DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This office action is in response to an amendment of 9/7/2026.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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 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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/22/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election of species 2 (claims 13-20) in the reply filed on 9/7/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-12 (specie 1) are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Applicant's election with traverse of species 2 (claims 13-20) in the reply filed on 9/7/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that species are not mutually exclusive and are highly similar in structure. Applicants claim two distinct groups of apparatus for an electronic device which specifying different structures in languages and figures (see office file on restriction of 7/14/2026), corresponding to different embodiments in instant specification disclosure. The species are independent or distinct because two different combinations, not disclosed as capable of use together, having different structures/operation steps, different functions and different effects are independent. There is an examination and search burden for these patentably distinct species due to their mutually exclusive characteristics in structures. The species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries); and/or the prior art applicable to one species would not likely be applicable to another species; and/or the species are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
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 of this title, 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 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kakuta et al (WO 2024122639, English translation attached) in the view of Kira et al (US 20170351140).
Regarding Claim 13, Kakuta teaches an electronic device (abstract; figs. 1-3), comprising:
a display panel having a display area and a peripheral area adjacent to the display area (fig. 3, 7, 3; ¶[0028], line 15-22, With the colored layer and openings arranged in this manner, in a display device equipped with a colored layered glass substrate as a cover glass, the display of the display is visible to the observer through the openings, while components such as wiring members around the display are concealed by the colored layer so that they are not visible to the observer); and
a cover plate disposed relative to the display panel (fig. 1, 10, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6; ¶[0014], line 1-15, a laminate 10 comprising a glass substrate 2, a colored layer 3, an AG layer 4, an AR layer 5, and an AFP layer 6; the laminate 10 is mounted on a display device),
wherein the cover plate comprises:
a substrate (fig. 1, 2);
an ink layer disposed on a surface of the substrate and corresponding to the display area and the peripheral area (fig. 1, 3; ¶[0027], line 1-2, The colored layer is a layer placed in contact with the main surface of the glass substrate and contains at least a coloring agent, a curing resin, and a non-curing resin; ¶[0031], line 1-2, The coloring agent may be either a pigment or a dye); and
an anti-reflective layer disposed on another surface of the substrate and corresponding to the display area and the peripheral area (fig. 1, 5; ¶[0064], line 1-2, The AR (Anti-Reflection) layer 5 is an anti-reflective layer and is provided on the side of the second main surface 22 of the glass substrate 2).
wherein a penetration rate of the portion of the cover plate that corresponds to the display area is about 80% (¶[0003], line 1-6, a transparent plate with a decorative layer; ¶[0005], line 1-3, …forming a colored layer as a light-shielding layer on cover glass that can accommodate more complex shapes of displays; ¶[0017], line 1-2, The glass substrate is a transparent glass; ¶[0013], line 11-15, Transparent means that the average transmittance of visible light (wavelengths of 400-700 nm) is 80% or higher).
But Kakuta does not specifically disclose that wherein a penetration rate of the portion of the cover plate that corresponds to the display area is in a range of 20 % to 92 %.
However, Kira teaches a display (abstract; figs. 1-6), comprising:
a display panel having a display area and a peripheral area adjacent to the display area (fig. 4, 3B, 1/2);
a cover plate (fig. 5, 4, 7) disposed relative to the display panel (fig. 5, 8, 9),
wherein the cover plate comprises:
a substrate (fig. 5, 4);
an ink layer disposed on a surface of the substrate and corresponding to the display area and the peripheral area (fig. 5, 3B; ¶[0148], line 1-10, the liquid crystal display includes the following: the color filter substrate 4; the light blocking layers 1; the light blocking layers 2; the colorant layers 3B; the TFT array substrate 8; the liquid crystal layer 9);
wherein a penetration rate of the portion of the cover plate that corresponds to the display area is in a range of 20 % to 92 % (fig. 5, 3B, 6s; ¶[0154], line 1-5, This enables the transmittance of the colorant layer 3B to be regulated using the openings 6, regardless of the variations in transmittance due to the differences in the cell gap, thereby facilitating the regulation of the transmittance). Further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electronic device of Kakuta by the display of Kira to have penetration rate of the portion of the cover plate is in a range of 20 % to 92 %, for a purpose achieving the desired color purity or desired white brightness (¶[0163], line 1-8).
Regarding Claims 14 - 16, Kakuta - Kira combination teaches the electronic device as claimed in claim 13, wherein the penetration rate of the portion of the cover plate that corresponds to the display area is in a range of 70 % to 92 %; wherein the penetration rate of the portion of the cover plate that corresponds to the display area is in a range of 50% to 70 %, and wherein the penetration rate of the portion of the cover plate that corresponds to the display area is in a range of 20 % to 50 % (fig. 5, 3B, 6s; ¶[0154], line 1-5, This enables the transmittance of the colorant layer 3B to be regulated using the openings 6, regardless of the variations in transmittance due to the differences in the cell gap, thereby facilitating the regulation of the transmittance, as disclosed in Kira; Further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electronic device of Kakuta by the display of Kira to have penetration rates as claimed for a purpose achieving the desired color purity or desired white brightness (¶[0163], line 1-8).
Regarding Claim 17, Kakuta - Kira combination teaches electronic device as claimed in claim 13, wherein the anti- reflective layer comprises a multi-layer structure comprising a plurality of low refractive index layers and a plurality of high refractive index layers alternately stacked (fig. 1, 5; ¶[0064], line 1-12, The AR (Anti-Reflection) layer 5 is an anti-reflective layer and is provided on the side of the second main surface 22 of the glass substrate 2; The configuration of the AR layer is not particularly limited as long as it can suppress light reflection, but for example, it may be a configuration in which a high refractive index layer with a refractive index of 1.9 or higher at a wavelength of 550 nm and a low refractive index layer with a refractive index of 1.6 or lower at a wavelength of 550 nm are alternately stacked, as disclosed in Kakuta).
Regarding Claim 18, Kakuta - Kira combination teaches electronic device as claimed in claim 17, wherein the multi-layer structure further comprising a light-absorbing layer disposed between two of the low refractive index layers, between two of the high refractive index layers, or between the low refractive index layer and the substrate (fig. 1, 4, as disclosed in Kakuta; --the layer 4 naturally having a light absorbance).
Regarding Claim 19, Kakuta - Kira combination teaches electronic device as claimed in claim 13, wherein the anti- reflective layer comprises a multi-layer structure comprising a plurality of low refractive index layers and a plurality of light-absorbing layers alternately stacked (fig. 1, 5; ¶[0064], line 1-12, The AR (Anti-Reflection) layer 5 is an anti-reflective layer and is provided on the side of the second main surface 22 of the glass substrate 2; The configuration of the AR layer is not particularly limited as long as it can suppress light reflection, but for example, it may be a configuration in which a high refractive index layer with a refractive index of 1.9 or higher at a wavelength of 550 nm and a low refractive index layer with a refractive index of 1.6 or lower at a wavelength of 550 nm are alternately stacked, as disclosed in Kakuta; ---the high refractive index layers naturally and inherently having light absorbances).
Regarding Claim 20, Kakuta - Kira combination teaches electronic device as claimed in claim 13, wherein the substrate comprises a colorant (fig. 1, 2; ¶[0016], line 1-5, The glass substrate with a colored layer according to the first embodiment of the present invention comprises a glass substrate having a main surface and a colored layer disposed in contact with the main surface of the glass substrate, wherein the colored layer contains a curable resin and a non-curable resin, as disclosed in Kakuta).
Examiner’s Note
Regarding the references, the Examiner cites particular figures, paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the reference(s), as applied to the claims above. Although the particular citations are representative teachings and are applied to specific limitations within the claims, other passages, internally cited references, and figures may also apply. In preparing a response, it is respectfully requested that the Applicant fully consider the references, in their entirety, as potentially disclosing or teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as fully consider the context of the passage as taught by the reference(s) or as disclosed by the Examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Jie Lei whose telephone number is (571) 272 7231. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon.-Thurs. 8:00 am to 5:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by the telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Stephone Allen can be reached on (571) 272 2434.The Fax number for the organization where this application is assigned is (571) 273 8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published application may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Services Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199(In USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
/JIE LEI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights