DETAILED ACTION
*Note in the following document:
1. Texts in italic bold format are limitations quoted either directly or conceptually from claims/descriptions disclosed in the instant application.
2. Texts in regular italic format are quoted directly from cited reference or Applicant’s arguments.
3. Texts with underlining are added by the Examiner for emphasis.
4. Texts with
5. Acronym “PHOSITA” stands for “Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art”.
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 .
Status of Claims
This is in response to applicant’s amendment/response file on 23 April 2026, which has been entered and made of record. Claim 1 has/have been amended. Claims 6-7 have been cancelled. Claims 14-20 have been added or cancelled. Claims 1-5 and 8-20 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, with respect to 35 U.S.C. §112(f) Claim Interpretation, see p.6, filed on 23 April 2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous 35 U.S.C. §112(f) Claim interpretation is withdrawn after Claim 1 being amended.
Applicant’s arguments, see p.6, filed on 23 April 2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection to Claim 1 and its dependent claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim 1 and limitation of a visibility setting unit comprising a processor configured to execute instructions stored in a memory, the visibility setting unit automatically setting a visibility of the mask unit in response to the visual content of the image, wherein when the visual content includes a target of privacy protection or a target of confidentiality, the visibility setting unit automatically reduces the visibility via the mask unit and reference of Desai et al. (US 2021/0073357 A1), Applicant argues Critically, Desai's system "can modify the CGR recording to filter or obscure the restricted components and provide the CGR recording for playback on a given host application." Id. Desai thus teaches modifying digital CGR recordings by filtering or obfuscating protected content within the recording itself. Desai does not teach or suggest controlling a physical mask unit that overlaps a transparent display. The fundamental difference is that Desai's system modifies the recording content digitally, which is entirely distinct from automatically controlling a separate physical masking layer in response to visual content, as recited in claim 1 (p.7 second paragraph). Applicant further argues The Examiner has not adequately explained how Desai's software-based content modification approach would translate to controlling Dubey's physical LCD masking display. Dubey's masking display responds to external light conditions or manual user selection-not to analysis of the visual content being displayed. Neither reference teaches or suggests automatically controlling a physical mask unit based on whether the visual content includes a target of privacy protection or confidentiality. Accordingly, the proposed combination fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness for claim (p.7 last paragraph). The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As explained in previous office action, Dubey discloses a transparent, vehicle window display. The display includes a mask unit that is disposed to overlap the transparent display and is able to change a visibility of a display region in response to the visual content of image. The difference between Dubey and instant claim is that Dubey does not disclose setting the masking automatically.
However this limitation is disclosed by Desai. Desai discloses technology of analyzing a recording of content with a field of view of a device, the analyzing including recognition of a set of objects included in the content and generating a modified version of the recording that obfuscates or filters the subset of the set of objects (Abstract). Desai discloses Implementations of the subject technology described herein provide a CGR system that provides restriction of content in a given CGR recording based at least in part on determining objects that correspond to protected content and/or user profile information including information indicating privacy preferences. In this manner, the subject system enables segmenting out particular components of a scene in the CGR recording that are restricted. Such components include physical objects and/or virtual objects that correspond to restricted components in the scene. The subject system can modify the CGR recording to filter or obscure the restricted components and provide the CGR recording for playback on a given host application ([0024]). According to Oxford Dictionary and Thesaurus American Edition 1996, a filter can be interpreted as 3. A screen or attachment for absorbing or modifying light, X rays, etc. (p.543) and therefore contrary to Applicant’s arguments, Desai discloses a visibility setting unit comprising a processor configured to execute instructions stored in a memory, the visibility setting unit automatically ([0045]: the secure recording analyzer 260 analyzes recordings to identify protected items for determining restrictions in CGR content. A skilled person would have recognized that the adjustment is without user’s input but based on the device’s analyzing result) setting a visibility of the mask unit in response to the visual content of the image, wherein when the visual content includes a target of privacy protection or a target of confidentiality ([0024]: determining objects that correspond to protected content and/or user profile information including information indicating privacy preferences), the visibility setting unit automatically reduces the visibility via the mask (see filter’s definition cited above) unit.
Desai’s device can be vehicle windshields having integrated display capability, windows having integrated display capability ([0023]), Therefore it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of Desai into that of Dubey since both Dubey and Desai are concerning providing transparent window display with privacy protection functions and by incorporating Desai’s technology, it is possible to provide privacy protection without human’s input.
Based on above reasoning, the Examiner maintains her 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection to Claim 1.
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 of this title, 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-3, 9-10, 13-16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(a) as being anticipated by Dubey et al. (US 2018/0188531 A1) in view of Desai et al. (US 2021/0073357 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Dubey discloses a vehicle display apparatus ([0027]: the present specification discloses a vehicle with the aforementioned transparent display) comprising:
a transparent display that is installed on a window of a vehicle ([0027]: In one embodiment, the transparent display is attached to a window of the vehicle and a power input of the display controller is connected to a power supply of the vehicle) and displays an image comprising visual content ([0054]: A selection of a privacy mode in which the displayed contents on the primary side cannot be seen on the secondary side. Dubey does not explicitly use the phrase visual content. However it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the display content is a visual content since the content is to be displayed on the transparent display);
a mask unit that is disposed to overlap the transparent display and is capable of changing a visibility of a display region of the image as viewed from outside the vehicle ([0002]: The current disclosure relates to a transparent display with a self-emissive display and a controllable masking display, wherein the displays are arranged back-to-back); and
a visibility setting unit comprising a processor configured to execute instructions stored in a memory ([0038]: the present specification discloses a computer program product with a computer readable memory that comprises computer executable or computer readable instructions for executing the aforementioned method), the visibility setting unit automatically setting a visibility of the mask unit in response to the visual content of the image ([0054]: A selection of a privacy mode in which the displayed contents on the primary side cannot be seen on the secondary side. This is achieved by controlling the masking display accordingly. In particular, an absorption of the masking display may be adjusted such that the contents of the self-emissive display are no longer visible from the outside).
Dubey further discloses wherein the visibility setting unit reduces the visibility of the mask unit when the visual content are a target of privacy protection ([0063]: In the first mode, which is also referred to as “privacy mode” light from the OLED display is blocked out such that the displayed information is no longer visible from the secondary side).
But Dubey fails to explicitly recite the visibility setting unit automatically setting a visibility of the mask unit in response to the visual content of the image, wherein when the visual content includes a target of privacy protection or a target of confidentiality, the visibility setting unit automatically reduces the visibility via the mask unit.
However this limitation is disclosed by Desai. Desai discloses technology of analyzing a recording of content with a field of view of a device, the analyzing including recognition of a set of objects included in the content and generating a modified version of the recording that obfuscates or filters the subset of the set of objects (Abstract). Desai discloses Implementations of the subject technology described herein provide a CGR system that provides restriction of content in a given CGR recording based at least in part on determining objects that correspond to protected content and/or user profile information including information indicating privacy preferences. In this manner, the subject system enables segmenting out particular components of a scene in the CGR recording that are restricted. Such components include physical objects and/or virtual objects that correspond to restricted components in the scene. The subject system can modify the CGR recording to filter or obscure the restricted components and provide the CGR recording for playback on a given host application ([0024]). According to Oxford Dictionary and Thesaurus American Edition 1996, a filter can be interpreted as 3. A screen or attachment for absorbing or modifying light, X rays, etc. (p.543) and therefore contrary to Applicant’s arguments, Desai discloses a visibility setting unit comprising a processor configured to execute instructions stored in a memory, the visibility setting unit automatically ([0045]: the secure recording analyzer 260 analyzes recordings to identify protected items for determining restrictions in CGR content. A skilled person would have recognized that the adjustment is without user’s input but based on the device’s analyzing result) setting a visibility of the mask unit in response to the visual content of the image, wherein when the visual content includes a target of privacy protection or a target of confidentiality ([0024]: determining objects that correspond to protected content and/or user profile information including information indicating privacy preferences), the visibility setting unit automatically reduces the visibility via the mask (see filter’s definition cited above) unit.
Desai’s device can be vehicle windshields having integrated display capability, windows having integrated display capability ([0023]), Therefore it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of Desai into that of Dubey since both Dubey and Desai are concerning providing transparent window display with privacy protection functions and by incorporating Desai’s technology, it is possible to provide privacy protection without human’s input.
Based on above reasoning, the Examiner maintains her 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection to Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 2, Dubey discloses wherein the visibility setting unit changes the visibility by varying transparency of the mask unit ([0081]-[0083]: 1. A transparent display for a vehicle, the transparent display comprising: … a masking display, the masking display comprising an electronically adjustable absorption, and the masking display being arranged back-to-back with the self-emissive display).
Regarding Claim 3, Dubey discloses wherein the visibility setting unit reduces visibility by switching from a transparent screen to an opaque screen ([0009]: In particular, an electronically controllable absorption can refer to the switching between a transparent state and an opaque state. In other embodiments the absorption can be dimmed or assume states in between the opaque and the transparent state).
Regarding Claim 9, Dubey discloses wherein the visibility setting unit does not reduce the visibility of the mask unit when the visual content indicate information that complements a background that is visible to an occupant of a host vehicle through the transparent display, the information to be displayed assuming a state in which the background is visible ([0030]: For example, the data input may be connected to a cable to an electronic instrument cluster such that alert symbols and other information, which is displayed on the instrument cluster, can also be displayed on a car's windscreen. Thereby, a driver does not have to turn his attention away from observing the road in front of the car. The driver can still see the front road).
Regarding Claim 10, Dubey discloses wherein the visibility setting unit reduces the visibility of the mask unit when the visual content does not indicate information to be displayed assuming a state in which a background is visible to an occupant of a host vehicle through the transparent display ([0074]-[0075]: Depending on the ambient light conditions, the absorption of the masking display and the intensity of the OLED display is varied. For example, during fall season an evening sun glare may affect the vision negatively. In this case, the absorption of the LCD display is increased to filter out the sun radiation. In another case, an incident radiation of an oncoming car may dazzle the driver, especially when the oncoming car did not switch out the high beam. The LCD display can be controlled to filter out the head light of the oncoming car).
Regarding Claim 13, Dubey teaches the transparent display includes a selection of a privacy mode ([0054]). Therefore it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of Dubey and to include the limitation of whether or not a visibility reduction needs to be performed by the mask unit is set for each application that displays the visual content, and the visibility setting unit sets the visibility reduction for the mask unit when setting indicating that the visibility reduction needs to be performed is provided for an application that displays the image of the visual content since it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have recognized that privacy mode could have been set by an application.
Regarding Claim 14, Desai discloses generating a modified version of white board CGR recording since some virtual contents on the whiteboard are protected contents and a user who has requested to view the recording does not have sufficient access privileges ([0055]-[0056]: In an example, a scene shows a meeting taking place in a conference room that is included in a computer-generated reality (CGR) recording. In the scene, a person is giving a presentation in a region corresponding to a whiteboard in the conference room. … In this example, a secure recording analyzer (e.g., the secure recording analyzer 260 or 265, or the secure cloud recording analyzer 280) analyzes the scene and determines that the virtual content on the whiteboard is protected content and that a user who has requested to view the CGR recording does not have sufficient access privileges, based on the user's current access level, to view the content on the whiteboard. The secure recording analyzer can provide information related to the analysis in the form of metadata to the recording framework 230 or an editing tool for further processing. Using the provided information, the recording framework 230 or the editing tool can generate a modified version of the CGR recording). Therefore it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of Desai and to include the limitation of wherein the visibility setting unit automatically determines whether the visual content includes the target of privacy protection or the target of confidentiality based on an application (whiteboard presentation as disclosed by Desai) that is executed to display the visual content. The same reason to combine as that of Claim 1 is applied.
Regarding Claim 15, Desai further teaches or suggests wherein the application comprises at least one of an e-mail transmitting/receiving application or a presentation material display application (see [0055]-[0056] cited above. White board presentation is a material display application. In addition, it would have been obvious for a PHOSITA to including an email application since it is a common sense that email addresses of senders/receivers belong to private personal information to non-relevant parties).
Regarding Claim 16, Dubey teaches or suggests wherein the visibility setting unit automatically reduces the visibility via the mask unit in response to the visual content including the target of privacy protection or the target of confidentiality, without requiring detection of an object external to the vehicle ([0012]: Furthermore, the transparent display comprises a display controller connected to the self-emissive display, to the masking display, and to the light sensor or, respectively, to the light sensors. The display controller is operative to adapt an absorption of display pixels of the masking display and/or an intensity of display pixels of the self-emissive display in response to a signal of the light sensor by sending respective control signals to the masking display and/or to the self-emissive display. [0013]: The adjustment of the pixel absorption may furthermore depend on the control signal to the self-emissive display. For example if the self-emissive display is brightly illuminated, the controller may reduce the absorption of the masking display).
Regarding Claim 18, Dubey teaches or suggests wherein the mask unit comprises a plurality of pixels, and switching between a transparent state and an opaque state is performed for each pixel ([0031]: The controller is operative to generate a first control signal for selectively controlling the intensity of display pixels of the self-emissive display and to generate a second control signal for selectively controlling the absorption of display pixels of the masking display, wherein the absorption depends on the signal of the light sensor).
Regarding Claim 19, Dubey teaches or suggests , wherein when the mask unit reduces the visibility, information is displayed to outside of the vehicle using a region where the visibility is reduced ([0054]: A selection of a privacy mode in which the displayed contents on the primary side cannot be seen on the secondary side. This is achieved by controlling the masking display accordingly. In particular, an absorption of the masking display may be adjusted such that the contents of the self-emissive display are no longer visible from the outside).
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dubey et al. (US 2018/0188531 A1) in view of Desai et al. (US 2021/0073357 A1) as applied to Claim 3 above, and in view of Iwakawa et al. (US 2016/0104437 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Dubey discloses a transparent display switches between transparent and opaque states ([0009]: In particular, an electronically controllable absorption can refer to the switching between a transparent state and an opaque state. In other embodiments the absorption can be dimmed or assume states in between the opaque and the transparent state).
But Dubey modified by Desai does not explicitly recite wherein the opaque screen is a screen of a predetermined color.
However Iwakawa, in the same field of endeavor (Abstract: A window display device includes a display screen provided in a transparent rear window glass pane of a vehicle, an operating device adapted to detect an action for operating the display screen, and a control device, which displays a shade on the display screen. The shade is movable to selectively open and close the display screen based on an action performed on the operating device), discloses wherein the opaque screen is a screen of a predetermined color ([0034]: The entirety of the screen 61 can be changed among a transparent state, an opaque black state, and a translucent grey state).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of Iwakawa into that of Dubey as modified and to include the limitation of wherein the opaque screen is a screen of a predetermined color in order to allow allows a shade to be freely drawn out onto and retracted from a display screen provided on a vehicle window as suggested by Iwakawa ([0002]).
Regarding Claim 5, Iwakawa further discloses wherein the predetermined color is black ([0034]: The entirety of the screen 61 can be changed among a transparent state, an opaque black state, and a translucent grey state). The same reason to combine as that of Claim 4 is applied.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dubey et al. (US 2018/0188531 A1) in view of Desai et al. (US 2021/0073357 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Yang et al. (US 2024/0036372 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Dubey discloses A selection of a privacy mode in which the displayed contents on the primary side cannot be seen on the secondary side ([0054]).
Furthermore, Yang further discloses a vehicle smart window 405 that includes a dual-sided transparent LC display ([0052]). Yang discloses the vehicle smart window 405 prompting a user (e.g., a car-sharing customer), via a displayed outside image 410, to enter a rider code to gain entry to the vehicle (not shown). And at the same time the vehicle smart window 405 displays a completely different image 415 to one or more occupants inside the vehicle as illustrated in FIG. 7B ([0052]).
PNG
media_image1.png
727
484
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of Yang into that of Dubey and to include the limitation of wherein the visibility setting unit reduces the visibility of the mask unit when the visual content is a target of external viewing (Notice in Fig.7A/B users inside cannot see external image the rider is able to see) in order to allow the insider user to know the status of outside rider.
Regarding Claim 17, Dubey discloses The masking display is arranged back-to-back with the self-emissive display, such that an active surface of the masking display, which has an electronically controllable absorption, covers an active surface or display surface of the self-emitting display, and which has an electronically controllable brightness ([0008]).
Furthermore, Yang discloses a vehicle smart window 405 that includes a dual-sided transparent LC display ([0052]). Yang further discloses In one form of the present disclosure, a dual side view display includes a waveguide with an inside transparent layer and an outside transparent layer spaced apart from and parallel to the inside transparent layer, and a plurality of inside view liquid crystal (LC) pixels and a plurality of outside view LC pixels disposed within the waveguide. The plurality of outside view LC pixels are parallel to and in-plane with the plurality of inside view LC pixels. The plurality of inside view LC pixels include a plurality of outside blocking layers configured to block light scattered in the plurality of inside view LC pixels from propagating through the outside transparent layer and the plurality of outside view LC pixels include a plurality of inside blocking layers configured to block light scattered in the plurality of outside view LC pixels from propagating through the inside transparent layer ([0005]). Yang further discloses an outside view blocking layer 126 which is the mask unit is between a transparent layer 114 and liquid crystal unit 111 as shown in Fig.4A/B/C. The transparent layer 114 is the equivalent of the window of the vehicle and the liquid crystal unit 111 is equivalent of the transparent display. Therefore it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of Yang into that of Dubey and to include the limitation of wherein the mask unit is disposed between the window of the vehicle and the transparent display in order to block outside viewer to view the window display seen by the inside rider.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dubey et al. (US 2018/0188531 A1) in view of Desai et al. (US 2021/0073357 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoo et al. (US 2014/0139559A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Desai further teaches or suggests the mask unit is capable of changing a visibility of only a subpart of a display region of the transparent display, and the visibility setting unit reduces the visibility of the mask unit only for the subpart of the display region when the content to be displayed with a visibility reduction corresponds to the subpart of the display region ([0024]: Implementations of the subject technology described herein provide a CGR system that provides restriction of content in a given CGR recording based at least in part on determining objects that correspond to protected content and/or user profile information including information indicating privacy preferences. In this manner, the subject system enables segmenting out particular components of a scene in the CGR recording that are restricted. Such components include physical objects and/or virtual objects that correspond to restricted components in the scene. The subject system can modify the CGR recording to filter or obscure the restricted components and provide the CGR recording for playback on a given host application. [0045]: In an implementation, the secure recording analyzer 260 analyzes recordings to identify protected items for determining restrictions in CGR content. Such protected items can be pre-tagged as being protected, or based on whether a user viewing a CGR recording has sufficient access privileges to a given item (e.g., paid content, age-restricted content, violent content, etc.), or whether persons detected in a CGR recording have a privacy flag enabled. The secure recording analyzer 260 may return information based on the analysis to the recording framework 230 (or alternatively a given editing tool) to facilitate generating a modified CGR recording. In an example, using this information, the recording framework 230 determines which virtual items to not include in a scene and/or physical objects to be obfuscated and/or not included in the scene in order to generate the modified CGR recording…).
In addition, Yoo discloses the mask unit is capable of changing a visibility of a part of a display region of the transparent display, and the visibility setting unit reduces the visibility of the mask unit for the part of the display region when the content to be displayed with a visibility reduction corresponds to the part of the display region ([0049]: FIG. 6 shows a process of adjusting transmittance in response to a particular user function. If a security-related function such as a password input function is activated, the device 100 may block the exposure of information toward the rear of the transparent display unit 140 as shown at stages 601 and 603 by adjusting the transmittance of the transmittance adjustable panel 180 to an opaque state. Shown at stage 601 is the front of the device 100, and shown at stage 603 is the rear of the device 100. As shown at stage 603, the transmittance adjustable panel 180 may have a dim state, i.e., a less opaque state, such that information displayed on the transparent display unit 140 can be partially seen from the rear. Such adjustment of transmittance may depend on a default or user setting).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of Yoo into that of Dubey as modified and to include above in order to block the exposure of information as suggested by Yoo.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dubey et al. (US 2018/0188531 A1) in view of Desai et al. (US 2021/0073357 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Butts et al. (US 2015/0220991A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Dubey does not disclose wherein the visual content is associated with metadata indicating whether or not a visibility reduction needs to be performed by the mask unit, and the visibility setting unit sets the visibility of the mask unit based on the metadata.
However Butts, in the same field of endeavor, discloses the visual content is associated with metadata indicating whether or not a visibility reduction needs to be performed by the mask unit, and the visibility setting unit sets the visibility of the mask unit based on the metadata ([0013]: For example, for a target user driving vehicle 1, embodiments disclosed herein may determine that vehicle 2 is in front of vehicle 1. Vehicle 2 may be identified by any feasible method, …. Once vehicle 2 is identified as a "display vehicle," embodiments disclosed herein may determine the advertising context based one or more of the locations of the vehicles, a profile of the driver of vehicle 1, the driver's preferences, and other metadata of the driver. For example, the vehicles may be at a stop sign outside of a sporting complex, and the driver of vehicle 1 may have profile metadata indicating he enjoys soccer. Therefore, embodiments disclosed herein may display a soccer advertisement on the rear windshield of vehicle 2). Therefore it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of Butts into that of Dubey and to include the limitation of wherein the visual content is associated with metadata indicating whether or not a visibility reduction needs to be performed by the mask unit, and the visibility setting unit sets the visibility of the mask unit based on the metadata in order to decide whether to activate the transparent display to display related advertisement.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is 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:
Prior art, either individually or in combination, fails to disclose or render obviousness the limitation of wherein the visibility setting unit reduces the visibility of the mask unit when the visual content comprises a moving image that needs to be visually observed as claimed in dependent claim 20. The closest prior art, , wherein the visibility setting unit reduces the visibility of the mask unit when the visual content comprises a moving image that needs to be visually observed, discloses adjusting the visibility of the mask unit based on display content. However, it fails to disclose reducing visibility of the mask unit when the visual content comprises a moving image.
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 YINGCHUN HE whose telephone number is (571)270-7218. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 MT.
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, Xiao M Wu can be reached at 571-272-7761. 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.
/YINGCHUN HE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2613
Prosecution Insights