DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 filed July 30th, 2026, are pending in the current 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed July 30th, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards towards applicant’s arguments pertaining to the 112 rejection, the Examiner must respectfully disagree. The applicant asserts that the support exists in the specification that the first light guide and the second light guide would both be “right angle planal wedge guides.” It should be noted that the Examiner’s citation of Kim (US2017/0319726) comprises two right angle planal wedge guides. See Kim Fig. 5 and ¶51-54 where elements 520 and 540 are both right angle planal wedge guides. Yet, the Applicant’s next argument asserts that Kim’s teaching is fundamentally different from the claimed structure. Both cannot be true at once. There is simply a lack of clarity with regards towards the structure being claimed. Thus, the 112 rejection remains.
With regards towards applicant’s argument pertaining the 103 rejection and the application of Kim, the Examiner must respectfully disagree. Kim Fig. 5 and ¶51-54 where elements 520 and 540 are both right angle planal wedge guides. The bottom side of element 520 serves as the first surface 524 guiding the light from the light source towards the second surface 525 (the hypotenuse of the right-angle wedge plane). The second surface then directs the light towards the side with the first display 522. (See Kim ¶52) Likewise, the bottom side of element 540 serves as the first surface 544 guiding the light from the light source towards the second surface 545 (the hypotenuse of the right-angle wedge plane). The second surface then directs the light towards the side with the first display 542. (See Kim ¶53-54) Thus, the Applicant’s arguments with regards towards the function of Kim are not persuasive and the 103 rejection remains.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite: a light guide assembly including a first light guide and a second light guide, the first light guide including a first surface and a second surface, the first surface configured to reflect direct light from the light source toward the second surface and the second surface configured to redirect the light received from the first surface toward the first display panel, the second light guide including a third surface and a fourth surface, the third surface configured to direct light from the light source toward the fourth surface and the fourth surface configured to redirect the light received from the third surface toward the second display panel.
The closest support for the limitation that the Examiner was able to find is in ¶30-31 of the applicant’s specification which recites: “In some examples, the light guide 502 is a symmetrical edge guide, such as a right angle planal wedge guide. In other examples, the light guide 502 has any suitable structure or arrangement. In some examples, multiple light guides 502 of the same, or different, structures may be implemented in the display device 102 along with one or more light sources 302. In an example, interior surfaces of the light guide 502 may have a coating or surface treatment that facilitates the reflection of light, such as white light reflecting paint, or any other suitable coating or substance.” The Examiner finds that the specification does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to specifically arrange the elements in the claimed manner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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) 1-4, 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sivertsen (US9,230,510) in view of Lim (US11,243,735) in view of Kim (US2017/0319726)
Consider claim 1, where Sivertsen teaches a display device, comprising: a housing; a first display panel retained by the housing; (See Sivertsen Fig. 1A, B and col 7 line 32-64 where there is a first display panel 110A) a second display panel retained by the housing; (See Sivertsen Fig. 1A, B and col 7 line 32-64 where there is a second display panel 110B) and a light source, the light source configured to emit light to illuminate the first display panel and the second display panel. (See Sivertsen Fig. 1A, B and col 7 line 32-64 where there is a backlight module 150 that has two emitting sides to direct light to the first and second display panels)
Sivertsen teaches an open frame LCD, (See Sivertsen Fig. 1A, B and col 7-line 32-64 display panels may be open-frame LCDs) however Sivertsen does not explicitly teach a light source retained by the housing. However, in an analogous field of endeavor Lim teaches a light source retained by the housing. (See Lim Figs. 8-11 and col 9 line 63- col 10 line 8 where the frame 66 defines a frame channel or frame cavity 83 and image display area 85 is defined by the inner frame sections 87 of the frame 66) Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art that the open-frame LCD of Sivertsen would include a frame that is used to house the displays as taught by Lim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the modification for the advantage of/ benefit of providing structural stability to the assembly.
Sivertsen teaches a backlight module, however Sivertsen does not explicitly teach a light guide optically coupled between the light source and the first display panel, and between the light source and the second display panel. However, in an analogous field of endeavor Lim teaches a light guide optically coupled between the light source and the first display panel, and between the light source and the second display panel. (See Lim Fig. 13, col 17 line 40-58 where when the first display device 220 displays the first image 236 in the first display mode 246, the multi-state device 224 at least partially reflects the visible light from the light source 226, resulting in first reflected light 266 (FIG. 13). When the second display device 222 displays the second image 240 in the second display mode 248, the multi-state device 224 at least partially reflects the visible light from the light source 226, resulting in second reflected light 268 (FIG. 13).) Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the backlight module of Sivertsen with the backlight module implementation in Lim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the modification for the advantage of/ benefit of using a known method of implementing a backlight module to yield predictable results.
Lim teaches a carrier. (See Lim Fig. 20 where the multi-state assembly comprises a carrier portion) However, Lim does not explicitly teach a light guide assembly including a first light guide and a second light guide, the first light guide including a first surface and a second surface, the first surface configured to reflect direct light from the light source toward the second surface and the second surface configured to redirect the light received from the first surface toward the first display panel, the second light guide including a third surface and a fourth surface, the third surface configured to direct light from the light source toward the fourth surface and the fourth surface configured to redirect the light received from the third surface toward the second display panel. However, in an analogous field of endeavor Kim teaches a light guide assembly including a first light guide and a second light guide, the first light guide including a first surface and a second surface, the first surface configured to reflect direct light from the light source toward the second surface and the second surface configured to redirect the light received from the first surface toward the first display panel, the second light guide including a third surface and a fourth surface, the third surface configured to direct light from the light source toward the fourth surface and the fourth surface configured to redirect the light received from the third surface toward the second display panel. (See Kim Fig 5 and ¶52-56 where the first light guide plate 520 and the second light guide plate 540 have inclined faces 525 and 545 opposed to the front side face 522 and the back side face 542, respectively, through which light exits. The diffusion pattern 526 (in FIG. 6) may be formed between the inclined faces. The diffusion pattern 526 may be formed by performing a roughing process to make a rough surface. When light exits out of the light guide plates of a dense medium, the light is reflected off the inclined faces 525 and 545, such that the light exits evenly through the light-exiting faces 522 and 542 of the light guide plates. Alternately, See Kim Fig 7 and ¶64 where The first light guide plate 720 and the second light guide plate 740 may have a wedge-like shape having inclined faces 725 and 745, respectively, that are the opposing faces to the light-exiting faces 722 and 742, respectively, through which light exits. The inclined faces 725 and 745 of the first light guide plate 720 and the second light guide plate 740, respectively, may face each other) Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the carrier of Lim to utilize either embodiment of a dual sided backlight module of Kim Fig. 5 or Kim Fig 7 to utilize other known methods of directing light towards two surfaces. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the modification for the advantage of/ benefit of using a known method of implementing a backlight module to yield predictable results.
Consider claim 2, where Sivertsen in view of Lim in view of Kim teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein a front of the first display panel is oriented in an opposite direction from a front of the second display panel. (See Sivertsen Fig. 1A, B and col 7 line 32-64 where a first display panel 110A is opposite from second display panel 110B)
Consider claim 3, where Sivertsen in view of Lim in view of Kim teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the first display panel and the second display panel comprise liquid crystal displays. (See Sivertsen Fig. 1A, B and col 7 line 32-64 where a first display panel 110A and second display panel 110B may be LCDs or any other type of display panel)
Consider claim 4, where Sivertsen in view of Lim in view of Kim teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the first display panel and the second display panel comprise light emitting diodes. (See Lim col 1 line 58- col 2 line 14 where OLEDs are a known type of display) Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the LCD of Sivertsen with the OLED as taught by Lim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the modification for the advantage of/ benefit of using other known types of displays to yield a similar result.
Consider claim 7, where Sivertsen in view of Lim in view of Kim teaches the display device of claim 1, further comprising a first camera having a first field of view overlapping with a first viewing angle of the first display panel, and a second camera having a second field of view overlapping with a second viewing angle of the second display panel. (See Sivertsen Fig. 1A, B and cool 7 line 32-64 where there is a first camera 190A that points in the emission direction of the first display panel 110A and a second camera 190B that points in the emission direction of the second display panel 110B)
Consider claim 8, where Sivertsen in view of Lim in view of Kim teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the housing includes a first face having a first aperture and a second face having a second aperture, the first face and the second face parallel to one another, the first display panel is configured to provide a first image viewable at a first viewing angle through the first aperture, the second display panel is configured to provide a second image viewable at a second viewing angle through the second aperture, and the second viewing angle offset from the first viewing angle. (See Sivertsen Fig. 1A, B and col 7 line 32-64 where there is a first camera 190A that points in the emission direction of the first display panel 110A and a second camera 190B that points in the emission direction of the second display panel 110B. In this configuration the viewing angle of display 110A is 180 degrees offset from the viewing angle of display 110B)
Claim(s) 5, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sivertsen in view of Lim in view of Kim as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Fukuoka (US2017/0219861)
Consider claim 5, where Sivertsen in view of Lim in view of Kim teaches the display device of claim 1, however, they do not explicitly teach wherein the light source is configured to modulate the emitted light to illuminate the first display panel at a first timing and the second display panel at a second timing. However, in an analogous field of endeavor Fukuoka teaches wherein the light source is configured to modulate the emitted light to illuminate the first display panel at a first timing and the second display panel at a second timing. (See Fukuoka ¶236 where the light source 31 is driven in a time division manner where the drive frequency of the second liquid-crystal panel 102 may be set to 60 Hz, and the drive frequency of the first liquid-crystal panel 101 may be set to 180 Hz) Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art that the light source of Sivertsen could be driven in the manner described in Fukuoka. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the modification for the advantage of/ benefit of using known techniques to yield a predictable result.
Consider claim 6, where Sivertsen in view of Lim in view of Kim in view of Fukuoka teaches the display device of claim 5, wherein the first timing and the second timing are each at a frequency greater than a flicker fusion frequency. See Fukuoka ¶236 where the light source 31 is driven in a time division manner where the drive frequency of the second liquid-crystal panel 102 may be set to 60 Hz, and the drive frequency of the first liquid-crystal panel 101 may be set to 180 Hz) See Applicant’s specification ¶29 where the flicker fusion frequency is about 33 Hertz (Hz) or an image repetition rate faster than or equal to one image ever approximately 30 milliseconds (ms).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed April 17th, 2025, pertaining to claim 9 are persuasive. Further searching has revealed Tang (US2016/0377917) shows a double-sided display panel that reflects light back towards a first direction in Fig. 1 and a second direction in Fig. 2. However, it would have been non-obvious to implement the teachings of Tang into the prior art combination of Sivertsen (US9,230,510) in view of Lim (US11,243,735) in view of Fukuoka (US2017/0219861) to arrive at the claimed invention. Other references found reflect similar teachings. Thus, the 103 rejection is withdrawn claim 9 is allowed. Claims 10-13 are allowed based upon their dependence of claim 9.
With regards towards claim 14, while Chang et al. (US2011/0273902) teaches the light source is directed to a first surface of the light guide and reflected by the first surface to illuminate the first display panel, and the second light produced by the light source is directed to a second surface of the light guide and reflected by the second surface to illuminate the second display panel, the first surface and second surface being nonparallel. (See Chang Fig. 1 and ¶24-25) However, it would not have been obvious to control the production of the first and second lights by the light source as taught by Sivertsen in view of Lim in view of Chang et al. (US2017/0153379) in view of Ono et al. (US2018/0275943) to arrive at the claimed limitation. Thus, the 103 rejection is withdrawn and claim 14 is allowed. Claims 15-20 are allowed based upon their dependency from claim 14.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 WILLIAM LU whose telephone number is (571)270-1809. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-6:30pm.
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, Matthew Eason can be reached on 571-270-7230. 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.
WILLIAM LU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2624
/WILLIAM LU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2624
Prosecution Insights