CTNF 19/336,890 CTNF 81624 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2017/0069692; hereafter Lee '692) in view of Lee (US 2015/0126131; hereafter Lee '131) and further in view of Keneko et al. (US 2013/0154473) Regarding claim 1: Lee '692 discloses: A display apparatus, comprising: a substrate (Fig. 13: 100); a buffer layer on the substrate (Fig. 13: 105 – paragraph 130); a plurality of thin film transistors (TFT) on the buffer layer, each of the thin film transistors comprising an active layer, a gate electrode, a source electrode and a drain electrode (paragraph 133); a plurality of pixels including a plurality of light emitting layers between a plurality of lower electrodes and an upper electrode on the substrate (paragraph 131); a thin film encapsulation layer on the upper electrode (Fig. 13: 130); a touch sensor layer including a plurality of touch sensor electrodes (paragraph 138: “first and second touch electrodes”) and a plurality of connection lines on the thin film encapsulation layer (paragraph 138: "routing wire 154") a window layer disposed on the touch sensor layer (Fig. 13: 160); and an insulation layer disposed between the window layer and the touch sensor layer, the insulation layer comprising a first surface and a second surface opposite the first surface (Fig. 13: 320, although labeled an adhesive layer, can be considered an insulation layer). Lee '692 does not disclose: (A) "wherein the first surface of the insulation layer comprises a curved portion downward in a direction toward the substrate," and (B) "wherein a refractive index of the insulation layer is greater than a refractive index of the window layer." Regarding (A): Lee '131 discloses: wherein the first surface of the insulation layer comprises a curved portion downward in a direction toward the substrate (Fig. 2A: 240; paragraph 32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include in Lee '692 the elements taught by Lee '131. The rationale is as follows: Lee '692 and Lee '131 are directed to the same field of art. Lee '131 discloses that the shape of the window and corresponding shape of the adhesive layer reduces stress and prevents the window from being cracked or broken (paragraph 34). This is a known improvement that one of ordinary skill in the art could have included with predictable results. Regarding (B): Kaneko discloses: wherein a refractive index of the insulation layer is greater than a refractive index of the window layer (from paragraph 86, the window is 1.5-1.56, and from paragraph 46 the adhesive sheet is 1.6 to 2.0). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include in Lee '634 in view of Lee '131 the elements taught by Kaneko. The rationale is as follows: Lee '634, Lee '131, and Kaneko are directed to the same field of art. The element cited as the "insulation layer" of Lee '634 was the adhesive layer 320. Kaneko discloses that a high index adhesive layer increases efficiency (paragraph 89). One of ordinary skill in the art could have included this with predictable results. Regarding claim 2: Lee '692, etc., discloses: wherein the curved portion of the insulation layer corresponds to each of the plurality of pixels (Lee '131 does not directly compare this, but from Fig. 2A it covers the majority of the display, so it certainly covers many pixels – these covered pixels can be the “plurality of the pixels” of the claim even if there are some that aren’t covered). Regarding claim 3: Lee '692, etc., discloses: wherein light emitted from each of the plurality of light emitting layers is emitted to the outside of the window layer through the curved portion of the insulation layer (again, from Lee '131 Fig. 2A it covers the display area) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee '692 in view of Lee ‘131 and further in view of Kaneko, and further in view of Chen et al. (US 2016/0048253) Regarding claim 4: Lee '692, etc., discloses a display apparatus as discussed above. Lee '692, etc., does not disclose: "a functional layer between the insulation layer and the touch sensor layer, and wherein a refractive index of the functional layer is less than the refractive index of the insulation layer." Chen discloses: a functional layer between the insulation layer and the touch sensor layer (Fig. 3A: polarizer 32 and adhesive layer 43, where 43 is the "functional layer,"). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include in Lee '634, etc., the elements taught by Chen. The rationale is as follows: This is just including a common layer (a polarization plate) with an adhesive to attach it. One of ordinary skill in the art could have included this with predictable results. Lee '634 in view of Chen discloses: wherein a refractive index of the functional layer is less than the refractive index of the insulation layer (the adhesive layer 43 can be "any adhesive layer known in the art" as per paragraph 29, whereas the adhesive layers that attach the polarizer as per paragraph 28 are higher index -- these are equivalent to the high index layer of Kaneko). Regarding claim 5: Lee '634, etc., discloses: wherein the functional layer comprises an adhesive organic material (paragraph 29: "Any adhesive layer known in the art," which includes a resin layer as per paragraph 21 -- that is organic) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wu et al. (US 2013/0335347); Chi et al. (US 2015/0324045) . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER RAY LAMB whose telephone number is (571)272-5264. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 PM. 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, Patrick Edouard can be reached at 571-272-7603. 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. /CHRISTOPHER R LAMB/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622 Application/Control Number: 19/336,890 Page 2 Art Unit: 2622 Application/Control Number: 19/336,890 Page 3 Art Unit: 2622 Application/Control Number: 19/336,890 Page 4 Art Unit: 2622 Application/Control Number: 19/336,890 Page 5 Art Unit: 2622 Application/Control Number: 19/336,890 Page 6 Art Unit: 2622 Application/Control Number: 19/336,890 Page 7 Art Unit: 2622
