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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 19, 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weindorf et al (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2019/0331959; already of record) in view of Nagahama et al (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2012/0002282; already of record) in view of Kim et al (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2022/0163887; already of record) and in view of Poole et al (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2020/0301527).
Regarding claim 1, Weindorf discloses a display device (100x), (fig. 2, [0045]), comprising:
a display module (104), used for displaying an image, (fig. 2, [0047]); and
an optical structure layer (106a), disposed on the display module (104), comprising an anti-glare layer (120-130 and 134) and an anti-reflection layer (132), (fig. 2, [0046]),
wherein a reflectivity of specular component included (SCI) of the optical structure layer is between 3% and 6% (i.e. SCI may be approximately 4.63%), [0074].
However, Weindorf does not mention the anti-reflection layer is disposed on the anti-glare layer.
In a similar field of endeavor, Nagahama teaches
wherein the anti-reflection layer (i.e. low-refractive-index layer 14 has a substantially uniform thickness, and the waves of the surface of an antireflection layer have gentle waves) is disposed on the anti-glare layer (12), (fig. 7, [0178-0179]),
wherein a glossiness of the optical structure layer is between 4 GU and 35 GU (i.e. glossiness is preferably 35 or less), (fig. 7, [0132]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Weindorf, by specifically providing the anti-reflection layer disposed on the anti-glare layer, as taught by Nagahama, for the purpose of improving contrast, [0133].
However, Weindorf in view of Nagahama does not mention wherein a ratio of a reflectivity of specular component excluded to the reflectivity of the specular component included of the display module is greater than 0.6 and less than 1.
In a similar field of endeavor, Kim teaches wherein a ratio of a reflectivity of specular component excluded (RSCE) to the reflectivity of the specular component included (RSCI) of the display module (i.e. quantum dot display devices) is greater than 0.6 and less than 1 (i.e. the ratio between them (RSCE/RSCI) may be 60% or more, hence 60% is equivalent to 0.6), [0221].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Weindorf in view of Nagahama, by specifically providing the ratio of the specular component excluded and the specular component included, as taught by Kim, for the purpose of maintaining excellent resolution and visibility, [0012].
However, Weindorf in view of Nagahama and in view of Kim does not mention wherein a transmittance of the optical structure layer is between 70% and 98%.
In a similar field of endeavor, Poole teaches wherein a transmittance of the optical structure layer (i.e. transparent window region 208 may have a dual-textured surface that provides both anti-reflective and anti-glare properties) is between 70% and 98% (i.e. greater than 70%, 80% or 90%), (fig. 1a, [0053]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Weindorf in view of Nagahama and in view of Kim, by specifically providing the transmittance to be greater than 70%, as taught by Poole, for the purpose of having an anti-glare and anti-reflective properties for the display surface.
Regarding claim 2, Nagahama discloses wherein the anti-reflection layer (16) comprises a plurality of high refractive index sub-layers (16H) and a plurality of low refractive index sub-layers (16L) stacked alternately, (fig. 9, [0197]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Weindorf, by specifically providing the anti-reflection layer having high and low refractive index sub-layers, as taught by Nagahama, for the purpose of improving contrast, [0133].
Regarding claim 3, Nagahama discloses wherein a top one of the low refractive index sub-layers (i.e. top low-refractive-index layer 16L) is disposed on a top one of the high refractive index sub-layers (i.e. top high-refractive-index layer 16H), (fig. 9, [0197]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Weindorf, by specifically providing the high and low refractive index sub-layers, as taught by Nagahama, for the purpose of improving contrast, [0133].
Regarding claim 5, Weindorf discloses wherein the anti-glare layer (120-130 and 134) comprises a substrate (120) and an anti-glare film (122) disposed on the substrate (120), (fig. 2, [0046]).
Regarding claim 6, Weindorf discloses wherein the anti-glare film (122) has a surface (i.e. top surface) away from the display module (104), (fig. 2, [0045-0046]).
However, Weindorf does not mention a rough surface.
In a similar field of endeavor, Nagahama teaches wherein the anti-glare film (12) has a rough surface (i.e. surface is roughened), (fig. 7, [0153]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Weindorf, by specifically providing the anti-glare film having a roughened surface, as taught by Nagahama, for the purpose of improving contrast, [0133].
Regarding claim 7, Nagahama discloses wherein the anti-glare film (12) comprises a curable resin and multiple silica particles (13), (fig. 7, [0139-0140 and 0163]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Weindorf, by specifically providing the anti-glare film having particles, as taught by Nagahama, for the purpose of improving contrast, [0133].
Regarding claim 10, Weindorf discloses wherein the substrate is a cover plate (cover layer 120), (fig. 2, [0046]).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weindorf in view of Nagahama in view of Kim in view of Poole and in view of Miyagi et al (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2008/0199671; already of record).
Regarding claim 4, Nagahama discloses everything as specified above in claim 2. However, Weindorf in view of Nagahama in view of Kim and in view of Poole does not mention at least one of the high refractive index sub-layers has an extinction coefficient greater than or equal to 0.01 and less than or equal to 0.05.
In a similar field of endeavor, Miyagi teaches wherein at least one of the high refractive index sub-layers (i.e. antireflection film made of high refractive index material) has an extinction coefficient greater than or equal to 0.01 and less than or equal to 0.05 (i.e. extinction coefficient of from 0.01 to 0.65), [0012].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Weindorf in view of Nagahama in view of Kim and in view of Poole, by specifically providing the extinction coefficient, as taught by Miyagi, for the purpose of improving visibility, [0002].
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weindorf in view of Nagahama in view of Kim in view of Poole and in view of Kuzuhara et al (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2022/0373720; already of record).
Regarding claim 8, Weindorf discloses everything as specified above in claim 5. However, Weindorf in view of Nagahama in view of Kim and in view of Poole does not mention a surface of the anti-glare film is greater than or equal to 0.1 μm and less than or equal to 0.5 μm.
In a similar field of endeavor, Kuzuhara teaches wherein an arithmetic mean deviation of a contour of a surface of the anti-glare film (100) is greater than or equal to 0.1 μm and less than or equal to 0.5 μm (i.e. anti-glare film has a Rz0.8 of the first main surface of preferably 0.50 μm or less), (fig. 1, [0038 and 0092]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Weindorf in view of Nagahama in view of Kim and in view of Poole, by specifically providing the surface of the anti-glare film to be 0.50 μm or less, as taught by Kuzuhara, for the purpose of suppress reflection and impart a sense of luxury by suppressing surface graininess, [0028].
Regarding claim 9, Kuzuhara discloses wherein a mean width of a contour of a surface of the anti-glare film (100) is greater than or equal to 5 μm and less than or equal to 20 μm (i.e. thickness of the transparent substrate is preferably 5 μm or more), (fig. 1, [0038 and 0124]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Weindorf in view of Nagahama in view of Kim and in view of Poole, by specifically providing thickness of the anti-glare film, as taught by Kuzuhara, for the purpose of suppress reflection and impart a sense of luxury by suppressing surface graininess, [0028].
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hotelling et al (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2013/0106813; already of record) in view of Nagahama in view of Kim and in view of Poole.
Regarding claim 11, Hotelling discloses a display device (10), (fig. 1, [0022]), comprising:
a display module (14), used for displaying an image, (fig. 1, [0024]);
a photodetector (32), electrically connected to the display module (14) and used for detecting brightness of an ambient light (i.e. sensor 32 is for sensing ambient light) and outputting a sensing signal (i.e. outputting ambient light sensor readings), (fig. 2, [0036]);
a processor (30), electrically connected to the display module (14) and the photodetector (32), and used for receiving the sensing signal and outputting a command signal to the display module according to the sensing signal, so that the display module adjusts brightness of the image according to the command signal (i.e. storage and processing circuitry 30 can automatically take actions in real time such as adjusting the brightness of display 14); and
an optical structure layer (44), disposed on the display module (14), (fig. 3, [0037-0039]).
However, Hotelling does not mention the optical structure layer comprising an anti-glare layer and an anti-reflection layer.
In a similar field of endeavor, Nagahama teaches
an optical structure layer (14 and 12), comprising an anti-glare layer (12) and an anti-reflection layer (14), wherein the anti-reflection layer (i.e. low-refractive-index layer 14 has a substantially uniform thickness, and the waves of the surface of an antireflection layer have gentle waves) is disposed on the anti-glare layer (12), (fig. 7, [0178-0179]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hotelling, by specifically providing the anti-reflection layer disposed on the anti-glare layer, as taught by Nagahama, for the purpose of improving contrast, [0133].
However, Hotelling in view of Nagahama does not mention wherein a ratio of a reflectivity of specular component excluded to the reflectivity of the specular component included of the display module is greater than 0.6 and less than 1.
In a similar field of endeavor, Kim teaches wherein a ratio of a reflectivity of specular component excluded (RSCE) to the reflectivity of the specular component included (RSCI) of the display module (i.e. quantum dot display devices) is greater than 0.6 and less than 1 (i.e. the ratio between them (RSCE/RSCI) may be 60% or more, hence 60% is equivalent to 0.6), [0221].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hotelling in view of Nagahama, by specifically providing the ratio of the specular component excluded and the specular component included, as taught by Kim, for the purpose of maintaining excellent resolution and visibility, [0012].
However, Hotelling in view of Nagahama and in view of Kim does not mention wherein a transmittance of the optical structure layer is between 70% and 98%.
In a similar field of endeavor, Poole teaches wherein a transmittance of the optical structure layer (i.e. transparent window region 208 may have a dual-textured surface that provides both anti-reflective and anti-glare properties) is between 70% and 98% (i.e. greater than 70%, 80% or 90%), (fig. 1a, [0053]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hotelling in view of Nagahama and in view of Kim, by specifically providing the transmittance to be greater than 70%, as taught by Poole, for the purpose of having an anti-glare and anti-reflective properties for the display surface.
Regarding claim 12, Nagahama discloses wherein the anti-reflection layer (16) comprises a plurality of high refractive index sub-layers (16H) and a plurality of low refractive index sub-layers (16L) stacked alternately, (fig. 9, [0197]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hotelling, by specifically providing the anti-reflection layer having high and low refractive index sub-layers, as taught by Nagahama, for the purpose of improving contrast, [0133].
Regarding claim 13, Nagahama discloses wherein a top one of the low refractive index sub-layers (i.e. top low-refractive-index layer 16L) is disposed on a top one of the high refractive index sub-layers (i.e. top high-refractive-index layer 16H), (fig. 9, [0197]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hotelling, by specifically providing the high and low refractive index sub-layers, as taught by Nagahama, for the purpose of improving contrast, [0133].
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hotelling in view of Nagahama in view of Kim in view of Poole and in view of Miyagi.
Regarding claim 14, Nagahama discloses everything as specified above in claim 12. However, Hotelling in view of Nagahama in view of Kim and in view of Poole does not mention at least one of the high refractive index sub-layers has an extinction coefficient greater than or equal to 0.01 and less than or equal to 0.05.
In a similar field of endeavor, Miyagi teaches wherein at least one of the high refractive index sub-layers (i.e. antireflection film made of high refractive index material) has an extinction coefficient greater than or equal to 0.01 and less than or equal to 0.05 (i.e. extinction coefficient of from 0.01 to 0.65), [0012].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hotelling in view of Nagahama in view of Kim and in view of Poole, by specifically providing the extinction coefficient, as taught by Miyagi, for the purpose of improving visibility, [0002].
Claim(s) 15-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hotelling in view of Nagahama in view of Kim in view of Poole and in view of Weindorf.
Regarding claim 15, Hotelling in view of Nagahama in view of Kim and in view of Poole discloses everything as specified above in claim 11. However, Hotelling in view of Nagahama in view of Kim and in view of Poole does not mention wherein the anti-glare layer comprises a substrate and an anti-glare film disposed on the substrate.
In a similar field of endeavor, Weindorf discloses wherein the anti-glare layer (120-130 and 134) comprises a substrate (120) and an anti-glare film (122) disposed on the substrate (120), (fig. 2, [0046]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hotelling in view of Nagahama in view of Kim and in view of Poole, by specifically providing the anti-glare layer comprises a substrate and an anti-glare film disposed on the substrate, as taught by Weindorf, for the purpose of having a good image clarity characteristics, [0111].
Regarding claim 16, Nagahama discloses wherein the anti-glare film (12) has a rough surface (i.e. surface is roughened), (fig. 7, [0153]).
However, Hotelling in view of Nagahama in view of Kim and in view of Poole does not mention the anti-glare film has a surface away from the display module.
In a similar field of endeavor, Weindorf teaches wherein the anti-glare film (122) has a surface (i.e. top surface) away from the display module (104), (fig. 2, [0045-0046]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hotelling in view of Nagahama in view of Kim and in view of Poole, by specifically providing the anti-glare film has a surface away from the display module, as taught by Weindorf, for the purpose of having a good image clarity characteristics, [0111].
Regarding claim 17, Nagahama discloses wherein the anti-glare film (12) comprises a curable resin and multiple silica particles (13), (fig. 7, [0139-0140 and 0163]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hotelling, by specifically providing the anti-glare film having particles, as taught by Nagahama, for the purpose of improving contrast, [0133].
Regarding claim 20, Weindorf discloses wherein the substrate is a cover plate (cover layer 120), (fig. 2, [0046]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hotelling in view of Nagahama and in view of Kim, by specifically providing the anti-glare layer comprises a substrate and an anti-glare film disposed on the substrate, as taught by Weindorf, for the purpose of having a good image clarity characteristics, [0111].
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hotelling in view of Nagahama in view of Kim in view of Poole in view of Weindorf and in view of Kuzuhara.
Regarding claim 18, Weindorf discloses everything as specified above in claim 15. However, Hotelling in view of Nagahama in view of Kim in view of Poole and in view of Weindorf does not mention a surface of the anti-glare film is greater than or equal to 0.1 μm and less than or equal to 0.5 μm.
In a similar field of endeavor, Kuzuhara teaches wherein an arithmetic mean deviation of a contour of a surface of the anti-glare film (100) is greater than or equal to 0.1 μm and less than or equal to 0.5 μm (i.e. anti-glare film has a Rz0.8 of the first main surface of preferably 0.50 μm or less), (fig. 1, [0038 and 0092]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hotelling in view of Nagahama in view of Kim in view of Poole and in view of Weindorf, by specifically providing the surface of the anti-glare film to be 0.50 μm or less, as taught by Kuzuhara, for the purpose of suppress reflection and impart a sense of luxury by suppressing surface graininess, [0028].
Regarding claim 19, Kuzuhara discloses wherein a mean width of a contour of a surface of the anti-glare film (100) is greater than or equal to 5 μm and less than or equal to 20 μm (i.e. thickness of the transparent substrate is preferably 5 μm or more), (fig. 1, [0038 and 0124]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hotelling in view of Nagahama in view of Kim in view of Poole and in view of Weindorf, by specifically providing thickness of the anti-glare film, as taught by Kuzuhara, for the purpose of suppress reflection and impart a sense of luxury by suppressing surface graininess, [0028].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 11 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.
In view of amendment, the reference of Poole has been added for new grounds of rejection.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LONG D PHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5573. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9am-5pm EST.
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, Chanh D Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-7772. 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.
/LONG D PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2623
Prosecution Insights