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 § 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 (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 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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 11 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tan (US 20180067232 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Tan teaches a display module (shown Fig. 5), comprising:
a display panel (111); and
an optical film layer (108) arranged on a light emission side (see [0088]) of the display panel (shown Fig. 5);
wherein the optical film layer comprises at least two first optical layers (silicon oxide layers, a “low refractive index layer”, see [0064] and Fig. 5 showing multiple silicon oxide and silicon nitride layers) and at least one second optical layer (silicon nitride layers, a “high refractive index layer”) which are arranged in a stacked manner (shown Fig. 5, see also [0064]), the first optical layers and the second optical layer are alternately arranged (see [0064]), and a refractive index of a first optical layer is less than a refractive index of the second optical layer (see [0064]).
Regarding Claim 2, Tan teaches the display module according to claim 1, further comprising: an ink layer (102, see also [0081]) and a cover plate (107), wherein:
the ink layer is arranged on the light emission side of the display panel (shown Fig. 5);
the optical film layer is arranged on a side of the ink layer away from the display panel (shown Fig. 5);
and the cover plate is arranged on a side of the optical film layer away from the ink layer (shown Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 3, Tan teaches the display module according to claim 1, wherein the refractive index of the first optical layer is 1.4 to 1.6 (see evidenced by Chen, Refractive Index and Thickness Analysis of Natural Silicon Dioxide Film Growing on Silicon with Variable-Angle Spectroscopic Ellipsometry, 2006, “Data Analysis and Discussion” which gives a refractive index of SiO2 being 1.47, which rounds to 1.5), and the refractive index of the second optical layer is 1.9 to 2.1 (see evidenced by Chen, Refractive Index and Thickness Analysis of Natural Silicon Dioxide Film Growing on Silicon with Variable-Angle Spectroscopic Ellipsometry, 2006, “Data Analysis and Discussion” which gives a refractive index of Si3N4 being 2.00).
Regarding Claim 4, Tan teaches the display module according to claim 3, wherein the refractive index of the first optical layer is 1.5, and the refractive index of the second optical layer is 2.0.
Regarding Claim 5, Tan teaches the display module according to claim 1, wherein a fabrication material of the first optical layer is silicon oxide, and a fabrication material of the second optical layer is silicon nitride.
Regarding Claim 6, Tan teaches the display module according to claim 1, wherein the optical film layer comprises at least three first optical layers and at least two second optical layers (see [0064] which describes alternating layer and Fig. 5 which shows at least nine distinct material layers, see also [0100]), and an optical layer of the optical film layer away from the display panel and an optical layer of the optical film layer close to the display panel are both the first optical layers.
Regarding Claim 7, Tan teaches the display module according to claim 6, wherein a thickness of the first optical layer away from the display panel and a thickness of the first optical layer close to the display panel are equal (see [0063]).
Regarding Claim 8, Tan teaches the display module according to claim 7, wherein the first optical layer away from the display panel and the first optical layer close to the display panel are configured to change a color of the reflected light on the optical film layer by adjusting thickness (see [0061-0062]).
Regarding Claim 11, Tan teaches the display module according to claim 2, wherein the optical film layer further comprises a transflective film (104) on a side close to the ink layer, and the transflective film is configured to perform semi-transmissive and semi-reflective optical processing on passing light so as to enhance specularity of the optical film layer (see [0036]).
Regarding Claim 16, Tan teaches the display module according to claim 1, wherein the optical film layer is a mirror film (see [0101-0103]).
Regarding Claim 17, Tan teaches the display module according to claim 1, wherein the display panel is an organic light emitting diode display panel (see [0175]) and the cover plate is made of a flexible material (see [0005] which suggests that cover plate 107 exhibits flexibility).
Regarding Claim 18, Tan teaches a display apparatus (see [0175]) comprising the display module according to claim 1.
Regarding Claim 19, Tan teaches the display module according to claim 2, wherein the refractive index of the first optical layer is 1.4 to 1.6 (see evidenced by Chen, Refractive Index and Thickness Analysis of Natural Silicon Dioxide Film Growing on Silicon with Variable-Angle Spectroscopic Ellipsometry, 2006, “Data Analysis and Discussion” which gives a refractive index of SiO2 being 1.47, which rounds to 1.5), and the refractive index of the second optical layer is 1.9 to 2.1 (see evidenced by Chen, Refractive Index and Thickness Analysis of Natural Silicon Dioxide Film Growing on Silicon with Variable-Angle Spectroscopic Ellipsometry, 2006, “Data Analysis and Discussion” which gives a refractive index of Si3N4 being 2.00).
Regarding Claim 20, Tan teaches the display module according to claim 2, wherein the optical film layer comprises at least three first optical layers and at least two second optical layers (see [0064] which describes alternating layer and Fig. 5 which shows at least nine distinct material layers, see also [0100]), and an optical layer of the optical film layer away from the display panel and an optical layer of the optical film layer close to the display panel are both the first optical layers.
Claim(s) 1, 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen (CN 114335061 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Chen teaches a display module (shown Fig. 7), comprising:
a display panel (102); and
an optical film layer (105 and 106) arranged on a light emission side of the display panel (shown Fig. 7);
wherein the optical film layer comprises at least two first optical layers (silicon oxide layers 200 and 202, see also Fig. 8) and at least one second optical layer (201, shown Fig. 5) which are arranged in a stacked manner (shown Fig. 5), the first optical layers and the second optical layer are alternately arranged (“four layers of SiO2, Nb2O5 and SiO2 are alternately laminated”), and a refractive index of a first optical layer is less than a refractive index of the second optical layer (silicon dioxide being described as a “low refractive index dielectric layer” and layer 201 being described as a “high refractive index dielectric layer”).
Regarding Claim 6, Chen teaches the display module according to claim 1, wherein the optical film layer comprises at least three first optical layers (shown Fig. 6) and at least two second optical layers (shown Fig. 6), and an optical layer of the optical film layer away from the display panel and an optical layer of the optical film layer close to the display panel are both the first optical layers (shown Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 10, Chen teaches the display module according to claim 6, wherein thicknesses of the second optical layers (Nb2O5 layers with thicknesses 50 nm each, see also “second optical film structure 106 with seven layers of transparent medium layer 200) and a thickness of the first optical layer sandwiched between the second optical layers (25 nm) are each less than a thickness of the first optical layer away from the display panel (100 nm).
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.
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN 114335061 A).
Regarding Claim 9, Chen teaches the display module of claim 6, wherein a thickness of the first optical layer away from the display panel is 100nm and a thickness of the first optical layer close to the display panel is 200nm, but does not explicitly teach the first optical layer away from the display panel being greater than 135nm.
When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite
number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the
known options within their technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product
not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination
was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under §103. See also MPEP 2144.05.
More specifically to this case, Chen shows that a thickness of the low refractivity dielectric layers within the optical film is a result-effective variable because it reveals that the thickness of the low refractive index dielectric layers may be “set based on the light absorption characteristic”.
A person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application predict the optimal thickness t22 of each SiO2 layer to satisfy a required light transmittance.
More specifically, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the first optical layer away from the display panel of Chen to be greater than 135nm in order to satisfy a required light transmittance based on the light absorption characteristic of the optical film structure through routine optimization.
Furthermore, a modification of this kind may be patentable "if it ‘produce[s] a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art.”(see Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). The original disclosure does not describe such a result of unexpected advantageous properties.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan (US 20180067232 A1) in further view of Li (CN 213844089 U).
Regarding Claim 12, Tan teaches the display module according to claim 2, but is silent regarding a color of the ink layer and a color of a display product.
Li teaches a display panel (100, shown Fig. 1) comprising a display panel (40), an optical film layer (20), an ink layer (30) and a cover plate (10), wherein color values of the ink layer are tuned to match a color of the display product when the display screen is turned off.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to configure the ink layer to be a same color as that of the display product corresponding to the display module “so as to make the color of the frame area and the visible area consistent, forming an integrated black effect, the display module of the embodiment is integrally coordinated and beautiful” thus improving the user experience.
Regarding Claim 13, Tan teaches the display module according to claim 12, wherein a color difference between a center part and an edge part of a light emission surface of the display module is minimized such that “chromatic aberration is small” to achieve “an integrated black effect”.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to optimize a color difference between a center part and an edge part of a light emission surface to be less than 1 through routine optimization.
Furthermore, a modification of this kind may be patentable "if it ‘produce[s] a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art.”(see Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). The original disclosure does not describe such a result of unexpected advantageous properties.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan (US 20180067232 A1) in view of Li (CN 213844089 U) and further in view of Wu (US 20200355973 A1).
Regarding Claims 14-15, Tan as modified by Li teaches the display module according to claim 12, wherein the display product and ink layer are black, thus forming an “integrated black effect”.
Wu further teaches that different color inks (i.e., silver ink or white ink, see also Wu: [0044]) may be implemented to meet brightness requirements and “improve contrast between different areas.”
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify a color of the ink layer of Li as applied to Tan so as to match a desired color of the display product.
More specifically, modifying a color of the ink to be either gold (as drawn to claim 14) such that a brightness L in color difference values is 65 to 66, a red-green channel value a is 9 to 10, and a yellow-blue channel value b is 26 to 27 at a center part of a light emission surface of the display module; and a brightness L in color difference values is 65 to 66, a red-green channel value a is 9 to 10, and a yellow-blue channel value b is 28 to 29 at an edge part of the light emission surface of the display module; or
White (as drawn to claim 15) such that a brightness L in color difference values is 81 to 82, a red-green channel value a is 0 to 1, and a yellow-blue channel value b is -2 to -3 at a center part of a light emission surface of the display module; and a brightness L in color difference values is 82 to 83, a red-green channel value a is 0 to 1, and a yellow-blue channel value b is -2 to -3 at an edge part of the light emission surface of the display module would be an obvious design choice as this is merely an aesthetic design change (see also MPEP 2144.04).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASEY PAUL BOATMAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4778. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM - 5:30 PM ET.
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, Britt Hanley can be reached at (571)270-3042. 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.
/C.P.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/Britt Hanley/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights