CTNF 18/663,572 CTNF 86263 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claims 1- 21 are re jected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li m et al., US 2022/032471. In re Claim 1, Lim discloses a window comprising: a substrate; at least one light control layer CCL disposed on the substrate BS and, which controls light; and a coating layer OC disposed on the at least one light control layer CCL (Figs. 1-5; [0047- 0142]. Lim does not explicitly indicate that the at least one light control layer CCL controls light having a wavelength of about 280 nanometers (nm) or less. However, Lim’s at least one light control layer CCL being same composition ([0077-0084]) as substantially identical to that of the claims inherently possesses the claim property controls light having a wavelength of about 280 nanometers (nm) or less. See MPEP2112.01 [R-3] Composition, Product, and Apparatus Claims I. PRODUCT AND APPARATUS CLAIMS — WHEN THE STRUCTURE RECITED IN THE REFERENCE IS SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE CLAIMS, CLAIMED PROPERTIES OR FUNCTIONS ARE PRESUMED TO BE INHERENT. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). In re Claim 2, Lim discloses the window of claim 1, wherein the at least one light control layer CCL includes: at least one light absorption layer BK ([0077]) disposed on the substrate BS and, which absorbs the light having the wavelength of about 280 nm or less; and at least one refractive layer ARL disposed on the substrate BS (Figs. 1-5). In re Claim 3, Lim discloses the window of claim 2, wherein the at least one light absorption layer ARL includes at least one of benzotriazole, triazine, benzimidazole, ZnO ([0094]), and TiO 2 . In re Claim 4, Lim discloses all limitations of Claim 4 except for that the at least one refractive layer ARL includes at least one of MgF 2 , CaF 2 , BaF 2 , LiF, and CeF 3 . Due to high level of knowledge and skills of personal capable to operate very sophisticated and expensive equipment in semiconductor technology, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice of one of ordinary skill in the semiconductor art to use at least one of MgF 2 , CaF 2 , BaF 2 , LiF, and CeF 3 in ARL, 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. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (See MPEP2144.07). In re Claim 5, Lim discloses all limitations of Claim 5 except for that a thickness of each of the at least one refractive layer ARL is about 50 nm to about 100 nm. It is known in the art that thickness of layer is a result effective variable – because its mass depends on it. Due to high level of knowledge and skills of personal capable to operate very sophisticated and expensive equipment in semiconductor technology, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice of one of ordinary skill in the semiconductor art to use the thickness of each of the at least one refractive layer ARL is about 50 nm to about 100 nm, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (MPEP2144.04). In re Claim 6, Lim discloses the window of claim 2, wherein one of the at least one light absorption layer BK ([0077]) is disposed between the substrate BS and the at least one refractive layer ARL. In re Claim 7, Lim discloses the window of claim 2, wherein the at least one refractive layer ARL is disposed between the substrate BS and one of the at least one light absorption layer BK. In re Claim 8, Lim discloses all limitations of Claim 8 except for that the substrate BS is a sapphire substrate. Due to high level of knowledge and skills of personal capable to operate very sophisticated and expensive equipment in semiconductor technology, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice of one of ordinary skill in the semiconductor art to use sapphire as substrate, 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. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (See MPEP2144.07). In re Claim 9, Lim discloses all limitations of Claim 9 except for that the sapphire substrate is doped with a dopant. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the sapphire substrate is doped with a dopant since it was known in the art that sapphire with dopant is routine used as substrate. (MPEP2144.I.) In re Claim 10, Lim discloses all limitations of Claim 9 except for that the dopant includes at least one of Ti, Co, Cr, Fe, and Cu. Due to high level of knowledge and skills of personal capable to operate very sophisticated and expensive equipment in semiconductor technology, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice of one of ordinary skill in the semiconductor art to use at least one of Ti, Co, Cr, Fe, and Cu as dopant, 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. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (See MPEP2144.07). In re Claim 11, Lim discloses the window of claim 1, further comprising: an inorganic layer IL disposed between the substrate BS and the coating layer OC (Fig. 4B and 5; [0114 - 0117). In re Claim 12, Lim discloses a display device comprising: a display panel including at least one light emitting element (LED, [0055]); a substrate BS disposed on the display panel DP; at least one light control layer CCL disposed on the substrate BS and, which controls light; and a coating layer OC disposed on the at least one light control layer CCL. (Figs. 1-5; [0047- 0142]. Lim does not explicitly indicate that the at least one light control layer CCL controls light having a wavelength of about 280 nanometers (nm) or less. However, Lim’s at least one light control layer CCL being same composition ([0077-0084]) as substantially identical to that of the claims inherently possesses the claim property controls light having a wavelength of about 280 nanometers (nm) or less. See MPEP2112.01 [R-3] Composition, Product, and Apparatus Claims I. PRODUCT AND APPARATUS CLAIMS — WHEN THE STRUCTURE RECITED IN THE REFERENCE IS SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE CLAIMS, CLAIMED PROPERTIES OR FUNCTIONS ARE PRESUMED TO BE INHERENT. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). In re Claim 13, Lim discloses the display device of claim 12, wherein the at least one light control layer CCL includes: at least one light absorption layer BK ([0077]) disposed on the substrate BS and, which absorbs the light having the wavelength of about 280 nm or less; and at least one refractive layer ARL disposed on the substrate BS (Figs. 1-5). In re Claim 14, Lim discloses the window of claim 2, wherein the at least one light absorption layer BK includes at least one of benzotriazole, triazine, benzimidazole, ZnO ([0094]), and TiO 2 . In re Claim 15, Lim discloses all limitations of Claim 14 except for that the at least one refractive layer ARL includes at least one of MgF 2 , CaF 2 , BaF 2 , LiF, and CeF 3 . Due to high level of knowledge and skills of personal capable to operate very sophisticated and expensive equipment in semiconductor technology, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice of one of ordinary skill in the semiconductor art to use at least one of MgF 2 , CaF 2 , BaF 2 , LiF, and CeF 3 in ARL, 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. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (See MPEP2144.07). In re Claim 16, discloses all limitations of Claim 16 except for that a thickness of each of the at least one refractive layer ARL is about 50 nm to about 100 nm. It is known in the art that thickness of layer is a result effective variable – because its mass depends on it. Due to high level of knowledge and skills of personal capable to operate very sophisticated and expensive equipment in semiconductor technology, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice of one of ordinary skill in the semiconductor art to use the thickness of each of the at least one refractive layer ARL is about 50 nm to about 100 nm, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (MPEP2144.04). In re Claim 17, Lim discloses all limitations of Claim 17 except for that the substrate BS is a sapphire substrate. Due to high level of knowledge and skills of personal capable to operate very sophisticated and expensive equipment in semiconductor technology, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice of one of ordinary skill in the semiconductor art to use sapphire as substrate, 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. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (See MPEP2144.07). In re Claim 18, Lim discloses all limitations of Claim 18 except for that the substrate BS is a sapphire substrate. Due to high level of knowledge and skills of personal capable to operate very sophisticated and expensive equipment in semiconductor technology, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice of one of ordinary skill in the semiconductor art to use sapphire as substrate, 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. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (See MPEP2144.07). In re Claim 19, Lim discloses all limitations of Claim 19 except for that the sapphire substrate is doped with a dopant. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the sapphire substrate is doped with a dopant since it was known in the art that sapphire with dopant is routine used as substrate. (MPEP2144.I.) In re Claim 20, Lim discloses the display device of claim 12, further comprising: an inorganic layer IL disposed between the substrate BS and the coating layer OC (Fig. 4B and 5; [0114 - 0117). In re Claim 21, Lim discloses the display device of claim 12, further comprising: an adhesive layer ([0042]) disposed between the display panel DP and the substrate BS. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIKOLAY K YUSHIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7885. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (7-7 PST). 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, Yara B. Green can be reached at 5712703075. 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. /NIKOLAY K YUSHIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/663,572 Page 2 Art Unit: 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/663,572 Page 3 Art Unit: 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/663,572 Page 4 Art Unit: 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/663,572 Page 5 Art Unit: 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/663,572 Page 6 Art Unit: 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/663,572 Page 7 Art Unit: 2893
Prosecution Insights