DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/14/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5-6 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 5, cited term of “…along the first direction…” (line 3) is indefinite and lacks antecedent. Claim 5 depends on claim 1, however, neither claim 1 nor claim 5 specifies “a first direction”. Cited “first direction” is undefined.
Claim 6 has same undefined issue as that of claim 5 in line 6.
Regarding Claim 11, cited term of “each of the plurality of triangular light-shielding patterns decreases in width as a location approaches the aperture” (line 5-7) is vague and renders the claims indefinite. Claim cites “a plurality of triangular light-shielding patterns”, but does not specify orientation and distribution of the plurality of triangular light-shielding patterns. So it is unclear how to determine cited widths of the plurality of triangular light-shielding patterns.
Claim 12 has same undefined issue as that of claim 11 on “plurality of stripe light-shielding patterns”.
Therefore proper amendments are required in order to clarify the scopes of the claims and overcome the rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sui et al (US 2023/0116030).
Regarding Claim 1, Sui teaches a display device (abstract; figs. 3-4) comprising:
a lens element including a plurality of lenses (fig. 3A, LP);
a barrier element including a plurality of light-shielding layers (fig. 3A, BM1); and
a display panel (fig. 3A, CD, LEL, AD, PDL, TFT, RS, LE, SA),
wherein the lens element is provided between the display panel and the barrier element (fig. 3A, (CD, LEL, AD, PDL, TFT, RS, LE, SA), LP, BM1), and
each of the plurality of light-shielding layers overlaps an end portion of each respective one of the plurality of lenses (fig. 3A, LP, BM1).
Regarding Claim 2, Sui teaches the display device according to claim 1, wherein
the barrier element further comprises a transparent base (fig. 3A, PLN), and
the plurality of light-shielding layers are provided on a surface of the transparent base (fig. 3A, BM1, PLN).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sun et al (US 20220336780).
Regarding Claim 1, Sun teaches a display device (abstract, figs. 2 and 4) comprising:
a lens element including a plurality of lenses (fig. 2, 23, 231; fig. 4, 33, 331);
a barrier element including a plurality of light-shielding layers (fig. 2, BM; fig. 4, BM; ¶[0056], line 1-10, a black matrix BM is disposed between adjacent filter portions 251. The light beams irradiating onto the black matrix BM from the light-emitting devices 22 are absorbed by the black matrix BM); and
a display panel (fig. 2, 22, 26, PDL, 28; fig. 4, 32, 36, PDL, 38),
wherein the lens element is provided between the display panel and the barrier element (fig. 2, 22, 23, BM; fig. 4, 32, 33, BM), and
each of the plurality of light-shielding layers overlaps an end portion of each respective one of the plurality of lenses (fig. 2, 23/231, BM; fig. 4, 33/331, BM).
Regarding Claim 2, Sun teaches the display device according to claim 1, wherein
the barrier element further comprises a transparent base (fig. 4, BM, 39 or OC), and
the plurality of light-shielding layers are provided on a surface of the transparent base (fig. 4, BM, 39 or OC).
Regarding Claim 4, Sun teaches the display device according to claim 1, wherein
the barrier element further comprises a transparent base (fig. 4, BM, 39/OC), and
each of the light-shielding layers is provided between each respective one of the plurality of lenses and the transparent base (fig. 4, 33/8331,BM, 39).
Regarding Claim 6, Sun teaches the display device according to claim 1, wherein
a region between each adjacent pair of the plurality of light-shielding layers is an aperture (fig. 4, 351), and
a length of the aperture along the first direction is 50% or more of a length of each of the plurality of lenses along the first direction (fig. 4, 33/331, 351).
Regarding Claim 9, Sun teaches the display device according to claim 1, wherein
a region between each adjacent pair of the plurality of light-shielding layers is an aperture (fig. 4, 351),
each of the plurality of light-shielding layers includes a first region and a second region (fig. 4, BM, --BM with flat bottom -- first region; BM with slope sides – second regions),
the second region is provided between the first region and the aperture (fig. 4, 351, BM; --BM slope side is between 351 and BM portion with flat bottom), and
the second region has a transmittance higher than that of the first region (fig. 4, BM;-- BM portion with slope side has a higher transmittance).
Regarding Claim 10, Sun teaches the display device according to claim 9, wherein
the transmittance of the second region increases as a location approaches the aperture, the location being in the second region (fig. 4, BM;-- BM portion with slope side, absorption/transmittance following the slope).
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.
Claims 3, 5, 7-8 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al (US 20220336780) in a view of Smith et al (US 8885018).
Regarding Claim 3, Sun discloses as set forth above but does not specifically disclose that the display device according to claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of light shielding layers is provided in contact with a surface of each respective one of the plurality of lenses.
However, Smith teaches a display (abstract; figs. 7-12), wherein each of the plurality of light shielding layers is provided in contact with a surface of each respective one of the plurality of lenses (fig. 9a, 4, 3; fig. 12e, 4, 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display device of Sun by the display of Smith for the purpose of providing of a display that multiple image functions for the display may be activated simultaneously at different spatial locations (col. 7, line 15-21)
Regarding Claim 5, Sun – Smith combination teaches that the display device according to claim 1, wherein
when a length of each of the plurality of lenses along the first direction is WLN, and
a distance between a plane including a vertex of each of the plurality of lenses and the light-shielding layers is TLN, the distance TLN satisfies:
0 ≤ TLN ≤ 0.1 × WLN ×√3.
(fig. 9a, 4, 3; fig. 12e, 4, 3; -- TLN close to zero, as disclosed in Smith).
Regarding Claim 7, Sun – Smith combination teaches that the display device according to claim 1, wherein
a region between each adjacent pair of the plurality of light shielding layers is an aperture (fig. 4, 351, as disclosed in Sun),
the plurality of lenses are a plurality of lenticular lenses, respectively (fig. 10a, 4; col. 17, line 35-36, The lens elements 4 may be cylindrical or spherical, as disclosed in Smith), and
a plurality of apertures each identical to the aperture are a plurality of slits, respectively (fig. 10a, 3, 4, as disclosed in Smith).
Regarding Claim 8, Sun – Smith combination teaches that the display device according to claim 1, wherein
a region between each adjacent pair of the plurality of light-shielding layers is an aperture (fig. 4, 351, as disclosed in Sun),
the plurality of lenses are a plurality of microlenses, respectively (fig. 11a-b, 4. as disclosed in Smith), and
a plurality of apertures each identical to the aperture are a plurality of circular apertures, respectively (fig. 11a-b, 4, 3, as disclosed in Smith).
Regarding Claim 16, Sun – Smith combination teaches that the display device according to claim 1, wherein
a sealing member is provided between an end portion of the lens element and an end portion of the barrier element (fig. 12e, 3, 4, 8, as disclosed in Smith; --glue 8 can be a sealing member).
Regarding Claim 17, Sun – Smith combination teaches that the display device according to claim 1, wherein
a dummy lens is provided in contact with an end portion of the lens element (fig. 12e, 4; , as disclosed in Smith, ---a lens 4 on the display edge can be the dummy lens),
an adhesive is provided on an outer side the end portion of the lens element and an end portion of the barrier element (fig. 12e, 3, 4, 8, as disclosed in Smith),
the adhesive surrounds and covers a periphery of the lens element and the barrier element (fig. 12a, 8/8b; fig. 12e, 8, as disclosed in Smith), and
the dummy lens is formed at a same time from a same material as those of the plurality of lenses (fig. 12e, 4, as disclosed in Smith; ---a lens 4 on the display edge can be the dummy lens).
Regarding Claim 18, Sun – Smith combination teaches that the display device according to claim 1, wherein
a structure is provided in contact with an end portion of the barrier element (fig. 12e, 3, 8, as disclosed in Smith), and
the structure is one of a double-sided tape, a stacked body of a glass sheet and an adhesive and beaded glass cured with a UV-curing resin element (fig. 12e, 3, 8-glue, as disclosed in Smith).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al (US 20220336780) in a view of Smith et al (US 8885018), further in a view of Sui et al (US 2023/0116030).
Regarding Claim 15, Sun – Smith combination discloses as set forth above and further teaches that the display device according to claim 1, wherein
a transparent member is provided in contact with an end portion of the lens element (fig. 12e, 7, as disclosed in Smith),
an adhesive is provided in contact with the transparent member (fig. 12e, 7, 8, as disclosed in Smith),
the adhesive is adhered to an end portion of the barrier element (fig. 12e, 3, 8, as disclosed in Smith), and
But Sun – Smith combination does not specifically disclose that wherein the transparent member is mold-formed from a same material as that of each of the plurality of lenses.
However, Sui teaches a display panel (abstract; figs. 3-4), wherein a transparent member is provided in contact with an end portion of the lens element (fig. 3A, LP- lens element, HRL- transparent member), and wherein the transparent member is mold-formed from a same material as that of each of the plurality of lenses (fig. 3A, LP, HRL; --LP, HRL are made of same material; further “mold-formed” term is of a product-by-process claim, for product-by-process claim, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display device of Sun – Smith combination by the display panel of Sui for the purpose of providing of a display panel which reduces color breakup of reflection of ambient light in a display panel has a color breakup-prevention structure (abstract, line 1-10).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-14 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for the allowable subject matter: The prior art taken singularly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the limitations of the claims, in such a manner that a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 would be proper.
In regard to claims 13-14, the prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest a display device further comprising specified circular light-shielding patterns and circular aperture patterns in the second region as cited.
Examiner’s Note
Regarding the references, the Examiner cites particular figures, paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the reference(s), as applied to the claims above. Although the particular citations are representative teachings and are applied to specific limitations within the claims, other passages, internally cited references, and figures may also apply. In preparing a response, it is respectfully requested that the Applicant fully consider the references, in their entirety, as potentially disclosing or teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as fully consider the context of the passage as taught by the reference(s) or as disclosed by the Examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Jie Lei whose telephone number is (571) 272 7231. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon.-Thurs. 8:00 am to 5:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by the telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Thomas Pham can be reached on (571) 272 3689.The Fax number for the organization where this application is assigned is (571) 273 8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published application may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Services Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199(In USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
/JIE LEI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872