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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 8 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230007791 A1 to Park in view of US 20210370642 A1 to Kim et al.
Regarding Claim 1. Park discloses a vehicle display device, comprising: a display panel disposed on a dashboard of a vehicle (See Fig. 15 display device 10), wherein the display panel includes a display area in which a plurality of sub-pixels are arranged (para 61), and a non-display area surrounding the display area (Fig. 5 film 14 disposed in an edge region); and a black matrix disposed toward top of the display panel and disposed in a portion of the non-display area between the display area and a portion of a rear cover located at an outermost edge of the non-display area (See Fig. 5 cover 300).
Kim 366 does not specifically disclose that the black matrix includes a black pigment, and wherein a concentration of the black pigment in a portion of the non-display area adjacent to the display area is lower than a concentration of the black pigment in a portion of the non-display area adjacent to the portion of the rear cover.
However, Kim 642 discloses the black matrix includes a black pigment, and wherein a concentration of the black pigment in a portion of the non-display area adjacent to the display area is lower than a concentration of the black pigment in a portion of the non-display area adjacent to the portion of the rear cover (As shown in Fig. 19) to increase process reliability and process efficiency, reduce cost, and reduce the thickness of the display device (para 142).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s effective filing date to include that the black matrix includes a black pigment, and wherein a concentration of the black pigment in a portion of the non-display area adjacent to the display area is lower than a concentration of the black pigment in a portion of the non-display area adjacent to the portion of the rear cover.
Regarding Claim 2. Kim further discloses a density of the black pigment in the black matrix increases as the black matrix extends in a direction from the display area to the portion of the rear cover in the non-display area (as shown in Fig. 19).
Regarding Claim 8. Kim further discloses the black matrix includes a plurality of holes, and wherein the black matrix is formed by filling the plurality of holes with the black pigment (as shown in Fig. 11 and Fig. 19).
Regarding Claim 12. Kim further discloses the black matrix is formed in a gradation manner such that the concentration of the black pigment increases in three steps as the black matrix extends in a direction from the display area to the rear cover in the non-display area (as shown in Fig. 19 black matrix is formed in a continuous gradation manner).
Regarding Claim 13. Kim further discloses the black matrix is formed in a gradation manner such that the concentration of the black pigment increases in five steps as the black matrix extends in a direction from the display area to the rear cover in the non-display area (as shown in Fig. 19 black matrix is formed in a continuous gradation manner).
Regarding Claim 14. Kim further discloses the black matrix is formed in a gradation manner such that the concentration of the black pigment increases in seven steps as the black matrix extends in a direction from the display area to the rear cover in the non-display area (as shown in Fig. 19 black matrix is formed in a continuous gradation manner).
Regarding Claim 15. Kim further discloses a density of black pigment powders in the black matrix increases as the black matrix extends in a direction from the display area to the rear cover in the non-display area (as shown in Fig. 19 black matrix is formed in a continuous gradation manner).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park and Kim as applied to Claim 1 in view of US 20200403181 A1 to Jung
Regarding Claim 3. As stated above Park and Kim discloses all the limitations of base claim 1.
Park and Kim do not specifically disclose a polarizing layer is disposed on the display panel, wherein a first optical adhesive layer is disposed on the polarizing layer, wherein a light control film is disposed on the first optical adhesive layer, wherein a second optical adhesive layer is disposed on the light control film, wherein the black matrix is disposed on the second optical adhesive layer, and wherein a cover glass is disposed on the black matrix.
However, Jung discloses a polarizing layer is disposed on the display panel (Fig. 2 polarizing film 150), wherein a first optical adhesive layer is disposed on the polarizing layer (Fig. 2 adhesive 135), wherein a light control film is disposed on the first optical adhesive layer (Fig. 2 light control film 132), wherein a second optical adhesive layer is disposed on the light control film (Fig. 2 adhesive 131), wherein the black matrix is disposed on the second optical adhesive layer (Fig. 2 black masking part 144), and wherein a cover glass is disposed on the black matrix (Fig. 2 cover window 120) to increase process reliability and process efficiency, reduce cost, and reduce the thickness of the display device (Fig. 2 para 142) as the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP2143(I)(B), KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s effective filing date to include a polarizing layer is disposed on the display panel, wherein a first optical adhesive layer is disposed on the polarizing layer, wherein a light control film is disposed on the first optical adhesive layer, wherein a second optical adhesive layer is disposed on the light control film, wherein the black matrix is disposed on the second optical adhesive layer, and wherein a cover glass is disposed on the black matrix.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4-7 and 9-12 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDMOND C LAU whose telephone number is (571)272-5859. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-6pm 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, 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.
/EDMOND C LAU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights