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, 4, 7-10, 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sakai et al (US 2018/0231844 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sakai discloses a light absorbing structure for a display device (Fig. 1A) comprising:
a light control layer (para 155 “first polarizing plate 22”), wherein an angle between an absorption axis of the light control layer and a normal direction of the light control layer is less than or equal to 10 degrees (Fig. 3B, 5°); and
a first optical compensation film (para 155 “first phase difference plate 32”) overlapped with the light control layer (22), wherein an absolute value of an in-plane retardation R0 of the first optical compensation film is greater than 130 nm and less than 550 nm (para 160 “in-plane retardation R1 of the first phase difference plate 32 is λ/4=137.5 nm”).
Regarding claim 4, the light absorbing structure according to claim 1, further comprising:
a second optical compensation film (para 155 “second phase difference plate 34”) located on the first optical compensation film (32) located between the light control layer (22) and the second optical compensation film (34), wherein an angle between a slow axis of the first optical compensation film (Fig. 3A) and a slow axis of the second optical compensation film (Fig. 3C) is in a range of 30° to 60° (see Figs. 3A and 3C), wherein the absolute value of the in-plane retardation R0 of the first optical compensation film and an absolute value of an in-plane retardation R0 of the second optical compensation film are in a range of 195 nm to 350 nm (para 160).
Regarding claim 7, the light absorbing structure according to claim 1, wherein the light absorbing structure (Fig. 1A, “22 and 32”) is disposed in a display panel or is disposed on the display panel (para 155 “liquid crystal cell 10”)
Regarding claim 8, Sakai discloses a display device (Fig. 1A), comprising:
a display panel (para 155 “liquid crystal cell 10”) having a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface (see Fig. 1B), wherein the first surface is a display surface of the display panel (100 is a liquid crystal display panel); and
a light absorbing structure (Fig. 1A, “22 and 32”) located on the first surface or the second surface of the display panel (top surface of 10) and comprising:
a light control layer (para 155 “first polarizing plate 22”), wherein an angle between an absorption axis of the light control layer and a normal direction of the light control layer is less than or equal to 10 degrees (Fig. 3B, 5°); and
a first optical compensation film (para 155 “first phase difference plate 32”) overlapped with the light control layer (22), wherein an absolute value of an in-plane retardation R0 of the first optical compensation film is greater than 130 nm and less than 550 nm (para 160 “in-plane retardation R1 of the first phase difference plate 32 is λ/4=137.5 nm”).
Regarding claim 9, the display device according to claim 8, further comprising:
an anti-reflective film located on the first surface of the display panel, wherein when the light absorbing structure is located on the first surface of the display panel, the light absorbing structure is located between the anti-reflective film and the display panel, and
when the light absorbing structure is located on the second surface of the display
panel, the display panel is located between the anti-reflective film and the light absorbing
structure (para 231).
Regarding claim 10, the display device according to claim 8, further comprising:
a second optical compensation film (para 155 “second phase difference plate 34”) located on the first optical compensation film (32) located between the light control layer (22) and the second optical compensation film (34), wherein an angle between a slow axis of the first optical compensation film (Fig. 3A) and a slow axis of the second optical compensation film (Fig. 3C) is in a range of 30° to 60° (see Figs. 3A and 3C).
Regarding claim 12, the display device according to claim 10, wherein the absolute value of the in-plane retardation R0 of the first optical compensation film and an absolute value of an in-plane retardation R0 of the second optical compensation film are in a range of 195 nm to 350 nm (para 160).
Regarding claim 16, the display device according to claim 8, wherein an absorption rate of the light control layer to a P wave in light emitted by the display panel is greater than an absorption rate of the light control layer to a S wave in the light emitted by the display panel (see Figs. 2A-6C).
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.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai et al (US 2018/0231844 A1).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Sakai discloses the claimed invention as set forth above except for wherein the R0 of the first optical compensation film is a positive/negative value, and the first optical compensation film satisfies the claimed conditions.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention before the effective filing date to make the first compensation film to have positive/negative value while satisfying the claimed conditions, since it has been held that discovering an optimum range involves only routine skill in the art resulting from repetitive experiments, as being motivated to obtain an excellent optical compensation film.
Regarding claims 5, 11 and 13, Sakai discloses the claimed invention as set forth above except for further comprising:
a second optical compensation film located on the first optical compensation film located
between the light control layer and the second optical compensation film, wherein an angle
between a slow axis of the first optical compensation film and a slow axis of the second optical
compensation film is 60° to 120°; and a third optical compensation film located on the second optical compensation film located between the first optical compensation film and the third optical compensation film, wherein an angle between a slow axis of the second optical compensation film and a slow axis of the third optical compensation film is 60° to 120°, wherein the absolute value of the in-plane retardation R0 of the first optical compensation film, an absolute value of an in-plane retardation R0 of the second optical compensation film, and an absolute value of an in-plane retardation R0 of the third optical compensation film are in a range of 130 nm to 195 nm (claim 5);
wherein the light absorbing structure is located on the second surface of the display panel and further comprises: a third optical compensation film located on the light control layer located between the first optical compensation film and the third optical compensation film; and a fourth optical compensation film located on the third optical compensation film located between the light control layer and the fourth optical compensation film, wherein an angle between a slow axis of the third optical compensation film and a slow axis of the fourth optical compensation film is 30° to 60° (claim 11); and
wherein the light absorbing structure further comprises: a second optical compensation film located on the first optical compensation film located between the light control layer and the second optical compensation film, wherein an angle between a slow axis of the first optical compensation film and a slow axis of the second optical compensation film is 60° to 120°; and a third optical compensation film located on the second optical compensation film located between the first optical compensation film and the third optical compensation film, wherein an angle between a slow axis of the second optical compensation film and a slow axis of the third optical compensation film is 60° to 120°, wherein the absolute value of the in-plane retardation R0 of the first optical compensation film, an absolute value of an in-plane retardation R0 of the second optical compensation film, and an absolute value of an in-plane retardation R0 of the third optical compensation film are in a range of 130 nm to 195 nm (claim 13).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention before the effective filing date to add additional optical compensation films (para 152, third and fourth phase difference plates) having the absolute value of an in-plane retardation R0 taught in Sakai for the purpose of improving in viewing angles in LCD display device.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Sakai discloses the claimed invention as set forth above including circuit elements such as TFTs (para 331), but the prior art is silent on disclosing a light-emitting diode electrically connected to the circuit substrate; and a cover plate having the first surface, wherein the light-emitting diode is located between the circuit substrate and the cover plate, wherein the light absorbing structure is located on the first/second surface, and the light control layer is located between the first optical compensation film and the cover plate.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention before the effective filing date to disclose a light-emitting diode electrically connected to the circuit substrate; and a cover plate having the first surface, wherein the light-emitting diode is located between the circuit substrate and the cover plate, wherein the light absorbing structure is located on the first/second surface, and the light control layer is located between the first optical compensation film and the cover plate for the purpose of providing high quality light source and providing an encapsulating covering to prevent any foreign materials on light absorbing structure.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai et al (US 2018/0231844 A1) in view of Nishio et al (Us 2022/0085307 A1).
Sakai discloses the claimed invention as set forth above including a plurality of liquid crystal molecules (Fig. 1B) except for wherein the light control layer comprises dyes.
Nishio discloses the light control layer comprises dyes (para 90).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention before the effective filing date add dyes for the purpose of improving high contrast ambient light suppression and eliminating crosstalk.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUNCHA P CHERRY whose telephone number is (571)272-2310. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 7am to 3:30pm.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached at (571) 270-1284. 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.
6/28/2026
/EUNCHA P CHERRY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights