CTNF 18/630,029 CTNF 98846 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 Claims 1-20 remain pending in this application. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Specification 06-11 AIA The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-4, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Thiel et al (US 20140113120 A1, hereafter Thiel) . Regarding claim 1, Thiel discloses: A window (Thiel 10, fig 1, ¶0017, 0019) comprising: a base layer (Thiel 12, ¶0019, fig 1); a first layer (Thiel 14, ¶0019, 0023) disposed on the base layer (Thiel fig 1, ¶0019, 0023); a second layer (Thiel 18, ¶0019, 0043, 0045) disposed on the first layer (Thiel fig 1, ¶0019); and a third layer (Thiel 32, ¶0019, 0060) disposed on the second layer (Thiel fig 1, ¶0019, 0060), wherein the second layer comprises silicon dioxide (SiO2) and aluminum oxide (Al2O3)(Thiel ¶0043, 0045), and a weight ratio of the silicon dioxide to the aluminum oxide in the second layer is in a range of about 25:75 to about 35:65 (Thiel ¶0043, 0045, “65 wt. % to 75 wt. % alumina and 35 wt. % to 25 wt. % silica”, an alumina to silica ratio of 65:35 to 75:25, therefore silica to alumina ratio in range of 25:75 to about 35:65 ). Regarding claim 2, Thiel discloses: The window of claim 1, wherein: the second layer (Thiel 14) is disposed directly on the first layer (Thiel fig 1, ¶0019); and the third layer (Thiel 32) is disposed directly on the second layer (Thiel 18)(Thiel fig 1, ¶0019) Regarding claim 3, Thiel discloses: The window of claim 1, wherein the second layer (Thiel 18) has a thickness in a range of about 10 nm to about 20 nm (Thiel ¶0047, “… 100 Å to 500 Å..”, 10 to 50 nm ). Regarding claim 4, Thiel discloses: The window of claim 1, wherein, at a wavelength of about 550 nm, the second layer (Thiel 18) has a refractive index in a range of about 1.43 to about 1.50 (Thiel ¶0044, “1.3 to 1.8, e.g., 1.5.+/-.0.2”, ¶0022, 0049, 0066). Regarding claim 7, Thiel discloses: The window of claim 1, wherein the second layer (Thiel 18) comprises a solid solution in which the silicon dioxide and the aluminum oxide are mixed (Thiel ¶0045, under a broadest reasonable interpretation of “solution” ). Regarding claim 10, Thiel discloses: The window of claim 1, wherein the base layer (Thiel 12) comprises a glass substrate or a polymer film (Thiel ¶0020) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thiel et al (US 20140113120 A1, hereafter Thiel) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hart et al (US 20150323705 A1, hereafter Hart) . Regarding claim 5, Thiel teaches: The window of claim 1. Thiel does not explicitly teach: at a wavelength of about 550 nm, the first layer has a refractive index in a range of about 1.3 to about 1.5; and at a wavelength of about 550 nm, the third layer has a refractive index in a range of about 1.2 to about 1.5. Hart, in the same field of endeavor of semiconductor device manufacturing, teaches: at a wavelength of about 550 nm, a first layer (Hart 130, 345, ¶0050) has a refractive index in a range of about 1.3 to about 1.5 (Hart ¶0050, table 5); and at a wavelength of about 550 nm, a third layer (Hart 131, 305, ¶0049, 0050) has a refractive index in a range of about 1.2 to about 1.5 (Hart ¶0050, table 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the first and third layers of Thiel such that “at a wavelength of about 550 nm, the first layer has a refractive index in a range of about 1.3 to about 1.5; and at a wavelength of about 550 nm, the third layer has a refractive index in a range of about 1.2 to about 1.5”, as taught by Hart, in order to improve suppression of ambient light reflection of a particular wavelength (Hart 0002, 0059). Further, the adjustment of a refractive index at a particular wavelength is a matter of routine optimization. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05). In the instant case, the general conditions of a refractive index is disclosed by Thiel, and a refractive index at a particular wavelength is disclosed by Hart, therefore discovering the optimum or working range of “at a wavelength of about 550 nm, the first layer has a refractive index in a range of about 1.3 to about 1.5; and at a wavelength of about 550 nm, the third layer has a refractive index in a range of about 1.2 to about 1.5” involves only routine skill in the art. Regarding claim 6, Thiel teaches: The window of claim 1. Thiel does not explicitly teach: a refractive index of the first layer is less than a refractive index of the base layer; and a refractive index of the second layer is greater than the refractive index of the first layer. Hart, in the same field of endeavor of semiconductor device manufacturing, and in at least one embodiment, teaches: a refractive index of a first layer (Hart 130A, 345, ¶0050) is less than a refractive index of a base layer (Hart 110, ¶0103)(Hart ¶0050, table 5); and a refractive index of a second layer (Hart 130B, ¶0047) is greater than the refractive index of the first layer (Hart ¶0050, table 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the first, second, and/or base layers of Thiel such that “a refractive index of the first layer is less than a refractive index of the base layer; and a refractive index of the second layer is greater than the refractive index of the first layer”, as taught by Hart, in order establish refractive index contrast to suppress reflection of ambient light (Hart ¶0047, 0059). Further, the adjustment of a refractive index is a matter of routine optimization. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05). In the instant case, the general conditions of a refractive index is disclosed by Thiel and Hart, and therefore discovering the optimum or working range of “a refractive index of the first layer is less than a refractive index of the base layer; and a refractive index of the second layer is greater than the refractive index of the first layer” involves only routine skill in the art . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 8, 9, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thiel et al (US 20140113120 A1, hereafter Thiel) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fujii et al (US 20170184762 A1, hereafter Fujii) . Regarding claim 8, Thiel teaches: The window of claim 1. Thiel does not explicitly teach: wherein, at a wavelength of about 550 nm, a reflectance on an upper surface of the third layer is about 6.0% or less. Fujii, in the same field of endeavor of semiconductor device manufacturing, teaches: at a wavelength of about 550 nm, a reflectance on an upper surface (Fujii 20, ¶0038, 0055) is about 6.0% or less (Fujii ¶0048, “have a luminous reflectance of 2% or less”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify an upper surface of the third layer of Thiel such that “at a wavelength of about 550 nm, a reflectance on an upper surface of the third layer is about 6.0% or less”, as taught by Fujii, in order to suppress reflection of ambient light, thereby improving visibility (Fujii ¶0005, 0048). Regarding claim 9, Thiel teaches: The window of claim 1. Thiel does not teach: The window of claim 1, wherein the third layer comprises a fluorine-containing polymer. Fujii, in the same field of endeavor of semiconductor device manufacturing, teaches: an antifouling layer (Fujii 30, ¶0044, 0046) comprises a fluorine-containing polymer (Fujii ¶0044-0045). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Thiel to include the antifouling layer of Fujii to the third layer of Thiel, such that “the third layer comprises a fluorine-containing polymer”, in order to provide for antifouling and/or anti-fingerprint and/or water/oil repellent surface, thereby protecting the outer surface during use (Fujii ¶0044, 0046). Regarding claim 15, Thiel teaches: The window of claim 1. Thiel does not teach: a sixth layer disposed below the base layer, the sixth layer has a refractive index in a range of about 1.3 to about 1.5 at a wavelength of about 550 nm. Fujii, in the same field of endeavor of semiconductor device manufacturing, teaches: an antireflective layer (Fujii 20, ¶0038, 0042, 0055) disposed below a base layer (Fujii 10, ¶0030, 0058)(Fujii ¶0042), the antireflective layer has a refractive less than 1.6 at a wavelength of about 550 nm (Fujii ¶0037, at least the low RI layer ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Thiel to include the antireflective layer of Fujii, below the base layer of Thiel, and such that “a sixth layer disposed below the base layer, the sixth layer has a refractive index in a range of about 1.3 to about 1.5 at a wavelength of about 550 nm”, in order to suppress reflection on a lower surface of the base layer, thereby reducing total reflectance (Fujii ¶0042) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thiel et al (US 20140113120 A1, hereafter Thiel) as applied to claim s 1 above, and further in view of Abid et al (US 20180319704 A1, hereafter Abid) . Regarding claim 11, Thiel teaches: The window of claim 1. Thiel does not explicitly teach: the first layer has a thickness in a range of about 60 nm to about 80 nm; and the third layer has a thickness in a range of about 5 nm to about 40 nm. Abid, in the same field of endeavor of semiconductor device manufacturing, teaches: a first layer has a thickness in a range of about 60 nm to about 80 nm (Abid 80, ¶0074, 50-100 nm ); and a third layer has a thickness in a range of about 5 nm to about 40 nm (Abid 70, ¶0089, 5-50 nm ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the first and third layer thicknesses of Thiel, such that “the first layer has a thickness in a range of about 60 nm to about 80 nm; and the third layer has a thickness in a range of about 5 nm to about 40 nm”, as taught by Abid, in order to provide anti-reflective properties and/or reduce surface contamination while providing optical clarity (Abid ¶0004, 0075-0076). Further, the adjustment of a layer thickness is a matter of routine optimization. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05). In the instant case, the general conditions of layer thickness is disclosed by Thiel and Abid, and therefore discovering the optimum or working range of “the first layer has a thickness in a range of about 60 nm to about 80 nm; and the third layer has a thickness in a range of about 5 nm to about 40 nm” involves only routine skill in the art . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thiel et al (US 20140113120 A1, hereafter Thiel) as applied to claim s 1 above, and further in view of Bellman et al (US 20140376094 A1, hereafter Bellman) . Regarding claim 12, Thiel teaches: The window of claim 1. Thiel does not explicitly teach: a fourth layer disposed between the base layer and the first layer, wherein the fourth layer comprises magnesium oxide. Bellman, in the same field of endeavor of semiconductor device manufacturing, teaches: a fourth layer (Bellman 331D, ¶0143, fig 12) disposed between a base layer (Bellman 310, ¶0143, fig 12) and a first layer (Bellman 331A, ¶0143, fig 12)(Bellman fig 12), wherein the fourth layer comprises magnesium oxide (Bellman ¶0143). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Thiel to include the fourth layer of Bellman, such that “a fourth layer disposed between the base layer and the first layer, wherein the fourth layer comprises magnesium oxide”, in order to improve improved optical performance and/or reduce oscillations in a reflectance spectrum between a base layer and a first layer (Bellman ¶0055, 0144) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thiel et al (US 20140113120 A1, hereafter Thiel) as applied to claim s 1 above, and further in view of Fujii et al (US 20180162771 A1, hereafter Fujii-771) . Regarding claim 13, Thiel teaches: The window of claim 1. Thiel does not explicitly teach: comprising a fifth layer disposed between the base layer and the first layer, the fifth layer has a refractive index of about 1.7 to about 3.0 at a wavelength of about 550 nm. Fujii-771, in the same field of endeavor of semiconductor device manufacturing, teaches: a fifth layer (Fujii-771 high RI layer , ¶0161) disposed between a base layer (Fujii-771 5, ¶0161) and the first layer (Fujii-771 low RI layer , ¶0161), the fifth layer has a refractive index of 1.9 or more at a wavelength of about 550 nm (Fujii-771 ¶0068). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Thiel to include the fifth layer of Fujiii-771, such that “a fifth layer disposed between the base layer and the first layer, the fifth layer has a refractive index of about 1.7 to about 3.0 at a wavelength of about 550 nm”, in order to suppress reflections (Fujii-771 ¶0070). Regarding claim 14, Thiel in view of Fujii-771 teaches: The window of claim 13, wherein the fifth layer (Thiel as modified to include Fujii-771 high RI layer ) comprises at least one compound selected from the group consisting of zinc oxide (ZrO2), hafnium oxide (HfO2), tantalum oxide (Ta2O5), niobium oxide (Nb2O5), titanium oxide (TiO2), ytterbium oxide (Y2O3), silicon nitride (Si3N4), strontium titanate (SrTiO3), tungsten oxide (WO3), and aluminum nitride (AlN)(Fujii-771 ¶0071) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thiel et al (US 20140113120 A1, hereafter Thiel) in view of Fujii et al (US 20170184762 A1, hereafter Fujii) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Abid et al (US 20180319704 A1, hereafter Abid) . Regarding claim 16, Thiel in view of Fujii teaches: The window of claim 15. Thiel in view of Fujii does not explicitly teach: the sixth layer comprises at least one compound selected from the group consisting of magnesium oxide, magnesium fluoride, or yttrium oxyfluoride. Abid, in the same field of endeavor of semiconductor device manufacturing, teaches: a sixth layer (Abid 80, ¶0068) comprises at least one compound selected from the group consisting of magnesium oxide, magnesium fluoride (Abid ¶0068, 0074, “MgF 2 ”), or yttrium oxyfluoride. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the sixth layer of Thiel in view of Fujii to include “at least one compound selected from the group consisting of magnesium oxide, magnesium fluoride, or yttrium oxyfluoride”, as taught by Abid, in order to provide desired optical properties (Abid ¶0075). Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to choose any number of suitable materials for the sixth layer, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (see MPEP 2144.07) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thiel et al (US 20140113120 A1, hereafter Thiel) in view of Fujii et al (US 20170184762 A1, hereafter Fujii) . Regarding claim 17, Thiel teaches: A window (Thiel 10, fig 1, ¶0017, 0019), wherein the window comprises: a base layer (Thiel 12, ¶0019, fig 1); a first layer (Thiel 14, ¶0019, 0023) disposed on the base layer (Thiel fig 1, ¶0019, 0023); a second layer (Thiel 18, ¶0019, 0043, 0045) disposed on the first layer (Thiel fig 1, ¶0019); and a third layer (Thiel 32, ¶0019, 0060) disposed on the second layer (Thiel fig 1, ¶0019, 0060), wherein the second layer comprises silicon dioxide (SiO2) and aluminum oxide (Al2O3)(Thiel ¶0043, 0045), and a weight ratio of the silicon dioxide to the aluminum oxide in the second layer is in a range of about 25:75 to about 35:65 (Thiel ¶0043, 0045, “65 wt. % to 75 wt. % alumina and 35 wt. % to 25 wt. % silica”, an alumina to silica ratio of 65:35 to 75:25, therefore silica to alumina ratio in range of 25:75 to about 35:65 ). Thiel does not explicitly teach: A display device comprising: a display module; and a window disposed on the display module. Fujii, in the same field of endeavor of semiconductor device manufacturing, teaches: A display device comprising: a display module; and a window disposed on the display module (Fujii fig 1E, ¶0005, 0006, 0055). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify window of Thiel such that it disposed on a display device, as taught by Fujii, in order to protect the display module from surface damage and/or suppressing reflection, thereby preserving the display visibility (Fujii ¶0005, 0006). Regarding claim 19, Thiel in view of Fujii teaches: The display device of claim 17. Thiel in view of Fujii does not explicitly teach: wherein the first layer is spaced apart from the display module with the base layer interposed therebetween. Fujii further teaches: a window, including a base layer (Fujii 10), disposed on a display module (Fujii ¶0005, 0006, 0055). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the window of Thiel in view of Fujii, such that “the first layer is spaced apart from the display module with the base layer interposed therebetween”, in order to protect the display module from surface damage and/or suppressing reflection, thereby preserving the display visibility (Fujii ¶0005, 0006). Regarding claim 20, Thiel in view of Fujii teaches: The display device of claim 17, wherein an upper surface of the third layer (Thiel 32, ¶0019, 0060) defines an outermost surface of the window (Thiel fig 1, ¶0019) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thiel et al (US 20140113120 A1, hereafter Thiel) in view of Fujii et al (US 20170184762 A1, hereafter Fujii) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Jung et al (US 20220199949 A1, hereafter Jung) . Regarding claim 18, Thiel in view of Fujii teaches: The display device of claim 17. Thiel in view of Fujii does not teach: wherein the display module comprises: a base substrate; a circuit layer disposed on the base substrate; a light emitting element layer disposed on the circuit layer, the light emitting element layer including a plurality of light emitting elements; an encapsulation layer disposed on the light emitting element layer; and an anti-reflection layer disposed on the encapsulation layer, wherein the anti-reflection layer comprises a division layer having a plurality of division openings respectively overlapping the plurality of light emitting elements, and a plurality of color filters respectively disposed to correspond to the plurality of division openings. Jung, in the same field of endeavor of semiconductor device manufacturing, teaches: a display module comprises: a base substrate (Jung BL, ¶0089); a circuit layer (Jung DP-CL, ¶0089) disposed on the base substrate (Jung fig 5); a light emitting element layer (Jung DP-OLED, ¶0098) disposed on the circuit layer (Jung fig 5), the light emitting element layer including a plurality of light emitting elements (Jung OLED, PXA-R/G1/B, ¶0098)(Jung fig 5, ¶0098); an encapsulation layer (Jung TFL, ¶0101) disposed on the light emitting element layer (Jung fig 6); and an anti-reflection layer (Jung PPL, ¶0065, 0110) disposed on the encapsulation layer (Jung fig 2, at least indirectly via ISL ), wherein the anti-reflection layer comprises a division layer (Jung BM, PPL-1, ¶0113) having a plurality of division openings (Jung BM-OP, PPL-OP, ¶0113, fig 6) respectively overlapping the plurality of light emitting elements (Jung fig 6, ¶0113, corresponding to PXA-R/G1/B ), and a plurality of color filters (Jung ¶0114) respectively disposed to correspond to the plurality of division openings (Jung fig 6, ¶0114). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the display module of Thiel in view of Fujii, such that “the display module comprises: a base substrate; a circuit layer disposed on the base substrate; a light emitting element layer disposed on the circuit layer, the light emitting element layer including a plurality of light emitting elements; an encapsulation layer disposed on the light emitting element layer; and an anti-reflection layer disposed on the encapsulation layer, wherein the anti-reflection layer comprises a division layer having a plurality of division openings respectively overlapping the plurality of light emitting elements, and a plurality of color filters respectively disposed to correspond to the plurality of division openings”, as taught by Jung, in order to realize a fully function display device for various devices (Jung ¶0003). Further, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the window of Thiel in view of Fujii to the display module of Jung, in order to protect the display module from surface damage and/or suppressing reflection, thereby preserving the display visibility (Fujii ¶0005, 0006, Thiel ¶0005-0007). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS B. MICHAUD whose telephone number is (703)756-1796. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 0800-1700 Eastern Time. 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) 272-3829. 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. /NICHOLAS B. MICHAUD/ EXAMINER Art Unit 2818 /Mounir S Amer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/630,029 Page 2 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/630,029 Page 3 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/630,029 Page 4 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/630,029 Page 5 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/630,029 Page 6 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/630,029 Page 7 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/630,029 Page 8 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/630,029 Page 9 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/630,029 Page 10 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/630,029 Page 11 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/630,029 Page 12 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/630,029 Page 13 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/630,029 Page 14 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/630,029 Page 15 Art Unit: 2818
Prosecution Insights