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 .
Current Status
Pursuant to further consideration, the previously allowed subject matter is withdrawn and rejected herein. Examiner apologizes for the inconvenience. Thus, this Office action is non-final as required by MPEP 706.07(a).
Claim(s) 1, 10, 17 are amended, and claim 16 is canceled.
Claim(s) 1-15 & 17-19 are pending.
With this Office Action,
claim(s) 1-15 & 17-19 are rejected, and
the title is objected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Examiner is obligated to take the broadest reasonable interpretation not in conflict with the specification. It is noted that the feature upon which applicant relies (i.e., “wherein the display panel comprises a first display area and a second display area, and the first display area is configured to operate in a first mode while the second display area is configured to operate in a second mode”) has been given its broadest reasonable interpretation. MPEP 2111-2111.01. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
With respect to the limitation “wherein the display panel comprises a first display area and a second display area, and the first display area is configured to operate in a first mode while the second display area is configured to operate in a second mode,” (1) first and second display areas are not defined by the claim, so could be any part, two pixels, for example, (2) first and second modes are not defined by the claim, and not even required to be different modes at any given time. Similarly, the limitations of claims 7 and 14 are reasonably met by the Yang reference in combination with Liang and Iwasaki as set forth below. The specification and claims do not prohibit the following interpretations (set forth below in the rejection), and they are consistent with the understanding of an ordinarily skilled artisan.
Specification
The title of the invention is not sufficiently descriptive. “The title should be brief but technically accurate and descriptive and should contain fewer than 500 characters,” MPEP §606. Specifically, statements concerning the general type or nature of the entire system or its components that are common to many other similar elements or systems that are known in the art are not sufficiently descriptive to provide “informative value in indexing, classifying, searching, etc.,” MPEP §606.01. Examiner recommends directing the title to what Applicant believes is the point of novelty, including key structural features, since it is by the novelty that "indexing, classifying, searching, etc.” is generally accomplished. Nevertheless, it should be noted that, pursuant to MPEP §606.01, “[i]f a satisfactory title is not supplied by the applicant, the examiner may, at the time of allowance, change the title by examiner’s amendment.”
A new title is required that is more clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 9 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Liang (US Patent Publication 20120194563).
Regarding claim 1: Liang anticipates a display device (last sentence of [0062]), comprising: a display panel (figs. 7, 10B, 13A-13C) including a pixel (fig. 10B component 1011); a light modulator (light modulating cells 1033) on the display panel, the light modulator including a lens (the liquids comprising polar light modulating medium 1 and non-polar modulating medium 2) that overlaps the pixel (fig. 10B) and is configured to control a path of light supplied from the pixel; and a controller configured to supply a driving voltage to the light modulator (system controller 105, fig. 7), wherein a shape of the lens changes according to a change in value of the driving voltage (paragraph [0068] last sentence), wherein the display panel comprises a first display area and a second display area, and the first display area is configured to operate in a first mode while the second display area is configured to operate in a second mode (i.e., this limitation is seen as inherent, since Liang discloses (abtr) that the system produces 3D images, and as such pixels [e.g., first/second display areas] must be capable of at least different shades of black/grey/white [e.g., first/second modes], simultaneously for the human eye to discern an image of any kind).
Regarding claim 2: Liang anticipates the display device according to claim 1, as set forth above. Liang further anticipates wherein the lens comprises liquid (polar modulating medium 1 and non-polar modulating medium 2) and wherein the surface tension of the lens decreases as the value of the driving voltage increases (paragraph [0062]).
Regarding claim 3: Liang anticipates the display device according to claim 1, as set forth above. Liang further anticipates wherein the light modulator further comprises: an electrode pattern between the display panel and the lens (fig. 10B top electrodes 6U are patterned along the tops of 1033), the electrode pattern having a polarity that is different from a polarity of the lens [0028].
Regarding claim 9: Liang anticipates the display device according to claim 1, as set forth above. Liang further anticipates wherein the controller individually controls the value of the driving voltage supplied to each display area (different voltages are supplied to different display areas [0068]).
Regarding claim 17: Liang anticipates (figs 7, 10B, 13 and 20-21) a display device (last sentence of [0062]), comprising: a display panel (figs. 7, 10B, 13A-13C) including a plurality of pixels (fig. 10B component 1011); a light modulator (light modulating cells 1033) on the display panel, the light modulator including an insulating layer ( fig 21 hydrophobic layer 3A, which may be insulating Teflon [0058]) and a plurality of lenses on the insulating layer (the liquids comprising polar light modulating medium 1 and non-polar modulating medium 2) that overlaps the pixel (fig. 10B) and a controller configured to supply a driving voltage to the light modulator (system controller 105, fig. 7), wherein a shape of the lens changes according to a change in value of the driving voltage (paragraph [0068] last sentence), wherein a first contact angle is formed between the insulating layer and a part of a lens that is in contact with the insulating layer with respect to a reference that is perpendicular to the insulating layer responsive to the first driving voltage (paragraph [0070]), and a second contact angle that is different from the first contact angle is formed between the insulating layer and the part of the lens with respect to the reference responsive to the second driving voltage See fig 20, where when a voltage is applied the contact angle would inherently be different than the first), wherein the display panel comprises a first display area and a second display area, and the first display area is configured to operate in a first mode while the second display area is configured to operate in a second mode (i.e., this limitation is seen as inherent, since Liang discloses (abtr) that the system produces 3D images, and as such pixels [e.g., first/second display areas] must be capable of at least different shades of black/grey/white [e.g., first/second modes], simultaneously for the human eye to discern an image of any kind).
Regarding claim 18: Liang anticipates the display device according to claim 17, as set forth above. Liang further anticipates wherein the first driving voltage is greater than the second driving voltage (differing voltages applied, so it’s inherent that some voltages would be less than others [0072], and the first contact angle is less than the second contact angle (the first contact angle in fig 21 would be less than the contact angle if a voltage were applied to the lenses, paragraph [0072]).
Regarding claim 19: Liang anticipates the lens comprises liquid (polar modulating medium 1 and non-polar modulating medium 2) and wherein the surface tension of the lens decreases to generate the first shape and second shape of the lens responsive to the controller switching the voltage, as the value of the driving voltage increases or decreases (paragraph [0062]).
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.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang (US Patent Publication 20120194563) in view of Iwasaki (US Patent Publication 20190035364).
Regarding claim 4: Liang teaches the display device according to claim 3, as set forth above.
Liang does not teach wherein the light modulator further comprises a light blocking pattern on the display panel, the light blocking pattern including a first opening that overlaps the lens and the pixel; and an optical gap layer on the light blocking pattern, the optical gap layer between the lens and the light blocking pattern.
In a similar field of endeavor, Iwasaki teaches a modulator with a light blocking pattern on the display panel (fig. 10A light blocking layer 93), the light blocking pattern including a first opening that overlaps the lens and the pixel (apertures 91 overlap the pixels 11); and an optical gap layer on the light blocking pattern (spacers 92), the optical gap layer between the lens and the light blocking pattern (fig. 10A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the display device, according to Liang, to include a light blocking pattern, a first opening and an optical gap layer, as taught by Iwasaki, for the purposes of controlling the intensity of light passing through the display (Iwasaki [0129]).
Regarding claim 5: Liang and Iwasaki teach the display device according to claim 4, as set forth above. Liang further teaches a first insulating layer (fig. 21 hydrophobic layer 3A – which may be insulating Teflon [0058]) lens layer (polar light modulating medium 1) and a planarization layer that covers the lens (non-polar modulating medium 2), wherein the planarization layer includes non-polar oil having a refractive index that is less than a refractive index of the lens (Liang paragraph [0101]).
Liang does not teach an optical gap layer on the light blocking pattern.
Iwasaki further teaches an optical gap layer on the light blocking pattern (spacers 92), the optical gap layer between the lens and the light blocking pattern (fig. 10A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the display device, according to Liang, to include a first insulating layer on an optical gap layer pattern for the purposes of controlling the intensity of light passing through the display (Iwasaki [0129]).
Regarding claim 6: Liang and Iwasaki teach the display device according to claim 4, as set forth above. Liang further teaches wherein the electrode pattern includes a second gap opening the overlaps the first opening (the openings between the electrode pattern serve as the second gap).
Liang does not teach wherein the second gap opening overlaps a first gap.
Iwasaki further teaches the first gap (apertures 91) with a light blocking pattern (layer 93).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the first gap (apertures 91 from Iwasaki) and the second gap (as taught by Liang) to overlap the light blocking pattern with the width of the second opening being greater than the width of the first opening for the purposes of adjusting the intensity of light to achieve a desired optical effect (Iwasaki [0129]).
Claims 8, 10, 11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang (US Patent Publication 20120194563) in view of Yang (US Patent publication 20140063386).
Regarding claim 8: Liang teaches the display device according to claim 1, as set forth above. Liang does not disclose wherein the display panel displays an image at a first viewing angle responsive to the driving voltage having a first value , and displays an image at a second viewing angle that is narrower than the first viewing angle responsive to the driving voltage having a second value that is less than the first value.
In a similar field of endeavor, Yang teaches a display device wherein the display panel displays an image at a first viewing angle responsive to the driving voltage having a first value (fig. 1A corresponds to the wide view angle [0025]), and displays an image at a second viewing angle that is narrower than the first viewing angle responsive to the driving voltage having a second value that is less than the first value (fig. 3 corresponds to the narrow view angle [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the display device according to Liang, to have viewing angles corresponding to two different voltages, as taught by Yang, for the purposes of having better light adjustment and saving pixels (Yang [0026]).
Regarding claim 10: Liang anticipates a display device (last sentence of [0062]), comprising: a display panel (figs. 7, 10B, 13A-13C) including a plurality of pixels (fig. 10B component 1011); a light modulator (light modulating cells 1033) on the display panel, the light modulator including a plurality of lenses (the liquids comprising polar light modulating medium 1 and non-polar modulating medium 2) that overlaps the plurality of pixels (fig. 10B) and is configured to control a path of light supplied from the pixel; wherein the display panel comprises a first display area and a second display area, and the first display area is configured to operate in a first mode while the second display area is configured to operate in a second mode (i.e., this limitation is seen as inherent, since Liang discloses (abtr) that the system produces 3D images, and as such pixels [e.g., first/second display areas] must be capable of at least different shades of black/grey/white [e.g., first/second modes], simultaneously for the human eye to discern an image of any kind).
Liang does not disclose wherein the display panel displays can switch between two viewing modes an image at a first viewing angle responsive to the driving voltage having a first value , and displays an image at a second viewing angle that is narrower than the first viewing angle responsive to the driving voltage having a second value that is less than the first value.
In a similar field of endeavor, Yang teaches a display device wherein the display panel displays an image at a first viewing angle responsive to the driving voltage having a first value (fig. 1A corresponds to the wide view angle [0025]), and displays an image at a second viewing angle that is narrower than the first viewing angle responsive to the driving voltage having a second value that is less than the first value (fig. 3 corresponds to the narrow view angle [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the display device according to Liang, to have viewing angles corresponding to two different voltages and lenses shapes, as taught by Yang, for the purposes of having better light adjustment and saving pixels (Yang [0026]).
Regarding claim 11: Liang and Yang teach the display device according to claim 10, as set forth above. Liang further teaches a controller configured to supply a driving voltage to the light modulator (system controller 105, fig. 7), wherein a shape of the lens changes according to a change in value of the driving voltage (paragraph [0068] last sentence).
Liang does not disclose wherein the display panel displays can switch between two viewing modes an image at a first viewing angle responsive to the driving voltage having a first value, and displays an image at a second viewing angle that is narrower than the first viewing angle responsive to the driving voltage having a second value that is less than the first value.
In a similar field of endeavor, Yang teaches a display device wherein the display panel displays an image at a first viewing angle responsive to the driving voltage having a first value (fig. 1A corresponds to the wide view angle [0025]), and displays an image at a second viewing angle that is narrower than the first viewing angle responsive to the driving voltage having a second value that is less than the first value (fig. 3 corresponds to the narrow view angle [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the display device according to Liang, to have viewing angles corresponding to two different voltages and lenses shapes, as taught by Yang, for the purposes of having better light adjustment and saving pixels (Yang [0026]).
Regarding claim 15: Liang and Yang teach the display device according to claim 11, as set forth above. Liang further teaches wherein the lens comprises liquid (polar modulating medium 1 and non-polar modulating medium 2) and wherein the surface tension of the lens decreases to generate the first shape and second shape of the lens responsive to the controller switching the voltage, as the value of the driving voltage increases or decreases (paragraph [0062]).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang (US Patent Publication 20120194563) in view of Yang (US Patent publication 20140063386) and further in view of Iwasaki (US Patent Publication 20190035364).
Regarding claim 12: Liang and Yang teach the display device according to claim 11, as set forth above. Liang teaches an electrode pattern on an optical gap layer (the electrodes 6u are patterned to be along the liquid lenses. Yang further teaches a first electrode layer on the plurality of lenses (fig. 1A – conducting layer 40).Neither Liang or Yang teach wherein the light modulator further comprises a light blocking pattern on the display panel, the light blocking pattern including a plurality of first openings that overlaps the lenses and the pixels; and an optical gap layer on the light blocking pattern, the optical gap layer between the lens and the light blocking pattern.
In a similar field of endeavor, Iwasaki teaches a modulator with a light blocking pattern on the display panel (fig. 10A light blocking layer 93), the light blocking pattern including a first opening that overlaps the lens and the pixel (apertures 91 overlap the pixels 11); and an optical gap layer on the light blocking pattern (spacers 92), the optical gap layer between the lens and the light blocking pattern (fig. 10A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the display device, according to Liang and Yang, to include a light blocking pattern, a first opening and an optical gap layer, as taught by Iwasaki, for the purposes of controlling the intensity of light passing through the display (Iwasaki [0129]).
Regarding claim 13: Liang, Yang and Iwasaki teach the display device according to claim 12, as set forth above. Liang further teaches wherein the controller individually controls the value of the driving voltage supplied to each display area (different voltages are supplied to different display areas [0068]), including the electrode pattern and first electrode layer (6U).
Regarding claims 7 and 14: [claim 7] the Liang-Iwasaki combination does not explicitly disclose the light modulator further comprises: a second insulating layer on the lens layer; a first electrode layer on the second insulating layer; and a second electrode layer between the first insulating layer and the electrode pattern, wherein the driving voltage is applied to the first electrode layer and the electrode pattern. [claim 14] a second electrode layer between the electrode pattern and the plurality of lenses, wherein the controller is configured to apply the first driving voltage or the second driving voltage to the first electrode layer and the second electrode layer.
Liang-Iwasaki and Yang are related as display systems. (see Yang’s Fig. 1A below)
Yang teaches second insulating layer (20 – insulating layer) on (i.e., overlaid in the layer structure) the lens layer (33 – liquid crystal); a first electrode layer (10 – first conductive layer; also known as electrode, see para. 23) on the second insulating layer (20 – insulating layer); and a second electrode layer (40 – second conductive layer) between (see Fig. 1 reproduced below) the first insulating layer (103 – second substrate) and the electrode pattern (i.e., the arrangement conductive layers 10, 40, 60 all constitute a pattern; the claim does not require details of the pattern), wherein the driving voltage is applied to the first electrode layer and the electrode pattern (Fig. 2 – V1, V2; para. 25). [claim 14] a second electrode layer (40 – second conductive layer) between (see Fig. 1 reproduced below) the electrode pattern (i.e., the arrangement conductive layers 10, 40, 60 all constitute a pattern; the claim does not require details of the pattern) and the plurality of lenses (33 – liquid crystal), wherein the controller is configured to apply the first driving voltage or the second driving voltage to the first electrode layer and the second electrode layer (Fig. 2 – V1, V2; para. 25).
PNG
media_image1.png
430
1003
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Benefits of this arrangement include making the combined display “peep-proof” (abstr).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the display of Liang-Iwasaki as in Yang so as to make it “peep-proof” (abst) for security and privacy purposes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER D. CARRUTH whose telephone number is (571)272-9791, who can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00 AM - 4:00 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 Supervisory Examiner Carruth by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Director Allana L Bidder, can be reached on 571-272-5560. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JENNIFER D. CARRUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights