DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed on October 30, 2023. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 30, 2023 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
"a display module comprising a display area" in independent claim 1, dependent claim 3, dependent claim 7, independent claim 12, dependent claim 13, dependent claim 16, dependent claim 20
"an optical sensing module disposed under the display module" in independent claim 1, dependent claim 2, dependent claim 6, dependent claim 8, dependent claim 12, dependent claim 16
"a control module comprising a blur-measuring unit" in independent claim 1, dependent claim 9, dependent claim 10
"blur-measuring unit calculates the blur information" in dependent claim 5, dependent claim 9, dependent claim 10
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo et al, US 20190087630 in view of Chan et al, US 20220075984.
Regarding claim 1, Seo teaches
An electronic device comprising (see Seo, Paragraph [0033], “a display device 100”): a display module comprising a display area, through which an image is displayed (see Seo, Paragraph [0033], “a display device 100 includes a display panel 140. The display panel 140 may include a display element configured to display an image”),
and a peripheral area defined adjacent to the display area (see Seo, Paragraph [0035], “The non-display area NA is adjacent to the display area AA”);
an optical sensing module disposed under the display module, wherein the optical sensing module receives an optical signal via the display module (see Seo, Abstract, “A fingerprint sensor is under the display panel and is configured to sense a fingerprint,” and Paragraph [0008], “an ultrasonic fingerprint sensor under the electroluminescence display panel,” an ultrasonic fingerprint sensor is considered to be an optical sensing module);
a protective film disposed on the display module (see Seo, Paragraph [0055], “The cover glass 180 may be disposed above the fourth adhesive layer 170. The cover glass 180 is a component which is located at an upper portion of the display device 100 to protect the display device 100. The cover glass 180 may be formed of a tempered glass,” the cover glass 180 is considered to be a protective film);
Seo does not expressively teach
and a control module comprising a blur-measuring unit which compares a first image obtained using the optical sensing module before the protective film is attached to the display module with a second image obtained using the optical sensing module after the protective film is attached to the display module to calculate blur information included in the second image.
However, Chan in a similar field of endeavor teaches
and a control module (see Chan, Paragraph [0005], “The processor is coupled to the fingerprint sensor and configured to execute a fingerprint comparison operation to compare the first fingerprint image and a first registered image,” the processor is considered to be a control module and the fingerprint sensor 120 is considered to be an optical sensing module) comprising a blur-measuring unit which compares a first image obtained using the optical sensing module before the protective film is attached to the display module (see Chan, Fig. 3A, Paragraph [0022], “In the case where the display panel 140 does not include a protective film at first, when the user performs fingerprint registration, a finger 300 of the user approaches, touches, or presses against a fingerprint sensing area of the display panel 140 for the fingerprint sensor 120 to sense (or capture) the fingerprint of the finger 300 to obtain the first registered image,” the first registered image is considered to be a first image obtained before the protective film is attached) with a second image obtained using the optical sensing module after the protective film is attached to the display module to calculate blur information included in the second image (see Chan, Fig. 2, S220 executing a fingerprint comparison operation through the processor to compare the first fingerprint image with the first registered image, 3B, Paragraph [0023], “Next, with reference to FIG. 1, FIG. 3B, FIG. 4A, and FIG. 4B, in the case where the user has attached a protective film 150 on the display panel 140, when the user performs fingerprint verification, the finger 300 of the user approaches, touches, or presses against the fingerprint sensing area of the display panel 140 again for the fingerprint sensor 120 to sense (or capture) the fingerprint of the finger 300 to obtain a first fingerprint image 410 as shown in FIG. 4A … the processor 110 may lower the image resolution of the first fingerprint image 410 to generate a second fingerprint image 420 as shown in FIG. 4B. Lowering the image resolution thickens the pattern of the fingerprint features or changes the location of the fingerprint feature point” the first fingerprint image is considered to be a second image obtained after the protective film is attached to the display module, the resolution adjustment is considered to be calculate blur information).
The combination of Seo and Chan are analogous art because they are both in the same field of endeavor of fingerprint devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a processor, obtain a registered image before a protective film is attached, capture a first fingerprint image after the protective film is attached, and adjust the resolution based on the comparison in the electronic device of Chan in the display device of Seo to increase the success rate of fingerprint comparison (see Chan Paragraph [0007]).
Regarding claim 12, Seo teaches a method of measuring blur information of an electronic device, the method comprising:
placing a display module comprising a display area through which an image is displayed (see Seo, Paragraph [0033], “a display device 100 includes a display panel 140. The display panel 140 may include a display element configured to display an image”),
and a peripheral area defined adjacent to the display area (see Seo, Paragraph [0035], “The non-display area NA is adjacent to the display area AA”);
a protective film disposed on the display module (see Seo, Paragraph [0055], “The cover glass 180 may be disposed above the fourth adhesive layer 170. The cover glass 180 is a component which is located at an upper portion of the display device 100 to protect the display device 100. The cover glass 180 may be formed of a tempered glass,” the cover glass 180 is considered to be a protective film);
Seo does not expressively teach
obtaining a first image with respect to a measurement area of the display module using an optical sensing module disposed under the display module;
obtaining a second image with respect to the measurement area using the optical sensing module in a state where the protective film is attached to the display module;
and a control module comprising a blur-measuring unit which compares a first image obtained using the optical sensing module before the protective film is attached to the display module with a second image obtained using the optical sensing module after the protective film is attached to the display module to calculate blur information included in the second image.
However, Chan in a similar field of endeavor teaches
obtaining a first image with respect to a measurement area of the display module using an optical sensing module disposed under the display module (see Chan, Paragraph [0019], “With reference to FIG. 1 and FIG. 2, in the embodiment, the storage unit 130 may be stored with a first registered image in advance,” a first registered image is considered to be a first image, the first registered image contains a fingerprint which is measured through the fingerprint sensor 120 which a measurement area of the display);
obtaining a second image with respect to the measurement area using the optical sensing module in a state where the protective film is attached to the display module (see Chan, Paragraph [0023], “Next, with reference to FIG. 1, FIG. 3B, FIG. 4A, and FIG. 4B, in the case where the user has attached a protective film 150 on the display panel 140, when the user performs fingerprint verification, the finger 300 of the user approaches, touches, or presses against the fingerprint sensing area of the display panel 140 again for the fingerprint sensor 120 to sense (or capture) the fingerprint of the finger 300 to obtain a first fingerprint image 410 as shown in FIG. 4A,” a first fingerprint image is considered to be a second image);
and comparing the second image with the first image to calculate the blur information included in the second (see Chan, Fig. 3A, Paragraph [0022], “In the case where the display panel 140 does not include a protective film at first, when the user performs fingerprint registration, a finger 300 of the user approaches, touches, or presses against a fingerprint sensing area of the display panel 140 for the fingerprint sensor 120 to sense (or capture) the fingerprint of the finger 300 to obtain the first registered image,” the first registered image is considered to be a first image obtained before the protective film is attached and Chan, Fig. 2, S220 executing a fingerprint comparison operation through the processor to compare the first fingerprint image with the first registered image, 3B, Paragraph [0023], “Next, with reference to FIG. 1, FIG. 3B, FIG. 4A, and FIG. 4B, in the case where the user has attached a protective film 150 on the display panel 140, when the user performs fingerprint verification, the finger 300 of the user approaches, touches, or presses against the fingerprint sensing area of the display panel 140 again for the fingerprint sensor 120 to sense (or capture) the fingerprint of the finger 300 to obtain a first fingerprint image 410 as shown in FIG. 4A,” the first fingerprint image is considered to be a second image obtained after the protective film is attached to the display module).
The combination of Seo and Chan are analogous art because they are both in the same field of endeavor of fingerprint devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a processor, obtain a registered image before a protective film is attached, capture a first fingerprint image after the protective film is attached, and adjust the resolution based on the comparison in the electronic device of Chan in the display device of Seo to increase the success rate of fingerprint comparison (see Chan Paragraph [0007]).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo et al, US 20190087630 in view of Chan et al, US 20220075984 in view of He et al, US 10303921.
Regarding claim 2, Seo in view of Chan does not expressively teach the electronic device of claim 1,
wherein the optical sensing module comprises a plurality of optical sensors, and the optical sensors overlap the display area.
However, He’921 in a similar field of endeavor teaches
wherein the optical sensing module comprises a plurality of optical sensors, and the optical sensors overlap the display area (see He’921, Col 12, Lines 67 – Col 13, Lines 1-8, “An optical sensor module is coupled to, and located underneath, the display screen assembly module to receive and capture the returned light from the top surface of the touch sensing screen module and to guide and image the returned light onto an optical sensor array of optical sensing pixels or photodetectors which convert the optical image in the returned light into pixel signals for further processing,” Col 31, Lines 67 – Col 32, Lines 1-5, “Such an optical sensor module can be placed under the LCD display screen that vertically overlaps with the display screen area, and, from the user's perspective, the optical sensor module is hidden behind the display screen area,” and ).
The combination of Seo, Chan, and He’921 are analogous art because they are all in the same field of endeavor of fingerprint devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the optical sensor module to be located underneath the display screen assembly module in the electronic device of He’921 in the display device of Seo in view of Chan to receive and capture the returned light from the top surface of the touch sensing screen module (see He’921, Col 12, Lines 67 – Col 13, Lines 1-8).
Claim(s) 3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo et al, US 20190087630 in view of Chan et al, US 20220075984 in view of He et al, US 10303921 in view of Yang et al, US 20240219765 in view of Kim et al, US 20140063413.
Regarding claim 3, Seo in view of Chan in view of He’921 further teaches the electronic device of claim 2,
wherein the first image is obtained in a state where (see He’921, Col 35, Lines 21-25, “FIGS. 18A and 18B show a LCD light diffuser layer 433b located between the LCD waveguide layer 433c and other LCD layers 433a”)
Seo in view of Chan in view of He’921 does not expressively teach,
wherein the first image is obtained in a state where a light blocking mark and a first diffuse reflective film are disposed on the display module,
and the second image is obtained in a state where the light blocking mark is disposed on the display module
However, Yang in a similar field of endeavor teaches
wherein the first image is obtained in a state where a light blocking mark and a first diffuse reflective film are disposed on the display module (see Yang, Paragraph [0083], “The display module 200 can further include a diffusion layer 60. The diffusion layer 60 is disposed between the first light-blocking layer 20 and the display panel 10,” the first light-blocking layer 20 is considered to be a light blocking mark and a diffusion layer 60 is considered to be a first diffuse reflective film),
and the second image is obtained in a state where the light blocking mark is disposed on the display module (see Yang, Paragraph [0040], “The first light-blocking layer 20 is disposed on a light exit side of the display panel 10”)
The combination of Seo, Chan, He’921, and Yang are analogous art because they are all in the same field of endeavor of electronic devices with a display area. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for a display module to include both a diffusion layer and a first-light blocking layer in the display module of Yang in the display device of Seo in view of Chan in view of He’921 to achieve an anti-glare effect, and have better quality of displayed pictures (see Yang, Abstract).
Seo in view of Chan in view of He’921 in view of Yang does not expressively teach
and a second diffuse reflective film is disposed on the protective film.
However, Kim’413 in a similar field of endeavor teaches
and a second diffuse reflective film is disposed on the protective film (see Kim’413, Paragraph [0048], “As shown in FIG. 4, based on the liquid crystal display device of Embodiment 2, a liquid crystal display according to the embodiment further includes a light diffusion film 240 disposed on the protective layer 230c, so as to solve possible narrow-viewing-angle problem brought out by light that is incident from the backlight module 100 and pass through the liquid crystal layer 220 and the color filter layer 230”).
The combination of Seo, Chan, He’921, Yang, Kim’413 are analogous art because they are all in the same field of endeavor of electronic devices with a display area. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for a diffusion film to be disposed on a protective layer; a display panel can be constructed with each pixel emitting lights and the optical sensor module can be used to sense images form from light emitting display panel pixels in the liquid crystal display device of Kim’413 in the display device of Seo in view of Chan in view of He’921 in view of Yang to solve narrow-viewing angle problem brought out by light that is incident from the backlight module (see Kim’413, Paragraph [0048]).
Regarding claim 6, Seo in view of Chan in view of He’921 in view of Yang in view of Kim’413 further teaches the electronic device of claim 3,
wherein the optical sensing module further comprises a light source disposed above the optical sensors to emit a light (He’921 Col 28, Lines 43-53, “a display panel can be constructed in which each pixel emitting lights, and can be controlled individually; the display panel includes an at least partially transparent substrate; and a cover substrate, which is substantially transparent. An optical sensor module is placed under the display panel to sense the images form on the top of the display panel surface. The optical sensor module can be used to sense the images form from light emitting from display panel pixels”),
and the light is provided to the optical sensors as the optical signal after being reflected by the first diffuse reflective film or the second diffuse reflective film (see He’921, Col 35, Lines 29-37, “the strong diffusion in the diffuser sheet 433b can significantly reduce the signal contrast in the signal light that passes through the LCD display module 433 to reach the optical detector array 6621. The light diffusion at the LCD diffuser layer 433b, although desirable for display operations, degrades the fingerprint detection performance”).
The rationale of claim 3 has been applied herein.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo et al, US 20190087630 in view of Chan et al, US 20220075984 in view of Zhang et al, US 20240054200.
Regarding claim 9, Seo in view of Chan does not expressively teach the electronic device of claim 1,
wherein the control module receives an enable signal activated by a user's operation,
and the blur-measuring unit is activated in response to the enable signal to measure the blur information.
However, Zhang in a similar field of endeavor teaches
wherein the control module receives an enable signal activated by a user's operation (see Zhang, Paragraph [0204], “When the fingerprint collection module of the accessory device collects the fingerprint data of the user, the accessory device may directly store the fingerprint data of the user, or the accessory device may perform quality detection on the fingerprint data,” after a user enrolls their fingerprint data a quality detection is performed which is considered to be enable a signal activated by a user’s operation ),
and the blur-measuring unit is activated in response to the enable signal to measure the blur information (see Zhang, Paragraph [0205], “When the accessory device performs quality detection on the fingerprint data, if quality of the fingerprint data is poor (for example, the fingerprint data has defects such as fingerprint incompleteness or a fingerprint blur), and the quality detection fails, the accessory device and/or the electronic device may perform a re-enrollment prompt operation, to prompt the user to re-enroll fingerprint data,” ).
The combination of Seo, Chan, and Zhang are analogous art because they are all in the same field of endeavor of electronic devices with a display area. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the fingerprint collection module to store fingerprint data of the user and to perform quality detection on the fingerprint data in the device of Zhang in the display device of Seo in view of Chan to reduce the amount of time it take to start an electronic device (see Zhang, Paragraph [0005]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo et al, US 20190087630 in view of Chan et al, US 20220075984 in view of Jota et al, US 20230049191.
Regarding claim 10, Seo in view of Chan does not expressively teach the electronic device of claim 1,
wherein the control module further comprises a determiner that determines whether a state of the electronic device meets a blur measuring condition,
and the blur-measuring unit is activated based on a determined result of the determiner to measure the blur information.
However, Jota in a similar field of endeavor teaches
wherein the control module further comprises a determiner that determines whether a state of the electronic device meets a blur measuring condition (see Jota, Paragraph [0011], “calculating a movement amount of a moving device configured to move an image of a subject on an imaging plane of an imaging element, in order to correct image blur due to shake of an apparatus; acquiring information of a position of the moving device,” information of a position of the moving device is considered to be determines whether a state of electronic device meets a blur measuring condition),
and the blur-measuring unit is activated based on a determined result of the determiner to measure the blur information (see Jota, Paragraph [0011], “and selecting either to cause the controlling to perform the control by a first image blur correction mode, or to perform the control by a second image blur correction mode in which the position variation amount of the moving device associated with the change of acceleration applied to the apparatus becomes smaller than the first image blur correction mode”).
The combination of Seo, Chan, and Jota are analogous art because they are all in the same field of endeavor of electronic devices with a display area. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to calculate a movement of a moving device and to calculate the blur based on the movement in the image blur correction apparatus of Jota in the display device of Seo in view of Chan to capture images with a better image quality (see Jota, Paragraph [0002]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo et al, US 20190087630 in view of Chan et al, US 20220075984 in view of Jota et al, US 20230049191 in view of Kobayashi et al, US 20130162697.
Regarding claim 11, Seo in view of Chan in view of Jota does not expressively teach the electronic device of claim 10,
wherein the determiner determines whether a luminance of a reference image obtained from a predetermined reference area of the display area is included in a predetermined reference range, determines that the state of the electronic device meets the blur measuring condition when the luminance of the reference image is included in the reference range,
and determines that the state of the electronic device does not meet the blur measuring condition when the luminance of the reference image is not included in the reference range.
However, Kobayashi in a similar field of endeavor teaches
wherein the determiner determines whether a luminance of a reference image obtained from a predetermined reference area of the display area is included in a predetermined reference range, determines that the state of the electronic device meets the blur measuring condition when the luminance of the reference image is included in the reference range (see Kobayashi, Paragraph [0114], “when the luminance of the image displayed on the liquid crystal display unit is a value within a range from a predetermined minimum value to a predetermined maximum value, the reference luminance”),
and determines that the state of the electronic device does not meet the blur measuring condition when the luminance of the reference image is not included in the reference range (see Kobayashi, Paragraph [0114], “the third reference changing unit decreases the reference luminance, which is used in a case where the average luminance detected by the luminance determination unit is lower than an average value of the minimum value and the maximum value, in comparison to the reference luminance,” the third reference changing unit decreases the reference luminance when the average luminance is lower than the average value of the minimum value and the maximum value in comparison to the reference luminance value is considered to be an action taken as a result of the state of the electronic device not meeting a condition which can be applied to not meet the blur measuring condition).
The combination of Seo, Chan, Jota, and Kobayashi are analogous art because they are all in the same field of endeavor of electronic devices with a display area. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to determine when the luminance of the image is within a range from a predetermined minimum and maximum value in the liquid crystal display device of Kobayashi in the display device of Seo in view of Chan in view of Jota to prevent the occurrence of residual images and prevent the deterioration in the display quality of images (see Kobayashi, Paragraph [0010]).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo et al, US 20190087630 in view of Chan et al, US 20220075984 in view of Yang et al, US 20240219765.
Regarding claim 13, Seo in view of Chan further teaches the method of claim 12,
and the placing the protective film on the display module (see Seo, Paragraph [0055], “The cover glass 180 may be disposed above the fourth adhesive layer 170. The cover glass 180 is a component which is located at an upper portion of the display device 100 to protect the display device 100. The cover glass 180 may be formed of a tempered glass,” the cover glass 180 is considered to be a protective film)
Seo in view of Chan does not expressively teach
placing a light blocking mark on the display module before the obtaining the first image, wherein the light blocking mark is disposed to overlap the display area when viewed in a plan view.
However, Yang in a similar field of endeavor teaches
placing a light blocking mark on the display module before the obtaining the first image (see Yang, Paragraph [0040], “The first light-blocking layer 20 is disposed on a light exit side of the display panel 10,” the first light-blocking layer 20 is considered to be a light blocking mark),
wherein the light blocking mark is disposed to overlap the display area when viewed in a plan view (see Yang, Fig. 1, the first-light blocking panel overlaps the display panel 10).
The combination of Seo, Chan, and Yang are analogous art because they are all in the same field of endeavor of electronic devices with a display area. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for a display module to include both a diffusion layer and a first-light blocking layer in the display module of Yang in the display device of Seo in view of Chan to achieve an anti-glare effect, and have better quality of displayed pictures (see Yang, Abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4-5, 7-8, and 14-20 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOMINIQUE JAMES whose telephone number is (703)756-1655. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 6:00 pm EST.
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, Emily Terrell can be reached at (571)270-3717. 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.
/D.J./Examiner, Art Unit 2666
/EMILY C TERRELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2666