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 .
Response to Election/Restrictions
1. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-10 & 15-20 in the reply filed on 8/18/2026 is acknowledged.
Specification
2. 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.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
3. Claims 1-7, 9, 10, 15-17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2023/0031015).
Re claim 1, Lee teaches, under BRI, in view of Fig. 5B, [0079, 0083, 0127, 0153, 0154], a display apparatus comprising:
-a pixel circuit layer (210);
-a polarization layer (e.g., polarization film, [0083] or consider encapsulation layer 320) disposed on the pixel circuit layer (210);
-an optical functional layer (first layer 400a) disposed on (e.g., a side surface) the polarization layer; and
-a reference pattern (consider second layer 400b) aligned with an edge of the optical functional layer (400a).
PNG
media_image1.png
580
874
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re claim 2, Lee teaches, Fig. 5B, [0127], a substrate (100), wherein the pixel circuit layer (210) disposed on the substrate (100), and the reference pattern (400b) is printed (*) on an upper surface of the optical function layer (400a).
(*) Further, the limitation "…is printed on" is merely a product-by-process limitation. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966.
Re claim 3, Lee teaches, Fig. 5B, [0079], a protective film layer (400c) disposed on the optical functional layer (400a) and the reference pattern (400b).
Re claim 4, Lee teaches, Fig. 5B, a protective film layer (400c) disposed on the optical functional layer (400a), wherein the reference pattern (400b) is printed (*) (see above) on a lower surface of the protective film layer (400c).
Re claim 5, Lee teaches, Fig. 5B, a protective film layer (consider 450) disposed on the optical functional layer (layers of 400a under 450a), wherein the reference pattern (400b) is printed (*) (see above) on an upper surface of the protective film layer (450a).
Re claims 6 & 7, Lee teaches, under BRI, Fig. 5B, [0156, 0157], wherein the optical functional layer further comprises: a first adhesive layer (consider 330) disposed on the polarization layer (320); a light control layer (layers of 400a under 450a) disposed on the first adhesive layer (330); and a cover layer (450a) disposed on the light control layer (400a under 450a); and wherein the reference pattern (400) is printed (*) (see above) on an upper surface of the cover layer (450a).
Re claims 9 & 10, Lee teaches, under BRI, Fig. 5G, [0173, 0177], a window layer (500a) disposed on the optical functional layer (400a); and a light blocking material layer (500b or 410c or 440a or 450a) disposed on the window layer (500a) that overlaps the reference pattern (400b) in a plan view; and wherein the light blocking material layer (consider 440a, 450a) is disposed on a lower surface of the window layer (500a).
Re claim 15, Lee teaches, under BRI, in view of Fig. 5B, [0079, 0083, 0127, 0153, 0154], a display apparatus comprising:
-a substrate (100);
-a pixel circuit layer (210) disposed on the substrate (100);
-a polarization layer (e.g., polarization film, [0083] or consider encapsulation layer 320) disposed on the pixel circuit layer (210);
-an optical functional layer (400a) disposed on the polarization layer; and
-a reference pattern (400b) printed (*) on an upper surface of the optical functional layer (400a) at an edge of the optical functional layer (400a).
PNG
media_image1.png
580
874
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(*) Further, the limitation "…is printed on" is merely a product-by-process limitation. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966.
Re claim 16, Lee teaches, Fig. 5B, [0079], a protecting film (400c) disposed on the optical function layer (400a) and the reference pattern (400b).
Re claim 17 Lee teaches, under BRI, Fig. 5B, [0156, 0157], wherein the optical functional layer further comprises: a first adhesive layer (consider 330) disposed on the polarization layer (320); a light control layer (layers of 400a under 450a) disposed on the first adhesive layer (330); and a cover layer (450a) disposed on the light control layer (400a under 450a).
Re claims 19 & 20, Lee teaches, under BRI, Fig. 5G, [0173, 0177], a first adhesive layer (330) disposed on (e.g. a side) the optical functional layer (400a); a window layer (500a) disposed on the first adhesive layer (330); and a light blocking material layer (410c or 440a or 450a) disposed on a surface of the window layer (500a) that overlaps the reference pattern (400b) in a plan view; and wherein the light blocking material layer (consider 440a or 450a) is disposed on a lower surface of the window layer (500a).
4. Claims 1 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chai et al. (US 2022/0085326).
Re claims 1 & 15, Choi teaches, under BRI, in view of Fig. 27, [0065, 0169, 0188, 0199], a display apparatus comprising:
-a substrate (100);
-a pixel circuit layer (PCL) disposed on the substrate (100);
-a polarization layer (320) disposed on the pixel circuit layer (PCL);
-an optical functional layer (122e) disposed on (e.g., a side) the polarization layer (320); and
-a reference pattern (330) aligned with an edge of the optical function layer (122e)/printed (*) on an upper surface of the optical functional layer at an edge of the optical functional layer (122e).
PNG
media_image2.png
597
876
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(*) Further, the limitation "…is printed on" is merely a product-by-process limitation. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966.
5. Claims 1 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koh et al. (US 2012/0097990).
Re claims 1 & 15, Koh teaches, under BRI, in view of Fig. 5, [0033, 0047, 0069, 0070], a display apparatus comprising:
-a substrate (111);
-a pixel circuit layer (DC) disposed on the substrate (111);
-a polarization (as labeling/intended use) layer (consider 190) disposed on the pixel circuit layer (DC);
-an optical functional layer (70) disposed on the polarization layer (190); and
-a reference pattern (430) aligned with an edge of the optical function layer (70)/printed (*) on an upper surface of the optical functional layer at an edge of the optical functional layer (70).
PNG
media_image3.png
532
800
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(*) Further, the limitation "…is printed on" is merely a product-by-process limitation. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966.
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.
6. Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee.
The teachings of Lee have been discussed above.
Re claims 8 & 18, Lee does not explicitly teach wherein the reference pattern has a width of about 10 micrometers to about 150 micrometers in a plan view.
Lee does teach width of opening between 400b (Fig. 5B); and “a size of the light-emitting diode may be a micro-scale or a nano-scale” [0071].
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice bounded by well-known manufacturing constraints and ascertainable by routine experimentation and optimization to choose particular width(s), because applicant has not disclosed that, in view of the applied prior art, the width is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. For that matter, applicant has not disclosed that the width is for any purpose or produce any result. Moreover, it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another width. Indeed, it has been held that mere width limitation(s) is prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to try the particular claimed width, because a change in width would have been a known option within the technical grasp of a person of ordinary skill in the art and, "a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007). See also, Pfizer Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1852 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Song et al. (US 2021/0202633, Fig. 3A) discloses a display device including a window covers and protects an optical functional layer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUY T.V. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7431. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7AM-4PM, alternative Friday off.
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) 270-3829. 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.
/DUY T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818 8/31/26
Prosecution Insights