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 § 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.
Claims 1-5, and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kamiyama et al. US 20100177397 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Kamiyama).
Regarding claim 1, Kamiyama teaches
A display device (“plasma display” para. 0038) comprising:
a display panel (“plasma display panel” upon which the “front filter” is applied, not shown, para. 0121); and
a protective member (“front filter”, para. 0121 and 0286-0289, FIG. 1,19C, 19D) on a surface of the display panel, wherein the protective member comprises:
a base layer (“polyester film 2” para. 0137 FIG. 1, 19C-19D);
a primer layer (“concavo-convex layer 11” para. 0287 FIG. 19C-19D) on the base layer and comprising fillers (“light transparent fine particles 10” para. 0287); and
an antistatic layer (“surface shape modifying layer 12” which may comprise an anti-static agent, para. 0289 and 0326) on the primer layer, wherein a thickness of the antistatic layer is smaller than a particle size of the fillers (“surface shape modifying layer 12” has a thickness in the range 0.6-15 microns while “light transparent fine particles 10” have an average size in the range of 0.5-10 microns, para. 0185 and 0291).
Regarding claim 2, Kamiyama teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the base layer is closer to the display panel than the antistatic layer is to the display panel (the “anti-glare layer 1”, which comprises “concavo-convex layer 11” and “surface shape modifying layer 12” in on the observer side, while “polyester film 2” is closer to the display device side, para. 0137 and 0141-0142).
Regarding claim 3, Kamiyama teaches he display device of claim 1, wherein the base layer comprises polyethylene terephthalate (PET) (“polyester film 2” is a polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film, para. 0169) and has a heat shrinkage rate of about 0.2% or less when exposed to a temperature of about 150 °C for about 30 minutes (as evidenced in para. 0007, 0074, and 0115 of Park et al US 20220084444 A1, PET exhibits a 0.2% or less thermal shrinkage rate when left at a temperature of 150°C for 30 minutes).
Regarding claim 4, Kamiyama teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein a thickness of the base layer is about 10 micrometer (µm) to about 100 µm. (“a thickness of the polyester film is from 20 .mu.m or more and 1,000 .mu.m or less” Para. 0171)
Regarding claim 5, Kamiyama teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the particle size of the fillers is about 0.01 micrometer (µm) to about 2 µm (“light transparent fine particles 10” have an average size in the range of 0.5-10microns, para. 0185).
Regarding claim 7, Kamiyama teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein a thickness of the primer layer is about 10 nanometer (nm) to about 300 nm (the whole “anti-glare layer 1” has a thickness of 5-25microns, where this total thickness is of the “concavo-convex layer 11” and layers stacked above it, para. 0351. Since the “surface shape modifying layer 12” has a thickness in the range 0.6-15 microns, the remaining thickness is of the “concavo-convex layer 11”, which may be 3.4microns, 23.4microns, 10microns, or other values)
Regarding claim 8, Kamiyama teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the thickness of the antistatic layer is about 10 nanometer (nm) to about 1000 nm (“surface shape modifying layer 12” has a thickness in the range 0.6-15 microns, or 600-15000nm).
Regarding claim 9, Kamiyama teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein a sum of a thickness of the primer layer and the thickness of the antistatic layer is smaller than the particle size of the fillers (the whole “anti-glare layer 1” has a thickness of 5-25microns, where this total thickness is of the “concavo-convex layer 11” and layers stacked above it such as “surface shape modifying layer 12”, para. 0351. This may be smaller than “light transparent fine particles 10”, which have an average size in the range of 0.5-10microns.)
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.
Claims 6, 13, 14 and 16-19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamiyama.
Regarding claim 6, Kamiyama teaches the display device of claim 1 but fails to expressly teach wherein content of the fillers is about 0.01% to about 80% by weight based on total weight of 100% of the primer layer
Nevertheless, the amount of “light transparent fine particles 10” helps determine the anti-glare properties and internal scattering properties of the “anti-glare layer 1” (para. 0202). The content of “light transparent fine particles 10” is kept between 5%-40% by mass of the total mass of “anti-glare layer 1” (para. 0202): too few of the “light transparent fine particles 10” will not provide the desired behavior but too many will lower the strength of the “anti-glare layer 1” (para. 0202). The examiner understands that mass percentage of the “light transparent fine particles 10” will fall within a similar range to that of the claim if only the mass of the “light transparent fine particles 10” and the “concavo-convex layer 11” are considered. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the content of “light transparent fine particles 10” sizes is optimized to achieve a desired anti-glare behavior.
Therefore, 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 device in Kamiyama according to the desired anti-glare performance. The content of filler particles affects the glare and internal scattering of the protection layer.
The claimed limitations are achievable through routine optimization of the result-effective variables: the mass content of filler particles determine the behavior of light in the protection layer and the area they occupy. As stated in MPEP 2144.II.A, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 13, Kamiyama teaches
A display device (“plasma display” para. 0038 FIG. 19) comprising:
a display panel (“plasma display panel” upon which the “front filter” is applied, not shown, para. 0121); and
a protective member (“front filter”, para. 0121 and 0286-0289, FIG. 19C, 19D) on a surface of the display panel, wherein the protective member comprises:
a base layer (“concavo-convex layer 11” para. 0287 FIG. 19C-19D) comprising fillers (“light transparent fine particles 10” para. 0287);
a primer layer (“surface shape modifying layer 12” para. 0286) on the base layer; and
However, Kamiyama fails to expressly teach an antistatic layer on the primer layer and having protrusions, and wherein the protrusions overlap the fillers.
Nevertheless, the embodiment of FIG. 5 in Kamiyama teaches the use of “low refractive index layer 13” to impart anti-reflection performance to “anti-glare layer 1” (para. 0145). Furthermore, Kamiyama teaches in para. 0324 that “Each of the above layers may further have a different function and may be formed with, for example, a composition containing one or more kinds of function additional components selected from the group consisting of an anti-static agent, a refractive index modifier, an anti-fouling agent and a hardness modifier.”, the previous layers including the “low refractive index layer 13” (para. 0303-0323). Anti-static agents can prevent dust from adhering to the surface of the front filter (para. 0326). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the “low refractive index layer 13” can be added to the embodiment of FIG. 19C-19D to reduce light reflection and prevent dust accumulation on the surface.
Therefore, 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 device in Kamiyama with the alternate embodiment. A low refractive index layer with anti-static properties can reduce light reflection and dust adhesion of the surface of the protective layer.
Regarding claim 14, Kamiyama teaches the display device of claim 13 but fails to expressly teach wherein a ratio of an area occupied by the fillers to a total area of the protective member is about 1.5% to about 2%.
Nevertheless, the amount of “light transparent fine particles 10” helps determine the anti-glare properties and internal scattering properties of the “anti-glare layer 1” (para. 0202); the sizes and spacings between “light transparent fine particles 10” are balanced to achieve the desired behavior of light including light reflection and image contrast (para. 0120) and the examiner understands the number of light transparent fine particles 10” particularly affects the spacings between each other. Too few of the “light transparent fine particles 10” will not provide the desired behavior but too many will lower the strength of the “anti-glare layer 1” (para. 0202). The number of and the sizes of “light transparent fine particles 10” affect the area ratio the particles occupy in the front filter. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the number of “light transparent fine particles 10” and their sizes are optimized to achieve a desired anti-glare behavior. These variables also determine the area ratio they occupy.
Therefore, 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 device in Kamiyama according to the desired anti-glare performance. The number and sizes of filler particles affect the glare and internal scattering of the protection layer, which in turn affect the ratio of the area they occupy to a total area of the protection layer.
The claimed limitations are achievable through routine optimization of the result-effective variables: the number and size of filler particles determine the behavior of light in the protection layer and the area they occupy. As stated in MPEP 2144.II.A, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 16, Kanimaya teaches the display device of claim 13, wherein a thickness of the base layer is about 10 micrometer (µm) to about 100 µm (the whole “anti-glare layer 1” has a thickness of 5-25microns, where this total thickness is of the “concavo-convex layer 11” and layers stacked above it, para. 0351. Since the “surface shape modifying layer 12” has a thickness in the range 0.6-15 microns, the remaining thickness is of the “concavo-convex layer 11”, which may be 3.4microns, 23.4microns, 10microns, or other values).
Regarding claim 17, Kanimaya teaches the display device of claim 13 but fails to expressly teach wherein content of the fillers is about 0.01% to about 80% by weight based on total weight of 100% of the base layer.
Nevertheless, the amount of “light transparent fine particles 10” helps determine the anti-glare properties and internal scattering properties of the “anti-glare layer 1” (para. 0202). The content of “light transparent fine particles 10” is kept between 5%-40% by mass of the total mass of “anti-glare layer 1” (para. 0202): too few of the “light transparent fine particles 10” will not provide the desired behavior but too many will lower the strength of the “anti-glare layer 1” (para. 0202). The examiner understands that mass percentage of the “light transparent fine particles 10” will fall within a similar range to that of the claim if only the mass of the “light transparent fine particles 10” and the “concavo-convex layer 11” are considered. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the content of “light transparent fine particles 10” sizes is optimized to achieve a desired anti-glare behavior.
Therefore, 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 device in Kamiyama according to the desired anti-glare performance. The content of filler particles affects the glare and internal scattering of the protection layer.
The claimed limitations are achievable through routine optimization of the result-effective variables: the mass content of filler particles determine the behavior of light in the protection layer and the area they occupy. As stated in MPEP 2144.II.A, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regrading claim 18, Kamiyama teaches the display device of claim 13 but fails to expressly teach wherein a thickness of the primer layer is about 10 nanometer (nm) to about 300 nm
Nevertheless, the whole “anti-glare layer 1” has a thickness of 5-25microns, where this total thickness is of the “concavo-convex layer 11” and layers stacked above it, para. 0351. The thickness of the “concavo-convex layer 11” is not specified in Kamiyama. The amount of “surface shape modifying layer 12” required will depend on the existing thickness of “concavo-convex layer 11” and the desired anti-glare performance (para. 0120 and 0287-0290). For example, if the desired total thickness of “anti-glare layer 1” is 5 microns and the “concavo-convex layer 11” has a thickness around 4.5-4.9microns, the amount of “surface shape modifying layer 12” to achieve the desired thickness is 0.5-0.1microns, or 500-100nm. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the thickness of “surface shape modifying layer 12” will depend on the thickness of “concavo-convex layer 11” and the desired optical behavior of “anti-glare layer 1”.
Therefore, 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 thickness of the primer layer. The thickness helps determine the optical behavior of the protective layer based on the existing thickness of the base layer.
Regarding claim 19, Kamiyama teaches the display device of claim 13, wherein a thickness of the antistatic layer is about 10 nanometer (nm) to about 1000 nm (Different examples show the “low refractive index layer” having a thickness such as 100nm, para. 0652, 0659, 0663, 0673.)
Claim 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamiyama as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Hrehor et al. US 10854848 B1 (hereinafter referred to as Hrehor).
Regarding claim 10, Kamiyama teaches the display device of claim 1 but fails to teach wherein a surface friction coefficient of the protective member is about 0.320 to about 0.451.
Nevertheless, Hrehor teaches a “flexible display structure 200” comprising a “self-healing polymer layer 210” that includes a self-healing polymer and antiglare beads (col lines FIG. 2). The “self-healing polymer layer 210” has a dynamic coefficient of friction of 0.1-0.5 so that movement of a stylus across the surface resembles that of movement of pen on paper (col lines). The examiner understands that different layers have different surface friction coefficients which are affected by the material and the roughness or features formed thereupon. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that having the front filter in Kamayima with a coefficient of friction between 0.1-0.5 emulates the feeling of pen on paper when using a stylus on a touch screen.
Therefore, 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 device in Kamayima with the surface friction coefficient taught in Hrehor. When using the protection layer on a touch screen, the use of a stylus will feel similar to that of pen on paper.
Regarding claim 15, Kamiyama teaches the display device of claim 13 but fails to teach wherein a surface friction coefficient of the protective member is about 0.320 to about 0.451.
Nevertheless, Hrehor teaches a “flexible display structure 200” comprising a “self-healing polymer layer 210” that includes a self-healing polymer and antiglare beads (col lines FIG. 2). The “self-healing polymer layer 210” has a dynamic coefficient of friction of 0.1-0.5 so that movement of a stylus across the surface resembles that of movement of pen on paper (col lines). The examiner understands that different layers have different surface friction coefficients which are affected by the material and the roughness or features formed thereupon. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that having the front filter in Kamayima with a coefficient of friction between 0.1-0.5 emulates the feeling of pen on paper when using a stylus on a touch screen.
Therefore, 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 device in Kamayima with the surface friction coefficient taught in Hrehor. When using the protection layer on a touch screen, the use of a stylus will feel similar to that of pen on paper.
Claim 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamiyama as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Yug US 20210333835 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Yug).
Regarding claim 11, Kamiyama teaches the display device of claim 1, but fails to teach further comprising: a polarizing member on the display panel; a shock absorbing layer on the polarizing member; a cover window on the shock absorbing layer; and bonding members between the display panel and the polarizing member, between the polarizing member and the shock absorbing layer, and between the shock absorbing layer and the cover window.
Nevertheless, Yug teaches
comprising:
a polarizing member (“polarization member 210” para. 0073 FIG. 3) on the display panel (“display panel 100” para. 0073);
a shock absorbing layer (“shock absorbing member 220” para. 0037) on the polarizing member;
a cover window (“cover window 230” para. 0037) on the shock absorbing layer; and
bonding members between the display panel and the polarizing member (“coupling member 310” para. 0037), between the polarizing member and the shock absorbing layer (“coupling member 320” para. 0037), and between the shock absorbing layer and the cover window (“coupling member 330” para. 0037).
Kamiyama and Yug teach display devices with reflection-reducing structures. “Polarization member 210” may serve to reduce the reflection of external light (para. 0083). “Shock absorbing member 220” may serve to protect the display device 10 from external shock (para. 0084). “Cover window 230” is a flexible yet strong film that can protect provide scattering prevention, shock absorption, imprint prevention, fingerprint prevention, and anti-glare (para. 0086-0088). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the “polarization layer 210”, “shock absorbing member 220”, and “cover window 230” can be incorporated into the front filter in Kamiyama so that light reflection, glare, and protection offered by the front filter can be further improved. These layers can be disposed under the “anti-glare layer 1” similar to the other layers shown in the embodiments of FIG. 10-12 in Kamiyama.
Therefore, 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 device in Kamiyama with the polarizing member, shock absorbing layer, and the cover window as taught in Yug. The polarizing member further reduces the amount of light that is reflected off the display device, the shock absorber protects against impacts, and the cover window further protects against shock and can also protect against fingerprints and glare.
Regarding claim 12, Kamiyama, modified by Yug, teaches the display device of claim 11, further comprising a cushion layer on a surface of the protective member, wherein the cushion layer faces the antistatic layer (front filter may include an impact resistance layer on the display device side as shown in FIG. 6-9, para. 0153-0155, comprised of a resin, para. 0388. Such a layer is understood to protect, or cushion, against impact and has a side facing the “surface shape modifying layer 12” that includes anti-static agent.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The most relevant prior art Park et al. US 20210259093 A1 teaches a display panel with a protection film on a side of the display panel and an anti-reflective structure on the other side (para. 0083 and 0106). The protection film includes a base film with filler particles and an antistatic film (para. 0144). However, the filler particles are preferably made smaller so that their agglomeration does not produce excessive haze and reduced transmittance (para. 0153-0154). Park teaches away from a sum of a thickness of the primer layer and a thickness of the antistatic layer is smaller than a particle size of the fillers. Therefore, claim 20 is allowed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
/ERIC MANUEL MULERO FLORES/Examiner, Art Unit 2898 /JULIO J MALDONADO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights