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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1- of U.S. Patent No 12574493. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
Claims 1-5 are obvious over Claim 1-5 of U.S. Patent No 12574493
Claims 6 is obvious over Claim 7 of U.S. Patent No 12574493
Claims 7 is obvious over Claim 8 of U.S. Patent No 12574493
Claims 8 is obvious over Claim 9 of U.S. Patent No 12574493
Claims 12 is obvious over Claim 10 of U.S. Patent No 12574493
Claims 13 is obvious over Claim 11 of U.S. Patent No 12574493
Claims 14-17 is obvious over Claim 14-17 of U.S. Patent No 12574493
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.
Claim(s) 1,2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 20190294109) in view of Hong et al (US 20140160178)
Regarding Claim 1,
Lee et al discloses (Fig. 1-2) a display device comprising: at least one spatial light modulator ([0055],[0064-0066]) displaying an extended reality content image (Fig. 1-2); a surface light source device (110) located behind the at least one spatial light modulator (200) and providing image display light of a first resolution to the at least one spatial light modulator as background light (Fig. 2, element 10) ; and at least one image transmission member (300) forming a display path of the extended reality content image (Fig. 2-3 [0055][0064-0066]).
Lee et al does not disclose wherein the surface light source device comprises an organic light emitting display unit in which a plurality of sub-light emitting pixels performing surface light emission are arranged and an emission driving circuit driving the plurality of sub-light emitting pixels, and each of the plurality of sub-light emitting pixels comprises a plurality of pixel drivers and a light emitting element.
Hong et al discloses (Fig. 1-2,4-5, abstract, [006][0010-0011],[0024-0025],[0033-0034],[0040]) wherein the surface light source device comprises an organic light emitting display unit in which a plurality of sub-light emitting pixels performing surface light emission are arranged and an emission driving circuit driving the plurality of sub-light emitting pixels, and each of the plurality of sub-light emitting pixels comprises a plurality of pixel drivers and a light emitting element.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Chen et al to include Hong et al’s (Fig. 1-2,4-5, abstract, [006][0010-0011],[0024-0025],[0033-0034],[0040]) wherein the surface light source device comprises an organic light emitting display unit in which a plurality of sub-light emitting pixels performing surface light emission are arranged and an emission driving circuit driving the plurality of sub-light emitting pixels, and each of the plurality of sub-light emitting motivated by the desire to enhance display picture quality.
Regarding Claim 2,
In addition to Lee et al and Hong et al, the emission driving circuit generates gate control signals and analog image signals for driving the plurality of sub-light emitting pixels at a same timing in units of at least one frame, the display device supplies the gate control signals to a first gate driver in units of at least one frame, and the display device supplies the analog image signals simultaneously to the plurality of sub-light emitting pixels. (Fig. 1-2,4-5, abstract, [006][0010-0011],[0024-0025],[0033-0034],[0040])
Claim(s) 4,16,17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 20190294109) and of Hong et al (US 20140160178) in view of Gliik et al (US 20180203231)
Regarding Claim 4,16,
Lee et al and Hong et al discloses everything as disclosed above.
Lee et al and Hong et al does not disclose wherein the light emitting element is included in each of the plurality of sub-light emitting pixels and is formed in the organic light emitting display unit in at least one or a combination of different shapes comprising: a sector shape, a triangular shape, a rhombus shape, a quadrangular shape, a circular shape, a semicircular shape, and an elliptical shape.
Gliik et al discloses ([0032]) wherein the light emitting element is included in each of the plurality of sub-light emitting pixels and is formed in the organic light emitting display unit in at least one or a combination of different (any shapes) shapes comprising: a sector shape, a triangular shape, a rhombus shape, a quadrangular shape, a circular shape, a semicircular shape, and an elliptical shape.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Chen et al and Hong et al to include Gliik et al’s the light emitting element is included in each of the plurality of sub-light emitting pixels and is formed in the organic light emitting display unit in at least one or a combination of different shapes comprising: a sector shape, a triangular shape, a rhombus shape, a quadrangular shape, a circular shape, a semicircular shape, and an elliptical shape.
Regarding Claim 17,
The combination of Lee et al, Hong et al, and Gliiet et al discloses the emission driving circuit generates gate control signals and analog image signals for driving the plurality of sub-light emitting pixels at a same timing in units of at least one frame, the display device supplies the gate control signals are supplied to a first gate driver in units of at least one frame, and the display device supplies the analog image signals simultaneously the plurality of sub-light emitting pixels.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3,5-15,18-20 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 LUCY P CHIEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8579. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM PST Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday.
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, Michael Caley can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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.
/LUCY P CHIEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871