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 .
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 .
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the present application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS dated 18 February 2025 was considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 11 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Im (US 20140085567).
Re: claim 11, Im discloses a TFT layer formed on a substrate 110 (formation disclosed in Figs. 6, 8, 11; para. 41 discloses TFT); a reflective layer 140, 140’, 140” (para. 65 discloses that the layer 140 is reflective) formed adjacent to the TFT layer (Figs. 6, 8, 11 disclose adjacent formation); and an LC layer 130 (para. 44 discloses LC) formed over the reflective layer (formation disclosed in Figs. 6, 8, 11), wherein: the reflective layer is configured to define color components to be passed to the LC layer (Figs. 6, 8 show defined components being transmitted through layer 140 and then into layer 130; see also para. 65 “The opening 145 corresponds to any one of the color filters R, G, and B that is configured to transmit light reflected by the wavelength-selective transflective member 140. In addition, the wavelength-selective transflective member 140 is configured to is reflect the light having the same color as the color of the color filter corresponding to the opening 145…”) and to reflect back unwanted color components of a light produced by a BLU (Figs. 6, 8 disclose reflecting back toward backlight 240).
Re: claim 18, Im discloses the steps of forming a TFT layer on a substrate 110 (para. 41 discloses TFT; Figs. 6, 8, 11 disclose formation); forming a reflective layer 140, 140’, 140”over the TFT layer (Figs. 6, 8, 11 disclose formation); and forming an LC layer 130 over the reflective layer (Figs. 6, 8, 11 disclose formation), the reflective layer defining color components to be passed to the LC layer and reflecting back unwanted color components of a light produced by a BLU 200 (passing & reflecting back disclosed in Figs. 6, 8 & para. 65).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 10, and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Im in view of Kleptsyn (US 20140247415).
Re: claim 1, Im discloses a thin-film-transistor (TFT) layer (para. 41 discloses TFT) formed on a substrate 110 (Figs. 6, 8, 11); a first layer 140, 140’, 140”configured to reflect back unwanted color components of a light produced by a backlight unit (BLU) 200 (configuration disclosed in at least Figs. 6, 8, 11 & para. 65 “the wavelength-selective transflective member 140 is configured to is reflect the light having the same color as the color of the color filter corresponding to the opening 145”); and a second layer 125 configured to selectively transmit desired colors of the light produced by the BLU (configuration disclosed in at least Figs. 6, 8, 11 & para. 43), wherein the reflected back unwanted color components are recycled to the BLU to reduce a portion of a loss of brightness due to absorption by the second layer (capability disclosed in at least Figs. 6, 8, 11 & paras. 46, 91 “The wavelength-selective transflective member 140 is configured to reflect light of one or more specific wavelengths and transmit light of other wavelengths,” “The wavelength-selective transflective member 140'' is configured to reflect light of one or more specific wavelengths, which are incident thereon from the backlight unit 200, and transmit light of other wavelengths…”).
Im does not explicitly disclose that the second layer transmits the desired colors of light to a liquid crystal layer.
Kleptsyn discloses that the second layer 20 (Fig. 10) transmits the desired colors of light to a liquid crystal layer 8 (capability to transmit to LC layer 8 disclosed in Fig. 10, where para. 52 discloses that layer 8 is comprised of liquid crystal material).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the second layer transmit the desired colors of light to a liquid crystal layer, as disclosed by Kleptsyn, applied to the device disclosed by Im for the purpose of implementing a color on array structure, which simplifies the alignment of the TFT and opposing substrates in the device manufacturing process.
Re: claim 2, Im and Kleptsyn discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Im further discloses that the first layer 140, 140’, 140” is formed over the TFT layer 100 (Figs. 6, 8, 11), and wherein the first layer comprises a reflective color filter (RCF) (para. 46 discloses reflective).
However, Im does not explicitly disclose that the second layer is an absorptive color filter.
Kleptsyn discloses that the second layer 20 comprises an absorptive color filter (CF) (para. 45 discloses absorbing).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the second layer comprise an absorptive color filter, as disclosed by Kleptsyn, applied to the device disclosed by Im for the purpose of utilizing a comparatively lower cost component that has a reliable performance.
Re: claim 3, Im and Kleptsyn disclose the limitations of claim 1, and Im further discloses that the first layer is formed under the TFT layer (Fig. 11, when viewed from a bottom-up orientation), and wherein the first layer comprises a multilayer structure 140A, 140B (Fig. 3) formed of a dielectric material (para. 60 discloses SiO2, a known dielectric).
However, Im does not explicitly disclose that the first layer is comprised of a metal.
Kleptsyn discloses that the first layer 1, 2 (Fig. 3) is comprised of a metal (para. 24).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first layer be comprised of a metal, as disclosed by Kleptsyn, applied to the device disclosed by Im for the purpose of utilizing a predetermined value for a refractive index to generate a predetermined reflectance and/or diffusion of the transmitted light.
Re: claim 4, Im and Kleptsyn disclose the limitations of claim 3, and Im further discloses that the dielectric material comprises silicon dioxide (SiO2) (para. 60) and Kleptsyn further discloses niobium pentoxide (Nb2O5) (para. 32) and the metal comprises aluminum (para. 31).
Re: claim 5, Im and Kleptsyn disclose the limitations of claim 1, and Im further discloses that the TFT layer 110 and the first layer are disposed on a same side with respect to the LC layer (Figs. 6, 8 disclose same side).
Re: claim 6, Im and Kleptsyn disclose the limitations of claim 1, and Im further discloses that the TFT layer is configured to modulate an orientation of the LC layer (paras. 42, 44).
Re: claim 10, Im and Kleptsyn disclose the limitations of claim 1, and Im further discloses that the first layer 140 comprises a two-layer structure (paras. 59-60 disclose at least two layers). While neither reference explicitly discloses that the first layer is formed by a non-polarizing CLC coating process, the determination of the patentability of the claim does not depend upon the product’s production unless the applicant can show that the product has unobvious structural differences that result from the product (i.e., the first layer) being subjected to the identified process (i.e., plasmonic coating process); see MPEP § 2113.I). There is no evidence of record disclosing that the first layer has an unobvious structural difference resulting from its production by plasmonic coating; therefore, the process used to make the first layer is not limiting.
Re: claim 12, Im discloses the limitations of claim 11, and Im further discloses that the reflective layer is formed over the TFT layer (Fig. 11), and wherein the first layer comprises a RCF multilayer structure 140A, 140B (Fig. 3 discloses multilayer; para. 65 discloses reflective) formed of a dielectric material (para. 60 discloses SiO2, a known dielectric).
However, Im does not explicitly disclose that the RCF multilayer structure is comprised of a metal.
Kleptsyn discloses that the RCF multilayer structure 1, 2 (Fig. 3) is comprised of a metal (para. 24).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the RCf multilayer structure be comprised of a metal, as disclosed by Kleptsyn, applied to the device disclosed by Im for the purpose of utilizing a predetermined value for a refractive index to generate a predetermined reflectance and/or diffusion of the transmitted light.
Re: claim 13, Im and Kleptsyn discloses the limitations of claim 12, and Im further discloses that the dielectric material comprises silicon dioxide (SiO2) (para. 60) and Kleptsyn further discloses niobium pentoxide (Nb2O5) (para. 32) and that the metal comprises aluminum (para. 31).
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Im, in view of Kleptsyn and Meyer Timmerman Thijssen (US20190129243).
Re: claim 7, Im and Kleptsyn discloses the limitations of claim 1; however, neither reference explicitly discloses that the first layer comprises a single-layer structure formed by a plasmonic coating process.
Meyer discloses that the first layer 110 (Fig. 1) comprises a single-layer structure (Fig. 1 & para. 23 disclose single-layer structure). While Meyer does not explicitly disclose that the first layer is formed by a plasmonic coating process, the determination of the patentability of the claim does not depend upon the product’s production unless the applicant can show that the product has unobvious structural differences that result from the product (i.e., the first layer) being subjected to the identified process (i.e., plasmonic coating process); see MPEP § 2113.I). There is no evidence of record disclosing that the first layer has an unobvious structural difference resulting from its production by plasmonic coating; therefore, the process used to make the first layer is not limiting.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first layer comprises a single-layer structure formed by a plasmonic coating process, as disclosed by Meyer, applied to the device disclosed by Im and Kleptsyn, for the purpose of reducing the thickness of the display device.
Re: claim 8, Im and Kleptsyn discloses the limitations of claim 1; however, neither reference explicitly discloses that the first layer comprises a single-layer structure formed by a polarizing cholesteric coating process.
Meyer discloses that the first layer 110 (Fig. 1) comprises a single-layer structure (Fig. 1 & para. 23 disclose single-layer structure). While Meyer does not explicitly disclose that the first layer is formed by a polarizing cholesteric coating process, the determination of the patentability of the claim does not depend upon the product’s production unless the applicant can show that the product has unobvious structural differences that result from the product (i.e., the first layer) being subjected to the identified process (i.e., polarizing cholesteric process); see MPEP § 2113.I). There is no evidence of record disclosing that the first layer has an unobvious structural difference resulting from its production by polarizing cholesteric coating; therefore, the process used to make the first layer is not limiting.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first layer comprises a single-layer structure formed by a polarizing cholesteric coating process, as disclosed by Meyer, applied to the device disclosed by Im and Kleptsyn, for the purpose of reducing the thickness of the display device.
Re: claim 9, Im and Kleptsyn disclose the limitations of claim 1; however, neither reference explicitly discloses that the first layer comprises a single-layer structure formed by a polarization volume hologram deposition process.
Meyer discloses that the first layer 110 (Fig. 1) comprises a single-layer structure (Fig. 1 & para. 23 disclose single-layer structure). While Meyer does not explicitly disclose that the first layer is formed by a polarization volume hologram deposition process, the determination of the patentability of the claim does not depend upon the product’s production unless the applicant can show that the product has unobvious structural differences that result from the product (i.e., the first layer) being subjected to the identified process (i.e., polarization volume hologram deposition); see MPEP § 2113.I). There is no evidence of record disclosing that the first layer has an unobvious structural difference resulting from its production by polarization volume hologram deposition; therefore, the process used to make the first layer is not limiting.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first layer comprise a single-layer structure formed by a polarization volume hologram deposition process, as disclosed by Meyer, applied to the device disclosed by Im and Kleptsyn, for the purpose of reducing the thickness of the display device.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Im in view of Meyer Timmerman Thijssen.
Re: claim 14, Im discloses the limitations of claim 11, and Im further discloses that the reflective layer 140, 140’, 140” is formed under the TFT layer (Fig. 11, when viewed from a bottom-up orientation).
However, Im does not explicitly disclose that the reflective layer comprises a single-layer structure formed by a plasmonic coating process.
Meyer discloses that the reflective layer 110 (Fig. 1) comprises a single-layer structure (Fig. 1 & para. 23 disclose single-layer structure). While Meyer does not explicitly disclose that the reflective layer is formed by a plasmonic coating process, the determination of the patentability of the claim does not depend upon the product’s production unless the applicant can show that the product has unobvious structural differences that result from the product (i.e., the reflective layer) being subjected to the identified process (i.e., plasmonic coating process); see MPEP § 2113.I). There is no evidence of record disclosing that the reflective layer has an unobvious structural difference resulting from its production by plasmonic coating; therefore, the process used to make the first layer is not limiting.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the reflective layer comprises a single-layer structure formed by a plasmonic coating process, as disclosed by Meyer, applied to the device disclosed by Im for the purpose of reducing the thickness of the display device.
Claim(s) 15-17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Im.
Re: claim 15, Im discloses the limitations of claim 11, and Im further discloses that the reflective layer 140, 140’, 140” comprises a two layer structure (paras. 59-60 disclose at least two layers).
While Im does not explicitly disclose that the reflective layer is formed by a non-polarizing CLC coating process, the determination of the patentability of the claim does not depend upon the product’s production unless the applicant can show that the product has unobvious structural differences that result from the product (i.e., the reflective layer) being subjected to the identified process (i.e., plasmonic coating process); see MPEP § 2113.I). There is no evidence of record disclosing that the reflective layer has an unobvious structural difference resulting from its production by plasmonic coating; therefore, the process used to make the first layer is not limiting.
Re: claim 16, Im discloses the limitations of claim 11. Im does not explicitly disclose that the device further comprises a planarization layer and a separation layer formed on top of the reflective layer; however, a person of ordinary skill at a time prior to the effective date would have known that planarization and separation layers are routinely used in display devices; A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to utilize planarization and separation layers in the display device for the purposes of preventing electrodes from being shorted and of creating a level surface upon which additional elements, such as polarizers or lenses, can be added to the display device. Hence, the claim limitation is the obvious application of known components to a known device that yields predictable results.
Re: claim 17, Im discloses the limitations of claim 11, and Im further discloses that the reflective layer comprises a dielectric multilayer (Fig. 3 discloses multilayer; para. 60 discloses dielectric) that has a thickness of less than about 1 mm (Table 1 in para. 61 discloses all layers having a thickness within the claimed range).
While Im does not explicitly disclose that the reflective layer is formed by a plasma vapor deposition process, the determination of the patentability of the claim does not depend upon the product’s production unless the applicant can show that the product has unobvious structural differences that result from the product (i.e., the reflective layer) being subjected to the identified process (i.e., plasma vapor deposition process); see MPEP § 2113.I). There is no evidence of record disclosing that the reflective layer has an unobvious structural difference resulting from its production by plasma vapor deposition; therefore, the process used to make the reflective layer is not limiting.
Re: claim 19, Im discloses the limitations of claim 18, and Im further discloses that the reflective layer 140, 140’, 140” comprises an RCF layer (para. 65). Im does not explicitly disclose the step of depositing a multilayer by using a PVD process; however, a person of ordinary skill at a time prior to the effective date would have known and been aware of the PVD process to form layers within display devices. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make the RCF layer using the PVD process because compared to other fabrication methods, PVD permits making very thin films at significantly lower temperatures. Hence, the claim limitation is the obvious application of a known technique to a known method that achieves predictable results.
Re: claim 20, Im discloses the limitations of claim 18, and Im further discloses the step of forming the reflective layer from one of a single layer structure or a double layer structure (para. 60 discloses at least two layers). Im does not explicitly disclose that wherein the double layer structure is formed by a non-polarizing CLC coating process. However, a person of ordinary skill at a time prior to the effective date would have known and been aware of the CLC coating process for form layers within display devices. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to use a CLC coating process to fabricate the reflective layer to maximize color intensity and its comparative lower cost with respect to other fabrication methods.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA MEDICH whose telephone number is (313)446-4819. The examiner can normally be reached M-T & Th-F 10:00 AM - 7:00 PM ET.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at 571-272-9791. 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.
/ANGELA M. MEDICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights