwoo as displays usually have multiple layers such as a protective cover window, a polarizer, and a display panel as these together can provide a display that is protected from external factors and is not hindered by being overlapped with the antenna device.
Additional Comments
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kensuke et al. (WO 2021/199460), Yoon et al. (US 2018/0046005), Tamagawa et al. (US 2019/0393585), Seo et al. (US 2018/0151627), and Lee et al. (US 2021/0132737) also teach that the metal oxide layer having a thickness of 60 to 100 nm. All of the newly cited references also teach an antenna stack comprising a metal layer, a metal oxide layer provided as a blackening portion, and a transparent conductive oxide layer, and could be used in place of Park to reject the current claims. The applicant is requested to review these references.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AB SALAM ALKASSIM JR whose telephone number is (571)270-0449. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
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, Dameon Levi can be reached at (571) 272-2105. 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.
/AB SALAM ALKASSIM JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845