Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Amendment
The amendment dated 23 January 2026 has been entered into the record.
Response to Arguments
Regarding independent claim 1, applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill would not modify the cover of Watanabe to have an outer surface that is planar because curvature on both sides of the cover is needed in order to provide a satisfactory image compression rate, as taught by Watanabe. This argument is not persuasive. It is well-established that the reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by the applicant (MPEP § 2144(IV)). As set forth in the rejection of record, the application of the teaching of Yun to the device disclosed in Watanabe was done for the purposes of providing protection against environmental and physical hazards and of optimizing the output direction of light exiting the display device. Just because this motivation of record differs from a motivation disclosed in Watanabe, it does not negate the motivation of record.
Regarding independent claims 6 and 13, applicant argues that there is no evidence that supports the assertion that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been aware that housing sidewalls of display devices typically are disposed in frame regions so as to maximize the size of the display area of a display device.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant need look only to Figure 1 prior art reference of record Yun. Figure 1 discloses a frame region that is located outwardly from the respective left and right edges of the color filter 340 (i.e., the region to the left of the left-most vertically extending edge of 340 and the region to the right of the right-most vertically extending edge of 340). The sidewalls of chassis 670 and supporting unit 100 are both located in the frame region of the device disclosed in Yun.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-5, 7, and 12 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Watanabe (US 2011/0102302), of record, in view of Yun (US 20100053749), of record.
Re: claim 1, Watanabe discloses a housing (para. 63) having sidewalls 326 (Fig. 9 & para. 63); a display layer 12, 22 (Fig. 1) comprising an array of pixels (para. 64) that forms an active area 10A, 20A (Fig. 1) and comprising an inactive border region 10F, 20F that surrounds the active area (Figs. 1, 6b, 8b); and a transparent optical member 14, 24 that forms an outermost surface of the electronic device 100 (Fig. 1), wherein the transparent optical member has an inner surface with convex portions 1412, 2412 and an opposing planar outer surface 1421, 2421 (Fig. 1), and wherein the convex portions overlap the sidewalls and the display layer (Figs. 1, 9).
Watanabe does not explicitly disclose that the planar outer surface is planar over an entirety of the planar outer surface.
Yun discloses that the planar outer surface (Fig. 1, the top-most horizontally extending surface of 400, where the transparent optical member is comprised of 420, 430, 440) is planar over an entirety of the planar outer surface (entirety disclosed in Fig. 1).
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 housing have sidewalls and that the planar outer surface is planar over an entirety of the planar outer surface, as disclosed by Yun, applied to the device disclosed by Watanabe for the purposes of providing protection to the device against environmental and physical hazards and of optimizing the output direction of light exiting the display device.
Re: claim 2, Watanabe and Yun disclose the limitations of claim 1, and Watanabe further discloses that the convex portions 1412, 2412 of the transparent optical member 14, 24 are configured to guide light emitted by the display layer to a portion of the planar outer surface of the transparent optical member that overlaps the inactive border region of the display layer (capability disclosed in at least Figs. 1, 3).
Re: claim 3, Watanabe and Yun disclose the limitations of claim 1, and Yun further discloses that the housing 100, 670 has a rear surface (Fig. 1), and the sidewalls (Fig. 1) extend from the rear surface in a given direction (Fig. 1, where the given direction is vertical and/or horizontal).
Re: claim 4, Watanabe and Yun disclose the limitations of claim 3, and Yun further discloses that the convex portions of the transparent optical member 420, 430, 440 overlap the sidewalls of the housing and the display layer in the given direction (Fig. 1, where the given direction is horizontal and/or vertical).
Re: claim 5, Watanabe and Yun disclose the limitations of claim 1, and Watanabe further discloses that the active area 10A, 20A of the display layer has a first width (Fig. 1) and wherein the convex portions 1412, 2412 of the transparent optical member 14, 24 are configured to redirect images produced by the display layer to have a second width that is greater than the first width (capability disclosed in at least Fig. 1, where the dashed lines represent the path of emitted light).
Re: claim 7, Watanabe and Yun disclose the limitations of claim 1, and Watanabe further discloses that the array of pixels comprises an array of organic light-emitting diode pixels (para. 113).
Re: claim 12, Watanabe and Yun disclose the limitations of claim 1, and Watanabe further discloses that the array of pixels has a first width and a first height (para. 64; Fig. 1), the array of pixels is configured to output an image (capability disclosed in at least Fig. 1), the convex portions redirect the image to have an apparent second width that is greater than the first width (capability disclosed in at least Fig. 1, where the dashed lines represent the path of light), and the convex portions redirect the image to have an apparent second height that is greater than the first height (capability disclosed in at least Fig. 1).
Claims 6 and 13 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Watanabe.
Re: claim 6, Watanabe discloses a housing having sidewalls (Fig. 9 & para. 63); a display layer comprising an array of pixels (para. 64) that forms an active area 10A, 20A (Fig. 1) and comprising an inactive border region 10F that surrounds the active area (Figs. 1, 6a, 6b), wherein the active area of the display layer has a first width (Fig 1, where the first width corresponds to the width of the active areas 10A, 20A); and a transparent optical member 14, 24 that forms an outermost surface of the electronic device (Fig. 1), wherein the transparent optical member has an inner surface with convex portions 1412, 2412 and an opposing planar outer surface 1421, 2421 (Fig. 1), the convex portions overlap the sidewalls of the housing and the display layer (Fig. 1), the convex portions of the transparent optical member are configured to redirect images produced by the display layer to have a second width that is greater than the first width (capability disclosed in Fig. 1, where the dashed lines indicate paths of light),
While Watanabe does not explicitly disclose that a portion of the second width extends over at least a portion of the sidewalls of the housing, in Figure 1, Watanabe does disclose that a portion of the second width extends over the frame regions 10F, 20F, where the second width is the width indicated by the dashed lines illustrating the path of light. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been aware that housing sidewalls of display devices typically are disposed in frame regions so as to maximize the size of the display area of a display device. Hence, the claim limitation is the obvious combination of prior art elements according to known methods that yields predictable results.
Re: claim 13, Watanabe discloses a housing having sidewalls (para. 63, Fig. 9); a display layer 12, 22 (Fig. 1) comprising an array of pixels (para. 64) that forms an active area 10A, 20A and comprising an inactive border region 10F, 20F that surrounds the active area (surrounding disclosed in Fig. 1), wherein the array of pixels has a first width and a first height (Fig. 1), and the array of pixels is configured to output an image (capability disclosed in at least Fig. 1); and a transparent optical member 14, 24 that forms an outermost surface of the electronic device 100 (Fig. 1), wherein the transparent optical member has an inner surface with convex portions 1412, 2412 and an opposing planar outer surface 1421, 2421, the convex portions overlap the sidewalls of the housing and the display layer (Figs. 1, 9), the convex portions of the transparent optical member redirect the image to have an apparent second width that is greater than the first width (capability disclosed in Figs. 1, 9 where the dashed lines represent the path of light), the convex portions redirect the image to have an apparent second height that is greater than the first height (capability disclosed in Figs. 1, 9 where the dashed lines represent the path of light)., and wherein the apparent second width extends at least partially over the sidewalls.
While Watanabe does not explicitly disclose that the apparent second width extends at least partially over at least a portion of the sidewalls, in Figure 1 Watanabe does disclose that a the apparent second width extends over the frame regions 10F, 20F, where the second width is the width indicated by the dashed lines illustrating the path of light. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been aware that housing sidewalls of display devices typically are disposed in frame regions so as to maximize the size of the display area of a display device. Hence, the claim limitation is the obvious combination of prior art elements according to known methods that yields predictable results.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANGELA MEDICH whose telephone number is (313)446-4819. The examiner can normally be reached M-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