DETAILED 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
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2021/0271095).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses an electronic device (see figures 1-8, 11 and 25, for instance), having a first region (see figure 11, corresponding to region between 210 and 221), a second region (region between 221 and 222) and a third region (region between 222 and 210 to the right) arranged in sequence along a direction (x-direction of figure 11), the electronic device comprising: a panel (2000); and an optical film (1000) disposed corresponding to the panel; wherein the optical film comprises a first blocking wall (210), a second blocking wall (221) and a third blocking wall (222) respectively corresponding to the first region, the second region and the third region (see figure 11), and the first blocking wall (210), the second blocking wall (221) and the third blocking wall (222) are configured to vary gradually in structures (see the different patterning shapes of figure 11 in the y-direction), wherein the optical film further comprises a transparent portion (150) covering top surfaces and side surfaces of the first blocking wall (210 of 200), the second blocking wall (221 of 200) and the third blocking wall (222 of 200).
Regarding claim 2, Kim discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the first region has a first emitting light (between 210 and 221), the second region has a second emitting light (between 221 and 222), the third region has a third emitting light (between 222 and 210 to the right), and the structures of the first blocking wall, the second blocking wall and the third blocking wall are configured to allow emitting directions of the first emitting light, the second emitting light and the third emitting light to vary gradually (since the patterns of each 210, 221 and 222 vary gradually).
Regarding claim 5, Kim discloses the electronic device of claim 2, wherein a number of the first blocking walls (210, see figure 11) is greater than or equal to two, a number of the second blocking walls (221) is greater than or equal to two, a number of the third blocking walls (222) is greater than or equal to two, a first interval is between two of the first blocking walls adjacent to each other (see figure 22), a second interval is between two of the second blocking walls adjacent to each other (see figure 22), a third interval is between two of the third blocking walls adjacent to each other (see figure 22), the first interval (BA) is greater than the second interval (d2), and the second interval (d2) is greater than the third interval (d1).
Regarding claim 6, Kim discloses the electronic device of claim 2, wherein light shapes of the first emitting light, the second emitting light and the third emitting light vary gradually (between the varying patterns of 210, 221, 222, see figure 11).
Regarding claim 7, Kim discloses the electronic device of claim 6, wherein asymmetry degrees of the coverage ranges of the first emitting light, the second emitting light and the third emitting light increase gradually (see figure 11).
Regarding claim 8, Kim discloses the electronic device of claim 2, further having another first region (between 210, right and 221), a fourth region (between 221 and 230) and a fifth region (between 230 and 240) arranged in sequence along another direction opposite to the direction, wherein the optical film further comprises another first blocking wall (210), a fourth blocking wall (230) and a fifth blocking wall (240) respectively corresponding to the another first region, the fourth region and the fifth region, and the another first blocking wall, the fourth blocking wall and the fifth blocking wall are configured to vary gradually in structures (see figure 11, and [0165]-[0168]).
Regarding claim 11, Kim discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the optical film has a normal direction, at least one of the first blocking wall (210), the second blocking wall (221) and the third blocking wall (222) comprises a plurality of blocking layers arranged along the normal direction and spaced apart from each other (see figure 11, for instance).
Regarding claim 12, Kim discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the first region, the second region and the third region are arranged from a central region of the electronic device to a peripheral region of the electronic device (see figure 25).
Regarding claim 13, Kim discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the first region, the second region and the third region are arranged from a peripheral region of the electronic device to another peripheral region of the electronic device (see figure 25, wherein elements 210, 221 and 222 extend vertically in the y-direction of Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 14, Kim discloses an electronic device (see figures 1-8, 11 and 25, for instance), having a first region (see figure 11, corresponding to region between 210 and 221), a second region (region between 221 and 222) and a third region (region between 222 and 210 to the right) arranged in sequence along a direction (x-direction of figure 11), the electronic device comprising: a panel (2000); and an optical film (1000) disposed corresponding to the panel; wherein the optical film comprises a first blocking wall (210), a second blocking wall (221), a third blocking wall (222) and a transparent portion (150), the first blocking wall (210), the second blocking wall (221) and the third blocking wall (222) respectively correspond to the first region, the second region and the third region (see figure 11), and the transparent portion (150) covers top surfaces and side surfaces of the first blocking wall (210, which is part of 200 of figure 25), the second blocking wall (221, which is part of 200 of figure 25) and the third blocking wall (222, which is part of 200 of figure 25), wherein the first region has a first emitting light (between 210 and 221), the second region has a second emitting light (between 221 and 222), the third region has a third emitting light (between 222 and 210 to the right), and the first emitting light, the second emitting light and the third emitting light are configured to vary gradually (since the patterns of each 210, 221 and 222 vary gradually).
Regarding claim 18, Kim discloses the electronic device of claim 14, wherein light shapes of the first emitting light, the second emitting light and the third emitting light vary gradually (because the first, second and third regions of figure 11 vary gradually).
Regarding claim 19, Kim discloses the electronic device of claim 14, wherein the first region, the second region and the third region are arranged from a central region of the electronic device to a peripheral region of the electronic device (see figure 25).
Regarding claim 20, Kim discloses the electronic device of claim 14, wherein the first region, the second region and the third region are arranged from a peripheral region of the electronic device to another peripheral region of the electronic device (see figure 25, wherein elements 210, 221 and 222 extend vertically in the y-direction of Fig. 11).
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
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.
Claim(s) 3, 9, 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Mockarram-Dorri (US 2019/0146129).
Regarding claim 3, Kim discloses the electronic device of claim 2, wherein the optical film (1000) has a normal direction, a first angle is included between the first blocking wall (210) and the normal direction, a second angle is included between the second blocking wall (221) and the normal direction, a third angle is included between the third blocking wall (222) and the normal direction. However, Kim does not expressly disclose wherein the first angle is less than the second angle, and the second angle is less than the third angle.
Mockarram-Dorri discloses an electronic device (see figures 1C and 6B, for instance), wherein the optical film (410) has a normal direction, a first angle (a-1) is included between the first blocking wall (221) and the normal direction, a second angle (a-2) is included between the second blocking wall (222) and the normal direction, a third angle (a-3) is included between the third blocking wall (223) and the normal direction, wherein the first angle (a-1) is less than the second angle (a-2), and the second angle (a-2) is less than the third angle (a-3, see figure 1C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the first, second and third angles as Mockarram-Dorri in the device of Kim. The motivation for doing so would have been to more precisely and directly control light direction from the display to various specific users as per the first, second and third angles, as taught by Mockarram-Dorri ([0054]).
Regarding claim 9, Kim discloses the electronic device of claim 8, wherein the optical film has a central axis (central portion 210). However, Kim does not expressly disclose wherein the first blocking wall (210, left) and the another first blocking wall (210, far right) are configured to be symmetrical with respect to the central axis, the second blocking wall (221) and the fourth blocking wall (230) are configured to be symmetrical with respect to the central axis, and the third blocking wall (222) and the fifth blocking wall (240) are configured to be symmetrical with respect to the central axis.
Mockarram-Dorri discloses an electronic device (see figures 1C and 6B, for instance), wherein the optical film has a central axis (central portion of fig. 1C), wherein the first blocking wall (221) and the another first blocking wall (226) are configured to be symmetrical with respect to the central axis, the second blocking wall (222) and the fourth blocking wall (227) are configured to be symmetrical with respect to the central axis, and the third blocking wall (223) and the fifth blocking wall (228) are configured to be symmetrical with respect to the central axis.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the symmetrical structures of the first, second, third, fourth and fifth blocking walls as Mockarram-Dorri in the device of Kim. The motivation for doing so would have been to more precisely and directly control light direction from the display to various specific users as per the first, second and third angles, as taught by Mockarram-Dorri ([0054]).
Regarding claim 15, Kim discloses the electronic device of claim 14, wherein the first emitting light has a first normal intensity, the second emitting light has a second normal intensity, the third emitting light has a third normal intensity. However, Kim does not expressly disclose wherein the first normal intensity is greater than the second normal intensity, and the second normal intensity is greater than the third normal intensity.
Mockarram-Dorri discloses an electronic device (see figures 1C and 6B, for instance), wherein the first emitting light (between 221 and central portion) has a first normal intensity, the second emitting light (between 221 and 222) has a second normal intensity, the third emitting light (between 222 and 223) has a third normal intensity, wherein the first normal intensity is greater than the second normal intensity, and the second normal intensity is greater than the third normal intensity (since the normal intensity gradually reduces from the central to outer portions of figure 1C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the gradually varying intensity as Mockarram-Dorri in the device of Kim. The motivation for doing so would have been to more precisely and directly control light direction from the display to various specific users as per the first, second and third angles, as taught by Mockarram-Dorri ([0054]).
Regarding claim 16, Kim discloses the electronic device of claim 14, wherein the first emitting light defines a first main angle, the second emitting light defines a second main angle, the third emitting light defines a third main angle. However, Kim does not expressly disclose wherein the first main angle is less than the second main angle, and the second main angle is less than the third main angle.
Mockarram-Dorri discloses an electronic device (see figures 1C and 6B, for instance), wherein the first emitting light defines a first main angle (a-1, of Fig 1C), the second emitting light defines a second main angle (a-2), the third emitting light defines a third main angle (a-3), wherein the first main angle (a-1) is less than the second main angle (a-2), and the second main angle (a-2) is less than the third main angle (a-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the first, second and third main angles as Mockarram-Dorri in the device of Kim. The motivation for doing so would have been to more precisely and directly control light direction from the display to various specific users as per the first, second and third angles, as taught by Mockarram-Dorri ([0054]).
Regarding claim 17, Kim discloses the electronic device of claim 14, wherein in an intensity-angle distribution diagram, an intensity curve of the first emitting light defines a first full width at half maximum, an intensity curve of the second emitting light defines a second full width at half maximum, an intensity curve of the third emitting light defines a third full width at half maximum. However, Kim does not expressly disclose wherein the first full width at half maximum is greater than the second full width at half maximum, and the second full width at half maximum is greater than the third full width at half maximum.
Mockarram-Dorri discloses an electronic device (see figures 1C and 6B, for instance), wherein in an intensity-angle distribution diagram, an intensity curve of the first emitting light (between 221 and central portion) defines a first full width at half maximum, an intensity curve of the second emitting light (between 221 and 222) defines a second full width at half maximum, an intensity curve of the third emitting light (between 222 and 223) defines a third full width at half maximum, wherein the first full width at half maximum is greater than the second full width at half maximum, and the second full width at half maximum is greater than the third full width at half maximum (since the normal intensity gradually reduces from the central to outer portions of figure 1C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the gradually varying intensity-angle distribution as Mockarram-Dorri in the device of Kim. The motivation for doing so would have been to more precisely and directly control light direction from the display to various specific users as per the first, second and third angles, as taught by Mockarram-Dorri ([0054]).
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Wu et al. (US 2018/0129084).
Regarding claim 4, Kim discloses the electronic device of claim 2, wherein the first blocking wall has a first height, the second blocking wall has a second height, the third blocking wall has a third height. However, Kim does not expressly disclose wherein the first height is less than the second height, and the second height is less than the third height.
Wu discloses an electronic device (see figures 1B, for instance), wherein the first blocking wall (central element 102) has a first height (see figure 1B), the second blocking wall (left element of 102) has a second height, the third blocking wall (leftmost element of 102) has a third height, wherein the first height is less than the second height, and the second height is less than the third height (see figure 1B; [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the varying height distribution as Wu in the device of Kim. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a viewing area within which a user can view a screen, and preventing users outside the screen from being able to see the viewing area, as taught by Wu ([0036]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 NATHANAEL R BRIGGS whose telephone number is (571)272-8992. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at (571)-272-9791. 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.
/NATHANAEL R BRIGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871 3/2/2026