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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/15/2026 and 07/21/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 08/10/2026 have been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with respect to the independent claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1, 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sitter et al. (US 2018/0329207, of record) in view of Kato et al. (US 2020/0026120, of record), in view of Takagi et al. (US 2019/0194498).
Regarding claim 1, Sitter disclose a display device (Figure 6), comprising:
a display panel ([0004] discloses: optical stack configured to be placed over a display, considered a display panel under BRI);
a first adhesive layer disposed on the display panel ([0087] disclose: 610, first layer; [0003] discloses: each of the first and second layers are selected from the group consisting of elastomeric adhesive layers);
a diffusion layer ([0093] discloses: particles or beads provided a controlled diffusion of light may be added to one or more layers; Examiner notes that this includes: 630, third layer, considered the diffusion layer), wherein the first adhesive layer is disposed between the display panel and the diffusion layer (Figure 1 depicts: 610, disposed between bottom of 600, grating assembly, that is considered over the display, and under 630, third layer, the diffusion layer).
Sitter fails to disclose a display device with an anti-glare film disposed on the diffusion layer and wherein a thickness of the diffusion layer is greater than or equal to 15 microns; and the first adhesive layer directly contacts the diffusion layer; a thickness of the first adhesive layer is greater than or equal to 100 microns, and a sum of the thicknesses of the diffusion layer and the thickness of the first adhesive layer is greater than or equal to 115 microns. Sitter and Kato are related because both disclose display devices.
Kato teaches a display device with an anti-glare film ([0058] teaches: 1, anti-glare layer) disposed on the diffusion layer ([0058] teaches: 3, light diffusion layer; Figure 1 depicts: 1, anti-glare layer, disposed on 3, light diffusion layer) and wherein a thickness of the diffusion layer is greater than or equal to 15 microns ([0021] teaches: thickness of diffusion layer is from 10 to 200 µm which includes values in the claimed range); and the first adhesive layer directly contacts the diffusion layer ([0216] teaches: anti-glare film may be laminated onto the display surface via a transparent pressure sensitive adhesive layer).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sitter in view of Kato and provide a display device with an anti-glare film disposed on the diffusion layer and wherein a thickness of the diffusion layer is greater than or equal to 15 microns and the first adhesive layer directly contacts the diffusion layer. Doing so would allow for desired light scattering and reduced glare, thereby improving display visibility.
The modified Sitter fails to disclose a device wherein a thickness of the first adhesive layer is greater than or equal to 100 microns , and a sum of the thicknesses of the diffusion layer and the thickness of the first adhesive layer is greater than or equal to 115 microns. Sitter and Takagi are related because both disclose display devices.
Takagi teaches a thickness of the first adhesive layer is greater than or equal to 100 microns ([0064] teaches: optical clear adhesive skeet having a thickness of preferably 200 μm), and a sum of the thicknesses of the diffusion layer and the thickness of the first adhesive layer is greater than or equal to 115 microns (Kato: [0124] teaches: diffusion layer thickness preferably from 20 to 100 μm; Using the lower value, diffusion layer 20 μm plus 200 μm of Takagi = 220 μm, which falls within the claimed range).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sitter in view of Takagi and provide a device wherein a thickness of the first adhesive layer is greater than or equal to 100 microns , and a sum of the thicknesses of the diffusion layer and the thickness of the first adhesive layer is greater than or equal to 115 microns. Doing so would allow for improved conformity to uneven optical member surfaces and provides sufficient adhesive strength, thereby improving reliable bonding of the optical layers of the display device.
Regarding claim 3, the modified Sitter discloses the display device of claim 1, wherein a thickness of the diffusion layer is less than or equal to 120 microns ([0021] teaches: thickness of diffusion layer is from 10 to 200 µm which includes values in the claimed range).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Sitter discloses the display device of claim 1, wherein a side of the anti-glare film away from the display panel has a plurality of optical microstructures (Kato: [0002] teaches: display device with anti-glare layer on outmost surface; Figure 1 depicts: plurality of microstructures on outermost side of anti-glare film, away from the display panel side; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 1, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sitter et al. (US 2018/0329207, of record) in view of Kato et al. (US 2020/0026120, of record), in view of Takagi et al. (US 2019/0194498), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Kusama et al. (US 2026/0036726, of record).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Sitter discloses the display device of claim 1.
Sitter fails to disclose a display device wherein a haze of the diffusion layer is greater than or equal to 70%. Sitter and Kusama are related because both disclose display devices.
Kusama teaches a display device wherein a haze of the diffusion layer is greater than or equal to 70% (Table 3 depicts: multiple examples of haze values above 70% for the diffusion layer).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sitter in view of Kusama and provide a display device wherein a haze of the diffusion layer is greater than or equal to 70%. Doing so would allow for reduced specular reflection while maintaining light diffusion, thereby improving display visibility and overall performance.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sitter et al. (US 2018/0329207, of record) in view of Kato et al. (US 2020/0026120, of record), in view of Takagi et al. (US 2019/0194498)), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Stevenson et al. (US 2015/0338567, of record) in further view of Zhang et al. (US 2025/0380606, of record).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Sitter discloses the display device of claim 1.
Sitter fails to disclose a display device further comprising: a base material disposed between the first adhesive layer and the diffusion layer, wherein a material of the base material comprises polyethylene terephthalate, and the first adhesive layer is an optically clear adhesive. Sitter and Stevenson are related because both disclose display devices.
Stevenson teaches a display device (Figure 1) further comprising:
a base material ([0086] teaches: transparent support) disposed between the first adhesive layer ([0030] teaches: coupling layer; [0082] coupling layer, includes an optically clear adhesive) and the diffusion layer ([0085] teaches: light diffusion layer), and the first adhesive layer is an optically clear adhesive ([0082] coupling layer, includes an optically clear adhesive). Sitter and Zhang are related because both disclose display devices.
Zhang teaches a display device wherein a material of the base material comprises polyethylene terephthalate ([0167] teaches: transparent support layer may be PET).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sitter in view of Stevenson and Zhang and provide a display device further comprising: a base material disposed between the first adhesive layer and the diffusion layer, wherein a material of the base material comprises polyethylene terephthalate, and the first adhesive layer is an optically clear adhesive. Doing so would allow for better mechanical stability while maintaining optical clarity, thereby improving the overall stability and ease of manufacturing of the display device.
Regarding claim 6, the modified Sitter discloses the display device of claim 5, wherein a thickness of the base material is greater than or equal to 40 microns (Zhang: [0010] teaches: thickness of transport layer in range of 30-70 μm, which include values in the claimed range), and a thickness of the first adhesive layer is substantially 50 microns (Zhang: [0082] teaches: thickness of first adhesive layer may be less than or equal to 50 μm; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 5, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sitter et al. (US 2018/0329207, of record) in view of Kato et al. (US 2020/0026120, of record), in view of Takagi et al. (US 2019/0194498), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Rinne et al. (US 11,799,061, of record).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Sitter discloses the display device of claim 1, further comprising:
a second adhesive layer ([0087] discloses: 660, fifth layer can be adhesive layer) disposed between the anti-glare film (Kato: [0058] teaches: 1, anti-glare layer; Examiner notes that the anti-glare is considered the top layer as is typical in the art; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 1, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged) and the diffusion layer (630, third layer).
Sitter fails to disclose a display device wherein the second adhesive layer comprises a light-absorbing material. Sitter and Rinne are related because both disclose display devices.
Rinne teaches a display device wherein the second adhesive layer comprises a light-absorbing material (Col. 3 lines 26-27 teach: layer of light absorbing material is an adhesive layer).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sitter in view of Rinne and provide a display device wherein the second adhesive layer comprises a light-absorbing material. Doing so would allow for stray light absorption, reducing unwanted reflection and improving overall contrast and quality of the optical system.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sitter et al. (US 2018/0329207, of record) in view of Kato et al. (US 2020/0026120, of record), in view of Takagi et al. (US 2019/0194498) in view of Rinne et al. (US 11,799,061, of record), as applied to claim 7 above, in view of Kim et al. (US 2021/0255367, of record).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Sitter discloses the display device of claim 7, wherein a thickness of the diffusion layer is greater than or equal to 120 microns ([0021] teaches: thickness of diffusion layer is from 10 to 200 µm which includes values in the claimed range),
Sitter fails to disclose a display device wherein a thickness of the second adhesive layer is greater than or equal to 15 microns. Sitter and Kim are related because both disclose display devices.
Kim teaches a display device wherein a thickness of the second adhesive layer is greater than or equal to 15 microns ([0019] teaches: second adhesion layer may have thickness of about 35 micrometers).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sitter in view of Kim and provide a display device wherein a thickness of the first adhesive layer is greater than or equal to 15 microns. Doing so would allow for better light scattering and pixel spreading, thereby improving overall uniformity and reducing visual artifacts.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sitter et al. (US 2018/0329207, of record) in view of Kato et al. (US 2020/0026120, of record), in view of Takagi et al. (US 2019/0194498) in view of Rinne et al. (US 11,799,061, of record), as applied to claim 7 above, in view of Jin et al. (US 2024/0159939, of record).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Sitter discloses the display device of claim 7.
Sitter fails to disclose a display device wherein a visible light transmittance of the second adhesive layer is greater than or equal to 40%. Sitter and Jin are related because both disclose display devices.
Jin teaches a display device wherein a visible light transmittance of the second adhesive layer is greater than or equal to 40% ([0067] teaches: second adhesive layer with light transmittance greater than 90%).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sitter in view of Jin and provide a display device wherein a visible light transmittance of the second adhesive layer is greater than or equal to 40%. Doing so would allow for minimizing optical loss while maintaining optical clarity, thereby improving the overall functionality and luminance of the display device.
Compact Prosecution
Examiner recommends to consider further limiting the device to a second adhesive layer disposed between and contacting the anti-glare film and diffusion layer, the second adhesive layer including light-absorbing material and having a visible light absorption rate of ≥40%
Conclusion
Applicants’ amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John Sipes whose telephone number is (703)756-1372. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 4:30-9:30/12:30-7:30 (CT).
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571) 272-2713. 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.
John Sipes
Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/J.C.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights