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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 3/18/2026 has been entered. Claim(s) 1-11 is/are pending.
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) 1-2 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2017/0153363)(hereinafter Lee) in view of Wu (WO 2020/050848).
Claim 1: Lee teaches a display device comprising: a display panel (LCP, UPOL, fig. 5) including a lower substrate (LCP, fig. 5) and an upper substrate (UPOL, fig. 5), the upper substrate (UPOL) on the lower substrate (LCP); a composite sheet layer (OPT, fig. 5) on a lower surface of the display panel (lower surface of LCP, fig. 5), the composite sheet layer (OPT) comprising an adhesive layer (LPOL, PSA1, DIF, UR3, fig. 5) (adhesive layer, see para [0053]) and a light diffusion layer (DIF, PS, fig. 5) that is below the adhesive layer (LPOL, PSA1); and a case (CB, GP, TC, fig. 1) including a case top (TC, fig. 1), a guide panel (GP, fig. 1), and a cover bottom (CB, fig. 1), wherein the adhesive layer (LPOL, PSA1, DIF, UR3) comprises a first layer (DIF, UR3, fig. 5) including an adhesive material (adhesive layer UR3, see para [0061]), a second layer (PSA1, fig. 5) on an upper surface of the first layer (upper surface of DIF, UR3) and including an air bubble (air between DIF and PSA1, fig. 5) and an adhesive material (PSA1, fig. 5) ( pressure sensitive adhesives (PSA), UV adhesives, or water-based adhesive, see para [0064]) that is a same as the adhesive material included in the first layer (UR3 is an UV adhesive layer and PSA1 can be a UV adhesive as well, see para [0061] and [0064]), and first beads (BD1, fig. 5) between the first layer (DIF, UR3) and the second layer (PSA1).
However, Lee fails to teach the first beads are formed as a single row of beads within the adhesive layer.
Wu teaches first beads (124, fig. 1) are formed as a single row of beads (see fig. 1) within an adhesive layer (122, fig. 1) (optically clear adhesive, see para [0013]).
Therefore, in view of Wu, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the first beads of to be formed as a single row of beads within the adhesive layer as taught by Wu, in order to adjust scattering of light to provide a uniformly distributed light output .
Claim 2: Lee fails to teach each of the first beads comprises: a core layer; and an outer layer surrounding the core layer.
Wu teaches each of the first beads (124, fig. 1) comprises: a core layer (128, fig. 1); and an outer layer (126, fig. 1) surrounding the core layer (128).
Therefore, in view of Wu, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the first beads of Lee with the first beads of Wu where each of the first beads comprises: a core layer; and an outer layer surrounding the core layer, in order to adjust scattering of light to provide a uniformly distributed light output.
Claim 7: Lee teaches the adhesive layer (LPOL, PSA1, DIF, UR3, fig. 5) further comprises: a third layer (LPOL, fig. 5) on the second layer (PSA1); and second beads (BD2, fig. 5) between the second layer (PSA1) and the third layer (LPOL).
Claim 8: Lee teaches a thickness of the first layer (thickness of DIF, UR3, fig. 5) is greater than a thickness of the second layer (thickness of PSA1, fig. 5) based on a virtual line passing through a center of the first beads (see annotated fig. 5).
PNG
media_image1.png
746
751
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 9: Lee is silent about a size of the air bubble is smaller than a size of the first beads.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to change the size of the air bubble to be smaller than a size of the first beads to adjust the light output distribution of the display device, since it has been held that the configuration the size of the beads (see para [0058]) was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2017/0153363)(hereinafter Lee) in view of Wu (WO 2020/050848) as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Tsuda et al. (US 2020/0209668) (hereinafter Tsuda).
Claim 5: Lee teaches a light source module (LS, fig. 1) on the cover bottom (CB) of the case, wherein the light source module (LS, fig. 2) are between the cover bottom (CB, fig. 2) of the case and the composite sheet layer (OPT, fig. 2).
However, Lee fails to teach a plurality of light source modules, the adhesive layer and the light diffusion layer overlap the plurality of light source modules in a plan view of the display panel.
Tsuda teaches a plurality of light source modules (310, fig. 3) on the cover bottom (631, fig. 3) of the case (600, fig. 3), wherein the adhesive layer (121b, fig. 2) (adhesive layer, see para [0051]) and the light diffusion layer (221b, fig. 2) overlap the plurality of light source modules (310) in a plan view of the display panel (see fig. 3), and wherein the plurality of light source modules (310) are between the cover bottom (631) of the case and the composite sheet layer (100, 200, fig. 3).
Therefore, in view of Tsuda, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the light source of Lee with a plurality of light source modules where the adhesive layer and the light diffusion layer overlap the plurality of light source modules in a plan view of the display panel, in order to increase the brightness and lighting efficiency of the display device.
Claim 6: Lee teaches the cover bottom (CB, fig. 2) is below the composite sheet layer (OPT, fig. 2), the guide panel (GP, fig. 2) is between the cover bottom (CB) and the case top (TC, fig. 2), and the case top (TC) covers a portion of an upper surface of the display panel (upper surface of UPOL, LCP, fig. 2).
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2017/0153363)(hereinafter Lee) in view of Wu (WO 2020/050848) and Tsuda et al. (US 2020/0209668) (hereinafter Tsuda).
Claim 10: Lee teaches a display device comprising: a display panel (LCP, UPOL, fig. 5) including a lower substrate (LCP, fig. 5) and an upper substrate (UPOL, fig. 5), the upper substrate (UPOL) on the lower substrate (LCP); a composite sheet layer (OPT, fig. 5) on a lower surface of the display panel (lower surface of LCP, fig. 5), the composite sheet layer comprising an adhesive layer including a plurality of beads and a light diffusion layer below the adhesive layer, the composite sheet layer (OPT) comprising an adhesive layer (LPOL, PSA1, fig. 5) (adhesive layer, see para [0053]) including a plurality of beads (BD2, fig. 5) and a light diffusion layer (DIF, fig. 5) below the adhesive layer (LPOL, PSA1); a case (CB, GP, TC, fig. 1) including a case top (TC, fig. 1) covering a portion of an upper surface of the display panel (upper surface of LCP, fig. 2), a cover bottom (CB, fig. 1) below the composite sheet layer (OPT, fig. 2), and a guide panel (GP, fig. 1) between the cover bottom (CB, fig. 2) and the case top (TC, fig. 2); and a light source (LS, fig. 1) between a lower surface of the composite sheet layer and an upper surface of the cover bottom.
However, Lee fails to teach the plurality of beads are formed as a single row of beads within the adhesive layer ; and a plurality of light sources, and wherein the adhesive layer and the light diffusion layer overlap the plurality of light sources in a plan view of the display panel.
Wu teaches first beads (124, fig. 1) are formed as a single row of beads (see fig. 1) within an adhesive layer (122, fig. 1) (optically clear adhesive, see para [0013]).
Tsuda teaches a plurality of light source modules (310, fig. 3) on the cover bottom (631, fig. 3) of the case (600, fig. 3), wherein the adhesive layer (121b, fig. 2) (adhesive layer, see para [0051]) and the light diffusion layer (221b, fig. 2) overlap the plurality of light source modules (310) in a plan view of the display panel (see fig. 3), and wherein the plurality of light source modules (310) are between the cover bottom (631) of the case and the composite sheet layer (100, 200, fig. 3).
Therefore, in view of Wu, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the first beads of to be formed as a single row of beads within the adhesive layer as taught by Wu, in order to adjust scattering of light to provide a uniformly distributed light output.
Therefore, in view of Tsuda, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the light source of Lee with a plurality of light source modules where the adhesive layer and the light diffusion layer overlap the plurality of light source modules in a plan view of the display panel, in order to increase the brightness and lighting efficiency of the display device.
Claim 11: Lee teaches a light source irradiate light toward the display panel (LCP, fig. 2) through the composite sheet layer (OPT, fig. 2).
However, Lee fails to teach a plurality of light sources.
Tsuda teaches a plurality of light source modules (310, fig. 3).
Therefore, in view of Tsuda, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the light source of Lee with a plurality of light source modules, in order to increase the brightness and lighting efficiency of the display device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 10 has/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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art taken as a whole does not show nor suggest a refractive index of the core layer is greater than a refractive index of the outer layer with respect to claim(s) 3, as specifically called for in the claimed combinations.
Claim(s) 4 is/are dependent upon claim(s) 3 and is/are therefore allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ma et al. (US 2008/0049419) discloses a similar display device with an adhesive layer having beads.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHENG B SONG whose telephone number is (571)272-9402. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9AM - 5PM.
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, Jong-Suk (James) Lee can be reached at 571-272-7044. 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.
/ZHENG SONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights